Connect with us

Published

on

Neal Stephenson
Source: Mercatus Center at George Mason University

Author Neal Stephenson shot to fame almost 30 years ago with the science-fiction novel “Snow Crash,” which envisioned a future dominated by mega-corporations and organized crime, competing for dominance in both the real world and the “metaverse,” a computer-generated world accessible through virtual reality headsets.

Since then, he’s written several more novels encompassing technology and history, including a trilogy set at the dawn of the scientific revolution, and has done work for various technology companies including Jeff Bezos’ space travel company, Blue Origin, and augmented reality company Magic Leap.

His new novel, “Termination Shock,” out Nov. 16, focuses on the looming issue of our age — human-generated climate change, projecting a near future of extreme weather and social chaos. Against this setting, a maverick oilman decides to take matters into his own hands and builds the world’s biggest gun to shoot canisters of sulfur dioxide into the air, echoing the effects of a volcanic eruption and temporarily cooling parts of the globe. Geopolitics, social media and Dutch royalty all play a part.

Stephenson acknowledges that geoengineering is a radical step, but suggests as the effects of climate change grow more destructive, the demand for radical solutions will grow.

But if geoengineering does happen, it probably won’t be because a billionaire took matters into their own hands.

“In real life, somebody like that would probably get shut down,” he told CNBC in an interview.

“By far, the more plausible scenario is that some government somewhere just makes the calculation at some point that doing this would be fairly cheap and easy. And better than not doing it, as far as [their] selfish purposes are concerned.”

Personally, he favors an all-of-the-above set of solutions to climate change, including more clean energy sources, decarbonizing the economy and carbon capture to take some of the CO2 we’ve emitted over the last 150 years out of the atmosphere. The trouble is convincing large numbers of people that this kind of action is necessary.

He points to two factors that he expects will convince more people that climate change can no longer be ignored. One is rising sea levels.

“You can be as ideological as you want. But you can’t argue with the fact that your house is full of water,” he says.

“And the other one is these possible so-called wet-bulb events, where some areas become so hot and humid that everyone who’s outdoors will just die.” Stephenson points to the “heat dome” that descended over the Pacific Northwest last summer, causing temperatures to skyrocket for a few days and killing hundreds of people.

He does not necessarily believe governments will come together and agree on solutions, although he says the recent 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP 26, was a necessary and useful event. “We have to have those conferences. And we have to hope and pray that their strongest and most optimistic recommendations are put into effect.”

But even if they can’t agree, governments will be forced to respond.

“I think we’ll see the big governments, the Indias and Chinas of the world, charting their own path,” he says. “At the end of the day, most politicians want to retain their power. And they’re going to do what it takes to keep getting votes or to maintain their grip on on the political system. And if they’re seen as having presided over huge apocalyptic disasters and not taking effective action, then they’re in trouble.”

Although he was one of the first writers to popularize the idea of virtual reality, he does not necessarily believe that people will retreat into artificial worlds as the real world becomes harder to live in.

“I don’t hate VR,” he says. “But the reality has been so far that most people don’t like to hang out there for more than a short period of time. That may change as the technology gets better, but there’s just inherent limitations on things like the problem of getting motion sickness, the problem of how do you move around?”

He’s more bullish on augmented reality — the idea pioneered by Magic Leap and currently being developed by Microsoft, Apple, and others, where computer-generated images are blended with the real world. But he agrees it won’t take off until there’s a good reason for people to wear headsets or glasses for long periods of time. “It’ll probably have something to do with making it even smaller, more compact, and less of an intrusive experience to wear around.”

As far as the metaverse goes, Stephenson has stood back and watched as the tech and business worlds have claimed the term for themselves, most notably the company formerly known as Facebook, which renamed itself Meta to emphasize its interest in building a computer-generated universe.

“All I can do is kind of sit back and watch it in amazement,” he said. But, as many have noticed, “There’s a pretty big gap between what Facebook is actually doing, like running Facebook and WhatsApp and Instagram, and the visions that they’re talking about for the metaverse.”

Here’s a transcript of the complete interview, lightly edited for clarity and length.

Matt Rosoff, CNBC: The plot of your new novel “Termination Shock” is essentially about a maverick businessperson using geoengineering to reverse climate change. For CNBC readers who may not be familiar with the concept of geoengineering, can you tell us a little bit about it?

Neal Stephenson, author: The first point to emphasize is that it doesn’t fix the actual problem, which is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But it’s thought that it could be a stopgap way to slow down the rate at which the climate gets hotter.

And it’s basically imitating the effects of large volcanic eruptions by putting sulfur dioxide or something else into the atmosphere, right?

Exactly. There have been many cases throughout history where a big volcano — most recently, Pinatubo in the Philippines — does exactly this. And it puts particles or droplets of sulfates into the stratosphere, and those sort of act as a veil that bounces back a little bit of the sun’s radiation back into space so that it never reaches our planet and doesn’t warm us up. So we know that this cools the planet down because it’s happened a bunch of times throughout history. And we also know that the sulfates will kind of naturally wash out of the atmosphere in a couple of years. And you go back to where you were before.

The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, 1991.
Thomson Reuters

So you almost need a constant infusion of them. While you decarbonize.

Exactly. The only sane way to use this, if it’s done at all, is as a way to buy time for decarbonization, which is what we really need to do.

How did you get interested in this subject and become fascinated with it enough to base a novel on it?

I’ve been hearing about the idea for a number of years. I’m interested in history. I’m interested in science and the physics of the planet. And so, the idea that a volcano could erupt somewhere and affect temperatures all over the planet is a natural, fascinating topic for me. Over the last decade or two, it’s become increasingly clear that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is a huge problem, and that it’s getting worse fast, and we’re not really being very effective. Despite efforts by a number of people to draw attention to the problem and and push for emissions reductions, that number is still climbing rather rapidly and probably will keep climbing for a while. So rolling that together in the brain of the science fiction novelist, that looks like the basis for a story that that’s got that technical angle to it, but that’s also got a strong geopolitical and personal storytelling basis.

Do you think it’s a realistic likelihood that this could happen in 10 to 15 years? Maybe a maverick individual, but more likely a government that doesn’t particularly care much about world opinion will take it into their own hands?

I agree. In this book, it’s the maverick billionaire because it makes for a good story. But I have to do a lot of explaining as to how he’s able to get away with it, because in real life, somebody like that would probably get shut down. By far, the more plausible scenario is that some government somewhere just makes the calculation at some point that doing this would be fairly cheap and easy. And better than not doing it as far as [their] selfish purposes are concerned.

It’s considered a pretty radical out-there idea. If you look at the overall landscape and what you’ve been seeing over the last few years, what do you think the likelihood of countries in industry and individuals voluntarily taking steps to reduce emissions enough to keep global warming to a minimum? Or how do you think it’s likely to play out over the next 10 to 15 years?

The number that matters is the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is above 400 parts per million and climbing, That’s higher than it’s been in millions of years. So when we talk about emissions reductions, all we’re saying is that the rate at which that number grows, will slow down. But it’s still growing, the numbers still get higher every year. It’s just not climbing as fast because we reduced our emissions. If we could get to zero emissions, which might happen in a few decades — like China’s saying maybe by 2060, it might get to zero emissions. That just means that that number stays wherever it is, for about a million years, which is how long it takes natural processes to remove it. So emissions reductions are great and zero emissions would be better than than not doing that, but still leaves us stuck with the number at a dangerously high level until we take active measures to remove that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

What do you think of carbon capture as a technology? Have you followed it at all?

I know an increasing number of people who are techies who are altering their careers to think about this and work on this. There’s a bunch of ways that it could be done. We have to do it. It will be the biggest engineering project by far in human history. We have to do it. We have to succeed. And it’ll take many decades.

Did you follow the COP26 conference at all? What did you think of it?

I followed it. Not super closely. But all of that stuff is great. We have to have those conferences. And we have to hope and pray that their strongest and most optimistic recommendations are put into effect. For sure. It’s just while we’re doing that, we can’t lose sight of what I said before, which is that reducing emissions or taking emissions to zero still doesn’t begin to solve the problem. It just means that we’re not making the problem worse.

What about other forms of energy? Nuclear energy in particular is one that draws a lot of interest from from readers. It’s zero carbon, but there’s fear about it, and some of that fear is grounded. What about that and other energy forms?

Nuclear, I think during the Cold War it kind of got rushed into service, too soon. And before the whole picture was was fully understood. So it’s not where where the engineering resources have been going in the last few decades. And with more resources, more engineers, more money, maybe we can find ways to do it that are that are safer. There are still intractable problems around what to do with nuclear waste, and and so on that need attention. But we’re entering into this phase in our history where we have to start thinking in terms of relative risks. If you’re talking about a particular new technology, they have to compare its risk to the risk of not using it.

There’s a lot going on that’s promising. Beyond just nuclear, there’s geothermal and the usual suspects, wind, solar, etc. And we need it all.

A lot of these discussions get bogged down by ideological purity tests. So one one side you’ve got activists who say if you even talk about adaptation, that’s wrong. Because you’re giving up on reduction. And if you even talk about carbon capture, you’re just giving the current economy and the current fossil fuel industry more more leeway to keep burning. Then you’ve got other people, the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world, who say, “Oh, we’re focusing way too much on the risks and not talking about the costs enough, and growth is the only way out.” How do you think about this? How do you parse this when you’re looking at all of these different, really strong ideological beliefs?

Yeah, a whole separate dimension to the problem that we’re facing is weird, weird polarization of everything. It’s incredibly obstructive. There was just an article in The New York Times about Republicans who are furious at other Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill. Like, how dare you vote for bridges?

It’s really disheartening and seems like it’s definitely this partisan shift by bad actors who think they’re gaining something from it.

I personally can look at something like carbon capture, and I can make an argument that convinces me that we should be doing it, so it’s not hard for me to formulate my own opinion on that. Much harder is getting millions and millions of other people to agree.

What do you think will be the tipping point? I’ve noticed a lot more people coming around to the idea that we need a multifaceted, throw-everything-at-it solution. And I think some of that comes as the effects become harder and harder to ignore, so it’s harder to presume that this is just happening somewhere else. Do you imagine some kind of event, or series of events, that can break this logjam?

So here’s an example. We had this heat dome event in Seattle over the summer, where out of nowhere, from a normal summer’s day, just suddenly, it was 115 degrees. Much hotter than it has ever been in Seattle.

I grew up there, and lived there for 10 years as an adult as well. So yeah, that was staggering.

So that happened overnight, and after three days of that, overnight, the temperature dropped by 50 degrees. A bunch of people died. So I think an event like that might convince a bunch of people who live in Seattle.

But I think one is going to be rising sea levels, which is something you can’t argue with. You can be as ideological as you want. But you can’t argue with the fact that your house is full of water.

And the other one is these possible so-called wet-bulb events, where some areas become so hot and humid that everyone who’s outdoors will just die.

How can people come together to ensure that solutions help the broadest number of people, rather than pulling up the drawbridges — let’s just escape into space or our compound in New Zealand or something like that? Or do you think it’s inevitable that the people with the means are going to run?

Of course, some people are going to do that. And other parts of the world are going to be depopulated one way or the other. But I think we’ll see the big governments, the Indias and Chinas of the world, charting their own path, going their own way, doing what they think they need to do, in order to basically prevent their their governments from falling. At the end of the day, most politicians want to retain their power. And they’re going to do what it takes to keep getting votes or to maintain their grip on on the political system. And if they’re seen as having presided over huge apocalyptic disasters and not taking effective action, then they’re in trouble.

I have to ask about the metaverse, a term that you coined in the book “Snow Crash” in 1992. Now it’s everywhere in tech. It was on Disney‘s earnings call! Everybody in the tech world is suddenly using the term, probably not the way you intended it or originally envisioned it. What are your thoughts on that?

I have to assume that some of this is pre-emptive. Making sure that one company — that Facebook — doesn’t establish a trademarkable position. If they begin to throw the term around, and nobody else does, then they might be able to later prevent other people from from using the term. So that might be part of why they’re doing this.

I don’t know. All I can do is kind of sit back and watch it in amazement.

There’s a pretty big gap between what Facebook is actually doing, like running Facebook and WhatsApp and Instagram, and the visions that they’re talking about for the metaverse. They’re two very different things. That’s important to keep in mind.

I had a conversation with a VC maybe six or seven years ago, and he was sort of a pessimist in general about the course of humanity and where things are going. He said, “Hey, you know, if you’re a pessimist, VR seems like a great bet. Because everybody’s going to want to escape from their real world conditions.” Do you see things that way at all?

I’m personally more interested in AR than in VR. I mean, I don’t hate VR. But the reality has been so far that most people don’t like to hang out there for more than a short period of time. That may change as the technology gets better, but there’s just inherent limitations on things like the problem of getting motion sickness, the problem of how do you move around? I mean, while I’m talking to you, I’m just kind of wandering around my house. And that’s a normal human thing to do, to want to get up and move around. That’s a difficult thing to do in a VR environment because you’ll step on your cat.

I know you were involved with Magic Leap, and that seems to have gone in a different direction with Peggy Johnson in charge, focusing on enterprise a lot, like Microsoft has, but what’s it going to take for for AR to really take off? What are the technological barriers? I look at how mobile was with Windows Mobile and Palm and some of those things, and then all of a sudden, the iPhone had enough new things in it, the capacitive touch screen and the idea of apps, that it was 18 months ahead of everybody else. And that was enough for it to take off. Is there something like that, that would have to happen for AR to take off?

I think that’s a good analogy. Somewhere out there is that tipping point. And nobody knows where it is until they’ve found it. And so timing is tricky. I think what Magic Leap accomplished in the way of hardware is impressive. I mean, they’re shipping a headset with a 6D controller and a whole system that tracks the room around you. And it makes it possible for applications to interact with things that it sees in your environment. And there’s a lot of engineering that has to happen to make those things all work together in a package that doesn’t immediately catch on fire or run out of batteries.

I actually saw [former Oculus CTO John] Carmack tweeted, not about Magic Leap, but he was saying maybe what VR headsets need is a big heat exchanger that would sit on top of your head.

So engineering-wise, I think it’s been going pretty well. The question is what will prompt people to want to wear something like this all day long and make it just a routine thing to carry around. And it’ll probably have something to do with making it even smaller, more compact, and less of an intrusive experience to wear around.

You’ve been writing about technology for about three decades now. When you look back at when you started this, when the internet was young, what has surprised you and what do you think you’ve been right about? What did you anticipate, and what did you not anticipate?

The popularity early on of relatively simple forms of the internet, just simple web browsers with words and pictures, and how catchy that was, how rapidly people adopted it. That was a surprise to me because as a techie, I wanted to have more splashy kinds of technologies like full 3D immersive experiences. Who knew that reading a few words on a webpage and maybe seeing a grainy JPEG would be so transformative?

On the not-so-happy side, the speed with which and the completeness with which it was taken over by bad actors. I remember when Obama was elected. People were saying, ‘Well, you know, Obama’s team, they understood the internet, they understood how to use the internet. And Republicans, they’re old. And they don’t get it. So they’ve been left in the dust.’ And then eight years later, not only did they get it, but they got way in a way deeper, and much more kind of cynical way than the Democrats had.

I know that there’s an HBO adaptation of “Snow Crash” in the works, maybe coming out this year. I haven’t heard much about it recently, can you talk about that?

The reason you haven’t heard about it is because they passed on it in June. So it’s no longer an HBO Max project. It’s reverted to Paramount. And Kennedy/Marshall.

Are we going to see it soon?

All I can say is stay tuned. A lot of people want it to happen.

Continue Reading

Technology

Navan, corporate travel and expense startup, files for initial public offering

Published

on

By

Navan, corporate travel and expense startup, files for initial public offering

By year-end there should be around 20 tech IPOS, says Barclays' Kristin DeClark

Navan, the business travel, payments, and expense management startup, filed on Friday afternoon to go public.

Its S-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicates that the company plans to list on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “NAVN.”

Navan reported trailing 12-month revenue of $613 million (up 32%) across over 10,000 customers, and gross bookings of $7.6 billion (up 34%), according to the S-1 filing.

Goldman Sachs and Citigroup will act as lead book-running managers for the proposed offering.

Navan ranked No. 39 on this year’s CNBC Disruptor 50 list, and also made the 2024 list.

The IPO market has bounced back this year, with deal activity up 56% across 156 deals (roughly 200 IPO filings in all) and $30 billion in proceeds, up over 23% year over year, according to IPO tracker Renaissance Capital. It has been the best year for IPOs since 2021, though still far below the Covid offering boom years, when over $142 billion (2021) and $78 billion (2020) was raised by IPOs.

This year’s deal flow has been highlighted by hot AI names like Coreweave, as well as some of the startup world’s most highly valued firms from the past decade, such as fintech Klarna and design firm Figma, crypto companies Circle, Bullish and Gemini, and some long-awaited IPO candidates finally hitting the market, such as Stubhub this week, though its shares have slumped since the first day of trading. Top Amazon reseller Pattern went public on Friday.

Other startups are expected to pursue deals given the increased investor appetite.

The Renaissance IPO ETF is up 20% this year.

Launched by CEO Ariel Cohen and co-founder Ilan Twig in 2015, Navan set out to disrupt a business travel sector where incumbents relied on clunky legacy tools and fragmented workflows.

The Palo Alto-based company, formerly called TripActions, refers to itself as an “all-in-one super app” for corporate travel and expenses.

Customers include Unilever, Adobe, Christie’s, Blue Origin and Geico.

It has also been pushing further into AI, with a virtual assistant named Ava handling approximately 50% of user interactions during the six months ended July 31, according to the filing, and a proprietary AI framework called Navan Cognition supporting its platform, as well as proprietary cloud infrastructure.

“We built Navan for the road warriors, for CEOs and CFOs who understand travel’s critical importance to their strategy, the finance teams who demand precision and control, the executive assistants juggling itineraries, and the program admins ensuring seamless events,” the co-founders wrote in an IPO filing letter.

“We saw firsthand the frustration of clunky, outdated systems. Travelers were forced to cobble together solutions, wait for hours on hold to book or change travel, and negotiate with travel agents. They struggled to adhere to company policies, with little visibility into those policies, and after all that, they spent even more time on tedious expense reports after a trip. We felt the pain of finance teams struggling to gain visibility into fragmented travel spending and to enforce policies, and the frustration of suppliers unable to connect directly with the high-value business travelers they sought to serve,” they wrote in the filing.

Revenue grew 33% year-over-year from $402 million in fiscal 2024 to $537 million in fiscal 2025, according to the S-1 filing. The company reported a net loss that decreased 45% year-over-year from $332 million in fiscal 2024 to $181 million in fiscal 2025. Gross margin improved from 60% in fiscal 2024 to 68% in fiscal 2025.

The business travel and expense space is crowded, with fellow Disruptors Ramp and Brex, and TravelPerk, as well as incumbents like SAP Concur and American Express Global Business Travel.

Sign up for our weekly, original newsletter that goes beyond the annual Disruptor 50 list, offering a closer look at list-making companies and their innovative founders.

Continue Reading

Technology

Microsoft raises Xbox prices in U.S. due to economic environment

Published

on

By

Microsoft raises Xbox prices in U.S. due to economic environment

A gamer plays soccer title Pro Evolution Soccer 2019 on an Xbox console.

Sezgin Pancar | Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Microsoft said on Friday that it will increase the recommended retail price of several Xbox consoles in the U.S. starting in October because of “changes in the macroeconomic environment.”

The company said it would not increase prices for accessories such as controllers and headsets, and that prices in other countries would stay the same.

While Microsoft didn’t explicitly attribute the increase to the Trump administration’s tariffs, many consumer companies have been warning for months that higher prices are on the way. President Donald Trump has issued tariffs this year on multiple countries with a stated goal to bring more manufacturing to the U.S.

“We understand that these changes are challenging, and they were made with careful consideration,” Microsoft said on its website.

It’s the second time Microsoft has raised prices on its consoles in the U.S. this year. Rivals Sony and Nintendo have also raised console prices in the U.S. as Trump’s tariffs went into effect.

Here are the changes, according to a PDF posted on Microsoft’s website:

  • Xbox Series S will start at $399, up from $379 previously. A version with 1TB of storage costs $449.
  • Xbox Series X Digital console now costs $599, a $50 increase. The Xbox Series X with a disc drive also got a $50 increase to $649.
  • The most expensive version, with 2TB of storage, costs $799, up from $729.

WATCH: Fed governor doesn’t see material inflation from tariffs

Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran: I don’t see any material inflation from tariffs

Continue Reading

Technology

StubHub’s stock plunges 10% in third day on NYSE as post-IPO slump deepens

Published

on

By

StubHub's stock plunges 10% in third day on NYSE as post-IPO slump deepens

Ticket reseller StubHub signage on display at the New York Stock Exchange for the company’s IPO on Sept. 17, 2025.

NYSE

After a long wait to get public, StubHub has had a rough start to life on the New York Stock Exchange.

Shares of the online ticket vendor dropped 10% on Friday, falling for a third straight day since debuting on Wednesday. At $18.46, the stock is now down 21% from its IPO price of $23.50.

StubHub, trading under ticker symbol “STUB,” has lagged behind fellow market newcomers like online lender Klarna, design software company Figma and stablecoin issuer Circle, which delivered early returns for investors following their recent IPOs. Shares of cybersecurity firm Netskope also rose 10% on Friday in their second trading day, after an initial pop on Thursday.

StubHub had been trying to go public for the past several years, but delayed its debut twice. The most recent stall came in April after President Donald Trump’s announcement of sweeping tariffs roiled markets. The company filed an updated prospectus in August, effectively restarting the process to go public, and has since seen its market cap slip to about $6.8 billion from $8.6 billion at its IPO.

Founded in 2000, StubHub primarily generates revenue from connecting buyers with ticket resellers. In the first quarter, revenue rose 10% from a year earlier to $397.6 million. The company’s net loss widened to $35.9 million from $29.7 million a year ago.

StubHub CEO Eric Baker told CNBC on Wednesday that the company expects recently introduced federal regulations around transparent ticket pricing to cause a “one-time” hit to its financial results.

Regulators are zeroing in on online ticket sellers over their pricing mechanisms and whether the companies are doing enough to keep automated purchasing bots in check. The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued StubHub rival Live Nation Entertainment, the parent company of Ticketmaster, accusing it of illegal resale tactics.

While StubHub has failed to excite Wall Street, its struggles haven’t seeped into other deals as the tech IPO market continues to show signs of a resurgence after an extended dry spell. Amazon reseller Pattern Group saw its stock rise 12% on Friday, though shares initially slipped 6%.

WATCH: StubHub CEO on company’s IPO

StubHub CEO: FTC change to all-in, transparent ticket pricing has leveled the playing field

Continue Reading

Trending