from the it’s-not-very-effective-if-everyone’s-dead dept
Behind efficient accelerationism’s techno-optimist smile lies a well-known and harmful impulse: subordinating human dignity to a technological crucial framed as inevitable.
The effective accelerationism motion (e/acc) presents itself as an enlightened embrace of technological progress, particularly synthetic normal intelligence. Led by figures like Guillaume Verdon and embraced by enterprise capitalists like Marc Andreessen, the motion claims humanity faces a binary selection: “speed up or die.” Those that query this narrative are dismissed as “decels” or “doomers” standing in the way in which of humanity’s cosmic future.
Nowhere is that this authoritarian impulse extra clearly articulated than in Andreessen’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto”—a doc that warrants direct examination. Strip away its futuristic veneer, and what stays is basically twenty first century fascism in digital clothes.
Contemplate the manifesto’s central claims. It flatly rejects the legitimacy of democratic regulation over expertise: “We consider markets—free individuals making free selections—are the correct determinant of which applied sciences are created and deployed.” It declares expertise the answer to all issues whereas dismissing issues about inequality, sustainability, or governance as wrongheaded: “We oppose the philosophy of the unproductive ‘regular state.’“ Most tellingly, it explicitly rejects democratic oversight: “We’re pro-civilization and thus we’re targeted on the non-public sector,” as if civilization itself is incompatible with public governance.
This isn’t mere enthusiasm for innovation; it’s a complete political ideology that seeks to exchange democratic deliberation with technological determinism and market fundamentalism. The manifesto’s imaginative and prescient is essentially feudal: a world the place tech oligarchs decide humanity’s course, unencumbered by democratic establishments or public accountability. This isn’t optimism—it’s authoritarianism with a Silicon Valley gloss.
Andreessen positions himself as a philosopher-king of technological progress whereas demonstrating outstanding blindness to his personal limitations. His breathless championing of Web3 and crypto as civilization’s inevitable future now seems extra like hubris than imaginative and prescient as these markets have cratered. Although his enterprise agency, a16z, managed to unload a lot of its token holdings onto retail buyers earlier than the crash—a apply any affordable particular person would discover ethically troubling. This sample of privatizing positive aspects whereas socializing losses completely illustrates the motion’s underlying philosophy: technological “inevitability” for the plenty, insider safety for the elite.
What makes e/acc harmful isn’t enthusiasm for expertise however its underlying technological determinism—the idea that innovation follows a predetermined path people should settle for reasonably than direct. This deterministic view treats human company as largely irrelevant, severe debate as futile, and skepticism as harmful heresy. We’ve seen this sample earlier than in different deterministic ideologies, from Marxist historic inevitability to market fundamentalism’s “invisible hand.” Marxism as soon as declared proletarian revolution inevitable, sidelining debate in regards to the means. Free-market fundamentalism claimed deregulation was future, ignoring warnings of catastrophic threat. Each left profound injury of their wake.
Technological determinism doesn’t simply silence debate—it quietly erases the idea that people have significant company in shaping their future.
The motion’s apply of labeling critics as “decels” reveals its epistemic authoritarianism—a system the place questioning the accelerationist narrative turns into not simply incorrect however morally suspect. This strategy inherently limits pluralistic debate, silences legitimate moral issues, and frames warning as weak spot reasonably than knowledge. When questioning technological growth is framed as opposition to progress itself—as an impediment reasonably than obligatory warning—we’ve crossed from debate into epistemic authoritarianism.
This authoritarian impulse isn’t unintended however important to the motion’s character. Its main voices constantly current themselves not as members in democratic deliberation however as visionaries whose perception transcends regular political constraints. There’s one thing essentially fascistic on this self-conception—the idea that technological “greatness” requires bypassing democratic processes and dismissing public issues as ignorance.
Let’s be very clear about what that is: a fascist disposition wrapped in techno-futurism. The historic parallels are too hanging to disregard. Like twentieth century fascism, it glorifies velocity and energy over deliberation and fairness. It frames democratic oversight as weak spot and celebrates the need of technological “pioneers” over collective knowledge. It positions a self-selected elite because the arbiters of humanity’s future whereas dismissing those that disagree as obstacles to progress. If this isn’t fascism in up to date kind, what could be?
Maybe most troubling is e/acc‘s cynicism about human dignity. By explicitly subordinating conventional moral values to technological imperatives and cosmic entropy maximization, the motion creates an ethical calculus detached and even hostile to particular person and collective human flourishing. When expertise turns into an finish in itself reasonably than a method to human ends, we threat a profound ethical impoverishment—technological nihilism carrying the masks of cosmic objective.
If we reject technological authoritarianism, the choice isn’t Luddism—it’s philosophical liberalism, with its agency dedication to pluralism, human dignity, and epistemic humility. Liberal democracy isn’t anti-technology—it insists solely that technological growth should stay topic to democratic accountability, moral oversight, and significant consent. Liberalism sees technological progress not as inevitable, however as an ongoing human selection. Liberal democracy exists to not maximize entropy or technological growth for its personal sake, however to safeguard situations for numerous human flourishing.
What’s truly at stake on this debate isn’t simply the tempo of innovation however whether or not people meaningfully form their very own future. E/acc‘s seductive simplicity—its promise that surrendering to technological inevitability will resolve humanity’s issues—can slide shortly into authoritarian governance justified by “inevitable” technological imperatives. We’re already seeing these dynamics at work in real-world contexts, as when the Trump administration makes use of tariffs as leverage to force nations to simply accept Elon Musk’s Starlink—a fusion of technological and political energy that bypasses democratic accountability.
The middle should be held in opposition to this technological determinism. Two plus two equals 4 means we should all the time insist on seeing actuality clearly, not by the distorting lens of inevitability narratives that conveniently serve these already in energy. Human dignity and democratic legitimacy aren’t obstacles to technological development—they’re its ethical basis. With out them, expertise inevitably turns into not a pressure for liberation, however merely one other type of authoritarian management—irrespective of how brightly it smiles.
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the management staff at Block. Initially printed at his Notes From the Circus.
Filed Underneath: democracy, effective altruism, equity, fascism, marc andreessen, society, techno optimism
Source link
