this is a really difficult piece of writing to follow. if the author's goal was to explain effective accelerationism to people unfamiliar with it...they haven't done a very good job. *cough* maybe...
this is a really difficult piece of writing to follow. if the author's goal was to explain effective accelerationism to people unfamiliar with it...they haven't done a very good job.
*cough* maybe there's value in taking those humanities classes in college after all? *cough*
Capitalism is hence a form of intelligence; dynamically morphs the meta-meta-organism such that any sort of utility/energy in the environment is captured and utilized towards the maintenance and growth of civilization
...
e/acc believes letting the intelligent meta-organism system dynamically adapt by itself to new environmental variables whenever they present themselves
from this, it seems like "effective accelerationism" is yet another rebranding of "do laissez-faire capitalism"? is there something I'm missing?
In general, e/acc believes that higher variance marketplaces and competition are better at identifying and capitalizing on utility from our environment over other methods such as top-down optimal control
This is a byproduct of Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection...
oh, and some social Darwinism in the mix too? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, that's due for a comeback.
100% agree with the recommendation of taking humanities in college, if for nothing else that it's a good exercise that makes articles like this much easier to parse. If you can get through Hegel,...
100% agree with the recommendation of taking humanities in college, if for nothing else that it's a good exercise that makes articles like this much easier to parse. If you can get through Hegel, you can certainly get through stuff like this!
I’m thinking this is more like what’s left of an elaborate in-joke, or maybe just weird Twitter being weird? Creating a Substack isn’t hard, it’s posted under a fake name, and they only posted...
I’m thinking this is more like what’s left of an elaborate in-joke, or maybe just weird Twitter being weird? Creating a Substack isn’t hard, it’s posted under a fake name, and they only posted once. It’s sort of a satire of some of the way-out-there elements of effective altruism.
The only evidence we have of anyone taking it seriously is venture capitalists putting in their Twitter profile, and they can joke around too.
I guess this is just a shallow heuristic, but it seems way too "zoomed out" to me, even worse than macroeconomics or the universal principles that philosophers often debate. You can't see the...
Stop fighting the thermodynamic will of the universe
I guess this is just a shallow heuristic, but it seems way too "zoomed out" to me, even worse than macroeconomics or the universal principles that philosophers often debate. You can't see the Earth very well from Andromeda Galaxy, let alone the people you care about.
(Also, we can only zoom out that far in our imaginations.)
Looking out from Wildcat Peak, you feel a million people living their lives, even if you cannot see them individually. Those lives include enjoyable and useful and meaningful activities—along with much suffering and pointless tedium. This distant overview of their lives can give you greater objectivity on your own, by analogy. That allows a judgement more like that of a neutral tribunal. It can increase the scope of your motivations. You may decide to become part of a purposeful group project that is more significant than your personal concerns.
The view from afar is not inherently more accurate. It is less so, in fact, because it loses detail, which you can fill in only with imagination. From Wildcat Peak, you can see all the way to the South Bay, but it’s too far to see clearly; just a lumpy gray blur. The value of perspective is that it is a different and complementary view on your life, not that it is a better one. It’s not useful to take only this view.
It doesn't, it's just a little tricky. Below the big red "subscribe" button there is "continue reading". I agree that it's too intrusive. Substack has an option for the blog owner to turn off the...
It doesn't, it's just a little tricky. Below the big red "subscribe" button there is "continue reading".
I agree that it's too intrusive. Substack has an option for the blog owner to turn off the modal dialog, but it's on by default.
It reads more like theology than anything else, to be honest. The very central tenet, that the universe favors higher energy and hence higher intelligence, is utter hogwash that this article does...
It reads more like theology than anything else, to be honest.
The very central tenet, that the universe favors higher energy and hence higher intelligence, is utter hogwash that this article does not deign to support at all. This is exactly the same comically evil nonsense that Fundy Christians teach kids is the reason why we must reject evolution: it leads to transhumanism or post-humanism policies that destroy actual current day humans in favor of the offspring/construct of some demonic model of what humans should instead aim to be.
It's just eugenics and slavery with extra steps, Rick Sanchez type stuff.
All of these people, they'd fight you on it if you somehow said they're humanity's deadweight and the will of the universe points to them giving away all their money and letting themselves be killed, will surely have way more to say than if you propose killing millions of others. There's nothing new under the sun.
The tragedy though is that this kind of stuff catches the zeigeist of every age. And less crazy people will still come to identify with parts of this thinking it's obvious and the only way forward to live. Dangerous dangerous stuff
Yes, exactly, this reeks of N.I.C.E to me. Either there's nothing except materialism to this nonsense and they stray from proper science, wasting all our precious time and money and killing people...
Yes, exactly, this reeks of N.I.C.E to me.
Either there's nothing except materialism to this nonsense and they stray from proper science, wasting all our precious time and money and killing people
Or else there really is something luring us to transhumanism at the center of it
From Wikipedia
Somewhat like the early Gnostics, the main antagonists of That Hideous Strength despise the human body and all organic life as frail, corrupted, and unworthy of pure mind. Like modern transhumanists, they believe that humanity can be perfected by migrating out of flesh and blood. [....t] he N.I.C.E inevitably falls under the dominion of demons (whom they imagine to have discovered under the guise of "macrobes").
And Screwtape's Letters
[Screwtape's] goal is "to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in [demons] (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in [God]. [...] If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls 'Forces' while denying the existence of 'spirits'—then the end of the war will be in sight."[6] Lewis's attack is not on science as such, or scientific planning, but rather the kind of totalitarian planned society idealised by Nazism and Bolshevism: "the disciplined cruelty of some ideological oligarchy."
Just to comment, that Lewis book Screwtape letters is full of snark about society and can be enjoyed without subscribing to Christianity. His essay Abolition of Man is also interesting and...
Just to comment, that Lewis book Screwtape letters is full of snark about society and can be enjoyed without subscribing to Christianity. His essay Abolition of Man is also interesting and thoughtful. Til We Have Faces is a beautifully written novel that rewrites a greek mythological story.
AD 50 - ah yes, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church :) we're still around under the Orthodox label..... I like the mainspring analogy. The stupidest thing about this TechBro theology is...
AD 50 - ah yes, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church :) we're still around under the Orthodox label.....
I like the mainspring analogy. The stupidest thing about this TechBro theology is how provincial and arrogant it is: bro, we've seen 0 percent of the universe, and barely even know what the inside of our own planet looks like and you're here talking about how the universe tends towards exactly your kind of intelligence?
It's a feel good cult that eases the rich, exploitative man's nervousness about how this will all end. A rehashed heresy sold with new terms.
Ah, the Orthodox- I reject the Council of Chalcedon! <runs away laughing in a Miaphysite manner> I agree with the ridiculously parochial mindset of the TechBro thinkers. We apparently only have a...
Ah, the Orthodox- I reject the Council of Chalcedon! <runs away laughing in a Miaphysite manner>
I agree with the ridiculously parochial mindset of the TechBro thinkers. We apparently only have a few (if not just one) sapient species out of millions- why is the TechBro the pinnacle of evolution?
Even if joke. Considering they're not joking around with ideas that love and care for humans, that they're joking about changing things that incidentally favor people exactly like themselves,...
Even if joke. Considering they're not joking around with ideas that love and care for humans, that they're joking about changing things that incidentally favor people exactly like themselves, that's pretty alarming.
It's like hearing " haha wouldn't it be great if god told me to take 2000 wives?" from your community cult leader.
It does sound bad if you put it that way, but take it a little further and a prohibition on joking around with strange ideas implies that most science fiction and fantasy is terrible and people...
It does sound bad if you put it that way, but take it a little further and a prohibition on joking around with strange ideas implies that most science fiction and fantasy is terrible and people shouldn’t write it. After all, it’s often a thinly-veiled power fantasy. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, but fantasizing about being royalty or somehow special is something a lot of people like to do, and many stories get started in a similar way.
It’s true that people taking science fiction ideas too seriously can be a basis for cults. It’s how Scientology got started, after all, though that was a deliberate attempt.
I’m comfortable saying that most science fiction is not about starting a cult. I’m in favor of being clearer in public about what’s fiction, though, because someone will come along and take it seriously if it’s at all unclear.
Well, let's hope it's an unfunny in joke https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/eacc-effective-accelerationism If ironic I guess it's pretty funny. But I do think that there is a real resurgence...
If ironic I guess it's pretty funny. But I do think that there is a real resurgence of eugenics in the hearts of man, that's just waiting for new name to again sweep the hearts and minds of so called intelligentsia and the powerful.
I prefer to think of it as avoiding false confidence. We start in ignorance (not knowing what they're talking about, in this case - what the heck is this meme?) and unless someone digs up some...
I prefer to think of it as avoiding false confidence. We start in ignorance (not knowing what they're talking about, in this case - what the heck is this meme?) and unless someone digs up some reliable information, it's difficult to move beyond that.
That's primarily about epistemology, not morality. I do think that communicating clearly is better than muddying the waters with the apparent noise they're putting out, but there's lots of noise on the Internet.
The blog post is from last year, but e/acc is getting a little media press recently. It seems to be mostly a Twitter meme that a few venture capitalists put in their profile. Somehow that makes it...
The blog post is from last year, but e/acc is getting a little media press recently. It seems to be mostly a Twitter meme that a few venture capitalists put in their profile. Somehow that makes it news, but there doesn't seem to be much substance to it?
this is a really difficult piece of writing to follow. if the author's goal was to explain effective accelerationism to people unfamiliar with it...they haven't done a very good job.
*cough* maybe there's value in taking those humanities classes in college after all? *cough*
from this, it seems like "effective accelerationism" is yet another rebranding of "do laissez-faire capitalism"? is there something I'm missing?
oh, and some social Darwinism in the mix too? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, that's due for a comeback.
Anytime someone starts mixing physics and ideology, I assume their idea is worthless. This has yet to fail me.
100% agree with the recommendation of taking humanities in college, if for nothing else that it's a good exercise that makes articles like this much easier to parse. If you can get through Hegel, you can certainly get through stuff like this!
I’m thinking this is more like what’s left of an elaborate in-joke, or maybe just weird Twitter being weird? Creating a Substack isn’t hard, it’s posted under a fake name, and they only posted once. It’s sort of a satire of some of the way-out-there elements of effective altruism.
The only evidence we have of anyone taking it seriously is venture capitalists putting in their Twitter profile, and they can joke around too.
I guess this is just a shallow heuristic, but it seems way too "zoomed out" to me, even worse than macroeconomics or the universal principles that philosophers often debate. You can't see the Earth very well from Andromeda Galaxy, let alone the people you care about.
(Also, we can only zoom out that far in our imaginations.)
For more, see David Chapman's No cosmic meaning:
I love posts like this because it's fascinating to me to see thoughts that diverge so much from mainstream.
It doesn't, it's just a little tricky. Below the big red "subscribe" button there is "continue reading".
I agree that it's too intrusive. Substack has an option for the blog owner to turn off the modal dialog, but it's on by default.
It reads more like theology than anything else, to be honest.
The very central tenet, that the universe favors higher energy and hence higher intelligence, is utter hogwash that this article does not deign to support at all. This is exactly the same comically evil nonsense that Fundy Christians teach kids is the reason why we must reject evolution: it leads to transhumanism or post-humanism policies that destroy actual current day humans in favor of the offspring/construct of some demonic model of what humans should instead aim to be.
It's just eugenics and slavery with extra steps, Rick Sanchez type stuff.
All of these people, they'd fight you on it if you somehow said they're humanity's deadweight and the will of the universe points to them giving away all their money and letting themselves be killed, will surely have way more to say than if you propose killing millions of others. There's nothing new under the sun.
The tragedy though is that this kind of stuff catches the zeigeist of every age. And less crazy people will still come to identify with parts of this thinking it's obvious and the only way forward to live. Dangerous dangerous stuff
CS Lewis That Hideous Strength is early science fiction about this quest to separate us from our bodies. In the book, it doesn't go well.
Yes, exactly, this reeks of N.I.C.E to me.
Either there's nothing except materialism to this nonsense and they stray from proper science, wasting all our precious time and money and killing people
Or else there really is something luring us to transhumanism at the center of it
From Wikipedia
And Screwtape's Letters
This is just TechBro Materialist Magician.
Just to comment, that Lewis book Screwtape letters is full of snark about society and can be enjoyed without subscribing to Christianity. His essay Abolition of Man is also interesting and thoughtful. Til We Have Faces is a beautifully written novel that rewrites a greek mythological story.
AD 50 - ah yes, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church :) we're still around under the Orthodox label.....
I like the mainspring analogy. The stupidest thing about this TechBro theology is how provincial and arrogant it is: bro, we've seen 0 percent of the universe, and barely even know what the inside of our own planet looks like and you're here talking about how the universe tends towards exactly your kind of intelligence?
It's a feel good cult that eases the rich, exploitative man's nervousness about how this will all end. A rehashed heresy sold with new terms.
Ah, the Orthodox- I reject the Council of Chalcedon! <runs away laughing in a Miaphysite manner>
I agree with the ridiculously parochial mindset of the TechBro thinkers. We apparently only have a few (if not just one) sapient species out of millions- why is the TechBro the pinnacle of evolution?
Or, possibly they are just joking around on Twitter.
Even if joke. Considering they're not joking around with ideas that love and care for humans, that they're joking about changing things that incidentally favor people exactly like themselves, that's pretty alarming.
It's like hearing " haha wouldn't it be great if god told me to take 2000 wives?" from your community cult leader.
It does sound bad if you put it that way, but take it a little further and a prohibition on joking around with strange ideas implies that most science fiction and fantasy is terrible and people shouldn’t write it. After all, it’s often a thinly-veiled power fantasy. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, but fantasizing about being royalty or somehow special is something a lot of people like to do, and many stories get started in a similar way.
It’s true that people taking science fiction ideas too seriously can be a basis for cults. It’s how Scientology got started, after all, though that was a deliberate attempt.
I’m comfortable saying that most science fiction is not about starting a cult. I’m in favor of being clearer in public about what’s fiction, though, because someone will come along and take it seriously if it’s at all unclear.
Well, let's hope it's an unfunny in joke
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/eacc-effective-accelerationism
If ironic I guess it's pretty funny. But I do think that there is a real resurgence of eugenics in the hearts of man, that's just waiting for new name to again sweep the hearts and minds of so called intelligentsia and the powerful.
I prefer to think of it as avoiding false confidence. We start in ignorance (not knowing what they're talking about, in this case - what the heck is this meme?) and unless someone digs up some reliable information, it's difficult to move beyond that.
That's primarily about epistemology, not morality. I do think that communicating clearly is better than muddying the waters with the apparent noise they're putting out, but there's lots of noise on the Internet.
The blog post is from last year, but e/acc is getting a little media press recently. It seems to be mostly a Twitter meme that a few venture capitalists put in their profile. Somehow that makes it news, but there doesn't seem to be much substance to it?