Slashdot Mirror
Co-Founder of PayPal Peter Thiel: Society Is Hostile To Science and Technology
dcblogs writes Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal, billionaire investor and author, says "we live in a financial, capitalistic age, we do not live in a scientific or technological age. We live in a period where people generally dislike science and technology. Our culture dislikes it, our government dislikes it. The easiest way to see "how hostile our society is to technology" is to look at Hollywood. Movies "all show technology that doesn't work, that ... kills people, that it is bad for the world," said Thiel. He argues that corporations and the U.S. government are failing at complex planning.
Yes, hostile to tchnology like spell checkers....
Do you have ESP?
When high tech companies offshore cash to avoid taxes, it is no wonder people don't trust the technology. They don't trust the technology companies.
This Thiel character has been all over the place these past couple of weeks - talk shows, opinion columns, etc. He is a real techno-cornucopian cheerleader, but does not seem to be a particularly deep thinker.
The man simply doesn't understand the need for conflict in a plot. If you have a movie about a super computer, there needs to be something to work against. The computer takes over or fails spectacularly. This in no way indicates that this is society's view of computers.
Our leader removed the minister for science! He has reduced funding for our science organization CSIRO ( The one that invented wifi among many other successes ), condemned renewable energy and promoted coal, destroyed our manufacturing sector and is pushing to make university only for the rich. All in the span of a year, impressive really.
And don't forget the scary parts.
Almost every week you read about another "hacked" company that just lost your credit card number and all your identifying information. Hope you changed all your passwords.
Will the people who "stole" your credit card ever be caught? No.
Will the people who decided NOT to protect it ever be punished? No.
Is there anything you can do? Aside from using cash everywhere? Not really.
Ideology kills and oppresses; no religion needed either.
It's wishful thinking. Technology should have produced a world without want, sickness or fear, where no one need labor for their own survival. Instead all that ingenuity went into devising new ways to oppress and kill our fellow man.
Actually you're exactly what he's talking about. Technology has gone a massive way towards reducing famine and sickness. I mean think about it:
- Some people actually argue that human natural selection has ended because medical technology is so good now that people rarely ever die from natural causes unless they're either very old or neglect their own health (e.g. drug abuse.) Contrast to 150 years ago where virtually any sort of serious injury often included death or dismemberment. People nowadays can be born with serious inherited diseases (e.g. cystic fibrosis) and even have kids where in the past that would have been impossible.
- The green revolution (that is, agricultural technology) has turned famine into a distant memory. The root cause of any starvation these days is almost always a 100% political one (e.g. some local warlord or government is deliberately limiting the food supply.)
In spite of the above, you prefer to subscribe to the Hollywood model where technology is only ever used for bad things. As far want and fear, no amount of technology will ever eliminate as those are just part of human nature. I'd actually be more concerned if we did get rid of those, as the only means of doing so would involve altering the person's mind (mind control is another way of putting it; think like the movie Equilibrium.)
I'd say religion is a special instance of ideology.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is the guy behind PayPal talking. Before PayPal, he traded derivatives. After PayPal, he ran a hedge fund. He says "We live in a financial, capitalistic age, we do not live in a scientific or technological age," said Thiel. "We live in a period were people generally dislike science and technology. Our culture dislikes it, our government dislikes it."
He's pointing out that runaway capitalism and finance is the problem. He ought to know.
We used to have a simpler, and more locked-down, financial system in the US. Banks accepted deposits, lent money, and handled cash. They weren't allowed to buy and sell stocks. Trading derivatives was definitely out. Brokers did stock transactions for others; brokerage firms didn't trade much for their own accounts. There were mutual funds, regulated by the SEC. Houses were financed mostly by savings and loan companies, which were mostly local and sent people out to check on building sites.
This worked well until the Reagan years, and the beginnings of financial deregulation. S&L and bank executives wanted the freedom to take more risks with other people's money. Within a few years of S&L deregulation, the savings and loan industry tanked. Within a few years of bank deregulation, the banking industry tanked. There's kind of a pattern there.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Those who wield technology are, therefore, akin to magicians. People are amazed by magicians but they also don't trust what they don't understand.
Most people don't understand the commitment required to be a good technologist, they just want you to fix their computer during the dinner they invited you to. How may times have you heard the "I'm not very good with computers" line? Even more how many time have you met someone with "the next great idea to make millions" and all they need is some dumb monkey coder to do the actual *work* for them? The general expectation is that you'll do it for them but just watch their face if you ask them to tile your bathroom or do a similar amount of *work*.
I think Thiel is right. I'm uncertain if people actually deserve a gift like information technology and the internet which is powerful enough to enslave or free humanity. Frankly people are so vapid and apathetic they are simply driving us to a technology driven dystopia from the sheer weight of idiocracy. The worst thing about it is that myself and every technologist I know is being dragged along, kicking and screaming, with them - fully aware of the consequences.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I agree that it's distrust. This started a while back, when it started becoming obvious that technology was going to replace a lot of jobs. When robotic arms become a reality (and now they have eyes too!) and start moving the material onto the machine you used to load, then people start thinking about it differently. But they still loved it because it had only replaced the most menial jobs and was actually thanked for eliminating these tasks at home and work.
Then it started doing things better than the best craftsman. And faster. While craftsmen numbers fell, machine repairmen numbers did not keep up (otherwise what's the point?). This is when distrust began. But it was only a few that had been replaced and they were not heard as the technology had brought great fun and even provided quite a few other jobs.
But lately technology is replacing many different types of jobs. Salesman, accountants, and general office help (which ironically was only ever a job thanks to technology) joined the ranks of the blue collar machinist as those that had been replaced by a computer. At this point distrust is growing among many, but still the new gadgets and joys - and affordable too - are keeping dislike to a minimum.
And this is only from one perspective. The next would be the interruptions it brought.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
Start there. Read the whole thing, don't just cherry pick looking for proof of your statement.
Since the first half of that page is about the history of Famine (which most of it is history at this point in time) the only relevant bits are anything *after* the green revolution, as per what I stated, so I'll "skip" to this point, thank you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Even so, I don't see any causes listed there that aren't political. Since you're so keen on using wikipedia to make your case, then I'll point you to this line:
Food shortages in a population are caused either by a lack of food or by difficulties in food distribution; it may be worsened by natural climate fluctuations and by extreme political conditions related to oppressive government or warfare.
Now if you read on further, the "lack of food" mentioned is mainly this:
Food shortages in a population are caused either by a lack of food or by difficulties in food distribution; it may be worsened by natural climate fluctuations and by extreme political conditions related to oppressive government or warfare. The conventional explanation until 1981 for the cause of famines was the Food availability decline (FAD) hypothesis. The assumption was that the central cause of all famines was a decline in food availability.[132] However, FAD could not explain why only a certain section of the population such as the agricultural laborer was affected by famines while others were insulated from famines.[133] Based on the studies of some recent famines, the decisive role of FAD has been questioned and it has been suggested that the causal mechanism for precipitating starvation includes many variables other than just decline of food availability. According to this view, famines are a result of entitlements, the theory being proposed is called the "failure of exchange entitlements" or FEE.[133] A person may own various commodities that can be exchanged in a market economy for the other commodities he or she needs. The exchange can happen via trading or production or through a combination of the two. These entitlements are called trade-based or production-based entitlements. Per this proposed view, famines are precipitated due to a breakdown in the ability of the person to exchange his entitlements.[133] An example of famines due to FEE is the inability of an agricultural laborer to exchange his primary entitlement, i.e., labor for rice when his employment became erratic or was completely eliminated.[133]
According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), global climate change is additionally challenging the Earth's ability to produce food, potentially leading to famine.[134]
Some elements make a particular region more vulnerable to famine. These include poverty, population growth,[135] an inappropriate social infrastructure, a suppressive political regime, and a weak or under-prepared government.[136]
Thank you.
And you fail at trolling by the way.
Sorry, your statements are not as axiomatic as you think.
If the world is mathematically a chaotic place I would love to see the mathematical prove for that. So far we got no further to say the world is complex and there are some chaotic processes. Chaotic would be akin to the claim that any fraction of a number, say Pi must eventually repeat itself or follow a descernable pattern. The other is saying (much less strict) it is a really long string of numbers, that might have come about for reasons that may be beyond the original domain (math).
The butterfly effect is a chaotic process. There is no prove the appeareance of a Black Swan is chaotic. If you referring to Taleb's book by the same name: What he describes is an interaction effect in complexity: Something extraordinary happens, the effects are negative so we are 'programmed' to want to fit it into reason. No chaos, just complexity hitting us over the head.
Complex planning does not necessary fail. Governments fail at it more often, because most others can revise planning, stop, alter goals or change paths to those goals. Government needs to meet utilitarian expectations, at least in a democracy and it needs to be predictable (at least follow prior law) so it is hampered changing plans.
The best solution, proven empirically, is laissez-faire. I concede that "best" means different things to different people.
That is always true. It is almost a commercial: "The best solution, proven emperically, is product 'X'. I concede that 'best' means different things to different people." That is just because 'emperical' as being seen in the real world and 'best' a subjective qualification in a hypothesis are inherently problematic.
When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s science culture was popular in the US. People looked forward to new discoveries and gadgets and careers in science. Big industry did need to be restrained by environmentalists and that did mostly work in the US. Then young people got seduced by higher paying jobs in finance, an industry that doesnt really create much else than money.
When I travel in China I see the pro-science and technology attitudes of my youth. It i s refreshing.