Opening Statement:
Peter Thiel reflects on the past visions of technology’s development, highlighting the pendulum swing between centralization and decentralization. He notes the current trend towards centralization and argues for considering the possibility of decentralization as a contrarian perspective.

AI vs. Crypto:
Thiel introduces the concept of AI as a centralizing force and crypto as a potential decentralizing force. He draws a parallel between AI and communism and between crypto and libertarianism, emphasizing the Chinese government’s support for AI and aversion to crypto.

Decentralization in Tech Companies:
Thiel discusses the increasing decentralization of tech companies, stating that the next Google could be found far from Silicon Valley. He cites the crypto phenomenon and the Chinese internet as examples of successful decentralization outside Silicon Valley.

Silicon Valley’s Changing Dynamics:
Thiel points out the advantages and disadvantages of Silicon Valley as a tech hub, acknowledging the network effects but also the high costs, conformity of thought, and tax implications. He suggests that the future of tech companies may be more globally distributed.

Y Combinator and Decentralization:
Thiel mentions Y Combinator, a prominent Silicon Valley accelerator, as an example of the changing landscape. He notes that the pattern of companies staying in Silicon Valley after Y Combinator has shifted towards returning to their home locations.

Globalization and Decentralization:
Thiel challenges the notion that the future lies solely in big cities like New York, Silicon Valley, London, and Europe. He suggests a more balanced future where tech companies and innovation can thrive in diverse locations.

AI vs. Crypto:
Steve Fuller and Peter Thiel discuss the distinction between AI and crypto, highlighting a general trajectory from centralized to decentralized approaches driven by information technology. Thiel suggests that the current narrative favors further centralization, but it remains an open question, and history is not predetermined.

Decentralization and Data Protection:
Fuller raises concerns about the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a potential barrier to globalization and the free flow of ideas. Thiel expresses sympathy for privacy concerns but sees the GDPR as a move away from the global Internet and an attempt to build barriers to the movement of ideas.

Globalization and Protectionism:
Thiel views the EU’s actions as targeted against globalized, big Silicon Valley internet companies, suggesting that Europe is seeking to apply different rules within its borders. Fuller acknowledges the EU’s desire to set a standard for globalization that protects privacy and freedoms, but Thiel sees it as a protectionist move.

China’s Role and the Future of Democracy:
Fuller asks about China’s long-term role in the global context, given its rising economic power and its distinct political system. Thiel expresses uncertainty about China’s future, viewing it as either a potential world leader or a nation prone to internal collapse. He emphasizes that history is not deterministic and that the Western EU Brussels understanding may not prevail.

The End of History and the Value of Democracy:
Fuller mentions Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis, which predicted the triumph of liberal democracy after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Thiel suggests that China’s recent political developments challenge this narrative, raising questions about the global commitment to democracy. He acknowledges the desirability of Western democratic contexts but recognizes that undesirable systems can still be powerful and long-lasting.

Parliamentary Democracy and Alternatives:
Fuller and Thiel agree on the importance of freedom and individual liberty. Thiel expresses concerns about the declining competence of Western governments, citing examples of diminished capabilities in the United States. He acknowledges anti-government sentiments among libertarians but emphasizes the lack of viable alternatives.

Technological Progress and Stagnation:
Thiel highlights the contrast between the rapid construction of the Golden Gate Bridge in the 1930s and the prolonged and expensive construction of an access road in modern times, illustrating a decline in competence. He expresses concern that technological advancements are not occurring quickly enough, particularly in areas beyond the computer sector.

Technological Narratives:
Thiel acknowledges two prevailing narratives about technology: the utopian vision of accelerating progress and the dystopian fear of self-destructive outcomes. He cautions against being overly focused on these extreme scenarios and emphasizes the need to address the broader issue of stagnation.

Stagnation and Societal Well-being:
Thiel points to surveys indicating that young people in developed Western countries generally believe they will be worse off than their parents. He views this as an indicator of a lack of progress and suggests that poorly functioning governments contribute to this stagnation.

Technology and Distraction:
Thiel criticizes the distracting nature of modern technology, particularly cell phones, which divert attention from the lack of progress in other areas. He emphasizes the need to break free from this stagnation and address the broader challenges facing society.

Thiel’s Political Identity:
Steve Fuller questions Thiel’s self-identification as a conservative given his concerns about stagnation and lack of progress. Thiel suggests that his conservatism may be more aligned with libertarian values rather than traditional conservative ideology.

Political Labels and Economic Growth:
Peter Thiel believes that political labels often obscure the true issues. He emphasizes the importance of economic growth in maintaining a functioning society. When economic growth stagnates, societies shift from a “growing pie” mentality to a “zero-sum game” mentality, leading to increased conflict and instability.

European Stagnation and the Fear of Success:
Thiel suggests that Europe’s lack of successful tech companies compared to the US is due to a fear of success rather than a fear of failure. In social democratic societies, moderate success is acceptable, but extraordinary success is often met with resistance. This fear of success leads to entrepreneurs selling their companies prematurely, preventing them from reaching their full potential.

The Facebook Acquisition Offer:
Thiel recounts an anecdote about Facebook receiving a $1 billion acquisition offer from Yahoo in 2006. Mark Zuckerberg’s refusal to sell the company, despite the significant financial incentive, demonstrated his lack of fear of success. Thiel argues that successful tech companies are built by individuals who are willing to reject lucrative offers and continue pursuing their vision.

Thinking with Money:
Steve Fuller inquires about Thiel’s philosophy on thinking with money, given his success as an investor and entrepreneur. Thiel acknowledges that money is powerful and charismatic but believes it is often overrated. He emphasizes the importance of using money as a tool to achieve one’s goals and create value, rather than becoming obsessed with its accumulation.

The Illusion of Money as the Solution:
Thiel emphasizes that money is not the answer to all problems. While having money offers optionality, the lack of ideas can lead to hoarding money, resulting in negative interest rates. The current financialized world prioritizes money over ideas, creating a surplus of money and a deficit of ideas.

Ineffectiveness of Non-Profits:
Thiel criticizes the ineffectiveness of most non-profits. Non-profits often create adversarial relationships with donors, seeking continuous financial support. This parasitic dynamic leads Thiel to prefer supporting corporations over non-profits.

Corporations vs. Non-Profits:
Thiel argues that corporations have been more impactful than non-profits in transforming the world. Successful entrepreneurs often seek to do more through foundations or non-profits but often achieve less than through their companies.

The Fashionability of Non-Profits:
Thiel highlights the dominance of fashion and fitting in within the non-profit world. Non-profits often pursue popular causes, leading to minimal impact. He advocates for supporting unfashionable and unpopular non-profits that make a genuine difference.

Anonymous Donations and Genuine Motivation:
Thiel suggests donating to non-profits anonymously to avoid social status-seeking. Genuine donations should be driven by belief in the cause, not external recognition.

The Rockefeller Foundation and Academia:
Fuller acknowledges Thiel’s concerns about the rigidity of universities. He cites the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in breaking down disciplinary boundaries and fostering innovation in academia. Thiel agrees that academia has problems, particularly with its rigid structure.

Underrated Forms of Approaching Problems:
Peter Thiel believes that instinct and mathematical science are overvalued, while common sense, local knowledge, logical reasoning, and other intermediate forms are underrated.

Instinct:
Thiel considers instinct to be irrational and unreliable for problem-solving, although it may be useful in certain situations.

Mathematical Science:
Thiel believes that mathematical science is limited in its applicability to the real world, where most problems cannot be reduced to mathematical models.

Intermediate Forms:
Thiel emphasizes the importance of intermediate forms of approaching problems, which he finds more practical and effective in the real world.

Investing with Instincts and Mathematical Science:
Thiel asserts that relying solely on instinct or mathematical science in venture capital investing would lead to financial losses.

Supercomputer Models:
Thiel dismisses the idea of using supercomputers to generate investment recommendations, as they lack the necessary sophistication to accurately model real-world business scenarios.

Instinct and Time:
Thiel suggests that instincts can be misleading over longer periods of time and that relying solely on them can result in making poor decisions.

Conclusion:
Thiel advocates for a balanced approach that incorporates a variety of methods, including common sense, local knowledge, logical reasoning, and other intermediate forms of approaching problems.

Mischaracterizing Ideas:
Peter Thiel emphasizes that heterodox ideas in today’s world are aggressively questioned and often mischaracterized, leading to a lack of generative discussion. He suggests that a healthier approach would be to “steel man” ideas, making them stronger rather than immediately tearing them down. This can lead to more robust and productive debates.

Silicon Valley’s Political Leaning:
Thiel acknowledges the perception of Silicon Valley as a left-leaning region but cautions against assuming uniformity of thought. He suggests that the high level of education in the area may contribute to a certain political orientation, and that the establishment center left politics of the region reflect a sense of contentment among those who have benefited from the current system.

Supporting Trump:
Thiel’s support for Trump is seen as contrarian in the context of Silicon Valley’s political leanings. He explains that it was both his least contrarian decision, as half of the U.S. supported Trump, and very contrarian within the Silicon Valley community. Thiel believes that Trump’s election represents a rejection of the establishment and a desire for change.

Trump’s Best and Worst Decisions:
Thiel considers Trump’s best decision to be the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, as Gorsuch is a highly respected jurist who will likely have a significant impact on the Court’s decisions for decades to come. On the other hand, Thiel views Trump’s worst decision to be the firing of FBI Director James Comey, as it led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Political Debates in the U.S.:
Peter Thiel criticizes the stale political debates in the U.S., particularly the dominance of the Wall Street left liberalism and zombie Reaganism, represented by the Clinton and Bush families. He compares the situation to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, where two families (Montagues and Capulets) are identical in dignity but hate each other. Thiel argues that this sterile political landscape is inadequate to address the challenges the country faces and calls for a broader range of debate and discussion.

President Trump’s Impact:
Thiel believes President Trump’s unconventional actions have blown open the debate in a powerful way. He acknowledges that Trump’s decisions and judgments have been controversial but argues that they have sparked necessary discussions and widened the range of political discourse. Thiel suggests that Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan reflects a pessimistic view that things were not right in the country and that change was needed. He draws a parallel between Trump and Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan, “Hope and Change,” emphasizing the desire for significant change.

Right to Try Legislation:
Thiel expresses support for the Right to Try legislation signed by President Trump, which allows people with incurable diseases to access experimental treatments not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He criticizes the precautionary principle, which emphasizes caution and fear of potential risks associated with new technologies and treatments. Thiel proposes a counterpoint, the “proactionary principle,” which encourages disruption and experimentation to address serious problems like incurable diseases.

Technology and Science:
Thiel criticizes the anti-technology and anti-science sentiments prevalent among some conservatives. He argues that these views often assume that things are already pretty good and that change should be avoided. Thiel believes that the reality is often much worse than people realize, especially for those suffering from terrible, incurable diseases. He emphasizes the need to overcome the overly precautionary bias and support innovative medical treatments that have the potential to save lives.

Peter Thiel’s Views on Religion and Technology:
* Thiel believes that while technology and science have often been seen as threats to religion, the more pertinent question lies in the political, ethical, and cultural implications of Christianity in the modern world.
* He contrasts the Enlightenment view, which emphasizes the wisdom of crowds and the convergence of truth through consensus, with the Christian view, which acknowledges the potential for falsehood and deception within majorities.
* Thiel argues that the wisdom of crowds is not always reliable, as crowd contagion effects and mimetic behavior can lead to irrational and potentially dangerous outcomes, such as financial bubbles or mass insanity.
* He emphasizes the importance of individual thought and the space for challenging prevailing beliefs, even when they are held by the majority.

The Fallen Nature of Humanity and the Role of Science:
* Thiel and Fuller discuss the Christian understanding of humanity as fallen creatures, prone to error and bias.
* They suggest that this perspective should lead to a cautious approach towards deferring to the crowd, as the wisdom of crowds is not guaranteed.
* Science, in its true form, is seen as a method for overcoming biases and rising above the crowd, rather than simply deferring to majority opinion.
* The distinction between physical and social sciences is highlighted, with Thiel expressing skepticism towards fields that use the term “science” to gain authority while lacking true scientific rigor.

Thiel’s Interest in Immortality:
* Thiel views the pursuit of immortality and the concerns about humanity’s impact on the environment as separate issues that should be addressed independently.
* He argues that while it is essential to address environmental problems, the desire for immortality remains a legitimate and worthwhile pursuit.

Conclusion:
Thiel and Fuller engage in a thought-provoking discussion that delves into the complexities of faith, reason, and individuality in the digital age. They challenge conventional notions of the wisdom of crowds and emphasize the significance of individual thought and the recognition of human fallibility. Thiel’s interest in immortality is also explored, highlighting the tension between technological progress and environmental concerns.

Life Expectancy and the Debate Between Biologists and Mathematicians:
Peter Thiel points out that life expectancies have been steadily increasing in Western Europe for the past 150 years. He acknowledges the ongoing debate between biologists and mathematicians regarding the limits of human life expectancy. Thiel suggests that the mathematicians’ perspective, which views life expectancy as a continuing linear increase, may be more accurate.

Addressing Objections to Longer Life:
Thiel mentions several common objections to the idea of longer life, including environmental concerns, boredom, and the notion that humans are inherently bad and do not deserve longer lives. He refutes the argument that humans are inherently bad by suggesting that they can change their behavior and strive to create a better world.

Woody Allen’s Existential Negativity and Thiel’s Optimistic Outlook:
Thiel recalls a conversation with Woody Allen, who expressed a pessimistic view of humanity’s future, stating that people are bad and may not deserve to survive. Thiel strongly disagrees with Allen’s perspective, arguing that humans should strive to improve their behavior and create a world worth living in forever.

The Ethical Imperative for Life Extension:
Thiel emphasizes his desire to live forever and to create a world where life is worth living forever. He sees the pursuit of life extension as an ethical imperative, as it would allow humans to experience a longer and more fulfilling existence.

Changing the Future to Make it Worth Living Forever:
Thiel emphasizes the importance of changing the future to make it worth living forever. He suggests that by improving human behavior and striving for a better world, individuals can create a future that is fulfilling and enjoyable for all.