Dun Manifestoin'

For the longest time, my friends used to insist I was anti-technology. This was despite that I used Linux long before any of them did, had dealt with the agony that is the vi "text editor", that I know multiple programming languages, routinely use LaTeX instead of Word, do CGI as a hobby, operated the then-world's largest radio telescope as my day job... I mean, what gives ? My whole life is mainly digital, for crying out loud.

It was because at the time, I didn't have a mobile phone, and still to this day have never used Facebook.

I mean, good grief.

But despite a largely digital existence, I do not align myself with the "techbro" culture that dominates Silicon Valley and certain sectors of reddit. Cryptocurrency I believe is an outright scam while NFTs aren't even at that level of credibility. Believers in such things are at best extremely foolish and misguided techno-Utopians, which is not a description I'd apply to myself. I would, however, very happily profess to being a techno-optimist.

That is, until I discovered the Techno-Optimist Manifesto. Now I'm going to have to be very much more careful in applying that label to myself, because I don't want to be associated with such things. I'd sooner spit at the author in the street than join that club.

First (and be advised this post is mostly prologue), let me clarify what I mean by utopian and optimist in this context. I'm an optimist in that I believe technological development is generally, but not exclusively, a positive thing that makes life better. I believe some problems are purely or largely technological in nature, and that solutions to such problems lie mainly in further development : if your code has bugs, the usual solution is to fix the bugs, not delete the code. I believe some aspects of life can be best improved with R&D rather than political or economic solutions. I believe that the desire to learn more is inherently a good thing, that knowledge for knowledge's sake is a valuable end unto itself, that tool use, curiosity, and the desire to improve our material conditions are innate parts of the human condition, not some peculiar by-product of modern civilisation. 

"Life is not a problem to be solved,", said Frank Herbert, "but a reality to be experienced". I agree. But part of that experience is in the joy of solving problems, finding things out, experiencing new realities. There is no paradox or contradiction here, only a pleasing linguistic irony.

And note the many provisional clauses above, because these really are vital : mainly, generally, some, usual. Not all problems are technological or even material, and even not all of these are necessarily best solved through research : sometimes it may be necessary to take a new development and burn it in the fire. In the main I doubt this, but sometimes this can happen. 

Herein lies the difference, as I see it, with techno-utopians a.k.a. techbros. They omit all these caveats. They essentially claim that all, or at least the overwhelming majority, of problems are technological in nature and thus can only be solved through further development. A techno-optimist might make some exaggerated claims as a rhetorical point of persuasion, or at most get carried away in the moment; a techbro really believes the most outlandishly optimistic projections. A technoptimist might say that maybe technological solutions are the largest, pluralistic aspect of a problem but not the majority; a techbro would say that they are either totally dominant over everything else or that nothing else matters at all.

In short, tech optimism accepts the limitations of technology without denying its importance. Techbros think that all problems are materialistic and nothing else matters much in any sphere of life. Techbros insist that actual miracles will occur within the very near future (but never quite right now), and, perhaps most importantly of all, demand everyone else believe the same thing. Techbros are very much against unbelievers whereas technoptimists think life's too short to join such a silly cult.

All this lengthy introduction means I can now deal with the so-called "Manifesto" very briefly. Honestly, it's the stupidest thing I've ever read in my entire life. Most of my notes scrawled on it are expletives. It's not often I read someone's stuff for the first time and immediately wish unpleasant things to befall them, but this is one of those times.

And remember, I have literally argued with people about triangles. When I say this is even stupider than that, this claim should have some force to it.

As this perfectly respectable article points out, manifestos are supposed to fire up your own base. They aren't intended to rigorously prove a point or consider alternatives. They're chest-thumping, emotive pieces. Fair enough I suppose, but this feels like a really stupid issue to write a polemic about. If I weren't so darn busy, I'd probably be tempted to write my own counterpiece of vitriolic nonsense in response. 

Fortunately I just don't have time for that. I think I've probably given enough of the gist of the bits of the manifesto-polemic I do agree with (and there are a few) already, so I'm just going to pick a few highlights of the bits I most detest. Here I omit all the extremely irritating "we believes" which begin practically every sentence.

Developed societies are depopulating all over the world, across cultures – the total human population may already be shrinking.

There is no material problem – whether created by nature or by technology – that cannot be solved with more technology.

Centralized planning is doomed to fail, the system of production and consumption is too complex. Decentralization harnesses complexity for the benefit of everyone; centralization will starve you to death... Markets prevent monopolies and cartels.

Even in totalitarian regimes, an incremental lifting of the repressive boot off the throat of the people and their ability to produce and trade leads to rapidly rising incomes and standards of living. Lift the boot a little more, even better. Take the boot off entirely, who knows how rich everyone can get.

Central economic planning elevates the worst of us and drags everyone down; markets exploit the best of us to benefit all of us. 

Our planet is dramatically underpopulated, compared to the population we could have with abundant intelligence, energy, and material goods. The global population can quite easily expand to 50 billion people or more, and then far beyond that as we ultimately settle other planets.

However, we are not Utopians.

We are not victims, we are conquerors.

A Universal Basic Income would turn people into zoo animals to be farmed by the state. Man was not meant to be farmed; man was meant to be useful, to be productive, to be proud.

My expletive-laded hyperbolic comments include such simple things as "fuck off and die", "I hope you boil", "please die now quietly in a ditch somewhere", "seriously, fuck off", "you are utterly mad", "you're all idiots and I hate you", "HAH HAH HAH HAH !" (in response to "we are not Utopians"), and, "you're like what would happen if Stephen Pinker and Rutger Bregman made a baby and dropped it on its head".

I mean, I did think about righting a proper rebuttal. I did consider pointing out the contradiction in saying that technology makes all work redundant but also generates more work. I thought about ranting about just how much of this verbal diarrhoea is about market forces rather than technology. And I thought about pointing out, in fairness, that yes, perhaps research and development will allow ever-more progress in technology and economic growth without causing ever more depletion of the natural world (human economics being a largely artificial construct anyway), while all the while having nothing but the most scathing attempt for the notion that the planet could or should support 50 billion of us.

But I decided to do none of that. This rambling bit of effluence is clearly not aimed at fostering rational argument, so I see no need to bother.