For existential crises like climate change, the typical market model of secretive, competing scientists guarding IP is inefficient. A collaborative 'Manhattan Project' approach that gathers top minds to work collectively is a far better model for solving such large-scale public goods problems.

Related Insights

Elon Musk argues that complex creations like spaceships are impossible for an individual. They require a 'collection of humans' working together. The quality and speed of information flow within this collective directly determines its potential for achievement.

The "Genesis Mission" aims to use national labs' data and supercomputers for AI-driven science. This initiative marks a potential strategic shift away from the prevailing tech belief that breakthroughs like AGI will emerge exclusively from private corporations, reasserting a key role for government-led R&D in fundamental innovation.

Many call for more large-scale societal projects like the Apollo or Manhattan Projects. However, these were not just public works; they were military or quasi-military efforts born from an arms race. Replicating them requires a more militarized society, a trade-off that is often overlooked.

The most effective government role in innovation is to act as a catalyst for high-risk, foundational R&D (like DARPA creating the internet). Once a technology is viable, the government should step aside to allow private sector competition (like SpaceX) to drive down costs and accelerate progress.

Nubar Afayan argues against the popular notion of entrepreneurship as a random, "gamey" process of wins and losses. He advocates for transforming it into a serious profession with systematic processes, especially for critical sectors like healthcare and climate, where a simple "shots on goal" approach is insufficient.

The most profound innovations in history, like vaccines, PCs, and air travel, distributed value broadly to society rather than being captured by a few corporations. AI could follow this pattern, benefiting the public more than a handful of tech giants, especially with geopolitical pressures forcing commoditization.

CZI set an audacious goal to cure all disease. When scientists deemed it impossible, CZI's follow-up question, "Why not?" revealed the true bottleneck wasn't funding individual projects, but a systemic lack of shared tools, which then became their core focus.

Beyond environmental benefits, climate tech is crucial for national economic survival. Failing to innovate in green energy cedes economic dominance to countries like China. This positions climate investment as a matter of long-term financial and geopolitical future-proofing for the U.S. and Europe.

To justify risky, chasm-crossing bets, the entire leadership team must agree that inaction is an existential threat. This alignment is the most difficult step; once achieved, the organization can focus on finding the right solution, knowing the risk is necessary.

Humanity now possesses the technical ability to solve planetary-scale problems like climate change, pandemics, and hunger. According to Nobel laureate Saul Perlmutter, the primary remaining obstacle is our inability to communicate and collaborate effectively to implement these known solutions.

Market Competition Fails Existential Threats; Climate Change Needs a 'Manhattan Project' Model | RiffOn