Regenerative Accelerationism

Context

Benjamin Life explains:

"Peter Theil and Nick Land saw capitalism as an alien intelligence accelerating toward posthuman singularity. Marc Andreessen dressed this vision in optimism and called it progress.

Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, recognized the danger and asked what technologies might preserve freedom against technocapitalist authoritarianism.

D/acc was his answer: defensive accelerationism. Build tools that protect rather than control. This was necessary but incomplete.

Regenerative accelerationism, r/acc, is the complement and completion of Vitalik’s d/acc. Regenerative accelerationism means designing systems with the same compounding, recursive properties that make capitalism powerful, but oriented toward re-embedding value in relationships rather than extracting it into abstraction. Community currencies that create local feedback loops. Federated cooperatives where each one makes the next easier to form. Open protocols that accelerate through sharing.

Capitalism did not invent recursive, self-amplifying dynamics. It captured them.

Life itself evolves through feedback loops. Ecosystems strengthen through relationships that compound over time. What capital did was create a domain of abstraction where these dynamics could operate severed from the living systems that generated them.

R/acc builds the alternatives, currencies, cooperatives, protocols, bioregional infrastructure, designed so that each departure from the extractive system strengthens the regenerative one.

This is the essay where I attempt to articulate that framework.

Ultimately, the machine breaks itself. The contradictions are too great. The extraction has gone too far. A system that promises infinite growth on a finite planet will inevitably encounter its limits. It is encountering those limits now.

But we are not fighting the machine on its own terms. We are building something else entirely, something the machine cannot replicate because the machine has already severed itself from the source of what nourishes and sustains, the source we must now call upon to see us through this treacherous passage."

(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/a-regenerative-accelerationist-manifesto?)

Description

Benjamin Life:

"This manifesto proposes regenerative accelerationism, or re/acc, as a complement and completion of Vitalik’s d/acc. Importantly, regenerative accelerationism is distinct from Land’s technocapitalist accelerationism, Andreesen’s techo-optimism, and Thiel’s transhumanist Christian eschatology. Regenerative accelerationism is not the acceleration of capital toward the dissolution of everything human in service of an inhuman Singularity. Neither is it mere resistance against that trajectory.

Regenerative accelerationism accelerates the transition into a regenerative civilization by leaning into capitalism’s runaway feedback loops, not running away from or trying to fix them. Instead of wasting our energy trying to reform the system, we opt out of it while simultaneously re-embedding the tools of capital (currency and computation) to rebuild our own systems that compost energy and resources back into our communities. We fork the source code of society rather than trying to tear it down.

A regenerative civilization is inherently post-capitalist. The contradictions between capitalism’s logic and the wellbeing of living systems cannot be resolved, only composted. We are not going to reform our way to a world that works for all of life. We are going to build alternatives while the old system collapses around us.

Regenerative accelerationism is the practice of building those alternatives with the same self-amplifying dynamics that make capitalism so powerful, but oriented toward life rather than extraction."

(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/a-regenerative-accelerationist-manifesto?)

Characteristics

Michel Bauwens:

In a kind of anticipation of this concept, a series of blog posts in the P2P Foundation blog has referenced the potential of a True Accelerationism, which suggested the following aspects:

• Ecological not extractive

• Distributed not centralized

• Local & bioregional not globalist

• Commons-based not corporate

• Focused on biophysical infrastructure (soil, solar, manufacturing) not digital abstraction alone

Source

1. Michel Bauwens on P2P and Accelerationism (1) [1]
2. True Accelerationism (2): How Soil-Based Carbon Capture Can Reverse Climate Change [2]
3. True Accelerationism (3): Abundance is the basis of civilization, on the scale economics of renewable energy [3]
4. True Accelerationism (4): The LM3D, the first system of sustainable distributed manufacturing may be ready by 2017 [4]
5. True Accelerationism (5): John D. Liu on Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration Projects [5]
6. True Accelerationism (6): Rehabiliting the importance of change at the local level [6]2016/01/27

Discussion

What distinguishes regenerative accelerationism from regeneration alone?

Benjamin Life:

"we must be precise about what distinguishes regenerative accelerationism from regeneration alone. This distinction is not rhetorical but structural. It concerns the system dynamics of the alternatives we build.

Regeneration describes what we do: restoring local ecosystems, rebuilding local economies, healing relationships between humans and the living world. These are essential activities. Plant trees. Restore wetlands. Build community gardens. All of this matters deeply.

But regeneration, when it grows to scales that ultimately threaten the interests of capital, risks being captured by capital. The machine metabolizes regeneration just as it metabolizes everything else.

Regenerative accelerationism is not what we do but how we structure what we do to prevent capture and scale horizontally between peers rather than vertically through the machine. It describes a particular set of system dynamics, self-amplifying feedback loops that compound over time, oriented toward re-embedding value in relational substrates rather than extracting it into abstraction.

Capitalism did not invent recursive dynamics. It captured them.

Life itself evolves through feedback loops. Ecosystems strengthen through mutualistic relationships that compound over time. Cultures develop through shared practices that reinforce each other. What capital did was create a domain of abstraction where these same evolutionary dynamics could operate detached from the living systems that generated them. Capital’s recursion feeds back into itself: money generating more money, accumulation enabling more accumulation. But it does this by severing the connection to actual value creation, parasitizing the relational substrate it can never replenish.

Regenerative recursion feeds back into living systems. Each cycle strengthens the foundation rather than depleting it. The soil becomes more fertile. The community becomes more resilient. The relationships become deeper.

This is the aikido of re/acc: we take the massive energy of the wave that is coming, the acceleration that cannot be stopped, and redirect it into feedback loops that sink and store value back into relational substrates. Not resistance against acceleration, which is futile. Not surrender to the trajectory of techno-capital, which is monstrous. But a redirection of extractive dynamics toward what Karl Polanyi called re-embedding, returning economic activity to its proper place within social and ecological relationships.

The formula is straightforward: through network effects produced by sovereign regenerative technologies, each person who opts out of technocapitalism will make it easier for others to do the same. This is the feedback loop that transforms individualized lifestyle adjustment into the collective action and coordination needed to cut the parasite off from its host. If I plant a garden but the garden doesn’t make it easier for my neighbor to plant one, I’ve done something good but not accelerationist. If I join a local food cooperative and that cooperative provides templates, capital, and supply chains that make the next cooperative easier to form, I’ve participated in a feedback loop that compounds over time."

(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/a-regenerative-accelerationist-manifesto?)

R/Acc vs Jem Bendell's Decelerationism

"X/Twitter discussion between Benjamin Life and Jem Bendell, October 2026

Copy of the threads via [7]:

Benjamin Life (re/acc) @omniharmonic

tbh i’m still a regenerative accelerationist. the game theory is unstoppable, imho. we can transform collapse into possibility or we can slouch into fascism/chaos, but i don’t think we can slow down. nick land was right. the techno-capital object at the end of history is real.

Jem Bendell @ jembendell

1/9 The claim, by Nick Land and others, that technology and capital have an autonomous dynamic that overrides human volition and determines the future, turns an observation of a powerful social process into a lawlike necessity, akin to a physical law.

2/9 As a lawlike claim, that technological determinism is challenged by evidence of human control of technology under capitalism. Nuclear and biological weapons treaties are examples. So human agreements can constrain technological processes, even within a capitalist age.

3/9 If Land’s proponents say such restraints are merely temporary or local friction, they must specify what would count as counterevidence to their view. If nothing could, their claim is not a description of reality but a prophecy: an ideology insulated from falsification.

4/9 Some of the metaphysical language used by Land and others to describe technology and capitalism also projects anthropomorphic qualities onto social processes. We also require a clearer specification of what “capital” actually denotes within the theory.

5/9 That would open the theory to interrogation: what agreements between humans, around property & money, generate the observed dynamics? In Breaking Together, I present the controlling dynamics of capital (Ch10) but debunk the basis of many technological determinist views (Ch9).

6/9 Remove claims of physical law or metaphysical purpose, and we can observe a techno-capital process that favours the reproduction of hegemonic discourse, allied with the interests of some owners of capital and those persons who acquiesce to them.

7/9 Land’s ideas are an artefact of that process, as is their popularisation. He doesn’t see a greater process others did not; he speaks as part of a known process that is powerful but not omnipotent. His ideas offer ideological cover 4 people within specific factions of capital.

8/9 Land’s ideas might also meet the desires of elites (and their fans) for identity maintenance, a sense of self-worth, and emotional regulation, in the face of the damaging implications of their work, and the dread and despair that might otherwise generate.

9/9 In Breaking Together, I explain ‘Critical Wisdom’ (Ch8) as a multi-dimensional capability for not succumbing to hegemonic discourse and, instead, being present, caring and creative in response to our awareness of societal disruption and collapse. Apols for the chunked thread.. I am slowly cancelling my various payments to US bigtech as part of my practical decelerationism and #RainbowPrepping .

Benjamin Life (re/acc) @omniharmonic

1/ how fitting that the tech oligarchy requires us to pay to maintain a long-form context window. I too have refused to pay elon my techno-feudal tithe.

Let’s see if we can have a nuanced conversation broken apart into 180 character chunks. (Continued below!)

2/ Land is explicit that his argument is retro-causal which I think is one of its strengths rather than weaknesses. Seen via a complex systems perspective, we can describe emergent behaviors like the corporation as something selected for within a game theoretic environment.

3/ If those who embrace an extractive & resource-consolidating mindset are able to dominate those who do not, the system will settle in an equilibrium in which those behaviors feed back on themselves recursively until we get to late stage capitalist techno-fascist consolidation.

4/ Did this process begin with the Dutch East India Company? The dawn of agricultural storehouses? Its hard to say, but it does seem to emanate from a particular worldview that is rooted in some aspect of the colonial mind. Ian McGilchrist’s work seems most descriptive of it.

5/ Understanding it’s origin is useful diagnostically but not prescriptively. Because we engineered a system that rewards consolidation, we can’t fight the game theory. Corporations captured our democratic institutions, media, education, etc, the ground from which we would resist

6/ In that context, collapse is merciful. Accelerationism was first coined by Deleuze & Guattari, not Land, because they saw it as the only endgame of capitalist consolidation. Ramp up the contradictions until the collapse of the substrate forces a new game theoretic landscape.

7/ There’s no putting the genie of techno-capital back in the bottle. It will continue to run its abstracting algorithm until the contradictions are too great for it to metabolize. Elites likely know this, believing authoritarianism can squeeze out a few more years of extraction.

8/ As you observed in the UK after writing Deep Adaptation, no amount of diagnostic clarity can shift the balance of powers that continue to drive extraction even as the biosphere crumbles. We can, I think, embrace collapse & build cosmolocal archipelagos that catch us as we fall

9/ But maybe this conversation is better had in person in SE Asia this Winter. I’d like to come visit you & Michel to hash out the post-collapse, post-left political economy I’ve been calling “bioregional political consciousness,” a populist ecological political metanarrative.

Prof Jem Bendell @jembendell

1/ I agree, and have experienced, that “no amount of diagnostic clarity can shift the balance of powers that continue to drive extraction even as the biosphere crumbles.” The lesson from that is that change requires organisation, strategy, tactics and struggle.

2/ Another lesson is most people aware of our dire global situation are wedded to the view that more knowledge, awareness, education, inspirational stories, technology, and ethical leaders, will generate positive change, sufficient to the scale and urgency required.

3/ It appears to be easier, in the short term, to hold such a view of struggle-free change, until cognitive dissonance leads to a hatred of others, oneself, or existence. I believe I have witnessed (and received) that maladaptive expression of such inner tension in recent years.

4/ You say “embrace collapse & build cosmolocal archipelagos that catch us as we fall.” I see societal collapse as unfolding. But I don’t embrace it. I prefer we try to slow it, soften it, while creating alternatives.

5/ We must organise to defend those alternatives, as collapsing systems won’t leave them alone (whether natural disasters or political oppression). So in Breaking Together, I’ve a chapter on new ideas & projects to celebrate & scale, another on what we must continue to resist.

6/ The concept and practice of slowing down the pace and direction of human societies, and our lives within that, seems very coherent and relatable. People are more aware of the false promise of technology within an expansionist system.

7/ More people are becoming aware of the false promise of technosalvation from our social and environmental predicaments. Many people are rightly concerned about AI development and the aims and ideologies involved.

8/ More people perceive the benefits of slowing down their own lives. To negate human agency, en masse, in response to that rising awareness, would be premature. Instead, we can participate in both resistance and alternatives.

12/ I wonder if u jump from a metaphysical claim onto empirically-based theories, when u refer to game theory. As, if stripped of belief, we can consider game theoretical explanations for human restraints on technology & that being a stable outcome, not a mere pause or friction.

13/ That can sit next to an analysis of economics as engineered for commodification, extraction & expansion. We don’t need assume agency is non-existent by reference to a belief about an inevitable techno-capital future. We can be open to human agency appearing in various ways.

14/ I don’t agree that Land, or tech accelerationism, derives intellectual support from previous analysis, such as Deleuze and Guattari (D&G). They did not advocate for general acceleration of technology, or all of capitalism, or processes of collapse.

15/ They argued we could try one strategy (as agents) to not resist the aspects of capitalism that speed up the removal of old identities, dependencies, habits, and try to seize the moment before capitalism asserts new patterns for all of those olds, as it controls accumulation.

16/ D&G did not imagine processes of technology & capital as an autonomous force, with a metaphysical aspect & humans mere passengers towards the predetermined future. They warned that being involved in technocapital acceleration 4 anticapitalist aims could cause great difficulty

17/ My view is D&G were right to point out that disruptive innovations from tech & capital create new contexts which we, as social agents, can try to foresee, and assess how to act opportunistically for positive social and environmental outcomes.

18/ I agree too many of us who are socially concerned have allowed our suspicion of tech dev to slow our seizing of possibilities. Your work with OpenCivics is a good example of how to attempt +ve change within the opportunities created by technologically-driven social change.

19/ But I also agree with those, like @wself, who argue too many of us who engage in social change are affected by the degradation of thought & organising that comes from immersion in tech-mediated comms. We don’t read, reflect, reject, reorient, choose, organise, & persist

20/ A Q for strategy is where will mass adoption of regen tech & culture emerge from? What opportunities arise from current & predicted social change? Does RESISTANCE to acceleration of tech & capitalist penetration into lifeworlds, form an opportune context 4 regen alternatives?

21/ I believe alienation with – and resistance to – the acceleration of tech & capital provides a generative context. And that an absence of theories of massive social change will not help spread regenerative practices & cosmolocal arrangements in an era of disruption & collapse

22/ Devlping explanations, clarifying strategies, starting projects & networking them together, might create more post-collapse Arks & civilisational seeds, or not. But there is also an intrinsic value in not acquiescing to how capital & power shapes our sense making of the world."

(https://jembendell.com/2026/10/28/decelerating-our-obedience/)

The Response by Michel Bauwens: From True Accelerationism to the Archipelago of Regenerative Villages

In 2016, I wrote a 6-art series on True Accelerationism, it was written as a response to the then-prominent Left Accelerationism of Srnicek and Williams, Bauwens’ six-part series argued that the real question is not whether to accelerate, but what to accelerate. He proposed a “True Accelerationism” focused on building a post-capitalist, commons-based society.

Here is a summary of its core tenets as a set of contrasts:

1. Ecological, not extractive.
2. Distributed, not centralized.
3. Local & bioregional, not globalist.
4. Commons-based, not corporate.
5. Focused on biophysical infrastructure (soil, solar, manufacturing), not digital abstraction alone.

The individual posts fleshed out this vision by pointing to concrete, existing alternatives that could be scaled:

• Soil-Based Carbon Capture as a powerful, shovel-ready technology to reverse biospheric destruction.

• Renewable Energy and its scale economics as the basis for a new civilization of abundance.

• Sustainable Distributed Manufacturing (the LM3D system) as a model for a post-industrial, peer-produced material economy.

• Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration (via John D. Liu’s work) as proof that damaged bioregions can be rehabilitated.

• The primacy of local-level change in building resilient, self-governing communities.

In essence, this intervention was a call to accelerate the construction of the new system within the shell of the old, rather than accelerating capitalism’s contradictions or simply applying the brakes.

This 2016 series is not just a historical footnote; it anticipates R/Acc while providing a corrective lens that clarifies the stakes of the current disagreement.

1. It anticipates R/Acc’s “constructive acceleration.”

The core move of R/Acc—accelerating the building of alternatives rather than accelerating capitalism itself—is precisely what Bauwens proposed a decade earlier. The P2P wiki page on R/Acc explicitly acknowledges this lineage, noting that Bauwens’ series “referenced the potential of a True Accelerationism” that prefigured these ideas. Bauwens’ focus on distributed manufacturing, soil restoration, and renewable energy as the true accelerators of a new civilization directly prefigures R/Acc’s emphasis on bioregional infrastructure and relocalized production.

2. It grounds “acceleration” in biophysical reality, not digital abstraction.

While R/Acc often operates in the register of protocols, currencies, and crypto-infrastructure, Bauwens’ series insists that the material base is soil, energy, and manufacturing. This is a crucial corrective. It reminds R/Acc that a “regenerative civilization” cannot be built on digital feedback loops alone; it requires the ecological acceleration of carbon capture and ecosystem restoration, and the material acceleration of distributed, sustainable production. This prevents “acceleration” from collapsing into another form of techno-idealism.

3. It offers a prefigurative answer to Bendell’s dilemma.

Bendell’s decelerationism is motivated by a fear that accelerating collapse will destroy the systems people depend on before alternatives are ready. Bauwens’ “True Accelerationism” is precisely a strategy for building those alternatives now, at the local and bioregional level, so that communities are not left waiting for a top-down transition. It is an acceleration of prefigurative resilience, which speaks directly to Bendell’s concern for the vulnerable. The goal is not to speed up the breakdown, but to speed up the construction of the lifeboats—and the new society—while the old one falters.

4. It reframes the debate away from a simple speed binary.

Bauwens’ intervention, rooted in P2P theory, suggests the real axis is not fast vs. slow, but centralized/extractive vs. distributed/commons-based. One can “accelerate” the growth of commons-based, bioregional systems while simultaneously “decelerating” the expansion of extractive, globalized infrastructure. This is a more nuanced political grammar than the current R/Acc vs. Decel binary, which can sometimes sound like a disagreement about the speed of a single, monolithic system. Bauwens’ framework allows for a selective accelerationism and a selective decelerationism simultaneously, organized around the logic of the commons.

5. It critiques the automationist fantasy of Left Accelerationism.

The original target was the Left Accelerationist dream of full automation and universal basic income as a utopian escape. He argued that the first task is not to demand a fully automated future, but to create actually existing post-capitalist livelihoods in the present. This critique remains relevant: it cautions against any accelerationism—including a purely digital R/Acc—that defers the hard work of building material, ecological, and social alternatives to a future technological fix.

In sum, the series does not simply predict R/Acc. It provides a materialist and commons-oriented foundation for it, while also offering a bridge to Decelerationist concerns. It suggests that the most meaningful “acceleration” is the accelerated construction of a distributed, ecological, and commons-based civilization—a project that is, by its very nature, also a form of deceleration: a slowing of the extractive machine as the regenerative one grows stronger.

The proposed synthesis through a Cosmolocalist Strategy

Below references are made to:

• the Togukawa Period's experience in Japan, which created two centuries of balance between the local population and the resource base, and the Qin policy in China to ban guns in local communities. It also refers to the long-standing survival of the Amish people.

But first, two strong statements:

<  A viable synthesis for the 21st century would likely resemble a federated network of bioregional commons that are internally decelerated (stable populations, ecological limits, selective technology) but externally embedded in a defensive and diplomatic architecture that prevents any single hegemonic power from crushing them individually. >

< Decelerationism is the internal logic of the commons (stability, sufficiency, care), while R/Acc is the external logic of survival (building the infrastructure of coordination and defense fast enough to matter). The multi-level selection rule is the bridge between them. >

The essence of my reponse would be that decelerationism cannot work on its own because it disgards forces and the response to threats by stronger forces, and that R/Acc may be used for too accomating positions.

The synthesis is based on conjoining the two principles in a complementary fashion:

1) internal decelarationism in stabilized communities

2) but: they must be able not just to defend themselves but use technology in a way that strenghtens their own power.

This is of course what is addressed by the cosmo-local strategy, here is the full argument, the result of a dialogue with DeepSeek based on my prompts and wiki material:

* Implications for R/Acc vs. Decelerationism

The question of whether "the group defend can itself against hegemonic forces?" needs to be refined:

* What is the nature of the hegemonic threat?   

A geographically isolated island facing pre-industrial neighbors (Tokugawa) faces a different threat environment than a minority regime governing a vast population (Qing) or a small religious community within a liberal state (Amish).

* What technologies actually constitute "strength" in a given threat environment?

For Tokugawa Japan, firearms were a threat to internal stability, not a source of external strength. For Qing China, firearms were both, and the state chose internal stability at the cost of external strength.

* Is there a niche available?

The Amish strategy works because the American hegemon tolerates them. A bioregional commons-based society that attempts to decelerate while embedded within a hostile global capitalist order faces a much harder problem: it must either remain invisible (like the Amish), remain useful (like a specialized supplier), or build sufficient defensive capacity to deter predation.

The R/Acc insight is that building the new system within the shell of the old is the only viable path. The Decelerationist insight is that speeding up the destruction of the old system before the new one is ready is catastrophic for the vulnerable. Your multi-level selection rule forces a synthesis: the new system must be built fast enough to achieve viability (R/Acc) but selectively enough to avoid provoking the hegemon into crushing it before it is ready (Decelerationism).

It must also be defensible enough to survive if the hegemon collapses or turns predatory. The Tokugawa lesson is that insulation requires a monopoly on the technologies of violence at the boundary while suppressing their diffusion internally. The Amish lesson is that insulation within a hegemon requires political invisibility and economic usefulness. The Qing lesson is that suppressing internal sub-group capacity in the name of stability creates a brittle system that fails catastrophically when the external environment shifts.

< A viable synthesis for the 21st century would likely resemble a federated network of bioregional commons that are internally decelerated (stable populations, ecological limits, selective technology) but externally embedded in a defensive and diplomatic architecture that prevents any single hegemonic power from crushing them individually. >

This is not a return to Tokugawa isolation, but a distributed, multi-level strategy that uses the tools of the digital age (R/Acc's protocols, federated networks, open-source infrastructure) to build the coordination capacity necessary for collective defense without requiring the centralization that would recreate the Qing dilemma.

The positions are therefore not exclusive. The historical cases suggest they are two phases of a single strategy:

• Decelerationism is the internal logic of the commons (stability, sufficiency, care),

• while R/Acc is the external logic of survival (building the infrastructure of coordination and defense fast enough to matter).

The multi-level selection rule is precisely the bridge between them.

Example

Accelerating Local Currencies

Benjamin Life:

"Community currencies create local feedback loops that keep value circulating within place-based economies. Local currencies like the Ithaca HOURS system in New York or the BerkShares in Massachusetts keep purchasing power circulating locally rather than being extracted to financial centers. These are firewalls against systemic shocks.

Local currencies become accelerationist not by artificially inflating their value but by incentivizing and compounding the benefits of increased adoption. A mutual credit network that becomes more useful as more businesses participate. A local currency whose transaction fees fund local public goods that create more demand for local currency. Each cycle strengthens the local economy’s adaptive capacity to meet its own needs, reducing dependency on extractive supply chains.

Blockchain tools, specifically the work of builders within the Ethereum Localism and Regen Commons communities, enable these dynamics at new scales. Tokenized community currencies can maintain local circulation while enabling transparent governance and interoperability between bioregions. Asset-backed tokens can tie money creation directly to regenerative productive activity, carbon sequestration achievements, soil health improvements, watershed quality metrics, rather than financial speculation. This isn’t crypto hype; it’s programmable economics that can be designed for re-embedding rather than extraction."

(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/a-regenerative-accelerationist-manifesto?)

Open Protocol Accelerationism

Benjamin Life:

"One of the highest-leverage vectors of regenerative acceleration is infrastructure for sharing what works.

Regenerative practitioners are motivated by something deeper than market value. We actually want to share information. We want to learn together. We want the blueprints for resilience and restoration to spread as widely as possible.

This is the opposite of the capitalist instinct to hoard knowledge and extract rents from information. In a regenerative context, sharing is not sacrifice. It’s how the system grows. These are open protocols, patterns that emerge to solve real problems with available resources and relationships.

Here again we find the cosmolocal pattern: knowledge flows globally while implementation stays local. Open-source designs spread across the planet while each community adapts them to their specific context, their particular ecology, their cultural inheritance. And the lessons from each local implementation flow back into the global commons, making the next implementation easier and better.

Open source and open protocol accelerationism are both essential to regenerative accelerationism’s success. This is acceleration through sharing. The more we give away, the faster we all learn. The faster we learn, the more resilient we become.

For regenerative accelerationism to succeed, those of us committed to planetary regeneration must develop shared network protocols to establish a commons for our knowledge and resources. Only once the open protocols, the playbooks for local regenerative systems change, have a medium by which they can be exchanged, documented, remixed, and adapted will we be able to see the feedback loops needed to accelerate bioregional, grassroots, collective action.

And for regenerative accelerationism to succeed, d/acc must succeed. Without defensive technologies that enable this type of secure, private, and permissionless sharing of social and digital protocols, the regenerative acceleration will not survive long enough to begin its first real feedback loops. AI mass surveillance as the ultimate tool of the impending technocapitalist authoritarian regime requires us to come together across our ideologies and backgrounds to support the development of technologies that prevent authoritarian control while enabling regenerative collective action."

(https://omniharmonic.substack.com/p/a-regenerative-accelerationist-manifesto?)