Technology stalled in the 1970s

I offer readers a translation of an interview with well-known venture investor Peter Till, which he gave to the head of the MIT Technology Review division in San Francisco Tom Simonite. I’ll say right away that the article is available by subscription, if you are interested in the original, you can find it here .

Peter Thiel was at the forefront of developing some well-known technologies: co-founder of PayPal and one of the first investors of companies such as Facebook and LinkedIn. He is convinced that technological progress has been stagnant for decades. According to Till, changes in computer technology and the Internet could not significantly improve our quality of life. In the new book , he warns entrepreneurs that the traditional business system is hindering them and society as a whole to make important advances in areas such as energy or healthcare, where technology can make this world a better place. Nevertheless, he does not offer detailed answers to questions about how we could make such technological breakthroughs.

“One of the most striking statements in your book is that since about the 1970s we have not had any significant technological advances. But what about computing? ”

Progress in the computer industry and the global network has facilitated interactions, which made some things much more efficient. On the other hand, a large reservoir of other technologies has not changed at all since the 1970s: atomic technology, aerial and astronautics, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, and even electrical engineering. We live in the material world, so we miss a lot of this, and I do not think that today we live in an incredibly fast technological age.

Founders Fund's slogan hints at Twitter: “We wanted flying cars, and instead we got 140 characters.” Having received things like the iPhone and social networks, has our quality of life improved? Little. Truly not enough. This expression does not mean that we criticize Twitter as a business. I think this company will ultimately be very profitable; and the 2,000 people who work there will be paid for decades to come. But unfortunately, the specific success of Twitter can be a symptom of a common failure. Despite the fact that in a certain way it improves our lives, this is absolutely not enough to bring our civilization to the next level of development.

“What technologies will do this?”

There are many industries where incredible innovations are possible. We could find a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's disease. I am very interested in extending human lives. With the help of information technology, we can optimize food consumed by people and get instant feedback using modern mobile technologies. I suspect that there are whole new classes of drugs or methods that rejuvenate our organs. I also think that there are opportunities for a tenfold improvement in nuclear power. Miniaturization technologies will create much smaller retaining structures, and little-studied technologies for the utilization and processing of fuel.
')

“What are you doing to create these technologies?”

Well, we invested in SpaceX in 2008 after the explosion of the first rockets. Although the following successfully earned. We have invested in several biotech companies, and considered medical devices as investments. Although today the sector of multi-year commitments is wildly not popular among investors. At the same time, I think that in the coming decades the former growth of innovations in the field of information technologies will continue. About two thirds of our work today is this.

“Which companies solving important tasks could you name?”

Tesla is really a very interesting example of such a company. Most of the components of their products are not associated with serious achievements, but the ability to combine them in itself is an achievement. I think that we usually pay too much attention to the solution of stage-by-stage point solutions and, thus, we are very much afraid of complex operational problems.

Paradigmatic example of such a large company as Google. In large companies, they often face internal bureaucracy and the need to execute quarterly reports. But Google has significantly reduced this practice compared to other large companies. And it seems that they have achieved significant success in the revolutionary field of unmanned vehicles .

Instead of trying to achieve serious achievements, Silicon Valley indulges in the philosophy of a lean startup , which implies a low amount of primary funding and leads the way to maximize the cost of existing products.

Great companies were built on the foundation of inspiring, far-reaching plans. Most startups in Silicon Valley today go the other way and think only about themselves. Apple didn’t care about the concept of a lean startup when they released the first PC samples. If you cannot take any decisive steps, then you will only take phased steps. This is why Elon Musk (founder and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX) is so inspiring. Both projects, Tesla and SpaceX, are quite large "quantum" technological leaps.

“Can technology companies along the path of bold transformations remain so after they have received generally recognized status?”

Many large technology companies are very conservative. Examples of these are Microsoft, Oracle, or Hewlett-Packard, which basically do not want to change anything. Microsoft was a technology company in the 80s and 90s; In this decade, you invest in it, because you are betting on stability. Pharmaceutical companies are principled opponents of innovation, working to find out how to extend the life of patents and put pressure on small companies. All of these companies, which started as technological, have become anti- technological. Whether the world can change or not, in fact, investments in these anti-technology companies are a good investment and this is very bad for our society as a whole.

The Apollo program , the freeway system, and the Manhattan project are examples of significant technological leaps, and we need more of these. In addition, all these examples were government projects.

“Can the US government return to funding such programs?”

There are opinions that state financing should be made in low-profit industries, in the interests of the whole society. But today, lawyers dominate the US government, not scientists or engineers, which implies a poor assessment of such projects. For example, you probably will not be able to restart projects in nuclear power without government participation. But because the government does not believe in comprehensive coordination and planning, it will not be possible to restart the nuclear industry. It is possible that this restart will never happen.

“Could one of the new economies, such as China, maintain confidence in significant goals?”

I think that in the medium term, the future of China will consist in simply copying things developed in the developed countries of the world - this is what I call globalization. This is a completely rational choice. The question we are not asking is, how do we contribute to the growth of the developing world? It is through technological shocks.

“Some of your arguments are echoing economist Robert Gordon, who believes that economic growth and technological progress are at an impasse. Do you share this view? ”

On the one hand, I agree with the conclusions of Robert Gordon, on the other hand, the words of the futurist Ray Kurzweil are closer to me.

I am not as pessimistic as Gordon, because I see great progress in the field of information technology, but also not as optimistic as Kurzweil. Some pessimists say that all the “low-hanging fruits” have already been gathered. I would say that there has never been “low-hanging fruit” . There is always only the average height and the problem of having people ready to reach that height. I’m disappointed that the technology is progressing very slowly, but I’m optimistic, because I think it can be fixed.