Biology's Big Bang: Economist article

The Economist considers the ongoing advances and breakthroughs in biology to be the equivalent of the atom-splitting moments of the early 20th century...my previous post on something similar seems a little churlish in this light. This is what the Economist leader has to say:

It is probably no exaggeration to say that biology is now undergoing its “neutron moment”. For more than half a century the fundamental story of living things has been a tale of the interplay between genes, in the form of DNA, and proteins, which the genes encode and which do the donkey work of keeping living organisms living. The past couple of years, however, have seen the rise and rise of a third type of molecule, called RNA.
...
The analogy with physics is deeper than just that between RNA and the neutron. There is in biology at the moment a sense of barely contained expectations reminiscent of the physical sciences at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a feeling of advancing into the unknown, and that where this advance will lead is both exciting and mysterious.

All this seems good news. But then the article goes on to say:

Many of the big problems facing humanity are biological, or are susceptible to biological intervention. The question of how to deal with an ageing population is one example. Climate change, too, is intimately bound up with biology since it is the result of carbon dioxide going into the air faster than plants can remove it. And the risk of a new, lethal infection suddenly becoming pandemic as a result of modern transport links (see article) is as biological as it gets. Even the fact that such an infection might itself be the result of synthetic biology only emphasises the biological nature of future risks.

Now, that many of the "big problems facing humanity" are biological in nature, I will not contend -- after all, the basis of life is in the realm of biology. But, "how to deal with an ageing population"...how pressing a problem is that? I thought life gave human beings the wherewithal, in terms of wisdom etc, to deal with ageing. Not that ageing itself is a new phenomena...so what exactly is the problem here that needs biological solutions? Their health care? Their erectile dysfunction issues? Alzheimer's? Their longevity? This is what the article has to offer: "Ageing is directly biological. It probably cannot be stopped, but knowing how cells work—really knowing—will allow the process to be transformed for the better."

Please do not get me wrong: I have nothing against an ageing population...my parents are growing old too and sure, if some afflictions that dog old age are tackled, I have nothing against that. But characterizing the needs of an ageing population as a major problem to direct future biology to seems oh-so-first-world...and let us not even go to that doomsday scenario of a lethal infection becoming a pandemic...these do not seem real-world problem descriptions to me...

And now to the clincher in the argument: climate change ["result of carbon dioxide going into the air faster than plants can remove it"]. Now if that is not one of the lamest explanations you will see in a well-regarded journal...then I do not know what is. I mean, it is puerile. But why exactly does climate change need a biological solution? Make super-absorbent trees? Plant more trees? I wish the idea had been developed somewhat better than: "At least part of the answer to climate change is fuel that grows, rather than fuel that is dug up. Only biotechnology can create that." Really? what about the many alternative energy sources that have been only partially exploited?

So it does not seem to take a lot to figure out that, while biology might indeed by on the threshold of many groundbreaking discoveries, its applications can be different from what are listed above. Let us talk diseases and the body's defense mechanisms against them; let us talk better disease detection and prognosis methods; let us talk more effective drug-delivery methods; let us think bio-diversity...