In a landscape often dominated by incrementalism and political gridlock, Packy McCormick's latest dispatch from Not Boring offers a startling counter-narrative: the most profound shifts of our era are not happening in the halls of power, but in the quiet convergence of biology, quantum physics, and orbital mechanics. This is not a standard tech newsletter; it is a curated argument that the tools to solve humanity's oldest afflictions—from blindness to nuclear annihilation—are finally maturing from science fiction into clinical reality. McCormick posits that while political discourse stalls, the underlying architecture of our future is being rewritten by engineers who are treating the human body and the physical world as software waiting to be debugged.
The Hardware of the Human Mind
McCormick anchors the piece in a breakthrough that feels almost theological in its implications: the restoration of sight to the legally blind. He highlights a clinical trial involving Science Corp's PRIMA Visual Prosthesis, a system that bypasses damaged retinas to stimulate the brain directly. "Restoring sight to the blind is Bible-level miracle stuff, and this week, humans did just that," McCormick writes, capturing the sheer magnitude of the achievement. The technology involves a wireless implant thinner than a human hair, paired with smart glasses that project near-infrared light to stimulate remaining healthy cells.
The core of the argument here is a shift in perspective on engineering itself. McCormick quotes Science Corp CEO Max Hodak, who reframes the entire discipline: "We're building things. We're making the world different than it was before... But you can imagine inverting this and changing the world as it exists in here." This inversion—treating the brain not as a mystical black box but as a hardware interface—is the piece's most compelling intellectual move. It suggests that the limitations of the human condition are not fixed constants but solvable engineering problems.
"There is nothing in the universe (that we know of) more wondrous than the human brain. I'm personally very excited to see how much more it has to offer than we realize."
Critics might argue that focusing on high-tech prosthetics distracts from the systemic failures in healthcare access that leave millions without basic care. While true, McCormick's point is not about immediate universal access, but about the trajectory of possibility. The 80% success rate in the trial proves the mechanism works; the challenge now shifts from feasibility to scalability.
The Quantum and the Biological Frontier
Moving from the individual body to the fundamental laws of physics, McCormick details Google DeepMind's achievement of "verifiable quantum advantage." Unlike previous claims that were difficult to replicate, this experiment allowed other quantum computers to independently verify results, performing calculations 13,000 times faster than classical supercomputers. McCormick notes the significance of this verification: "The 'verifiable' means that other quantum computers can independently verify the results." This moves the field from theoretical promise to empirical reality.
Simultaneously, the piece explores how artificial intelligence is being applied to biology's immense complexity. McCormick highlights two startups, Anthrogen and Nucleus Genomics, which are using massive models to design proteins and predict human longevity. He describes Anthrogen's "Odyssey" model as a tool that allows scientists to "rationally design and optimize proteins toward multi-objective goals--for example, 'binds the target,' and 'low side effects,' and 'manufacturable at scale.'" This is a profound shift: biology is becoming a design discipline rather than a discovery one.
McCormick also touches on the ethical weight of Nucleus Genomics' "Origin" model, which predicts age-related diseases from embryo DNA. He writes, "Using these models, families going through IVF will be able to select embryos that have a lower likelihood of contracting age-related diseases and a higher likelihood of living longer." While he frames this as a tool for healthier lives, the implications for genetic selection and equity are complex. A counterargument worth considering is that such technologies could exacerbate existing social divides, creating a biological caste system where only the wealthy can afford to optimize their offspring's health.
The Architecture of Safety and State Capacity
Perhaps the most sobering section of the commentary addresses the existential threat of nuclear war. McCormick introduces Apex's "Project Shadow," a commercial initiative to develop space-based missile interceptors. He frames this not as a military escalation, but as a desperate necessity: "It would be an unbelievable shame if humanity were to come this far - blindness cures, the ability to design proteins with words, healthier babies, maybe even quantum computers - only for us to blow each other up with nuclear weapons."
The tone here shifts from optimistic to urgent. McCormick acknowledges the sci-fi nature of the project but emphasizes the human cost of inaction. He references Anni Jacobsen's book Nuclear War: A Scenario, noting, "I'll just sleep a little better at night knowing that someone is watching over us." This is a crucial pivot; it grounds the high-tech optimism in the grim reality that without a functioning defense, all other progress is moot.
Finally, McCormick argues that technological progress is useless without the government capacity to implement it. He champions Jen Pahlka's new $120 million fund to rebuild "state capacity," arguing that "none of it is possible without a government capable of executing on its goals." He quotes Pahlka's vision of clearing out the "kludge" of bureaucracy to allow for faster, less wasteful implementation of policy. This is a rare and necessary defense of government efficacy in a tech ecosystem that often fetishizes deregulation. McCormick suggests that getting the government to function efficiently may be "a bigger challenge than commercial fusion power."
"The time for incremental fixes has passed. Let's build the government our future demands."
Critics might note that the concept of "state capacity" is politically polarized, with some viewing government expansion as inherently inefficient. However, McCormick's argument is not about ideology but about execution: whether the goal is national security or economic dynamism, the machinery of the state must be capable of delivering results.
Bottom Line
Packy McCormick's strongest argument is that we are witnessing a convergence of technologies that treat the physical world and human biology as programmable systems, offering solutions to problems that have persisted for millennia. The piece's greatest vulnerability is its reliance on commercial and technological optimism to solve deeply political and ethical challenges, from genetic equity to nuclear deterrence. Readers should watch for how these technologies transition from laboratory proofs to scalable, equitable realities, and whether the state capacity McCormick advocates for can keep pace with the speed of innovation.