I think a techno optimist or humanist as it says in the piece are misguided slightly because we put humans in the centre of everything. Humans are a part of nature and yet we try to control nature with our technology. We don’t own nature or the world, we share it. And I think by always putting ourselves to the forefront of solving the problems we’ve created we are the definition of madness ‘doing the same thing again and expecting a different response’. I think it’s time we stopped thinking we can fix everything with technology and sat back for a bit. Let nature show us the way.
Yes, I think there's a lot of truth to "sharing the world" and living in better harmony with it. Like we shouldn't pollute it, because we live here and we breathe this air and we want it to be nice. But completely leaving the world alone isn't natural either. All kinds of humans and all kinds of animals have shaped it forever. From dinosaurs stomping on trees, and animals eating one another, and meteors causing the dinosaurs to go extinct, and volcanos polluting the air and suffocating plants, and early humans burning forests. All of it makes an impact and all of that is natural too! So it's hard for me to say "remove humans and THAT is the natural world." Not that that's what you're saying. But I also think that our "controlling nature" is as natural as any other kind of controlling nature.
I understand what you’re saying Elle, and I also get my point might sound simplistic. All animals have had an impact of course, that’s how the world works, everything lives in symbiosis. But I believe we have stepped out of that harmony and have developed a humanistic mindset. I believe many of us think the world is ours and so we play with it in ways that are outside of a symbiotic relationship. No other animal has done this. Each knows its place in the chain.
That makes sense, and I do think we have stepped out of that harmony a bit. But I do think that, now that we know that we have, we are working to correct it. I'm hopeful we'll turn that around!
There is a cost to progress. Philosopher John Gray wrote extensively about it in his "Straw Dogs". The fact that Marc declared "sustainability" and "risk management" enemies to his manifesto should raise some alarm. He has a serious monetary stake in these new tech companies. I argue that with artificial intelligence it is different comparing to the green revolution. There is just too much of the unknown when considering the implications of highly intelligent new technology. We are basically staring into a Lovecraftian abyss. Only this time the abyss is literally staring back (GPT-4 vision). I believe our world will soon look a lot more surreal when the human existence and AI have interwoven in unexpected ways. But it sure is fun to explore that world with fiction writing.
There is definitely a lot unknown right now. But I suppose that's true of anyone looking out at the future. (We can see in old letters and novels the way people thought the future might go, they were almost always wrong!)
Techno-optimism is a slippery concept. At its most benign, it is merely a belief that the arc of progress is generally towards making life better. But to its hardcore adherents (as Marc has now become) it is a materialist religion that views technology not merely as an economically desirable force, but an ethically compelling one.
Their solution to the problems of technology is always "more technology" - rather to consider whether neoliberalism principles may be insufficient to deliver the society we want. In what feels like a cosplay of "Atlas Shrugged" their threat is to retreat into gated communities of believers - whether in Solano County, Snailbrook, or the high seas as seasteaders, or on Mars.
Technology alone doesn't make life better. But certainly humans using technology for good can! Unfortunately, I think the gated communities, snailbrook, seasteaders etc. have become the only option for utopian experimentation because so little autonomy is granted to smaller governments. As power is centralized at a higher level, there is less we can do locally where everyone (not just the rich) can have a say!
For a readout on where techno takes the world, one look no further than Matrix. In your imagining “a more beautiful world” you seem to confuse “world” with America. This is a colonial/imperial mentality, that armed with technology that ever more deeply penetrates psychology, biology and ecology, will destroy the world. I think a much deeper reading and consideration is required before anyone, especially an American, declares themselves a “techno optimist”. .
It's not that I confuse the world with America, but I do think that Americans generally have a good life (and a desirable life compared to many parts of the world), and I think other countries should have the same opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.
This is not the same as wanting America to be the driver of that economic growth and prosperity. Individual countries should be responsible for developing however they'd like to. Unfortunately, many countries are currently impeded from achieving it (and their citizens thus left floundering) by despotic or authoritarian governments. For example, Magatte does a great job at writing about how that should change on a country by country level in Africa: https://magatte.substack.com/
Well, we could talk about American involvement in every single one of those despotic governments, and how Africa is waking up, and realising just how badly it has been ripped off by pretty much everyone... but that would slide off topic.
Here in Bali, an almost secret motion to release 200 million genetically modified mosquitoes into the ecosystem has been outed and blocked. The World Mosquito Programme is funded by Bill Gates, the diehard techno optimist—or should that be opportunist? That is always the problem with technology. It’s in the hands of those who know how to exploit it. (Yes, circularity.) One notes that Microsoft have engineered the complete destruction of Open AI...
But mosquitos are the most deadly animal in the world, killing up to a million people annually. Governments already help with mosquito abatement, but in places where they don't or can't, why wouldn't help from the rich be welcome?
It is certainly welcomed where private pockets are lined. The problem with the GM mosquito thing, like other GM "solutions" is that they are short term. Nature doesn't like quick fixes. In Brazil, one case where they ran the mosquito experiment, cases of dengue dropped in the first year, then rose again, along with cases of mosquito-borne zika.
I think it is unwise and naive - and this is not on you but on all of us - to think the techno world will be any different. Born out of capitalism, we see a growth in techno-feudalism. Those who see the warning signs have to join or they will be 'left behind'. But the same players are playing the same games only this time it is on different lines. The manipulation, the glossing over of stark harsh realities, the lack of principles, the big-dog-eats-smaller-dog, the routines that leave no space for family and which will lead to burn out both of person and planet are inevitable.
Reading the most popular works of Mariana Mazzucato and Shoshana Zuboff will disabuse you of any urge to cheer on self-enriching individuals like Andreessen.
Technology also creates problems. Nuclear waste and weapons, for example. Industrial pollution. Our disposable product and packaging culture. The internet may help some feel less isolated, but as many of us have experienced, social media can also be harmful to our mental health.
And capitalism is not holy. It is only as moral as the wealthy individuals who wield it. And we know from experience and history, that profits often come at the expense of workers. And greed is a powerful motivator to do wrong.
It is good to be optimistic, but not blindly so. Humans use technology for evil as well as good. Hopefully, humans will improve along with technology. But that is a matter of the heart, not technology.
I very much worry about the problems that crop up when something new is created. But life is an endless experiment, and we are figuring out which experiments succeed and which fail in real time, and endlessly tweaking to get it right as we go!
It's interesting that every one of those problems that he points out was solved by material gains has had catastrophic downstream effects to the reported well-being of people. I doubt the solution is mindlessly doubling down.
While I'm optimistic about technology, it needs to be continually merged with a deeper sense of knowing. Community, art, love. Without that, we're sterile and lost.
'Capitalism will be the driver that gets us there'. Capitalism is burning, sucking and bleeding this planet. I can see how young technos have optimism because they can make a huge amount of capital out of a burgeoning industry. But it is another artery of industrialisation. We must simplify. We need to learn how to pull back rather than drive forward. The losers may not be us but they will be the next generation, and the biggest loser is the planet. A reminder to self that this does all seem an inquiry towards the status quo that is causing the problems, driving it harder, pretending it can save, rather than a search for the alternative: a way to prevent the mega disaster propelled by man which will force us into a simpler but very foreign world.
Capitalism is hurting the environment, this is true. But it has greatly helped humans, and that is true too. I think we are learning how to avoid the former even as we continue the latter!
I think it is unwise and naive - and this is not on you but on all of us - to think the techno world will be any different. Born out of capitalism, we see a growth in techno-feudalism. Those who see the warning signs have to join or they will be 'left behind'. But the same players are playing the same games only this time it is on different lines. The manipulation, the glossing over of stark harsh realities, the lack of principles, the big-dog-eats-smaller-dog, the routines that leave no space for family and which will lead to burn out both of person and planet are inevitable.
I don’t have a ton to add on this that hasn’t been said. I think there are some great critiques of his work (like the very eloquent arguments you make here). There’s also obviously a lot to agree with which you also point out.
I also think there are some people who are being quite harsh in their review. Those saying there’s nothing unique or particularly novel about his thoughts on the matter have gone a bit far. Maybe there is nothing brand new about being a believer in technology, this is true.
But how many people genuinely believe technology can solve all our problems? I would say that’s a pretty unique viewpoint worth publishing 🤷🏻♂️.
I just finished lost cause by Cory and found it worth the time. A bit didactic but still engaging
Oh interesting, thanks for sharing!
And I am the pessimistic side of a techno-sadist: you have left me and my enormous brain to reek havoc. I intend to do just that.
I think a techno optimist or humanist as it says in the piece are misguided slightly because we put humans in the centre of everything. Humans are a part of nature and yet we try to control nature with our technology. We don’t own nature or the world, we share it. And I think by always putting ourselves to the forefront of solving the problems we’ve created we are the definition of madness ‘doing the same thing again and expecting a different response’. I think it’s time we stopped thinking we can fix everything with technology and sat back for a bit. Let nature show us the way.
Yes, I think there's a lot of truth to "sharing the world" and living in better harmony with it. Like we shouldn't pollute it, because we live here and we breathe this air and we want it to be nice. But completely leaving the world alone isn't natural either. All kinds of humans and all kinds of animals have shaped it forever. From dinosaurs stomping on trees, and animals eating one another, and meteors causing the dinosaurs to go extinct, and volcanos polluting the air and suffocating plants, and early humans burning forests. All of it makes an impact and all of that is natural too! So it's hard for me to say "remove humans and THAT is the natural world." Not that that's what you're saying. But I also think that our "controlling nature" is as natural as any other kind of controlling nature.
I understand what you’re saying Elle, and I also get my point might sound simplistic. All animals have had an impact of course, that’s how the world works, everything lives in symbiosis. But I believe we have stepped out of that harmony and have developed a humanistic mindset. I believe many of us think the world is ours and so we play with it in ways that are outside of a symbiotic relationship. No other animal has done this. Each knows its place in the chain.
That makes sense, and I do think we have stepped out of that harmony a bit. But I do think that, now that we know that we have, we are working to correct it. I'm hopeful we'll turn that around!
There is a cost to progress. Philosopher John Gray wrote extensively about it in his "Straw Dogs". The fact that Marc declared "sustainability" and "risk management" enemies to his manifesto should raise some alarm. He has a serious monetary stake in these new tech companies. I argue that with artificial intelligence it is different comparing to the green revolution. There is just too much of the unknown when considering the implications of highly intelligent new technology. We are basically staring into a Lovecraftian abyss. Only this time the abyss is literally staring back (GPT-4 vision). I believe our world will soon look a lot more surreal when the human existence and AI have interwoven in unexpected ways. But it sure is fun to explore that world with fiction writing.
There is definitely a lot unknown right now. But I suppose that's true of anyone looking out at the future. (We can see in old letters and novels the way people thought the future might go, they were almost always wrong!)
Techno-optimism is a slippery concept. At its most benign, it is merely a belief that the arc of progress is generally towards making life better. But to its hardcore adherents (as Marc has now become) it is a materialist religion that views technology not merely as an economically desirable force, but an ethically compelling one.
Their solution to the problems of technology is always "more technology" - rather to consider whether neoliberalism principles may be insufficient to deliver the society we want. In what feels like a cosplay of "Atlas Shrugged" their threat is to retreat into gated communities of believers - whether in Solano County, Snailbrook, or the high seas as seasteaders, or on Mars.
Technology alone doesn't make life better. But certainly humans using technology for good can! Unfortunately, I think the gated communities, snailbrook, seasteaders etc. have become the only option for utopian experimentation because so little autonomy is granted to smaller governments. As power is centralized at a higher level, there is less we can do locally where everyone (not just the rich) can have a say!
For a readout on where techno takes the world, one look no further than Matrix. In your imagining “a more beautiful world” you seem to confuse “world” with America. This is a colonial/imperial mentality, that armed with technology that ever more deeply penetrates psychology, biology and ecology, will destroy the world. I think a much deeper reading and consideration is required before anyone, especially an American, declares themselves a “techno optimist”. .
It's not that I confuse the world with America, but I do think that Americans generally have a good life (and a desirable life compared to many parts of the world), and I think other countries should have the same opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.
This is not the same as wanting America to be the driver of that economic growth and prosperity. Individual countries should be responsible for developing however they'd like to. Unfortunately, many countries are currently impeded from achieving it (and their citizens thus left floundering) by despotic or authoritarian governments. For example, Magatte does a great job at writing about how that should change on a country by country level in Africa: https://magatte.substack.com/
Well, we could talk about American involvement in every single one of those despotic governments, and how Africa is waking up, and realising just how badly it has been ripped off by pretty much everyone... but that would slide off topic.
Here in Bali, an almost secret motion to release 200 million genetically modified mosquitoes into the ecosystem has been outed and blocked. The World Mosquito Programme is funded by Bill Gates, the diehard techno optimist—or should that be opportunist? That is always the problem with technology. It’s in the hands of those who know how to exploit it. (Yes, circularity.) One notes that Microsoft have engineered the complete destruction of Open AI...
But mosquitos are the most deadly animal in the world, killing up to a million people annually. Governments already help with mosquito abatement, but in places where they don't or can't, why wouldn't help from the rich be welcome?
It is certainly welcomed where private pockets are lined. The problem with the GM mosquito thing, like other GM "solutions" is that they are short term. Nature doesn't like quick fixes. In Brazil, one case where they ran the mosquito experiment, cases of dengue dropped in the first year, then rose again, along with cases of mosquito-borne zika.
Right, that's true. It's something that needs to be done ongoing for sure (unless we can come up with a longer term solution??)
I’m sure the labs are working on that. Indeed they are engineering an endless cycle of problem-solution.
I think it is unwise and naive - and this is not on you but on all of us - to think the techno world will be any different. Born out of capitalism, we see a growth in techno-feudalism. Those who see the warning signs have to join or they will be 'left behind'. But the same players are playing the same games only this time it is on different lines. The manipulation, the glossing over of stark harsh realities, the lack of principles, the big-dog-eats-smaller-dog, the routines that leave no space for family and which will lead to burn out both of person and planet are inevitable.
Is this as good as it gets? For the moment. Fascinating reading.
Reading the most popular works of Mariana Mazzucato and Shoshana Zuboff will disabuse you of any urge to cheer on self-enriching individuals like Andreessen.
Good job Elle!! You and your literary associates said it as well or even better than I can. I had the same reaction to his manifesto.
Technology also creates problems. Nuclear waste and weapons, for example. Industrial pollution. Our disposable product and packaging culture. The internet may help some feel less isolated, but as many of us have experienced, social media can also be harmful to our mental health.
And capitalism is not holy. It is only as moral as the wealthy individuals who wield it. And we know from experience and history, that profits often come at the expense of workers. And greed is a powerful motivator to do wrong.
It is good to be optimistic, but not blindly so. Humans use technology for evil as well as good. Hopefully, humans will improve along with technology. But that is a matter of the heart, not technology.
Very much agree!
You really are a confirrmed optimist. You don't worry about the problems that crop when soetning new is created.
I very much worry about the problems that crop up when something new is created. But life is an endless experiment, and we are figuring out which experiments succeed and which fail in real time, and endlessly tweaking to get it right as we go!
It's interesting that every one of those problems that he points out was solved by material gains has had catastrophic downstream effects to the reported well-being of people. I doubt the solution is mindlessly doubling down.
While I'm optimistic about technology, it needs to be continually merged with a deeper sense of knowing. Community, art, love. Without that, we're sterile and lost.
came here to share a very similar sentiment to Taylor's comment – well-said!
love where this piece landed, Elle :)
I very much agree. That is beautifully said!
'Capitalism will be the driver that gets us there'. Capitalism is burning, sucking and bleeding this planet. I can see how young technos have optimism because they can make a huge amount of capital out of a burgeoning industry. But it is another artery of industrialisation. We must simplify. We need to learn how to pull back rather than drive forward. The losers may not be us but they will be the next generation, and the biggest loser is the planet. A reminder to self that this does all seem an inquiry towards the status quo that is causing the problems, driving it harder, pretending it can save, rather than a search for the alternative: a way to prevent the mega disaster propelled by man which will force us into a simpler but very foreign world.
Capitalism is hurting the environment, this is true. But it has greatly helped humans, and that is true too. I think we are learning how to avoid the former even as we continue the latter!
I think it is unwise and naive - and this is not on you but on all of us - to think the techno world will be any different. Born out of capitalism, we see a growth in techno-feudalism. Those who see the warning signs have to join or they will be 'left behind'. But the same players are playing the same games only this time it is on different lines. The manipulation, the glossing over of stark harsh realities, the lack of principles, the big-dog-eats-smaller-dog, the routines that leave no space for family and which will lead to burn out both of person and planet are inevitable.
Thanks for the response to Andreesen's manifesto. It was an interesting read.
I believe my "Manifesto for the Progress-based Perspective" is a more comprehensive and accurate take on progress than Andreesen's:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-for-the-progress-based
Really great piece 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼.
I don’t have a ton to add on this that hasn’t been said. I think there are some great critiques of his work (like the very eloquent arguments you make here). There’s also obviously a lot to agree with which you also point out.
I also think there are some people who are being quite harsh in their review. Those saying there’s nothing unique or particularly novel about his thoughts on the matter have gone a bit far. Maybe there is nothing brand new about being a believer in technology, this is true.
But how many people genuinely believe technology can solve all our problems? I would say that’s a pretty unique viewpoint worth publishing 🤷🏻♂️.
I very much agree. If nothing else, it's worth publishing the manifesto so that we can all think about it. That discourse has been valuable alone!