You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DeVliegendeHollander comments on What are "the really good ideas" that Peter Thiel says are too dangerous to mention? - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: James_Miller 12 April 2015 09:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: knb 13 April 2015 05:20:07AM *  7 points [-]
  1. Notice how Thiel mentions his idea about the importance of monopoly right before he alludes to something edgier. That's a bit odd, as talking about monopoly as a goal isn't very edgy at all.
  2. Thiel is a libertarian. Libertarians often complain that government is able to misbehave because it is monopolistic.
  3. Remember that Thiel is a known supporter of Seasteading--he initially funded Patri Friedman's Seasteading Institute.
  4. Thiel has also been known to criticize democracy.
  5. Thiel is a known Straussian.

My guess would be that Thiel's edgy idea has to do with something like Charter Cities (often criticized as a form of colonialism/imperialism) or new country projects.

In a totally different direction, I've long wondered whether NASA might be suppressing promising designs for advanced propulsion systems fearing their potential for extremely risky weaponization.

I doubt Thiel is thinking of this in particular however.

EDIT: Since some people below seem confused, I'm not saying I think think it is likely that NASA is really suppressing anything, I'm just saying that I have wondered about it in the past.

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 April 2015 02:31:04PM 0 points [-]

In a totally different direction, I've long wondered whether NASA might be suppressing promising designs for advanced propulsion systems fearing their potential for extremely risky weaponization.

What do you mean with "suppressing"? Keep them as a secret and only manufacture the weapons for the US military?

Comment author: knb 14 April 2015 12:35:48AM 1 point [-]

No, more something like, "Maybe some NASA researchers hit upon a promising advanced propulsion designs years ago, but quietly got worried about weaponization potential, and quietly shifted focus away from advanced propulsion."