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

Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#71

Post by kennywinker »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #61
kennywinker wrote: post #16

Why should I think this man has special insight into the state of the world? He is quite rich, that is true. But if anything, by definition that means he is deeply out of touch with the needs, desires, and problems of the vast majority of the people on this planet.

Because he’s self made. He got rich precisely by being in touch with the needs, desires, and problems of people. And also by being successful at investing, which also requires ability to read trends etc. Would you also argue Warren Buffet (literally nicknamed oracle of Omaha) has no special insight because he’s rich?

Being a good gambler does not make you a good person.

Warren Buffet has insight on what it's like to be rich, and insights on how to win at capitalism. That does not qualify him to speak about progress in general. Peter Thiel may be good at reading what trends will make him money, but I don't believe that makes him qualified to say what would make the world better (i.e. progress).

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#72

Post by tehabe »

I disagree with Thiel on almost every page on this document. And I don't know which topic to really critise. Like his view on regulation, which he calls a burden. I don't want to live in a world w/o regulations, I want to know what is in my food, I want to know that the devices I use are safe. We could see what happens, when regulation fails, when two 737MAX crashed due to the fact that Boeing was able to hide MCAS from the FAA and the FAA let Boeing go forward with the plane.

At one point Thiel is quoted with "The public transportation systems don’t work." Which is a bold and false statement, because public transportation can work extremely well. And in the source they don't even talk about public transportation but about Uber, which I think is a failure and pointless and not really innovative at all. Services like Uber existed long before Uber, Uber just put an app on it instead of a phone call. Also Thiel complaints about parking. That he can't think of any other modes of mobility than a car, it rather telling.

His definition of progress and innovation is not technical or defined by quality of life but merely what he as an investor can earn money from it. This is very visible when Thiel dismisses incremental progress with wind turbines and photovoltaic cells.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#73

Post by troughway »

vngzs wrote: post #59

> If meaningful scientific and technological progress occurs, then we reasonably would expect greater economic prosperity (though this may be offset by other factors). And also in reverse: If economic gains, as measured by certain key indicators, have been limited or nonexistent, then perhaps so has scientific and technological progress. My eye-opening realization of American stagnation came in history class during h…

Most people are not wired to be explorers or risk takers. That's where the whole rent-seeking mentality comes from, which is a form of risk aversion, and the incumbent laws and whatnot have put a hard stop on "what could have been".

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#74

Post by tatrajim »

biomcgary wrote: post #56
dgut wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please explain a bit further what you mean by politics of science and how it's agains't actually doing science?

Not GP, but science is becoming increasingly hierarchical in it's funding mechanisms, placing bigger bets on bigger projects that reflect the perspective of older scientists and the status quo. This pulls funding away from up and coming scientists with new ideas they'd like to try out. Classic increase of risk aversion.

And note, too, that the rule change made decades ago in the US, banning universities from imposing a mandatory retirement age on faculty members has had a devastating impact on the development of younger scholars and the funding of new ideas, including my own field. This is in stark contrast to places like South Korea, where mandatory retirement at 65 years for faculty at state universities has kept the pipeline of scholarship open and flowing.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#75

Post by alicemaz »

moralestapia wrote: post #28

On Page 92, under Biotech, >The problem that I remain the most passionate about is for us to make some real and continued progress in the fight against aging and death. But how does one help? Really. I've been in academia for more than 10 years. I've had done some really promising stuff and know people with pretty cool projects that are 1,000% worth pursuing. Yet I have found virtually zero support as I don't play we…

the way my and my partners look at this is an infrastructure problem. our hope anyway is we can build tools and methods (better mathematical modeling, better bioinformatics software, faster/more accurate sequencing, eventually standardized gear for continuous process chemistry) that can serve startups of a bioengineering bent while also making it more practical for independent researchers to work outside academia. the biologist of our team is particularly interested in longevity research herself so partly we're trying to make the things that she'd need to do her own research 5-10 years down the line

I'm pessimistic about institutions but optimistic about people. I think the academy is an impediment to a lot of interesting and necessary projects, not just here but in general. risk-averse, prestige-obsessed, heavily bureaucratized. most of the institutions in our society are like this, hollowed out. there's a lot of basic research that needs to be done, so I think the highest leverage thing we can do is knock down barriers to more people being able to do it. route around the institutions

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#76

Post by pcbro141 »

vngzs wrote: post #59

> If meaningful scientific and technological progress occurs, then we reasonably would expect greater economic prosperity (though this may be offset by other factors). And also in reverse: If economic gains, as measured by certain key indicators, have been limited or nonexistent, then perhaps so has scientific and technological progress. My eye-opening realization of American stagnation came in history class during h…

Only a part of the mission, but there should be ambitious action taken to dramatically improve education and provide truly equal opportunity for all in the US. Pay teachers properly, give a proper education in all schools especially impoverished neighborhoods. The US should be ranking higher than it is in Math/Reading/Science scores compared to other countries. Other special programs to remedy the huge racial wealth gap from the slavery/Jim Crow/other institutional racism legacy. The US can and should do a much better job at providing better education and opportunities for all of its citizens.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#77

Post by tehabe »

peacefulhat wrote: post #17

I've listened to some of these interviews and agree completely with the basic premise. However, I don't think it's correct that China's success is entirely explained from simply copying America. Of course copying is responsible for part of their success, but there are clear examples of the reverse. For example, integration of payments into WeChat, which has been duplicated by Facebook and others (but not as successfu…

China did what Germany did in the 19th century and Japan did after World War II but differently. Germany and Japan copied and made own things until they were experts and made better things than the original. China did that differently, they invited western companies through cheap labour and made officially those things, copied it then and became experts and eventually made their own products, which at least as good or better than the originals.

It is also helpful, that the Chinese government can just do things w/o any meaningful interference. In the 1960s and 70s, German cities wanted to build huge motorway like road through the city centres, which would have destroyed the cities, many of those project could be prevented from happening. Thiel would have critised those protests as a barrier for progress. Like he does, when he is mentioning zoning laws prevented a high-speed railway in San Francisco.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#79

Post by chrisco255 »

vngzs wrote: post #59

> If meaningful scientific and technological progress occurs, then we reasonably would expect greater economic prosperity (though this may be offset by other factors). And also in reverse: If economic gains, as measured by certain key indicators, have been limited or nonexistent, then perhaps so has scientific and technological progress. My eye-opening realization of American stagnation came in history class during h…

Robotics and AI have the ability to transform a great deal. We have still not fully explored Crispr and what's possible with biotech. AR & VR I think, once they reach maturity, will also transform society. Finally, I do think cryptocurrency will change as much about society as double entry bookkeeping did in the 14th century. This change may not be as radical for 1st world countries, but I think it will allow many developing countries to catch up much more rapidly.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#80

Post by newbie789 »

I'm kind of confused. What is the purpose of this document? Did Peter Thiel put this together? Is the target audience people that like him? Or is the target audience people that are critical of him?

Or just plainly, is there a particular reason why I should care what a tech billionaire thinks about culture?

I'm not a fan of Peter Thiel in the slightest so maybe this isn't for me. I think it is a bit weird that at least one person finds his lofty opinions about stuff to be so important that they painstakingly collected them for... some purpose. Again, did Peter Thiel put this together??

Post reply on HN