5 ms·

"I believe we are in a world where innovation in stuff was outlawed. It was basically outlawed in the last 40 years — part of it was environmentalism, part of i

"I believe we are in a world where innovation in stuff was outlawed. It was basically outlawed in the last 40 years — part of it was environmentalism, part of it was risk aversion," he says. "And all the engineering disciplines that had to do with stuff have basically been outlawed one by one."

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vannevar 14y ago
As an engineer myself, this quote illustrates Thiel's ignorance of engineering progress over the past 40 years, and his disregard for the risks posed by industrial-scale experiments on the general public. People like him are precisely why we need environmental regulations in the first place, instead of simply relying on people's common sense and prudence.
- dantheman 14y ago
  Neal Stephenson recently wrote an article on how being risk averse is limiting our progress: http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starvation http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starv... I think there are two sides to this, I want to see more innovation and am willing to live in a riskier world to see that happen faster. A lot of regulation merely locks in present bad forms, in the nuclear world we see that yucca mountain isn't perfect so instead we leave nuclear waste all around the country in "temporary pools" -- where the risk is much much higher that something bad can happen. Unfortunately, when people become risk averse the status quo dominates, I mean who can argue with "that's how it's always been done" vs "I took a chance and it didn't work out, but the status quo was unsustainable." We've unleashed a monster of bureaucracy that vastly limits the potential avenues of investigation. Feynman, has a great perspective - I got good at math and could do it fast, this means that when I wanted to try something the cost was low - a few minutes or an hour, whereas others it would take a day or two. This allowed me to investigate areas with low likelihood of success, and try out novel ideas. Some of his big discoveries were from that type of work. (paraphrased from memory - couldn't find the story, it's in one of his books. The problem is that we can directly measure the cost of an accident/disaster, but we don't correctly factor, imho, the cost of stuff that was never created.
  - vannevar 14y ago
    [W]hen people become risk averse the status quo dominates... This is not necessarily a bad thing. Looking at history objectively, I don't think it can be plausibly argued that technological progress now is slower than it was 60 years ago. And we are taking big new risks on a variety of fronts, including massive experiments in the genetic engineering of worldwide agriculture, smaller but even more dangerous experiments with genetically modified viruses, and experiments in large-scale decentralized automation of large segments of our financial systems, not to mention the ongoing global experiment in CO2 saturation that we are conducting unabated. You can argue for the benefits of all these experiments, but you can hardly say we've become risk averse. In the context of the highly leveraged and interconnected world we are creating, I would argue that we are nowhere near risk averse enough.
- ThomPete 14y ago
  You are assuming that those regulations lead to a better outcome. This is not very likely given that the amount of issues the world is facing is not going to be solved by alternative energy as we know it, nor by ignoring the very essence of progress. Reality don't care what way we do thing. It will judge us by our ability to survive whatever it throws at us. Whether that is astroids hitting earth, lack of resources or simply insufficient use of them. The engineering progress over the past 40 years have primarily been piggybacking on the 60 years that came before. This is not to take anything away from what have been accomplished, just to say that the fairly safe progress is based on much more risky progress that went before.
  - vannevar 14y ago
    You are assuming that those regulations lead to a better outcome. I'm satisfied by the evidence that they do. We don't have nearly the lead in our bodies that we did in the heyday of lead fuel additives, we don't have asbestos dust permeating our schools, and the ozone hole is shrinking. All of these positive outcomes were the result of regulation. [Reality] will judge us by our ability to survive whatever it throws at us. Or whatever we throw at us. The US has an obesity epidemic costing us billions in health care and lost productivity, and it is a problem entirely of our own making. The engineering progress over the past 40 years have primarily been piggybacking on the 60 years that came before. This is always true, whatever time period you look at. And looking at the history of technological progress objectively, it is simply absurd to maintain that it is slower now than it was 40 years ago.
temphn 14y ago
Exactly right. This is why all the innovation is in the virtual world rather than the physical world. Engine explosions [1], airplane crashes [2], and radiation poisoning [3] were the price of progress in the early 20th century, but we've become too fat and happy to take those kinds of risks today. The only crash we'll tolerate is the Fail Whale, and we'll complain bitterly about that too. China has no such hangups [4]. Even Europe has less onerous regulations than the US in key areas like medical devices [5]. We are soon going to see what the relative innovation rates are in a society that accepts a few deaths of brave pioneers as the nonnegotiable price of progress, versus one that has forgotten how many people died perfecting the technologies that got us to the present day. [1] http://www.historicpelham.com/blogarchive/Blog20090720.htm http://www.historicpelham.com/blogarchive/Blog20090720.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_307#Operational_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_307#Operational_history [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin [4] http://boingboing.net/2011/09/21/china-gentleman-builds-homemade-flying-contraption-powered-by-eight-motorcycle-engines.html http://boingboing.net/2011/09/21/china-gentleman-builds-home... [5] http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-prescription-drug-policy-/162891-medical-device-makers-turn-to-europe-over-concerns-with-fda-process http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-pre...
- stcredzero 14y ago
  This is why all the innovation is in the virtual world rather than the physical world. Engine explosions [1], airplane crashes [2], and radiation poisoning [3] were the price of progress in the early 20th century So who's up to lead now? China? India?
Cushman 14y ago
I smell bullshit. There are a few unjustly felonious fields-- nuclear power, stem cells, and recreational psychotropics are the ones that spring to mind. But in general, government regulation seems an easy scapegoat for the massive extraction of money and talent into the inanely lucrative military and financial sectors, along with a consumerist economy which inappropriately values making something cheaper over making it better. To whatever extent innovation has been outlawed, it is not the result of environmentalism or risk aversion but of the power of those industries which would be hurt by innovation.
- ThomPete 14y ago
  Here is the problem. Most environmentalist believe they can solve the worlds problem by exchanging the current sources of energy with newer more environmentally friendly ones. But this is a linear solution to an exponential problem. The need for energy is going to increase manifold the next couple of decades. Can you name me one type of renewable energy that offers anything but a different source for same output? Thorium Reactors are one thing but it smells too much of nuclear and thus have most of the world running scared. This of course despite more people dying or coal burning in a year than have died of nuclear disasters. So yes the government is risk averse and eviromentialism is creating a false premise about how to solve the worlds problems.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    The world does not have an energy generation problem. The world has an energy transmission problem. Fossil fuels are an easy but suboptimal solution to the latter. The premise that this has anything to do with environmentalism is absurd.
    - ThomPete 14y ago
      The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem. If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. That is not the case.
WiseWeasel 14y ago
Were you trying to highlight the ridiculous level of hyperbole in his diatribe? So the regulation of things deemed potentially harmful to the individual or society is equivalent to universal criminalization of innovation? Sounds like he's been exposed to a few too many regulated substances, perhaps through no fault of his own. For one, there are many more harmful things yet to be discovered which are still legal to work with; people like him could invest their focus there if they have such an affinity. Coincidentally, I hear there's funding for private rocket research.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

vannevar 14y ago

As an engineer myself, this quote illustrates Thiel's ignorance of engineering progress over the past 40 years, and his disregard for the risks posed by industrial-scale experiments on the general public. People like him are precisely why we need environmental regulations in the first place, instead of simply relying on people's common sense and prudence.

dantheman 14y ago
Neal Stephenson recently wrote an article on how being risk averse is limiting our progress: http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starvation http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starv... I think there are two sides to this, I want to see more innovation and am willing to live in a riskier world to see that happen faster. A lot of regulation merely locks in present bad forms, in the nuclear world we see that yucca mountain isn't perfect so instead we leave nuclear waste all around the country in "temporary pools" -- where the risk is much much higher that something bad can happen. Unfortunately, when people become risk averse the status quo dominates, I mean who can argue with "that's how it's always been done" vs "I took a chance and it didn't work out, but the status quo was unsustainable." We've unleashed a monster of bureaucracy that vastly limits the potential avenues of investigation. Feynman, has a great perspective - I got good at math and could do it fast, this means that when I wanted to try something the cost was low - a few minutes or an hour, whereas others it would take a day or two. This allowed me to investigate areas with low likelihood of success, and try out novel ideas. Some of his big discoveries were from that type of work. (paraphrased from memory - couldn't find the story, it's in one of his books. The problem is that we can directly measure the cost of an accident/disaster, but we don't correctly factor, imho, the cost of stuff that was never created.
- vannevar 14y ago
  [W]hen people become risk averse the status quo dominates... This is not necessarily a bad thing. Looking at history objectively, I don't think it can be plausibly argued that technological progress now is slower than it was 60 years ago. And we are taking big new risks on a variety of fronts, including massive experiments in the genetic engineering of worldwide agriculture, smaller but even more dangerous experiments with genetically modified viruses, and experiments in large-scale decentralized automation of large segments of our financial systems, not to mention the ongoing global experiment in CO2 saturation that we are conducting unabated. You can argue for the benefits of all these experiments, but you can hardly say we've become risk averse. In the context of the highly leveraged and interconnected world we are creating, I would argue that we are nowhere near risk averse enough.
ThomPete 14y ago
You are assuming that those regulations lead to a better outcome. This is not very likely given that the amount of issues the world is facing is not going to be solved by alternative energy as we know it, nor by ignoring the very essence of progress. Reality don't care what way we do thing. It will judge us by our ability to survive whatever it throws at us. Whether that is astroids hitting earth, lack of resources or simply insufficient use of them. The engineering progress over the past 40 years have primarily been piggybacking on the 60 years that came before. This is not to take anything away from what have been accomplished, just to say that the fairly safe progress is based on much more risky progress that went before.
- vannevar 14y ago
  You are assuming that those regulations lead to a better outcome. I'm satisfied by the evidence that they do. We don't have nearly the lead in our bodies that we did in the heyday of lead fuel additives, we don't have asbestos dust permeating our schools, and the ozone hole is shrinking. All of these positive outcomes were the result of regulation. [Reality] will judge us by our ability to survive whatever it throws at us. Or whatever we throw at us. The US has an obesity epidemic costing us billions in health care and lost productivity, and it is a problem entirely of our own making. The engineering progress over the past 40 years have primarily been piggybacking on the 60 years that came before. This is always true, whatever time period you look at. And looking at the history of technological progress objectively, it is simply absurd to maintain that it is slower now than it was 40 years ago.

temphn 14y ago

Exactly right. This is why all the innovation is in the virtual world rather than the physical world. Engine explosions [1], airplane crashes [2], and radiation poisoning [3] were the price of progress in the early 20th century, but we've become too fat and happy to take those kinds of risks today. The only crash we'll tolerate is the Fail Whale, and we'll complain bitterly about that too. China has no such hangups [4]. Even Europe has less onerous regulations than the US in key areas like medical devices [5]. We are soon going to see what the relative innovation rates are in a society that accepts a few deaths of brave pioneers as the nonnegotiable price of progress, versus one that has forgotten how many people died perfecting the technologies that got us to the present day. [1] http://www.historicpelham.com/blogarchive/Blog20090720.htm http://www.historicpelham.com/blogarchive/Blog20090720.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_307#Operational_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_307#Operational_history [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin [4] http://boingboing.net/2011/09/21/china-gentleman-builds-homemade-flying-contraption-powered-by-eight-motorcycle-engines.html http://boingboing.net/2011/09/21/china-gentleman-builds-home... [5] http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-prescription-drug-policy-/162891-medical-device-makers-turn-to-europe-over-concerns-with-fda-process http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-pre...

stcredzero 14y ago
This is why all the innovation is in the virtual world rather than the physical world. Engine explosions [1], airplane crashes [2], and radiation poisoning [3] were the price of progress in the early 20th century So who's up to lead now? China? India?

Cushman 14y ago

I smell bullshit. There are a few unjustly felonious fields-- nuclear power, stem cells, and recreational psychotropics are the ones that spring to mind. But in general, government regulation seems an easy scapegoat for the massive extraction of money and talent into the inanely lucrative military and financial sectors, along with a consumerist economy which inappropriately values making something cheaper over making it better. To whatever extent innovation has been outlawed, it is not the result of environmentalism or risk aversion but of the power of those industries which would be hurt by innovation.

ThomPete 14y ago
Here is the problem. Most environmentalist believe they can solve the worlds problem by exchanging the current sources of energy with newer more environmentally friendly ones. But this is a linear solution to an exponential problem. The need for energy is going to increase manifold the next couple of decades. Can you name me one type of renewable energy that offers anything but a different source for same output? Thorium Reactors are one thing but it smells too much of nuclear and thus have most of the world running scared. This of course despite more people dying or coal burning in a year than have died of nuclear disasters. So yes the government is risk averse and eviromentialism is creating a false premise about how to solve the worlds problems.
- Cushman 14y ago
  The world does not have an energy generation problem. The world has an energy transmission problem. Fossil fuels are an easy but suboptimal solution to the latter. The premise that this has anything to do with environmentalism is absurd.
  - ThomPete 14y ago
    The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem. If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. That is not the case.

WiseWeasel 14y ago

Were you trying to highlight the ridiculous level of hyperbole in his diatribe? So the regulation of things deemed potentially harmful to the individual or society is equivalent to universal criminalization of innovation? Sounds like he's been exposed to a few too many regulated substances, perhaps through no fault of his own. For one, there are many more harmful things yet to be discovered which are still legal to work with; people like him could invest their focus there if they have such an affinity. Coincidentally, I hear there's funding for private rocket research.