"But the number of iconic companies—and the number of companies that even aspire to greatness—seems to be dropping. I'm a little worried that things are slowing down, operating well below potential. …We need more Intels, Apples, Googles, Genentechs, and Facebooks. I'm not sure we're going to get enough with venture [capital] in its current state. "
I agree and this bothers me a lot. Startups are easier to start and we're making silly twitter apps or trying to sell out for 5 million. Very few companies strive to build a lasting legacy.
His philanthropic pursuits are also interesting. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Philanthropy he has donated to the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, the Methuselah Mouse Prize (anti-aging research), and the Seasteading Institute.
Edit: Actually, this makes sense considering his business acumen. He's shooting for most lives saved per dollar. The chance of success of these organizations is lower than typical charities, but the expected benefit is immense compared to typical charities. For example, let's say the Methuselah foundation has a 1% chance of finding a cure for aging. 7,000,000,000 * 0.01 = 70,000,000 expected lives saved.
I am a research associate at the Singularity Institute, and know several people involved in anti-aging research and seasteading. Utility-per-dollar calculations like http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html are indeed a large part of our motivation. (Please do ask if you have any questions, or feel free to email me at pphysics141@gmail.com.)
Thiel understands that because the world political system is far from equilibrium, in the long run it will tend towards one of two possible futures: extreme centralization or extreme decentralization. If you can assume the former is nwo-type scenario, then it's clear that he's hoping to push society towards the latter--paypal, seasteading, etc all create the infrstrucure for small-scale independence. I agree with him.
7 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadI agree and this bothers me a lot. Startups are easier to start and we're making silly twitter apps or trying to sell out for 5 million. Very few companies strive to build a lasting legacy.
Edit: Actually, this makes sense considering his business acumen. He's shooting for most lives saved per dollar. The chance of success of these organizations is lower than typical charities, but the expected benefit is immense compared to typical charities. For example, let's say the Methuselah foundation has a 1% chance of finding a cure for aging. 7,000,000,000 * 0.01 = 70,000,000 expected lives saved.
You beat me to it, but I'm leaving this comment to encourage people who aren't familiar with these organizations to look them up.