Some Thoughts on Marc Andreessen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto
"The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." - William Gibson
Having read through Marc Andreessen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto I can say that it hasn't altered how I feel about the future, which is to say: Very cautiously optimistic. There is much in his manifesto with which I agree, particularly around Andreessen's positioning of free markets, money and wealth, technology, and productivity. There is also a lot that I see in the world and understand about human nature to leave me feeling something less than hopeful on his points for creating the future he envisions. The common theme, in my view, with these points is that success relies on some amazingly large collaboration "if's" and leaps of faith by humanity as a whole. There isn't anything humanity has done as a whole except eat, drink, and copulate.
"Techno-Optimists believe that societies, like sharks, grow or die."
I think sharks have to constantly move or they die. Grow vs move is a big difference. Even then, it's not entirely true. Fact-checking aside, it's a weak metaphor.
"We believe not growing is stagnation, which leads to zero-sum thinking, internal fighting, degradation, collapse, and ultimately death."
This can be extended into areas other than economics where growth is important, such as personal and professional growth or knowledge.
"We had a problem of isolation, so we invented the Internet."
Some have argued the Internet has made us even more isolated in some very profound ways.
"Give us a real world problem, and we can invent technology that will solve it."
I think this is true. However, we're not great at defining "realness" or "world" or just what the problems are. Huge sums of money spent on developing self-driving cars or EV's, for example. Laws are created or changed to accommodate technologies like this. And yet the low hanging fruit that would have a significant impact in achieving the same goals is left on the vine. Andreessen gets to this later when he talks about nuclear energy, something else I wholeheartedly support.
"We believe that technology ultimately drives the world to what Buckminster Fuller called 'ephemeralization' – what economists call 'dematerialization'. Fuller: 'Technology lets you do more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing.'"
I have to admit, I don't know what this looks like. It sounds like chaos. Or another form of stagnation. People's brains lock up with too much choice or if the decision burden is too great. Also, there’s no free lunch.
"We believe technological progress therefore leads to material abundance for everyone."
There's a section in Andreessen's manifesto on abundance. After reading it, I was left wondering about when is enough enough? What is to be done with waste - something humans seem to be exceedingly good at creating? What happens to our sense of satisfaction when abundance is unlimited? We see in today's affluent societies the detrimental effects of consumerism, planned obsolescence, and status assignment to material things. If status is a fundamental driver to human behavior, as research has suggested, what scary things with humans do with a machine that delivers unlimited abundance? Is this really a path to a meaningful life? These questions don't seem to factor into Andreessen's manifesto.
"We believe change only happens on the margin – but a lot of change across a very large margin can lead to big outcomes."
This resonates with how I think about the adjacent possible. Expand the horizon (or margin) and more ideas can play together and be combined in interesting ways.
"We believe that we are, have been, and will always be the masters of technology, not mastered by technology. Victim mentality is a curse in every domain of life, including in our relationship with technology – both unnecessary and self-defeating. We are not victims, we are conquerors."
...and...
"We believe in ambition, aggression, persistence, relentlessness – strength."
...and...
"We believe in the actual Scientific Method and enlightenment values of free discourse and challenging the authority of experts."
There's an entire culture emerging from academia and deep state bureaucrats bent on insuring beliefs like this will be actively suppressed and punished. The consequences will be both intentional and unintentional. (Imagine the consequences when decolonized mathematics are applied to the design of nuclear reactors or entitlement addled workers are in charge of maintaining the power grid or graduates from Fill-In-The-Blank Victim Studies programs are making laws.) But Andreessen knows this.
"Our present society has been subjected to a mass demoralization campaign for six decades – against technology and against life – under varying names like “existential risk”, “sustainability”, “ESG”, “Sustainable Development Goals”, “social responsibility”, “stakeholder capitalism”, “Precautionary Principle”, “trust and safety”, “tech ethics”, “risk management”, “de-growth”, “the limits of growth”."
...
*"Our enemy is anti-merit, anti-ambition, anti-striving, anti-achievement, anti-greatness.
Our enemy is statism, authoritarianism, collectivism, central planning, socialism.
Our enemy is bureaucracy, vetocracy, gerontocracy, blind deference to tradition.
Our enemy is corruption, regulatory capture, monopolies, cartels."*
The list goes on.
On balance, I like what Andreessen has written. But like all manifestos, I hold it suspect and not something to rally behind. It's held aloft on gossamer wings and doesn't acknowledge the weaknesses inherent in life on the planet. The power grid isn't a given and global conflict isn't outside the realm of possibility, just to name a few unaddressed risks. While William Gibson's words - "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." - certainly hold true, there is a corollary that is equally present: "The past is gone, it's just that the garbage it left behind hasn't been collected and disposed of yet."
If you have any questions, need anything clarified, or have something else on your mind, please use the comments section or email me directly.