Peter Thiel recently argued that a slowdown in progress is overdetermined, and due in part to a widespread fear of progress itself. Should we be focusing on the mass psychology needed to support progress? What might help?
2elidourado2yI think it's true to some extent that the masses exert some demand for
stagnation.
The way I've been thinking about it is that laws and norms are ways of solving
iterated prisoner's dilemmas. But because of loss aversion, there isn't symmetry
in the kinds of PDs that get solved this way. The "prevent something bad from
happening" PDs get solved more than the "make something great happen" PDs do.
(This is essentially the Nietzschean distinction between slave morality and
master morality, applied to laws as well as morals.)
I don't think the masses are ever going to change. Rather, I think elites need
to compensate and be advocates for great things happening. There needs to be an
elite conspiracy to elevate humanity far above where it would otherwise be
willing to go.
A lot of policy change can happen with only elite consensus. In my work I focus
a lot on small changes that need not concern most people, like a categorical
exclusion for geothermal energy. Or changing how the Department of Energy does
contracting for demonstration projects. I think a promising way to increase
progress is to subtly remove a lot of small obstacles like this.
Maybe if we can get a few great, visible achievements it will soften mass
opposition to some degree.
What's your theory of political authority? Do citizens have a moral responsibility to obey government more than other organizations? What are the proper limits to government authority? How does this figure into your policy recommendations?
2elidourado2yI don't think there is any account of political authority that isn't defeated by
the standard objections.
For purely prudential reasons, I think people should give some deference to
governments as long as the government is mostly functional and aligned with the
population. Living in a state where the government is ineffective is not
generally pleasant, and we should all in some sense be rooting for the
government to succeed at least at its basic functions.
I don't think there is a set of given-from-on-high proper limits to what the
government should do, but I prefer modest aims executed with competence and
focus compared to what we have now.
My recommendations don't generally speak to the overall size or role of
government. For the most part, I am trying to help the government succeed by its
own lights—often by helping it get out of its own way. I think this approach
gets me in with both Democrats and Republicans and makes me more effective than
if I founded my ideas in a more explicit ideology.
Peter Thiel recently argued that a slowdown in progress is overdetermined, and due in part to a widespread fear of progress itself. Should we be focusing on the mass psychology needed to support progress? What might help?