Peter Diamandis: The word 'impossible' should retire from human vocabulary as soon as possible
Investor Peter H. Diamandis believes that the word "impossible" should retire from human vocabulary as soon as possible, as technological advancements are turning last month's "impossible" into reality on a monthly basis. He emphasizes that the current speed of technological iteration has significantly compressed the cycle of "impossible - possible - widespread."
This view aligns with themes he has repeatedly expressed in several public articles and podcasts in recent years: in an exponential technology environment, many limitations stem from cognitive and temporal mismatches rather than real physical constraints. From AI to synthetic biology to space exploration, scenarios once considered science fiction are entering the engineering and commercialization stages.
Some English tech commentary and industry observations also point out that redefining "impossible" is becoming a prerequisite for innovative investment: many business models and technological paths previously deemed unfeasible are being rapidly propelled by the combined forces of quickly iterating hardware and software capabilities and capital.
Source: Public information
ABAB AI Insight
This judgment essentially re-prices the concept of "boundary perception" itself. Under the assumption of linear technological evolution, "impossible" is a static cognitive anchor; whereas in an exponential technology paradigm, it resembles a dynamic point in time: once underlying computing power, algorithms, data, or materials break through, a large number of "impossibles" will light up simultaneously. This will change people's understanding of risk, cycles, and certainty.
From an investment and industry perspective, dismissing "impossible" will accelerate the flow of resources toward extremely high-risk projects. Ideas previously suppressed by the "impossible" label (such as controlled nuclear fusion, general AI, applications of synthetic biology, etc.) will quickly form new pools of capital and valuation expectations once partially opened by technological windows. This loosening of cognition often precedes real cash flow, but it will change capital structures and talent flows in advance.
A deeper impact is that this will reshape the "time perspective." When the lifecycle of "impossible" is compressed to a monthly basis, economic models and risk models based on long-term linear extrapolation will become ineffective. In such an environment, systems will rely more on real-time trial and error, low-cost iteration, and high tolerance for failure mechanisms, rather than pursuing "one-time correct" predictions. This poses a structural challenge to finance, policy, and organizational design.
However, this also brings cognitive risks: blindly denying "impossible" may lead to neglect of hard constraints, such as the lag in energy, ecology, and social systems. Establishing new boundaries of "impossible - possible" between technological optimism and physical reality will become one of the most critical intellectual battles in the coming decades.