Regarding the zeitgeist change: don’t you think that expectation windows for results based on success of disrupting markets by tech have shrunk to a point where it’s not possible for a more long term and complex projects (biology being one of them) to attract enough talent? I feel like such changes are only possible based on big crises
I do, but I also think that we'll see this biology flowering from non-tech people who have some tech skill. So it won't be tech companies moving into biology space, it will be lab workers and students who know some coding realizing that 'hey, I could do this thing using my phone' and sharing with each other. I also think that as the sector grows and we see more people trained, we'll see a medical research boom the same way we saw a boom in devs in the 90s so the talent base will expand a LOT.
The expectation windows are set by investors, and I think biology has a good shot at being able to get resources/funding without having to rely too heavily on VCs or investors (think government and academic funding). Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements.
I also think we're overdue for some major social changes because our current ways aren't sustainable (regardless of what you think the problems are + what 'side' you're on, I think we can almost all agree that this can't continue). The main problem I think IS that we're too short sighted currently, and we'll have to correct that, so I do think long-term projects will become easier in the early 2030s.
I think you have a point, I am betting on human-to-human occupations, especially psychology, gender roles being shrunk might bring some new ideas and shake the field up.
> I also think we're overdue for some major social changes because our current ways aren't sustainable (regardless of what you think the problems are + what 'side' you're on, I think we can almost all agree that this can't continue).
I'd love to hear more of your POV here - I tend to think things are....pretty okay? In the grand scheme of things?
In the grand scheme of things, they are. (I mean, for most of human existence we barely had any medicine and as a disabled person, I do love me some medical science).
Change, however, doesn't come based on how good things are. It comes based on what people expect from the future, and right now we have a system that more and more people aren't trusting to be there in a few decades.
From a domestic American POV, we need to address things like retirement funding, healthcare, and political corruption as well as our lack of social cohesion. Imagine a pandemic like COVID but slightly deadlier in the late 2020s; it'd be absurd because EVERYBODY'S blown their good will at this point. Likewise, our supply chains and economy clearly don't have key risk redundancies built in. On a more sociological scale, I note that more and more people are beginning to feel like it doesn't matter what they do because the system will ALWAYS fuck them, and stripping people of agency doesn't lead to good, stable societies.
On a global scale, since the start of the Industrial Revolution we've focused on growth while disregarding externalities and we really need to stop that. Likewise, since America is going to probably go down (or at least knock itself out of the unipolar world) in the 2030s/2040s, I also imagine there will be a backlash to the American Era, including in cultural values, which will also result in big changes.
This is a fascinating question, because my first thought was 'maybe they would be' but as I thought about it more, I don't think so for two main reasons:
1.) Geopolitics. I don't imagine this biological cultural flowering to come from the First or Developed Worlds. If I had to guess, I'd say India or Africa, because they have a ton of manufacturing going on (and therefore a bunch of practical knowledge) AND governments that both a.) don't give a shit about copyright or property law outside of their borders and b.) are incentivized to make sure it stays that way.
For example, Moderna could try to bury an Indian biotech company, but how? Literally. So what if they're infringing on one of your patents in making their 'turn your eyes purple' serum? They don't care.
And for buying, yes, they could, but the regulatory differences between acting in the developed versus developing world are huge, so it would be purchasing a company solely to keep the product off the market/so it isn't approved in the developed world before their own version. Okay, so they buy the company... and all the foreigners quit and start a new one. Or they don't, but they tell their friends so their friends who didn't sign an NDA do it and then hire them for something 'unrelated'.
2.) Vertical integration or lack thereof. You know how FB is particularly insidious in the Third World? How it pushes WA, for example? Good luck developing anything tech wise without being bought out or discovered when all of your communication tools are made by the people who have an interest in burying you. The tech companies have done a very good job at integrating themselves into logistics at a base level on a global scale. Pharma, on the other hand, doesn't have this advantage. If Google or Apple ARE recording all my phone calls, they aren't giving that data to Moderna. They'd rather keep it and later try to poach the medical-data business from Moderna or fund some SaaS company.
I did not see this reply until now because I'm bad at HN, but I appreciate the effort you put into it. It's really interesting to think about, but I'm not sure I can engage much because I'm pretty out of my depth!
Does point 1) not apply to tech innovations outside the global north as well? I can definitely see your points about patent infringement being relevant to the Chinese tech ecosystem.
Vertical integration is a really interesting point. It's easy to believe that monopolies are all-powerful, but there's plenty of room in the "margins" in industries which aren't (yet) built on pervasive surveillance.
