Peter Thiel

The only thing is, I'm just making a narrow linguistic point.

The only thing is, I'm just making a narrow linguistic point.

Well, at this point, people say computer science has worked, but in the 1980s, All I'm saying is it was in the same category as, let's say, social science, political science. It was a tell that the people doing it kind of deep down knew they weren't doing real science.

Well, at this point, people say computer science has worked, but in the 1980s, All I'm saying is it was in the same category as, let's say, social science, political science. It was a tell that the people doing it kind of deep down knew they weren't doing real science.

Well, at this point, people say computer science has worked, but in the 1980s, All I'm saying is it was in the same category as, let's say, social science, political science. It was a tell that the people doing it kind of deep down knew they weren't doing real science.

Yeah. Look, it was all linked into all these ideological projects in all these ways. Right. You know, there's an environmental project, which is, you know, and maybe it shouldn't be scientific. You know, the hardcore environmentalist argument is we only have one planet and we don't have time to do science.

Yeah. Look, it was all linked into all these ideological projects in all these ways. Right. You know, there's an environmental project, which is, you know, and maybe it shouldn't be scientific. You know, the hardcore environmentalist argument is we only have one planet and we don't have time to do science.

Yeah. Look, it was all linked into all these ideological projects in all these ways. Right. You know, there's an environmental project, which is, you know, and maybe it shouldn't be scientific. You know, the hardcore environmentalist argument is we only have one planet and we don't have time to do science.

If we have to do rigorous science and you can prove that we're overheating, it'll be too late. And so if you're a hardcore environmentalist, you don't want to have as high a standard of science. Yeah, my intuition is certainly when you go away from that, you end up with things that are too dogmatic, too ideological. Maybe it doesn't even work, even if the planet's getting warmer.

If we have to do rigorous science and you can prove that we're overheating, it'll be too late. And so if you're a hardcore environmentalist, you don't want to have as high a standard of science. Yeah, my intuition is certainly when you go away from that, you end up with things that are too dogmatic, too ideological. Maybe it doesn't even work, even if the planet's getting warmer.

If we have to do rigorous science and you can prove that we're overheating, it'll be too late. And so if you're a hardcore environmentalist, you don't want to have as high a standard of science. Yeah, my intuition is certainly when you go away from that, you end up with things that are too dogmatic, too ideological. Maybe it doesn't even work, even if the planet's getting warmer.

Maybe climate science is not – my question is, maybe methane is a worse – is it more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? We're not even capable of measuring that.

Maybe climate science is not – my question is, maybe methane is a worse – is it more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? We're not even capable of measuring that.

Maybe climate science is not – my question is, maybe methane is a worse – is it more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide? We're not even capable of measuring that.

Sure. Although there probably are ways to steel man the other side too where maybe – Maybe the original 1970s, I think the manifesto that's always Very interesting from the other side was this book by the Club of Rome, 1972, The Limits of Growth. And it's, you can't have, we need to head towards a society in which there's zero percent, there's very limited growth.

Sure. Although there probably are ways to steel man the other side too where maybe – Maybe the original 1970s, I think the manifesto that's always Very interesting from the other side was this book by the Club of Rome, 1972, The Limits of Growth. And it's, you can't have, we need to head towards a society in which there's zero percent, there's very limited growth.

Sure. Although there probably are ways to steel man the other side too where maybe – Maybe the original 1970s, I think the manifesto that's always Very interesting from the other side was this book by the Club of Rome, 1972, The Limits of Growth. And it's, you can't have, we need to head towards a society in which there's zero percent, there's very limited growth.

Because if you have unlimited growth, you're going to run out of resources. If you don't run out of resources, you'll hit a pollution constraint. But in the 1970s, it was, you're going to have overpopulation. You're going to run out of oil. We had the oil shocks.

Because if you have unlimited growth, you're going to run out of resources. If you don't run out of resources, you'll hit a pollution constraint. But in the 1970s, it was, you're going to have overpopulation. You're going to run out of oil. We had the oil shocks.

Because if you have unlimited growth, you're going to run out of resources. If you don't run out of resources, you'll hit a pollution constraint. But in the 1970s, it was, you're going to have overpopulation. You're going to run out of oil. We had the oil shocks.