You all might find my book and online course about the future relevant: http://www.possiblefutureworlds.com. I referenced Peter Thiel's book and actually met him at his book launch in New York at Columbia. He's impressive and thoughtful, to say the least. I've also exchanged some emails with people involved with Project Hieroglyph.
I think that the Bloomberg article gets both books wrong, simplifying each authors' notions of the future. They both attempt to stimulate us into thinking about possible futures that no one else is thinking about, either because we are biased against the fanciful, we are too consumed with making money rather than creating value, or that we no longer dare to dream big. It is not that incremental improvements in technologies add no value in Thiel's case or that space elevators themselves should be the goal of humanity in Stephenson's case. However, a large number of copycat competitors will not steer us into a fundamentally different and better path, and not daring to be audacious will prevent us from achieving something extraordinary. In short, people today are letting the good be the enemy of the great.
Of course there are two valid visions of the future that we could hope for. One that takes what we value presently and improves upon those values. Or one that creates new values and expectations that hopefully fulfill our old values. Both are attempts to expand the frontiers of humanity. So it makes little sense to me to say that one is wrong or the other is right. The future will be whichever we want it to be.
Where do policymakers from the US, EU, Russia, and NATO see the world heading? How do technologists such as Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Smidt, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates think about the future? How do renowned academics such as Steven Pinker, Nassim Taleb, and Philip Tetlock challenge our intuitions about predictions? How can we systematically think about the future with philosophers including Michael Walzer, Saul Kripke, Thomas Pogge, Peter Singer, Michael Doyle, and John Rawls?
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs asked me to teach a course on the e-book, Of All Possible Future Worlds: Global Trends, Values, and Ethics, for its Ethics Fellows for the Future on www.globalethicsnetwork.org. The fellows come from all over the world, ranging from England, China, Japan, Singapore, Argentina, Brazil, Ghana, South Africa, Canada, and the US. We may open the class in the future. However, now anyone can freely access the course materials below. Ethics is for everyone.
I think that the Bloomberg article gets both books wrong, simplifying each authors' notions of the future. They both attempt to stimulate us into thinking about possible futures that no one else is thinking about, either because we are biased against the fanciful, we are too consumed with making money rather than creating value, or that we no longer dare to dream big. It is not that incremental improvements in technologies add no value in Thiel's case or that space elevators themselves should be the goal of humanity in Stephenson's case. However, a large number of copycat competitors will not steer us into a fundamentally different and better path, and not daring to be audacious will prevent us from achieving something extraordinary. In short, people today are letting the good be the enemy of the great.
Of course there are two valid visions of the future that we could hope for. One that takes what we value presently and improves upon those values. Or one that creates new values and expectations that hopefully fulfill our old values. Both are attempts to expand the frontiers of humanity. So it makes little sense to me to say that one is wrong or the other is right. The future will be whichever we want it to be.