5 ms·

Ok but that's not really what he's talking about. I totally agree that being able to have everyone walk to work may be a better goal than self driving cars and

Ok but that's not really what he's talking about. I totally agree that being able to have everyone walk to work may be a better goal than self driving cars and sadly because of past choices our best option is probably demolishing cities (not terribly feasible). However the status quo doesn't have to be maintained, rezoning and incremental new development can fix much of this (look outside American city development) but now we are also dangerously off topic. Thiel says "the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration towards one of safety and regulation. We have discarded a century of can-do ambition built on rapid advances in technology and replaced it with a cautiousness far too satisfied with incremental improvements." This is his standard libertarian line. More risk, less big government and safety nets. Putting a gun to more peoples heads (metaphorically) will somehow instantly make the world better, create more innovation, and etc etc etc. (There's actually some pretty good data backed evidence instead of gut feeling backed evidence that good social safety nets promote a healthier society that’s more innovative that came up in coursera's Michigan University Model Thinking class [https://www.coursera.org/course/modelthinking] https://www.coursera.org/course/modelthinking]) And he also buys into that false thinking of "yesterday was better" when he talks about "However, we bounded forward in the 1950s and 1960s thanks to a generation of scientists who did not just believe in a better future but invented it" and "The genuine progress in IT from the 1970s up to the 2000s masked the relative stagnation of energy, transportation, space, materials, agriculture and medicine." I don't buy this narrative at all for the reasons stated above. As I pointed out above, I don't buy his perceived stagnation and lack of innovation and I strongly don't buy into his current fears and solutions. Also, this is pretty much general libertarian/Peter Theil philosophy very loosely redressed to try and seem new and relevant in light of the recent election, but it's the same old view. In that light, some people agree with it, and some don't but there's nothing new here in this article either.

guylhem 14y ago
It's indeed an ideological reply, because for someone with a libertarian approach (like - me), the slowdown seems to match quite well the rise of the welfare state. "the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration towards one of safety and regulation" - that says it all. The competing ideology (let's say "progressive") cares about stuff like equality (ex: affirmative action) or safety (look at what you did as a kid, and what is allowed today) while most libertarians and conservative care about efficiency and freedom. Some equality and safety might be a god thing - but I worry much more about efficiency and freedom - a part of which is scientific progress. There's some basic differences here and there, but that is IMHO the core difference.
- mindstab 14y ago
  Part of me wants to debate this, point our correlation does not equal causation and ask for better evidence. (yeah, I know, cheap attempt at last word) But ultimately we probably won't be persuading each other and at this point the debate is useless. I've pointed out my problems with the article, and together we've at least distilled the problem people like we will have with the article (well stated by guylhem). I don't think much more progress can be made :) My critical reasoning and logic prof from Uni always said that logic is a fine thing for enhancing discourse but if you start with different world views, different axioms, no amount of logic can bridge that, it's just a tool for fixing smaller disputes. Thank's at least for more concisely summing up :)
  - guylhem 14y ago
    Thanks for your understanding. I don't want to push any ideology or debate on this - I just see a weird trend that other people seems to notice too, and I'd like to understand what is happening, regardless of whose ideology is used to explain that.
- tlb 14y ago
  Welfare may discourage ambition among the low- and middle-classes, but I don't believe it affects scientists or inventors. No one is debating the choice between living off welfare or solving the world's problem, and thinking "if welfare was just a bit cushier I could stop inventing".
  - guylhem 14y ago
    Let's talk about scientists and inventors - especially the world changing ones that are so rare. What if it had some effect? I mean, something small - but non zero? What if it did reduce their drive just enough that it made their rarity almost identical to an absence? Answer- we don't know. So far, the welfare state seems to have increased scientific output, but maybe there's a limit and too much welfare will damage it. (Think about Einstein on welfare with enough money not to care- would he have spent time as a patent office clerk? How important was this stint in becoming himself? What effect does it has on others?) We just don't know - maybe because the welfare state is too recent. With 50 more years, maybe we will notice differences? I'm only speculating - I'm not sure there is any answer. It's just something that bothering me a lot.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
This is his standard libertarian line. I don't think you are fairly representing Thiel. I don't think he is making libertarian points at all, since he seems to advocate in favor of big government projects (at least in principle). Indeed, it's tough to argue this is a libertarian point, since he criticizes the private sector for the exact same thing. I think his view is that this is just a cultural shift. http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-13-notes-essay http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels... There used to be all sorts of circulating ideas about large projects ...A 20th century example is Robert Moses, who in the 1920s simultaneously held twelve fairy high-level government posts...bulldoze neighborhoods, build roads and highways, and do a lot of planning and construction...From today’s perspective, this is crazy.

guylhem 14y ago

It's indeed an ideological reply, because for someone with a libertarian approach (like - me), the slowdown seems to match quite well the rise of the welfare state. "the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration towards one of safety and regulation" - that says it all. The competing ideology (let's say "progressive") cares about stuff like equality (ex: affirmative action) or safety (look at what you did as a kid, and what is allowed today) while most libertarians and conservative care about efficiency and freedom. Some equality and safety might be a god thing - but I worry much more about efficiency and freedom - a part of which is scientific progress. There's some basic differences here and there, but that is IMHO the core difference.

mindstab 14y ago
Part of me wants to debate this, point our correlation does not equal causation and ask for better evidence. (yeah, I know, cheap attempt at last word) But ultimately we probably won't be persuading each other and at this point the debate is useless. I've pointed out my problems with the article, and together we've at least distilled the problem people like we will have with the article (well stated by guylhem). I don't think much more progress can be made :) My critical reasoning and logic prof from Uni always said that logic is a fine thing for enhancing discourse but if you start with different world views, different axioms, no amount of logic can bridge that, it's just a tool for fixing smaller disputes. Thank's at least for more concisely summing up :)
- guylhem 14y ago
  Thanks for your understanding. I don't want to push any ideology or debate on this - I just see a weird trend that other people seems to notice too, and I'd like to understand what is happening, regardless of whose ideology is used to explain that.
tlb 14y ago
Welfare may discourage ambition among the low- and middle-classes, but I don't believe it affects scientists or inventors. No one is debating the choice between living off welfare or solving the world's problem, and thinking "if welfare was just a bit cushier I could stop inventing".
- guylhem 14y ago
  Let's talk about scientists and inventors - especially the world changing ones that are so rare. What if it had some effect? I mean, something small - but non zero? What if it did reduce their drive just enough that it made their rarity almost identical to an absence? Answer- we don't know. So far, the welfare state seems to have increased scientific output, but maybe there's a limit and too much welfare will damage it. (Think about Einstein on welfare with enough money not to care- would he have spent time as a patent office clerk? How important was this stint in becoming himself? What effect does it has on others?) We just don't know - maybe because the welfare state is too recent. With 50 more years, maybe we will notice differences? I'm only speculating - I'm not sure there is any answer. It's just something that bothering me a lot.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

This is his standard libertarian line. I don't think you are fairly representing Thiel. I don't think he is making libertarian points at all, since he seems to advocate in favor of big government projects (at least in principle). Indeed, it's tough to argue this is a libertarian point, since he criticizes the private sector for the exact same thing. I think his view is that this is just a cultural shift. http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-13-notes-essay http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels... There used to be all sorts of circulating ideas about large projects ...A 20th century example is Robert Moses, who in the 1920s simultaneously held twelve fairy high-level government posts...bulldoze neighborhoods, build roads and highways, and do a lot of planning and construction...From today’s perspective, this is crazy.