Effective Accelerationism
Description
Luo P/Acc :
The E/acc (Effective Accelerationism) movement ... believes that humanity should accelerate the development of cutting-edge technologies such as AI without restrictions, ultimately promoting human evolution. The term E/acc was originally invented as a joke, playing on the word Effective Altruism (E/A), and first appeared in a casual conversation on X space between two Silicon Valley programmers. Later, well-known venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, founder of A16Z, and Garry Tan, CEO of YC incubator, added “E/acc” to their X account profiles. After the big shots supported it, many people followed suit and added the E/acc suffix. Although there are forums and websites dedicated to E/acc, it remains a chaotic movement, as each person claiming to be E/acc does not have a unified definition for it.
...
E/Acc was invented to counter the arguments of AI skeptics, blending fragments of old accelerationism and engineers’ Darwinian epistemology. Its sophistry is the “party of industry” (developmentism) routine, where the so-called “social problems arising from the rapid progress of technology can be solved by developing technology rapidly.” This is a strategy of overextending societal resources by extrapolating the techno-centrism to the extreme. E/Acc’s initial point appropriates thermodynamic laws, creating an illusion of a fate like “forbidden intervention”. The notion that “technology is sacred and detached from society, able to externally determine social progress” can be summarized as “techno-centrism/technological determinism,” which can be traced back to Saint-Simon’s expert technocratic rule theory, accompanying the popular understanding of the history of science and technology in textbooks. This kind of technological fetishism actually hinders people’s understanding of technological relationships."
Characteristics
"According to the E/Acc forum, the main points can be summarized as follows:
- Accelerationism refers to the accelerating spiral state of positive feedback coupling between technology and capital.
- Analogous to the second law of thermodynamics, the complexity of the universe is irreversibly increasing, and the level of technological intelligence in human society should also accelerate.
- The development of AI technology is unstoppable, and those who oppose AI are only worried because they do not understand the technology. Artificial intelligence carries certain risks, and more people should be encouraged to join this technological wave. Open sourcing and accelerating are necessary to promote the benign development of technology, rather than restricting or delaying AI technology.
- The public sector of human society (government, NGOs, scientific associations) cannot manage AI, and should fully let go to allow AI to accelerate. AI systems will evolve to a state of mutual balance.
- Existing social problems may be ignored, and allowing technology to advance unchecked may exacerbate social conflicts, but as technology advances to a certain extent, old social problems will be solved effortlessly."
(via [1])
Movements
Alternatives to E/Acc:
AI Alignment
Luo P/Acc :
"AI Alignment
Advocates for slowing down the development pace of general artificial intelligence technology, increasing the focus on the public benefits, ethical discussions, and human values of technology, introducing humanistic value judgments in the AI development process, ensuring that AI technology will not spiral out of control and pose a threat to human society. British professor Geoffrey Hinton, a pioneer in convolutional neural network theory and a foundational scientist in the current AI technology advancement, is known as the “godfather of artificial intelligence.” After leaving Google, he has been calling for cautious handling of AI technology and has become a representative of the AI Alignment camp. OpenAI’s Chief Scientist Ilya is Hinton’s proud disciple, and he is promoting a project within OpenAI called the “Super Alignment Program” to ensure that AI machines align with human intentions and values. This includes understanding both the explicit and implicit intentions of humans, such as authenticity, fairness, and safety. Previously, OpenAI’s two independent directors, Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley, both lean towards the AI Alignment camp."
D/Acc (Decentralized Accelerationism)
Luc P/ACC :
"The prominent figure in the contemporary blockchain industry, Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum, introduced the concept of D/acc in his blog post “My techno-optimism,” in response to Anderson’s “Techno-optimism Manifesto”. (Original article link: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html)
Vitalik has a dual background as a developer and journalist, inheriting the ideals of crypto-punk and advocating for the public value of technology for good. As a leader of the industry’s largest public blockchain — Ethereum, Vitalik holds a certain influence among developers and investors.
In this article, Vitalik attempts to embrace various technological ideologies within the vision framework of D/Acc. Examples include E/Acc, effective altruism (E/A), libertarianism, pluralism, public healthcare, blockchainism, solarpunk, and lunarpunk. The “d” in D/Acc can represent many concepts, especially defense, decentralization, democracy, and differentiation.
Vitalik borrowed the classic work “The Art of Not Being Governed” by anthropologist James C. Scott, in which Scott proposed the social forms and production methods of resistance to centralized power formation in the mountainous region of Zomia in Southeast Asia, corresponding to the proverb “The emperor is far away in the mountains”.
Vitalik listed a series of blockchain technologies that can serve as methods for individuals to resist data surveillance. Zero-knowledge proofs can be used for privacy protection, allowing users to verify without revealing personal information. Such technologies can allow us to maintain the benefits of privacy and anonymity — attributes that are widely considered necessary for applications such as voting — while still providing security guarantees and combating spam and malicious actors. This can allow users and communities to verify trustworthiness without compromising privacy, protect their security, and avoid relying on centralized bottlenecks that impose definitions of who is good or bad.
For example:
- The digital passport signature is encapsulated in ZK-SNARK, which can prove that you are a unique citizen of a specific country/region without revealing which country you are from. Zupass, incubated by Zuzalu, has been used by hundreds of people and recently by Devconnect (which allows users to hold tickets, memberships, (non-transferable) digital collectibles, and other proofs). Pol.is uses a similar algorithm to Community Notes (and applies it earlier than Community Notes) to help communities identify points of consensus between sub-tribes.
In the article, Vitalik also acknowledges “super alignment” as a practical compromise that allows developers to more consciously ensure that what they are doing can help human flourishing without interrupting the progress of research and development. “By embedding human feedback at every step of the decision-making process, we reduce the motivation to transfer high-level planning responsibilities to artificial intelligence itself, thereby reducing the chances of AI itself doing things that are completely at odds with human values.” If we want a future where superintelligence coexists with “humanity,” where humans are not just pets but actually retain meaningful agency in this world."
History
Luo/Acc:
The lineage of accelerationism — from artistic concepts to cosmic technology
"The ideology of accelerationism can be traced back to the early 20th century Futurism movement, where a group of artists and thinkers emerged with a reverence for technological innovation and the speed of machines brought about by the Second Industrial Revolution. The Italian writer Marinetti, a prominent figure in the early 20th-century Futurist movement, published the “Futurist Manifesto” in the newspaper “Le Figaro” on February 20, 1909.
“We affirm that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing car, its hood adorned with great pipes, like serpents of explosive breath… a roaring car that seems to ride on grapeshot is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.”
Futurism, as a radical ideology, had contrasting political stances. Italian Futurists later embraced fascism, while Russian Futurists fully supported the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, joining the wave of communist revolutionary movements.
Contemporary accelerationism emerged in the UK, with the establishment of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) at the University of Warwick in 1995 by Nick Land and several colleagues. They delved into science fiction, rave culture, mysticism, and psychedelic experiences. Drawing on Deleuze’s concept of “nomadism,” the CCRU was envisioned as a nomadic academic organization without a central authority or formal agenda, existing for only two years.
The accelerationists of the CCRU were influenced by the shift towards post-structuralism in France. The young psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan was an early explorer of European cybernetic thought; Deleuze in “Anti-Oedipus” aimed to de-territorialize and release flows beyond capitalist control; philosophers like Guattari and Lyotard had deduced theoretical paradigms as: information, data, encoding, decoding…
Nick Land believed that in the modern world, technology and capital had become coupled in a spiral of accelerating states. The potential energy of techno-capitalism resembled a pendulum clock, where historical capitalism, due to various social and political resistances, had not fully unleashed itself, not swinging entirely to the “right” extreme. Only by accelerating fully to one side’s extreme could it leverage potential energy to swing back to the other extreme, completing a “thorough acceleration revolution.” Thus, to make capitalism rush towards an ultimate catastrophe within acceleration, to “bring it to its deathbed before rebirth,” intensifying the contradictions of capitalism to lead to its self-destruction as a means of overcoming it. In recent years, Nick Land has become a theoretical totem of the American alternative right.
...
In 2013, Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek published the “Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics” on the platform “Critical Legal Thinking,” sharply outlining the political agenda of contemporary left-wing accelerationism.
The manifesto argues that humanity faces difficult choices, with the earth’s ecology heading towards collapse under the ravages of capitalism. It suggests the need for an effective anti-global capitalist solution that would reconfigure the contemporary political landscape in a left-wing direction. The discourse of acceleration can be understood as the opposite of the discourse of resistance. The manifesto opposes the “nurturing enclosed spaces” within contemporary left-wing camps, arguing that identity politics and small community autonomy represent ineffective forms of resistance.
Just as Marx used the most advanced theoretical tools and empirical data to thoroughly understand and change his world, the manifesto states that the left should combine with cutting-edge technology and science to break through the limitations of capitalism. While capitalism once liberated productivity, it now increasingly restricts technological productivity. The left, by reclaiming leadership in technological innovation, aims to restructure the material platforms of production, finance, logistics, and consumption towards public value."
Punk Accelerationism
Luo P/Acc:
"Based on the political economy analysis of data labor earlier discussed, when digital nomads — super-individuals oriented towards decentralized platform cooperation or anti-capitalist tech politics — conceive a form of punk accelerationism (P-Acc) in the following way:
Creators with a tech-political consciousness use web3/AI technology to control their data labor outcomes, preventing monopolization by tech giants. They form entrepreneurial communities with diverse skills, liberating creativity, driving projects through a platform cooperative model. They simultaneously establish democratic and autonomous digital nomad community networks worldwide, expanding individual data sovereignty to societal data sovereignty, promoting universal basic income, and fostering social justice.
Similar to punks, they release aggressive, escapist, and negating energy, disrupting existing technology-capital reproductive structures, improvising and creating possibilities for alternative technology routes on a daily basis, transforming corporate workers into digital nomads:
In the AI field, creating more technical interfaces to help ordinary creators; in the web3 field, developing more products that promote data sovereignty and assist community autonomy, instead of engaging in coin speculation financial games. Lowering the barriers to entry for workers to use these tools, making them as easily accessible as smartphones. Empowering more workers to reclaim their data production means.
Spreading tech-political awareness, establishing platforms for platform cooperation, public sociology, socialist feminism, ecological anthropology, and other sustainable theories.
Through the emancipated creators discussed above, breaking down disciplinary barriers, fostering open collaboration, encouraging cross-disciplinary integration, creating new forms of cooperation, and social relationship networks. Exploring entrepreneurial models that are less focused on capitalization, adopting a platform cooperative model, developing alternative technological infrastructure, and strengthening the positive feedback loop in the aforementioned steps.
Simultaneously, establishing democratic and autonomous digital nomad community networks worldwide. This is a complex, challenging, and controversial entrepreneurial process, involving post-colonial criticisms and self-critique, returns on family-social labor divisions, integration of local ethnic communities, and managing existing power dynamics. In daily practice, designing communal communities and public life artistry that accommodates both human and non-human residents."
Discussion
Vitalik Buterin:
"Over the last few months, the "e/acc" ("effective accelerationist") movement has gained a lot of steam. Summarized by "Beff Jezos" here, e/acc is fundamentally about an appreciation of the truly massive benefits of technological progress, and a desire to accelerate this trend to bring those benefits sooner.
I find myself sympathetic to the e/acc perspective in a lot of contexts. There's a lot of evidence that the FDA is far too conservative in its willingness to delay or block the approval of drugs, and bioethics in general far too often seems to operate by the principle that "20 people dead in a medical experiment gone wrong is a tragedy, but 200000 people dead from life-saving treatments being delayed is a statistic". The delays to approving covid tests and vaccines, and malaria vaccines, seem to further confirm this. However, it is possible to take this perspective too far.
In addition to my AI-related concerns, I feel particularly ambivalent about the e/acc enthusiasm for military technology. In the current context in 2023, where this technology is being made by the United States and immediately applied to defend Ukraine, it is easy to see how it can be a force for good. Taking a broader view, however, enthusiasm about modern military technology as a force for good seems to require believing that the dominant technological power will reliably be one of the good guys in most conflicts, now and in the future: military technology is good because military technology is being built and controlled by America and America is good. Does being an e/acc require being an America maximalist, betting everything on both the government's present and future morals and the country's future success?
On the other hand, I see the need for new approaches in thinking of how to reduce these risks. The OpenAI governance structure is a good example: it seems like a well-intentioned effort to balance the need to make a profit to satisfy investors who provide the initial capital with the desire to have a check-and-balance to push against moves that risk OpenAI blowing up the world. In practice, however, their recent attempt to fire Sam Altman makes the structure seem like an abject failure: it centralized power in an undemocratic and unaccountable board of five people, who made key decisions based on secret information and refused to give any details on their reasoning until employees threatened to quit en-masse. Somehow, the non-profit board played their hands so poorly that the company's employees created an impromptu de-facto union... to side with the billionaire CEO against them.
Across the board, I see far too many plans to save the world that involve giving a small group of people extreme and opaque power and hoping that they use it wisely. And so I find myself drawn to a different philosophy, one that has detailed ideas for how to deal with risks, but which seeks to create and maintain a more democratic world and tries to avoid centralization as the go-to solution to our problems. This philosophy also goes quite a bit broader than AI, and I would argue that it applies well even in worlds where AI risk concerns turn out to be largely unfounded. I will refer to this philosophy by the name of d/acc."
(https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html)
Critique of E/Acc by Molly White
Molly White:
"While effective altruists view artificial intelligence as an existential risk that could threaten humanity, and often push for a slower timeline in developing it (though they push for developing it nonetheless), there is a group with a different outlook: the effective accelerationists.
This ideology has been embraced by some powerful figures in the tech industry, including Andreessen Horowitz’s Marc Andreessen, who published a manifesto in October in which he worshipped the “techno-capital machine”5 as a force destined to bring about an “upward spiral” if not constrained by those who concern themselves with such concepts as ethics, safety, or sustainability.
Those who seek to place guardrails around technological development are no better than murderers, he argues, for putting themselves in the way of development that might produce lifesaving AI.
This is the core belief of effective accelerationism: that the only ethical choice is to put the pedal to the metal on technological progress, pushing forward at all costs, because the hypothetical upside far outweighs the risks identified by those they brush aside as “doomers” or “decels” (decelerationists).
Despite their differences on AI, effective altruism and effective accelerationism share much in common (in addition to the similar names). Just like effective altruism, effective accelerationism can be used to justify nearly any course of action an adherent wants to take.
Both ideologies embrace as a given the idea of a super-powerful artificial general intelligence being just around the corner, an assumption that leaves little room for discussion of the many ways that AI is harming real people today. This is no coincidence: when you can convince everyone that AI might turn everyone into paperclips tomorrow, or on the flip side might cure every disease on earth, it’s easy to distract people from today’s issues of ghost labor, algorithmic bias, and erosion of the rights of artists and others. This is incredibly convenient for the powerful individuals and companies who stand to profit from AI.
And like effective altruists, effective accelerationists are fond of waxing philosophical, often with great verbosity and with great surety that their ideas are the peak of rational thought.
Effective accelerationists in particular also like to suggest that their ideas are grounded in scientific concepts like thermodynamics and biological adaptation, a strategy that seems designed to woo the technologist types who are primed to put more stock in something that sounds scientific, even if it’s nonsense. For example, the inaugural Substack post defining effective accelerationisms’s “principles and tenets” name-drops the “Jarzynski-Crooks fluctuation dissipation theorem” and suggests that “thermodynamic bias” will ensure only positive outcomes reward those who insatiably pursue technological development. Effective accelerationists also claim to have “no particular allegiance to the biological substrate”, with some believing that humans must inevitably forgo these limiting, fleshy forms of ours “to spread to the stars”, embracing a future that they see mostly — if not entirely — revolving around machines."
(https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/effective-obfuscation)
From Punk Accelerationism to Super-Individuals
Luo/Acc:
"“Punk Accelerationism.”
With the wave of AI agents triggered by ChatGPT, the concept of “super-individuals” has become popular. This concept can be seen as an advanced version of “digital nomads” and “slash youth” in the realm of AI.
“Super-individuals” can be defined as individuals who are proficient in multiple professional skills, detached from traditional employment relationships in companies, and independently engage in commercial activities for monetization. These individuals mostly master cutting-edge technologies, with AI tools serving as advanced productivity, Web3 tools shaping advanced production relations, and streaming media or the Metaverse acting as production domains. Super-individuals who establish profitable business models are then regarded as “one-person companies.”
From freelancers, slash youth, digital nomads, to super-individuals, all these are enticing but flawed promises for workers, as neoliberalism continues to construct increasingly extreme narratives of individual success. Completely free-flowing labor forces no longer strive for collective public welfare and social security. Instead, they rely on individual talent to drive profits, which is most favorable for the labor market under neoliberalism.
These narratives absorb the legacy of the 1960s youth cultural revolution and the resentment towards contemporary white-collar workers. Indeed, the majority of white-collar workers cannot seamlessly transition into digital nomads or super-individuals, as it requires the courage to face risks and the ability to stand alone. Quitting a job to chill for a while until savings run out, then returning to the office, is akin to a condensed version of the hippie history of the 1960s.
Decades of neoliberalism have led to the shrinkage of public welfare, extreme compression of labor remuneration rates, and a reduction in industry positions with excess profits. Being anti-office drone, anti-serf, quitting a crappy job become the prevailing youth ideology. “Lying flat” is a significant rejection of the biopolitics of capitalism. When politics no longer offers public solutions, work fails to sustain a respectable living, and the core family unit struggles to adapt to rapidly changing youth cultures. Breaking away from traditional institutions such as the state, corporations, and family, forsaking negotiation needs, losing publicness completely, also signifies the potential for establishing another form of publicness.
Digital Nomads — super individuals are keenly aware that neoliberal employment relationships constrain productivity and deplete vitality. Therefore, they cleanse themselves of the mundane and come ashore. Starting from Deleuze’s theory, digital nomads — super individuals are distinctly flag-bearers of de-territorialized individuals, seeking escape routes within outdated relationships, reassembling their own production relationships (web3) and production spaces (streaming media — remote work), utilizing the most advanced means of production (AI) to uncover creative potential.
Excluding the entrepreneurial path of capital reproduction, can this de-territorializing force lead to platform cooperation or anti-capitalist technological politics? In other words, how is it possible to reverse engineer the “super individual”?
Assuming that technologically conscious super individuals, through web3/AI technologies, hold exclusive data to avoid monopolization by tech giants and form entrepreneurial communities among diverse skilled super individuals, liberating creativity. By driving projects in a platform-cooperative manner while simultaneously establishing democratic autonomous digital nomad community networks worldwide, expanding individual data sovereignty into collective data sovereignty, and promoting universal Basic Income (UBI). Is this a potential pathway for the future?"
Could AI, web3, and the Metaverse become liberation machines for contemporary corporate warriors?
Luo P/Acc:
"In his article “Xu Yu: What Will Begin after the End of the Enlightenment Movement?”, the technology philosopher Xu Yu proposed an understanding of accelerationism: In physics, velocity is a vector that includes speed and direction. Velocity is displacement divided by time, speed is distance divided by time. Acceleration is velocity divided by time. Changing velocity no longer focuses on speed, but on changing the direction of velocity, becoming a more radical form of “acceleration” scheme — no longer limited by the speed of capitalist technological iteration, but by the vector speed brought by the diversity of the multiverse technology, leading to a pluralized future.
“We can change the direction of velocity, not just the magnitude of speed. From the perspective of time and technological development, how can technology be given a new framework and direction? In this way, we can also imagine bifurcation in the future, this bifurcation no longer leads to doomsday, but separates from the direction of doomsday and forms many branches. But what does providing a new framework for technology mean? To do this, we must rethink and study epistemological and knowledge-type problems systematically — inspired by the diversity of multiverse technology, or simply put, inspired by the historical and still effective technological diversity — thinking about how to reconfigure modern technology.”
Up to this point, the article has gone through a technological journey from contemporary artificial intelligence, blockchain, to early computers and the internet, hoping to explore a future-oriented technological political perspective, not just to commemorate forgotten, lost historical possibilities, but also to create the future in the present moment. The readers in front of the screen, the creators operating keyboards, mice, LCD screens, personal computers, phones, VR… These data labor tools all embody the escape and convergence of technological governance by generations of authors in the history of technology society. Each technological object is the result of the participation of various social forces and political visions. These technological objects have become data labor tools today, not only meaning that workers are incorporated into a new technological governance system, but also indicating the agency of each creator in the use of data labor tools. When each creator can consciously use the tools in their hands in every subtle daily life and collective action, they will form tiny rotational vectors of accelerationism, and after numerous tiny rotational vectors merge, they will shape new technological vectors pointing to the future, rotating the wheel of new vectors of cyberpunk accelerationism (P-Acc), guiding us towards a pluralistic future."
The militaristic and 'techno-fascist' aspects of E/Acc
Venture Capital Status:
"Organized enough to be properly called a movement, adherents identify as “effective accelerationists”, or “e/acc”; this is partially a reaction to the “effective altruism” philanthropy movement, often abbreviated to “EA”. “E/acc” serves as a social signifier and is, for example, placed in social media bios of tech workers and engineers. It is used almost exclusively in the tech world and is an ideology of the tech class.
Their public argument is that tech accelerationism – rapidly speeding up the rate of technological change under venture capitalism – will lead to the best outcomes for society and humanity. This ideology cannot be separated from the fact that such a program would primarily benefit venture capital and the tech class, leading to a massive increase in their wealth and power. “Accelerationism” in the form of unregulated and grossly funded venture capital firms, will support their crypto economic system, the profitability of their portfolio companies, their colonial development; in a word, allowing their small economic class to dramatically increase and consolidate their power.
Within different schools of accelerationism, different metrics are the target of “acceleration”; in all cases, something material is accelerated. In this case, you see people use “bio/ecc” or “defi/acc” to denote biotech accelerationism or distributed finance accelerationism. Tech acceleration focuses specifically on core technologies in which they have massive investments: weapons development, artificial intelligence, energy production and biotech.
For example, the model of war proposed by the largest venture capital startup, Anduril, involves moving military development and production into Silicon Valley; what is often described as “accelerationism” by tech ideologues is simply the handing over of large government contracts to venture capital, or the absorption of other capital structures into venture capital. It also includes massive increases in military spending as well as re-armament of US allies. From the book, The Kill Chain, written by Anduril head of strategy Christian Brose:
“Washington leaders pay lip service to the importance of alliances. What we often convey through our actions, however, is that allies are nice to have, but if push really comes to shove, we prefer to do the hard things on our own. This must change for America to deny China military dominance… America needs our allies to be capable of immediately defending themselves and us from any acts of aggression. We also need our allies to be willing to host significantly larger amounts of US military power than they do now, because America no longer has the luxury of commuting to future conflicts from stateside bases on multi month deployment schedules.”
One element of accelerationism is simply the total expansion of the surveillance net; ie. The Kill Chain also discusses how “Satellites will always be there, everywhere, providing constant surveillance of the entire world.” Larry Ellison of Oracle, a close associate of Elon Musk, recently commented of AI that “We’re going to have supervision. Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.” Usage of blockchain technology in and of itself expands surveillance as a permanent data store.
The notion of accelerationism translates directly into policy edicts that support accelerationism – such as removal of regulations, FDA processes, AI safety teams, DEI, taxes and other functions and processes that can constrain venture capital – up to and including democracy. They believe in abolishing the FDA and implementing “consent only” testing, accomplished by setting up their own colonies where they are able to do unregulated medical experiments. With thousands of biotech startups they want to accelerate, this is a primary driver of the Network State. Unregulated medical experiments and gene therapies are being conducted on the Network State settlement Próspera in Honduras, as well as through Zuzalu, a “floating city” focused on biomedical experimentation.
Accelerationism is addressed in Marc Andreesen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto (see also “Techno-Optimism”):
- “Ray Kurzweil defines his Law of Accelerating Returns: Technological advances tend to feed on themselves, increasing the rate of further advance. We believe in accelerationism – the conscious and deliberate propulsion of technological development – to ensure the fulfillment of the Law of Accelerating Returns. To ensure the techno-capital upward spiral continues forever. We believe the techno-capital machine is not anti-human – in fact, it may be the most pro-human thing there is. It serves us. The techno-capital machine works for us. All the machines work for us. We believe the cornerstone resources of the techno-capital upward spiral are intelligence and energy – ideas, and the power to make them real.”
As in most of their ideology, the desired goal is merely capital accumulation and any reference to material enhancement of the human condition is perfunctory and has the quality of fantasy."
(https://www.vcinfodocs.com/venture-capital-extremism)