He is making some valid arguments. I mean who could argue that leverage/debt/credit is being abused? That is not exactly a new problem. It has been simmering for quite some time. And who in a modern economy could argue that scientific progress should not always be paramount? These are like noble truths.
But then he is inserting some positive references about Google, the web and Silicon Valley. Strangely, (positive) references to what I would consider "real science" are missing.
This is only how I see it. You may disagree. Who knows, maybe "Web 2.0" will propel the economy upwards, back to year 2000 levels. And capital investment will flow into "real science" again. The number of biotech startups will rise. Jobs in science will become plentiful. New drug candidates will fill development pipelines. And it will have all started with some "Web 2.0 fluff". Thanks in no small part to Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Theil.
Agreed. What if someone with Theil's resources "brute forced" some area of therapeutic development, like Gates did with vaccines? I say brute forced because the natural tendency of investment has never tended toward vaccines. It has tended toward small molecules with large target patient populations that can pay high drug prices. But through sheer force of philanthropic will, Gates allowed something to happen that might not have happened otherwise, by virtue of economics (choose whatever theory you like).
What if you are a policy maker, or someone poised to influence policy makers, that could affect the prospects for Silicon Valley and "Web 2.0"?
I cannot take him and his arguments about "science" seriously because 1. he is using the concept of scientifc progress, which many of use would agree always worthy of pursuing, under the guise of "Web 2.0" which you might guess is not my idea of science and 2. his background is Stanford Law School, a Wall Street trading desk, a hedge fund and then PayPal and Palantir. He has little credibility on this topic: science.
If he were focussed on preaching the merits of philanthropic donations to scientific causes, and he has some credibility on this, I would not be criticising his writings. But as we all know there is more to his agenda and these PR pieces. They always include references to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley. No harm in trying to pump up the market for web startups, as long as you're within the law, but when you start sugar-coating these pitches with talk of "scientific progress", then I take issue.
It's true he may warning of a general problem with a growing disregard for science. But why does he have to connect it to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley? Maybe because that is the only things he knows that is remotely reminiscient of science? Or is there some other reason? Because he is a venture capitalist in that sector? What is the purpose of Section III?
How does he know that science is being ignored? Is he working in a lab somewhere and short on funding for his research? No. He's a Silicon Valley venture capitalist investing in "Web 2.0". He would know if Silicon Valley is being ignored or could use a little more attention. Of that I am certain.
Some of his philanthropic efforts may prove beneficial to science. He could just be a quiet philanthropist. But these sort of PR pieces, even putting aside how annoying they are in terms the total lack of sound thinking^1, are designed to sell people on investing in "Web 2.0" companies and Silicon Valley of which he is conveniently positioned as a beneficiary.
1. Sound thinking is, I thought, what National Review, or at least WFB, Jr., was all about. This kind of contribution is pure rubbish. It's a wonder he didn't start name dropping a handful of "Web 2.0" companies to whet investors' appetites, as Andreeson does when he writes for the NYT.
Great idea for a post and great idea for a project. I have thought about something similar. Encouraging people to read code, by making it easier to do, is a worthy objective.
But the statement is not applicable to PayPal nor many of Thiel's "Web 2.0" investments. Yet it is used in the column as if it were. NB Section III. Do you understand?
"Leverage is not a solution for scientific progress."
But neither is PayPal an example of scientific progress.
It's squarely in the same category as credit. A way of separating people from their money.
Science is about learning and, hopefully, improving life through that which you find. Of course if you are involved with science for the sheer joy of discovery, improvement of life, yours, is virtually guaranteed.
Theil needs to live life as a postdoc in a hard science before he can start invoking science as a call to action to get people to support his investments.
National Review is not what it used to be. What would William F. Buckely Jr. say about posers like Theil? I'm pretty sure I know and it wouldn't be very flattering.
The coders who join these companies are not in it to do the right things (cf. the popular things), to make sound decisions (even if they are based on "old" thinking, like the notion of privacy, and appear to be boring). These developers are in it for the perceived prestige of working for a high profile company, for the nonserious working environment (if they are young), and often simply for the money. These jobs often pay better than, e.g., working on projects where there is great concern with doing things the right way. But the high-profile "Web 2.0" company does not necessarily produce better code.
This a question I think about often. Like everyday.
Here's a few tenative conclusions:
1. The best coders are not necessarily interested in the same things as people who start "Web 2.0" companies.
2. Many of these coders who never get involved with "Web 2.0" and probably never will. (The good news, if you could call it that, is you can still benefit from their skills. They often like to share code freely. They are generous.)
To find the evidence for these conclusion you need to venture off the beaten path. To be receptive to this evidence you have to take respite the herd mentality and buzzconcepts like "Web 2.0".
3. This is the one that's continually obvious and the cause for a blog post on the topic: There are some very sub-par coders heavily involved with things like "Web 2.0". And they are very vocal. Much more so than excellent coders who not involved in things like "Web 2.0".
I'm always open to evidence that counters these conclusions.
But the more bad coding I see the more skeptical I get. And it just keeps coming. The bar is set very low. Who cares if some Web 2.0 site is a horrible privacy risk if they can still manage to IPO for a few billion dollars? The best coders care very little, it seems. They are more interested writing smart code than in a multi-billion dollar IPO.
He is making some valid arguments. I mean who could argue that leverage/debt/credit is being abused? That is not exactly a new problem. It has been simmering for quite some time. And who in a modern economy could argue that scientific progress should not always be paramount? These are like noble truths.
But then he is inserting some positive references about Google, the web and Silicon Valley. Strangely, (positive) references to what I would consider "real science" are missing.
This is only how I see it. You may disagree. Who knows, maybe "Web 2.0" will propel the economy upwards, back to year 2000 levels. And capital investment will flow into "real science" again. The number of biotech startups will rise. Jobs in science will become plentiful. New drug candidates will fill development pipelines. And it will have all started with some "Web 2.0 fluff". Thanks in no small part to Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Theil.