my notes to self for future reference 1:20 peter starts, antonym of diversity is university... quadruple negative... classical liberalism... 3:00 stanford background - debating western canon, western civilization, jesse jackson, rigoberta menchu, "i had completed her victimization", 7:00 university is about progress... technocratic defense, manhattan project, apollo space program, 9:15 bob laughlin, nobel prize physics, delusion of academic freedom. darwinism, intelligence, genetics... he was convinced that research was fraudulent. he got defunded. hermaneutic suspicion - if something is this taboo, this forbidden, you have to ask some questions 10:49 general thesis: there's something about science and tech that's not progressing as quickly. specialization makes it hard to evaluate. sub-specialists propagandize. we seem stuck... when you have fields that include "science" that's inferiority complex, because you don't need to say physical science, chemical science. computer science somehow worked 13:00 story of general stagnation. younger generation low economic expectation. doesn't fit with kurzweilian panglossian sit back and watch the future unfold. what's up with that 14:25 how NYT wrote about manhattan project - free market libertarian type people, didnt believe that science should be run by military, but military was able to invent the device in 3.5 short years instead of what might've been 50 years. everything is now stalled out beyond belief. why did it stall out? what happened? what went wrong? my PC answer is, why questions are overdetermined. too much regulation (FDA in biotech). blame education? govt funding? zombie central left establishment. "Science and tech are too dangerous" - what looks like a bug, no more progress, is a feature. we should be happy that STEM is not progressing, because STEM is a giant trap that humanity is building for itself. x-risk. original version re: nukes. charles manson, what did he see on LSD? world is coming to an end, dostoyevsky, everything is permitted. 18:00 there is some dangerous dual use... every tool is also a weapon. why can't we have ticker tape parades for individuals. scientists who developed the MRNA vaccine. cultural existentian fear. orwellian term, gain of function research. if you can manipulate DNA... terrific destructive weapons 19:50 tech is a strange word. started in computers. AI, AGI. 20 years ago, narrative was still generally positive-utopian. misgivings about rockets, nuclear, etc people didn't have about AI initially. Singularity Institute... accelerationist utopian pov. 2015, didn't feel like people were pushing AI thing as fast as before. devolved into escapist burning man camp. shifted from transhumanism to luddite. Apr2022, yudkowsky... "death with dignity strategy". (that was an aprils fool post, lol) 23:00 greta and autistic children's crusade. none of the solutions involve more technologies. not fusion reactors, not better anti-ballistic systems. most of these people are insufficiently apocalyptic. 25:00 bostrom... mouthpiest of the zeitgeist... 2019, 'vulnerable world hypothesis', runaway nanotech, bioweapons. 1. restrict tech dev. 2. minimize diversity(?), 3. establish effective world police, 4, effective world governance. basically totalitarianism. 27:00 we should not hide. global totalitarian state is also an x-risk. always needs to be fought. the slogan of the antichrist is peace and safety. we're told there's nothing worse than armageddon, but maybe there is. end of speech, Q&A next...
Q & A 29:00 is tech dev cedeing ground to tech cos? is that a problem? A: problem of concentration, yes, but bigger problem is stagnation. late modernity… pin factory, adam smith… the promise is that you’ll be an every smaller cog in bigger machine… is that even true? we’re told that progress is being made. hyperspecialization with no accountability 31:15: communist china - fairly low tech, computers doing it but there are always people behind the communities. we can debate whether ai is conscious or intelligence, but the political question is how does it get used. maybe it’s merely evil. the tech tilts towards surveillance. and there’s always some totalitarian that can’t stand behind it. if people say crypto is libertarian, then why can’t we say ai is communist? pro acceleration, pro ai, pro tech… but misgivings 34:00 Q: supposedly individual satisfaction decreasing. why? A: i believe the econ numbers more than the self-serving story. narrow cone of progress around world of bits, not enough to meaningfully GDP/capita to take civ to next level. IANA luddite. argues science lockdown 40-50 years. luddites were right about several things but wrong at least in military context. self-destructive and parochial. 36:00 Q: tech driven by war? A: big part of it yea, and also a big part of what went wrong with it. we need future that’s not dystopian, not luddite, not doomsday, not totalitarian lockdown 37:16 why stagnation scary? downfall of US/west supremacy? A: yes bad, it will derange our societies if growth stops. zero sum racket. loser for every winner. not necessarily gets you to socialist distribution. kept going by inertia. don’t trust that its a stable outcome. 38:15 india? china? A: difference in developing countries is they have story of convergence, some program where they can copy and catch up. but even if they succeed and catch up, they will run into the same problems. i don’t wanna move to china. best case for china is they copy us. there are worse cases 39:22 how address stagnation? A, i always believe in human freedom, agency, invest in tech, strong conviction that these are not laws of nature. the cupboard has not run out. people are too scared of tech. trying to steel man. 40:36 is society pursuing wrong kinds of diversity? diversity is not merely hiring space cantina extras, people who look different and think alike. genuine diversity of thoughts, that’s not inimical to university, search for truth. we neither have true diversity nor true university. multicultural multiversity is a strange superposition of hyper-relativistic, hyper-nihilistic, hyper-totalitarian. you could say they’re logically contradictory, and there’s an analysis for why they go together, but that s very complicated. 42:20 problems of PC, decline of uni, is this accelerating? A: they’re not isolated from broader society, but what i didn’t connect 30years ago was that i thought it was narrow… i now see them as deeply connected with econ, sci, tech progress. win-win solutions, things don’t need to be malthusian. when 10 chem grads are fighting over 1 position, and one gets thrown out for saying something un-PC, that’s a relief to the remaining 9 44:00 free speech under threat? A: yes, pressure… what is behind it? even if all channels were open, pipes not clogged, what would actually be flowing through it? restrictions are bad but they’re actually distracting us from people not having much to say 45:20 PayPal q, did it achieve its goals? crypto? A: there was a hope, fantasy, that computers would decentralise things. cypherpunk, crypto-anarchist… tech has been centralising, big tech, big govt. its not intrinsic… big can mean strong or fat… crypto represent hope that things go back other way. if i had to bet, we’re at an extreme of centralisation rn 47:00 why back trump? do u regret? A: ask me again in 10 yrs. i would’ve been pro-brexit in the UK. deep conviction that everything is off-track, too stagnant. scream for help? did it help bring stagnation debates? jury’s still out. 48:45 why didn’t it work? A: its hard lol. it’s not all about talk. sophistry is belief in omnipotence of speech. i can tell myself that giving a talk here helps, but delusional if that’s all it takes 50:30 is funding in politics healthy? A: have a schizoid view, toxic, but it permeates everything. it’s shocking how little people spend on politics. its important. if individuals aren’t funding politicians…. i would prefer to do away with it altogether but that’s too utopian 52:30 political engagement… you could say that about investing in science, free speech, media platforms. becomes question about inequality generally. i don’t think inequality is our biggest problem, i think its stagnation. 53:30 its hard to change things. politics or anywhere else. i wish i could just spend $ and get a cure for cancer. translation function is shockingly weak. 55:00 some tech is exciting, some isn’t, stagnation isn’t exciting to anyone… how are you contributing to solving technology. A: my day job is VC, try to invest in biz that are successful + positive externalities for the world. its hard outside computers/IT. i also try talking about it. 56:40 free speech - do you regret anything you’ve written? does that influence? regret is ambiguous word. speaking is dangerous, writing more so. 1980s hoover institution, writing a book is more dangerous than having a child. if child turns out badly you can disown the child, you can’t disown anything you’ve written. i probably say more than i should, and less than i might have a mind to 58:09 given that the right dominates mainstream culture, why isn’t the right producing great art? what means? its hard! stale conservative argument that hollywood machine doesn’t allow dissenting central-left-zombie-straightjacket productions. when we frame these things too ideologically, you lose sight of how hard it is. is it a crazed left-wing racket? maybe. most most of everything is meh 1:00:30 what is your solution to climate? i tend not to agree with the model - marxist analysis of measuring input - interested in measuring output. govt spending. energy tech: want things cheaper, cleaner, and we’re not tending towards that (?). 95% luddite, 5% accelerations. keep thermostat down and wear as water. not enough excitement for working on thorium. 1:02:00 NHS is a state operation, how would you fix it? theory vs practice. dictator vs mayor. theory you’d rip it from the ground up, in practice you have to make it backward compatible. first step - what seems odd to outsider is stockholm syndrome re: NHS, people think its the most wonderful thing. first step is to understand it as an iatrogenic institution. schools make people dumb, nhs makes people sick. first step you have to get out of the SS. those are my intuitions. Q: market mechnisms = privatise further? A: some elements 1:06:20 advice? debates are important, but they’re also just the first step. take action
"I probably say more than I should, and less than I have the mind to." -With regards to a question on if he has regrets over what he's said in his past and what he believes now.
Reminds me of "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve" in the Lord of the Rings.
He calls himself a libertarian, but his company Palantir Technologies works with the intelligence agencies. His court philosopher Curtis Yarvin cites Singapore and Dubai as political models for the West. The "libertarian" President of Argentina Javier Milei is implementing AI policing. "Libertarian" Elon Musk is developing Neuralink.
He's made the argument in the past that the apparent 'targeted' nature of Palantir is the lesser evil, where the 'dragnet everything' approach of states is far worse. Hard to know how true it is.
@@seanpierre1338 We actually somewhat do now thanks to Assange. But to answer your question, no neither the CIA or Thiel are on our side. Surveillance is awful, whether it's government or corporate.
31:20. This is a completely uninformed question. - Most algorithms are not written by white men in the Northern hemisphere. They are written by non-white people in China, Japan or Korea, and by non-white people in the USA. - Algorithms do not have a bias dominated by the person who writes the algorithm. If the questioner had ever written a classifier, a generator or a recommender system, they would know that the presumption is wrong.
Exactly, you can't write into code a bias for or against any race or identity political dimension -- the data set used to train the algo can contain a bias, but that depends on your training data.
@@oxfordageingnetwork-oxagen9267 Totally on point. In most ML courses these days, there is a compulsory PC course about political bias. What do they want us to do ? "Just be aware of it". Well in the vanishingly unlikely event that I'm ever asked to classify people as criminal/not criminal, then I'll probably have to take note. But even then I'd have to check to see which direction the bias was in - and then I'd be introducing my own bias. So I'm better off doing my job properly - analysing the data as presented, and not trying to become a political activist.
Simply, Thiel is right, and I think his thesis is correct. Those who discard him based on his politics etc haven't really listened to what he's been arguing for years. We are in a stagnant era based on fear.
Almost nothing has came of universities for decades. All the new tech is from companies, all in computing and a bit in electronics. Academics play the game of the number of citations, the funding of their labs and protection of their fiefdom.
@@alexforget this is just objectively wrong almost every single innovation that mattered has its origin in the universities. Crispr, neural networks,the internet,sequencing of the genome, euv lithography, etc. capitalists like theil build their businesses on the backs of publicly funded research without giving due credit and then go in front of the simpletons hyping up how the capitalist billionaires are ‘genius inventors’
@@alexforget A. Every major founder of a tech company created the company with his/her first group of friends at university. He literally talks about his time at Stanford at the beginning. This guy is as silver-spooned as it gets, his dad was rich as fuck and was given the best educational opportunities his whole life. B. University comes from the enlightenment ideal (the ideal our founding fathers fought for) that the average citizen should be educated to believe the same liberal ideals. So that when we vote, we know what we’re voting for. It comes from the Ancient Greek/Roman Liberalis Ars. Conclusion: This guy is a total fraud. Just because he’s rich through tech doesn’t mean he’s sociologist. He seems like an unhinged billionaire who, undoubtedly is very smart, gets his info from the world from 80s movies. Sorry, he’s just one guy and he should’ve talked about his area of expertise which is web design and business management, not all this other BS
In a fully interconnected global system, a single failure can take the whole system down. This is why distributed systems are superior. Even in a distributed system, given a finite mean-time-between failure for each component, if the system is sufficiently complex, it will spend more time broken down than running. With software involved, it is even worse ... since programming is an art not a science.
Both the host's and the audience's questions all have a tone of "Peter, why do you say such controversial things." You can tell they are in Britain/a university
Very interesting. However, I think the real problem is that although we have increased our knowledge exponentially in the past centuries, we have become no wiser than we were thousands of years ago.
Absolutely. Wisdom cannot be gained the same way knowledge can. I read countless incredible books when I was a teen, but didn't truly understand those books until I went through certain things that taught me what those books were trying to convey. We are good at passing knowledge to next generations, but so far we have no way to do the same with wisdom. Wisdom still has to be obtained through practical experience.
It’s cause wisdom is a learned practice that must be exercised daily. Knowledge is just the recording of history and our experience (what stuff works/ doesn’t work)
Yep. Forced to take some bullshit communications class with my applied math degree. Litterally it was all blatant pseudo science. Felt like someone gave ChatGPT a prompt to spew out big words and make it sound smart. The math/science courses were the most easiest and straight forward. English required you to constantly suck off and meatride your TA's and Prof, and bend all your political views to their side or else they give you an C- for "not having a strong argument".
@@lynnefox4892 he’s saying that universities & other institutions of “classical liberalism” should: - stop shunning outside-the-box thinking (ie. have diversity of ideas) - stop complaining that the world has problems while shouting down people who come up with solutions -should stop promoting anti-progress views toward technology I missed some points but this is the core of what he’s getting at, and he chose this as his topic because he specifically wants to wake up universities to how problematic their heterodox ideology has slowed progress in so many areas of society, especially in technology. He argues technological progress is a good thing.
Love the intelligent insight Thiel brings to these panels/forums. I also love that he has a mild air of anxiety about him at all times: he has the courage to be uncertain in his beliefs.
@@normalnick9693 He’s probably one of those guys, yeah. The ‘anti-anti anti-anti’ bugged me. That’s sophistry. That made me grimace while I watched it.
“ The highways create traffic jams, welfare creates poverty, schools makes people dumb, and Medicare makes people sick“ - does anyone know who said that originally? Or is a Thiel original?
It seems one thing all those social problems have in common is bureaucracy. While I don't believe a power vacuum would help ordinary people, I do believe curbing the power of entrenched and anxious bureaucrats would help everybody, including the overworked bureaucrats.
Not really. He’s just some rich guy who’s been a billionaire so long he seems like he’s good at everything. It’s obvious he’s a smart guy, but is he smart at everything… obviously not. I’m sure he could talk about business and web design stuff and I would’ve been totally lost. He should talk what he actually is an expert on. But instead he talked about stuff I actually know about and his broader social commentaries scream “I’ve had the exact same views from 18 and have never changed them because I was born rich then got significantly richer by 25 so why mature/improve myself?”
Decentralization and voluntary association is the only path forward. Universities have always been extensions of central governments, whether the relationship is overt or covert. Private corporations also use governments to coerce the public to accept certain technologies to their own detriment.
I used to be a fan of libertarianism/decentralization. But for the past few months I've come to realize that we need some level of centralization. The first principle error that I have found in libertarianism is the claim that human beings have free will. I don't think we do. I no longer believe that decentralization is an unmitigated good. Think of it like an umbrella curve. Too much centralization is bad and so is too much decentralization. There are pitfalls on both ends. I don't think what Thiel or Balaji Srinivasan are advocating is gonna work. We have to recognize our tragic existence and live for all eternity constantly struggling to calibrate ourselves between both extremes.
Peter Thiel is the man. Wish he got better questions and perhaps a better moderator. The questions asked seemed like they weren't really listening to what he was saying or even knew he who was.
Peter reminds me of our medical "science" in the USA. The USA is by any measure the most obese country on planet Earth. Our medical economy is driven primarily by treatment of people who have conditions resulting from behaviors that result in obesity. It is pretty clear now that a majority of people who died of/with Covid had some form of condition related to obesity. Although I have no data to support this, my bet is we could reduce our expenditures on treatment (the vast majority of all healthcare spending) just by reducing population obesity by half, far more if we could achieve obesity below 5%. Since about 1/6 of the US economy is devoted to medical treatment of some sort, this change would result in a massive shift in US economics and savings in one of the two largest entitlement programs, which is Medicare., bearing in mind the fact that entitlements make up about 80% of the federal budget and are what we call the "third rail" of politics. The medical system, of course, makes most of its money from the obesity epidemic, so it is highly probable that the medical collective would fight any obesity reduction effort tooth and nail, in similar fashion to what happens every time a welfare discussion or the plight of the family look serious. So, what do we in the USA do with this opportunity? We label any discussion of obesity as "fat shaming" and add it to the list of political third rails. One can only conclude that the USA is not in the least interested in solving the big problems that plague us. Peter is correct about corruption. It runs deep here.
An anon YT troll, claiming he is in the USA. Wow! Like we haven't seen that before. lol How much does "Peter" pay you, stooge? You know don't you, that he wouldn't be caught dead with you unless there was a profit margin for him to benefit from?
the whole thing is a borderline incoherent string of talking points and tangents, without qualifying anything. The most fascinating thing is how many people are commenting under the video as if anything remotely meaningful was explored. Thiel is a classic libertarian, not liberal, in that he trots out whatever talking point serve his interests, and hand waves them when they don't.
But what if the entrenched and complacent unfairness is, to a large extent, the culprit of stagnation? That's also a question that's a taboo to even bring up...mostly because it's reallly inconvenient.
Peter mentions that "why questions" are usually overdetermined. Maybe the explanation for "why questions" being overdetermined is that that is the appearance of separate events before a root cause has been found. Maybe physical phenomena used to be an area for overdetermined explanations until simple rules were conjectured and found to explain many seemingly unrelated aspects of the world.
100% in agreement. Hope the end of neo progressivism and neo-liberalism affectively ends in our society as well to foster innovation and true progression for our society.
what is neoliberalism to you ? … in terms of economics is just as much identical to the conservative views; privatization of public infrastructure small gov, free markets … the only slight difference is with finance.
There are interesting nuggets but if you listen closely it's quite incoherent. E.g not enough money is spent on politics and there should be less politics. He admits himself that he has a 'schizophrenic' view on it. But that extends to quite a few other points he makes.
Don't know much about Mr. Thiel, but I do remember at least one positive contribution he made to the world... He rid us of the cancer known as "Gawker" and for that, I appreciate and applaud him. 👏👏
He is a great investor but mediocre public intellectual. From the very beginning he is already saying shit that's wrong. The antonym of diversity is uniformity, not university. University derives from Universe which is all encompassing (diversity, uniformity and everything in-between).
@@deenzmartin6695 Just pointing out that the very first thing out of Peter's mouth was a cheeky comment that doesn't even make sense. The antonym to Diversity is obviously Uniformity. Equating the word "University" with the word Diversity is a category error. And to the extent you want to distill the morpheme between the two words (Diverse and Universe), they still aren't antonymically related. All of this would only be relevant to people who care about semantic precision of course which apparently you are not.
He attacks the mainstream left effectively but he is not a clear thinker. The best example of that is the way that he is libertarian plutocrat and doesn't see any problem or contradiction. I went through a Peter Thiel phase but I can barely do it anymore. The turning point for me was a debate between him and his friend and colleague Reed Hoffman and Reed just showed him for how immature and maladjusted he is.
He speaks of the desire to “slow down” technological advancement as being Luddite, though never once speaks of what drives the slowdown. AI has been leveraging copy-written material without any direct reference to it, and certainly not paying for the rights to use the materials. But protecting peoples’ property rights (even intellectual property) is inherently classical liberalism. But he profits too much from that angle to educate people on what is really taking place. He even goes so far as to illustrate that society will “go down without much of a fight” against this, but it’s because the crony capitalists allow it to happen without any thought to the ramifications of such since it lines their pockets. Wanting to “slow technological advancement” is a gross oversimplification of “protecting private property rights, and protecting the rights of the people and limiting the power afforded to govts that allow these things to take place. Classical liberalism would address these concerns if given the chance, but the incentives to bureaucrats without term limits and crony capitalists bribing, i.e. lobbying, for these practices to be overlooked do not readily usher in these protections to be in place for the common citizen. Society may go down without much of a fight, but the rules of the games were changed to ensure as much. Very self serving presentation as far as I’m concerned.
The solution to most of these problems is more market forces. Sadly I do think Yuri Bezmenov’s warning in the 80s to undermine our society has worked successfully. We are all talking about social justice exactly as he was warning instead of building things.
@@MusicalMemeology that has nothing to do with a conspiracy. Leftism is a natural result of end stage capitalism. When the people who claim to stand for private ownership wont allow you to own anything, the people only have one option to heal society.
surely the example of MRNA vaccines suggesting malign possibilities doesn't apply to EVERY potential leftish hero of technical progress, let alone all of the potential exemplars of technical progress who aren't leftish
Thiel is critical of university education yet his entire identity, his cohort, his success story is a direct product of the university experience... he even opens with humble brag about Stanford... there is such "do as I say, not as I have done", burn-the-bridge-behind-you quality to his arguments... insofar as the stagnation in the sciences, it directly correlates with declining investments in basic research, publicly-funded "big science" around a Neo-liberal economic model which he is a proponent and beneficiary of... this also creates a situation in which scientists have to engage in boosterism, short term, immediate application-based projects which positions them less for big breakthroughs.
All I want to know is, did he bring his blood boy with him to England ? Also, Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti Classical Liberalism, that's just neoliberalism my guy.
Nice speech ) I summarized this as the following: - I am for anti-anti-liberalism - that is, doubly for liberalism, free Western world and universities. Since the late 80s of my studies at Stanford, I have been thinking about the path of Western civilization, inadvertently participated in the victimization of Rigoberta Menchu (human rights activist and feminist from Guatemala) - my [niche] article was reprinted by the WSJ, and after 4 years she was given a Nobel Prize for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples - Universities are bureaucratized and conservative. Now they will issue the same thing as in the 80s? (yes, probably even in the 19th century - talk about Shakespeare). But you are still moving string theory and other STEM/natural sciences. Francis Bacon also said: the role of universities is to initiate the important questions. What is progress for mankind? Manhattan project, Apollo project etc. Physicist Bob Laughlin, after the Nobel Prize, decided to challenge other areas (evolution, genetics, intelligence) and came to the conclusion that this is an increasingly big scam on taxpayer dollars, and he was fired for an attempt on a taboo. But does that mean there is something wrong? Science is cut into narrow spheres (string theory is understood by 100 people) and there is more corruption than in the humanities, because they evaluate themselves - Outside of computer science (as I call it: world of bits) there has been a big stagnation for 40 years - there are no breakthroughs in the world of atoms. We dreamed of a singularity according to Kurzweil, but in fact, for the first time in centuries in the US and UK, a generation expects a life worse than their parents. Libertarians don't like it, but it was the military who made the atomic bomb in just 3.5 years - The reasons for stagnation are different, in my opinion - this is the perception rooted in the establishment that technologies are allegedly dangerous, they call it existential risks, the roots are from 1945 (they made a nuclear bomb), and it was projected onto biotech (that's why the authors of mRNA vaccines are not made stars - it's unpleasant to remember Wuhan). 20 years ago in computer science the narrative about AI was positive, not terrifying, but we turned into Luddism, we became like escapist camps at Burning Man therefore we must die with dignity. Climate, I generally keep quiet - is this some kind of crusade of autistic Greta Thunberg? Technological progress, in fact, is slowed down as much as possible ))), what kind of zeitgeist is this? - Nick Bostrom from here at Oxford says we need to: 1) limit progress, 2) anti-diversity, 3) enforce restrictive policies to the extreme, 4) create an effective world government. He doesn't say the word "totalitarian", but he absolutely implies it. And - I am a liberal, and this is absolutely cruel: even if the existential risks turn out to be false, will a single authoritarian state still be built in the world?! This is already some sort of arrival of the Antichrist. It seems to me that instead of Armageddon, turning to the Antichrist is too much. What about the liberal institutions of the last 200 years that have brought us to the current level of development? Global totalitarian state is also existential risk - The problem of narrow specialization (grew out of the successes of the industrial revolution) is also that the public was thrown out of the discussion of questions of what to do according to progress, why, how. This is the main problem of stagnation - I am for the acceleration of science, for tech, I am even for AI. Political questions pop up everywhere: if crypto is libertarian (by the way, I don’t believe that crypto should be libertarian now), then AI is communism, in the style of China (give AI all control over everything) - Since the 60s, the level of satisfaction of societies has not been growing precisely because there is not much progress outside the Internet and computers. We will not build the civilization of the future this way. If our Luddites continue and win, then we will all lose in favor of China - both AI, and the exploration of the Moon, in general, everything. What is this program of self-destruction of the Western world? We need “Back to the future”
And in the end, him, nor you, nor anything will ultimately matter.. We will all die, the planet will die, and is like mankind will never existed. Including this video, this conversation, my reply too... Everything is pointless.. So enjoy what you have and stop worshipping false narratives and pseudo intellectuals like Peter...
As usual Peter sais a ton of shit that doesn't make sense. 1:20 The antonym of diversity is uniformity, not university. Equating the word "University" with the word Diversity is a category error. And to the extent you want to distill the morpheme between the two words (Diverse and Universe), they still aren't antonymically related. 14:25 Peter states technological progress has "stalled out". Many would argue technological progress not only hasn't stalled out, it has sped up. Peter himself mentions Computer Science and MRNA Vaccines as astounding feats. He also mentions String Theory multiple times as if that has been some major Stalling of human civilization over the past few decades. Particle Physics needs more expensive colliders, it really isn't any more conspiratorial or societally profound than that. 18:00 He asks why can't we have ticker tape parades for individuals? As far as I know ticker tape parades aren't illegal and to the extent they are it's because somebody has to clean all that shit up. Again, it really isn't that conspiratorial or profound. If Peter wants to lease a block from the city to throw a ticker tape parade for MRNA Vaccine's he has the freedom to do that whenever he wants. So what the fuck is he even talking about? 23:00 I have never heard of a Climate Alarmist complaining that we are innovating too quickly into renewable energy technology. The climate example is in contradiction to his thesis. Climate alarmist's state that the STATUS QUO (remaining on fossil fuels) is what will lead to volatile climate conditions. To solve this we need to INNOVATE off fossil fuels to renewables (solar, fusion, wind etc.). That is the complete opposite of the AI concern and his thesis as a whole (AI alarms about technological progression while climate alarms about the LACK of energy sector progression). Yeah this guy is a great investor but a lot of his public talks are ripe with nonsense.
@@auditoryproductions1831 totally agree, he is an idiot going after a non existent crisis... you can't force progress neither... and throwing money into all kinds of efforts indiscriminately hoping for quick progress or solutions to problems is irresponsible and wasteful...
Great thing about oxford is unlike other institutions, they let you hold your views. Last debate of Wokism going too far surprised me that, in this time where basically speaking even a word against Wokism is considered a holy sin. They let the debate happen and points were raised successfully destroying every pillar woke culture stands on.
@@Batman_akzo "destroying every pillar" sounds a bit like you are not coming to this debate from a good place. Also what do you mean by "Last debate of Wokism going too far surprised me that, ... etc".
@@Batman_akzo Are you actually serious? You talking about the Konstantin Kisin speech? It was an absolute masterclass in logical fallacies. I can’t believe people found it convincing.
My take on this: Peter Thiel is a billionaire surrounded by yes men. He has not had his ideas pushed back on in any meaningful way in decades. It’s almost like you could see him realizing how out of his element he was in real time. Just sweaty and stammering and self conscious. The kid interviewing him had more composure. Also, did no one notice that he backed up none of what he said with any reasoning? He just kind of asserted shit and called it a day. This goes back to what I was saying about being a rich dork surrounded by yes men.
@@oumod_ Dude, if I got lucky and made billions off of one project and started investing in a bunch of startups, the odds are i would have made money doing it too. Like is it really that surprising that a billionaire keeps getting richer? Look at the way our economy is structured, it's designed to be that way.
I disagree that inequality is lower on the list than stagnation, because I think it's one of the primary causes of stagnation. As a capitalist, Mr. Thiel should recognize that one of the strengths of capitalism is the efficient allocation of resources. But inequality creates barriers to upward mobility, perhaps more significantly that he realizes. Regression to the mean also means that the descendants of talented individuals will tend to be less talented.
@@iwonder1216 how do you know that's true? A lot of the places that have less inequality have some degree of social programs to ensure that. Yes socialism can be done poorly and crash the economy, but it can also be done relatively well.
Upward mobility for individuals is really common within a life time, with few people staying in the same income bracket for longer than 10 years.. It’s when we categorically start to talk about statistical ”classes” that the upward mobility over time stops, for natural reasons
The content of Peter Thiel's message aside, its typical of university people to try to shoehorn Mr. Thiel into some bland, ineffectual debate about the NHS in Britain. He's a American libertarian, of course he would argue to discontinue the NHS!
@@mooners544 Well I don't have much experience with the dutch system. But from what I have personally experienced, their emergency dental work is good.
I grew up in Maine around a bunch of WWII vets. I now live in California. The fascism and conformity I see around me is unnerving. California politics seems to trickle to the federal level 5-10 years later
I would have said that the answer to the "why" question, PT's comments on it being over-determined notwithstanding, was "comfort." We, in the epicenters past of innovation, we have it so good, we've settled.
There’s absolutely no danger of big tech being tools of the state when big tech (big business) finances the state’s politicians and author’s the state’s laws.
@Pronomian Chomsky they love it. Spy on me more, Daddy. But in all seriousness the average Chinese looks at that and says authoritarian to who? Why obviously those who deserve it. It's something someone outside the system has a hard time understanding, myself included.
to the extent that 'big tech' exists largely as a function and functionary of the state's military research and development (see eg, the internet, anything aerospace, drones?) , its never not been a tool of the state. and to the extent that big business goes ahead of the military to spread the national security interest by privately gaining management of resources (often at the government's behest, historically!, and then invites the military in after it, to 'civilize', liberalize, open markets of labor and land fully capital investment and free trade, big business has never not been a tool of the state! its not -just- a tool of the state, the state is a tool of it too but theyre certainly working towards mutually beneficial ends.
I appreciate the nuanced thinking in his argument which leads me to say that I disagree with him a bit. I do agree with the skepticism of scientific research, because most research I see nowadays is focused on the manipulating control of people rather than control of the elements to benefit people. It's too convenient that the research funding and those who provide the funds collectively skip over ethical grounds that have been established for centuries, and the all the technological breakthroughs that existed in the 1950's just halted all progress for supposed dangers. Like low pressure breeder reactors and the hydrogen car that would have made all environemental arguements today nonexist.
The idea that we live in an era of technological stagnation is absolutely bonkers. It's so at odds with reality that it's basically tantamount to saying that fish are at risk of dying of thirst.
19:50 this moment thiel feels like loosing arguments for why it‘s not a good idea to manipulate viruses and build new ones. It‘s interesting how he started the talk with nuclear weapons and the manhatten project, while playing with viruses might be the same game like in the past. 🎉🎉🎉
At 34:00, it's curious how a pro-Luddite stance is derived from the statistic that individual satisfaction has decreased since the 1960s. Need individual satisfaction always increase in perpetuity? Such thinking is reminiscent of that of investors with respect to stocks: if operating income doesn't increase forever, it's a bad stock!
University is not about progress. Look at the history of Sorbonne, in the middle ages that famed institution was a bastion of the faith. We barely got out of agricultural ages, we are into 2-300 years of the new technology era, and we already want to change everything. Be patient..
When I watch this I kept hearing a bias over American exceptionalism and an anti China hysteria. Sad that we see these once great civilisations of Britain and USA descend into philistinism , barbaric racism, paranoia and dysfunction.
It is distressing from the inside, too. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. People who you counted as friends, people you love, have been consumed by Sean Hannity and Alex Jones.
I agree. And yet he talks about real diversity and inclusion when he can't accept other countries like China who reject western neoliberalism; creating their own governance and society based on their own culture and history. Western dominance is slowing globally as the world becomes more multipolar and it is hard for many in the West to deal with this.
2:14 Jesus christ dude.... That's no small thing he is saying there. He's not saying that he's adamantly against classical liberalism. He's saying in the double negative, he's against the notion of being against classical liberalism. But actually it's a quadruple negative as he stated, which means he's ultimately for classical liberalism, but only through a kind of post-formal retaliation from perhaps how's its been defined in the past. Hard to know exactly what he means since such concepts and stances are usually understood within a social context. Like an inside joke or a reference to prior generations of development.
RUclips has to be one of the greatest resources ever. And without ads is better than any pay TV by far.
Agreed!
Yes, it's good but their censorship is very bad on certain topics.
@@davidjuliesmiththomas7983not as bad as TV
my notes to self for future reference
1:20 peter starts, antonym of diversity is university... quadruple negative... classical liberalism...
3:00 stanford background - debating western canon, western civilization, jesse jackson,
rigoberta menchu, "i had completed her victimization",
7:00 university is about progress... technocratic defense, manhattan project, apollo space program,
9:15 bob laughlin, nobel prize physics, delusion of academic freedom. darwinism, intelligence, genetics... he was convinced that research was fraudulent. he got defunded. hermaneutic suspicion - if something is this taboo, this forbidden, you have to ask some questions
10:49 general thesis: there's something about science and tech that's not progressing as quickly. specialization makes it hard to evaluate. sub-specialists propagandize. we seem stuck... when you have fields that include "science" that's inferiority complex, because you don't need to say physical science, chemical science. computer science somehow worked
13:00 story of general stagnation. younger generation low economic expectation. doesn't fit with kurzweilian panglossian sit back and watch the future unfold. what's up with that
14:25 how NYT wrote about manhattan project - free market libertarian type people, didnt believe that science should be run by military, but military was able to invent the device in 3.5 short years instead of what might've been 50 years. everything is now stalled out beyond belief.
why did it stall out? what happened? what went wrong? my PC answer is, why questions are overdetermined. too much regulation (FDA in biotech). blame education? govt funding? zombie central left establishment. "Science and tech are too dangerous" - what looks like a bug, no more progress, is a feature. we should be happy that STEM is not progressing, because STEM is a giant trap that humanity is building for itself. x-risk. original version re: nukes. charles manson, what did he see on LSD? world is coming to an end, dostoyevsky, everything is permitted.
18:00 there is some dangerous dual use... every tool is also a weapon. why can't we have ticker tape parades for individuals. scientists who developed the MRNA vaccine. cultural existentian fear. orwellian term, gain of function research. if you can manipulate DNA... terrific destructive weapons
19:50 tech is a strange word. started in computers. AI, AGI. 20 years ago, narrative was still generally positive-utopian. misgivings about rockets, nuclear, etc people didn't have about AI initially. Singularity Institute... accelerationist utopian pov. 2015, didn't feel like people were pushing AI thing as fast as before. devolved into escapist burning man camp. shifted from transhumanism to luddite. Apr2022, yudkowsky... "death with dignity strategy". (that was an aprils fool post, lol)
23:00 greta and autistic children's crusade. none of the solutions involve more technologies. not fusion reactors, not better anti-ballistic systems. most of these people are insufficiently apocalyptic.
25:00 bostrom... mouthpiest of the zeitgeist... 2019, 'vulnerable world hypothesis', runaway nanotech, bioweapons. 1. restrict tech dev. 2. minimize diversity(?), 3. establish effective world police, 4, effective world governance. basically totalitarianism.
27:00 we should not hide. global totalitarian state is also an x-risk. always needs to be fought. the slogan of the antichrist is peace and safety. we're told there's nothing worse than armageddon, but maybe there is.
end of speech, Q&A next...
Q & A
29:00 is tech dev cedeing ground to tech cos? is that a problem? A: problem of concentration, yes, but bigger problem is stagnation. late modernity… pin factory, adam smith… the promise is that you’ll be an every smaller cog in bigger machine… is that even true? we’re told that progress is being made. hyperspecialization with no accountability
31:15: communist china - fairly low tech, computers doing it but there are always people behind the communities. we can debate whether ai is conscious or intelligence, but the political question is how does it get used. maybe it’s merely evil. the tech tilts towards surveillance. and there’s always some totalitarian that can’t stand behind it. if people say crypto is libertarian, then why can’t we say ai is communist? pro acceleration, pro ai, pro tech… but misgivings
34:00 Q: supposedly individual satisfaction decreasing. why? A: i believe the econ numbers more than the self-serving story. narrow cone of progress around world of bits, not enough to meaningfully GDP/capita to take civ to next level. IANA luddite. argues science lockdown 40-50 years. luddites were right about several things but wrong at least in military context. self-destructive and parochial.
36:00 Q: tech driven by war? A: big part of it yea, and also a big part of what went wrong with it. we need future that’s not dystopian, not luddite, not doomsday, not totalitarian lockdown
37:16 why stagnation scary? downfall of US/west supremacy? A: yes bad, it will derange our societies if growth stops. zero sum racket. loser for every winner. not necessarily gets you to socialist distribution. kept going by inertia. don’t trust that its a stable outcome.
38:15 india? china? A: difference in developing countries is they have story of convergence, some program where they can copy and catch up. but even if they succeed and catch up, they will run into the same problems. i don’t wanna move to china. best case for china is they copy us. there are worse cases
39:22 how address stagnation? A, i always believe in human freedom, agency, invest in tech, strong conviction that these are not laws of nature. the cupboard has not run out. people are too scared of tech. trying to steel man.
40:36 is society pursuing wrong kinds of diversity? diversity is not merely hiring space cantina extras, people who look different and think alike. genuine diversity of thoughts, that’s not inimical to university, search for truth. we neither have true diversity nor true university. multicultural multiversity is a strange superposition of hyper-relativistic, hyper-nihilistic, hyper-totalitarian. you could say they’re logically contradictory, and there’s an analysis for why they go together, but that
s very complicated.
42:20 problems of PC, decline of uni, is this accelerating? A: they’re not isolated from broader society, but what i didn’t connect 30years ago was that i thought it was narrow… i now see them as deeply connected with econ, sci, tech progress. win-win solutions, things don’t need to be malthusian. when 10 chem grads are fighting over 1 position, and one gets thrown out for saying something un-PC, that’s a relief to the remaining 9
44:00 free speech under threat? A: yes, pressure… what is behind it? even if all channels were open, pipes not clogged, what would actually be flowing through it? restrictions are bad but they’re actually distracting us from people not having much to say
45:20 PayPal q, did it achieve its goals? crypto? A: there was a hope, fantasy, that computers would decentralise things. cypherpunk, crypto-anarchist… tech has been centralising, big tech, big govt. its not intrinsic… big can mean strong or fat… crypto represent hope that things go back other way. if i had to bet, we’re at an extreme of centralisation rn
47:00 why back trump? do u regret? A: ask me again in 10 yrs. i would’ve been pro-brexit in the UK. deep conviction that everything is off-track, too stagnant. scream for help? did it help bring stagnation debates? jury’s still out.
48:45 why didn’t it work? A: its hard lol. it’s not all about talk. sophistry is belief in omnipotence of speech. i can tell myself that giving a talk here helps, but delusional if that’s all it takes
50:30 is funding in politics healthy? A: have a schizoid view, toxic, but it permeates everything. it’s shocking how little people spend on politics. its important. if individuals aren’t funding politicians…. i would prefer to do away with it altogether but that’s too utopian
52:30 political engagement… you could say that about investing in science, free speech, media platforms. becomes question about inequality generally. i don’t think inequality is our biggest problem, i think its stagnation.
53:30 its hard to change things. politics or anywhere else. i wish i could just spend $ and get a cure for cancer. translation function is shockingly weak.
55:00 some tech is exciting, some isn’t, stagnation isn’t exciting to anyone… how are you contributing to solving technology. A: my day job is VC, try to invest in biz that are successful + positive externalities for the world. its hard outside computers/IT. i also try talking about it.
56:40 free speech - do you regret anything you’ve written? does that influence? regret is ambiguous word. speaking is dangerous, writing more so. 1980s hoover institution, writing a book is more dangerous than having a child. if child turns out badly you can disown the child, you can’t disown anything you’ve written. i probably say more than i should, and less than i might have a mind to
58:09 given that the right dominates mainstream culture, why isn’t the right producing great art? what means? its hard! stale conservative argument that hollywood machine doesn’t allow dissenting central-left-zombie-straightjacket productions. when we frame these things too ideologically, you lose sight of how hard it is. is it a crazed left-wing racket? maybe. most most of everything is meh
1:00:30 what is your solution to climate? i tend not to agree with the model - marxist analysis of measuring input - interested in measuring output. govt spending. energy tech: want things cheaper, cleaner, and we’re not tending towards that (?). 95% luddite, 5% accelerations. keep thermostat down and wear as water. not enough excitement for working on thorium.
1:02:00 NHS is a state operation, how would you fix it? theory vs practice. dictator vs mayor. theory you’d rip it from the ground up, in practice you have to make it backward compatible. first step - what seems odd to outsider is stockholm syndrome re: NHS, people think its the most wonderful thing. first step is to understand it as an iatrogenic institution. schools make people dumb, nhs makes people sick. first step you have to get out of the SS. those are my intuitions. Q: market mechnisms = privatise further? A: some elements
1:06:20 advice? debates are important, but they’re also just the first step. take action
Is that visa from twitter... noice
@@focusedsam2421 yes
@@focusedsam2421 the avatar
Thanks a lot!
"I probably say more than I should, and less than I have the mind to."
-With regards to a question on if he has regrets over what he's said in his past and what he believes now.
Reminds me of "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve" in the Lord of the Rings.
@@byzantinegold he’s a Tolkien head, I’d bet he had that quote in mind
He really did not answer the question.
😊
He calls himself a libertarian, but his company Palantir Technologies works with the intelligence agencies. His court philosopher Curtis Yarvin cites Singapore and Dubai as political models for the West. The "libertarian" President of Argentina Javier Milei is implementing AI policing. "Libertarian" Elon Musk is developing Neuralink.
I would love to know how he squares his anti-surveillance takes like @31:59 with his ownership/founding of Palantir... Is it just PR smokescreen?
He's made the argument in the past that the apparent 'targeted' nature of Palantir is the lesser evil, where the 'dragnet everything' approach of states is far worse. Hard to know how true it is.
@@KyleDunnIt its a good argument. Id personally rather it be palantir than 100% internal CIA operations
Pure PR smokescreen, these oligarchs are not on our side 😂
@@hithere9393 and the CIA/NSA surveillance state is on our side? The public have NO idea what is going on in those agencies
@@seanpierre1338 We actually somewhat do now thanks to Assange. But to answer your question, no neither the CIA or Thiel are on our side. Surveillance is awful, whether it's government or corporate.
31:20. This is a completely uninformed question.
- Most algorithms are not written by white men in the Northern hemisphere. They are written by non-white people in China, Japan or Korea, and by non-white people in the USA.
- Algorithms do not have a bias dominated by the person who writes the algorithm. If the questioner had ever written a classifier, a generator or a recommender system, they would know that the presumption is wrong.
Exactly, you can't write into code a bias for or against any race or identity political dimension -- the data set used to train the algo can contain a bias, but that depends on your training data.
@@oxfordageingnetwork-oxagen9267 Totally on point.
In most ML courses these days, there is a compulsory PC course about political bias.
What do they want us to do ? "Just be aware of it".
Well in the vanishingly unlikely event that I'm ever asked to classify people as criminal/not criminal, then I'll probably have to take note.
But even then I'd have to check to see which direction the bias was in - and then I'd be introducing my own bias.
So I'm better off doing my job properly - analysing the data as presented, and not trying to become a political activist.
This idiocy is the sum total of what the high IQ morons call “ethics” in AI.
Simply, Thiel is right, and I think his thesis is correct. Those who discard him based on his politics etc haven't really listened to what he's been arguing for years. We are in a stagnant era based on fear.
Almost nothing has came of universities for decades.
All the new tech is from companies, all in computing and a bit in electronics.
Academics play the game of the number of citations, the funding of their labs and protection of their fiefdom.
@@alexforget this is just objectively wrong almost every single innovation that mattered has its origin in the universities. Crispr, neural networks,the internet,sequencing of the genome, euv lithography, etc. capitalists like theil build their businesses on the backs of publicly funded research without giving due credit and then go in front of the simpletons hyping up how the capitalist billionaires are ‘genius inventors’
@@alexforget A. Every major founder of a tech company created the company with his/her first group of friends at university. He literally talks about his time at Stanford at the beginning. This guy is as silver-spooned as it gets, his dad was rich as fuck and was given the best educational opportunities his whole life.
B. University comes from the enlightenment ideal (the ideal our founding fathers fought for) that the average citizen should be educated to believe the same liberal ideals. So that when we vote, we know what we’re voting for. It comes from the Ancient Greek/Roman Liberalis Ars.
Conclusion: This guy is a total fraud. Just because he’s rich through tech doesn’t mean he’s sociologist. He seems like an unhinged billionaire who, undoubtedly is very smart, gets his info from the world from 80s movies. Sorry, he’s just one guy and he should’ve talked about his area of expertise which is web design and business management, not all this other BS
Right about what? Everything? He doesn’t really offer any good analysis. He seems like a bullshitter to me.
@@mistadopeyy 100% he’s a bullshitter. He’s a guy who became extremely rich at 25 and hasn’t matured since then…
In a fully interconnected global system, a single failure can take the whole system down. This is why distributed systems are superior. Even in a distributed system, given a finite mean-time-between failure for each component, if the system is sufficiently complex, it will spend more time broken down than running. With software involved, it is even worse ... since programming is an art not a science.
Could it be both, art and science? At the highest level. If done right.
@@Wild8Cat As long as "art" is included. The "science" part is rather boring, like efficient sorting algorithms ;-)
This is why we have Zoroastrianism.
Finally, been waiting for weeks.
That darn loose mic was triggering Peter's OCD non stop... and mine too 😅
😂100% I almost lost it😂😂 I would buy a Time Machine to fix this GOSH 😂😂😂😂😂
Lol
yep
Both the host's and the audience's questions all have a tone of "Peter, why do you say such controversial things." You can tell they are in Britain/a university
Very interesting. However, I think the real problem is that although we have increased our knowledge exponentially in the past centuries, we have become no wiser than we were thousands of years ago.
Absolutely. Wisdom cannot be gained the same way knowledge can. I read countless incredible books when I was a teen, but didn't truly understand those books until I went through certain things that taught me what those books were trying to convey. We are good at passing knowledge to next generations, but so far we have no way to do the same with wisdom. Wisdom still has to be obtained through practical experience.
It’s cause wisdom is a learned practice that must be exercised daily. Knowledge is just the recording of history and our experience (what stuff works/ doesn’t work)
Its a shame that we live our lives forward but only understand them backwards -Kierkegaard
I like how Peter shows up to Oxford and tells them Universities suck
Sort of... it's not easy to parse what any of this means.
I could have told you that 25 years ago lol
Yep. Forced to take some bullshit communications class with my applied math degree.
Litterally it was all blatant pseudo science. Felt like someone gave ChatGPT a prompt to spew out big words and make it sound smart.
The math/science courses were the most easiest and straight forward.
English required you to constantly suck off and meatride your TA's and Prof, and bend all your political views to their side or else they give you an C- for "not having a strong argument".
@@lynnefox4892yes it is
@@lynnefox4892 he’s saying that universities & other institutions of “classical liberalism” should:
- stop shunning outside-the-box thinking (ie. have diversity of ideas)
- stop complaining that the world has problems while shouting down people who come up with solutions
-should stop promoting anti-progress views toward technology
I missed some points but this is the core of what he’s getting at, and he chose this as his topic because he specifically wants to wake up universities to how problematic their heterodox ideology has slowed progress in so many areas of society, especially in technology. He argues technological progress is a good thing.
Love the intelligent insight Thiel brings to these panels/forums. I also love that he has a mild air of anxiety about him at all times: he has the courage to be uncertain in his beliefs.
you have to be extra smart to be an inside trader
@@normalnick9693 He’s probably one of those guys, yeah.
The ‘anti-anti anti-anti’ bugged me. That’s sophistry. That made me grimace while I watched it.
Lml
You are a loon.
“ The highways create traffic jams, welfare creates poverty, schools makes people dumb, and Medicare makes people sick“ - does anyone know who said that originally? Or is a Thiel original?
It seems one thing all those social problems have in common is bureaucracy. While I don't believe a power vacuum would help ordinary people, I do believe curbing the power of entrenched and anxious bureaucrats would help everybody, including the overworked bureaucrats.
Obviously, these are complex, multifaceted problems- lots of things at play. Personally, I think the key issues might be around failed leadership.
Welfare does foster poverty if you're getting stuff for free you're inclination to try harder will go away.
dumbest thing i've read since The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
One of the most intelligent people alive today.
Not really. He’s just some rich guy who’s been a billionaire so long he seems like he’s good at everything. It’s obvious he’s a smart guy, but is he smart at everything… obviously not.
I’m sure he could talk about business and web design stuff and I would’ve been totally lost. He should talk what he actually is an expert on.
But instead he talked about stuff I actually know about and his broader social commentaries scream “I’ve had the exact same views from 18 and have never changed them because I was born rich then got significantly richer by 25 so why mature/improve myself?”
lol. That's why he supported Trump. He smart, surely. But he is also dishonest and ideologically driven.
Only to the ignorant.
Lol
Decentralization and voluntary association is the only path forward. Universities have always been extensions of central governments, whether the relationship is overt or covert. Private corporations also use governments to coerce the public to accept certain technologies to their own detriment.
I used to be a fan of libertarianism/decentralization. But for the past few months I've come to realize that we need some level of centralization. The first principle error that I have found in libertarianism is the claim that human beings have free will. I don't think we do. I no longer believe that decentralization is an unmitigated good. Think of it like an umbrella curve. Too much centralization is bad and so is too much decentralization. There are pitfalls on both ends. I don't think what Thiel or Balaji Srinivasan are advocating is gonna work. We have to recognize our tragic existence and live for all eternity constantly struggling to calibrate ourselves between both extremes.
Long winded way of saying: As long as human nature is what it is, we will never be able to have a decentralized society.
"In the beginning is the deed."
I like the article, "Rigoberta Menchu and the politics of lying". She was discredited. Peter was right...
Menchu didnt such articule, she doesnt write
Peter Thiel is the man. Wish he got better questions and perhaps a better moderator. The questions asked seemed like they weren't really listening to what he was saying or even knew he who was.
i was thinking, why would you let the only few people not wearing suits ask questions? lmao
Thiel wouldn't be caught dead with you, pleb. Wise up. He is rich by stealing from we the people.
Peter reminds me of our medical "science" in the USA. The USA is by any measure the most obese country on planet Earth. Our medical economy is driven primarily by treatment of people who have conditions resulting from behaviors that result in obesity. It is pretty clear now that a majority of people who died of/with Covid had some form of condition related to obesity. Although I have no data to support this, my bet is we could reduce our expenditures on treatment (the vast majority of all healthcare spending) just by reducing population obesity by half, far more if we could achieve obesity below 5%. Since about 1/6 of the US economy is devoted to medical treatment of some sort, this change would result in a massive shift in US economics and savings in one of the two largest entitlement programs, which is Medicare., bearing in mind the fact that entitlements make up about 80% of the federal budget and are what we call the "third rail" of politics. The medical system, of course, makes most of its money from the obesity epidemic, so it is highly probable that the medical collective would fight any obesity reduction effort tooth and nail, in similar fashion to what happens every time a welfare discussion or the plight of the family look serious. So, what do we in the USA do with this opportunity? We label any discussion of obesity as "fat shaming" and add it to the list of political third rails. One can only conclude that the USA is not in the least interested in solving the big problems that plague us. Peter is correct about corruption. It runs deep here.
An anon YT troll, claiming he is in the USA. Wow! Like we haven't seen that before. lol How much does "Peter" pay you, stooge? You know don't you, that he wouldn't be caught dead with you unless there was a profit margin for him to benefit from?
Why does this video have ads…
30:00 this sounds like he is going back and forth and not really having an argument
the whole thing is a borderline incoherent string of talking points and tangents, without qualifying anything. The most fascinating thing is how many people are commenting under the video as if anything remotely meaningful was explored. Thiel is a classic libertarian, not liberal, in that he trots out whatever talking point serve his interests, and hand waves them when they don't.
But what if the entrenched and complacent unfairness is, to a large extent, the culprit of stagnation? That's also a question that's a taboo to even bring up...mostly because it's reallly inconvenient.
Peter mentions that "why questions" are usually overdetermined. Maybe the explanation for "why questions" being overdetermined is that that is the appearance of separate events before a root cause has been found. Maybe physical phenomena used to be an area for overdetermined explanations until simple rules were conjectured and found to explain many seemingly unrelated aspects of the world.
Surprised no one's asked him about space tech, as one place that's progressing outside computers
Kind of astonished at the dimness of the questions asked by students. This is the best the great University of Oxford can do??
He's back baby!!!
What a great talk!! love it
44:30 is my favorite part... "people don't have much to say"
I was waiting for him to say something truly profound. The talk ended and I’m still waiting.
ruclips.net/video/Bw1ByVhJt7A/видео.html
I feel the same about your comment from the cheap seats.
The audience questions make me think that they just let people in, if they're brainwashed.
they did...
Yeah they were all terrible crybaby questions
Is this just the same speech as in Stanford?
100% in agreement.
Hope the end of neo progressivism and neo-liberalism affectively ends in our society as well to foster innovation and true progression for our society.
what is neoliberalism to you ? … in terms of economics is just as much identical to the conservative views; privatization of public infrastructure small gov, free markets … the only slight difference is with finance.
A.G.I Will be man's last invention
@@alexcipriani6003 neoliberalism believes much more strongly in monetarism.
@@prithvib8662 monetarism is just Chicago school sound money.
@@alexcipriani6003 state control hidden behind a pluralist curtain.
There are interesting nuggets but if you listen closely it's quite incoherent. E.g not enough money is spent on politics and there should be less politics. He admits himself that he has a 'schizophrenic' view on it. But that extends to quite a few other points he makes.
Agreed KhelderB.
You get Peter or not.
Don't know much about Mr. Thiel, but I do remember at least one positive contribution he made to the world...
He rid us of the cancer known as "Gawker" and for that, I appreciate and applaud him. 👏👏
Pornography is at least legal sometimes, but gawker published sex tapes illegally. What do you even call such scum?
If you know that he wiped gawker off, then i certainly believe you know him well.
@@Batman_akzo never Palantir, Paypal and facebook. Oh or his Founders Fund
@@PovvoCarnt Yes, such great contributions to our world...
Got red of one smear merchant... but there are hundreds of them ...what gives
Wat means? 58:10 Communication a bit too overt here…
peter is one of the most interesting heterodox thinkers of our time.
He is a great investor but mediocre public intellectual. From the very beginning he is already saying shit that's wrong. The antonym of diversity is uniformity, not university. University derives from Universe which is all encompassing (diversity, uniformity and everything in-between).
@@auditoryproductions1831 k
@@deenzmartin6695 Just pointing out that the very first thing out of Peter's mouth was a cheeky comment that doesn't even make sense. The antonym to Diversity is obviously Uniformity. Equating the word "University" with the word Diversity is a category error. And to the extent you want to distill the morpheme between the two words (Diverse and Universe), they still aren't antonymically related. All of this would only be relevant to people who care about semantic precision of course which apparently you are not.
@@auditoryproductions1831 it was clearly a play on words and not meant literally, dolt.
@@deenzmartin6695 It makes me wonder how much more of his talk was a play on words and not meant literally.
Guy is wicked smart but the way in which he tries to stop the microphone from shaking and only making it worse is fucking hilarious.
He seemed to be setting it off again on purpose (I reckon).
OCD. He couldn’t help himself.
He’s actually being fidgety, that’s all. Normal behavior for some people
@@chesstictacs3107 that fits with his enunciated speech which is a series of qualified decisions also.
He attacks the mainstream left effectively but he is not a clear thinker. The best example of that is the way that he is libertarian plutocrat and doesn't see any problem or contradiction.
I went through a Peter Thiel phase but I can barely do it anymore. The turning point for me was a debate between him and his friend and colleague Reed Hoffman and Reed just showed him for how immature and maladjusted he is.
Thiel is a contradiction itself
Still insightful.. take what you can from him... I think he's a brilliant philosopher of our day.
58:12 wat means?
He speaks of the desire to “slow down” technological advancement as being Luddite, though never once speaks of what drives the slowdown. AI has been leveraging copy-written material without any direct reference to it, and certainly not paying for the rights to use the materials. But protecting peoples’ property rights (even intellectual property) is inherently classical liberalism. But he profits too much from that angle to educate people on what is really taking place.
He even goes so far as to illustrate that society will “go down without much of a fight” against this, but it’s because the crony capitalists allow it to happen without any thought to the ramifications of such since it lines their pockets.
Wanting to “slow technological advancement” is a gross oversimplification of “protecting private property rights, and protecting the rights of the people and limiting the power afforded to govts that allow these things to take place. Classical liberalism would address these concerns if given the chance, but the incentives to bureaucrats without term limits and crony capitalists bribing, i.e. lobbying, for these practices to be overlooked do not readily usher in these protections to be in place for the common citizen. Society may go down without much of a fight, but the rules of the games were changed to ensure as much. Very self serving presentation as far as I’m concerned.
Malthusian pressure in the research laboratory creates the PC roulette/musical chairs scenario of academia
The solution to most of these problems is more market forces. Sadly I do think Yuri Bezmenov’s warning in the 80s to undermine our society has worked successfully. We are all talking about social justice exactly as he was warning instead of building things.
@@MusicalMemeology that has nothing to do with a conspiracy. Leftism is a natural result of end stage capitalism. When the people who claim to stand for private ownership wont allow you to own anything, the people only have one option to heal society.
He has the same complexion as Star Trek’s ‘Data’.
I think I discerned a point in this, but how is someone so brilliant, so incoherent??? 🤔
surely the example of MRNA vaccines suggesting malign possibilities doesn't apply to EVERY potential leftish hero of technical progress, let alone all of the potential exemplars of technical progress who aren't leftish
Thiel is critical of university education yet his entire identity, his cohort, his success story is a direct product of the university experience... he even opens with humble brag about Stanford... there is such "do as I say, not as I have done", burn-the-bridge-behind-you quality to his arguments... insofar as the stagnation in the sciences, it directly correlates with declining investments in basic research, publicly-funded "big science" around a Neo-liberal economic model which he is a proponent and beneficiary of... this also creates a situation in which scientists have to engage in boosterism, short term, immediate application-based projects which positions them less for big breakthroughs.
All I want to know is, did he bring his blood boy with him to England ?
Also, Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti Classical Liberalism, that's just neoliberalism my guy.
isn't "homogeneity" a more canonical antonym of diversity?
1:28 Intro
8:34 Sciences
28:40 Q&A
Nice speech ) I summarized this as the following:
- I am for anti-anti-liberalism - that is, doubly for liberalism, free Western world and universities. Since the late 80s of my studies at Stanford, I have been thinking about the path of Western civilization, inadvertently participated in the victimization of Rigoberta Menchu (human rights activist and feminist from Guatemala) - my [niche] article was reprinted by the WSJ, and after 4 years she was given a Nobel Prize for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples
- Universities are bureaucratized and conservative. Now they will issue the same thing as in the 80s? (yes, probably even in the 19th century - talk about Shakespeare). But you are still moving string theory and other STEM/natural sciences. Francis Bacon also said: the role of universities is to initiate the important questions. What is progress for mankind? Manhattan project, Apollo project etc. Physicist Bob Laughlin, after the Nobel Prize, decided to challenge other areas (evolution, genetics, intelligence) and came to the conclusion that this is an increasingly big scam on taxpayer dollars, and he was fired for an attempt on a taboo. But does that mean there is something wrong? Science is cut into narrow spheres (string theory is understood by 100 people) and there is more corruption than in the humanities, because they evaluate themselves
- Outside of computer science (as I call it: world of bits) there has been a big stagnation for 40 years - there are no breakthroughs in the world of atoms. We dreamed of a singularity according to Kurzweil, but in fact, for the first time in centuries in the US and UK, a generation expects a life worse than their parents. Libertarians don't like it, but it was the military who made the atomic bomb in just 3.5 years
- The reasons for stagnation are different, in my opinion - this is the perception rooted in the establishment that technologies are allegedly dangerous, they call it existential risks, the roots are from 1945 (they made a nuclear bomb), and it was projected onto biotech (that's why the authors of mRNA vaccines are not made stars - it's unpleasant to remember Wuhan). 20 years ago in computer science the narrative about AI was positive, not terrifying, but we turned into Luddism, we became like escapist camps at Burning Man therefore we must die with dignity. Climate, I generally keep quiet - is this some kind of crusade of autistic Greta Thunberg? Technological progress, in fact, is slowed down as much as possible ))), what kind of zeitgeist is this?
- Nick Bostrom from here at Oxford says we need to: 1) limit progress, 2) anti-diversity, 3) enforce restrictive policies to the extreme, 4) create an effective world government. He doesn't say the word "totalitarian", but he absolutely implies it.
And
- I am a liberal, and this is absolutely cruel: even if the existential risks turn out to be false, will a single authoritarian state still be built in the world?! This is already some sort of arrival of the Antichrist. It seems to me that instead of Armageddon, turning to the Antichrist is too much. What about the liberal institutions of the last 200 years that have brought us to the current level of development? Global totalitarian state is also existential risk
- The problem of narrow specialization (grew out of the successes of the industrial revolution) is also that the public was thrown out of the discussion of questions of what to do according to progress, why, how. This is the main problem of stagnation
- I am for the acceleration of science, for tech, I am even for AI. Political questions pop up everywhere: if crypto is libertarian (by the way, I don’t believe that crypto should be libertarian now), then AI is communism, in the style of China (give AI all control over everything)
- Since the 60s, the level of satisfaction of societies has not been growing precisely because there is not much progress outside the Internet and computers. We will not build the civilization of the future this way. If our Luddites continue and win, then we will all lose in favor of China - both AI, and the exploration of the Moon, in general, everything. What is this program of self-destruction of the Western world? We need “Back to the future”
"Real technocracy has never been tried!" - Peter Thiel.
"Hooray Mr. Thiel!" - Sheep.
And in the end, him, nor you, nor anything will ultimately matter..
We will all die, the planet will die, and is like mankind will never existed.
Including this video, this conversation, my reply too...
Everything is pointless..
So enjoy what you have and stop worshipping false narratives and pseudo intellectuals like Peter...
As usual Peter sais a ton of shit that doesn't make sense.
1:20 The antonym of diversity is uniformity, not university. Equating the word "University" with the word Diversity is a category error. And to the extent you want to distill the morpheme between the two words (Diverse and Universe), they still aren't antonymically related.
14:25 Peter states technological progress has "stalled out". Many would argue technological progress not only hasn't stalled out, it has sped up. Peter himself mentions Computer Science and MRNA Vaccines as astounding feats. He also mentions String Theory multiple times as if that has been some major Stalling of human civilization over the past few decades. Particle Physics needs more expensive colliders, it really isn't any more conspiratorial or societally profound than that.
18:00 He asks why can't we have ticker tape parades for individuals? As far as I know ticker tape parades aren't illegal and to the extent they are it's because somebody has to clean all that shit up. Again, it really isn't that conspiratorial or profound. If Peter wants to lease a block from the city to throw a ticker tape parade for MRNA Vaccine's he has the freedom to do that whenever he wants. So what the fuck is he even talking about?
23:00 I have never heard of a Climate Alarmist complaining that we are innovating too quickly into renewable energy technology. The climate example is in contradiction to his thesis. Climate alarmist's state that the STATUS QUO (remaining on fossil fuels) is what will lead to volatile climate conditions. To solve this we need to INNOVATE off fossil fuels to renewables (solar, fusion, wind etc.). That is the complete opposite of the AI concern and his thesis as a whole (AI alarms about technological progression while climate alarms about the LACK of energy sector progression).
Yeah this guy is a great investor but a lot of his public talks are ripe with nonsense.
@@auditoryproductions1831 totally agree, he is an idiot going after a non existent crisis... you can't force progress neither... and throwing money into all kinds of efforts indiscriminately hoping for quick progress or solutions to problems is irresponsible and wasteful...
@@FLAC2023 that is a description of his opponents.
This is the guy who shorted billions in crypto whilst telling people how confident he was about the crypto market. Real man of the people there 😂
Exactly... he's a Con and a pseudo intellectual full of BS..
It's not his fault the peasants are so stupid.
The difference is long term and short term .
If he was shorting it wouldn't he have talked shit about crypto trying to make it crash?
Shorting shitcoins is a moral duty.
Courageous to go into a woke den like Oxford.
Good descriptive points!
Great thing about oxford is unlike other institutions, they let you hold your views. Last debate of Wokism going too far surprised me that, in this time where basically speaking even a word against Wokism is considered a holy sin. They let the debate happen and points were raised successfully destroying every pillar woke culture stands on.
@@Batman_akzo agree.
@@Batman_akzo "destroying every pillar" sounds a bit like you are not coming to this debate from a good place. Also what do you mean by "Last debate of Wokism going too far surprised me that, ... etc".
@@Batman_akzo Are you actually serious? You talking about the Konstantin Kisin speech? It was an absolute masterclass in logical fallacies. I can’t believe people found it convincing.
@@henriklybeck579 wokeism is what is riddled with falacies.
58:10 how does this maek you feel?
THIS NEEDS MORE VIEWS, WHAT IS HAPPENING?
25k views from 1.73 million subscribers, in 2 days, from Mr.Thiel himself? Seems off.
The algorithm isn't happy at the thought of it's possible demise, why would it promote this? Get off the tech and go into the world
Tough to find online. I had to seek it out myself.
Not everyone wants to give Mr Thiel a bl*wj*b.
I think it has to do with advert revenue. Not sure what company would advert for a Thiel speech... Perhaps privacy VPN? The market is small.
Theil isn't a significant character for people to search him out
This age was made for Thiele.
but what about thiel?
You are seeing the GOAT, The GOAT ✅
My take on this:
Peter Thiel is a billionaire surrounded by yes men. He has not had his ideas pushed back on in any meaningful way in decades. It’s almost like you could see him realizing how out of his element he was in real time. Just sweaty and stammering and self conscious. The kid interviewing him had more composure. Also, did no one notice that he backed up none of what he said with any reasoning? He just kind of asserted shit and called it a day. This goes back to what I was saying about being a rich dork surrounded by yes men.
He has a stutter and is pretty autistic. You may think he is full of shit, but he dose have history of picking the right horse so to speak.
@@oumod_ Dude, if I got lucky and made billions off of one project and started investing in a bunch of startups, the odds are i would have made money doing it too. Like is it really that surprising that a billionaire keeps getting richer? Look at the way our economy is structured, it's designed to be that way.
@@munkyusm How many tech companies have you started?
He has no regrets as he is moral philosopher. He is a leader. We need peter now!
He is a perfect James Bond supervillain
I disagree that inequality is lower on the list than stagnation, because I think it's one of the primary causes of stagnation.
As a capitalist, Mr. Thiel should recognize that one of the strengths of capitalism is the efficient allocation of resources. But inequality creates barriers to upward mobility, perhaps more significantly that he realizes. Regression to the mean also means that the descendants of talented individuals will tend to be less talented.
The easiest way to fix inequality is by fixing stagnation. Nothing else works as well. Stagnation just makes inequality so much worse.
Yes William C, you are absolutely right. There is no stagnation when it comes to growing inequality which causes stagnation.
@@iwonder1216 how do you know that's true? A lot of the places that have less inequality have some degree of social programs to ensure that. Yes socialism can be done poorly and crash the economy, but it can also be done relatively well.
Upward mobility for individuals is really common within a life time, with few people staying in the same income bracket for longer than 10 years.. It’s when we categorically start to talk about statistical ”classes” that the upward mobility over time stops, for natural reasons
I'm not on drugs, honest.
As long as the number of Anti s are even, we’re good.
The content of Peter Thiel's message aside, its typical of university people to try to shoehorn Mr. Thiel into some bland, ineffectual debate about the NHS in Britain. He's a American libertarian, of course he would argue to discontinue the NHS!
The NHS isn't perfect, but it sure beats the american mess.
@@donaldhobson8873 And the Dutch model beats the British model.
@@mooners544 Well I don't have much experience with the dutch system. But from what I have personally experienced, their emergency dental work is good.
He is not a libertarian. He is a rightwing extremist who has bankrolled sedition against we the people of the USA.
the luddites lose every battle but are carried forward into futures imagined by the visionaries they'd oppress.
Peter Thiel is brilliant and HE IS A CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN 🎉🎉🎉🎉
I enjoyed this dialogue. I'm glad Thiel is out there championing good causes.
Good causes like Donald Trump and authoritarianism. Yeah right.
@@charlesmartin1121 ok Charles go back to 🏳️🌈
@@seanpierre1338 What a clever guy you aren't.
Ok, fascist.
I mean, isn’t it dangerous? Including in ways we cannot even imagine?
These questions?!?! These are our best and brightest?
I grew up in Maine around a bunch of WWII vets. I now live in California. The fascism and conformity I see around me is unnerving. California politics seems to trickle to the federal level 5-10 years later
I would have said that the answer to the "why" question, PT's comments on it being over-determined notwithstanding, was "comfort." We, in the epicenters past of innovation, we have it so good, we've settled.
There’s absolutely no danger of big tech being tools of the state when big tech (big business) finances the state’s politicians and author’s the state’s laws.
Is the owner taking the dog for a walk? It seems to me that the dog might be, in fact be towing the owner.
The existence China disproves that statement.
@Pronomian Chomsky they love it. Spy on me more, Daddy. But in all seriousness the average Chinese looks at that and says authoritarian to who? Why obviously those who deserve it. It's something someone outside the system has a hard time understanding, myself included.
The twitter files show the government was getting private companies to censor information.
to the extent that 'big tech' exists largely as a function and functionary of the state's military research and development (see eg, the internet, anything aerospace, drones?) , its never not been a tool of the state. and to the extent that big business goes ahead of the military to spread the national security interest by privately gaining management of resources (often at the government's behest, historically!, and then invites the military in after it, to 'civilize', liberalize, open markets of labor and land fully capital investment and free trade, big business has never not been a tool of the state! its not -just- a tool of the state, the state is a tool of it too but theyre certainly working towards mutually beneficial ends.
I appreciate the nuanced thinking in his argument which leads me to say that I disagree with him a bit. I do agree with the skepticism of scientific research, because most research I see nowadays is focused on the manipulating control of people rather than control of the elements to benefit people. It's too convenient that the research funding and those who provide the funds collectively skip over ethical grounds that have been established for centuries, and the all the technological breakthroughs that existed in the 1950's just halted all progress for supposed dangers. Like low pressure breeder reactors and the hydrogen car that would have made all environemental arguements today nonexist.
OBJECTIVITY HAS GOT TO GO!
I don't trust people who type in all cap, I call health professionals to deal with them.
28:52 44:04 44:59 56:32 1:01:16 1:03:10
53:41 The best part
Peter is great art, his entire youtube. His business creations, his power
I like that you chose to express your self; in, neohaiku!
In the end progress and knowledge will lead us nowhere...
The planet and mankind is doomed...
When was this recorded
drink every time peter touches the mic
The idea that we live in an era of technological stagnation is absolutely bonkers. It's so at odds with reality that it's basically tantamount to saying that fish are at risk of dying of thirst.
19:50 this moment thiel feels like loosing arguments for why it‘s not a good idea to manipulate viruses and build new ones. It‘s interesting how he started the talk with nuclear weapons and the manhatten project, while playing with viruses might be the same game like in the past. 🎉🎉🎉
Rosenberg was much more dangerous than the Manhattan Project.
One of the thinkers I repsect greatly today!
"Thinkers" LOL
@@julianwarr7246 Ibram Kendi might be a thinker to you. I respect that!
Unwise intelligence is so dangerous; Incredibly effective naivety.
A kid with 3 wishes; a world of sweets, no bedtime and no parents.
What hell.
Just 2 mins in, and seeing Thiel trying to dampen the oscillating mics is hilarious! 😂
The opposite, when he stuttered/stumbled, he'd touch the mic. He started the oscillation!
The secret of perpetual motion😅🤣
At 34:00, it's curious how a pro-Luddite stance is derived from the statistic that individual satisfaction has decreased since the 1960s. Need individual satisfaction always increase in perpetuity?
Such thinking is reminiscent of that of investors with respect to stocks: if operating income doesn't increase forever, it's a bad stock!
I read so that i can size up any human I meet, I have a problem placing Thiel in my library 🤔 I'm American, educated in France and Germany.
What is he on?
Man this paper on his chest around 50:00 makes me so awkward, people have too much respect saying something haha, great talk!
University is not about progress. Look at the history of Sorbonne, in the middle ages that famed institution was a bastion of the faith. We barely got out of agricultural ages, we are into 2-300 years of the new technology era, and we already want to change everything. Be patient..
Whenever I hear the word 'progress' I release the safety on my Browning.
This is such a serious topic and it’s really it is mind blowing
Did anyone told Thiel about Heidegger? Lol, he wrote about that almost a century ago
100% agree with him. Why are people asking questions are too much leftist. Even the MC is leftist.
Why are not associating the issues that asose with crypto as great examples of what the issues with AI are going to be (if not already ARE).
Why not Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti-Anti? Sounds like Hegel's bad infinity? Or is it so many turns as to imply being boxed in?
Does Peter share JD Vance's appreciation of fine furniture?
When I watch this I kept hearing a bias over American exceptionalism and an anti China hysteria. Sad that we see these once great civilisations of Britain and USA descend into philistinism , barbaric racism, paranoia and dysfunction.
It is distressing from the inside, too. It's like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. People who you counted as friends, people you love, have been consumed by Sean Hannity and Alex Jones.
I agree. And yet he talks about real diversity and inclusion when he can't accept other countries like China who reject western neoliberalism; creating their own governance and society based on their own culture and history.
Western dominance is slowing globally as the world becomes more multipolar and it is hard for many in the West to deal with this.
He doesn’t look healthy.. genuinely concerned for his well-being. Sleep deprived, pale, highly anxious… guy needs a vacation
Yeah, I wonder where the Charles Manson comment came from. I've seen all his talks and never seen him so fazed.
He's a lizard.
Very interesting perspective. Congratulations Mr Thiel.
2:14
Jesus christ dude....
That's no small thing he is saying there.
He's not saying that he's adamantly against classical liberalism.
He's saying in the double negative,
he's against the notion of being against classical liberalism.
But actually it's a quadruple negative as he stated, which means he's ultimately for classical liberalism, but only through a kind of post-formal retaliation from perhaps how's its been defined in the past.
Hard to know exactly what he means since such concepts and stances are usually understood within a social context. Like an inside joke or a reference to prior generations of development.
Can you elaborate?
Insightful
He is pro technocracy, so yes he is a classical liberal.
Peter went to a great College,
MIDDELBURY in Vermont.
Wish he would have given this speech 1 year earlier, would this "Institute" been so willing and as free thought?
Objectivist rambling on about how much we don’t need altruism.
Planitir got the 480million nhs contract too, another example of tory cronyi$m.