Three new books take stock of the rapid technological change so far in the 21st century and ask whether we can adapt to the even faster change to come.

Why it matters: The 2020s could be the roaring or the raging decade, depending on whether political and social institutions can keep pace with the explosive transformation wrought by the tech sector.

The big picture: In his new book "The Exponential Age," venture capitalist and newsletter writer Azeem Azhar identifies what might be the fundamental conflict of the early 21st century: how businesses and technologies growing at an exponential rate are colliding with social and political institutions that are much slower to change.

• The exponential age is one where winners truly are in a position to take all, because companies that fail to adapt early to technological change risk ending up in the same graveyard as Blockbuster and Kodak.

By the numbers: Azhar notes that Amazon's annual R&D budget rose from $1.4 billion in 2009 to a staggering $36 billion in 2019 — a figure that puts it not far behind the entire research and development budget for the U.K.

Yes, but: While the tech sector is set up to harness the sheer speed of the exponential age, most of human society — government, social institutions, conventional businesses — have struggled to adapt to that pace, creating what Azhar calls an "exponential gap."

• "The gap leads to extreme tension," he writes. "In the Exponential Age this divergence is ongoing — and it is everywhere."

Between the lines: That's the subject of a new book, "System Error," by three Stanford professors: philosopher Robert Reich, political scientist Jeremy Weinstein and computer scientist Mehran Sahami.

• The trio — who jointly teach a popular class at Stanford called "Ethics, Public Policy and Computer Science" — explores whether a new approach to politics and ethics can help close "that profound gap between those who understand technology and those who are responsible for government and society," says Weinstein.
• Such an approach might involve trying to rein in the speed of technological change through regulation and through making consumers more aware of the implications of the tech they use — or in the case of their Stanford students, the tech they create.
• Technology will inevitably present trade-offs, Weinstein says — think of the trade-off between user privacy and preventing child abuse presented by Apple's now delayed plan to scan photos on iPhones — but "we need to weigh those trade-offs in a public and deliberative way."

What to watch: The success or failure of efforts to close the exponential gap will have an enormous influence on whether the next decade can harness the best of technological growth, or be consumed by it, writes former diplomat Alec Ross in his new book "The Raging 2020s."

• Ross worries if we can't broker a new social contract that works for the exponential age, "the next decade could rage like something out of 'Mad Max.'"

The bottom line: The question we'll need to face over the next decade, says Weinstein: "How do we set up a government that can respond to the pace of technological change?"

Read the rest

As part of his new COVID-19 plan, President Biden is backing a push to expand testing — including at-home rapid tests.

The big picture: DIY tests offer the potential to regularly surveil people for COVID-19 and get them out of circulation before they can infect others. But the strategy will only be effective if the tests are extremely cheap and plentiful.

Driving the news: In addition to the vaccine mandates that received the lion's share of coverage, Biden announced on Thursday that he would invoke the Defense Production Act to procure 280 million rapid point-of-care — meaning the tests can be processed where they are taken — and over-the-counter tests.

• Biden also announced he will work with retailers like Walmart and Amazon to begin selling rapid at-home tests at cost over the next three months, while expanding free testing at 10,000 pharmacies across the country.

What they're saying: The plan earned qualified praise from public health experts who have been pushing for more rapid testing, like Harvard's Michael Mina, who tweeted that the expanded push was "tremendously good news," but noted that an additional 280 million rapid tests would still come out to "less than one test per person over the course of a year."

Read the rest

The federal government is delving into one of the biggest questions around meat that is grown from cells, rather than harvested from slaughtered animals: What should we call it?

Why it matters: Meat grown from cells promises to be a sustainable and slaughter-free source of protein, but beyond reducing costs, companies in the space need to earn consumer acceptance — and what we call it will matter.

• The labeling question is an important one, as demonstrated by the years-long struggle over what foods that include genetically modified ingredients should be called, and the ongoing legal battles over labeling for plant-based alternative protein products.

What's happening: Earlier this month, the USDA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to "request comments pertaining to the labeling of meat and poultry products comprised of or containing cultured cells derived from animals."

• The comment period is part of the USDA's and FDA's work to solidify regulations around the nascent future meat space before the first products can be fully sold to consumers. (The USDA oversees cultured meat and poultry products, while the FDA covers cultured seafood — with the exception, for confusing reasons, of catfish, which the USDA handles.)
• The possibilities for labels are almost endless: "cell-cultured," "cultivated," "slaughter-free," "cell-based," "clean," "lab-grown," "synthetic," even "fake meat."

Between the lines: What you want to call meat or fish grown from cells largely depends on how you view the new technology — and whether you stand to benefit from its development.

• Startups in the space generally prefer a label that, as the Alliance for Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Innovation put it in a statement, fosters "consumer confidence and a level playing field" with conventional meat producers and companies that make plant-based alternative protein.
• That generally means labels like "cell-cultured" or "cultivated," which combine a sense of high tech without the overly synthetic, sci-fi connotations of "lab-grown."
• The U.S. Cattlemen's Association, by contrast, has petitioned the USDA that "the terms ‘beef’ and ‘meat’ should be retained exclusively for products derived from the flesh of a [bovine] animal, harvested in the traditional manner."

The bottom line: When it comes to what's on our plate, a name isn't just a name.

Read the rest

The Mu variant of the coronavirus is something to monitor — as it appears to partially evade authorized COVID-19 vaccines — but Delta's continued dominance means "Mu is not any immediate threat," NIAID director Anthony Fauci tells Axios' Eileen Drage O'Reilly.

Why it matters: Sounding the alarm, Fauci says widespread vaccination is a priority to fight the coronavirus and cut down on the rate of new infections — which is currently 10 times higher than where it needs to be.

What's happening: The WHO recently labeled Mu (B.1.621 and first discovered in Colombia) a variant of interest as preliminary data indicated it may better elude immunity from prior infection or vaccination.

• Mu may "indicate potential properties of immune escape, as it has some of these hallmarks of being able to get around that existing vaccine protection, but it doesn't mean that's what we're seeing play out in real life," says Anne Rimoin, an epidemiologist and director of the UCLA Center for Global and Immigrant Health.
• Fauci says when comparing how specific variants may escape antibody protection, Beta appears more evasive than Mu, and Mu more than Delta.
• Only about 0.5% of new cases are showing as Mu, Fauci says, with 99.3% testing as Delta, which has such an "extraordinary ability" to transmit that it won't likely lose its global dominance in the immediate future.

Read the rest

How Hollywood sold out to China (Shirley Li — The Atlantic)

• The biggest market makes the rules — and when it comes to movies, that's China.

The screen in your car is beckoning (David Zipper — Slate)

• Those huge infotainment screens in cars may be more distracting than phones.

How gaming will change humanity as we know it (Tyler Cowen — Bloomberg)

• For centuries, the West has shared a common culture across different artistic media — but the rampant popularity of video games could change all that.

How gender changes the perception of a bad joke (Dylan Walsh — Yale Insights)

• TLDR: Women, try making more jokes; men, maybe not so much.

The first "Matrix Resurrections" trailer dropped this week, while the long-awaited "Dune" adaptation recently screened at the Venice Film Festival.

The big question: Which one should you see?

Do you like sand? Like, really, really like sand?

• Yes: Watch "Dune," and feast your eyes on more sand than in a "Lawrence of Arabia" double feature.
• No: Go for the new "Matrix" — sand gums up the Machines.

Preferred fashion accessory?

• Uncomfortable-looking nose wear: This way to "Dune."
• Tailored suits and leather outfits that seem awfully constricting for all that kung fu fighting: "Matrix Resurrections" is your jam.

Does your movie need to test positive for Jason Momoa?

• Yes: "Dune" — ironically, Aquaman will be appearing in a movie set on a desert planet.
• No: "Matrix Resurrections" — unless he's secretly playing a rebooted, extremely buff Agent Smith.

Have you read the book "Dune"?

• Yes: "Dune" — if only to explain to everyone how the film falls short of the novel.
• What are "books"? Step right up for "Matrix Resurrections."

Do you like your prestige sci-fi movie with a convoluted backstory, an eternally long wait, and a messiah protagonist who taps into magical powers to save the oppressed?

• Good news — you can't go wrong with either.