YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Peter Thiel: The AI Crisis, Europe’s Decline & the Battle for America

Peter Thiel: The AI Crisis, Europe’s Decline & the Battle for America — Transcript

by MDMEETS - Essential Talks with Mathias Döpfner · 10,985 words · 1,569 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:03How's funeral?
0:06[music]
0:15[music]
0:17Let's switch to English now. Peter, you
0:21have
0:23discussed a lot over the last years the
0:26problem that in your view the west did
0:30not deliver enough progress uh enough
0:35change in technology. Um
0:38you even spoke about stagnation. Uh that
0:41is a topic uh and a term that almost
0:44nobody would use these days. It's pretty
0:45much the opposite. People are discussing
0:47is there too much acceleration? Is AI
0:50progressing too fast? So what's what's
0:52your take? Did you change your mind or
0:54is it still not enough? I've changed my
0:55mind um uh to some extent. Uh let me
0:59first articulate the stagnation thesis
1:01which I started articulating 20 years
1:03ago or so. uh and is is that uh it's
1:06always very hard to measure these things
1:08because there's so so many different
1:10dimensions of progress, so many
1:12different areas of technology and
1:13science and uh the basic thesis uh was
1:17was that since the 1970s there had been
1:19a slowdown. There had been progress in
1:21the world of bits, you know, computers,
1:23internet, mobile internet, software, but
1:27not so much in the world of atoms. And
1:28that most the you know most the
1:30engineering fields that were um related
1:33to atoms were not even successful fields
1:35for people to study. Mechanical
1:36engineering, chemical engineering, you
1:38know, aereroastro nuclear engineering
1:40was already a bad idea by the 1980s. Uh
1:43and that uh for a variety of reasons
1:45there had been this this slowdown. Uh I
1:48thought
1:48>> [clears throat]
1:48>> um I I believed that this um this not
1:52total stagnation but this this broad
1:54slowdown in progress uh was an important
1:58factor driving you know um a lot of
2:02things were going wrong in our society.
2:04uh you know a lot of the po politics
2:06have become more polarized because uh
2:09you know when when there's a loser for
2:11every winner it becomes this very zero-
2:13sum game and uh you you sort of get a a
2:16much you know much worse society
2:19uh and of course there were some very
2:20deep reasons why you know I speculated
2:22this had happened but yeah big picture
2:24was that for for decades um we had
2:26something something like stagnation
2:29there was there was a way that the the
2:30internet you know was an important
2:32growth driver in the late9 90s I uh it
2:36was bigger than anything else, perhaps
2:38not big enough to to take our whole
2:40civilization to the next level. And then
2:42I think perhaps um perhaps AI um is
2:46bigger than the internet and is at least
2:49has the potential to to reacelerate
2:51growth with all the good and bad things
2:53that that that come with that. Uh but
2:55yes, the the way I would um the way I
2:57would defend the stagnation thesis is
2:59that uh now that now that we have AI um
3:02people nobody disagrees with me that we
3:04were in stagnation for decades before.
3:06Yeah, it has been proven in retrospect
3:08definitely. So um these days the
3:12perception of AI is swinging pretty much
3:15between euphoria and dystopia. Um and uh
3:19there was a lot of discussion over the
3:21last weeks about the collective warning
3:26that Dario Mod Alman and Elon Musk
3:33presented and that was uh
3:37the monster could get out of control.
3:40What's your take on that? Is it, as some
3:42people are saying, mainly a tactical
3:44move, a marketing move, or a move in
3:46order to drive the expectations down
3:48with regard to big multi- trillion IPOs?
3:52Or is it truly the fear that AI could
3:56get out of control and could overrule
3:58human intelligence and mankind?
4:02Well, there there there are many many
4:04different dimensions to the AI debates
4:06and the problems and uh yes, there are
4:10there are these scenarios that are maybe
4:12science fiction, science fiction
4:14fantasy, maybe maybe they're somewhat
4:16more realistic where uh if you if you
4:19have a if you have something that in
4:21some sense is way smarter than any any
4:24human being, you know, is there some way
4:27it can escape control, you know, and and
4:30have of course all kinds of um dystopian
4:33science fiction movies, you know,
4:34Matrix, Terminator, that things like
4:36that. And uh you know, I don't think the
4:40and I don't even know how you speak
4:41about probabilities of things like that
4:43happen. I don't think the probabilities
4:44are very high. On the other hand, if the
4:46probability is even 5 or 10%. That seems
4:49pretty bad. Uh so there's some there's
4:51something about the uh the conversation
4:53that ends up um pushing people very hard
4:56in a uh in a sort of defensive
4:59precautionary way. If it's about prob
5:01probabilities, there was recently an
5:03experiment to ask the six biggest LLMs,
5:05is there an extinction risk with regard
5:08to AI? And the predicted percentage was
5:11between 1 and 10%. Do you think uh it's
5:14just because the LLMs are based on human
5:21fears, human pessimism, or is it a real
5:25point?
5:27Let let us let us for the sake of
5:29argument say that it is a real point.
5:30You know, I'm not you know I I think
5:32it's hard to argue that probabilities
5:33are 0% something. Uh I do think um but
5:39but you shouldn't it it doesn't
5:41necessarily follow that you should
5:42always go slower and always go in the in
5:46the precautionary direction because if
5:48you do nothing if there is no progress
5:51on any dimension uh I don't think our
5:53societies work at all. And you know, I I
5:56I've often said, you know, the middle
5:57class um in the US, Europe, they're
6:01they're the people who expect their
6:03children to do better than themselves.
6:04And the sort of intergenerational
6:07progressive compact in our society was
6:10that um there was, you know, progress
6:12from one generation to the next, maybe
6:14economic progress, material progress,
6:17progress in health, progress, you know,
6:20all sorts of softer social kinds of
6:23dimensions. And um and when that breaks
6:26down um yeah I I think the whole society
6:29starts to derange in very very strange
6:31ways. And so um so yes so there's
6:34there's a there's a picture that people
6:36implicitly have that the alternative to
6:39um AI let's say a zero growth world
6:42where there's no progress at all will
6:44somehow be this you know peaceful social
6:47democratic society. And I don't I don't
6:49think that's true. So I I I think uh
6:52yeah I think I think the alternative is
6:54also you know far from neutral. Uh I I
6:59also think there's you know there's some
7:00degree to which uh you can never just
7:03turn the clock back.
7:05>> So but then slowing it down is just
7:07unrealistic or how could it work? I mean
7:09I don't get it. If America uh is slowing
7:12down and China is accelerating we are
7:14just strengthening uh China but it's not
7:18just solving anything. It's all it's all
7:20yeah like in theory you could slow it
7:22down if you had if you had genuine you
7:25know deep cooperation ac across the
7:28whole world and uh and then I but I
7:30think that would require like a you know
7:33one world government with real teeth
7:35real force and the the sort of classical
7:38liberal part of me thinks that's almost
7:41uh you know that's a frying pan into
7:43fire it's a cure that's worse than the
7:44disease and then of course yeah you can
7:46have you can have fake global government
7:48we're governant and we have a lot of
7:50conferences to discuss it you know a lot
7:53of um you know somewhat empty uh
7:56statements that get put out uh and um
7:59and then there's also of course a risk
8:00that it ends up being slowed down in the
8:03west and [clears throat] uh you know not
8:04in uh not in China you know the uh the
8:07pope recently issued this um AI
8:09encyclical or you know I would
8:11characterize it as an anti- yeah
8:13>> AI encyclical and um and again this is
8:16you know maybe it was too too harsh, but
8:19the rhetorical point I I have on it is
8:20that uh is that people, you know, the
8:23Communist Party of China is not going to
8:24listen to the Pope. There's a chance
8:26people in the US will. And so, in
8:29effect, the Pope's encyclical was
8:31working for the Communist Party. I'm not
8:33saying he was an agent of the
8:34Communists, but he was at least acting
8:36as a useful idiot for uh for the CCP. I
8:39spoke to two founders of big AI
8:42platforms and both said that they have
8:45evidence that the Chinese are spreading
8:48anti-AI
8:50content
8:52particularly through American social
8:55media platforms but also elsewhere in
8:58order to turn around the American
9:01sentiment towards more AI skepticism in
9:04order to increase their advantage. Do
9:08you see similar things? Is there any
9:12evidence for that? Do you believe that?
9:14What's your take? I haven't studied it
9:16that carefully.
9:18I'm inclined to believe it. I'm also
9:21inclined to think that that's not the
9:22main factor driving it. That it's uh
9:25it's mainly this is mainly what we're
9:26doing to ourselves. You know, there's a
9:28way there's a way um you know, there's a
9:30way I'm tempted to say that, you know,
9:32Greta is working for the Chinese
9:34communists, and maybe maybe she is, but
9:37uh she's more of a problem we've created
9:38for for ourselves in the West.
9:40>> But is Greta's influence on the American
9:42sentiment that big? I mean, I'm
9:44surprised, I have to say.
9:45>> I think I think she's past past her
9:47prime, but but yes, it's I I think I
9:50think there are so many of these things
9:51that we're we're doing to ourselves. So
9:53we should be you know I'm I'm a very
9:55tough critic of China's uh you know I
9:57think I think we need to take the uh you
10:01know the the competition the rivalry
10:03with China very seriously. Um and then
10:06also uh it's it's often somewhat too
10:08easy to simply blame it on China.
10:10>> Yeah. But then why is it so negative at
10:13the moment in the US? I mean I really
10:15have the uh feeling that if we are
10:17talking to our European colleagues about
10:18AI as long as they are enable to learn
10:21and participate in the journey they're
10:23actually pretty positive. In America
10:25it's very different. People are raising
10:26posters and are protesting against AI.
10:29So it is almost a very anti I mean anti-
10:32cliche of uh being American. Yeah.
10:35Usually America is perceived to be pro
10:37technology progress and in that case it
10:40is a bit the other way around. to the
10:41next election camp campaign could be to
10:43a degree even a campaign which political
10:45party is protecting their people better
10:47against AI. Why is there such an
10:50anti-AII sentiment in America? Do they
10:52know more about it than the Europeans or
10:54has the American mentality changed?
10:55What's happening? Well, let me let me do
10:57the the pro- US version, okay? That uh
11:00this is where the US is the place where
11:02AI is happening and then uh uh Europe is
11:05we can debate how far behind it is in uh
11:09in my telling it's extremely far behind.
11:11Yeah.
11:11>> Um it's extremely hard to catch up. It's
11:13obviously still a very fluid situation,
11:15but first order uh there's a lot
11:18happening. The US,
11:20>> China is a is a fast follower. Uh and
11:23then Europe is extremely far behind. So
11:25it is it's not felt in Europe. Uh you
11:29know it's it's not even felt on the
11:30level of corporations. Uh if I um if I
11:35uh if I look at something like um one of
11:37the businesses I' I've I've been
11:38involved with for many years, Palunteer,
11:40uh the sales to US corporations have
11:43accelerated tremendously in the last few
11:45years because there's an urgency to um
11:48to get ahead of the curve and to figure
11:50out how how companies, you know, uh need
11:53to be transformed in this new AI age.
11:56And uh there's still much much less of
11:58that sense of urgency in in Europe where
12:01uh you know there's still this inertia
12:03we can we can wait we can you know don't
12:07don't do tomorrow what you can save for
12:09the day after.
12:10>> Do you think uh in the long run is AI
12:13going to be good for democracy or bad?
12:18>> Uh it is um that's a that's a very big
12:21very big question. I I think
12:26I think the you know I think the big um
12:31the the place where our democracies are
12:34in trouble uh are are I always for
12:37saying constitutional republics or
12:39>> you know our our our broadly liberal
12:41societies broadly free societies are are
12:44in trouble is uh is is that uh there's a
12:48way that we don't have a broad growth
12:50story of the future. there's there's a
12:52sense in which um uh people don't think
12:55things are getting better. Things have
12:56become more more zero sum. I don't I
12:59don't think AI is the panacea for
13:01everything. Uh but I think without that,
13:04you know, uh you're you're just going to
13:06continue to have these sort of zero sum
13:09parties on the extreme right and left
13:11gain ground. Should we perhaps stop to
13:14discuss whether AI is positive or
13:16negative? I mean, I think it is almost
13:18like like a knife. Yeah. you with a
13:20knife you can prepare the most uh
13:24wonderful food and have a great dinner
13:27and with a knife you can kill a person.
13:29So if you don't want killings uh you uh
13:33criticize murderer but you don't
13:36criticize or you don't bend the knife.
13:39Uh so why do we always moralize new
13:41technologies? I would say technologies
13:43are just neutral. You can use them for
13:44good and for bad causes and it depends
13:47on us what we human beings are doing
13:48with it.
13:49>> Yes. So, I'm going to get in trouble for
13:50what I'm about to say, but uh I I think
13:53we moralize we moralize way too much.
13:56And uh there's always a question uh I
13:58like to ask, what is the antonyym of
14:01good? And the moral antonym is evil. The
14:05functional antonyym is bad. A Ferrari is
14:08an evil car because it doesn't get many
14:10miles per gallon. A um a Trobby is a bad
14:15car. It it works. It's less good than a
14:17golf cars. you know, the former East
14:19German car. And um and uh and so um you
14:24know, if you're um if you're evil,
14:28you're at least competent. Um and if
14:31you're evil, you're not bad and
14:33therefore you're actually maybe you're
14:34actually kind of kind of good because
14:36you're at least getting something done.
14:38In um in in if you contrast the FA books
14:41of Marlo versus Gerta, in Marlo's FA, it
14:45was the 16th century Faustst story. Uh,
14:48Foust is a fake scientist. He's sort of
14:50like a magician, you know, sort of um a
14:54fake alchemist and um it's bad science
14:58and he goes straight to hell. in Gertus
15:00Foust he has a pact with the devil and
15:03he sort of gets his knowledge by morally
15:06dubious means but it always it still
15:09always you know works out more more for
15:12the best and uh go to spouse uh gets
15:15redeemed and I I you know so I think
15:17it's better to be good than evil I want
15:19to be very clear but uh but perhaps um
15:22but you know um I I prefer good is false
15:25tomorrow is foust and then the the moral
15:27question the moral question our society
15:29is um you we have we have all these good
15:32versus evil debates and we're just we're
15:35full of badness. It's most of the time
15:37those things are not they're not even
15:38evil. They're not even good. They're
15:40just merely bad. And so if you're in a
15:42world where 99% of the businesses,
15:44companies, people, political leaders,
15:47business leaders are totally
15:48incompetent.
15:50Uh that's that's the problem we should
15:53actually be talking about. Very few
15:54people would say about you that you are
15:56incompetent. But there are some people
15:58uh in a very polarized discussion that
16:00say you are evil. And if it is about you
16:02being evil, it is about democracy. And
16:05some people are portraying you as the
16:07anti-democrat. And they are basically
16:09all referring to one quote from 2009
16:12where you wrote I stopped believing that
16:15freedom uh and democracy are compat
16:18compatible. Can you explain why you
16:21wrote it? what you mean with it and what
16:24you're thinking today is about and it's
16:27it's always you know it's always very
16:28dangerous to write things very
16:30[laughter] dangerous I know what you're
16:31talking about
16:32>> it was uh you know the context was it
16:33was it was this article I quickly typed
16:35out one night I um I sent it to one of
16:39my colleagues I asked him did I write
16:41anything controversial in it that I
16:42should not have written and um no
16:45nothing controversial in here at all and
16:46then my the metal level postmortem I had
16:49was the fact that I asked someone for a
16:50second opinion
16:52told me that I had probably needed to be
16:53more careful in my wording. I did issue
16:55a correction two weeks later. So, you
16:57can still go to the website where, you
16:59know, I make it very clear that I'm not
17:02I don't think anyone's voters are going
17:04to be taken away. I don't think the
17:05democracy will will uh go anywhere. Uh
17:08and that I was was what I was arguing
17:10for was a certain depoliticization, a
17:13de-intensification of of politics. Um
17:16the original article occurred in this in
17:18this sort of libertarian uh Kato online
17:21journal and uh the the point of it was
17:24directed against you know libertarians
17:27who put too much faith in politics and
17:30wanted to change things change the world
17:33by by winning elections and doing things
17:35like that. And uh you know I thought you
17:38know um uh these pure libertarian pure
17:41classical liberal ideas I believe in
17:43them. I don't think they're they're easy
17:46to win in a democracy. I didn't say
17:48anything that Montescu or, you know,
17:50John Stewart Mill um or any of these
17:54people wouldn't have said, but uh but it
17:57was not, you know, it is not a claim
17:59that democracy is going to go away or
18:01anything like that.
18:02>> But isn't it that sometimes you simply
18:03have fun in being provocative and
18:05stimulate a debate?
18:08>> Uh I I I I I do I do like I I do like
18:11doing that. I don't I don't think that
18:12one I I think that one was more
18:15deranging than stimulating.
18:17>> So So my really is your personality.
18:19I've always tried to push people.
18:20>> Yeah. But but you care a lot about
18:21democracy. So you say you're not only
18:23not an anti-democrat, you're actually a
18:27person who thinks about how to
18:29strengthen or how to save democracy. Are
18:31you worried that we are going a wrong
18:33path these days? polarizing of societies
18:37and weaker and weaker centrist
18:40leadership all around the world.
18:43Autocratic systems are basically
18:44achieving their goals pretty
18:46successfully. An economy in China that
18:49is a kind of authoritarian uh state
18:52economy is prospering. So if we simply
18:56draw a line at the moment democracy is
18:58not doing particularly well.
19:00>> Um sure but I look I'm I'm not a I'm not
19:02a Hegelian. So we can always say there's
19:04a there's a way where history seems to
19:07be going. There's a certain trend and
19:09then it's not morally good. In Hegel,
19:12whatever happens happens for the best.
19:14And uh and so uh yeah, I think there is
19:17a trend against democracy. There's a
19:20trend where where these things are, you
19:22know, are in some trouble. Now what went
19:24wrong in Germany in the 1920s and 30s?
19:26It was it was two anti-democratic
19:28parties. It was the Nazis and the
19:29Communists. In the 1932 election, those
19:33two parties got over 50% of the vote.
19:35And once over 50% of the people, you
19:38know, vote for parties that want to get
19:40rid of the democracy, you know, it's
19:42it's almost too late. You're really in
19:44trouble.
19:44>> We have a situation in Germany these
19:46days where you also have very strong
19:48parties on the very left and on the very
19:51right. In Berlin, the socialists won the
19:53election in Saxon and the smaller state.
19:57The very right-wing party IFD won the
20:00last election in a landslide uh and more
20:03and more is shifting from the center to
20:05the extremes. Do you have any ideas what
20:09could be done in order to reverse that
20:11trend or is it a trend that cannot be
20:13reversed? I I I I don't know what you
20:16would do if you ran for office. I don't
20:18think I would be a good politician. It's
20:20not what I would want to do. I', you
20:22know, uh I and so I I don't have great
20:26advice for the the political leaders,
20:28the centrist political leaders in in
20:30these countries. Um I think they
20:32systematically underestimate the scale
20:35of the problem. You know, in in Great
20:36Britain, there have been seven prime
20:38ministers in the last 10 years. Nobody's
20:40had a plan for how to turn their
20:42societies around. They all think, you
20:45know, once I become prime minister,
20:47that's all I have to do. I have to
20:48figure out this this complicated
20:50internal intraarty you know complicated
20:53game to become prime minister and once
20:56once I do that you know um I can figure
20:58out all these problems and then there
21:00are these these deep structural problems
21:03you know in my in my uh again the the um
21:06the technological stagnationist
21:09perspective I have is that there's not
21:11been enough progress the societies have
21:13been fraying the intergenerational
21:15compact has broken down And um and this
21:18is what these things are reflections of
21:20and maybe I don't think I don't think
21:22the extreme parties will will solve
21:24things but we we need to take it
21:26seriously. So the linka in in the Berlin
21:28elections that got 25% of the vote among
21:3116 to 24 year old voters it got 47%. And
21:35that's you know you know eventually the
21:37young people are the people you know who
21:40will who will be um deciding deciding
21:42things in in your society. That's a very
21:45bad trend. And uh and you know you know
21:49uh I don't you I'm making the proinka
21:52argument because you you know you will
21:54not accuse me of being a sympa
21:56sympathizer of the linka or a communist.
21:58>> So what's the pro argument? Tell me.
21:59>> Well the pro argument is um you have to
22:02at least take the issues the young
22:05people are talking about seriously. So
22:07there's there's some problem in Berlin
22:08where um the rents are too high and it's
22:11impossible to build houses or uh you
22:14know the young generation finds it very
22:16hard to get ahead. It finds it very hard
22:18to be successful. There's a way that uh
22:20that Germany is a at Europe and some of
22:23the United States these are
22:24gerontocracies. their societies run no
22:27run for old people. to take the problem
22:29seriously is definitely the right
22:31approach, but it also depends on the
22:33solutions. And the solutions that the
22:34linker proposes here is to solve the
22:36rent problem by nationalizing real
22:38estate companies and to basically
22:40motivate society very much driven by
22:43anti-semitism, pro-Islamism and now it
22:47seems if we look to the images of the
22:49party in the election night also with
22:51the help of organized crimes clan
22:54chiefs. Uh so I think that's where
22:57taking things seriously
23:00>> well. Well well they uh they don't have
23:01solutions.
23:02>> Yeah.
23:03>> Uh but um but all they need to do to win
23:07is to they can say you know and this is
23:09all always something I often say too is
23:10you know when you ask me what to do
23:11about the tech stagnation my um my
23:14simplistic answer is always well I don't
23:16have a comprehensive solution but the
23:17first step is you have to talk about it.
23:19And so, you know, I I don't I don't know
23:21the exact debate in Berlin, but I could
23:22imagine the link is saying, "Okay, we
23:24don't know if our solutions exactly
23:25work, but we're at least talking about
23:27the problems. Nobody else is talking
23:29about them."
23:29>> So, what's your take on the other side
23:31of the political spectrum, the IFD
23:32alternative for Deutseland, the far
23:34right-wing party? Is that an alternative
23:37for conservatism or are you worried by
23:39that development? How do you see it?
23:41Again, I I'm I'm hesitant to to to speak
23:44too much to the to the specifics of
23:47German politics, but yes, I think it
23:48reflects uh it reflects these failures
23:52of of the centrist parties. It reflects
23:55a failure to find um to find a uh an
23:58economic future for for Germany um that
24:02somehow is inclusive and broad and works
24:05for the society as a whole. Uh I don't
24:07think I don't think they have great
24:10solutions. I don't think they know how
24:12to I don't know. I don't think they know
24:14how to balance the budget. Either the
24:18parties of the extreme left or extreme
24:19right. You know
24:20>> whether with with the extreme right
24:22there is another issue. It is about
24:23foreign policy. The foreign policy
24:25concept is basically pro Putin pro-China
24:27understanding uh uh anti-Israelism or
24:32being anti-Israel being anti-Semitic in
24:34parts. So uh
24:36>> well my my um you know my uh my
24:39paradoxical the paradoxical thing I told
24:42you earlier today is that uh I I think
24:45it's important for us to have debates
24:47about all three of those. And so I think
24:49there can be a reasonable debate about
24:52Ukraine, a reasonable debate about
24:53China, a reasonable debate out about
24:55Israel. And at the same time uh somehow
24:59I I do think the AFD is is wrong on all
25:03three. And that's you can't be wrong on
25:05all three.
25:07>> Let's switch to the United States. You
25:10were uh in 2016 uh supporting Donald
25:15Trump. Um 10 years later, uh how would
25:20you analyze his uh achievements? How
25:24would you analyze his failures? Uh where
25:27do you stand today with regard to the
25:28last two years and then the first term
25:32of the president? Um
25:35man, my my my fast all answer is you
25:37should ask me in 10 years or so and uh
25:39we we'll see in 10 years how how it all
25:41works out. Uh I still think um that uh
25:45it's it in me in in many ways uh it
25:48reflected a failure of the um of the
25:51establishment to deal with these
25:52long-term problems the US had with these
25:55growth problems with um you know some of
25:57the challenges of globalization
25:59um you know with um you know with the
26:02endless entanglements the US had in the
26:04Middle East that had not really worked
26:07all that well. Uh and uh and then and
26:10then of course uh there you know there
26:13all these all these things that uh you
26:16know you wish they'd appointed more
26:18competent people. You know the and I
26:20think the the two administrations kind
26:22of made opposite mistakes. You know the
26:25first administration um brought in all
26:28these people who couldn't agree and it
26:29was just all this internal fighting. Um
26:32the second administration um I think um
26:36uh had all these they overcorrected for
26:38the mistake of the first term with all
26:39these loyalty tests. You got sort of um
26:42you know an administration staff by um
26:45not very smart uh but very loyal people.
26:48And so there there are all sorts of ways
26:51it's um it's uh it can it can be
26:55criticized.
26:56I don't um but but it also again it
27:00reflected a way that uh that uh things
27:03things had reached a certain exhaustion
27:05on um and certainly on the Republican
27:08side. Uh, and I I worry in the United
27:11States that um the kind of ex exhaustion
27:14with the Republican establishment that
27:17happened with the Bush family that
27:18happened in in 2016 um we're about to
27:21see with the sort of Clinton Obama
27:24center-left establishment and uh the
27:27last three elections, you know, 2016
27:30Trump the sort of anti-establishment
27:32person won the Republican primary.
27:34Hillary, the establishment person, you
27:36know, barely beat Bernie Sanders. Maybe
27:39and and then then again, the
27:40establishment won in 2020 and 24. I
27:43don't know if they'll be able to do it
27:44in 28. And and the Democratic Party is
27:47the more important party. That is the
27:49establishment party in the US. The
27:50Republican party is always a little bit
27:52the anti-establishment one. So, if the
27:53if if um the Democratic Socialists take
27:56over the Democratic party, that's a much
27:58bigger deal. And uh that is like I don't
28:01know the end of America. I remember very
28:03well a lunch that we had in 2016 when I
28:07asked you why do you support Trump and
28:09you basically said because the existing
28:13party and the existing leadership is so
28:16dysfunctional
28:18just needs disruption and that was an
28:20interesting thing that I could
28:21understand very well. Would you say now
28:2310 years later we need disruption again?
28:27Uh
28:30um I I well I I I I don't want
28:33disruption of the democratic socialist
28:35pariety. That uh that seems that seems
28:38catastrophic. Um but um but I worry but
28:41again if I do it not morally not
28:44normatively just on a descriptive level.
28:46Um I worry that the estab establishment
28:50Democratic party has has failed as badly
28:53as the establishment Republicans. And so
28:55uh we are going to get this disruption
28:58and there is there's a risk that the US
28:59will shift very far to the left. That's
29:02that's that's the real disruption we're
29:04going to get. So you belong to those who
29:06say
29:06>> I don't think it's good that the
29:07democratic socialists of America are a
29:10real option. They are a real danger. You
29:12once said it's the most kind of
29:14energetic and in a way the most
29:16successful political movement uh these
29:19days.
29:20>> And so it's it's it's you it's young,
29:22you know. It's
29:23>> it's like pop culture. The history on it
29:25was it was um I looked this up the other
29:27day, but it it was it was the democratic
29:29socialists got created in 1982 as a sort
29:31of um fusion of these very fringe
29:33socialist uh groups and sort of members
29:36paid thing was like 5,000 people was
29:38very small fringe thing. Um and in the
29:412016 campaign, a legacy of the Bernie
29:43Sanders candidacy is the membership of
29:46the Democratic Socialists of the sort of
29:48cadre of the vanguard ballooned from
29:515,000 to 50,000. the median age went
29:54from 66 to 33. And so it was this it was
29:58this old
30:00uh socialist people thing to young uh
30:04revolutionary thing. And uh and yes, it
30:06has it has a certain amount of energy.
30:08It has it has a certain amount of
30:10charisma. You know, the uh again the the
30:13establishment Democrats, they're all
30:14lame. They can't say anything. I mean,
30:16it's the same problem with the SPD CDU
30:19people in in Germany. You were u an
30:23early supporter of JD Vans. You worked
30:26with him. You basically saw something in
30:30him that other people didn't see then.
30:32Can you describe
30:34what it was and why you supported him?
30:40>> I I always I'm I'm always hesitant to
30:44overrate, you know, overrate my my role
30:46in these things. I um I probably always
30:50have a very soft spot for smart people.
30:52So I thought he was thoughtful,
30:55open-minded,
30:56um charismatic and uh you know he was he
31:01was working for uh one of the venture
31:03funds I had helped start called Myithil
31:06and then wanted to write this book on
31:08the side and I I encouraged him to do
31:10that. It became this bestseller in 2016.
31:13uh and I helped him out financially when
31:15he ran for Senate in 20 2022. Uh but I
31:19think uh I I'm always hesitant to answer
31:21this question because I think it just
31:22detracts from his from his achievement
31:24in in many ways.
31:26Now um the Republicans will make a
31:31decision sooner or later. The names
31:33about uh the potential candidates that I
31:36heard most often are JD Vance and Marco
31:40Rubio. Um, who do you think would be the
31:45better candidate in order to increase
31:47the likelihood that the Republicans
31:49would win the next election?
31:53Um, well, I I am I am still I'm still a
31:57vanced partisan. Uh, I I worry that it
32:01will be very hard for either candidate
32:03to win. And so, um, I don't know. My my
32:07pessimistic thought is that that's the
32:09wrong question. So the right position
32:10would be is
32:11>> who's going to be the Democratic
32:12Democrats? No. Who's going to be the
32:14Democratic candidate? That's that's the
32:15right question.
32:16>> And would it be a center uh left
32:18centrist candidate of the Democrats who
32:20would provide them with a better chances
32:23or would it be uh a DSA candidate? Um
32:27well, the obviously in a close election,
32:31a center-left candidate is probably
32:33better. Um if it's not a close election,
32:35it probably doesn't matter. And um and I
32:39think there's a decent chance that um it
32:42will not even be close. If the
32:44Republicans get wiped out in the
32:45midterms this fall, then uh the
32:48Democrats will think that they will win
32:50no matter what in 2028. And therefore,
32:53um there probably will not be, you know,
32:56as as strong a firewall against a dem
32:58you won't pull out all the stops to
33:00prevent a Democratic socialist from
33:01winning. So, I I think the Democrats
33:03will do well enough in the midterms in
33:06uh in, you know, a month and a half that
33:08um they will be indifferent to a
33:12center-left versus far-left presidential
33:15candidate. And then it's a completely
33:17open field, completely open question.
33:21And uh yeah, I had uh you know, I had
33:24this I had this discussion debate with
33:26Fukuyama, you know, the end of history.
33:29And he, you know, he doesn't fully
33:30believe his theories anymore. But uh but
33:33uh when when I told him that, you know,
33:35there was a good chance, you know,
33:36democratic socialist would win in 2028.
33:39He responded with absolute confidence.
33:40No way. Can never happen. And I I don't
33:43think history stuff like that.
33:44>> So you think from a today's perspective
33:46that's the most likely outcome? Not not
33:48the most likely, but let's say it's a
33:4950% chance.
33:50>> That's pretty high. That's pretty high.
33:54>> You are uh a fan of MLE because he's a
33:59disruptor, I assume.
34:02Can you describe a little bit what we
34:05what western societies, what America,
34:07but also what Europe could and should
34:09learn from Java?
34:13Well, I think we're I think we're all
34:14fascinated by Argentina because uh we
34:17worry that um their past is our future
34:20where you had sort of this I don't know
34:23it's not zero growth or decline but
34:26subpar growth for for a century. It's a
34:30complicated history of what went wrong
34:32was you know obviously the peronist
34:34history with this very charismatic
34:37leader who had a lot of bad ideas. There
34:39were there were ways um you know uh and
34:43then and then there were ways that uh uh
34:47it it it took a long time you know in
34:501900 1920 riches in Argentine was still
34:52a common expression that's that's sort
34:54of gone out of out of usage. So the and
34:57then yeah it's an it's an open question
34:59whether Malay will will succeed in
35:01turning Argentina around you know um
35:04whether he will get reelected a year
35:05from now. uh I still think he will
35:08because people sort of understand that
35:10this is you know it's it's it's so
35:12existential and you you just can't go
35:13back. The the problem for all of us is
35:16is there any way we can learn from the
35:17history of Argentina? So it won't won't
35:19take us you know 100 years of decline to
35:22get there. you know, the I don't you
35:24know, I I don't like I don't like the
35:26accelerationist
35:28Leninist idea, you know, which is uh
35:30Vladimir Lenon, the worse things get,
35:32the better they get because the closer
35:34you get to revolution. Uh and and then
35:37at the same time, you know, the sense I
35:39always have in the US and Europe is
35:42people are upset, pessimistic, angry.
35:45It's it's never enough to lead to
35:48positive change. And instead we just
35:49have this drift where you know you worry
35:52things have to get a lot worse before
35:54they turn around.
35:56But if you had to make a bet today, do
35:59you think we are
36:01close to a turning point? Because what
36:04we are seeing now in America, in Europe,
36:06in the west, the stumbling centrist
36:09governments, the British successful
36:10autocrats
36:12uh that this is a healthy warning call
36:16and we will uh recover, we will reinvent
36:20ourselves or do you think that's
36:22basically the beginning of the end and
36:24the beginning of a new world order where
36:25the autocratic systems are going to
36:27break?
36:27>> You know, I I I think we should always
36:29try to think of these things much more
36:30concretely, less abstractly. So, let me
36:33just flip it around as a question to
36:34you.
36:35>> You know, will people get rid of Mertz
36:37in Germany? It's like a complete total
36:39failure anyway you cut it and then I
36:43don't know there's there's a decent
36:44argument. Nothing will happen to him for
36:45another three years because, you know,
36:48everybody else thinks they won't do any
36:50better. And so, uh, so yes, there's
36:53there's
36:54>> So, that's an indirect answer that you
36:55think it's more likely that we're going
36:57to deteriorate further. I'm not I'm not
37:00sure, but it's it's it's sort of an open
37:02question. It's like it's it's amazing
37:05how, you know, how robust the Merch
37:07thing seems to be relative to how bad it
37:10seems to be. So, um so I don't know.
37:13Yeah, I that's that's probably my my
37:15intuition is that uh uh things will will
37:18keep drifting for for a long way because
37:20the you know the the people who replace
37:23him don't really have you know they
37:25don't really have answers to these
37:27problems. you frame the macroeconomic
37:29problem. This is again sort of a boring
37:31macroeconomic version is we have um we
37:34have very large welfare states. The
37:38taxes feel pretty high to me. Um and and
37:41then we have very big deficits and maybe
37:43the deficits would be sustainable if you
37:45had 0% interest rates. The interest
37:47rates are no longer zero. And so there's
37:49sort of a compounding runaway deficit
37:51problem. And um and you have basically
37:54three choices. Do you massively cut
37:56spending? Just the Malay answer. Do you,
37:59um, do you massively hike taxes,
38:03uh, which is basically completely shut
38:06down our societies and all growth, or do
38:08you keep going with the deficits and
38:10take the can down the road? And, uh, for
38:14close to 20 years, the answer's been
38:16number three. Ever since the 2008
38:18crisis, we've just been borrowing more
38:20and more money. And then my my intuition
38:23is we're yeah close to a point where
38:25that ends and then you're going to be
38:27pushed to a very non-entrist
38:31uh solution of either socialist levels
38:35of taxation or um or uh some really
38:39tough really tough austerity measures
38:41and uh you know the the best idea Mertz
38:45has is just borrow more.
38:46>> Why do you care so much about politics?
38:50I well I I don't I don't know if I I
38:54don't I think about it probably too
38:55much. I
38:57uh it's I mean I'm not I'm not a
39:00politician. It's but it
39:02>> into
39:04never never I'm not 100%
39:06>> exclusive. I look, I'm not sure I'm
39:09perfectly self-aware or anything like
39:11this, but I am self-aware enough to know
39:13that I I'm not electable. And uh and um
39:17but but it permeates our society. It um
39:20it is sort of like I don't know, it's
39:22it's both toxic, but it's the air we
39:24breathe. And so uh so I don't know, I
39:26have a schizophrenic view on it. I think
39:28about it a lot, and then I try to
39:30compartmentalize and ignore it as much
39:31as possible.
39:35What's your take on the kind [gasps] of
39:37bigger geopolitical
39:40uh picture?
39:42Where should Europe be? Uh there's a
39:44discussion about European sovereignity
39:46politically, but particularly also with
39:48regard to AI and the economy.
39:50The two big players are America and
39:53China. uh basically in all areas not
39:56only with regard to AI.
39:59One is a very autocratic authoritarian
40:04country. The other one is a democratic
40:07country. The authoritarian crunchy is
40:09pretty perfect. The democratic country
40:11is pretty imperfect. So
40:1510 years down the road, who is going to
40:18win that race? not only the arms race in
40:22AI but in the broader context also the
40:24the the race of of systems
40:28um and where should Europe be
40:31neutral on China side as a colony or a
40:35reliable ally of America?
40:39>> Um I think it would be best for Europe
40:42to be a reliable ally. Uh
40:45I I always want to push back very hard
40:48on these sort of uh ways that this often
40:50gets framed as a sort of moral
40:52equivalence between the US and China.
40:54But those I I always find that uh um
40:57very very offensive. Um but let me let
41:00me make the um make a slightly different
41:04point. I you know I think from an from
41:06an American perspective um more
41:09important than whether Europe is a super
41:13close ally or I don't know a somewhat
41:17allied but very independent thinking
41:19place is um it's um it's in America's
41:23interest for Europe to get its act
41:25together and for Europe to be you know
41:28to be um to be more functional um to get
41:33it economy going to be to be a part of
41:35of building the future. Uh as it um um
41:38and uh and then the the question is how
41:41how to do that. Um there are probably in
41:45in various sectors if um if if Europe
41:48can build up its own industry uh or it
41:50can even um you know um become
41:53worldleading
41:55industry in some things uh that would be
41:57very good. If it's if it's further
41:59behind then um then probably there
42:02should be you should find ways to to
42:04work with America much more closely. So
42:06let me let me concretize with uh you
42:08know I don't know there was this um in
42:10the late60s you had the Concord program
42:13which was sort of a British French you
42:16know not exactly free market plan. Um,
42:19you know, supersonic aviation started in
42:22the US with Chuck Joerger breaking the
42:23sound barrier in 1947,
42:26but uh, Europe was behind, but you could
42:28get your act together and you could
42:30catch up and overtake the US and, uh,
42:32and, you know, the supersonic aviation
42:35industry, you know, be was a European
42:38leading industry. Um, and so that's not
42:40a free market thing, but that's
42:42something that uh that I think the US um
42:45should be fine with, supportive of that.
42:47I was uh you're uh doing something and
42:50then the um and then on the other hand
42:53you had something like uh the French
42:55Minuteel program of the 1990s where the
42:58internet was supposed to be French and
43:01uh it ended up you were behind and you
43:03just you know dug yourself into a deeper
43:05and deeper ditch and so uh so if you ask
43:09the question about AI in uh 2026 is it
43:13is it like the Concord or is it like
43:16Minel
43:17And um and then this is and if if we
43:20were honest, my my assessment is that
43:21it's it's further Europe's further
43:23behind than Minel was. Unfortunately, I
43:27I agree. The question is why is that?
43:30And how likely is it that we can change
43:34it? What is your analysis?
43:38Why is it?
43:40And do you have any ideas what Europe,
43:43what Germany should do in order to get
43:48back to the map and get its act
43:50together?
43:50>> You know, the why the why questions are
43:53always overdetermined and much harder to
43:56answer. Um but let me let me on a on a
44:00very you know one of the one of the
44:02things in Germany that people always
44:04talk about in this entrepreneurship
44:05context is
44:06>> that um there's a fear of failure that
44:09um people are risk averse and things
44:11like that
44:12>> and then uh the and maybe that's true
44:15but the dimension I want to always push
44:16back on is perhaps there's also a fear
44:19of success that um if you have something
44:21that works you're not going to you know
44:24you're not going to scale it to this um
44:26extreme degree like an Elon Musk or Mark
44:29Zuckerberg and u you know at some point
44:32you'll sell the company or you'll exit
44:34or or or or some something like that and
44:37uh and so what's what's very you know
44:40striking is that uh is how few you know
44:44great new companies have been have been
44:46built um you know in in Germany um in
44:49the last in the last number of decades.
44:52Here's here's a stat that I I I looked
44:54up and this is again it's one one
44:56particular dimension to look at but if
44:57you look at the 50 wealthiest people in
45:01the US and most and most money comes
45:03from you know particular companies um
45:05only 12 are gen x or younger people born
45:091965 or later so it's you know it's also
45:12pretty much dominated by old people who
45:13have had more time to compound their
45:15wealth Germany it's actually more
45:17distributed it's um they're 20 of the 50
45:20people are Gen X or younger of the of
45:22the 50 were wealthiest people in
45:24Germany. But here's the difference. In
45:26the US, nine out of 12 of those people
45:30made their own money. In Germany, all 20
45:34of those 20 inherited it. Not a single
45:37person did something new, made made some
45:40new money, built built a large new
45:43scalable company. And then of course
45:45this what I'm just looking at this very
45:47extreme but you know for each of those
45:48people they created thousands of I don't
45:50know millionaires in their companies
45:52tens of thousands of other jobs they
45:54added to the economy in in lots of
45:56different ways and there's sort of there
45:59used to be you know there used to be
46:00this ability in Germany to build great
46:02new business there's a middle there were
46:04also you know much larger companies that
46:06got built in the late 19th early 20th
46:08even after 1945 period and then uh it's
46:13it's really something about that has
46:14really broken down since since 1995 and
46:17the yeah that sort of I don't have an
46:20answer to that but that that would be
46:21the kind of question I would I would I
46:22would try to think about really hard
46:25tonight you're going to receive the Axel
46:28award
46:29and when I informed you about that you
46:33said something very remarkable
46:37uh you said
46:39thank you I always tried over the last
46:43decade It's to get Germany out of my
46:45mind. Intellectually, I did quite well,
46:49but I didn't get it out of my heart.
46:54Why not? What's still so German about
46:56you being born in Frankfurt, Armand in
46:591967,
47:01living now for almost all your life in
47:05America. Why is there still this
47:08emotional affiliation to Germany?
47:11Man, I I it would be strange if there
47:14weren't. I think I would be much more
47:16strange if there weren't.
47:17>> But you left Germany when you were one
47:19year old, so you don't have any
47:20memories. You don't [clears throat] have
47:21>> My grand my grandparents were here. You
47:23know, I was there was sort of uh in some
47:27ways I grew up
47:29I went to Yeah. I went to
47:30English-speaking schools in America, but
47:32uh spoke German at home. So I really I
47:35grew up between fish and swan
47:39and uh and so yes there's there's
47:41there's a there's there's a um
47:46yeah there's there's a part where it's
47:47sort of
47:49understandable all these reasons things
47:52have have gone gone somewhat wrong but
47:55it's it's also very important for us to
47:58find a way to turn Germany around. It's
47:59it's at the heart of Europe in some
48:02ways. Europe is still, you know, at the
48:04core of of of Western civilization. So
48:06there's a crisis of
48:07>> So sorry, but that is of the West.
48:09There's a crisis in Europe and and
48:11Germany.
48:11>> Yeah. But you're shifting back to
48:12intellectual analysis. We were talking
48:14about feelings. So what do you love
48:16about Germany? What what is it? I mean,
48:18the past of Germany is difficult. We
48:19spoke about the present and the future.
48:21That's also quite difficult. So what do
48:23you love about Germany?
48:25>> It's just it's just part I I'm always
48:27bad at answering this question. It's
48:28just part part of my part of who I am.
48:31Okay. [gasps] Tonight we will have two
48:34of your co-founders uh Alex Karp uh from
48:37Palunteer and Max Lechin with whom you
48:40founded PayPal. Um so
48:47Alex Karp also has this very very strong
48:51affiliation to Germany. Um with Max it's
48:55a different history. He's from Ukraine,
48:57but in any case, there's a European
49:00element in it. Do you think that these
49:02two guys played such an important role
49:04for you in your uh business life, but
49:08also in your personal development as
49:10friends because there is this common
49:13European denominator or doesn't that
49:16play a role? It's probably a part of it.
49:18It's it's uh I don't want to overdo it.
49:20Uh I I you know I think there was sort
49:22of there there a way they're a way that
49:25um a lot of the founders of these tech
49:29companies I think of as both insiders
49:32and outsiders. And so uh you know um
49:37Alex and I both were insiders who went
49:40to the elite Stamford Law School and
49:43then uh you know you know I was in some
49:45ways an outsider to America. Alex was
49:50um Jewish where you always have a little
49:52bit of that as as part of the background
49:55and uh and it was somehow sorry you I
49:57didn't get it he is Jewish and but it
50:00has nothing to do with your
50:01>> background but it's it's a little bit of
50:03the outsider there's an outsider part
50:05>> okay I see
50:05>> and an insider I always I always say
50:07that these found the founders have have
50:09both the outsider insider dynamic and
50:12there was you know there was a way um
50:14you know Max was this super achieving
50:17straight A student this uh incredibly
50:23um incredibly uh charismatic person but
50:27then also you know grew up on the you
50:29know um he left the Ukraine when he was
50:3216 years old and they grew up in a poor
50:34part of Chicago and then it was you know
50:36so it was was you know just an
50:38incredible drive
50:40>> being an outsider
50:42can really be an advantage in in I think
50:45in your case. Well, I think it's it's
50:46it's it's it's always I wouldn't say
50:48it's both though. It's it's this
50:50outsider insider combination.
50:52>> Yeah.
50:53>> People always exaggerate that they
50:54exaggerate the outsider piece because
50:57>> that's always you know in a way you're
50:59sort of playing the victim and stuff
51:00like that and there's also some part
51:02where you know I grew up in Silicon
51:03Valley very few people did that.
51:05>> Okay let's assume in this perfect mix of
51:07being an insider and an outsider you
51:08have developed an overproportional
51:11degree of contrarianism. You love to
51:13contradict. I think for me the word no
51:17is the foundation of freedom and
51:18democracy. So I also love to say no. But
51:21I think in your case it's almost kind of
51:24an automatic uh impulse. Yeah. If there
51:27as soon as there is a consensus or
51:29people get close to a consensus, you say
51:31the opposite.
51:31>> All right. So just say no. No. I I I
51:35think that uh uh I I don't think the
51:39point is to be contrarian for its own
51:42sake. I I think uh because then you just
51:44look at the consensus and put a minus
51:46sign in front of it. That that's not
51:48that interesting. Uh you know, I think
51:50>> I think the real goal is always to try
51:52to think for oneself.
51:54>> Mhm.
51:55>> And that's you know that's what I that's
51:57what that's what I try to do. I I I
51:59don't I
52:00I don't think of it as just this, you
52:03know, reflexively negative thing. How
52:06have you been able to develop that
52:08intrinsic strength to listen to your own
52:12compass and not being influenced so much
52:15by zeitgeist by consensus by the
52:21millure?
52:22Do you have any explanation why you've
52:25been able to develop that superpower?
52:33you know, uh I'm always again I'm always
52:35bad at the self psychoanalysis, but I I
52:39you know, I I I'm probably like
52:41interested in a lot of different things.
52:43And so it's like big picture history and
52:46politics and economics and
52:50science fiction and the future and
52:54psychology, sort of all these different
52:56things. And uh and uh it's always um I
53:01don't know this is this is sort of not a
53:03in late modernity we're supposed to be
53:05narrow specialists. It's the Adam It's
53:07the pin factory in Adam Smith where you
53:09have 100 people working in a pin factory
53:11and everyone's specialized in one narrow
53:13area and somehow very efficient for
53:16people to be super specialized but um
53:19you you lose sight of the the big
53:21picture and uh I've always uh I've
53:24always wondered how does everything fit
53:26together you know
53:29how how do how do we make sense of all
53:30these things um and I maybe it's just
53:34sort of a I don't know a renaissance
53:36dilotant type thing that I'm
53:38rationalizing, but uh I I tell myself
53:41there has to be room for at least one
53:43generalist in a world where everyone's
53:45hyper specialized
53:47and that in that Renaissance spirit of
53:50having many interests and many fields uh
53:53of activity, where are the areas of
53:56passion and interest
53:59that have no professional, no pragmatic,
54:02no business rationale that are purely
54:05kind of private personal uh irrational.
54:14>> Don't tell me that you don't have it at
54:15all.
54:16>> I don't I you know I I I probably still
54:21play way too much chess on the internet
54:23all the time. M
54:24>> and this was you know this was uh
54:27you know uh was a scholastic chess
54:30player and uh it's this I don't know
54:34it's this very beautiful somewhat
54:37dangerously addictive
54:39>> um somewhat dangerously addictive game
54:42um it's probably not equivalent to all
54:45of reality which is what I at various
54:47points of delusion in my teenage years
54:49like to say that everything in the world
54:52>> um you know if you didn't play chess,
54:54you didn't understand reality. It's
54:56probably too too extreme a thing to say.
54:58>> But uh but um I know I I don't know.
55:01There are there are all sorts of all
55:03sorts of questions that don't don't
55:05connect directly. You know, I think I
55:07think I think a lot of these political
55:09questions
55:10um you know uh they're important. Um
55:15they frustratingly feel largely outside
55:17of our power. And so you know I think
55:21they're important. I think they do
55:22somehow relate to business.
55:24>> Um, in many ways, um, it it might be
55:27healthier. It might be more, uh,
55:29profitable not to think about them and
55:31and to just focus on on on a particular
55:34business. You have now four pretty young
55:37kids. To which degree did they change
55:39your life or is there anything that you
55:41already learned from them
55:44by watching them?
55:47It's um
55:50it's always um it's always thinking
55:54about um
55:56man it really changes your time horizons
55:59on on the future, you know, and it is um
56:03if we're in this, you know, if we're in
56:06this accelerating technological world or
56:09in this crazy world where we don't know
56:12how the world's going to make it till
56:142030 or 2035
56:16you know, if you're sort of if you're in
56:19this, you know, world of only adults, um
56:23you can sort of pretend that you're just
56:26thinking about it year to year. But I
56:28don't know, my my my um my oldest
56:31daughter will be 81 years old in 2100.
56:34And so, yeah, you you start to wonder
56:36what you know, what will the 22nd
56:37century be like? Talking about time
56:39horizons, I mean one of the areas that
56:42you're particularly interested in and
56:43also investing in is health longevity.
56:48Why is that apart from a good investment
56:50case? I mean uh I'm also having a high
56:52degree of interest because I'm
56:54hypocchondriac. I don't know what's your
56:56motivation is uh
57:00is it only the business rationale or is
57:02there also a kind of personal motivation
57:04of something that we all have more or
57:07less a fear of death uh yeah fear of
57:11death fear of getting old all all these
57:14all these things um you know I
57:19but you know I I I always push back on
57:23it's it's it's odd to me that this is
57:25not more widely shared and that this
57:28isn't you know uh can't be articulated
57:31more widely and this was the you know I
57:34don't know the optimism of early
57:36modernity 17th 18th century was that you
57:39know science would relieve man's estate
57:41hob said you know in the state of nature
57:43life was nasty brutish and short and it
57:46would we were supposed to make it longer
57:48and maybe you know maybe indefinitely
57:50longer and uh I don't know um people
57:54like Condor Borsay or um Francis Bacon,
57:58Benjamin Franklin, they thought they
58:01thought you could cure death. You can
58:02cure all diseases. And uh and it's it's
58:06it's just this shocking u social decline
58:10that we we we've we've given up on that.
58:12Um you know, people don't even think we
58:15can cure Alzheimer's. Why why can't we
58:17why can't we at least try to do that?
58:20>> For me, the discussion about progress
58:22has always two sides. Almost every
58:24progress in technology or wherever has a
58:27flip side and a downside. In the case of
58:32health, I just don't see it. I think it
58:34is for me the only area where progress
58:37is only positive. For centuries,
58:42scientific progress, progress in
58:44medicine
58:46has improved not only the lifespan but
58:48the quality of our life, enjoyment of
58:50our life, everything. So in that spirit,
58:53could you share with me the most
58:57optimistic, the most visionary case
59:01about longevity? What can be achieved?
59:06Eternal life
59:09>> um 150 years.
59:14Um
59:16it's
59:18it's not it's not clear why it shouldn't
59:22be you know it's not clear there are any
59:25natural limits. We still have not you
59:27know there are there all sorts of
59:29reasons people have become more
59:30pessimistic because you know it's it's
59:33it certain things have been very hard to
59:35cure. Nixon declared war on cancer in 71
59:38said it would be cured in 5 years. It's
59:40now 55 years later and there's been some
59:43progress but it's you know it's it's
59:45very far from very far from
59:47>> is accelerating it no big time
59:49>> and then you know but then there's
59:51always a question um you know are um I
59:54don't know you know it's it's badly
59:57simplifying things but um if if you
1:00:01think of biological processes is sort of
1:00:04irreversible
1:00:05and um information computational
1:00:08processes as fundamentally reversible.
1:00:12You know, if you could understand
1:00:14biology as an information science, um
1:00:18then um then in theory you could find a
1:00:21way to um traverse all these you know
1:00:24all these processes and uh um and that's
1:00:29and then that's you know like you know
1:00:32computers can live forever. But is it
1:00:34then more in this physical sense that we
1:00:36really reverse the process of aging of
1:00:38our body and with that achieve
1:00:41um a longer lifespan or even eternal
1:00:44life or is it rather in the sense that
1:00:47we at a certain point are able to
1:00:48download our brain and our
1:00:50consciousness? Well, I I again I'm live
1:00:53in a different
1:00:55I have a very physical
1:00:58uh maybe Christian
1:01:01informed view where uh um I wouldn't
1:01:04find it acceptable to be uploaded in a
1:01:06computer program that simulated me. I I
1:01:08don't think it would be me.
1:01:09>> So I I tend to think our identity is
1:01:11very uh very wrapped up in our um in our
1:01:14in our physical selves. Um and then but
1:01:17yeah, no I think the I know the full
1:01:19Christian vision of this was of course
1:01:21that you were going to have an eternal
1:01:23body and um and it would also you know
1:01:26it would also be your soul be
1:01:27transformed. um you know it was uh one
1:01:30of my one of my um uh one of my friends
1:01:33is this 80-year-old mathematician and uh
1:01:36uh he once joked to me you know he
1:01:38didn't know whether there was an
1:01:39afterlife but he hoped that there
1:01:41wouldn't be because he didn't want to
1:01:42run to his ex-wife and um and so uh so I
1:01:46do think that uh you know in some ways
1:01:49yeah eternal eternal life is very
1:01:52desirable and then um Christianity
1:01:54always aimed for even more but the the
1:01:57The problem with transhumanism and
1:01:59Christianity is um you know it's it's
1:02:01not that transhumanism is too weird and
1:02:03too extreme from a from a real Christian
1:02:06point of view. It's that it didn't go
1:02:07far enough. But let's assume that we
1:02:09would achieve eternal life. Is it really
1:02:11desirable or would we be extremely
1:02:13bored? Because everything is unlimited.
1:02:15Why being ambitious?
1:02:18>> Um
1:02:21I I think the answer to all those things
1:02:22is better than the alternative.
1:02:25>> Okay. Um
1:02:28so I I don't think I would be bored.
1:02:30>> Good. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. So what is
1:02:33then the concrete thing the concrete
1:02:36innovation invention
1:02:38or investment that you have seen over
1:02:40the kind of last month or or years with
1:02:44regard to longevity that makes you most
1:02:46optimistic? Can you share the craziest
1:02:47thing with us?
1:02:48>> Yeah, I I I I I keep um I keep investing
1:02:51in in these biotech areas. It is it is
1:02:54surprisingly difficult. It's there are
1:02:56all sorts of reasons there there are
1:02:58challenges but uh but if I um
1:03:02if I if I wanted to focus on a single
1:03:04one it it would be really trying to do
1:03:07something about um about dementia about
1:03:10um you know finding a way to slow or um
1:03:14reverse um declines in people's brains
1:03:17and that would be you know that's that's
1:03:19the one that uh that um I'd want to find
1:03:22a way to tackle in the years ahead.
1:03:24Peter, [snorts] to conclude, I would
1:03:26love to ask you a question that you are
1:03:27asking almost uh every candidate you're
1:03:31talking to before you hire her or him or
1:03:35people that you find uh interesting.
1:03:39Tell me a truth that you believe in that
1:03:43almost nobody else agrees with.
1:03:46I'm giving you a lot today already.
1:03:47Let's see. Just give me one second.
1:03:51>> Take your time.
1:03:55In any case, it's nice that to see that
1:03:57it is also a tough question for you.
1:04:03There's there's always a meta level
1:04:05version of this where there are all
1:04:07sorts of things that you think um
1:04:12uh are very that nobody believes in um
1:04:15and then you realize actually a lot of
1:04:18people almost do and so maybe it's
1:04:20contrarian and we can sort of debate
1:04:22which which which is the contrarian one.
1:04:24So um when I started giving these
1:04:27speeches about the antichrist um 3 years
1:04:30ago, I thought this was an extremely
1:04:33unconventional
1:04:34view that was very far outside the zone.
1:04:37And so I would have said that that
1:04:39that's an answer. And uh now I would say
1:04:42um and but then yeah, most people would
1:04:44say, "Yeah, that's a really crazy thing
1:04:45to talk about." Um, I would now say that
1:04:49it's actually um it's not contrarian
1:04:53that most people think something like
1:04:55the Antichrist is right around the
1:04:57corner, that we have incipient
1:04:59totalitarianism throughout the world.
1:05:01And uh and so it was less contrarian
1:05:04than I thought. But then the the metal
1:05:07level truth is um I think um everybody
1:05:12thinks everybody says [music] that the
1:05:14antichrist is a crazy idea and the
1:05:17reality is they actually secretly agree
1:05:19with me. [music] Peter, thank you very
1:05:21much for the conversation.
1:05:22>> Thank you.
1:05:24[music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Peter Thiel: The AI Crisis, Europe’s Decline & the Battle for America by MDMEETS - Essential Talks with Mathias Döpfner, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 10,985 words across 1,569 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.