4 ms·

This is just hokum. Collapse of art and literature? Soft totalitarianism of political correctness? The "sordid worlds" of popular entertainment? Thiel sounds li

This is just hokum. Collapse of art and literature? Soft totalitarianism of political correctness? The "sordid worlds" of popular entertainment? Thiel sounds likes just another rich guy losing all connection to reality and morphing into a know-it-all railing against popular tastes. What does he know? And all of this "nature red in tooth and claw" shit - "most human beings through the millennia have existed in a naturally brutal, unchanging, and impoverished state" - who is he to spit on thousands of generations of living, breathing people, and say their lives were shit? What gives him that right? The other thing I find strange is his talk of a still-to-come "energy revolution." Thiel sounds like just another false prophet of growth. I'm pretty sure we already had an energy revolution - fossil fuels. Massive reservoirs of stored energy that we discovered, learnt how to extract, process, and utilise, leading to a bewildering array of techniques and technologies. Does it dissapoint Thiel that the fruits of these achievements have gone to relatively simple things - more homes, cars, appliances, holidays and health care for more people. Does it disappoint him too that population and desire expansion soak up our technological advances? We live in the most resource-intensive society in history - and apparently it's still not enough. We need to grow some more. It hasn't worked before, but next time, it'll be enough, for sure. So what does Thiel want? Science to break the fundamental rules of physics? Science to break the fundamental principles of living species? Seems like Thiel is pretty uncomfortable with human eistence. He wants that 50s vision - clean, pristine, glowing, perfect, anxiety-free (a vision invented to sell vacuum cleaners to the most anxious generation in history, if I recall correctly.) Thiel is the classic modern: living in the most disease, conflict, death and accident-free society of all time, terrified of the physical realities of human existence, callously dismissive of 99% of all that humans have experienced on this planet, bitterly dismissive of the achievements of modern technology, blithely dismissive of popular tastes, wanting to have his cake (liberal human rights and the free market system) and eat it (techno-transcendence and mass adoption of his political views) too. My advice to Thiel would be to decide exactly what it is that he wants (more fundamental physics research, better solar/wind/algae, more noble pop culture, authoritarian domination by a cultural elite, space resource extraction, better education, better sci-fi novels), figure out what's at the heart of his chosen problem and (just like a good hacker) go and come up with an innovative solution to transform the problem himself. Either research or advocate or fund or all three. But he should stop trying to preach like this on the failures of our civilization, because he is just talking out of his ass.

truethurts 14y ago
"go work on it himself" Amen. Some of his philanthropic efforts may prove beneficial to science. He could just be a quiet philanthropist. But these sort of PR pieces, even putting aside how annoying they are in terms the total lack of sound thinking^1, are designed to sell people on investing in "Web 2.0" companies and Silicon Valley of which he is conveniently positioned as a beneficiary. 1. Sound thinking is, I thought, what National Review, or at least WFB, Jr., was all about. This kind of contribution is pure rubbish. It's a wonder he didn't start name dropping a handful of "Web 2.0" companies to whet investors' appetites, as Andreeson does when he writes for the NYT.
- guylhem 14y ago
  I don't agree on that one. Maybe it's in his interest or objectives, but such a writing sure won't make me invest a dime in web 2.0 companies or any companies based in a country engaged in a process of self destruction. Why can't you consider the alternative, that he may truely very worried, and try to share his views, his warning? Altruism is a human trait. The frequency can be debated, but when we see a problem we like to warn our fellows.
  - truethurts 14y ago
    What if you are a policy maker, or someone poised to influence policy makers, that could affect the prospects for Silicon Valley and "Web 2.0"? I cannot take him and his arguments about "science" seriously because 1. he is using the concept of scientifc progress, which many of use would agree always worthy of pursuing, under the guise of "Web 2.0" which you might guess is not my idea of science and 2. his background is Stanford Law School, a Wall Street trading desk, a hedge fund and then PayPal and Palantir. He has little credibility on this topic: science. If he were focussed on preaching the merits of philanthropic donations to scientific causes, and he has some credibility on this, I would not be criticising his writings. But as we all know there is more to his agenda and these PR pieces. They always include references to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley. No harm in trying to pump up the market for web startups, as long as you're within the law, but when you start sugar-coating these pitches with talk of "scientific progress", then I take issue. It's true he may warning of a general problem with a growing disregard for science. But why does he have to connect it to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley? Maybe because that is the only things he knows that is remotely reminiscient of science? Or is there some other reason? Because he is a venture capitalist in that sector? What is the purpose of Section III? How does he know that science is being ignored? Is he working in a lab somewhere and short on funding for his research? No. He's a Silicon Valley venture capitalist investing in "Web 2.0". He would know if Silicon Valley is being ignored or could use a little more attention. Of that I am certain.

truethurts 14y ago

"go work on it himself" Amen. Some of his philanthropic efforts may prove beneficial to science. He could just be a quiet philanthropist. But these sort of PR pieces, even putting aside how annoying they are in terms the total lack of sound thinking^1, are designed to sell people on investing in "Web 2.0" companies and Silicon Valley of which he is conveniently positioned as a beneficiary. 1. Sound thinking is, I thought, what National Review, or at least WFB, Jr., was all about. This kind of contribution is pure rubbish. It's a wonder he didn't start name dropping a handful of "Web 2.0" companies to whet investors' appetites, as Andreeson does when he writes for the NYT.

guylhem 14y ago
I don't agree on that one. Maybe it's in his interest or objectives, but such a writing sure won't make me invest a dime in web 2.0 companies or any companies based in a country engaged in a process of self destruction. Why can't you consider the alternative, that he may truely very worried, and try to share his views, his warning? Altruism is a human trait. The frequency can be debated, but when we see a problem we like to warn our fellows.
- truethurts 14y ago
  What if you are a policy maker, or someone poised to influence policy makers, that could affect the prospects for Silicon Valley and "Web 2.0"? I cannot take him and his arguments about "science" seriously because 1. he is using the concept of scientifc progress, which many of use would agree always worthy of pursuing, under the guise of "Web 2.0" which you might guess is not my idea of science and 2. his background is Stanford Law School, a Wall Street trading desk, a hedge fund and then PayPal and Palantir. He has little credibility on this topic: science. If he were focussed on preaching the merits of philanthropic donations to scientific causes, and he has some credibility on this, I would not be criticising his writings. But as we all know there is more to his agenda and these PR pieces. They always include references to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley. No harm in trying to pump up the market for web startups, as long as you're within the law, but when you start sugar-coating these pitches with talk of "scientific progress", then I take issue. It's true he may warning of a general problem with a growing disregard for science. But why does he have to connect it to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley? Maybe because that is the only things he knows that is remotely reminiscient of science? Or is there some other reason? Because he is a venture capitalist in that sector? What is the purpose of Section III? How does he know that science is being ignored? Is he working in a lab somewhere and short on funding for his research? No. He's a Silicon Valley venture capitalist investing in "Web 2.0". He would know if Silicon Valley is being ignored or could use a little more attention. Of that I am certain.