4 ms·

"go work on it himself" Amen. Some of his philanthropic efforts may prove beneficial to science. He could just be a quiet philanthropist. But these sort of

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

guylhem 14y ago
I don't agree on that one. Maybe it's in his interest or objectives, but such a writing sure won't make me invest a dime in web 2.0 companies or any companies based in a country engaged in a process of self destruction. Why can't you consider the alternative, that he may truely very worried, and try to share his views, his warning? Altruism is a human trait. The frequency can be debated, but when we see a problem we like to warn our fellows.
- truethurts 14y ago
  What if you are a policy maker, or someone poised to influence policy makers, that could affect the prospects for Silicon Valley and "Web 2.0"? I cannot take him and his arguments about "science" seriously because 1. he is using the concept of scientifc progress, which many of use would agree always worthy of pursuing, under the guise of "Web 2.0" which you might guess is not my idea of science and 2. his background is Stanford Law School, a Wall Street trading desk, a hedge fund and then PayPal and Palantir. He has little credibility on this topic: science. If he were focussed on preaching the merits of philanthropic donations to scientific causes, and he has some credibility on this, I would not be criticising his writings. But as we all know there is more to his agenda and these PR pieces. They always include references to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley. No harm in trying to pump up the market for web startups, as long as you're within the law, but when you start sugar-coating these pitches with talk of "scientific progress", then I take issue. It's true he may warning of a general problem with a growing disregard for science. But why does he have to connect it to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley? Maybe because that is the only things he knows that is remotely reminiscient of science? Or is there some other reason? Because he is a venture capitalist in that sector? What is the purpose of Section III? How does he know that science is being ignored? Is he working in a lab somewhere and short on funding for his research? No. He's a Silicon Valley venture capitalist investing in "Web 2.0". He would know if Silicon Valley is being ignored or could use a little more attention. Of that I am certain.
  - guylhem 14y ago
    It's ok to question his background and credentials on science, however the formula he uses - basically substituting science by economical growth is consistent with what I know about Sollow growth model, which tends to no growth unless an external variable called technical progress is introduced. I am also worried by the growing disregard of science, but IMHO it is less worrysome that the actual slowing down in technical progress. I wouldn't call web 2.0 startup, social networks and the likes "progress". We are just focusing more about ourselves instead of exploiting our environment more. We think we are doing things, but we're not actually building new physical stuff - only barely improving. The drug innovation example is spot on.
    - truethurts 14y ago
      Agreed. What if someone with Theil's resources "brute forced" some area of therapeutic development, like Gates did with vaccines? I say brute forced because the natural tendency of investment has never tended toward vaccines. It has tended toward small molecules with large target patient populations that can pay high drug prices. But through sheer force of philanthropic will, Gates allowed something to happen that might not have happened otherwise, by virtue of economics (choose whatever theory you like).
      - guylhem 14y ago
        Yes- that's the interesting point : when you get so much money, you can invest it in interests worthy to you, with an overhead equal to what you will tolerate and will normally be less that what a bureaucracy will tolerate - so it's more efficient than a similar sized government projects. The Gates example is perfect. We, the human race, have capital and more than before. We could be investing it in science. But we don't do it as much as we did previously. This worries me, because all the evidence seems to point to a cultural explanation. I don't know how to call it - so far the best way I've found to express it is "a reduction in the will to live", a reduction of hope in the future. The alternative explanation would be that accumulating the capital in fewer persons leads for some reason to a deceleration of investment, a notion I can't find any explanation for, since the richest would have more and more surplus as they venture away from the needs of everyday's life and therefore more and more reasons to invest it in technical progress instead of spending it on the necessities of life. There is this idea of ostentious consumption and Veblen goods, but it seemed to me that with the decreasing marginal interest (who needs a 12th Ferrari?), investment and therefore progress would be the tendancy. It's not. So I'm worried. Maybe there is a decreasing marginal interest in the will to live, that impacts investment and progress ? This could be supported by the decreasing birth rates in most countries and they get away from basic survival.

guylhem 14y ago

I don't agree on that one. Maybe it's in his interest or objectives, but such a writing sure won't make me invest a dime in web 2.0 companies or any companies based in a country engaged in a process of self destruction. Why can't you consider the alternative, that he may truely very worried, and try to share his views, his warning? Altruism is a human trait. The frequency can be debated, but when we see a problem we like to warn our fellows.

truethurts 14y ago
What if you are a policy maker, or someone poised to influence policy makers, that could affect the prospects for Silicon Valley and "Web 2.0"? I cannot take him and his arguments about "science" seriously because 1. he is using the concept of scientifc progress, which many of use would agree always worthy of pursuing, under the guise of "Web 2.0" which you might guess is not my idea of science and 2. his background is Stanford Law School, a Wall Street trading desk, a hedge fund and then PayPal and Palantir. He has little credibility on this topic: science. If he were focussed on preaching the merits of philanthropic donations to scientific causes, and he has some credibility on this, I would not be criticising his writings. But as we all know there is more to his agenda and these PR pieces. They always include references to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley. No harm in trying to pump up the market for web startups, as long as you're within the law, but when you start sugar-coating these pitches with talk of "scientific progress", then I take issue. It's true he may warning of a general problem with a growing disregard for science. But why does he have to connect it to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley? Maybe because that is the only things he knows that is remotely reminiscient of science? Or is there some other reason? Because he is a venture capitalist in that sector? What is the purpose of Section III? How does he know that science is being ignored? Is he working in a lab somewhere and short on funding for his research? No. He's a Silicon Valley venture capitalist investing in "Web 2.0". He would know if Silicon Valley is being ignored or could use a little more attention. Of that I am certain.
- guylhem 14y ago
  It's ok to question his background and credentials on science, however the formula he uses - basically substituting science by economical growth is consistent with what I know about Sollow growth model, which tends to no growth unless an external variable called technical progress is introduced. I am also worried by the growing disregard of science, but IMHO it is less worrysome that the actual slowing down in technical progress. I wouldn't call web 2.0 startup, social networks and the likes "progress". We are just focusing more about ourselves instead of exploiting our environment more. We think we are doing things, but we're not actually building new physical stuff - only barely improving. The drug innovation example is spot on.
  - truethurts 14y ago
    Agreed. What if someone with Theil's resources "brute forced" some area of therapeutic development, like Gates did with vaccines? I say brute forced because the natural tendency of investment has never tended toward vaccines. It has tended toward small molecules with large target patient populations that can pay high drug prices. But through sheer force of philanthropic will, Gates allowed something to happen that might not have happened otherwise, by virtue of economics (choose whatever theory you like).
    - guylhem 14y ago
      Yes- that's the interesting point : when you get so much money, you can invest it in interests worthy to you, with an overhead equal to what you will tolerate and will normally be less that what a bureaucracy will tolerate - so it's more efficient than a similar sized government projects. The Gates example is perfect. We, the human race, have capital and more than before. We could be investing it in science. But we don't do it as much as we did previously. This worries me, because all the evidence seems to point to a cultural explanation. I don't know how to call it - so far the best way I've found to express it is "a reduction in the will to live", a reduction of hope in the future. The alternative explanation would be that accumulating the capital in fewer persons leads for some reason to a deceleration of investment, a notion I can't find any explanation for, since the richest would have more and more surplus as they venture away from the needs of everyday's life and therefore more and more reasons to invest it in technical progress instead of spending it on the necessities of life. There is this idea of ostentious consumption and Veblen goods, but it seemed to me that with the decreasing marginal interest (who needs a 12th Ferrari?), investment and therefore progress would be the tendancy. It's not. So I'm worried. Maybe there is a decreasing marginal interest in the will to live, that impacts investment and progress ? This could be supported by the decreasing birth rates in most countries and they get away from basic survival.