I think this is a very interesting and does present great challenge. The aspect in getting a bridge between the innovators and the challenges is a constant conundrum to me. Obviously I try in a small way at Anthropy to encourage this, but trying to get certain people , even the likes of McKinsey, to come and share thinking in order to drive new opportunities etc, is a massive uphill struggle. But thanks for sharing👍🏻
John, I'm puzzled by your choice to deep-dive into biotechnology when looking at McKinsey's 18 future arenas.
The striking pattern across most of these arenas - from EVs and nuclear fission to AI, cloud computing, and autonomous vehicles - is their dependence on electricity and computing infrastructure. Even space, future air mobility, and robotics share this common thread.
By focusing on biotech as your example, you've inadvertently sidestepped what might be the most critical pattern in the report: the massive transformation (and challenge) of our energy and digital systems.
This seems like the real "howling opportunity space" - understanding how these electricity-dependent, tech-driven arenas will integrate and transform our infrastructure, rather than looking at them as separate commercial opportunities.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this broader pattern and its implications for sustainability.
I very much appreciate the comment, Lorne. And agree on the commonality of some threads. As to sidestepping, as it happens, biotech also depends on a powerful amount of electricity to drive research (think of DeepMind's AlphaFold, for example) and operate and cool fermenters, etc. But I take your point. And the transformation of the entire energy/electricity system (although it's more of a patchwork) is definitely one of our central challenges.
So even the advances in Biotech are dependent on the core organising idea of electricity and tech underpinning all the other growth areas.
With all of these arenas added together, what I'm struggling is to see is how they are going to make enough of an impact on the planet's sustainability targets?
Sure, we can find enough power if we go nuclear (with all the extra challenges that will bring). But we will still be making a lot more heat and using a lot more water in the process.
In my view, these McKinsey growth arenas are but a mere side-show on working out how we address the challenges of reorganising society so humanity can survive and thrive into the next century.
The main arena is full of humans and not a techie rock concert with a golden bot rock star!
I think this is a very interesting and does present great challenge. The aspect in getting a bridge between the innovators and the challenges is a constant conundrum to me. Obviously I try in a small way at Anthropy to encourage this, but trying to get certain people , even the likes of McKinsey, to come and share thinking in order to drive new opportunities etc, is a massive uphill struggle. But thanks for sharing👍🏻
John, I'm puzzled by your choice to deep-dive into biotechnology when looking at McKinsey's 18 future arenas.
The striking pattern across most of these arenas - from EVs and nuclear fission to AI, cloud computing, and autonomous vehicles - is their dependence on electricity and computing infrastructure. Even space, future air mobility, and robotics share this common thread.
By focusing on biotech as your example, you've inadvertently sidestepped what might be the most critical pattern in the report: the massive transformation (and challenge) of our energy and digital systems.
This seems like the real "howling opportunity space" - understanding how these electricity-dependent, tech-driven arenas will integrate and transform our infrastructure, rather than looking at them as separate commercial opportunities.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this broader pattern and its implications for sustainability.
I very much appreciate the comment, Lorne. And agree on the commonality of some threads. As to sidestepping, as it happens, biotech also depends on a powerful amount of electricity to drive research (think of DeepMind's AlphaFold, for example) and operate and cool fermenters, etc. But I take your point. And the transformation of the entire energy/electricity system (although it's more of a patchwork) is definitely one of our central challenges.
Ah, interesting, John.
So even the advances in Biotech are dependent on the core organising idea of electricity and tech underpinning all the other growth areas.
With all of these arenas added together, what I'm struggling is to see is how they are going to make enough of an impact on the planet's sustainability targets?
Sure, we can find enough power if we go nuclear (with all the extra challenges that will bring). But we will still be making a lot more heat and using a lot more water in the process.
In my view, these McKinsey growth arenas are but a mere side-show on working out how we address the challenges of reorganising society so humanity can survive and thrive into the next century.
The main arena is full of humans and not a techie rock concert with a golden bot rock star!