"People should become entrepreneurs because they want to solve problems, not because they want to be entrepreneurs." - Thiel This is an important distinction. Even in other fields, I think too many people fall in love with sexy titles like "entrepreneur" or "movie director" - when really those job titles are a result of enjoying and tinkering with certain problems. After watching this World Affairs Council, it seems glaringly obvious that we, as a planet, need to encourage and give funding to experts who are obsessed with problems like clean energy, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc., and genuinely feel a need to solve those problems. Unfortunately, as Thiel points out, Silicon Valley tech investors are not always incentivized to put their money into these "long game" ideas. Maybe higher ed is an area where we can make change. Why not give Ivy League universities extra money if they add a "Clean Energy Startup" curriculum? These are the projects we want the next Mark Zuckerberg working on.
I guess you’re too conservative (in the classic sense that a central authority must do it). The people who are obsessed with solving these problems are already doing it (I guess most of them are libertarians like Thiel). However, culture should change so more people are inspired to go after these problems with their heartblood. I have the impression the current culture rewards short term gratification (including most media and public life having become a mere entertainment provider) and punishes long term gratification. Real serious education is not valued. Where should people (especially conservative and not libertarian minded people) get their inspiration for a good future in the first place? Though, I may be in a conservative bias here.
I remember from my economics books a sentence where it was said that economies expand in either two ways - finding new resources (like land, oil) or advance in technology. Bolden is like a representative to finding new resources (colonizing mars & stuff) and Peter is like a representative to advancing technology. Somewhat fascinating when sometimes things line up so well.
I'm skeptical the extent "finding new resources" would be accomplished by "colonizing Mars." How Bolden lauded Obama's "challenge" in the talk as a counterargument to the gov't lack of big investment in science/technological growth reveals his bias and stupidity.
+Eriks Lapins Good insights. Here my view. I think between the two ways you mentioned, advancing technologies (doing more with less) is a better approach than finding new resources (getting more stuff) due to human nature of mismanagement of abundant resources and the environmental impact of waste. Also, there would be more territorial dispute over new resources (star-wars lol).. Think about it...
Simar Sran Yes, you are right. Problem with humans is that we will take the easy way and if advancing technologies turns out to be the harder one, then mars it is. Though currently yo me is seems that we will advance much more technologically before colonizing mars. Hopefully that will resolve some issues mentioned by you, Simar.
Gov funding does not work. Why? Because political profit is too superficial compared to $ profit. With one exception and that is war. When war threatens politicians directly (they will hang if they lose) they can focus on real and clear defined goals and put aside the notion of 'looking good'.
Regarding transportation. We have significantly reduced the need to move faster by the use of computers, video conferencing, and working/learning from home. I think physically moving your body to another location for work/education etc is becoming old.
Only Charles was trying to debate, and its not clear why. Peter was agreeing with him on many points and just offering his own views too. I think Charles does not like Peter and his insecurity showed
@@habibbialikafe339 Maybe. I believe that most people would take the opposite view of Thiel since his idea about stagnation is so different from the mainstream view that everyone hears all the time. Appeal to authority is a very real logical fallacy that is hard to break out of for most people, especially people in the system like Mr. Bolden, who's job it is to talk about how well NASA is doing with science and technological progress.
One of the reasons is people waste their time in Facebook, and their money buying shit in the web using paypal. Both companies Mr Thiel (a very smart person without a doubt) helped create
Charles insecurity of Peter's success and intelligence really shows. He is probably used to being the smartest in the room. Dude was trying to argue with everything Peter said and Peter was just not giving into it at all lol.
The only solution for America is more people Like Peter and Elon or Einstein if you will and they come from overseas. So accept this and stay out of the way if you can not contribute ina positive way.
Thiel seems to keep skipping over mitigating or even positive aspects in the narrative, like Bolden's comeback supporting Obama's tech support. Isn't it just such a sort of depressive take to say e.g. there's been no progress in computing in 40 years? I agree with the guy - I think the arguments and framing are brilliant - but it's not helpful to be on such a straight line down the chart.
i understand lot of young men being promoted by their Peomeo's:) i understand Tesla group doing new Bold inventions but what does this young man has done except putting money in start ups what else? any difference made anywhere any life, what philanthropy which is visible
OMG government bureaucrat-speak... I can tell the general is a brilliant guy. But geeez, these government ppl all sound the same.... booooooooring. They cant help themselves 😁
Msg to developed world: You think you have high IQ?... you chose to build weapons of mass destruction instead of solve energy, health, disease, education, poverty.
If Peter Thiel is such a philantropist, why didn't he contact the poor people in the USA to find out how to help them? I mean to speak with them in person. Then he could develop more compassion. Growth means that you will have more than before. Is that what we have now not enough? Like Warren Buffett sayed, the problem are the super rich people. These super rich people spend their money for purposes they believe are the best. These purposes are not always the best for the people who really need help. So, money should be democratized. To push the technology and automation forward means there will be more jobs destroyed than created. This will not close the gap between rich and poor. An increasing gap between the rich and poor people results in a criminal, unhappy society. A higher taxation and redistribution of money is working like an insurance to keep the inner peace of the society and reduces this gap. But, the most Americans don't want what makes them happy. I like the technological progress. But, the wealth should be shared fairly. Per example in Germany, the people have free access to higher education.
Andreas M. Because Peter Thiel isn't an expert in philanthropy, he's an expert in investing in innovative companies and thats where he spends his time. That's same with Warren Buffett, he's an expert in investing so he spends his time there and hires philanthropic organizations to handle his charity money.
Peter Thiel has more than enough money. He could spend more and I would never call a supporter of Donald Trump a philantropist. To spend some cents to some charity organizations is the irresponsible way which will not solve the problem. This kind of spending is an ego trip. Yes, with a direct contact to needy people he could develop compassion and to call him a philantropist would be no more a lie. I saw some month ago a German TV documentation about the Maori, the native New Zealand people. If they can, they spend 90% of that what they own. The result is that there are no extremly rich and no poor people. This kind of mentality would help our Western civilization.
Andreas M. There's a reason they're native New Zealand people and not a global superpower, when someone very rich redistributes most of their money, it doesn't get reinvested back into the economy and therefore the country doesn't progress. When money gets redistributed, it usually ends up in the hands of those who do not put it to good use. I do agree that the income inequality isn't good and will reach a tipping point but I think redistributing wealth will just reset the cycle of Paretos Principle instead of fix the problem for good.
@Alen Saric: Yes, inequality to a certain point can be necessary for economic growth. That means, it's OK to have success, if you can square it with your conscience. But, this success should be shared to keep the equality of opportunities. To become rich is not reproduceable for all people. That means people without luck should be supported. The social capitalism of Germany with a governmental health insurance refutes your statement that distributed money usually ends up in the hands of those who do not put it to good use. The German institute for economic research showed, that taxes and social transfers reduce the Gini coefficient. But, this has to be done efficiently. So, there should be a mixture between the capitalism of the USA and the Maori society. But, let me show me an example about Peter Thiel's irresponsiblilty: He is spending money to people with a business idea who give up their studies. There are some examples like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg where breaking off the studies resulted in a success. But, studies show, the majority is more successful with a study degree. I come to the conclusion, when the most money is owned by a minority, it usually ends up in the hands of those who do not put it to good use.
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
I could listen to Thiel 100 hours non stop except for naps and food
I can skip naps and food!
@@hindenburgminsky7638 I can skip Peter Thiel.
Always brilliant, he's America's top intellectual
"People should become entrepreneurs because they want to solve problems, not because they want to be entrepreneurs." - Thiel
This is an important distinction. Even in other fields, I think too many people fall in love with sexy titles like "entrepreneur" or "movie director" - when really those job titles are a result of enjoying and tinkering with certain problems.
After watching this World Affairs Council, it seems glaringly obvious that we, as a planet, need to encourage and give funding to experts who are obsessed with problems like clean energy, cancer, Alzheimer's, etc., and genuinely feel a need to solve those problems.
Unfortunately, as Thiel points out, Silicon Valley tech investors are not always incentivized to put their money into these "long game" ideas. Maybe higher ed is an area where we can make change. Why not give Ivy League universities extra money if they add a "Clean Energy Startup" curriculum? These are the projects we want the next Mark Zuckerberg working on.
We're not a planet, and the kind of politically driven investment you're describing is always an utter failure.
I guess you’re too conservative (in the classic sense that a central authority must do it). The people who are obsessed with solving these problems are already doing it (I guess most of them are libertarians like Thiel).
However, culture should change so more people are inspired to go after these problems with their heartblood.
I have the impression the current culture rewards short term gratification (including most media and public life having become a mere entertainment provider) and punishes long term gratification. Real serious education is not valued.
Where should people (especially conservative and not libertarian minded people) get their inspiration for a good future in the first place?
Though, I may be in a conservative bias here.
The White House should create a private board of directors headed by Thiel.
Well he is part of Trump's transition team now. Nice one, Nostradamus.
I remember from my economics books a sentence where it was said that economies expand in either two ways - finding new resources (like land, oil) or advance in technology. Bolden is like a representative to finding new resources (colonizing mars & stuff) and Peter is like a representative to advancing technology. Somewhat fascinating when sometimes things line up so well.
Thanks for watching! We appreciate your comment and insight.
World Affairs Council Thanks for noticing, I didn't expect.
I'm skeptical the extent "finding new resources" would be accomplished by "colonizing Mars." How Bolden lauded Obama's "challenge" in the talk as a counterargument to the gov't lack of big investment in science/technological growth reveals his bias and stupidity.
+Eriks Lapins Good insights. Here my view. I think between the two ways you mentioned, advancing technologies (doing more with less) is a better approach than finding new resources (getting more stuff) due to human nature of mismanagement of abundant resources and the environmental impact of waste. Also, there would be more territorial dispute over new resources (star-wars lol).. Think about it...
Simar Sran
Yes, you are right. Problem with humans is that we will take the easy way and if advancing technologies turns out to be the harder one, then mars it is. Though currently yo me is seems that we will advance much more technologically before colonizing mars. Hopefully that will resolve some issues mentioned by you, Simar.
Thanks! You gotta believe everyone came her for Thiel
Thiel starts at 19:00
Gov funding does not work.
Why? Because political profit is too superficial compared to $ profit.
With one exception and that is war. When war threatens politicians directly (they will hang if they lose) they can focus on real and clear defined goals and put aside the notion of 'looking good'.
Its amazing how much the lense of politics shapes what they are saying.
Regarding transportation. We have significantly reduced the need to move faster by the use of computers, video conferencing, and working/learning from home. I think physically moving your body to another location for work/education etc is becoming old.
Please study-Dr. William Li. Dr. Bruce Lipton thanks
+10 points of respect for pronouncing Russian surname with the proper "-ov" suffix instead of Hollywood "-off"
There are sites on RUclips-that know how to deal with trash and make products and brands from it. Thanks
Too bad Peter Thiel's sound is somewhat low.
This wasn't exactly a debate, but it almost felt like it. Charles Bolden did much better than most Peter debates
Only Charles was trying to debate, and its not clear why. Peter was agreeing with him on many points and just offering his own views too. I think Charles does not like Peter and his insecurity showed
@@habibbialikafe339 Maybe. I believe that most people would take the opposite view of Thiel since his idea about stagnation is so different from the mainstream view that everyone hears all the time. Appeal to authority is a very real logical fallacy that is hard to break out of for most people, especially people in the system like Mr. Bolden, who's job it is to talk about how well NASA is doing with science and technological progress.
One of the reasons is people waste their time in Facebook, and their money buying shit in the web using paypal. Both companies Mr Thiel (a very smart person without a doubt) helped create
people will always find things to waste their time on lol. that is just human nature
Its 2022, 8 more years.
Charles insecurity of Peter's success and intelligence really shows. He is probably used to being the smartest in the room. Dude was trying to argue with everything Peter said and Peter was just not giving into it at all lol.
The only solution for America is more people Like Peter and Elon or Einstein if you will and they come from overseas. So accept this and stay out of the way if you can not contribute ina positive way.
Thank you :-)
Thiel seems to keep skipping over mitigating or even positive aspects in the narrative, like Bolden's comeback supporting Obama's tech support. Isn't it just such a sort of depressive take to say e.g. there's been no progress in computing in 40 years? I agree with the guy - I think the arguments and framing are brilliant - but it's not helpful to be on such a straight line down the chart.
yea but if you overly disclaimerize people lose the gist of the statement that there is definitely more work to be done
SB "EXCEPT in computing in 40 years"
i understand lot of young men being promoted by their Peomeo's:) i understand Tesla group doing new Bold inventions but what does this young man has done except putting money in start ups what else? any difference made anywhere any life, what philanthropy which is visible
OMG government bureaucrat-speak... I can tell the general is a brilliant guy. But geeez, these government ppl all sound the same.... booooooooring. They cant help themselves 😁
Thiel 19:00
Bolden looks like a fool in the shadow of Thiel. Lol.
the space race having been reset and infused with new tech make this an exciting time to be alive.
read: private money
Just in case anyone didn't know, Peter Thiel is gay.
Msg to developed world: You think you have high IQ?... you chose to build weapons of mass destruction instead of solve energy, health, disease, education, poverty.
Creeps.
If Peter Thiel is such a philantropist, why didn't he contact the poor people in the USA to find out how to help them? I mean to speak with them in person. Then he could develop more compassion. Growth means that you will have more than before. Is that what we have now not enough? Like Warren Buffett sayed, the problem are the super rich people. These super rich people spend their money for purposes they believe are the best. These purposes are not always the best for the people who really need help. So, money should be democratized. To push the technology and automation forward means there will be more jobs destroyed than created. This will not close the gap between rich and poor. An increasing gap between the rich and poor people results in a criminal, unhappy society. A higher taxation and redistribution of money is working like an insurance to keep the inner peace of the society and reduces this gap. But, the most Americans don't want what makes them happy. I like the technological progress. But, the wealth should be shared fairly. Per example in Germany, the people have free access to higher education.
Andreas M. Because Peter Thiel isn't an expert in philanthropy, he's an expert in investing in innovative companies and thats where he spends his time. That's same with Warren Buffett, he's an expert in investing so he spends his time there and hires philanthropic organizations to handle his charity money.
Peter Thiel has more than enough money. He could spend more and I would never call a supporter of Donald Trump a philantropist. To spend some cents to some charity organizations is the irresponsible way which will not solve the problem. This kind of spending is an ego trip. Yes, with a direct contact to needy people he could develop compassion and to call him a philantropist would be no more a lie. I saw some month ago a German TV documentation about the Maori, the native New Zealand people. If they can, they spend 90% of that what they own. The result is that there are no extremly rich and no poor people. This kind of mentality would help our Western civilization.
Andreas M. There's a reason they're native New Zealand people and not a global superpower, when someone very rich redistributes most of their money, it doesn't get reinvested back into the economy and therefore the country doesn't progress. When money gets redistributed, it usually ends up in the hands of those who do not put it to good use. I do agree that the income inequality isn't good and will reach a tipping point but I think redistributing wealth will just reset the cycle of Paretos Principle instead of fix the problem for good.
@Alen Saric: Yes, inequality to a certain point can be necessary for economic growth. That means, it's OK to have success, if you can square it with your conscience. But, this success should be shared to keep the equality of opportunities. To become rich is not reproduceable for all people. That means people without luck should be supported. The social capitalism of Germany with a governmental health insurance refutes your statement that distributed money usually ends up in the hands of those who do not put it to good use. The German institute for economic research showed, that taxes and social transfers reduce the Gini coefficient. But, this has to be done efficiently. So, there should be a mixture between the capitalism of the USA and the Maori society. But, let me show me an example about Peter Thiel's irresponsiblilty: He is spending money to people with a business idea who give up their studies. There are some examples like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg where breaking off the studies resulted in a success. But, studies show, the majority is more successful with a study degree. I come to the conclusion, when the most money is owned by a minority, it usually ends up in the hands of those who do not put it to good use.
u r juz stupid or lack a fuck amount of information on how world works, rich for lack of the better world are saviour