How is technology changing the way we live?

Question: How is technology changing the way we live?


Peter Thiel: It’s an incredibly important force, and it’s not again determinant that it’s just going to go in one way or another.

Let me say something about both computers and biotechnology, which I think are sort of the two big technology drivers we have in the world today. On the computer side, I think thus far it has basically been driving the world towards more decentralization. It’s basically empowered individuals to make choices and taking power away from centralized governments.

And this had both a very good effect such as we saw with the breakdown of the iron curtain, and the unraveling of the Soviet Union.

And it’s also had the bad effect of empowering evil people to blow up buildings and do a lot of the things that it would have been much harder to do in a previous world.

My sense is we’re still on this decentralization trajectory for some time to come, and that the world is going to continue to therefore shift into a somewhat more libertarian direction. I think more for good than for bad, but it was obviously some bad risks, especially in the global security context.

I think this is by no means set. There are all sorts of debates about this. I think it is quite possible that technology, for example, in 20 or 30 years could once again become a recentralizing force; and that it would become possible to have computers that are actually able to monitor the world, and to centralize information.

And even a company like Wal-Mart in Arkansas can now control a trillion dollars a year worth of merchandise with just a handful of people from Bentonville, Arkansas.

I think there are elements of technology that are actually centralizing. I think the decentralizing ones are the dominant ones. And that’s sort of where the computer revolution is basically headed.


Topic: The biotechnology revolution.


Peter Thiel: The biotechnology revolution is basically headed towards expanding human life. And you know people lived to an age average age of 46 in 1900. It was up to 78 by the year 2000 in the U.S. You know in the early 20th century, _________more in reducing infant mortality. In recent decades, there have actually been more and more in extending the lifespan of adults. And by all indications that is going to continue.

We’re still in the very early stages of this revolution, and I think . . . I think it would be realistic for us to expect to live to, say, age 120 or something like that. I’m not gonna say forever, but I think to say to set one’s expectations that nothing’s going change is very ________ in that respect.

And on the biotech side, I see just this incredible disconnect between the technology and the culture where the technology is enabling us to live longer and longer, and then the culture and all sorts of other factors are encouraging people to have shorter and shorter time horizons.

It’s sort of like a Jerry Springer show where people are making choices like sex with my girlfriend and my girlfriend’s mother. And six months from now, all three of us will be on national TV, and I’ll get beaten up in front a live studio audience. But it doesn’t matter because it’ll really be a different person because it’s not me. Six months from now it’s a different person.

So if you’re living your life as though you’re going to be dead in six months, one of the problems with that is, of course, well first off, it’s bad if you’re dead, but maybe you’re also wrong and you won’t be dead, and instead you’ll just be a person who’s fatter, and less healthy, and has made some bad choices and has stuck with those choices. And given where the technology is headed, you may be stuck with those for like 100 years or more.

I think there are some very interesting things going on with both the biotech and the computer science revolutions; very unclear how they’re going play out. My guess is that technology will dominant the culture ______ biotech. And so people are going to live longer whether they’re planning on it or not. And on the computer side, I see it as being effectively very libertarian for the next few decades. Beyond that, it could go either way.


Recorded on: Sep 05, 2007

Although here are elements of technology that are actually centralizing, essentially technology is decentralizing society.

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

26 ultra-rich people own as much as the world's 3.8 billion poorest

The Oxfam report prompted Anand Giridharadas to tweet: "Don't be Pinkered into everything's-getting-better complacency."

Getty Images and Wikimedia Commons
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new report by Oxfam argues that wealth inequality is causing poverty and misery around the world.
  • In the last year, the world's billionaires saw their wealth increase by 12%, while the poorest 3.8 billion people on the planet lost 11% of their wealth.
  • The report prompted Anand Giridharadas to tweet: "Don't be Pinkered into everything's-getting-better complacency." We explain what Steven Pinker's got to do with it.
Keep reading Show less

People who constantly complain are harmful to your health

Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.

Photo credit: Getty Images / Stringer

Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.

Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.

Keep reading Show less
  • Facebook and Google began as companies with supposedly noble purposes.
  • Creating a more connected world and indexing the world's information: what could be better than that?
  • But pressure to return value to shareholders came at the expense of their own users.
Keep reading Show less