Another summary of some of Peter Thiel's thoughts 👇
Here's a summary I did a while ago:
Here's a summary I did a while ago:
Consensus is is that we are doing great and that everything is just moving super fast.
And we can debate whether it’s utopian or dystopian, but it's happening.
Peter believes growth has stalled and has for a while. More insight into Peter's thoughts here:
And we can debate whether it’s utopian or dystopian, but it's happening.
Peter believes growth has stalled and has for a while. More insight into Peter's thoughts here:
We're no longer moving faster.
The acceleration of travel speeds—from faster sailing ships in the 16th through 18th centuries, to the advent of faster railroads in the 19th century, and still-faster cars and airplanes in the 20th century—reversed in 2003 w/ the Concorde failure.
The acceleration of travel speeds—from faster sailing ships in the 16th through 18th centuries, to the advent of faster railroads in the 19th century, and still-faster cars and airplanes in the 20th century—reversed in 2003 w/ the Concorde failure.
The official explanation for the slowdown in travel centers on the high cost of fuel, which points to the much larger failure in energy innovation.
Nixon’s 1974 call for full energy independence by 1980 has given way to Obama’s 2011 call for one-third oil independence by 2020.
Nixon’s 1974 call for full energy independence by 1980 has given way to Obama’s 2011 call for one-third oil independence by 2020.
If you think about where oil prices were in 1973 - it was $2 a barrel - in 2012 it was $100 a barrel.
And so you’ve had a failure of energy innovation, & it’s basically been offset by computer innovation—That’s a simplified account of what’s happened in the last 40 years.
And so you’ve had a failure of energy innovation, & it’s basically been offset by computer innovation—That’s a simplified account of what’s happened in the last 40 years.
When thinking about stalled growth...
To a 1st approximation, the progress in computers & failure in energy appear to have roughly canceled each other out
Like Alice in the Red Queen’s race, we (& our computers) have been forced to run faster & faster to stay in the same place
To a 1st approximation, the progress in computers & failure in energy appear to have roughly canceled each other out
Like Alice in the Red Queen’s race, we (& our computers) have been forced to run faster & faster to stay in the same place
Life expectancy isn't rising as fast as it used to.
We see fewer blockbuster drugs in the pipeline—perhaps because of the intransigence of the FDA, perhaps because of the fecklessness of today’s biological scientists, & perhaps because of all the complexity of human biology.
We see fewer blockbuster drugs in the pipeline—perhaps because of the intransigence of the FDA, perhaps because of the fecklessness of today’s biological scientists, & perhaps because of all the complexity of human biology.
In 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first person on the moon.
We haven't been back to the moon since 1972 and with the final Shuttle flight in 2011, the US will be without the ability to send an astronaut into orbit for the first time since it began its manned space program.
We haven't been back to the moon since 1972 and with the final Shuttle flight in 2011, the US will be without the ability to send an astronaut into orbit for the first time since it began its manned space program.
The 1969 version was: we landed on the moon in July of 1969 and Woodstock starts three weeks later. And maybe that's one way you could describe the cultural shift.
There is a Marxist theory that the time for Communism would come when interest rates went to zero because the zero percent interest rate was a sign that capitalists no longer had any idea what to do with their money, & thus they should redistribute the capital
We're out of ideas
We're out of ideas
We live in a world where we've been working on the Star Trek computer in Silicon Valley, but we don't have anything else from Star Trek.
We don't have the warp drive, we don't have the transporter, we can't re-engineer matter in this cornucopian world where there is no scarcity.
We don't have the warp drive, we don't have the transporter, we can't re-engineer matter in this cornucopian world where there is no scarcity.
In the 50s and 60s, technology meant atoms in addition to bits.
It meant biotech, medical devices. It meant nuclear power, new forms of energy, underwater cities, the green revolution in agriculture, space travel, supersonic aviation, flying cars, etc.
It meant biotech, medical devices. It meant nuclear power, new forms of energy, underwater cities, the green revolution in agriculture, space travel, supersonic aviation, flying cars, etc.
Consider the classic versions of science fiction cities: underwater, cities on the moon, cities on Mars cities in outer space.
Radically different and very definite ideas of the future, that would become self-fulfilling prophecies of one sort or another.
These views look dated.
Radically different and very definite ideas of the future, that would become self-fulfilling prophecies of one sort or another.
These views look dated.
Name one sci-fi film in the last 25 years in which tech is portrayed in a positive light, in which it’s not dystopian, it doesn’t kill people, it doesn’t destroy the world, etc.
Instead, we have one sort of catastrophic, anti-technological scenario after another
Instead, we have one sort of catastrophic, anti-technological scenario after another
The future of the computer in 1969 was centralization, large governments, large companies.
Fast-forward to 1999. The future of the computer age was going to be massive decentralization. Libertarian utopia.
Fast-forward to 2019. The status quo has swung back to 1969.
Fast-forward to 1999. The future of the computer age was going to be massive decentralization. Libertarian utopia.
Fast-forward to 2019. The status quo has swung back to 1969.
The era of globalization improved living standards by making labor and goods cheaper, but also hurt living standards through increased competition for limited resources. Free-trade advocates tend to think that the first effect dominates the second.
When you talk about AI as the last computing device where you’re building a mind that can outthink & outwit any human being, you end up with these very scary & political questions: Is it going to be friendly? Is it dangerous?
Not, what is this going to do to unemployment?
Not, what is this going to do to unemployment?
The Google propaganda is that we have runaway technological progress many people will be left behind, and we need to take care of them.
This doesn't show up in any of the data. We have 3.5% unemployment and the productivity numbers are still anemic.
This doesn't show up in any of the data. We have 3.5% unemployment and the productivity numbers are still anemic.
The data point people always give is self-driving cars.
Even if you got them, it might replace at most 1 percent of the workforce, it might increase productivity by a few percent in the economy.
If you phased them in over a decade, it would not be that transformative.
Even if you got them, it might replace at most 1 percent of the workforce, it might increase productivity by a few percent in the economy.
If you phased them in over a decade, it would not be that transformative.
We've actually had *less* automation.
kindergarten teachers, nurses, yoga instructors, all these sort of nontradeable service sector jobs are fairly immune to automation.
kindergarten teachers, nurses, yoga instructors, all these sort of nontradeable service sector jobs are fairly immune to automation.
If we had this sort of runaway automation, you could get to 3%, 4% GDP growth, and at 3% to 4% GDP growth, we can solve these problems socially.
Then there will be a lot more room for various social programs
If automation's happening, then we'll see in the productivity numbers
Then there will be a lot more room for various social programs
If automation's happening, then we'll see in the productivity numbers
And, given sufficient automation, then eventually maybe we need something like UBI. If automation is not happening and you do UBI, then you just blow up the economy.
Even a Marxist thinks you have to first get the capitalists to do things before you can redistribute stuff.
Even a Marxist thinks you have to first get the capitalists to do things before you can redistribute stuff.
We’re not allowed to develop new drugs with the FDA charging $1.3 billion per new drug.
You’re not allowed to fly supersonic jets because they’re too noisy.
You’re not allowed to build nuclear power plants.
We've outlawed the world of atoms, so ppl focus on bits.
You’re not allowed to fly supersonic jets because they’re too noisy.
You’re not allowed to build nuclear power plants.
We've outlawed the world of atoms, so ppl focus on bits.
If you give me a choice of getting rid of the vast bulk of government regulations & keeping the Fed, I’d much rather do that than keeping all the other zoning laws & crazy rules we have and going with PayPal, Bitcoin, gold, any sort of alternate currency one could come up with.
Why did brilliant people in the Soviet Union become grandmaster chess players? They weren’t allowed to do anything else.
Same with why so many brilliant rocket scientists went into wall street, because they couldn't use their skills due to overregulation.
Same with why so many brilliant rocket scientists went into wall street, because they couldn't use their skills due to overregulation.
It’s hard to remember this, but gov't was once high tech, too: The Apollo program put a man on the moon.
But today our government is broken. Our newest fighter jets can’t even fly in the rain.
That is a staggering decline for the country that completed the Manhattan project.
But today our government is broken. Our newest fighter jets can’t even fly in the rain.
That is a staggering decline for the country that completed the Manhattan project.
Science has gotten dramatically worse, by being a victim of its own success.
We poured money on it, which politicized the system. But a great scientist is the opposite of a good politician. A scientist is someone who pursues truth. A politician manipulates truth. So we miss out.
We poured money on it, which politicized the system. But a great scientist is the opposite of a good politician. A scientist is someone who pursues truth. A politician manipulates truth. So we miss out.
A lot of innovators discovered things, but weren’t able to get anything.
Tesla was out-competed by Edison, even though Edison had an inferior technology.
The Wright brothers came up with the first airplane, but they didn’t get to be rich.
Einstein discovered relativity--nada
Tesla was out-competed by Edison, even though Edison had an inferior technology.
The Wright brothers came up with the first airplane, but they didn’t get to be rich.
Einstein discovered relativity--nada
When were the last political speeches you can remember where people in very concrete terms portrayed a future that looks very different from the present?
Gorbachev: “Tear down that wall"
We've gotten more vague: "Hope and Change"
It didn't do well. People are scared of change
Gorbachev: “Tear down that wall"
We've gotten more vague: "Hope and Change"
It didn't do well. People are scared of change
The 1990s narrative was the new economy, and they lied about growth.
And then the 2000s narrative was the Great Moderation, and they lied about volatility.
And maybe the 2010s one is secular stagnation, where they lie about the real interest rates, b/c the other two don't work.
And then the 2000s narrative was the Great Moderation, and they lied about volatility.
And maybe the 2010s one is secular stagnation, where they lie about the real interest rates, b/c the other two don't work.
Why the slowdown?
Is it an external reality that’s made it hard or is it something in the culture that’s changed that makes us less ambitious?
Culture. We’re often too biased to go to the natural explanation b/c it’s one that exonerates us from responsibility for the slowdown
Is it an external reality that’s made it hard or is it something in the culture that’s changed that makes us less ambitious?
Culture. We’re often too biased to go to the natural explanation b/c it’s one that exonerates us from responsibility for the slowdown
Extreme optimism & extreme pessimism are both equally wrong.
We should always come back to the question of individual agency and it's not these large historic forces.
There's always room for history, for new ideas, and these things are never definitively decided either way.
We should always come back to the question of individual agency and it's not these large historic forces.
There's always room for history, for new ideas, and these things are never definitively decided either way.
Think a lot harder about the future...try to think concretely what you want to do...there's always a question, where is the frontier, where are some pockets of innovation where you can do some new things and not be in a crazed competition.
3 possible technological frontiers:
3 possible technological frontiers:
Cyberspace: The hope of the Internet is that these new worlds will impact and force change on the existing social and political order.
The limitation of the Internet is that these new worlds are virtual and that any escape may be more imaginary than real.
Still TBD.
The limitation of the Internet is that these new worlds are virtual and that any escape may be more imaginary than real.
Still TBD.
Outer space: Because the vast reaches of outer space represent a limitless frontier, they also represent a limitless possibility for escape from world politics.
But we are still ways away from being ready for this.
But we are still ways away from being ready for this.
Seasteading: Between cyberspace & outer space lies the possibility of settling the oceans.
The tech involved is more tentative than the Internet, but more realistic than space travel.
We may have reached the stage at which it will soon be economically feasible.
The tech involved is more tentative than the Internet, but more realistic than space travel.
We may have reached the stage at which it will soon be economically feasible.
