The state of true science is the key to knowing whether something is truly rotten in the United States. But any such assessment encounters an immediate and almost insuperable challenge. Who can speak about the true health of the ever-expanding universe of human knowledge, given how complex, esoteric, and specialized the many scientific and technological fields have become? When any given field takes half a lifetime of study to master, who can compare and contrast and properly weight the rate of progress in nanotechnology and cryptography and superstring theory and 610 other disciplines? Indeed, how do we even know whether the so-called scientists are not just lawmakers and politicians in disguise, as some conservatives suspect in fields as disparate as climate change, evolutionary biology, and embryonic-stem-cell research, and as I have come to suspect in almost all fields?Mr. Thiel, I have two degrees in science. Many of my friends have PhD's in science. I work at a research and development company, a not-for-profit, that specializes in not only cutting-edge research in life sciences, chemistry, and engineering, but also has several large government contracts to provide "subject matter experts" to them, which are essentially people whose specialized knowledge has no peer. At my company there are 140+ people with PhDs. There are 100+ more with at least a master of science degree.
And so with this large sample of friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and coworkers I can assure you: we are not secret lawmakers. We are not politicians in disguise. In fact, politicians make us sick. The conservative conspiracy theorists that assume intelligent scientists have an agenda are only half correct: our 'agenda' is to increase the scientific knowledge available to our species. Our agenda is to vote against politicians who suggest Darwin was a fraud. Our aim is to secure as much government revenue for ourselves as we can, because our research has a proven track record of economic stimulus. Pointless wars, half a planet away, have done nothing for the economy other than help to cause the Great Recession of 2008 upon which your thesis is based.
Thiel then writes this:
In the past decade, the unresolved energy challenges of the 1970s have broadened into a more general commodity shock, which has been greater in magnitude than the price spikes of the two world wars and has undone the price improvements of the previous century. In the case of agriculture, at least, technological famine may lead to real old-fashioned famine.Shouldn't we also talk about the grain subsidies for corn-based ethanol, championed by many an ill-informed (or self-preserving) politician, which have completely ruined the agricultural balanced system in this country? Shouldn't we point out that while ethanol remains an impossibly tiny contributer to the overall energy portfolio in America, the commodity shock due to the scarcity of corn-based feed for livestock has caused an outward flowing ripple in the food price system in this country that has had as great, if not greater, effect than the slowdown in crop yield acceleration he blames on poor innovation?
Thiel then writes this:
While innovation in medicine and biotechnology has not stalled completely, here too signs of slowed progress and reduced expectations abound. In 1970, Congress promised victory over cancer in six years’ time; four decades later, we may be 41 years closer, but victory remains elusive and appears much farther away.Mr. Thiel makes no mention of cancer survival rate over this period, which has gone through the roof, if you will. It turns out that a Congressional promise of cancer cures is not the same thing as a doctor's promise of cancer cures (Thiel later acknowledges the abject lack of scientific knowledge in Congress). It also turns out that politicians are full of crap on many instances, and putting all of humanity's biotechnological progress on trial for the misstatements of 70's Senators is ridiculous, and utter nonsense.
Thiel then writes this:
If meaningful scientific and technological progress occurs, then we reasonably would expect greater economic prosperity. And also in reverse: If economic gains, as measured by certain key indicators, have been limited or nonexistent, then perhaps so has scientific and technological progress.This is a fallacious argument. Meaningful technological progress has occurred for the last 30 years in the area of fuel efficiency and power in diesel locomotives. Currently, just a few engines can pull a quarter mile long, fully loaded, string of coal cars from Wyoming to Texas at a very high speed. I know this because they go right past my house, hulking monstrosities of American engineering wonder. And yet, this coal super-train capability cannot honestly be held responsible for economic prosperity. On the contrary, stronger diesel engines means less are necessary to pull a finite amount of coal, so fewer need to be built. Longer trains means less trains, which means less engineers driving them which means fewer jobs. Automation and traffic control of train/rail systems has streamlined efficiency and driven down margins, making coal-train-operation less profitable.
And to use Mr. Thiels words, and also in reverse: in the middle of the Great Recession of 2008, Apple released both the iPhone and the iPad, Google launched their Android OS that has become prevalent on many smartphones, and both Apple and Google (and their hardware manufacturers and their shareholders) have enjoyed unprecedented economic prosperity. Further, saying "if economic progress, as measured by certain key indicators" is an unfair statement. Because it allows the writer (Mr. Thiel) or anyone else to choose whichever key indicators they want to make their point (I'll use one in a second). I could point to Apple's stock price as a key indicator. I could point to the 25% decrease in gas prices the last 3 months as a key indicator. I could point to the housing market collapse as a key indicator...of something.
Mr. Thiel then writes:
Economic progress may lag behind scientific and technological achievement, but 38 years seems like an awfully long time.Indeed, most of Mr. Thiel's article seems to suggest that since 1973 we are no better, the economy is no stronger, and Americans are no better off. How can this be? Let's use a carefully selected key indicator, the GDP/population. In 1973 this would be $4.9 billion/ 211 million people = $23/person. Fast forward to 2010, and this becomes $42/person. According to this key indicator, every American is contributing basically twice as much to the economy, or stated a different way: the economy is twice as strong per unit of population.
Mr. Thiel then writes:
This analysis suggests an explanation for the strange way the technology bubble of the 1990s gave rise to the real-estate bubble of the 2000s. After betting heavily on technology growth that did not materialize, investors tried to achieve the needed double-digit returns through massive leverage in seemingly safe real-estate investments. This did not work either, because a major reason for the bubble in real estate turned out to be the same as the reason for the bubble in technology: a mistaken but nearly universal background assumption about easy progress. Without fundamental gains in productivity (presumably driven by technology), real-estate values could not go up forever. Leverage is not a substitute for scientific progress.Wait, so it's technology that is to blame for the housing market crash? I cannot believe what utter nonsense this is. And if that is his point, then shouldn't he castigate himself a bit here? Thiel helped found PayPal in 1998, right in the midst of the Dotcom boom.
Mr. Thiel then writes:
The technology slowdown threatens not just our financial markets, but the entire modern political order, which is predicated on easy and relentless growth.We are now in section six, page four of this essay and he has never given any evidence of a technology slowdown, in fact he has stated twice that a technological slowdown is nearly impossible to measure. I'm reading his article on a tablet PC, by the way. Which is receiving wireless internet from another room. Which is also connected to a flat screen TV and gives me ATT Uverse. Which is sent as photons through a fiber optic cable that can stretch hundreds of miles. Which is made of a super-pure form of glass in a clean room in a cutting edge manufacturing facility on another continent. Technology slowdown? Harumph.
Lastly, Mr. Thiel writes:
Men reached the moon in July 1969, and Woodstock began three weeks later. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this was when the hippies took over the country, and when the true cultural war over Progress was lost.Did he really just write that? I wish I'd started with this section of his essay, because it's clearly where he saved his best:
Today’s aged hippies no longer understand that there is a difference between the election of a black president and the creation of cheap solar energy; in their minds, the movement towards greater civil rights parallels general progress everywhere. Because of these ideological conflations and commitments, the 1960s Progressive Left cannot ask whether things actually might be getting worse.So wait, are we supposed ignore that the hippy-elected, black President recently made the news for a $535 million loan to Solyndra, a solar energy company? It's almost like the hippies elected him for more than just the color of his skin. The thing is, I don't think there are many people left in America who don't acknowledge that in many ways, things are getting worse. But this article Mr. Thiel wrote was supposed to be about technology, not the public school system or criminal justice system or mass transit system or military industrial complex or foreign wars and torture at 'black' locations or the myriad of irrelevant-to-this-discussion topics where America is struggling.
Look, I do want to quote positively one thing Mr. Thiel wrote:
Most of our political leaders are not engineers or scientists and do not listen to engineers or scientists. Today a letter from Einstein would get lost in the White House mail room, and the Manhattan Project would not even get started; it certainly could never be completed in three years. I am not aware of a single political leader in the U.S., either Democrat or Republican, who would cut health-care spending in order to free up money for biotechnology research — or, more generally, who would make serious cuts to the welfare state in order to free up serious money for major engineering projects.Sadly he is correct. While in large I disagree with him about technological progress - in my opinion the world is an amazing place filled with wonders that someone in 1973 could not have possibly imagined without the assistance of LSD - I do think that he is right about the Federal Government by and large hampering research and development, despite the existence of entities like the NIH and NSF. Many R&D projects are going to the the same companies, over and over, and the "military-industrial complex" label becomes appropriately applied.
One last thing: Mr. Thiel, I have this really great idea for a technology that would change modern medicine (and make you a boatload of money). I've built a working prototype at my kitchen table and proven it works to a few close friends. If you would be interested, I would love to talk to you about investment. Call me shameless, but seriously...do call me.
_
0 comments:
Post a Comment