Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#111

Post by ThomPete »

cpeterso wrote: post #78
thathonkey wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the argument is that monopolies are ok so long as they are won fair and square? Umm... ok.

AFAIU, Thiel doesn't say monopolies are good. He says the pursuit of monopolies drives progress: “Monopolies drive progress. The promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate.” http://www.technologyreview.com/review/531491/the-contrarian...

That is putting the wagon in front of the horse IMHO. A monopoly doesn't drive progress imho it takes advantage of an opportunity no one else did compared to where the world is at any given time.

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#112

Post by slgeorge »

robomartin wrote: post #90
sytelus wrote: post #86

The most depressing thing is that our generation can achieve so much more. We have more scientists, more engineers and much larger economies than babyboomer generation. But most of these money ends up corruption in underdeveloped countries and in wars and busted healthcare system in developed countries. For example US spent 1 trillion dollars [1] just for stupid Iraq war alone . With same amount of money we could hav…

The problem is easy to identify: Our various forms of government are simply obsolete. In the case of the US you have very small groups of people interested in nothing more than the survival of their respective political clans. Despite what they say, they consistently fail to represent us and always, always, always make decisions based on their own self interest (or that of their party). Remember: Governments and poli…

> I can't think of many wars that were not the product of politicians run amuck.

I don't think you know of many wars then.

Let's see:

- World War II (Europe) Not caused by a politician, caused by a dictator (a different thing). Arguably caused by economic and social forces applied to Germany after WW1.

- World War II (Asia) Not caused by a politician. Arguably caused by either nationalism which was an outgrowth of their forced modernisation; or caused by encirclement and the risk of losing their new empire.

- World War I (Europe) Not caused by a politician. Simplistically caused by nationalism, perhaps caused by economic issues.

I'm sure there must be some examples of wars caused by politicians - but it's doing a disservice to the complexity of issues to point at a single person, and giving them too much power.

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#113

Post by duckmysick »

byEngineer wrote: post #92

I dont't want to be politically judged by HN audience. But, I will tell you this: don't you see that start-ups and innovation happen around things that are the least regulated by the Government. Things with the least amount of required bureaucracy and compliance to the state regulations? Peter Schiff - opened hedge fund from his bedroom. He got lucky, worked had, whatever, his investment company is doing pretty good…

> Nobody in New York ask him to pay 20,000 usd to the city for the privilege of opening business.

Nobody ask for that in Europe either, unless you're interested in heavily regulated industries like energy or banking (and they ask for more than $20,000). But we're talking about small businesses, right?

I don't know if fashion industry is heavily regulated in Paris, but a 15,000-euro fee to the government sounds like a big stretch. They used to require 7,500 euro of starting capital for SARL (a private limited liability company), but it was still your money, not the government's. But it's irrelevant, because the minimum amount changed and it's 1 euro now.

There's still an issue of paying various legal and professional fees before you can start your company. It depends on your needs and type of the company, but according to Doing Business report by the World Bank [1] this cost (represented as a percentage of the country's income per capita; not ideal but good enough) is lower in France and dozen of other European countries than in the United States.

1 - http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/starting-a-b...

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#114

Post by slgeorge »

scriptman wrote: post #88
ForHackernews wrote: post #39

> “There’s an automatic perception ... that everything’s dangerous,” Stephenson mused at a recent event in Los Angeles, citing the Stonehenge example, “and that there’s some cosmic balance at work--that if there’s an advance somewhere it must have a terrible cost. Am I the only one who thinks this is a good thing? We should be worrying about trade-offs. There are myriad examples from the past (DDT, Thalidomide, Chern…

I think you are just proving the author's point. The author is saying that people living today are overly concerned about the environmental effects of experimenting with new technologies when compared with people in the recent past. You, being a person living today, have just expressed that you are overly concerned about the environmental effects of experimenting with new technologies. That's not a criticism, we are…

>have just expressed that you are overly concerned

The "overly" in that sentence is a value judgement. It may or may not be 'overly' to have a number of concerns over certain advances.

The difference between the 60's and current day is that they had fewer examples of the disastrous negative consequences that can accompany new inventions.

"We cannot know the consequences of our actions until we act" is not entirely true - we can infer and put in reasonable risk management processes.

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#115

Post by rqebmm »

bsder wrote: post #71

The problem is that the US has too many people who were actually better off in the past. This is where the pessimism comes from. While a very small number of high-tech areas have gone fast-forward into the future and are way better off, the vast majority of the country has been left behind. Fix that, and people will be optimistic again.

The "problem" here is the globalization of the economy. I like to think of it as an icecube in a pitcher. If you pour water in, it starts to melt the icecube, so the tip will go down a bit, before it's carried up by the water level. The US/EU is the tip of that iceberg. As economies around the world copy the Western world, they're rapidly expanding and improving the quality of life for millions around the globe, while the ones that were in the lead after WWII have seemingly stagnated.

Really we're just waiting for everyone else to catch up.

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#116

Post by Vraxx »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #105
autokad wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-Just because we are correctly critical of some aspects of technological process doesn't mean we have become a bunch of petty pessimists who are just trying to make everyone feel bad. maybe you stop at those things, i doubt thats the case but lets assume you do. you think these ideas are a tree with the wind of truth and reason blowing through your leaves. however its a tree in a forest of never ending complaining, n…

If Monsanto are a paragon of virtue and want better crops, what's up with the sterile seeds and lawsuits over people selling legitimately obtained seeds?

This is a valid complaint about Monsanto and it is one that I have myself, but it is also not the complaint that was being referenced. GMOs (not necessarily Monsanto) have great potential, yet just the words "non-GMO" printed on a package are enough to convince people of one brand over another. The fact that GMOs are a political issue in the US is more proof that there is resistance to progress, at least in this particular respect.

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#117

Post by anonbanker »

tsotha wrote: post #102
adrianN wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion power is quite a bit further along than 45 years ago. We're in the process of building ITER, with ignition expected in 2020. The main problem for fusion power is the utter lack of funding it receives: http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg

We're still thirty years away. Just like we were back then.

2020 is thirty years away?

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#118

Post by robomartin »

slgeorge wrote: post #112
robomartin wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is easy to identify: Our various forms of government are simply obsolete. In the case of the US you have very small groups of people interested in nothing more than the survival of their respective political clans. Despite what they say, they consistently fail to represent us and always, always, always make decisions based on their own self interest (or that of their party). Remember: Governments and poli…

> I can't think of many wars that were not the product of politicians run amuck. I don't think you know of many wars then. Let's see: - World War II (Europe) Not caused by a politician, caused by a dictator (a different thing). Arguably caused by economic and social forces applied to Germany after WW1. - World War II (Asia) Not caused by a politician. Arguably caused by either nationalism which was an outgrowth of th…

You missed my point in a grotesque way: GOVERNMENTS start wars, not people. I used the term politician because I was making a commentary about our government. Governments are the sole decision makers in all of the major wars for centuries. People, regardless of culture, do not want war. People do not wage wars. People just want to live a decent life and be left alone. I don't know many who wake up every day thiking about going to war against someone thousands of miles away.

Neither World War would have happened if a set of governments had not decided to either trigger them (after various events) or participate in them.

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#119

Post by rabbyte »

Vraxx wrote: post #116
JetSpiegel wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Monsanto are a paragon of virtue and want better crops, what's up with the sterile seeds and lawsuits over people selling legitimately obtained seeds?

This is a valid complaint about Monsanto and it is one that I have myself, but it is also not the complaint that was being referenced. GMOs (not necessarily Monsanto) have great potential, yet just the words "non-GMO" printed on a package are enough to convince people of one brand over another. The fact that GMOs are a political issue in the US is more proof that there is resistance to progress, at least in this part…

Resistance or reluctance? In keeping with the article, it would be less about the GMO vs non-GMO debate and more about uncertainty in how we agree on whether something ought to be or if it will cause more problems than it solves. The fear of progress in this case may be rooted in sound reasoning as a reaction to past advances that have wreaked havoc in other areas. The impulse is to treat it as an ideological difference when it actually should be looked at as a breaking down of trust and an inability to discern foolishness from genius.

Re: Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

#120

Post by seabug »

You all might find my book and online course about the future relevant: http://www.possiblefutureworlds.com. I referenced Peter Thiel's book and actually met him at his book launch in New York at Columbia. He's impressive and thoughtful, to say the least. I've also exchanged some emails with people involved with Project Hieroglyph.

I think that the Bloomberg article gets both books wrong, simplifying each authors' notions of the future. They both attempt to stimulate us into thinking about possible futures that no one else is thinking about, either because we are biased against the fanciful, we are too consumed with making money rather than creating value, or that we no longer dare to dream big. It is not that incremental improvements in technologies add no value in Thiel's case or that space elevators themselves should be the goal of humanity in Stephenson's case. However, a large number of copycat competitors will not steer us into a fundamentally different and better path, and not daring to be audacious will prevent us from achieving something extraordinary. In short, people today are letting the good be the enemy of the great.

Of course there are two valid visions of the future that we could hope for. One that takes what we value presently and improves upon those values. Or one that creates new values and expectations that hopefully fulfill our old values. Both are attempts to expand the frontiers of humanity. So it makes little sense to me to say that one is wrong or the other is right. The future will be whichever we want it to be.

Post reply on HN