You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Raiden comments on Open Thread April 8 - April 14 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Tenoke 08 April 2014 11:11AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (242)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Raiden 10 April 2014 04:03:32PM 3 points [-]

I'm at that point in life where I have to make a lot of choices about my future life. I'm considering doing a double major in biochemistry and computer science. I find both of these topics to be fascinating, but I'm not sure if that's the most effective way to help the world. I am comfortable in my skills as an autodidact, and I find myself to be interested in comp sci, biochemistry, physics, and mathematics. I believe that regardless which I actually major in, I could learn any of the others quite well. I have a nagging voice in my head saying that I shouldn't bother learning biochemistry, because it won't be useful in the long term because everything will be based on nanotech and we will all be uploads. Is that a valid point? Or should I just focus on the world as it is now? And should I study something else or does biochem have potential to help the world? I find myself to be very confused about this subject and humbly request any advice.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 11 April 2014 04:33:12AM *  8 points [-]

I have a nagging voice in my head saying that I shouldn't bother learning biochemistry, because it won't be useful in the long term because everything will be based on nanotech and we will all be uploads. Is that a valid point?

Keeping in mind the biases (EDIT: but also the expertise) that my username indicates, I would say that is nearly exactly backwards - modifications and engineering of biochemistry and biochemistry-type systems will actually occur (and already are) while what most people around here think of when they say 'nanotech' is a pipe dream. Biochemistry is the result of 4 gigayears of evolution showing the sorts of things that can actually be accomplished with atoms robustly rather than as expensive delicate one-off demonstrations and the most successful fine-scale engineering in the future will resemble it closely if not be it.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 April 2014 04:29:07PM 4 points [-]

I have a nagging voice in my head saying that I shouldn't bother learning biochemistry, because it won't be useful in the long term because everything will be based on nanotech and we will all be uploads. Is that a valid point?

No.

Think about the timelines involved.

Comment author: Squark 10 April 2014 06:32:36PM 3 points [-]

It seems likely we will have to learn more biochemistry to realize uploading.

Comment author: Raiden 11 April 2014 06:37:17PM 2 points [-]

Thank you to those who commented here. It helped!

Comment author: shminux 10 April 2014 05:20:37PM 3 points [-]

everything will be based on nanotech

Maybe, some day. And as a "double major in biochemistry and computer science" you will be well positioned to help bring said nanotech from the realm of SciFi to reality. Certainly you have plenty of time, nothing as revolutionary is likely to happen in the next few years, and you will have your degree by then. I'd actually bet that "nanotech and uploads" are decades away, even being optimistic.

Comment author: Raiden 11 April 2014 06:36:47PM 0 points [-]

Hmm it seems obvious in retrospect, but it didn't occur to me that biochemistry would relate to nanotech. I suppose I compartmentalized "biological" from "super-cool high-tech stuff." Thank you very much for that point!

Comment author: drethelin 10 April 2014 09:23:46PM *  2 points [-]

Nanotech without biochemistry won't be able to help anyone medically. That's like saying you don't need to know about biology because farming is all going to be done with machines these days.

ALSO: Biochemistry and cell biology are the best existing examples we have of nanotech machines.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 15 April 2014 09:49:54PM 1 point [-]

People with bio and algorithmic skills are in extremely high demand, but:

(a) there might be a biotech bubble

(b) it might be worthwhile to go after difficult to learn meta skills that help you learn other things more quickly (math, etc.), and just pickup whatever is in demand later.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 10 April 2014 09:14:34PM *  0 points [-]

Biochemistry has tremendous world-saving potential. With both computer science and biochemistry in your arsenal, you could work in molecule modeling. The design and simulation of molecules is a key part of the development of new drugs and vaccines. Besides, we're running out of usable antibiotics. And as healthcare continues to prolong our working life years, we will need to improve our understanding of degenerative diseases like arthritis and Alzheimer's.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 April 2014 09:48:37PM -1 points [-]

...the most effective way to help the world.

This seems like the bottleneck question. Why don't you try to study that? After all, you should only prefer to be skilled and educated if you get this question right. If you get it wrong, it's either a matter of indifference, or actually better for everyone if you're as unskilled and uneducated as possible.