It seems these lectures are closed but does anyone have a transcript or writeup of the core arguments? I'd be interested to know what he is saying first hand.
I can see the logic of talking to the people who believe they will live forever, once you start wondering "what if people could actually live forever?"
I'm curious also: who would have enough will power to go to this place to be lectured by him on this subject ? What is the interest of both parties (Thiel and this place) in this event (besides obvious publicity) ?
He's probably interested in getting an angle on the whole thing since he knows Christians will get more nervous as tech develops, and they still have a lot of power in this world. Primitive takes on new tech developments can be detrimental to humankind at large. Talking in the abstract of course, I'm not sticking up for any of his points, I don't even really know them to be honest.
As for the other party, probably curious on what he has to say, considering he's up to speed with today's tech and future perspectives on it.
If tech really finds a way for humans to proceed further in a different form that will be a major headache with religious people. One simple argument for changing form is that the Sun will eventually scorch Earth so we do have an expiry date. And there's no way we're making it out of here in this current form, this is developed for the conditions of this planet, forcing it in other environments will eventually wipe us out. So logically we'll have to change form if we want to make it outside of this planet.
In this sense, religious people can condemn humanity to basically death if they block tech developments, thinking some god will "save" us, and by "save" I mean let wipe.
So not as clear cut. You might hate the guy but he's not dumb, I think he knows what he's doing, or at least trying to do. But I have no clue on the "how", so I cannot talk about what he wants to do, specifically, with humans.
> One simple argument for changing form is that the Sun will eventually scorch Earth so we do have an expiry date.
uhhhh this is utterly ridiculous
the sun will expire and make the Earth uninhabitable in ~1B years
humans have existed in their current form for 300K years
so that's about one three-millionth of that time
> You might hate the guy but he's not dumb
you really have to be a special kind of dumb to believe humanity will snuff it because of something that'll not happen until 3.33 MILLION times as long as humans have walked on this Earth
that just makes no sense however you turn it, there is not a single thing that this has been the case for in the (much much longer) history of Earth, let alone humanity
And I wasn't talking about Peter Thiel being a special kind of dumb. If he's so smart he probably also secretly laughs in the face of people who go along with this reasoning.
Someone with a primary objective of personal wealth enrichment might see him as a pathway to those riches. As he has 'grand' societal goals that require allies and terribly odious views, someone who either likes the 'smell' of them, can't 'smell' or is a master of holding his nose closed odious would see sitting through it a a small price to pay for future monetary gains.
I'd go, if there were an option to do so. I've seen him be interviewed live before and he has a lot of unique and thought provoking perspectives on things.
At some point people are going to start asking awkward questions going all the way back to the PayPal mafia and everything that has subsequently happened. Thiel landing on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group just looks too ridiculous, but is a thing, and now this guy goes off ranting about the Antichrist?
I am actually sympathetic to much of what Thiel has done, but the current arc makes the supposed Howard Hughes oddities look positively reasonable.
They don't own Rome anymore, the Vatican is their own country now thanks to ol' Benny. Anyway, both parties here are idiots with high opinions of themselves who actually believe in a pile nonsense, but which of the two has really caused more harm for humanity?
There is no "THE Antichrist" there are only antichrists, plural, normal not supernatural people and organizations that behave in a notably non-christlike way, and both parties here seem to qualify easily.
> There is no "THE Antichrist" there are only antichrists, plural
Funnily enough, the bible agrees, or at least John's epistles.
People who fantasize themselves as the antichrist (like Thiel, he's not very good at hiding it) ought to remember that antichrists being a dime a dozen is quite biblical.
Not completely true, the bible mention "antichrists" as in many and a particular "The Antichrist". The Antichrist is supposed to be the apex of the hubris.
>> both parties here are idiots with high opinions of themselves who actually believe in a pile nonsense, but which of the two has really caused more harm for humanity?
That's not really a reasonable argument, because Thiel hasn't had the power of the Vatican (especially the power the vatican used to have), but what he's done with his power so far is much more concerning to me that what the vatican has done in the last 4 years, yes.
I think we both agree that the catholic church has received an unwarranted elevation and presumption of beneficence in media, but the distinction I'm drawing is that a billionaire who's toiling in American politics and claiming Greta Thunburg could be the antichrist is actively concerning.
I wonder, if I was surrounded by wealth in the same way, if I would schedule talks on my wacky ideas. The blind encouragement of insurmountable wealth must be intoxicating.
It must be fun to be super rich. They live in high castles where few reach, and talk with cloud over their heads. They hold parties high in wine and drug, that flows down into the river through the aqueduct, then picked up by the masses.
Based on my recollection of The Bible and the Book of Revelation (it's been almost 30 years since I was last forced to read it), Peter Thiel and his ilk match the definition of what an "antichrist" is or should be.
Thiel seems to talk like a practical business teacher. Through his quotes I see advice for entrepreneurs and founders, greedy suggestions and ruthless behaviour, exactly the US way of high business. Because the bad side of religion supports these goals, he is considered religious and not atheist.
In order to be an atheist you have to not believe to any God but also to any other universal power (eg physical laws, mathematics, human civilisation). For me an uneducated person can only become an atheist.
Obviously the Catholic church has the trademark on the word Antichrist. So this tracks. Can’t have randos muscling in. They might do irreparable harm to the brand name.
Unlike a lot of the posters here, I find Thiel interesting.
I agree with his idea that humanity was stuck in a rut technology/progress-wise until the past few years, and I'm glad we're out of it. I wish we were building more stuff faster (housing, nuclear, renewables, electric cars, etc). I don't consider myself a "transhumanist" but I do think that humanity should orient itself towards overcoming what have been our fundamental limitations (scarcity, death, etc). Ultimately, that could lead to some form of transhumanism albeit in the far, far future.
Thiel's "antichrist" spiel is the idea that fear related to existential risks (climate, nuclear, AI, etc) will make people too timid, and lead to a one-world government that de-prioritizes progress and economic freedom, resulting in longterm stagnation. I'm not especially worried about that, but I do think that excessive timidity is a real problem. I don't mind that Europe increasingly doesn't care about economic growth and has made it harder to invent/build/create, but I don't want the whole world to be like that.
If you disagree with this broad view, think about it more concretely. Take the example of nuclear reactors. If we had been steadily building nuclear reactors for the past 70 years, they would be smaller, safer, more efficient, energy would be more plentiful, and climate change would be less of an issue. Ultimately it was excessive fear that led to the decline of nuclear energy. So, if you find the "antichrist" stuff bizarre and off-putting, at least consider the basic point: excessive fear is a real obstacle towards the goal of fundamentally bettering the human condition.
> His florid arguments have the architecture of a conspiracy theory, weaving together random and disconnected elements to make grand assertions. And those assertions—cosmic and sweeping—are more concerning than convincing.
To this extent, Shpiel is like any zealot who stalks the halls of institutional religion.
However...
> Thiel is consciously seeking to position himself as a figure of religious authority, using scripture and philosophy to preach in favor of a capitalism that murders democracy. He clearly wants to recruit people to his cause, perhaps to start a movement.
Many US voters have already joined the movement and the current Presiking speaks and acts as though he has no intention of being removed.
US voters need to wake up if ever an awakening was needed. Home-grown lunatics and thieves now run the country. As oligarchs, they are positioning themselves to be untouchable by destroying democracy and the rule of law:
> his companies and allies embedded in Trump’s fascist regime and his protégé, JD Vance, a heartbeat from the presidency—Thiel has launched a campaign to herald the Antichrist.
ehhh, for a lot of traditional Catholics neither Thiel nor Rome are Catholic currently so I think there would be disagreement with both sides here
I thought Thiel's argument was that the anti-AI crowd might tend towards a pagan primitivism (like with mentioning those like Greta) and authoritarian measures to stamp out technology with an Anti-Christ leader, emphasizing base physical pleasure over technological "progress". I guess that's one "End Times" possible trajectory.
Catholicism's not necessarily really for or against (classically) liberal democracies, with exception of specific configurations that might be condemned afaik with books like "Liberalism is a Sin" (liberalismisasin.com) or writings against the "heresy of Americanism".
p. 11 says, in contrast to a top comment here that claims there is no singular Anti-Christ figure: "the Sacred Scriptures speak of Antichrist in various places as being a particular person or individual."
Rome has been thought to have fallen to modernism with the Vatican 2 changes, which sets them up more for accepting or bringing about the rise of an Anti-Christ movement in the views of some traditionalists
I don't know much about all this but skimming the article, I doubt that that the author has treated his acute TDS. I know this is a rather left leaning crowd but I can't believe that smart people like here all believe Trump leads a fascist regime.. Please enlighten me ar what makes this article so popular?
>but he still cannot stop talking about the Antichrist
Well with the antichrist in charge of the US, I guess he has a good example to follow :)
To me, all this shows is being rich still won't make you smart.
With that said, I wish the Pope would send a real message. Start excommunicating Roman Catholics who enable Trump. I would start with the ones on the US Supreme Court then move on to Congress and the VP.
150 comments
probably on other podcast outlets also
- Expressed hesitation on whether the human should survive without being moved into computers [1]
- That Greta Thunburg could be the antichrist and cause the end of humanity [2]
- (Leaked) Apparently he has also called Pope Leo the antichrist [3]
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSp07P8jvYs
2. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ao_umPlSV6o
3. https://www.thelettersfromleo.com/p/new-jd-vances-top-donor-...
As for the other party, probably curious on what he has to say, considering he's up to speed with today's tech and future perspectives on it.
If tech really finds a way for humans to proceed further in a different form that will be a major headache with religious people. One simple argument for changing form is that the Sun will eventually scorch Earth so we do have an expiry date. And there's no way we're making it out of here in this current form, this is developed for the conditions of this planet, forcing it in other environments will eventually wipe us out. So logically we'll have to change form if we want to make it outside of this planet.
In this sense, religious people can condemn humanity to basically death if they block tech developments, thinking some god will "save" us, and by "save" I mean let wipe.
So not as clear cut. You might hate the guy but he's not dumb, I think he knows what he's doing, or at least trying to do. But I have no clue on the "how", so I cannot talk about what he wants to do, specifically, with humans.
> One simple argument for changing form is that the Sun will eventually scorch Earth so we do have an expiry date.
uhhhh this is utterly ridiculous
the sun will expire and make the Earth uninhabitable in ~1B years
humans have existed in their current form for 300K years
so that's about one three-millionth of that time
> You might hate the guy but he's not dumb
you really have to be a special kind of dumb to believe humanity will snuff it because of something that'll not happen until 3.33 MILLION times as long as humans have walked on this Earth
that just makes no sense however you turn it, there is not a single thing that this has been the case for in the (much much longer) history of Earth, let alone humanity
And I wasn't talking about Peter Thiel being a special kind of dumb. If he's so smart he probably also secretly laughs in the face of people who go along with this reasoning.
I am actually sympathetic to much of what Thiel has done, but the current arc makes the supposed Howard Hughes oddities look positively reasonable.
There is no "THE Antichrist" there are only antichrists, plural, normal not supernatural people and organizations that behave in a notably non-christlike way, and both parties here seem to qualify easily.
> There is no "THE Antichrist" there are only antichrists, plural
Funnily enough, the bible agrees, or at least John's epistles.
People who fantasize themselves as the antichrist (like Thiel, he's not very good at hiding it) ought to remember that antichrists being a dime a dozen is quite biblical.
>but which of the two has really caused more harm for humanity?
I take it you would like to compare against the whole of the Vatican's existence, and not against just the whole of Peter Thiel's adulthood?
>> both parties here are idiots with high opinions of themselves who actually believe in a pile nonsense, but which of the two has really caused more harm for humanity?
That's not really a reasonable argument, because Thiel hasn't had the power of the Vatican (especially the power the vatican used to have), but what he's done with his power so far is much more concerning to me that what the vatican has done in the last 4 years, yes.
I think we both agree that the catholic church has received an unwarranted elevation and presumption of beneficence in media, but the distinction I'm drawing is that a billionaire who's toiling in American politics and claiming Greta Thunburg could be the antichrist is actively concerning.
> there are only antichrists, plural
Agreed, it would be exceptionally hard to choose just 1 (or even 10) right now.
https://archive.md/sdLQP
> spelling out Silicon Valley’s plan to weaponize religion in a war against democracy
:eye_roll: Is Google on board with that plan? Or Apple or Meta or Netflix or anyone? Who is “Silicon Valley” to this author?
In order to be an atheist you have to not believe to any God but also to any other universal power (eg physical laws, mathematics, human civilisation). For me an uneducated person can only become an atheist.
I agree with his idea that humanity was stuck in a rut technology/progress-wise until the past few years, and I'm glad we're out of it. I wish we were building more stuff faster (housing, nuclear, renewables, electric cars, etc). I don't consider myself a "transhumanist" but I do think that humanity should orient itself towards overcoming what have been our fundamental limitations (scarcity, death, etc). Ultimately, that could lead to some form of transhumanism albeit in the far, far future.
Thiel's "antichrist" spiel is the idea that fear related to existential risks (climate, nuclear, AI, etc) will make people too timid, and lead to a one-world government that de-prioritizes progress and economic freedom, resulting in longterm stagnation. I'm not especially worried about that, but I do think that excessive timidity is a real problem. I don't mind that Europe increasingly doesn't care about economic growth and has made it harder to invent/build/create, but I don't want the whole world to be like that.
If you disagree with this broad view, think about it more concretely. Take the example of nuclear reactors. If we had been steadily building nuclear reactors for the past 70 years, they would be smaller, safer, more efficient, energy would be more plentiful, and climate change would be less of an issue. Ultimately it was excessive fear that led to the decline of nuclear energy. So, if you find the "antichrist" stuff bizarre and off-putting, at least consider the basic point: excessive fear is a real obstacle towards the goal of fundamentally bettering the human condition.
> His florid arguments have the architecture of a conspiracy theory, weaving together random and disconnected elements to make grand assertions. And those assertions—cosmic and sweeping—are more concerning than convincing.
To this extent, Shpiel is like any zealot who stalks the halls of institutional religion.
However...
> Thiel is consciously seeking to position himself as a figure of religious authority, using scripture and philosophy to preach in favor of a capitalism that murders democracy. He clearly wants to recruit people to his cause, perhaps to start a movement.
Many US voters have already joined the movement and the current Presiking speaks and acts as though he has no intention of being removed.
US voters need to wake up if ever an awakening was needed. Home-grown lunatics and thieves now run the country. As oligarchs, they are positioning themselves to be untouchable by destroying democracy and the rule of law:
> his companies and allies embedded in Trump’s fascist regime and his protégé, JD Vance, a heartbeat from the presidency—Thiel has launched a campaign to herald the Antichrist.
I thought Thiel's argument was that the anti-AI crowd might tend towards a pagan primitivism (like with mentioning those like Greta) and authoritarian measures to stamp out technology with an Anti-Christ leader, emphasizing base physical pleasure over technological "progress". I guess that's one "End Times" possible trajectory.
Catholicism's not necessarily really for or against (classically) liberal democracies, with exception of specific configurations that might be condemned afaik with books like "Liberalism is a Sin" (liberalismisasin.com) or writings against the "heresy of Americanism".
The Vatican could have pointed to Catholic views of prophecy, like Rev. Huchede's "History of Anti-Christ", so people might compare views being presented: https://archive.org/details/huchede-history-anti-christ-best...
p. 11 says, in contrast to a top comment here that claims there is no singular Anti-Christ figure: "the Sacred Scriptures speak of Antichrist in various places as being a particular person or individual."
Rome has been thought to have fallen to modernism with the Vatican 2 changes, which sets them up more for accepting or bringing about the rise of an Anti-Christ movement in the views of some traditionalists
(can elaborate on anything if anyone requests it)
>but he still cannot stop talking about the Antichrist
Well with the antichrist in charge of the US, I guess he has a good example to follow :)
To me, all this shows is being rich still won't make you smart.
With that said, I wish the Pope would send a real message. Start excommunicating Roman Catholics who enable Trump. I would start with the ones on the US Supreme Court then move on to Congress and the VP.
The title translates to:
>American heresy: should Peter Thiel be burned at the stake?