Hacking goes squishy(economist.com)
economist.com
Hacking goes squishy
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14299634
7 comments
>There are plenty of super viruses and bacteria in nature. Neither HIV nor MRSA came from biohacking. As I have said before, anything we create would be like just one more bullet in a machine gun shootout. Sure it could be the one that gets you, but then again, there's an infinity of stuff out there that can also get you.
It sounds like you're saying that each supervirus mankind creates marginally increases the chance that a Bad Thing will happen. Isn't marginally increasing the chance that a Bad Thing will happen also Bad?
Also, how close do you think that HIV and MRSA are to the upper bound on supervirus potency?
It sounds like you're saying that each supervirus mankind creates marginally increases the chance that a Bad Thing will happen. Isn't marginally increasing the chance that a Bad Thing will happen also Bad?
Also, how close do you think that HIV and MRSA are to the upper bound on supervirus potency?
MRSA is pretty close to sending us back in time, a time before penicillin, it wasn't a good time, but obviously we survived.
We got super lucky with HIV because you have to exchange bodily fluids to catch it. If it ever becomes as easy to catch as the common cold, we're screwed.
And while the marginal danger may increase with research, the marginal utility will also increase, in fact it will increase faster. We'll discover more cures then diseases. And yes, regulation is a blunt weapon which stops not only the bad, but also the good.
We got super lucky with HIV because you have to exchange bodily fluids to catch it. If it ever becomes as easy to catch as the common cold, we're screwed.
And while the marginal danger may increase with research, the marginal utility will also increase, in fact it will increase faster. We'll discover more cures then diseases. And yes, regulation is a blunt weapon which stops not only the bad, but also the good.
>We got super lucky with HIV because you have to exchange bodily fluids to catch it. If it ever becomes as easy to catch as the common cold, we're screwed.
If some asshole creates a contagious HIV, then discovering cures faster than diseases will hardly save us.
You get diminishing utility from curing diseases anyway. Say you discover cures for half the world's currently incurable diseases at random. My guess is that our life expectancy would increase by less than a decade. People are still going to age.
And I'm not sure the threat of a contagious HIV would ever go away. It'd be hard finding a cure for a disease that wasn't even created yet.
My guess is that there's already too much momentum behind this sort of research for us to halt it. Do you think requiring background checks for purchasers of biotech supplies would make the field more or less attractive to a hypothetical evil mastermind?
If some asshole creates a contagious HIV, then discovering cures faster than diseases will hardly save us.
You get diminishing utility from curing diseases anyway. Say you discover cures for half the world's currently incurable diseases at random. My guess is that our life expectancy would increase by less than a decade. People are still going to age.
And I'm not sure the threat of a contagious HIV would ever go away. It'd be hard finding a cure for a disease that wasn't even created yet.
My guess is that there's already too much momentum behind this sort of research for us to halt it. Do you think requiring background checks for purchasers of biotech supplies would make the field more or less attractive to a hypothetical evil mastermind?
Requiring background checks is like requiring any bureaucratic red tape, it annoys the good and does not stop the bad.
But I completely and totally disagree with your implication that more research will only marginal increase life spans, and that we can't find cures for yet undiscovered diseases.
That's like saying in 1989 that in 2009 all the progress in the computer industry both hardware and software would only give us marginally better VisiCalc.
To me at least it is OBVIOUS more biotech research will radicaly change the world not just slightly improve things.
And the asshole most likely to create a more easily transmissible HIV is mother nature.
But I completely and totally disagree with your implication that more research will only marginal increase life spans, and that we can't find cures for yet undiscovered diseases.
That's like saying in 1989 that in 2009 all the progress in the computer industry both hardware and software would only give us marginally better VisiCalc.
To me at least it is OBVIOUS more biotech research will radicaly change the world not just slightly improve things.
And the asshole most likely to create a more easily transmissible HIV is mother nature.
>But I completely and totally disagree with your implication that more research will only marginal increase life spans
Unless the research is directed at curing aging, aging will always cause people to get more and more susceptible to disease as they get older.
>and that we can't find cures for yet undiscovered diseases.
What I was saying there was that you can't find a cure for a disease you haven't discovered yet. Do you disagree?
>And the asshole most likely to create a more easily transmissible HIV is mother nature.
There are six billion humans on Earth and the population is growing. All we need for disaster is one person who's intelligent, driven, and wants to destroy the human race. I agree that person would be very atypical. I disagree that we can be confident no one will ever fit that profile.
Unless the research is directed at curing aging, aging will always cause people to get more and more susceptible to disease as they get older.
>and that we can't find cures for yet undiscovered diseases.
What I was saying there was that you can't find a cure for a disease you haven't discovered yet. Do you disagree?
>And the asshole most likely to create a more easily transmissible HIV is mother nature.
There are six billion humans on Earth and the population is growing. All we need for disaster is one person who's intelligent, driven, and wants to destroy the human race. I agree that person would be very atypical. I disagree that we can be confident no one will ever fit that profile.
What I was saying there was that you can't find a cure for a disease you haven't discovered yet. Do you disagree?
Absolutely. Many drugs targeting one disease have been found to cure others. The list includes cancer drugs, antibiotics, antiviral compounds, etc. And that's just drugs, what about the research itself, isn't it obvious it has implications well beyond any one single thing. And isn't that the case for every kind of research, not just medical? To me this seems obvious.
All we need for disaster is one person who's intelligent, driven, and wants to destroy the human race.
Again, we already have that, it's called mother nature. HIV, Ebola, 1918 flu, current flu, etc, all natural.
Here's where I see the problem with your argument, it assumes great asymmetry.
Here's what I mean by asymmetry, I think you imply that if we have the technology to create super viruses on demand that does not mean we'll have anywhere near equivalent knowledge and technology to fight them.
I happen to consider that an extraordinary claim. To me the symmetry of knowledge is self evident. Almost as soon as we invent the nuclear bomb, we also invest nuclear power. Almost as soon as we can gene splice, we have gene therapy for humans which has already been successful applied.
If we have the ability to create super viruses on demand, then we also have the ability to create drugs for them, to detect them, to stop transmission, and most obviously to create vaccines for them. If you can manufacture the virus, it would be one hell of a cosmic improbability that you are also NOT able to manufacture a vaccine for it.
Alternatively if we don't have the knowledge to make viruses and vaccines on demand, that won't stop mother nature from her never ending quest to kills us all.
Absolutely. Many drugs targeting one disease have been found to cure others. The list includes cancer drugs, antibiotics, antiviral compounds, etc. And that's just drugs, what about the research itself, isn't it obvious it has implications well beyond any one single thing. And isn't that the case for every kind of research, not just medical? To me this seems obvious.
All we need for disaster is one person who's intelligent, driven, and wants to destroy the human race.
Again, we already have that, it's called mother nature. HIV, Ebola, 1918 flu, current flu, etc, all natural.
Here's where I see the problem with your argument, it assumes great asymmetry.
Here's what I mean by asymmetry, I think you imply that if we have the technology to create super viruses on demand that does not mean we'll have anywhere near equivalent knowledge and technology to fight them.
I happen to consider that an extraordinary claim. To me the symmetry of knowledge is self evident. Almost as soon as we invent the nuclear bomb, we also invest nuclear power. Almost as soon as we can gene splice, we have gene therapy for humans which has already been successful applied.
If we have the ability to create super viruses on demand, then we also have the ability to create drugs for them, to detect them, to stop transmission, and most obviously to create vaccines for them. If you can manufacture the virus, it would be one hell of a cosmic improbability that you are also NOT able to manufacture a vaccine for it.
Alternatively if we don't have the knowledge to make viruses and vaccines on demand, that won't stop mother nature from her never ending quest to kills us all.
>And that's just drugs, what about the research itself, isn't it obvious it has implications well beyond any one single thing. And isn't that the case for every kind of research, not just medical? To me this seems obvious.
I agree there will be unexpected good benefits associated with biotech research.
>Again, we already have that, it's called mother nature. HIV, Ebola, 1918 flu, current flu, etc, all natural.
None of those were designed to be harmful.
>Almost as soon as we invent the nuclear bomb, we also invest nuclear power.
This is not an example of symmetry. The nuclear bomb gave humanity the power to destroy itself forever. Nuclear power has not given humanity the power to preserve itself forever.
>If we have the ability to create super viruses on demand, then we also have the ability to create drugs for them, to detect them, to stop transmission, and most obviously to create vaccines for them. If you can manufacture the virus, it would be one hell of a cosmic improbability that you are also NOT able to manufacture a vaccine for it.
Are you sure you aren't exaggerating? You call that cosmically improbable? Remember, we are talking about things that haven't even been discovered yet.
Let me put it this way. If you had such extraordinary predictive power about which technologies will be invented in what order, you could make a lot of money in the stock market. And extraordinary predictive power is what you need to rule scenarios that are compatible with all formulations of the laws of physics as being "cosmically improbable". I agree that such predictive power may exist in astronomy. I disagree that such predictive power exists in technology forecasting, or pretty much anything involving humans for that matter.
If you continue to stand by this position, I will decide that you're not worth convincing and unlikely to be convinced and leave the discussion.
>Alternatively if we don't have the knowledge to make viruses and vaccines on demand, that won't stop mother nature from her never ending quest to kills us all.
"Mother nature" has no quest to kill us. All the damage that's been done by naturally-occuring viruses has been by accident. So someone who was consciously optimizing to create a maximally harmful virus might be able to do a lot more.
I agree there will be unexpected good benefits associated with biotech research.
>Again, we already have that, it's called mother nature. HIV, Ebola, 1918 flu, current flu, etc, all natural.
None of those were designed to be harmful.
>Almost as soon as we invent the nuclear bomb, we also invest nuclear power.
This is not an example of symmetry. The nuclear bomb gave humanity the power to destroy itself forever. Nuclear power has not given humanity the power to preserve itself forever.
>If we have the ability to create super viruses on demand, then we also have the ability to create drugs for them, to detect them, to stop transmission, and most obviously to create vaccines for them. If you can manufacture the virus, it would be one hell of a cosmic improbability that you are also NOT able to manufacture a vaccine for it.
Are you sure you aren't exaggerating? You call that cosmically improbable? Remember, we are talking about things that haven't even been discovered yet.
Let me put it this way. If you had such extraordinary predictive power about which technologies will be invented in what order, you could make a lot of money in the stock market. And extraordinary predictive power is what you need to rule scenarios that are compatible with all formulations of the laws of physics as being "cosmically improbable". I agree that such predictive power may exist in astronomy. I disagree that such predictive power exists in technology forecasting, or pretty much anything involving humans for that matter.
If you continue to stand by this position, I will decide that you're not worth convincing and unlikely to be convinced and leave the discussion.
>Alternatively if we don't have the knowledge to make viruses and vaccines on demand, that won't stop mother nature from her never ending quest to kills us all.
"Mother nature" has no quest to kill us. All the damage that's been done by naturally-occuring viruses has been by accident. So someone who was consciously optimizing to create a maximally harmful virus might be able to do a lot more.
Have you read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Zone-Terrifying-True-Story/dp/0385...
http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Zone-Terrifying-True-Story/dp/0385...
Ebola kills far too quickly to ever become a pandemic. For a pandemic a virus needs to kill you slowly so you can spread it a lot. Like the 1918 flu.
I think it was stephen hawking who said that the only way for humans to ensure their salvation from man-made super viruses in the next 100 years would be to colonize space. Outrageous? Sure, but so is cancer, atomic energy and quatum entanglement.
I think that was more of hard sell for space exploration then a warning against super viruses.
> There's no such thing as gray goo and never will be because you'd have to violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics to get it.
As someone who only heard of "grey goo" very recently, care to explain why this is the case?
As someone who only heard of "grey goo" very recently, care to explain why this is the case?
In one way gray goo already exists. The world is literally covered in tiny nano machines eating and multiplying as fast as they can. And many of them are deadly to us. We call them bacteria and fungi.
"grey goo" beyond the natural goo, as often seen in fiction, multiplies and moves so fast as to violate basic laws of physics. For example there's only so much energy stored in stuff that could be eaten.
"grey goo" beyond the natural goo, as often seen in fiction, multiplies and moves so fast as to violate basic laws of physics. For example there's only so much energy stored in stuff that could be eaten.
Does speed really matter? Bacteria only eat certain things, right? If some mutated type of bacteria could consume more kinds of matter, wouldn't it be a threat?
Given how long bacteria have been on earth, and how they live from ice to desert to even nucler waste, and how fast they evolve and freely swap DNA, how has not a single one of them already evolved the ability to consume more kinds of matter?
Answer: No free lunch, every advantage carries a cost. Any "super" bug we come up with will enter a world with vicious competitors who've been with us since long before the dinosaurs.
Answer: No free lunch, every advantage carries a cost. Any "super" bug we come up with will enter a world with vicious competitors who've been with us since long before the dinosaurs.
I don't really find the argument "It hasn't happened naturally so it could never happen artificially" compelling...
Perhaps you may change your mind if you read up on how easily bacteria swap DNA and just how many of them there are and all the places they live and all the things they eat.
Or to put it another way, what happened since bacteria have been around? Humans. Humans started out as single celled creatures like bacteria. And if we can get from that to humans, is it not reasonable to assume that bacteria have had the time to figure out how to multiply as fast as possible?
Or to put it another way, what happened since bacteria have been around? Humans. Humans started out as single celled creatures like bacteria. And if we can get from that to humans, is it not reasonable to assume that bacteria have had the time to figure out how to multiply as fast as possible?
Hm, okay. I guess I never took the speed into account.
This might be the first time I've seen a mainstream news publication use the work "hacking" to mean something other than "criminal subversion of computer systems." And we're talking Economist here, not Wired or another geeky outlet.
True, but they used it a little too often in the sense of "amateur", which doesn't do justice to what hackers are in computing today. In biohacking it's a different matter in 2009.
amateur is one who loves a particular activity; doing something for nothing is a matter of choice, not of inability.
Of course, but I think most hackers nowadays are not amateurs.
Hmm, interesting, although I'm not sure that we're quite comfortable yet about GM here in Europe, especially for things that enter the food chain.
I don't give a damn about food GM. It's not about feeding the hungry or helping the planet. That's the marketing speak. The reality is that it's hacking roundup resistant genes into crops so that you can (or have to) buy and spray MORE roundup. That's very good for Monsanto and DuPont's bottom line.
GM work in industry, think bio manufacturing of industrial compounds, and obviously human health is absolutely worth pursuing.
GM work in industry, think bio manufacturing of industrial compounds, and obviously human health is absolutely worth pursuing.
Just in case anyone from Vienna, Austria is reading this: There's a talk on exactly this topic at local hacker space Metalab tonight: http://metalab.at/wiki/Metaday_25 [german]
That is one freaky picture. http://media.economist.com/images/20090905/D3609TQ7.jpg
Article concerns biohacking particularly manipulating living organisms - could HN have some editorial system to ensure articles posted have a proper descriptive title or maybe a categorisation system.
Squishy was a pretty good indicator that it wasn't going to be your typical hacking article IMO...
But if you are insinuating that biohacking is not relevant: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But if you are insinuating that biohacking is not relevant: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No insinuation.
Squishy suggested it may not be programming, but there's no reason why it couldn't be a neologism or brand name in that field.
Squishy suggested it may not be programming, but there's no reason why it couldn't be a neologism or brand name in that field.
ah, I didn't think about that possibility - so that means it's still yours for the taking
Although I love the economist, I find they tend to touch upon computer technology less frequently as compared to the natural sciences
Although I love the economist, I find they tend to touch upon computer technology less frequently as compared to the natural sciences
There's an article in Compute! from July 1991 that uses the term "squishy" to describe technology with a natural feel - soft buttons, rounded corners, etc. (I'm thinking Existenz!).
I had no difficulty guessing the content from the title, and the Economist (which chose the title) has quite a good editorial system already.
You guessed merely from the term "squishy" that it concerned moving towards low-cost of access to bioengineering DNA enabling non-professionals to participate? That's a pretty good guess IMO, so good that I think you're lying.
The Economist have a good editorial system but they don't choose the title simply to inform. I thought that part of the HN ethos was presenting useful information in a succinct way avoiding cruft and unnecessary marketing tactics. An uninformative title is a marketing tactic designed to get you to see adverts around an article that you wouldn't otherwise have perused - that presumably is why the Economist chose that title (yes also to be mildly entertaining and close enough to the subject to avoid alienating users).
The Economist have a good editorial system but they don't choose the title simply to inform. I thought that part of the HN ethos was presenting useful information in a succinct way avoiding cruft and unnecessary marketing tactics. An uninformative title is a marketing tactic designed to get you to see adverts around an article that you wouldn't otherwise have perused - that presumably is why the Economist chose that title (yes also to be mildly entertaining and close enough to the subject to avoid alienating users).
No, I guessed it from a decade's worth of familiarity with the Economist's editorial flavor, their regular coverage of bioengineering trends, and a number of other contextual factors. Please consider similar possibilities next time someone disagrees with you, instead of denigrating their character.
"I had no difficulty guessing the content from the title" - OK you might feel "lied" is a bit strong but you didn't guess from the title _alone_, lets say you bent the truth - you used other information, a background of knowledge of the types of articles in the publication mentioned along with information about their titling techniques, to have a guess.
My original point was that the HN title was poor as an indicator of the material in the article. You've just proved my point - if you had never read the Economist could you have guessed the field of the article?
"Hacking goes squishy"
I stand by my assertion that this is a poor title and that no-one could derive the subject matter of the article from the title itself - one might get "biology" from "squishy" but I don't think you could really go any further. It could equally well be use of a new cooling technique to make syrup-and-ice drinks have improved mouth feel.
My original point was that the HN title was poor as an indicator of the material in the article. You've just proved my point - if you had never read the Economist could you have guessed the field of the article?
"Hacking goes squishy"
I stand by my assertion that this is a poor title and that no-one could derive the subject matter of the article from the title itself - one might get "biology" from "squishy" but I don't think you could really go any further. It could equally well be use of a new cooling technique to make syrup-and-ice drinks have improved mouth feel.
reminds me of "Our Neural Chernobyl" by Bruce Sterling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers_(anthology)#.22Our_Neur...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers_(anthology)#.22Our_Neur...
Obviously, the government has never seen any invention it's not scared of. This goes all the way back to the steam engine.
Before anyone here dredges out the old tired super virus or gray goo.
There's no such thing as gray goo and never will be because you'd have to violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics to get it.
There are plenty of super viruses and bacteria in nature. Neither HIV nor MRSA came from biohacking. As I have said before, anything we create would be like just one more bullet in a machine gun shootout. Sure it could be the one that gets you, but then again, there's an infinity of stuff out there that can also get you.