Yesterday,
Ethereum
creator
Vitalik
Buterin
published
a
long,
long
blogpost
delineating
a
new
philosophy
of
techno-optimism.
It
is
called
d/acc,
with
the
d
standing
for
decentralization,
defensive
and/or
differential
and
the
“/acc”
a
trendy
shorthand
on
social
media
for
“acceleration.”
This
is
an
excerpt
from
The
Node
newsletter,
a
daily
roundup
of
the
most
pivotal
crypto
news
on
CoinDesk
and
beyond.
You
can
subscribe
to
get
the
full
newsletter
here.
Accelerationism,
once
a
bugbear
of
the
techlashers,
is
an
academic
concept
(originally
looking
into
how
science,
reason
and
technology
drive
progress
throughout
history)
that
escaped
from
the
lab
and
now
essentially
means
“I’m
pro-tech”.
Buterin,
always
thoughtful,
has
found
a
middleway
between
techno
optimism
and
pessimism,
and
argues
that
technology
broadly
speaking
is
good
but
some
technologies
are
better
than
others
and
some
technologies
can
be
net
negative.
As
The
Defiant’s
Cami
Russo
already
wonderfully
summarized:
“Buterin’s
‘d/acc’
philosophy
advocates
for
a
deliberate
and
balanced
path
in
technological
development,
focusing
on
technologies
that
ensure
defense,
decentralization,
and
human
flourishing.
“The
concept
emerges
as
a
counterbalance
to
the
unbridled
techno-optimism
espoused
by
figures
like
Marc
Andreessen
and
challenges
the
e/acc
(effective
accelerationist)
movement.”
Indeed,
Buterin
comes
right
out
and
says
he
is
responding
to
Andreessen,
the
founder
of
highly
influential
VC
firm
Andreessen
Horowitz
(a16z)
and
builder
of
world’s
first
browser,
Netscape,
who
published
his
“Techno-Optimist
Manifesto”
to
much
aplomb
and
interest
last
month.
Andreessen
says
many
things
about
technology
and
markets,
for
which
he
is
both
in
favor.
Parts
of
his
manifesto
could
be
read
aloud
at
a
slam
poetry
open
mic.
It
is
extremely
aphoristic,
and
only
slightly
repetitive
(i.e.
could
not
the
section
on
“abundance,”
also
good,
be
inferred
by
previous
statements
about
how
more
“energy”
is
better,
through
which
humanity
builds
and
enjoys
things?).
But
I’m
not
a
billionaire,
so
who
am
I
to
judge?
The
important
thing
is
that
Andreessen-aligned
techno-optimists
believe
that
“technology
is
a
lever
on
the
world
–
the
way
to
make
more
with
less.”
This
means
technologies
like
AI,
nuclear
and
markets
should
be
unfettered.
Competition
leads
to
progress,
because
it
increases
choice
and
is
something
of
an
evolutionary
process.
Much
of
this
Buterin
seemingly
believes,
too.
Though
Buterin
is
smart
enough
not
to
mention
controversial
arch-accelerationist
Nick
Land,
and
potentially
have
his
ideas
dismissed
immediately
by
association.
These
dismissive
people
probably
also
believe
in
things
like
“deceleration”
and
“de-growth,”
or
slowing
down
technology
and
making
the
economy
pocket-sized;
these
are
some
of
Andreessen’s
“enemies.”
See
also:
Why
Bitcoin
Needs
Philosophy
|
Opinion
Though
Andreessen
has
many
enemies,
including
Malthus,
the
guy
who
incorrectly
predicted
that
overpopulation
would
crush
Britain,
because
he
did
not
have
the
foresight
to
imagine
the
Industrial
Revolution
or
advancements
like
chemical
nitrates
in
agriculture,
Andreesen
does
not
consider
that
technology
can
sometimes
be
an
enemy
to
humanity.
To
my
knowledge,
Andreessen
does
not
once
mention
that
technologies
sometimes
pose
risks.
Not
the
small
or
the
big,
like
microplastics
or
global
warming.
Which
is
unfortunate,
because
he
spends
much
time
thinking
about
the
children,
who
are
the
future,
but
cannot
be
the
future
if
they
have
thalidomide
poisoning.Thankfully,
this
is
where
Buterin
comes
in.
Buterin,
as
mentioned,
is
keenly
aware
that
digital
technologies
can
be
used
to
exert
control,
erode
privacy
and
further
authoritarianism.
He
considers
how
industrial
factory
farming
is
likely
to
cause
a
future
pandemic,
given
that
animal
diseases
often
pass
to
humans
like
measles
did.
He
spends
a
lot
of
time
considering
the
hot
topic
of
the
day,
the
risks
of
non-aligned,
or
rogue,
AI.
And
this
is
for
the
better,
because
Buterin
also
spends
a
lot
of
time
in
the
further
reaches
of
reality,
considering
things
like
brain-computer
interfaces,
and
self-administered
open
source
vaccines
and/or
nebulizers
and
…
DAOs.
Everyone
needs
to
be
nebulized
sometimes,
but
technology
giveth
and
taketh,
and
we’d
do
well
to
consider
the
bad
with
the
good.
Both
Andreessen
and
Buterin
know
that
technology
has
often
led
to
human
flourishing
because
signs
that
technology
has
led
to
human
flourishing
are
everywhere,
and
that
is
good
because
humanity
is
good,
and
so
technology
should
be
pursued.
The
difference
is
that
Buterin
acknowledges
this
progress
is
not
a
straight
line
that
moves
like
an
arrow
through
time.
Buterin
also
calls
for
more
collaboration
and,
as
Russo
puts
it,
“intentional
steering”
of
tech,
whereas
Andreesen
seems
to
imply
that
“great
men
make
history”
and
that
technology
is
a
force
that
gushes
out
from
the
unknowable
depths
of
human
ingenuity.
Both
ideas
have
their
virtues,
and
it
sort
of
depends
on
your
point
of
view
(and
testosterone
level)
whether
you
privilege
social
cohesion
or
total
transformation.
Likewise,
both
philosophies
owe
a
debt
to
professional
brain
Steven
Pinker,
who
fell
on
a
thousand
swords
a
few
years
ago
for
deigning
to
say
that
the
world
has
gotten
better
over
time,
largely
due
to
technology
and
reason,
in
“Enlightenment
Now.”
Which
is
to
say,
there
is
likely
still
room
for
MORE
manifestos.
See
also:
Ethereum’s
Political
Philosophy
Explained
|
Opinion
If
two
manifestos
can
be
published
that
essentially
say
the
same
thing,
both
repeating
a
decade-old
book
that
ripped
its
best
ideas
from
Hegel,
who
lived
in
the
1800s,
then
surely
more
can
be
said
about
capital-P
Progress.
Just
make
a
few
slight
alterations;
perhaps
you
give
it
a
globalized
perspective
or
discuss
memetics.
I
will
await
the
treasures
of
your
mind
manifesto.
Although
Buterin
does
a
good
job
explaining
how
“d/acc”
can
fit
well
under
many
political
systems,
including
libertarianism,
effective
altruism
and
the
punks
both
solar
and
lunar,
it
is
still
a
system
with
a
point
of
view.
In
other
words,
like
any
theory,
Buterin’s
is
incomplete
and
can
be
argued
with.
For
instance,
Andreesen
and
Buterin
both
inherently
think
that
this
is
not
the
best
possible
world
—
because
technology
can
always
improve
upon
the
current
moment.
That
is
a
statement!
But
what,
young
Voltaire,
if
you
do
think
this
is
the
best
possible
world?
Can
the
best
possible
world
be
improved
by
technology?
Is
humanity
actually
regressing?
Am
I
indirectly
trying
to
inspire
the
next
Ted
Kaczynski?
It’s
up
to
you
to
decide,
because
everyone
needs
a
manifesto!
