Shared publicly  - 
 
Which way next? Peter Diamandis on the future of DIY innovation and exponential technological change.
4
5
Peter Malaczynski's profile photoAndreas Thiel's profile photoMichael Fagan's profile photoKenneth McCormack's profile photo
7 comments
 
I have a lot of time for Peter, but sometimes i cant help but feel like he is actually making a case against his own optimism for the future, but cant see it.
He believes strongly in capitalist ventures solving a lot of these problems but at the same time talks about how abundance is going to make the offerings of these ventures so cheap that theyre essentially free. Or how we wont need people to work, but somehow assumes that they will have money to be able to be consumers to these creative ventures.
The biggest change that will happen if all he is saying comes to pass is that capitalism will fail in favour of a new model, but he carefully skirts that side of the issue.

Also he used "Patent" and "Critically Important" in the same sentence. You can kind of see he wants to say they're detrimental, but he cant.
 
Thanks for your thoughtful response +Jon Roder.

I think a lot of his specific examples have a chance at becoming genuinely "solved" problems and are cause for optimism. For example, clean water -- nanotechnology filters that can turn dirty water into clean water, remove pathogens and so on. It would be great to see death from dirty water turned into a thing of the past on this planet, and it seems within the realm of possibility.

Yeah, it's true that if everyone has clean water, and that problem is forever solved, the world will still have other problems -- I think one can be optimistic about some things while being pessimistic about other things. In fact I would say, that's what a truly rational person would do. So I think both Diamandis and you have valid points.
 
I agree +Wayne Radinsky, a lot of the things he talks about will be solved. I think the thing that itches in my brain when he talks is that you cant go down that path he talks about without radically reinventing society (which will happen of course just as it did during the industrial revolution) and yet his rhetoric is so heavily anchored in our current day capitalist market way of thinking.

My guess is that he cant talk too radically outside that sphere given that he is trying to operate in a world owned by current day investors and entrepreneurs, and after all this isnt about philosophy, its about getting stuff done.
 
Well, I guess I don't think the "current day capitalist market way of thinking" is going to go away.
 
You might well be right, but if hes right about the abundance theory i dont see how it can. Thats what im saying he has a kind of cognitive dissonance going on about the whole thing, because he is saying both those things at the same time.
 
You think so? My impression was that he believes in the "current day capitalist market" system and doesn't believe it will have to be "reinvented" in the future, and isn't experiencing any cognitive dissonance about it. Perhaps it would if he thought the issues through in the manner you have, but he hasn't done that -- he's very focused on what he is doing. Are there specific parts of the video that make you think otherwise?
 
You might be right that he hasnt thought it through, but when the guy was asking him about current "old style" businesses getting trampled by this new abundance economy it seemed to me that he was kind of saying yes that everything would change and that employment is going to dissappear with old business models.

Then he said people wont have to work, but later said we will have to find them new jobs, and we wont need to pay for stuff but at the same time somehow we will all be great business opportunities as consumers for these new businesses etc etc.

He seems to be holding two separate and conflicting lines of thought to me. I think you can have a cognitive dissonance without realizing it, maybe thats the wrong name for it.
Add a comment...