Peter Thiel

But I've come to think that one of the bigger factors was the sense that a lot of the science and technology was quite dangerous. It had, at least in a military context, had a dual-use character. And this was...

But I've come to think that one of the bigger factors was the sense that a lot of the science and technology was quite dangerous. It had, at least in a military context, had a dual-use character. And this was...

I mean, there was already some relentless acceleration of this stuff in the late 18th, 19th centuries, you know, Napoleonic Wars, Colonel Colt with the revolver, Alfred Nobel inventing dynamite, you know, World War I. you know, was sort of a break point where, you know, the sort of naive progressive narrative really got undercut.

I mean, there was already some relentless acceleration of this stuff in the late 18th, 19th centuries, you know, Napoleonic Wars, Colonel Colt with the revolver, Alfred Nobel inventing dynamite, you know, World War I. you know, was sort of a break point where, you know, the sort of naive progressive narrative really got undercut.

I mean, there was already some relentless acceleration of this stuff in the late 18th, 19th centuries, you know, Napoleonic Wars, Colonel Colt with the revolver, Alfred Nobel inventing dynamite, you know, World War I. you know, was sort of a break point where, you know, the sort of naive progressive narrative really got undercut.

And then somehow you can say that the sort of Baconian science project in some sense ended, were ended in the Hegelian senses, both culminated and terminated at Los Alamos with the building of nuclear weapons. And then, again, it doesn't work perfectly, but my telling would be that it took maybe a quarter century for nuclear weapons to really get internalized by society. And then by the 1970s,

And then somehow you can say that the sort of Baconian science project in some sense ended, were ended in the Hegelian senses, both culminated and terminated at Los Alamos with the building of nuclear weapons. And then, again, it doesn't work perfectly, but my telling would be that it took maybe a quarter century for nuclear weapons to really get internalized by society. And then by the 1970s,

And then somehow you can say that the sort of Baconian science project in some sense ended, were ended in the Hegelian senses, both culminated and terminated at Los Alamos with the building of nuclear weapons. And then, again, it doesn't work perfectly, but my telling would be that it took maybe a quarter century for nuclear weapons to really get internalized by society. And then by the 1970s,

you know, the energy, you know, the energy was, you know, we don't want to be doing this outside world where we're going to build ever more thermonuclear bombs. We want to be, you know, peacing out at Burning Man with psychedelic drugs. We want to... We want to, you know, or you escape back to nature through environmentalism.

you know, the energy, you know, the energy was, you know, we don't want to be doing this outside world where we're going to build ever more thermonuclear bombs. We want to be, you know, peacing out at Burning Man with psychedelic drugs. We want to... We want to, you know, or you escape back to nature through environmentalism.

you know, the energy, you know, the energy was, you know, we don't want to be doing this outside world where we're going to build ever more thermonuclear bombs. We want to be, you know, peacing out at Burning Man with psychedelic drugs. We want to... We want to, you know, or you escape back to nature through environmentalism.

You know, we are, you know, we want to be in a world not of change, but of stasis, because a world of change has this apocalyptic dimension. Change is change for the worse. That's the sense that gets, you know, encapsulated in the 1970s. And so there's a way that the sort of progressive version of science, you know, we try to... We try to put the pause button on it.

You know, we are, you know, we want to be in a world not of change, but of stasis, because a world of change has this apocalyptic dimension. Change is change for the worse. That's the sense that gets, you know, encapsulated in the 1970s. And so there's a way that the sort of progressive version of science, you know, we try to... We try to put the pause button on it.

You know, we are, you know, we want to be in a world not of change, but of stasis, because a world of change has this apocalyptic dimension. Change is change for the worse. That's the sense that gets, you know, encapsulated in the 1970s. And so there's a way that the sort of progressive version of science, you know, we try to... We try to put the pause button on it.

The places where it's still allowed, you can say, are the most inert. So in a way, the world of bits was seen as incredibly inert because you're not building bombs, you're not building weapons with it. And then, of course, even there, there's some sort of way in which the ideas on the internet, maybe they do translate into reality every now and then.

The places where it's still allowed, you can say, are the most inert. So in a way, the world of bits was seen as incredibly inert because you're not building bombs, you're not building weapons with it. And then, of course, even there, there's some sort of way in which the ideas on the internet, maybe they do translate into reality every now and then.

The places where it's still allowed, you can say, are the most inert. So in a way, the world of bits was seen as incredibly inert because you're not building bombs, you're not building weapons with it. And then, of course, even there, there's some sort of way in which the ideas on the internet, maybe they do translate into reality every now and then.

You know, what happens on Twitter or X doesn't always stay there. Most of the time it stays there, so it feels like it's this extremely angry, intense conversation, but every now and then it still translates to the real world. So the internet, you could say, was allowed because it was sort of a safe space. a place where the sort of violence could be contained.

You know, what happens on Twitter or X doesn't always stay there. Most of the time it stays there, so it feels like it's this extremely angry, intense conversation, but every now and then it still translates to the real world. So the internet, you could say, was allowed because it was sort of a safe space. a place where the sort of violence could be contained.

You know, what happens on Twitter or X doesn't always stay there. Most of the time it stays there, so it feels like it's this extremely angry, intense conversation, but every now and then it still translates to the real world. So the internet, you could say, was allowed because it was sort of a safe space. a place where the sort of violence could be contained.