Why can't you consider the alternative, that he may truely very worried, and try to share his views, his warning?
Altruism is a human trait. The frequency can be debated, but when we see a problem we like to warn our fellows.
I cannot take him and his arguments about "science" seriously because 1. he is using the concept of scientifc progress, which many of use would agree always worthy of pursuing, under the guise of "Web 2.0" which you might guess is not my idea of science and 2. his background is Stanford Law School, a Wall Street trading desk, a hedge fund and then PayPal and Palantir. He has little credibility on this topic: science.
If he were focussed on preaching the merits of philanthropic donations to scientific causes, and he has some credibility on this, I would not be criticising his writings. But as we all know there is more to his agenda and these PR pieces. They always include references to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley. No harm in trying to pump up the market for web startups, as long as you're within the law, but when you start sugar-coating these pitches with talk of "scientific progress", then I take issue.
It's true he may warning of a general problem with a growing disregard for science. But why does he have to connect it to "Web 2.0" and Silicon Valley? Maybe because that is the only things he knows that is remotely reminiscient of science? Or is there some other reason? Because he is a venture capitalist in that sector? What is the purpose of Section III?
How does he know that science is being ignored? Is he working in a lab somewhere and short on funding for his research? No. He's a Silicon Valley venture capitalist investing in "Web 2.0". He would know if Silicon Valley is being ignored or could use a little more attention. Of that I am certain.
I am also worried by the growing disregard of science, but IMHO it is less worrysome that the actual slowing down in technical progress.
I wouldn't call web 2.0 startup, social networks and the likes "progress". We are just focusing more about ourselves instead of exploiting our environment more.
We think we are doing things, but we're not actually building new physical stuff - only barely improving.
The drug innovation example is spot on.
We, the human race, have capital and more than before. We could be investing it in science. But we don't do it as much as we did previously.
This worries me, because all the evidence seems to point to a cultural explanation. I don't know how to call it - so far the best way I've found to express it is "a reduction in the will to live", a reduction of hope in the future.
The alternative explanation would be that accumulating the capital in fewer persons leads for some reason to a deceleration of investment, a notion I can't find any explanation for, since the richest would have more and more surplus as they venture away from the needs of everyday's life and therefore more and more reasons to invest it in technical progress instead of spending it on the necessities of life.
There is this idea of ostentious consumption and Veblen goods, but it seemed to me that with the decreasing marginal interest (who needs a 12th Ferrari?), investment and therefore progress would be the tendancy.
It's not. So I'm worried. Maybe there is a decreasing marginal interest in the will to live, that impacts investment and progress ? This could be supported by the decreasing birth rates in most countries and they get away from basic survival.
He's backed plenty of Web 2.0 nonsense that didn't solve important problems (and just backed lots of new companies in general), but Paypal and Palantir are actually counterexamples of that.