Debate: Will the Future be Abundant? Peter Diamandis vs. Peter Zeihan
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 12. 2023
- From the start of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution and beyond, humanity has changed and thrived at a level previously unseen in history. Some worry that the abundant present we live in now will change for the worse, due to environmental challenges and a shifting geopolitical landscape. Meanwhile, there is increased connectivity to resources and improved standards of living. Will tomorrow be better than today? Those who agree say that humanity is more prosperous than ever, mortality rates are dropping while living standards and access to resources are increasing, and we’re taking necessary steps to mitigate the beginning effects of climate change. Those who disagree point out that there are widening socio-economic disparities. They also say deglobalization will cause the collapse of consumption and global trade, and the environmental crisis is almost at the point of no return.
With this background, we debate the question: Will the Future Be Abundant?
Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Executive Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation
Arguing No: Peter Zeihan, Geopolitical Strategist
Xenia Wickett, Geopolitical strategist and moderator at Wickett Advisory and Trustee of Transparency International UK, is the guest moderator.
#opentodebate #debate #abundance #deglobalization #resources #environment #agriculture # IndustrialRevolution #technology #ai @ZeihanonGeopolitics
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Unresolved: The Iran Threat"
• Unresolved: The Iran T...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Explore our latest newsletter insights and debater editorials: Will the Future be Abundant? Peter Diamandis vs. Peter Zeihan
Read here: opentodebate.org/newsletter-will-the-future-be-abundant/
Sign up here: opentodebate.org/newsletter/
I think Peter won, but his opponent had some good points
🤣
😂
I definitely agree with Peter on this topic.
😂😂😂
are you insane?! peter totally lost!
While overall a good discussion, around the 40 minute mark Peter Diamandis basically says he expects people to stop retiring in the future and do a startup or earn a new degree. Yea, OK. Win goes to Peter Zeihan.
Right?! I got an extra twenty years and you think I'm gonna spend it working?
@@dandabear118 To be fair, the 20 years thing, it won't be you and won't be me. But some generation in the future, cost of living, taxation, inflation among other things is gonna make it such that people who have an extra 20 years spend them working as well.
The way I see it, our lives are split into 4 parts, the 1st we spend educating ourselves, 2nd we work basic entry level jobs, 3rd we get established and promoted to a good position in our workplace, 4th we retire.
Extra 20 years just means 5 more years of studying as everyone gets PhDs or more, 10 more years of work and 5 more years of retirement before we kick the bucket.
50’s is the new 40’s! Working from home alone will easily add another decade to my work life. Running a business on vacation is much easier with the connected world
I did not hear that. What he means that there should be no societal or legislated exclusion of those who can, want to or need to economically continue and contribute...of sound mind and general reasonable health notwithstanding.
lol. funny comment. I will defend peter D. its not like everyone will do that but the best of the best will and if that is a million brilliant people working on important issues that could make a big difference. my dad is 80 and cannot stop working. he is afraid if he stops working he will die, but he is working on more fun projects and not so hard as he used to.
The civility is rare & a model for how debates are meant to be conducted.
Agree. However it's sad this needs to be said.
Absolutely agree, civil debates where people can disagree and discuss without screaming and sluring at each other need to be more common.
Peter D is a client who thinks a software development team can whip up a miraculous system to save humanity within a month for the least amount of effort and money provided. Peter Z is the head of the software development team (that once was me), trying to get the client to see what it takes to deliver any kind of system, and is being ignored (because the client is watching Sci-Fi showing Star Wars technology and assumes this to be easily achievable within 3-4 weeks).
😅 LOL!! Yeah, it's easy to see Peter D is staring at the clouds and imagining the future while Peter Z is seeing the water recede and a larger wave in the distance, as he heads to his 5th floor hotel room.
3 to 4 weeks? More like 5 minutes.
Good comments. PD is not in the real world. He's been in AI too long!...LOL
Peter D. is a twit. Whole thing depends on women and NO discussion of making their lives better. In Peter D's world pregnant and in the kitchen is his attitude. Saudi and Riyadh...great place to start Charlie.
It is as if these guys have distilled into money. The scaffolding is changed. Again, get the test tubes out.
Anyone: AI will save the day! Peter Z: what chips are going to be running it? Who's going to make them?
Chips? What are chips? By then we won't need chips. Everything will be soooooooo futuristic! (The words of someone who knows nothing about technology). To take it to an extreme, such a person might say "Well, alien disclosure by the government is imminent, and I am sure the aliens can provide us with lots of chips." I would respond "I am talking about computer chips, not potato chips".
@@willchristie2650
but potato chips > computer chips!!!
First we get chips that can make the chips, then we get chips that will make the chips that makes the chips. Then eventually theres going to only be chips making chips that make chips for chips to make more chips that needs more chips to make chips for the chips that needs chips to make chips.
We don't need humans, they're not chips that would make the chips that consume the chips made by chips.
Oh the crunchy goodness!!! I love chips! The saltier the better.
@@therearenoshortcuts9868 Most people on the planet know and care more about potato chips ,than computer chips.
In my opinion, Peter D had a large perspective devoid of a lot of details, almost a philosophy based on faith in humankind's glorious future without real specifics to prove this. He reminds me a bit of a Roman philosopher near the end of the Roman Empire predicting that the empire will last forever, since it had already lasted a very long time. Peter Z constantly drummed down to the detail level on real problems and supported his contentions at a practical level. Therefore, I find Peter Z the most persuasive, although the future may be a hybrid of both debater's views. NOTE: Peter D had the naive view that prosperity will end war. History has never shown this to be true because man's avarice is never satisfied and many wars are fought for irrational reasons such as a meme of "manifest destiny" to conquer the world, e.g., the tedious aggressive paranoid mind of Russia in the 20th and 21st century.
10/10 I might only add that what Peter Zeihan is saying is actually happening. He gained prominence when correctly predicting Ukr-Rus war
Good summation. Peter D is voicing a very common mindset that "technology will save us". This point of view often comes from those who have very little understanding of technology development. Thier arguments are based on faith of something they do not understand.
@@robertbraden4454 Yes, the Alter of Technology which so many now worship upon...it literally is magical thinking and it would take something magical to pull us out of the hole we've dug ourselves into. These people ignore the reality of physics.
i agree. zeihan at least has info to back up his conclusions, whereas diamandis sounds almost like a faith-based lecturer. it makes me feel like zeihan understands his area of expertise well enough to be credible, whereas diamandis seems to not understand the underlying causes for prosperity and innovation, and therefore also what causes deprivation and stagnation.
Agree. Diamandis fails to grasp that inequality has indeed been growing for a long time. You can find people live in extraordinary wealth and abundance right now while some people live in near stone age conditions (people in the Amazon for example). Most people barely get by. The discrepancy has never been bigger in human history.
All it takes is one look at San Francisco where you have 20 something year old billionaires step over homeless peoples poop. They can't, or perhaps don't want to solve even an open defecation issue in their own city. Hardly evidence for an abundant world. I find it hard to believe that they care about anything but themselves and their wallets...
My favourite part is when the lady rephrases *everything* that Peter just said except slightly worse. I find it useful to have the argument interrupted but astoundingly nothing added for about 50% of the duration of the debate. ❤️
Ha! Totally agree, her summaries of what we just heard moments before were so essential (j/k). Good grief. As Princess Diana once put it, this marriage was a bit crowded!
And then another 10% taken up by her complaining about how little time they have after wasting it all
Excellent discussion. Thank you to both Peters.
Peter D is a lightweight who only speaks in platitudes and motivational speaker rah rah.
Yea but Zeihan is completely wrong on other stuff and way to pessimistic
@@lionelmessisburner7393 Wrong on what? He called half this crap back in 2014.
@@lionelmessisburner7393 he predicted Ukraine 10 years ago
@@lionelmessisburner7393 Your comment is as devoid of detail of Peter D’s. Peter Z isn’t always correct, but he is right a lot. Peter Z’s in-depth knowledge and the details which he provides is why he’s right a lot, but is also the source of his detractors when he gets some of the details wrong.
@@firefly9838 that’s one thing. Lmk where I said he is wrong ab every single thing he’s ever said. He also has been saying China will collapse in the next 5 years for like 10 years. And many other things he says have truth to them but then he completely goes overboard on it.
Sweet Jesus they both speak very clearly. I do NOT need a summary every other time one of them speaks.
Sorry you found her attempt to control the debate so personally insulting. I thought she did a wonderful job.
@@willchristie2650 I find her perfectly charming. I took no personal insult. There is no evidence of having been insulted. If two people clearly communicate their views for 5 minutes and a moderator inserts her interpretation for another almost 4 minutes, then I’ve spent nearly as much time listening to the summary as that which is being summarized. That. Is. A. Waste. Of. Time. Redundant and muddling, not insulting.
@@philipcullin983 I found her charming but I tend to agree with your assessment on the structure of debate here.
This is the best debate with 2 people that debate and the respect they had for each other. I believe that they will both take this to use it well!!
A healthy bit of pessimism is a good thing. Humility is key.
That was an incredible discussion! I've never thought of these 2 authors views being at odds with each other. Peter Diamandis likes to focus on how abundant the future will be, while Peter Ziehan focuses on warning us of the challenges we will face getting there. Both guys are worth following if you like well thought out, reasonable projections of the future.
As an an engineer that works as a cloud architect and has been utilizing AI/ML tools for 15 years, I can state with a high degree of confidence that Peter D is naive on the technology front and is only looking at the past and his assessment of technology to form his opinion of the future. Demographics are undefeated over time, so while I’d prefer to believe Peter D, I just don’t see it.
@@SignalCorps1 My career was in systems engineering and design, along with basic coding. The average person has no idea how much it takes to create a working computer system/network. Of course, I did not have AI, but I bet it still is hard work. What I always found laughable (without being an elitist) was how the federal government would tell displaced coal miners that they could be retrained to be software engineers. Excuse me? Why not just tell coal miners they can all be trained to be brain surgeons or nuclear physicists! The cluelessness of the government about what it takes to be a software engineer (a logical mind with a strong mathmatical ability, much less a basic understanding of advanced algebra) always insulted me. I did talk to one bureaucrat who actually said "What's the big deal? If I can use Microsoft Office, then anyone can". This government employee thought that a software engineer's job was equivalent to using MSWord or Excel. I pulled up my laptop and showed her a page of C++ code, asking if she could do this. She changed the subject. How many coal miners have transitioned into a software engineering title? (Not to knock coal miners, but an extremely different skill set is required). People are not interchangeable circuit boards that can just be plugged into any job or situation.
@SignalCore1 Yes, I think the challenges are going to be upon us well before the solutions. Many people of the world will not be around to see an abundant future.
@SignalCore1I second that, with 30 yrs the industry. AI is not capable of delivering what Peter D. is promising.
Very little, if anything was said of Energy, which seems to be have been taken for granted, as though there was an inexhaustible supply of energy available, forgetting that most of our energy comes from finite sources. We did get Peter Diamandis’s just off the cuff remark that nuclear fusion will be perfected, when there isn’t a sign of that happening, but there is one thing nuclear fusion’s good for that’s sucking in money like a spiraling black hole and keeping nuclear physicists, engineers and academics hands from being idle as “Idle Hands Are the Devil's Workshop”.
Energy = Life (labour), and likewise, Energy = GDP. And so we should reflect on: “Labour without Energy is a Corpse, Technology without Energy is a Sculpture, and a City without Energy is a Museum” - S.Keen/N.Hagens🤔
Indeed, he's energy blind to the hilt. He'd do well to listen to Hagens, etc, but you and I both know he'll dismiss such concerns with more energy blind extrapolations of the present.
Yeah, 70 million Wal-mart greeters. Thats what we need. Or maybe they can all just be politicians
Both Peters did well. I think we are headed to a high tech dystopia, many living better than ever, but many not experiencing the benefits. Hopefully we can prevent a WW3 from happening and throwing everything into chaos.
Will probably continue to skirt the line between high tech dystopia and utopia. Dystopia is just the easiest to picture, since there's so many movies/shows acting as a warning of "what NOT to do" rather than the seemingly unrealistic level of optimism most feel is needed to depict a high tech utopia. Anything that isn't perfect tending to be called a dystopia doesn't help, either.
The few will live incredible but unfulfilled lives, the many will live in poor desolation, without access to most of the technologies. But they'll be fine, because they'll be distracted and heavily medicated.
Demographics are undefeated over time. There is nothing to fast track a demographic decline. We can’t create 40 year olds. It takes exactly 40 years today just like it did thousands of years ago.
zeihan is an absolute juggernaut genius who loves supporting an illegitimate authoritarian old folks home patient destroying the country at a pace never before seen, over thebest presiden in modern history, because he reminded him of his bullies in school...
utopia is a trap @@Vaeldarg
Real debates are so cool. I wish there were more. Pioneering effort to make that happen!
peter D's argument is essentially "things have been going well and will continue to " but you can't assume a linear trend progression in any statistic
He used a great example of a logical fallacy, namely a false equivalency to Zeihan's argument about current manifestations of destabilization = an asteroid could come down and exterminate us.
@@LRRPFco52 that's not a false equivalency; its called the turkey argument as i was taught to know it. "consider the turkey, he concludes the farmer is his friend because he brings him food everyday.....until the farmer comes outside with an axe the day before thanksgiving"
I'm an engineer (aerospace) and part of Peter D's problem is that he has ZERO understanding of *INFRASTRUCTURE,* and there is nothing strange about this as I see it all the time with non-engineering people and in particular ECONOMISTS and FUTURISTS. This is the main reason we don't yet have a Moon base. Its not that we can't get there and back its that we don't have the technologies to do the basic infrastructure - power, water, oxygen,....
They make these idiotic assumptions that there is an unlimited supply of stuff and that we will not run out of anything. Sadly the simple reality is that we live on a finite world. David Suzuki tried explaining this to people back in the 1990s and *NOBODY LISTENED.*
Here's an example.
Right now there's a giant push to switch all the cars, trucks, busses,.... to Electric Vehicles (EVs).
At the moment the Tesla S requires 63kg of Lithium for its battery.
At the moment there are 1.5 Billion cars and 500 million trucks (source: Wikipedia)
Putting aside all the other raw materials we'd need to re-build 1.5 Billion cars and just look at the batteries.
Just those 1.5 Billion cars would need 94.5 Million tons of Lithium for the batteries.
According to the US Geological Survey there's 21 million tons in reserves and by some other estimates maybe 26 million tons. So if we dig up every last known gram of lithium and stuff it into car batteries we maybe get 1/3rd of the way there if we start using smaller batteries in smaller vehicles.
This is where people like Pere D infuriate engineers. They just expect us to magically solve these problems without any consideration of what it might take. He got damn lucky with the X-Prize in that 1 competitor was able to make something that worked. *BUT* that took a billionaire (Microsoft's Paul Allen) with enough spare money to spend twice as much ($20M) as the prize was worth ($10M). *Also look how many years its taken using the same basic technology to go from the experimental space plane that won the X-Prize to a commercial operation.*
When you are not the engineer having to solve the problem its very easy to make the bold claims.
@@tonywilson4713 Excellent comments. I have worked as an ML Engineer for people like Peter D on multiple occasions. The reason 90% of AI projects fail is because people like him do not know what they are doing. Like Peterbot, they create solutions looking for a problem. They sell the hype. Its fun and games until customers start noticing the hallucinations, training artifacts, and many other problems. The real danger of AI is not robot overlords, but of a crypto style wholesale collapse of multiple systems, products, companies using models that just don't work statistically because they were not built properly.
ps; Zeihan is also overly bullish on Shale technology. I have worked for several energy companies and even been on fracking rigs. Some of the wells are played out, a lot will cost too much to produce, and there is tons more litigation in that area now.
@@tonywilson4713 I am an engineer too and work as a cloud architect with extensive utilization of AI/ML tools. On the AI/ML front, ChatGPT has created ton of hype in the media which has filtered down to the public, but I’ve been using AI/ML for about 15 years. The leap forward isn’t nearly as fast or dramatic as most people think. This didn’t pop up a year ago. It’s been a sustained effort for over 20 years. Peter D is completely in the dark on this point.
One word was missing from this discussion: productivity. Exponentially developing technologies, electrification, Ai, etc. all create new levels of productivity. And productivity creates abundance for those who own those highly and ever increasingly productive businesses.
Somewhere in the future if these owners are willing (or are forced) to transfer some of those enormous profits to the jobless masses than it might bring abundance...
Two brilliant people had a great discussion. PD is a bit naive, PZ is a bit extreme. Reality is probably somewhere in between and the time frame for the changes between 5-15 years.
The world needs more of this kind of discussion, - civilized, calm debate for the benefit of humanity.
Gotta close some gaps between AI and real work though. One thing Peter Zeihan mentioned was AI with a robot and camera could be used to identify individual plants health and spray less fertilizer on healthy plants and spray more on plants that need some help. Zeihan suggested this would maintain or increase yields with the same or less total fertilizer, by changing from a field or crop policy to an individual plant policy enabled by AI. Theoretically an experienced farmer could do it with their own eyes but it would be very tedious unprofitable work. AI just supressed the cost.
Good point. My guess is that the distribution of the gains in profits, from increases in productivity, has experienced an exponential rate of diminishing returns for workers.
I disagree with Peter Zeihan on plenty of things, but I think that describing him as "extreme" is at best lazy thinking. Peter takes the lesson from history that human progress rarely happens quickly and without bumps along the way. I don't think that's an extreme viewpoint. His observations about China aren't extreme either through the long lense of history having repeated unification and breakup again and again. Western civilization itself has been going through a cultural suicide which again has been seen before historically. Even the best positioned countries are going to see serious obstacles to overcome before they can once again turn their collective attention back to the rest of the world.
@@Seastallion Considering what channels that have been showing the REAL face of China have shown, what's happening there is actually a lot WORSE than what he was saying when it came to there. Running out of food via corruption and environmental collapse (most of their ground water and air is polluted), failing banks (including their "shadow banks"), massive death tolls from natural disasters simply covered up...would prob give Peter Z a heart attack if knew.
How exactly do you force someone with an army of terminators to share his wealth with you?
This Open to Debate was the best discussion of these issues. The "contestants" were well chosen. Additional questions from journalists were excellent.
Ms. Wichett is a wonderful moderator. I subscribed!
Frankly, the Peters disagree only on when. But they're on the same page about what. Far more contentious would be a debate on the "good" or "bad" players in the how.
Sorry... but the key to solve this debate is a single question which unfortunately wasn't made: -- what is the ultimate cause for technical innovation and constant technological advancement so leading to abundance as a deterministic general outcome? Human curiosity and ingenuity? Certain mode of social production? Geography? Demographics? War? Human genetics? There are more comments I would introduce about the history of technology and its relation with abundance but that's ok.
Brasil
Reply to a comment of @stevefitt9537
Hmmm Apparently they are at the same side at the frontline because both believe that technical innovation is the causal root to reduce scarcity in the long term along history. But you should read Zeihan in his subtext. Peter Diamandis considers technology as an atemporal or asynchronous deux ex machina. Zeihan however doesn't commit this error. If timing is important to any preparedness in History (as it in fact) hence time is all important because it is the key to equate the surge of technology. But what would be the chain of elements pertaining to the historical time that are key to generate technical innovations from the outside of the human tech creative cycle itself? The technical advancement is the consequence not the cause. Howsover it is clear that the cause of technology is not technology itself -- technology is not autopoietic. Therefore the ultimate cause of abundance cannot be technology by itself. So when Zeihan emphasizes the timing he is deeply right and in fact he is confronting the other dude in ontological terms. Zeihan and Diamandis are truly different in their approaches. And Zeihan wins.
Brasil
Peter D sounds so nieve in his opening statement. A perfect example of the linear thinking Peter Z was referring to.
Peter Diamandis: Life in the fast lane will continue and it's going to be fun!
Prter Zeihsn: We're headed for life in the breakdown lane.
Incredible debate. Thank you to all that participated and made this possible!
The world needs more of this, thanks for sharing!
Totally agree!!
Peter D held his own until PeterBot praised solar, wind and EV proliferation which has been proven disastrous as Peter Z predicted over a year ago.
China is the largest car market in the world and they are at 40% of new cars being EV. they sell twice as many cars as the US. also they added 200 GW of solar last year. the US in its entire history has about 180 GW. EV's are growing rapidly all over the world and US is laggard. energy storage keeps doubling or tripling every year. solar, wind, and energy storage are dominating new generation.
my takeaway from this debate is that diamandis believes that the rate at which we invent new tools will outpace the chaos and deprivation that deglobilization causes, and that zeihan believes the chaos will outpace the invention of new tools.
i think its folly to assume that the pace of invention of new tools will happen at the same rate under different conditions, and so i am siding with zeihan.
i think we are in for a rough stretch of road. however, i also think we need this to happen. its preferable to me to experience a series of small setbacks rather than one giant catastrophe that we will be unprepared for.
Well said!
Peter D is a software guy and Peter Z a hardware guy.
They would make an excellent team on any committee or in any company.
He's a salesman, not a designer. It's obvious from the lack of details.
@@careyfreeman5056Both ot them are.
@@careyfreeman5056 I assume you’re referring to Peter D. If so, I agree. I am an engineer and work as a cloud architect with extensive utilization of AI/ML tools. On the AI/ML front, ChatGPT has created ton of hype in the media which has filtered down to the public, but I’ve been using AI/ML for about 15 years. The leap forward isn’t nearly as fast or dramatic as many people think. This didn’t pop up a year ago. It’s been a sustained effort for over 20 years. Peter D is completely in the dark on this point and just assumes AI = improved efficiencies for the foreseeable future with no understanding how to get from here to there. His lack of details are no match for Peter Z’s in-depth understanding.
@@SignalCorps1 In the dark or just pimping his Venture Capital firm (Gee, I wonder why he was in Dubai)? Either way, he's all about selling, selling, selling. I should know, I'm in sales. Oh, and that AI thing at the end? That was embarrassing and kind of proves your point. Just regurgitated everything he had already said, but never even begins to address anything specific about the debate. Great post. Thanks for the info.
No, Peter D is a client who thinks a software development team can whip up a miraculous system to save humanity within a month for the least amount of effort and money provided. Peter Z is the head of the software development team, trying to get the client to see reality.
This can be summarized as the following: an idealist looks at the data to see all the benefits of what has happened vs a realist looking at the same data to see the cost of what will happen
Your asking the wrong question. It should not be “will the future be abundant”, it should be “how do we set the rules and systems to MAKE SURE the future is abundant “.
Yes, solar and wind are renewable.
But, solar panels and wind turbines are not.
It's foolish to think prosperity is assumed without understanding that it requires sacrifices and that ideologies change all outcomes.
This would have been even better as a 3 way with the Peters and Nate Hagens to talk about the end of the carbon pulse. But it was pretty darn good as is. As soon as PD said "blockchain" in his opening statement, PZ won.
But I really hope these guys are both right, Nate's view of the future is depressing, hippy communes of poor people forever.
@@tristan7216 I can't imagine the kind of person who'd want Diamandis to be wrong, or for Nate to be right. I don't like Zeihan's prognostication (though I like the guy himself), but at least he's pretty cheery about America & allies.
@tristan7216 You missed his closing statement, where he said that he put his faith in capitalism, not governments.
I like your own argument: "BlOcKcHaIN iS bAd aNd aNyOnE wHo diSaGrEes wItH Me is WroNg aBoUt eVeryThiNg". Very sophisticated view, says a lot about the average anti-blockchain clown.
@@briscocreighton3376 Nate? Or one of the Peters?
I loved this discussion but I’d like to see these two come back with a much longer clock. And also, thanks moderator and organizers!
this civilization, like all that came before it, will fall. we are to witness the fall. Zeihan is a lot closer to reality because he takes into account that AI can't make calories or nutrients.
AI can make decisions and take action to reduce the need for nutrients or calories.....
As soon as Peter D started talking about aging and retirement, it all became extremely clear: he's talking about himself. He's 62 and he's afraid of becoming obsolete. He was an entrepreneur his whole life and he's terrified of time.
Agreed, but i would also say that this i a normal human fear, and everyone would want to avoid degradation and death as long a possible.
And with how the demographics look for the next decades, this might become the political/industrial/money focus for a while...
Two people I follow religiously and they are debating. How did I miss this when it came out? Looking forward to watching!
This is how debate should be. God, this was so good to watch
People are starving to hear people talk like this, we are going to de better because of people like this. Congress is a disgrace….
This was a fantastic debate, I really enjoyed both points of view, as with all good things it did not last very long and I look forward to the next debate with the same two (Peter's) speakers.
Peter D lives in a billionaire bubble. Mindset is not going to mine all the copper, nickel and sliver that are needed to transition to alternative energies (which need to be rebuilt very 20-30 years.
Peter D has a "trickle down" mindset which has been proven to be utter horseshit. The ultra-wealthy have only ever wanted any abundance for themselves.
True. But oil was considered as poison for agricultural efforts just 200 years ago. What defines a resource is our use of it. Until we find a use for something, it isn't a resource, it is waste. What if someone creates a carbon-based super battery in the next decade? And/or fusion energy?
I'm not saying that there aren't problems and that our human project for civilization can't collapse, it certainly can, but exercises of futurology are always hard to manage.
One thing I agree thou - just looking at trends can be misleading. If you are at the ascending part of the curve, you may be tempted to believe that it will continue on that path forever, without realizing that a curve has the ups, but those are followed by the downs.
Just looking at trends could lead us to a wrong assumption that life expectancy would increase to 300 years in a few decades, for instance.
Yup, energy and materials blindness, encapsulated.
The future for the next 20 years at least is weaponry and lots of it.
Peter, you go 👍
Meh, I preferred Peter actually
@@funkydinosaurno way PETER delivered valiant points and delivered them eloquently
Big peter zeihan fan here, but I hope that peter diamandis is correct that his techno-optimism will come to fruition in order to find a way forward through the big global changes we are all living through
Peter Z talks out of his B.
Oh look the population is going down it means everything is going down.... If his thesis is correct then China and India should be the best economies in the world and countries like Israel should be basket cases.
What a fantastic exchange by two wise and positive minds. Superb moderation and program format
🙌🏻🥳✨
I like the civilised debate approach here, which contrasts with the monologues and shouting matches more common today. I found Peter Z most persuasive. Peter D mentioned infant technologies as if they are about to become operational and common. Both Peters made interesting points and actually had some areas of agreement, although this debate was on a limited topic, as Peter Z noted near the end when they mentioned food of the future. That links to aspects of the future outside the scope of the debate, which was just about material/economic trends. The two Peters mostly were not asked to comment on non-material quality of life or social developments (not their swimlanes, to be fair), although they brushed past a massive point about government becoming almost irrelevant. If there is future abundance in some societies such as the US, and if large parts of the population then subsist on the margins of the economy with no capital and few routes to change their status, while they have longer active lifespans, what kind of life will those people have and will it be fulfilling? Not everyone can be a venture capitalist.
I wish she used mr last instead of first and last initial
Peter "You are a formidable opponent, Peter"
Fantastic debate and format. More of this please. 😮
I cant agree with Xenia Wickett, the moderator: the two Peters didn't "flip their views" just because they found points of agreement. This debate is excellent ... it helps us focus on *how to re-engineer future productivity and abundance.*
Corruption will destroy any hope humanity has. It gets increasingly worse every year.
I have faith in 95% of humanity. The problem is that the Machiavellian psychopathic types rise to power and force the good people into submission.
slip me a few bucks and ill agree with you
It’s not getting worse, it’s just getting harder to hide so we see it more.
@@cmrdek Or maybe both.
someone needs to invent an AI
that hunts corruption LOL
Is this humanity's Foundation moment? But instead of the fall of the Galactic Empire over 1000 years it's going to be about the fall of the global system over 10 years, the question becomes are we building the foundations to ensure that timeframe doesn't extend beyond 30 years?
It seems they are taking different sides of Asimov's story. Peter D. is first Foundation and Peter Z is second Foundation. First has the tools and the Second has the strategy to harness the political will.
Great interview and debate. Two very probable and intellectual insights. I find both Peter's are correct with Peter Diamandis focused on the positive trends and outlook of our future and Peter Zeihan focused on the more realistic short term implications of geopolitical trends. I agree with and respect both perspectives as I believe a combination of outcomes from both visionaries are likely. I must add that when reading the comments on social media you must disregard comments from users or participants that do not use their actual name and profile photo as bots in the same way you would if the participants in the video or content were anonymous. To solve the cesspool we need blockchain-based identity system to ensure civility when allowing everyone to have a voice or "free speech".
No thanks, Marty. We don't always have to recreate the totalitarian systems of the past just because thats the extent of your mental capacity. I bet people in Iran or North Korea would agree that we, perhaps, do not in fact need total control over "free" speech. If I have to put up with a bit of spam and some undereducated ill adjusted teenagers insulting my mom, I gladly will do so to retain an open world where anyone can say anything they want, Marty. The world isn't your personal safe space. I don't tell you what to do, but you don't tell me either OK? It's a fair deal...
Peter Zeihan IS the Man of the Times.
Infinite growth on a finite planet is not open for debate. The land has a specific measurable carrying capacity and we have overshot it by 8x.
And if you are the sort who thinks we do not live in a "closed" system, sign up for the first trip to colonize Mars. I wish you great success in terraforming it.
Yes, cornucopian energy blindness is a mental disorder.
LOL. The naive fascination with Mars reminds me of how folks in a warm climate romanticize snow. Mars is that misconception x1000
With vertical farming we're not close to the limits.
Awesome debate. Two of my favorite authors. I have purchased and read all of their books.
Me too. Some of the books even twice. 😉
Really like this format!
Peter D is the typical visionary entrepreneur who lives in an idealised dream world and who casts spells with his words. Peter Z is the person he hires to help him build his dream because he has no idea what the steps are to actually create it. I unfollowed Peter D because his constant dreamworld content lacked any data plus I’m not eating lab grown meat. But I still follow Peter Z because he shows us our blind spots and lives in reality.
Yes. You just described Peter D's CV. There are adult technology developers who work to bring real products to the market, and "visionaries" that are constantly shifting from one project to the other.....and constantly seeking funding for these "opportunities".
Why would you not eat lab grown meat if I may ask?
@@nosreve I don't eat anything made in a factory. That includes any/all packaged food, drinks and lab-grown meat.
He SPECIFICALLY made a point to say which data he based his points on and how to access it in his opening statements, and you conclude that he lacks data.......... Well done....
@@2CSST2I was referring to the content Peter D sends specifically newsletters and LinkedIn posts. Peter D doesn’t reference data in his content. If you could read, you would clearly see that is what I wrote. I unfollowed him because of it.
We are SO AWARE we are living fast beyond our overall means, we ARE running out of some key finite items, energy & resources, water & food we are trying to keep up but will be falling behind. It's been nice for many of us but it is BOUND to get ugly soon & most of us see it coming
This is going to be a rough time, people out for themselves but I'm 77 so I don't care as much as many
Fascism is also becoming fashionable again to populations who want simple answers to complex problems. If democracy cannot clear the streets of the homeless, addicted and mentally deranged, then a police state will do so, as an example at the base level. And no one will worry what happened to them all, while wondering what's that dark smoke from in the distance?
Been in truck driving school so I missed the last two to three debates. I'm so proud of the audience that tuned in. #1 Fan of Open to Debate/Intelligence Squared!
Diamandis is a lightweight in a tech bubble. Zeihan is one of history’s towering geniuses.
lol.
an absolute juggernaut genius who loves supporting an illegitimate authoritarian old folks home patient destroying the country at a pace never before seen, over thebest presiden in modern history, because he reminded him of his bullies in school...
Agreed. Peter D. reads science fiction books. Peter Z. reads history books.
Per the idea life spans are longer/people can work and be productive longer. Is not based on today's real world. Why "force" productive people to stop working at 65? Why not start a new business or get a new degree? That is a question for the upper tier of earners and those with higher level careers. The folks earning less than that upper level tier have not seen a great rise in either lifespans or healthy lifespans. Also, many, if not most, older people employed at the lower tier are not forced out of work at 65 -- much more likely actually forced out at 45 or 50 after grinding unhealthy decades of work life -- and good luck getting a job that is not a entry level grind, enough economically, or let alone tolerable physically. Examples of this abound; On your feet all day? OK for most younger people not so much for 40+. Why not look for ways the future can move away from excessive work for work's sake and instead move to less working hours and better lives? How feasible is that?
Good discussion otherwise, but that section exposed some very important blind spots.
A brilliant debate handled very proficiently - thank you
2 issues that were not addressed in the discussion is :
The cynicism that most people in their 60s to a greater or lesser degree are experiencing because of the nature of their experiences ! These are people who have happily left the workforce NEVER to return if they financially can avoid it -- covid loss of workers was a great measure of this potential
The burn out of the middle classes worldwide- the resilience of society to remain balanced - is systematically being destroyed! I can’t put a time line to this phenomenon but once it has happened then anarchy and decline are sure to follow!
A great debate would be HOW TO STRENGTHEN THE STRESSED AND STRUGGLING MIDDLE CLASS !
These are just a few ideas to consider in an otherwise great depth and breadth of a subject that is very complex
Ped D needs to get out more and leave the train station called American exceptionalism for an extended period
Sounds almost utterly clueless to the rest of the world
the rest of the world is taking huge leaps in standard of living. meanwhile its going down in the USA.
@@kurtlowder3276 not that they report but China is in serious trouble…UK is buggered …lots of Europe is in recession….Most of Africa and South America want to move to the northern hemisphere….but yeh….going with the Tucker type drivel kid that USA is finished is cool with me….lol
My two absolutely favorite people to listen to.
why is there a moderator? adds nothing and degrades the conversation.
Our children and our parents are addicted to screens….. someone has to produce
Fantastic debate. Thanks for giving us a great content.
Great debate, both Peters have very good points!
The civility of the debate was a breath of fresh air. Such a welcome change.
An interesting set of descriptions of various large active forces, one more near term focused, both very civil. Thank you all.
the crux of this debate questions the premise of progress: does technology solve more problems that it creates? I side with Zeihan even though even he is oblivious to major factors at play
43:50 I never liked the question “Do you believe the humans is ultimately Good or Bad?”
To me both Good and Bad are inherent characteristics of human beings.
Brilliant debate. Great moderation.
Wow Peter Diamandis doesn’t live in this world! Peter Zeihan brought facts and was grounded in the actual state of the world and how we actually got to the world we have.
What's the point of summarizing what they say???
Thank you Peter Z for not having a bookshelf with your books displayed as a background. Much appreciated.
In many ways, they actually agree.
Very interesting! I'm a fan of both guests so I wanted both of them to be right.
Peter z mentions a textile mill in North Carolina that goes from raw input to finished product. Anyone know what company that is?
These questions are why i listen to pz, i go and see ehat invenstments are possible
Thank you both for an informative and interesting conversation!
We could do without the moderator's summary after each round. It's seriously just self aggrandizement.
Good stuff thanks for posting.
Peter D sounded like some startup internet guy who wanted to hype people with bright advanced technological future, there were some good points, but Peter Z made more sense and was more logical and numeric.
First of all, I like the concept of the debate. Second, it needs to be at least 90 minutes, if you switched the outboard question to email. It's annoying to have pontificating going on when someone is invited to ask a question. I didn't like how answers to the host's questions be cut off. I wanted to hear more. That's in part to two reasons. The first is one hour is way to short for the number of questions. The second is the host stuffed too much into the time limit. Three questions with a couple of backup questions should have been the limit. In my opinion the host tried to shoe horn in too much and she broke the shoe horn. It doesn't concern me that she stumbled through her part, it takes time to become smooth. The only way to do this is by doing it. After her doing this a few more times, she'll be smooth. If you would like to have newbies be the host, a strong producer is needed to help guide the host. The debaters were will chosen for the debate. Again, overall a good format. Be safe.
Valid points. It matters not, how ready a particular company is. Murphy's law prevails, 100% of the time. Ukraine+Russia Equals... LOTS of people are gonna starve. LOTS of farmers, are gonna go bust. Lots of countries, will be making some very difficult decisions.
And that is just on Wheat and Fertilizer... Peter D's comments. Don't take into account of the probable massive problems. TECH is spreading, everyone has a cell phone.... But if your country cannot afford FOOD, whats the point?
Bring in the third Peter: Peter Turchin 🙏🙏
Concise answers. Respectful jousting Well done.
Great episode
"Manufacturing instead of idea generation"
How in the world did we get to a place where these two things were considered at odds? Inventors need to master a certain amount of the physical world (i.e., manufacturing) to make realistic (i.e., profitable) inventions.
They are at odds because we have idea generation overproduction with cost prohibitive ways to actualize those ideas so they remain ideas. We may get better at coming up with innovative breakthroughs, but unless it has super low capital costs, it's too large of a risk to incur, so they won't be pursued or developed further. This is the same reason that variable wing geometry planes have never become mainstream, and why Boeing keeps iterating on a plane design from the 1950s when there would clearly be over double digit gains on the efficiency of a ground up new plane - the risk is too large and it financially doesn't make sense. Just look at what happened to the giant Airbus planes that only Qatari airways uses now.
You can democratize idea generation, but generating ideas is fundamentally worthless. The ability to get something into the hands of people that actually makes something cheaper for them is the only thing that matters
@@HeavyMetalorRockfan9 We have "idea generation overproduction" of impractical ideas.
I learned aircraft design in college from the designer of the MD-80, which he called "what God intended an aircraft to look like." When I brought up the blended-wing-body designs you're referring to, he pointed out two critical deficiencies:
1) It would complicate aircraft production and maintenance, since instead of just banging out a few more cylinder pieces for an extended fuselage, each and every panel has to be bespoke, like the old Space Shuttle's tiles.
When the folks who proposed blended-wing-body designs presented them at my school, I asked what the manufacturers had to say about their presentation. They literally answered "the manufacturing guys don't really give us any feedback, we wish they would." Not sure they would end up too pleased, though.
2) The main objection to blended-wing-body comes from the Safety folks, though. There are times when you want to evacuate an aircraft very, very rapidly. If you have a 3-and-3 design, or even a 3-6-3 design, you just put more emergency exits to make sure people aren't too far from their exits and you don't have a people-to-exit ratio that's too high. Blended-wing-body gives you a region in the middle of the plane, that you just can't evacuate fast enough.
.... And THAT is the problem with no one doing manufacturing. The "idea guys" get totally unmoored from reality, which is why their ideas remain ideas.
at 36:00 Zeihan suggests genetically modifying crops to increase yield to replace fertilizer. But I'm pretty sure packing the fertilizer with energy is how all those extra calories are created, I don't think it matters what the genetics of the plants are if the extra fertilizer energy isn't there.
All living things use the available energy (whatever the source) for different things with different priorities.
That is decided by the genes.
Look up the original Banana, it didn't focus on producing as much tasty flesh as possible. Our modern Banana was selectively bred to do just that. To the point that the modern Cavendish Banana is basically infertile and just a bunch of clones of each other (big weakpoint!).
The same could/will be done with GMOs, just not with breeding over time but in a lab and very fast (which we might need).
I don't think plants are near perfectly efficient. Wheat is badly designed, any wind would blow it over and kill it, we d lose 20% a year, finally in 70s we got short stem wheat and rice.... Most plants die each fall, that's wasted stem and leaves that just rot over winter. Hmm, so if we had unlimited greenhouses could we switch to perennials? Algae is closer to efficient, pulling more C out of air to make plant mass, per square foot of surface, but we use dry crops since it's cheaper to grow in Iowa than in vats in lab.... We turn just 0.01% or sunlight energy into food... A
Peter D: technology, technology, technology..
Peter Z: it’s important to understand that technology is dependant on demographics and capital and labour and supply chains and geopolitics, and all of those are shifting this decade.
Peter D: buuutt… technology, technology, technology…
This is the most civil, productive, and overall best debate I've ever had the pleasure of listening to!
i really take issue with peter d's take on code. i am a software engineer and it's heartbreaking to see the mid-to-senior-levels of today fumbling with GPT and Google to write code on the level of the interns of five years ago.
what AI really does for trade skills as of today is burn hours, so we all still have justifications for employment when there's less work to do
Just discovered this channel, instantly subscribed. Love the format, can't wait to binge your back library. I'm normally a pessimistic Peter Z type but Peter D went and gave me some hope, damn him. If he can deep fake a video of Greta Thunberg smiling he'll have a convert for life.
Peter D. is right about the direction of travel (abundance) and mode of travel (technological innovation), while Peter Z. is right about potential potholes along the way. However, I don't think that the potholes will prevent us reaching the destination.
Peter Z's argument is not about the issues facing human flourishing. His argument is about the forces that drive societal change. Societal changes is driven by basic survival and reproductive drives as filtered by culture that is constantly informing and being informed by the limiting factors of demographics, geography and resources. Abundance and technology are only some of the allowable outcomes and they are greatly limited by the geography, demographics and resources. This is simply a more predictive model for how history has actually progressed than assuming abundance is a goal and technology is the method to achieve it. Survival is the goal and darwinism selection is the method that successful societies are determined.
@@ianbelanger7459 I think that the power of technological change and market forces will overcome the negative impact of the next stage of the demographic transaction. Countries and conflicts come and go, but won't stop progress.
@@ianbelanger7459 No one reads history any more. The communists in Soviet Russia tried an experiment based on a faulty vision of human nature. It failed. When no one has any personal incentive to perform, they don't. When humans have no power in a system, they become self-destructive. We are seeing the latter on a gigantic scale in the USA. But there are still the utopians out there (check out New Age literature - it is saturated with golden age predictions when humans suddenly stop being humans and become cliche spouting zombies in a perfect world). Ignoring human nature has never worked. So in other words, I agree with you that trusting in the best nature of humans to create an abundant world for everyone just does not match human history one iota. I was reminded of human nature this morning. I was on a freeway with an exit to another freeway. There were the people who got in the exit lane and waited for their turn. Then there were those who could not be bothered to join the line and instead cut in at the front of the line, thereby causing everyone else to wait longer. "Self centered so & so's" I thought to myself. But this IS human nature for some people. ME ME ME ME. Why would they wait in line with all the "losers"? We have to accomodate this reality instead of assuming that at some magical point (perhaps an ascension to the fourth dimension...) everyone will patiently wait in line for their turn to exit the freeway.
A point that was not brought up and that has huge implications for the human experience, which seemed to be the focus of this debate, is that humans need a healthy biosphere and ecosystems to survive. Modern, industrial civilization, which both Peters seem to want to continue and expand, destroys the undomesticated living world, without which modern, industrial humans will perish.
Arguably human beings do not need "undomesticated living world" - we flee from wilderness into comfortable homes. What we need is *well managed* environment. Less forerst fires, floods and yes, less pollution - we khow how to prevent and repair damage, how to preserve and rebuild. Good land management is the key. But the problem is that it always requires foot on the ground. You cannot run environment from office in the city. Watch some podcasts with hunters - they know about and have seen more nature than any city dweller and can talk about preservation on hours on end. Donnie Vincent comes to mind.
Destroying the environment sure is bad. However, if you make avoiding that your #1 priority you'd practically be arguing in favor of going back to subsistence farming or a hunter/gatherer existence. I assume you don't want that. So we basically have to find a balance between industry and environment. It would take an utter miracle (or a significant and sudden population/consumption decline) to both, at the same time, limit resource consumption and improve standard of living. Odds are, limiting resource consumption will lower standard of living.
Industrial civilization can undermine the systems that allow us to live, but as a species we have already invented technologies that side step some of the damage. To avoid industry altogether, is to freeze human technological expansion and limit the global population to between 4 and 6 billion.
This ecological blindness is fatal to both their arguments.
I disagree. You _could_ put us, and all the high-tech industry we would need to survive, all inside Domes and it would be _enough_
(We might see this on Mars someday)
It wouldn't be great, and i really don't want that - i like trees :) - but, from a species standpoint it would be possible. After 1-2 generations born under the Domes, it would be the new _normal_ . We as humans are incredible at adapting to our environment.
Optimism versus Reality. The demographic situation is pretty clear. Tech is not enabling widespread entrepreneurship but tech is consolidating resources. Ultimately the economic system is not designed for the demographic future. For the first time in human history regular people will not just be screwed but fully aware of how they are screwed. Optimism may exist when humanity is under 1 billion and stabilized, but don't expect the large variety of things at the costs of the last century.
Yeah I don't know how tech enables entrepreneurship, it's plainly a consolidating force. Unless you count Uber drivers as entrepreneurs, which the speaker might lol
Peter D just keeps talking in circles. This 'abundance mindset' is just so insane to me. Not only does he pretty much admit that it's in human/animal nature to be pessimistic/cautious, but even if it were feasible (not impossible, just HIGHLY unlikely) to convince the majority of the world to become more 'entrepreneurial', that doesn't mean that you can just re-tool nature to your whim. No matter how much you look at a mud pit and wish, that mud will not turn into oil.
Peter Z proves the numbers don’t lie….
wonderful.
I often find myself challenging some of PZ's doctrines, but compared to PD, PZ is much closer to reality. Somehow the subject of the Earth and its environmental limitations hardly ever enters the conversation. The natural environment is the center of our being. Overpopulation and the natural environment's ability to comfortably support 8 billion people is impossible. Man will either by choice or through nature's merciless means get the human population down to 1-2 billion people for man to live on a comfortable level. If this doesn't happen man will begin self-destruction and return to survival as the core of his being.
Bingo 1-2 billion is basically our natural limit, and we could actually live in a world of abundance where we're not over burdening the planets ability to regenerate itself.
A key factor is also that this can be done cheaply and with low complexity, meaning you avoid tragedies.
Couple this with longer lifespans and the expansion of peak productivity by another 20 years, making it a 40 year plateau, and a lot of things in our industrial society start to make sense.
Innovation will largely be AI led anyways, so the argument for more human minds is feeble.
It would also let us live in far more optimal places without overcrowding, meaning 2 billion people could meaningfully contribute. Right now we're sitting on about 1.5 "golden" lives
It's all common-sense numbers. Man either gets with the numbers or he goes down. It's that simple! Thanks for your comments. @@HeavyMetalorRockfan9
Excellent debate. Ideas with civility.