I think I understand the author's point, but just as people here are making sweeping statements about biology, he seems to have some minor misconceptions about technology.
Let's take a step back ... my understanding of what the author's saying is that "solving" cancer is no easier in some sense than "solving" biology.
Yes, we have to think of cancer as some kind of adversarial game -- it's not enough to solve a snap-shot of that game. But ... that doesn't mean that we can't have active defences that work for the vast majority of people. It's just that maybe we need to know how to build people from molecules, first.
I think we'll solve biology in the sense of being able to engineer life from first-principles. I make no predictions on time-frame.
Let's take a step back ... my understanding of what the author's saying is that "solving" cancer is no easier in some sense than "solving" biology.
Yes, we have to think of cancer as some kind of adversarial game -- it's not enough to solve a snap-shot of that game. But ... that doesn't mean that we can't have active defences that work for the vast majority of people. It's just that maybe we need to know how to build people from molecules, first.
I think we'll solve biology in the sense of being able to engineer life from first-principles. I make no predictions on time-frame.