Introduction:
Peter Thiel, a technology entrepreneur and investor, gave the inaugural address of the Oxford Union’s bicentenary year. He framed his talk as “anti, anti, anti, anti classical liberalism,” a double negative that implies a positive stance.

Historical Anecdote:
Thiel shared his experience as a student at Stanford University in the late 1980s and early 1990s, where he witnessed intense debates about the Western canon and the nature of the university. A famous protest led by Jesse Jackson, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s gotta go,” served as a referendum on the Western Culture course and Western civilization as a whole.

Critique of the University:
Thiel criticized the university’s focus on diversity as antithetical to its traditional role in pursuing truth and knowledge. He argued that the university has become a place where people are taught to conform to a particular ideology rather than to think critically and challenge conventional wisdom.

Critique of Classical Liberalism:
Thiel critiqued classical liberalism’s emphasis on individual rights and limited government, arguing that it has led to a society characterized by inequality, social fragmentation, and a lack of shared values.

Critique of the Free Western World:
Thiel expressed concern about the decline of the free Western world, citing factors such as the rise of China, the decline of the American empire, and the erosion of traditional values.

Conclusion:
Despite his criticisms, Thiel affirmed his belief in the values that animated the Oxford Union 200 years ago, such as free speech, open inquiry, and the pursuit of truth. He called for a renewed commitment to these values and a rejection of the anti-classical liberal trends that he sees as undermining Western civilization.

Introduction of Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Rigoberta Menchu:
Peter Thiel stumbled upon a book that depicted Rigoberta Menchu as a symbol of oppression and revolutionary consciousness. He wrote an article about the book and criticized the new curriculum at Stanford University. Menchu later received the Nobel Peace Prize, and Thiel realized he played a role in her victimization.

Debate on the Importance of Humanities vs. Science and Technology:
Thiel questions the assumption that progress in science and technology is always beneficial. He argues that corruption can be prevalent in these fields just as it is in the humanities.

Bob Laughlin’s Controversial Investigations:
Bob Laughlin, a Stanford professor and Nobel laureate in physics, raised concerns about fraudulent research and misconduct among scientists. Laughlin’s investigations led to backlash and consequences for his career and research.

Hermeneutic Suspicion of Taboo Topics:
Thiel emphasizes the significance of questioning taboo topics and forbidden areas of research. He suggests that the existence of strong taboos often warrants further investigation and scrutiny.

Problems with Specialization:
Specialization in science and technology makes it difficult to evaluate progress. Subspecialists often propagandize about their own fields, leading to unrealistic expectations. Examples: Cancer researchers promising cures in five years for decades, string theorists claiming to know everything about physics.

Stagnant Fields:
In the 1980s, many engineering fields were seen as stuck and unlikely to advance. Fields like aero-astro-engineering, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, and chemical engineering were considered bad career choices. Only electrical engineering and computer science held promise, with computer science being the most successful.

Computer Science’s Success:
Despite its name suggesting an inferiority complex, computer science has been the most progressive field in recent decades. Progress in the digital world has been significant, including computers, the internet, mobile internet, and AI.

Stagnation Outside the Digital World:
Outside the field of digital technology, there has been general stagnation in scientific and technological progress. This is evident in the lack of major breakthroughs and the economic stagnation of many industries.

Stagnation and Its Causes:
Thiel argues that the stagnation of science and technology is a multifaceted problem, with roots in the early 1970s, including the oil shocks and inflation. He questions the classical liberal approach of solely focusing on organization, discipline, and science, as it has not led to progress in recent decades.

The Counter-Argument:
The counter-argument to Thiel’s rebuttal of classical liberalism is that science and technology have not stalled, but rather have advanced significantly. Proponents of this view point to examples such as the development of mRNA vaccines and the rapid progress in artificial intelligence.

Existential Risks and the Fear of Science:
Thiel argues that the main reason for the perceived stagnation is the fear that science and technology pose existential risks to humanity. This fear is rooted in the potential dual-use applications of scientific advancements, such as nuclear weapons and bioweapons. Thiel cites the example of Charles Manson, who believed the world was ending and used LSD to justify his violent actions.

The Shift from Accelerationism to Luddism:
Thiel discusses the evolution of the narrative surrounding artificial intelligence (AI). Initially, AI was viewed as a positive, utopian technology with the potential to solve global problems. However, in recent years, there has been a shift towards a more Luddite perspective, with concerns about the potential dangers of AI.

Eliezer Yudkowsky’s View on AI:
Thiel refers to a post by Eliezer Yudkowsky, a thought leader in the field of futurist AI, published in April 2022. Yudkowsky expresses skepticism about the safety of AI and calls for a cautious approach to its development.

Existential Risks and Alignment Problem:
Humanity’s survival is unattainable due to the alignment problem with AI. Efforts should shift towards helping humanity die with more dignity.

Climate Change Catastrophe:
Climate change is often presented as the primary existential threat. Proposed solutions, such as fusion reactors, focus on mitigation rather than technological advancement.

Greta Thunberg and Apocalyptic Complacency:
Greta Thunberg’s focus on climate change is seen as insufficiently apocalyptic. Other existential risks, such as nuclear weapons and bioweapons, are not adequately addressed.

Central Left Zombie Zeitgeist:
Universities are promoting a culture of anti-science and opposition to technological progress.

Nick Bostrom’s Vulnerable World Hypothesis:
Bostrom’s paper outlines multiple existential risks, including climate change, nuclear weapons, and runaway bioweapons. Four proposed actions to stabilize the world: restrict technological development, ensure a diverse population of actors, reduce societal complexity, and establish a global governance system.

Technological Stagnation and Boredom:
Thiel criticizes the zeitgeist’s emphasis on boredom and technological stagnation. Boredom is seen as a sign of societal decline and a lack of challenges.

Technological Progress and Moral Panic:
Technological advancements often trigger moral panic and calls for regulation. Thiel advocates for a more nuanced approach that balances progress with caution.

Summary of Concluding Points:
Thiel emphasizes the importance of considering the existential risk of a one-world totalitarian state as a result of attempts to mitigate other existential risks. He warns against short-sightedness and advocates for upholding classical realism and tried-and-true ideas to prevent such a scenario.

Technological Challenges:
Thiel acknowledges the problem of specialized technological progress and its impact on public engagement with technology. He suggests that specialization and stagnation are profound issues of late modernity, leading to a lack of accountability and a “crazed racket.”

Artificial Intelligence and Biases:
Thiel highlights the potential entrenchment of biases and beliefs in AI algorithms as they become increasingly influential. He emphasizes the real and problematic aspects of AI, particularly in the context of pervasive surveillance as seen in communist China. Thiel argues that the technology itself is not inherently evil but can be used for evil purposes by individuals or totalitarian regimes.

Conclusion:
Thiel emphasizes the need to avoid political short-sightedness and prioritize the fight against totalitarian states. He stresses the importance of addressing the challenges of specialization, technological stagnation, and AI biases to ensure a more prosperous and just future.

Thiel’s Concerns About AI:
Thiel expresses his reservations about AI, considering it a technology with communist tendencies. He acknowledges his pro-tech stance but views AI as the technology that raises the most concerns for him.

Technology and Individual Satisfaction:
Thiel challenges the notion that technological advancements have led to increased individual satisfaction. He criticizes the self-serving narratives of university presidents, bureaucrats, scientists, and tech companies.

Stagnation and Progress:
Thiel acknowledges progress in the digital field but argues that it hasn’t significantly impacted GDP per capita or elevated civilization. He sees the stagnation as unstable and believes it could lead to lockdowns, zero-sum societies, and potential conflict.

Luddite Perspective:
Thiel recognizes the Luddites’ concerns but emphasizes that rejecting technology is ultimately self-destructive and parochial. He highlights the military implications of Luddism, stating that China’s advancements in hypersonic weapons and AI-armed robots pose a significant threat.

War and Technological Development:
Thiel acknowledges the role of war and security dilemmas in driving technological development. He cites the Manhattan Project and Palantir as examples and emphasizes the need to avoid dystopian outcomes and totalitarian lockdowns.

Stagnation and Western Supremacy:
Thiel expresses concern that stagnation in the West could lead to the downfall of American and Western supremacy. He views zero-sum outcomes as detrimental and believes they could lead to societal upheaval.

Stagnation in Developing Countries:
Thiel acknowledges that developing countries have a story of convergence with the developed world, allowing them to copy and catch up. He suggests that even if they succeed in catching up, they may encounter similar stagnation problems.

Thiel’s Personal Preference:
Despite the challenges, Thiel expresses his preference for being in the Western world, particularly in the United States. He views the best-case scenario for China as copying the U.S. and ending up with similar problems.

Areas Bucking the Stagnation Trend:
Thiel acknowledges potential areas of hope and progress, indicating that his earlier remarks provided a broad overview.

Cultural Stagnation:
Thiel argues that the slowdown in technological and economic progress is primarily due to cultural factors rather than a lack of resources or natural limitations. People have become overly cautious and fearful of technology, leading to a decline in innovation and creativity. He urges people to overcome their fear and recognize that the current state of stagnation is not a natural phenomenon but a cultural artifact.

Diversity in Universities:
Thiel criticizes the current approach to diversity in universities, which he believes focuses on superficial differences rather than genuine diversity of thought and ideas. He emphasizes the need for true diversity that includes genuine unity and a shared pursuit of truth. He acknowledges the contradictory and complex nature of the current multicultural multiversity and suggests that it lacks both true diversity and a genuine university spirit.

Connection between Ideological Debates and Economic Progress:
Thiel now sees the ideological debates about political correctness and the decline in the academy as deeply connected to economic, scientific, and technological progress. He argues that in a society with limited progress and Malthusian economics, competition and conflict can intensify, leading to a heightened sensitivity to politically incorrect言論. He believes that addressing economic stagnation and promoting progress can help mitigate the negative aspects of these ideological debates.

Threat to Free Speech:
Thiel expresses concern about the threat to free speech in universities, seeing it as a symptom of the broader cultural and economic stagnation. He suggests that the lack of progress and opportunities can lead to a heightened sensitivity to言論 that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. Thiel’s analysis offers a thought-provoking perspective on the challenges facing universities and the broader societal implications of cultural and economic stagnation.

Free Speech and Its Meaning:
Thiel expresses concern that despite the absence of restrictions on free speech, people may not have much to say. He suggests that the apparent threat to free speech may be distracting from the lack of meaningful discourse.

Tech Centralization and Cryptocurrencies:
Thiel discusses his early hopes for decentralization through computer technology in the 1990s. He observes that the pendulum has swung towards centralization with big companies and governments dominating. He sees cryptocurrencies as a potential means to reverse this centralization trend.

Political Disruptions:
Thiel explains his support for President Trump and Brexit as a reaction to societal stagnation and a desire for change. He acknowledges critiques of his actions, suggesting they were a “scream for help.” Thiel expresses concern that both Trump and Brexit may have delayed rather than accelerated necessary debates about societal identity and progress.

Political Donations:
Peter Thiel believes that the current political donation culture in the United States is unhealthy and toxic. He acknowledges the importance of politics in various aspects of life but argues that the amount spent on politics is shockingly low, given its pervasive influence. Thiel challenges the premise that political donations privilege individuals like himself, comparing it to investing in science, free speech, and media platforms, which also involve inequality.

Stagnation:
Thiel emphasizes that stagnation is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. He believes that inequality is not the biggest issue and that stagnation is more pressing. Thiel highlights the challenges in addressing stagnation, as it is not solely a financial problem but also involves regulatory, social, and other factors.

Personal Involvement in Politics:
Thiel expresses reluctance to get directly involved in politics and run for election due to his past statements. He acknowledges the difficulty in impacting politics through money alone and the weak translation function between financial resources and solving problems.

Audience Question:
An audience member highlights Thiel’s excitement about some aspects of technology and his concern about stagnation. The questioner asks how Thiel is personally contributing to solving or influencing these problems, given his power, position, and money.

Q&A with Peter Thiel:
Peter Thiel expressed that he is a venture capitalist who invests in businesses that create positive externalities for the world. He also shares his concern about writing and speaking, acknowledging the potential for regret.

Challenges in Creating Great Art on the Right:
When asked why the right doesn’t produce more great art, Thiel suggested that the art world might be left-leaning and that most people in art school may not be skilled at it.

Climate Change and Political Solutions:
Thiel criticized the prevailing approach to climate change, stating that it focuses on reducing consumption rather than investing in cleaner and cheaper energy technologies. He believes that most people concerned with climate change are Luddites, with only a small minority being accelerationists.

Healthcare and the NHS:
Regarding the NHS, Thiel suggested that it is iatrogenic, meaning it causes more harm than good. He proposed starting by recognizing its flaws and then introducing market mechanisms and reducing regulation to improve its functioning.

Advice to Oxford Students:
Thiel emphasized the significance of debates and discussions but stressed the need for action and implementation. He advised students to follow the example of Faust and Goethe, where “in the beginning is the deed.”