Zack Lynch posted a few weeks ago about the increase in neurotech VC investments. Now he is also discussing the economic cost of brain disorders. It seems that most people who talk or write about the future wants to focus on nanotechnology, computer security, information technology, and bioengineering. I'm sure these things will all have major impacts on the world, but why do neurotechnology and A.I. always get shorted? It seems that people think they won't live up to the hype, but I think these two fields will drive our economic future more than anything else. Honestly, I think the problem is that people either don't understand these things, or are afraid of the social consequences of embracing them. Dualism is dead among neuroscientists, but in society it is alive and well.
I read a book a while back called the Robot's Rebellion. It was good, but probably a little dry for most people. The central thesis is that if we don't do something to educate people about the findings of neuroscience, we risk having a cognitive elite that understand it and a mass population that doesn't. This will lead to all sorts of problems, including the opportunity for one group to exploit the other.
But getting back to my original point… the best way to make money in a market is to understand and embrace something that other people don't. I think there are huge opportunities for startups and investors in neurotech and artificial intelligence. Zack must agree, because he started a company around the idea.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it. –Alan Kay
The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past. —
Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic"
The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet. —