@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

Author: Taryn Christiansen

Introduction:

The future doesn’t look good for America. The economy is down, politics is in shambles, and, perhaps most devastating, the culture is split. The only agreement is that change is needed.

This article aims to pave a road forward. Innovation drives the economy, and great innovations change and improve daily life. Joint efforts between public institutions and private enterprise, along with the energy and momentum generated by efficient and productive programs, can be orchestrated to cultivate national pride. But those programs need to have a noble purpose. Devotion toward technologies with the potential to transform and improve people’s lives should be the goal. Due to recent advancements in biotechnology, efforts should be directed there.

Section 1 dives into the cultural divide. Section 2 outlines a way forward by examining the innovative process and how it can be implemented. Section 3 looks at the specifics of that implementation. Section 4 consists of concluding remarks about the future.

Section 1: A Divided Country

There are two competing visions dividing America. The Woke vision asserts that the United States was, and is, a fundamentally oppressive regime. The idea of a universal reason, the notion that human beings can attain progress in perpetuity through liberal democracy, science, and capitalism, is seen as nothing more than an ideological weapon used to coerce people into acquiescing to a hierarchy that benefits the few while exploiting the many – and so, out of principles of fairness and equity, the country has to be dismantled.

The Trumpian vision attempts to reaffirm American values. It aims to reestablish American exceptionalism and reinvigorate the American vision of prosperity and economic growth. It seeks to rekindle a sense of American greatness. But it does so cheaply. It is, in essence, the dying breath of a consumer culture fighting its own death. Like the first vision, it too rejects reason and discussion and the procedural processes necessary for liberal democracy. It perceives power as the proper political tool for achieving its objectives. It is not an attempt to restore the values that once characterized the country; it breaks from the American tradition in a radical direction toward a politics of entertainment.

Long ago, the country believed that the human capacity for reason – the ability to see the world clearly under the light of truth, unencumbered by bias or prejudice, free from instinct and emotion – was the torch that carries posterity forward. The founders believed the Bill of Rights and The Constitution enshrined eternal truths that reason alone made accessible. John Locke, an influential figure for the founders, stated that the primary purpose of government is to protect individuals' natural rights. We are all free and have the right to live the life we wish to live. But government is needed to ensure others do not interfere with those rights. What binds us is not a religion or creed but the mutual opportunity for each individual to form their own beliefs, to live out their own conceptions of the good. While fundamental, we will see that it is not enough. A collective purpose is necessary.

Now, the Woke vision sees this older view as wholly mythological – and for good reason. For example, there was a time when black people did not know they were descendants from Africa or the Caribbean and not naturally disposed slaves. People’s various histories and genealogies were stripped away, creating a space by which their humanity could be taken and they could be exploited. They were purposefully and intentionally cast into the shadows of history, and the culpable thought themselves perfectly justified. There was a time when moral and historical narratives depicting a grand destiny of white people conquering the West were considered to be true and that the genocide of Native peoples was not only acceptable but in fact necessary, and therefore legitimate. It has been a titanic and creative effort by great individuals and collective coalitions to get America to become self-conscious of its heinous blunders. Some of the best art and ideas of the twentieth century were born out of those efforts. The beginnings of liberation are born out of the ability to imagine a horizon beyond one’s current circumstances. And that ability for many people has been forged by courageous and heroic predecessors. But the spirit of those movements and their development into the Woke vision is a sign that it has lost its creative potential.

The Woke vision asserts that values like reason and rights are the remains of a colonial legacy. However, by negating them and failing to replace them with new values, deconstructive forces are all that remain. The country has historically failed (as well as succeeded) in living up to what reason and rights demand. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t the proper path forward. The assumption here is that they are, and they have to be creatively reinterpreted.

And the Trumpian vision fails as well. But it is worse because it never did, nor will it ever have any real creative potential. It is highly destructive. We can think about this in the following way.

The nineteenth-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed a single, fundamental drive governs all of organic life: the will to power. Life, in a constant struggle, perpetually strives to expand and overcome itself repeatedly. From the brute force of two animals fighting for scarce resources to the highest manifestation of human potential, such as moral systems and inspiring artwork, all are produced from the same vital energy and source: the effort to attain power and mastery over a chaotic world.

As society develops and moves away from a state of nature, the will to power transfigures itself through a sublimative process that demands the individual to repress particular instincts and act according to the strictures and constraints formulated and instituted by the collective. As Freud observed in his Civilization and Its Discontents, the push and pull between primitive and ancient instincts and civilization’s repression of them create inextricable tensions. The Yale historian Marci Shore makes an incisive observation of Trump as a symbolic figure using this context and its language: he is the release and outpouring of those repressed instincts – the license to overthrow the restraints placed on the individual. Trump is the embodiment of brute force, a blind ego striving to assert itself over the world, adopting whatever means are available to achieve its aim. He is an eruption of the repressed Hobbesian state of nature, which expresses “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death.” This is a destructive instinct, and we would be wise not to find out what follows.

Section 2: Unity Through Innovation

So, what is the solution? The country needs a ballast point. It needs national pride. Without a shared sense of identity and purpose, a sense of belonging to a larger community bound by a set of values, the country will continue to unravel. Regardless of the philosophical-level disputes and disagreements on fundamental principles that divide left from right, a collective identity needs to emerge. This article argues that, like the founders, we should turn to our institutions. We should look at how our institutions can facilitate needs by enabling individuals with the creative energy and tenacity to bring about new technologies and innovations that will transform the economy and standards of living. But not just new gadgets and services like iPhones and DoorDash but new technologies with the potential to enable people to live more fulfillingly and purposefully. New vaccines to eliminate unruly diseases, new therapies to mitigate the effects of debilitating illnesses, novel pharmaceuticals with competitive prices and cheaper means of production, and innovative mechanisms to empower people with disabilities to live as they are only able to imagine should play a major part in the mission that characterizes the country. That is a purpose to be proud of. Institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should act as bows, shooting forward the individuals and companies striving to reach that mark.

There’s a lot of talk about government efficiency and the need to be more fiscally responsible. Those are good things. But efficiency needs to have a purpose. There must be a goal that efficiency works to achieve. We should not wish to live without regulatory institutions. For example, people like Balaji Srinivasan are wrong to think we’re better off in an FDA-free society. The goal should be to harness those institutions, conduct more research and development, and utilize resources more effectively to achieve the results we want as a country. Just as we should strive to continue and expand our role in the AI race, we should also aim to maintain and further develop our leadership in biotech.

But we need a new of what the historian Gary Gerstle calls political order to achieve this. Political orders are “a vision of the good life that sells important constituencies on the virtues of a way of doing politics. The New Deal order and the Neoliberal order—which are, in a sense, the reverse of each other—illustrate this.”

It is common in America to see the world through the lenses of The New Deal and Neoliberal political orders for resolving issues in the country. The latter is to let the market decide, and the former is to create government programs to achieve some conception of the good. The former is, more or less, a libertarian solution and was very popular during the 1980s. The latter took form in what is known as progressivism, and it found popular expression during the 1930s and 1940s in FDR’s New Deal programs. The basic distinction separating these two political orders is between the right and the good.

Rights are the norms of obligations and constraints necessary for us all to coexist while simultaneously maintaining what many believe is the principal value of liberal democracy: freedom and liberty (these terms will be used interchangeably). Rights are not in the business of prescribing definite ways of life or enforcing particular ends for people to pursue. Rights preserve the conditions for freedom, and people are free to choose what to do with that freedom insofar as their decisions do not infringe on another person’s right to do so as well. Freedom, then, is the absence of coercion. By having that freedom, each is allowed to exercise their powers and capabilities according to their own discretion.

In the American context, by virtue of being a human being, we are said to be endowed with inalienable rights. And those rights both protect each individual from external coercion and provide a license for certain kinds of action. I am protected from being forced to say certain opinions and adopt particular beliefs. And I have the license to speak my own opinions, expound my own beliefs, and give voice to my own personal conscience. I am protected from forced association with people whom I do not wish to associate with, from the coercion to vote for a particular candidate, from being disallowed to protest, and from adopting ends I do not agree with or value. And, of course, that means I have a license to associate with whom I wish, vote for whoever I like, protest legislation I dislike, and adopt the ends I truly value. We are all free, and we all are obligated and constrained to preserve the conditions for us all to exercise that freedom mutually.

But if that is what rights are, how does a society ensure a distribution of goods and services for everyone to enjoy and partake in? After all, a right to free speech isn’t going to ensure anyone that they will have meals for nourishment, clothing for warmth, shelter from harsh conditions. The response comes from Adam Smith: economic freedom. Everyone has a natural propensity to “truck, barter, and trade” in order to improve their condition. And by the very nature of voluntary exchange, each party benefits. By an individual living his life according to his own interests, values, and ends, he “promote(s) an end which has no part of his own intention.” The invisible hand of the market promotes the ends held by other individuals, allowing everyone to live as they see fit and to coexist harmoniously with the community. By having the political freedom of rights and the economic freedom to exchange, people cooperate spontaneously and organically. That is the spirit of the neoliberal political order.

A conception of the good is different, and its meaning can be disclosed through the great liberal philosopher Voltaire’s likely apocryphal statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” What Voltaire disagrees with is not someone’s right to speak but of what they are saying, and we can imagine the person to be voicing their conception of the good, their values and ends that they believe characterize the good life, the life we ought to live, and Voltaire disapproves of it. The good is concerned with the proper ends that should be prioritized in order to flourish. Socrates famously declared the unexamined life is not worth living. Well, he’s espousing a conception of the good. It is a life of the intellect, a life of rational reflection and deliberation aimed toward self-knowledge. Are one’s beliefs consistent? Does one’s actions contradict what one truly believes? Is one aware of what one truly believes? And does one have the desire to discover the truth? These are Socratic questions, and a life devoted to answering them is a Socratic one.

Now, if there is a universal conception of the good life, if human beings have particular ends that define what it means to be a human being, and if failing to fulfill those ends implies a failure to realize one’s human potential for flourishing, then rights do not secure such outcomes. Rights only ensure individuals are free to pursue such ends if they wish. And given the contingency of life, that is to say that, because people are born into conditions they did not choose but were instead thrown into them, and because some individuals are born into wealth and advantage and some are born into poverty and disadvantage, some have the privilege to achieve the ends characterizing a good life and some do not. And that is unfair. And so, government programs, central planning, and economic stewardship can be used to enable and empower the underprivileged to achieve what others are better positioned to do. This is the spirit of the New Deal political order.

The mistake is to think the appropriate social, cultural, and political issues can be resolved by only one of these political orders. It is not one or the other. Both of these political orders capture powerful intuitions about how society should best function and operate, and there should be a synthesis between them.

Now, it is common knowledge that innovation drives economic growth. As capital becomes more efficient and fewer inputs are required to produce more outputs, the economy expands. In Matt Ridely’s book, Innovation: How It Works, he demonstrates beautifully the often messy and non-rational character of the innovative process.

At the heart of that process, he says, is serendipity. As frustrating as it is to human nature, the innovative process cannot be intelligently designed into a precise instrument capable of reproducing all the wonderful fruits that result from it. There is something inherently unpredictable about it, something unruly. It is organic and spontaneous. It demands the determination of individuals willing to fail over and over again until enough experience, insight, and gradual, often painstaking, progress results in the desired effects.

Ridley observes that so many of these innovations require the rich air of freedom to stimulate the instinct for exploration and discovery. Freedom nourishes and sustains that instinct, allowing it to grow and flourish. People must be free from unnecessary regulations and constraints to focus their creative energy on projects that demand endless hours of trying countless imaginative possibilities – and failing until something works. There’s always a tremendous amount of risk-taking. People need to be free to take them.

People also need to be free to collaborate with others who are also devoted to discovering a solution to seemingly intractable problems. The division of labor, where individuals specialize in a particular task and coordinate with others who do the same to maximize efficiency and productivity, is essential to the process. There’s a reason, as Ridley notes, that many innovations take place in cities, where individuals freely associate and influence one another.

Freedom also allows room for mistakes. Ridley documents many cases where innovation is the result of a mistake, not an intentional plan of action. Innovations can often begin with an intention that has nothing to do with the innovation itself. A deliberate decision leading to a breakthrough discovery can be entirely unrelated, even frivolous. Take the example of Louie Pasteur, one of the key discoverers of germ theory. He was inoculating chickens with cholera from an infected chicken broth when he left for vacation, leaving his assistant, Charles Chamberland, to continue the experiments. Charles, for whatever reason (perhaps he thought the whole idea was crazy), forgot about his responsibility and went on vacation. When both returned, they injected a chicken with the stale broth.

It made the chicken sick but did not kill it. And so he injected the same chicken with a much more virulent cholera strain that typically and easily killed chickens – and it failed. The chicken lived. Vaccines, an innovation on inoculation, emerged. Funny enough, a similar incident occurred with Alexander Fleming. Known for being sloppy, Fleming carelessly left out a culture plate of staphylococcus and took off for vacation for a couple of weeks. When he returned, he discovered a mold had grown that was resistant to the bacteria.

Penicillin was soon developed. All this is to say that, along with Ridley, “Innovation is the child of freedom and the parent of prosperity.”

But government has also been integral to many inventions and innovations that would later revolutionize the economy and, therefore, daily life itself. Mariana Mazzucato’s book The Entrepreneurial State makes a persuasive case for the significance of public institutions in the innovative process. When the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), initially known as ARPA until 1972, was established in 1958 in response to the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957, it aimed to promote ‘blue-sky thinking’ for technological initiatives. Meaning that the goal was to invest in riskier research that potentially would yield long-term gains despite not having any immediate or obvious returns on investment. DARPA pursued “ideas that went beyond the horizon in that they may not produce results for ten or 20 years.”

What makes DARPA a successful agency is its decentralized model. The philosophy is: "Find brilliant people. Give them resources. Get out of their way." DARPA hires talented and competent experts to run programs autonomously, providing them the discretion to pursue projects highlighted by their expertise, which are often considered risky. This model enables experts to connect with other researchers, facilitating collaboration and the creation of highly efficient and productive divisions of labor. And again, these are projects that likely wouldn’t find market interest because of their niche or unexplored nature. There isn’t an immediate and conspicuous payoff. And so the connected but separate-from-government model of DARPA provides scientists with a wide degree of latitude, and that freedom allows them to engage in the innovative process of trial and error and risk-taking.

Technologies developed by DARPA included ARPANET, the precursor to the internet; early GPS technology; the beginnings of autonomous vehicles; speech recognition; personal computing; and early AI.

Other agencies have also been foundational in technological advancements (for example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) provided critical grants to facilitate what would become Google’s search engine algorithm). But the DARPA model is what is most interesting here.

If government programs like DARPA can be leveraged to spur more innovation, particularly in areas such as biotech, and these innovations can drive economic growth by being put into the hands of entrepreneurs, investors, and small, medium, and large firms, then this demands national effort and attention. If successful, it is a project worthy of national pride.

So, government programs and spending, if properly structured, can yield high returns on investment if people are given the freedom to explore, try things out, and make the mistakes necessary for the innovative process to be carried through. And we can look to a recent example where the absence of the efforts potentially could have been disastrous. The story of the COVID-19 vaccines is one where the lack of zeal for exploration and breakthrough discoveries could have hindered the development of mRNA research, leaving it underdeveloped when it was needed at a critical moment.

Section 3: Covid-19, The Imperative For Research and Development, and The Institutional Framework

To start, Peter Theil is popular for remarking that innovation in many industries has grown stagnant. Energy, manufacturing, and transportation, for example, haven’t seen much progress in the past half-century.

Computation, on the other hand, has surpassed the imagination. The innovations have not been in atoms but in bits. As Theil puts it, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.” And Ridley writes, “If cars had improved as fast as computers since 1982, they would get nearly four million miles per gallon, so they could go to the moon and back a hundred times on a single tank of fuel.” Unfortunately, we still have to visit the gas station and pay those exorbitant prices.

But biotech has gained momentum in the past decade. The COVID vaccines are an extraordinary example of this. But they wouldn’t have been ready to come to market without the previous three decades of research and development invested in them. And that research and development almost didn’t happen because people lacked the vision and the willingness to embrace the risk that great technological discoveries, inventions, and innovations always require.

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book Abundance tells this story very well. Katalin Kariko, one of the discoverers of mRNA’s therapeutic capabilities, had enormous difficulty securing funding for her research as an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Those with power thought it too risky, that it didn’t show enough promise, and allocated most resources to DNA research at the time, believing it to be the more auspicious investment. Nevertheless, as so many pioneering figures have done before her, Kariko maintained her vision of unlocking mRNA’s potential for saving lives.

By sheer luck, by the fortune contained in everyday decisions that would lead to saving millions of lives several decades later, Kariko met a colleague who was researching HIV vaccines at the time, Drew Weissman, at a Xerox machine in 1997. He would be pivotal in her research. She is a biochemist, and he, an immunologist. Each provided the knowledge and expertise the other was lacking, and that was essential to their respective goals. Through the serendipity of deciding to walk to a different department to make copies at the time and place she did, Kariko encountered an opportunity to make strides in her research.

Together, however, the two still managed to collect barely enough funding. “The NIH,” which is the largest public funder of biomedical research, “rejected practically all of their grant applications.” They couldn’t get others to have the same foresight. Even after a breakthrough, where they were finally able to send mRNA information into cells without causing horrible inflammation, those in power still blinked. Fortunately, private investment supplied the gust they needed to keep their research going, and two companies created to pursue mRNA research, Moderna and BioNTech, facilitated the vaccine’s development. When Covid spread, enough progress had been made. The FDA, which has set a poor precedent for getting products to market when it matters most, streamlined the approval process and made the vaccine available.

The key features of this story are the following. The first is the lack of risk-taking by institutions and agencies whose aim should be to provide resources to those striving to innovate and push technological progress forward. The second is the lack of coordination to establish intentional environments to converge the paths of those who have the determination, discipline, and vision to bring innovation to fruition. Imagine if Kariko and Weismann didn’t meet; picture Kariko choosing to make copies somewhere else or at a different time. The future may have been radically different. And thirdly, and more optimistically, the FDA served a vital role when it mattered. As a public institution responsible for promoting the public good, they served admirably.

These three parts – funding research, coordinating talent, and the institutions facilitating the results – should coalesce into an optimally functioning whole. Researchers who are trying to shape and influence an unforeseeable future should be encouraged and rewarded. Those who possess powerful and novel ideas, along with the imagination and determination to bring them to life, should be in direct contact with one another. Their paths should cross – intentionally. And lastly, institutions should follow the FDA’s example. Slow regulatory regimes, lengthy processes and paperwork, licensing barriers, and stifling restrictions should be streamlined and transformed into facilitators for technological development and the introduction of powerful and revolutionary technologies into the market.

More funding should be devoted to riskier research. Those with novel and fresh ideas with the potential to disrupt current scientific knowledge and produce a breakthrough should be sought out. It is estimated that roughly 2-5% of the NIH’s current budget of $45 billion is allocated to high-risk research. That should be increased. Programs like the High-Risk, High-Reward Research Program, which includes awards to innovative researchers and ideas, should take on a more robust role and budget than it currently does.

Furthermore, approximately 80% of the NIH budget is allocated to extramural research programs, which are external programs conducted outside of the institution itself. A larger portion of those who receive that funding should be based on their potential for innovation. Currently, as Klein and Thompson observe, the process of obtaining a research grant, which involves extensive paperwork and minutiae, is bureaucratic, cumbersome, inefficient, and time-consuming. A significant amount of energy that should be allocated toward advancing research is spent on securing the funding to do it.

Submitting an application, going through the two review processes, and being approved takes typically nine months to a year. And most fail, leading many scientists to have to apply numerous times in a year. And those doing the review process aren’t necessarily looking for cutting-edge proposals; they’re looking for what fits bureaucratic standards. Of course, this is contentious, but Kariko's story demonstrates its reality. Ridley offers another example. When Francisco Majica made critical advancements in CRISPR technology, it took him “more than a year to get his results published, so sniffy were the prestigious journals at the idea of a significant discovery coming from a scientific nobody.” Institutions must do a better job of trying and supporting novel and unexplored ideas, regardless of who or what they originate from. For example, biotech DAOs do not currently receive funding from government institutions, such as the NIH, due to the traditional legal framework used to distribute resources. Regulatory and legal changes should be implemented to maximize their potential. If there is too much emphasis on process, on bureaucratic procedures and standards, fruitful and rich opportunities suffocate.

The NIH budget also allocates funds to intramural research programs, which are internally connected to the NIH itself. These research programs account for roughly 10% of the NIH’s total budget. A highly promising model to adopt is the DARPA model articulated in Section 2. The NIH should adopt something similar. It should allocate resources to decentralized programs to bring together the best scientists to generate breakthrough ideas. Those programs should be spaces where scientists are free to pursue visionary projects.

Smaller biotech firms, startups, and those without robust forms of funding are often forced to pursue ideas that will capture immediate investment attention. And because of the burdensome and costly bureaucratic processes, investors are justly skeptical about anything risky and cutting-edge.

For example, regarding the FDA approval process, small molecule drugs like pharmaceuticals generally take ten to fifteen years to reach the market. On average, one drug costs $1-2 billion to move through the process, and less than ten percent of those who enter clinical trials succeed. Biologics, such as vaccines and gene therapies, typically take ten to twelve years to reach the market and have a slightly higher success rate than small molecule drugs, ranging from 12 to 15 percent. Those are extensive periods of time, the costs are astronomical, and few can maintain the resources to climb the mountain. This discourages bold enterprise – and it leads to higher prices as well. Due to the cumbersome approval process, the FDA offers exclusivity to companies that bring a product to market, both to reward innovation and to allow companies the opportunity to recoup the tremendous losses incurred by the approval process. This can lead to monopolistic pricing. Innovation should not be rewarded by harming the consumer. Innovation should lift the tide that raises all boats. And so the innovative process shouldn’t be exclusive to those with enough capital to take risks. It should be available to anyone with the tenacity to actualize a bold and promising idea. That’s not to say the process should be less rigorous and methodical. It’s that it needs to be more efficient. But not just efficiency for efficiency's sake; it needs to be efficient toward the right ends and outcomes, and innovation should be a leading goal.

Therefore, a primary goal of the FDA should be to stimulate market interest by expediting the most innovative technologies emerging from research programs driven by the NIH and its innovation initiatives. It’s very important that private research continues innovating as well, and increases in private investment toward manufacturing and research – like Johnson & Johnson’s recent announcement – is good. But new technologies, drugs, vaccines, and therapies should be a central mission of the institutional framework advocated for here – and the process should begin with creativity for creativity’s sake. The profit motive should be employed after realizing a passionate and creative vision. Those truly motivated by inspiration, the people who have the will to manifest something novel and unimaginable, are generally the worst at navigating the business aspect - not always, but often. And the energy pushing them forward is a precious and scarce resource. And so institutions like the FDA and NIH should foster, rather than stifle, their capabilities and opportunities for creating meaningful contributions to the country and the world. The FDA has a history of being slow and untimely when it comes to processing and approving applications for moving to clinical trials. For example, the AIDS epidemic is a stain on the institution’s reputation. When AIDS spread across the US in 1980, it took scientists three years to identify HIV as the cause, five years for the FDA to approve the first blood test to screen for the virus, and seven years to finally get a drug to market. The response to COVID-19 should be the golden standard by which the FDA operates.

Section 4: Human Being and Its Essence

Now, let’s ask the following: what does this have to do with national pride? How does this provide a new vision for the country?

In Alex Karp’s new book, The Technological Republic, he criticizes Silicon Valley for forgetting its roots in developing technology for national purposes. The foundational technology that defines Silicon Valley originated from government programs like DARPA and NASA, which had a clear purpose. They had a mission, and the achievements under those programs demonstrate that.

But now Silicon Valley has shifted to the consumer. Innovations in Silicon Valley generally make life more convenient, comfortable, pleasant, breezy. Goods and services satisfy all our wants and preferences. New apps, better features on social media, increasingly competent virtual assistants, faster food delivery services, endless streams of television and movies and videos, smart appliances, and more and more advanced phones pervade everyday life. The goal is always immediate gratification. There is no horizon that these products look up to. Everything is here and now.

This takes us back to our discussion of rights and conceptions of the good. Silicon Valley isn’t tethered to any real purpose or collective aim. Its goal is to let the market decide. There is no moral or spiritual integrity, no conception of the good that permeates Silicon Valley and its products. Nothing is off limits because it is the consumer’s right to choose. If there is a want, if enough people are willing to buy, Silicon Valley will produce it. No substantive conviction guides their innovations. What does Silicon Valley stand for? It certainly has a creative spirit – just look at all the devices we have today – but that spirit lacks a purpose, and so it wanders aimlessly chasing the fleeting nature of the consumer.

It’s perfectly understandable that Silicon Valley has severed itself from its military roots. Not only would it lose a substantial portion of revenue if it returned to those roots, but there is, of course, a moral dilemma at the heart of most military endeavors, and it is wise to take that seriously. And the Tech sector should not aim to impose a conception of the good on the consumers. The issue is its obsession with the consumer. There are more pressing areas of concern that warrant attention. The wealth of talent in Silicon Valley is better spent in those areas. And it should be done through the efficient use of public institutions.

The new vision is one where taxpayer dollars are used for purposeful and meaningful projects that generate new technologies and innovations that contribute to people’s real needs, not just their wants and preferences. Genuine pride involves courage and bold risk for the sake of principle. It consists in having the determination to carry through an arduous enterprise. And we should be proud as a country if a joint effort between the public and private sectors achieves collective ends.

And at the heart of this pride should be the creative process. Albert Einstein wrote that great scientific discoveries – the new ideas that are leaps in progress toward the expansion of human knowledge – are, again, not the inevitable product of a rigid, refined, and precisely applied method. He believed the great discoveries, the ones that establish new scientific paradigms that enrich society with so many practical fruit, result from a cosmic feeling, a kind of religious experience born out of feelings of awe, wonder, and mystery that are produced by the intellectual and spiritual effort to understand the rational order of the cosmos. He writes, “Enough for me (is) the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifest itself in nature… I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research.”

Reaching for and clinching a new and profound idea is not a mechanical and algorithmic activity. Regardless of how finely one specifies the rules of procedure or how regimented the institutional standards for scientific knowledge are prescribed, intuition, sensitivity to the world and its objects, amazement at the experience of observing the world and its causal relations, in short, the feelings and moods of the subject investigating the object, are integral to the discovery of scientific ideas. Methods are pivotal in locating and developing the precise, logical nature of those ideas, but initial contact with them demands variables that are not reducible to fixed procedures. Ideas powerful enough to change the world and better the human condition originate in cosmic feelings of wonder and curiosity and are not strictly an output of a mechanized division of labor.

AI will outrun the human capacity for intelligence. This is a likely prediction. And so what will it mean to be a human being then? For centuries, philosophers have distinguished human beings from other parts of nature by invoking our seemingly unique capacity for reason. We have the ability to contemplate, reflect, and grasp the physical laws governing the cosmos. We can harness those laws and employ them to manipulate our environment, alter its forms, and recombine its parts, allowing us to raise our living standards beyond our ancestor’s imaginations. We are highly intelligent beings, and our intelligence has been regarded as our distinguishing mark.

AI erodes this image. This new technology is becoming, and perhaps already is, a concrete realization, an externalization of what history thought was uniquely our own. The reality that reason isn’t special, that it is nothing more than a physical product of an accidental evolution, a wisp of luck, has become more and more firmly impressed upon the mind over the last two centuries. AI will make it indelible; it is the final proof. And so what is a human being? What distinguishes us?

The answer is in our spontaneous acts of creativity, in our ability to produce beauty in art, complexity in design, and in our profound capability to experience wonder. Again, the innovative process discussed above cannot be rationally formed into a precise instrument. As frustrating as it is, as much as it bumps against our instinct to make everything intelligible and known, our ability for spontaneity and creativity, our capacity to fail over and over again until we receive those moments of imaginative brilliance, cannot be reduced into a definite set of rules and procedures.

And so as the world changes, as everything alters before our eyes, we have to value what makes us distinctly human. We need a new Enlightenment, one that celebrates our creativity and our will to manifest what we can internally envision. Our self-respect as individuals and collectives lies in our instincts for curiosity, inquiry, discovery, and the creative and imaginative processes that animate them.