Techno-optimism for thee; boatloads of money for me
Critiquing the a16z techno-optimist manifesto
Usually when a white guy writes a vociferous manifesto — a shooting occurs in a nearby Church/Synagogue/Walmart. Fortunately, the only things being fired off now are some angry tweets and blog posts.
Marc Andreesen dropped a 5000 word “techno-optimist” manifesto. While no one needs more VC though-leadership, especially from dudes in the arena. Dismissing it without reading is unfair.
So, I’ll do this critique in three parts:
- A short summary of the post
- A commentary without context — Just on the merit of what’s in the text of manifesto
- A commentary with context — From what I know of Marc Andreesen, the tech industry, etc.
Summary
In one line the manifesto can be summarised “MORE TECHNOLOGY PLEASE! IT FIXES EVERYTHING!”
The manifesto has a lot of lame poetic mystical fluff but. In a few paragraphs, its core ideas are:
- We are being told lies that technology is a bad thing we must worry about. The truth is civilization is built on technology and it powers life as we know it.
- Economic growth is our ultimate goal and only technology can deliver it. Free markets are the most effective way to organize a technological economy and usher in societal progress. Markets and technology come together as a Techno-Capital Machine. This machine has and will deliver human progress. We believe in accelerating it.
- Intelligence is our superpower; we can magnify this power with Artificial Intelligence. Energy is a fundamental force powering life, we should invest in Nuclear Energy making it more abundant. By creating more intelligence and energy, we can bring about societal abundance.
- We can’t achieve Utopia but something close. Our society must become a collection of technological supermen. Techno-Optimism is a material philosophy, not a political philosophy. Anti-merit, credentialism, bureaucracy, corruption, etc. are our enemies.
Commentary without context
I agree thematically with this post — we must eternally strive for human ingenuity and human development; where it completely loses me is in the details by
- Stating multiple flawed premises/idea which might seem fine at surface level, but which quickly feel shallow once you know the details.
- Overvaluing the role of technology in human progress.
False premise #1 — People think technology is a bad thing
The average human LOVES technology. No one who has sat in train or car clamours to travel long distance on horse back again. No one who bought a ticket online ever wants to stand in queue again. We can’t help ourselves from checking our phones. Tech companies are killing it on multiple fronts — they are the world best brands, the places where people want to work, and they’re crushing it in the stock market. Even if we are lied to, it ain’t working.
False premise #2 — Technology as a panacea
The manifesto greatly exaggerates the impact of technology, which depends entirely on how we use it. The same fire that can cook food becomes a heinous weapon in the form of flamethrower. The same internet connected camera can be used to monitor your child in another room or impose a surveillance state.
Nigeria and Norway both are both oil rich. They both use drills, pumps, tankers, etc. to get oil out of the ground and into the global market. Norway converted oil profits into public wealth through a pension fund, while Nigeria’s oil profits are siphoned off between its elites and foreign oil companies.
Given this, one must realise that technological development can sometimes be immaterial or even opposed to human development if the appropriate social/political/economic structures are not in places. Technology maybe be necessary to solve problems, but is not sufficient. To belabour the point further. Every country has guns, only one country has a school shooting problem.
False premise #3 — The free market monopoly on progress
While private enterprises are the face of innovation as they turn invention into products we use, the creation of new technologies has a more complex story.
- The Covid vaccine was created in academia
- The internet was a government funded research project, funded the defence dollars and a desire to create a distributed computer network resistant to Soviet nuclear attacks
- The “transformer” underpining the latest burst of AI, was created by Google’s research.
Good ideas can come from anywhere.
False premise #4 — The free market solves peoples problems
OK but aren’t companies the best way to deliver goods and services to people. Nope!
Economists have a term for when markets behave abnormally — Market failure. Whether it because of cartels, government restrictions, lack of easy profits or no interest from businessmen — market failure can have multiple causes.
Market failures of all sorts is a very common phenomenon. In fact, free markets don’t really exist except for economic textbooks. Apart from trivial markets; lack of capital of all sorts (technological, financial, human, etc.) makes starting business a huge hurdle. The US healthcare system is the starkest example of market failure. USA perform terrible in terms of healthcare not because of a shortage of doctors or equipment, but because a cartel of insurance companies have made it unaffordable to millions of people. This cartel operates in a “free market”.
False premise — #5 Regulation is shackling innovation
This is partially true but presented one-sidedly. The claim here is that if only we removed all shackles and allowed merchants & entrepreneurs to operate freely, we would get abundance. This has been tried many times before. A lot of regulation exists because “businessmen” turn out to be frauds, thieves, assholes, and liars. E.g. The US FDA was created because businesses were lying to consumers about quality of food products (selling expired meats) and medicines (selling cocaine and morphine that got people high but didn’t cure them). Regulations and regulatory bodies emerge as a natural immune system keeping things in check. You can always argue that regulation slows things down. When dealing with areas like finance, health, etc.; lack of speed is a feature! Regulation is a public good.
All in all, this whole post undergirds a very childish and naive view of how technology, markets and society work. This is not techno-optimism; this is techno-idolatry.
Commentary with context
*rubs hands together for the good part
Marc Andreesen is an extremely well-known person, especially here in the tech world. In his current gig as a venture capitalist — he’s been a genuine thought-leader. From fiery tweetstorms (which he invented) to clairovoyant blog posts; Marc has caught the eye of the tech crowds zeitgeist.
As the pandemic ravaged the world, the Marc wrote a scathing rant saying the US had lost its way. In “It’s Time to Build”, he bemoaned the death of technological capacity of America.
So, then what did Mr. Marc — with a net worth of >1 billion dollars do with his wealth and power? He and his wife complained against building additional housing in their area because in their “property prices would go down”. Marc acted in the exact opposite direction of his espoused values!
Things from Marc’s life that contradict Marc’s claims
1. Free markets don’t rock: To add to the fun, his firm loudly and proudly went all in crypto; despite skepticism on multiple fronts. Now his manifesto has no mentions of it. Why?! Because crypto turned to be an actual free market — an absolute wild wild west of people launching crypto coins willy-nilly. And almost predictably — 81% of crypto turned to be scams and over $1 billion was lost to scams.
2. Regulation is not bad: Funnily Marc himself is one famous victims of lack of regulation. By bundling Internet Explorer with Window, Microsoft killed off Netscape. If the browser choice regulation from the EU had arrived sooner, maybe Marc would still BE running Netscape and it might’ve been what Google is today.
For someone who shows off their love for knowledge with a library in their lobby, this post reeks ofchildishness and ignorance. It seems more fitting to be written by a bro like Travis Kalanick, not the relatively erudite Marc.
Why is Marc so angry?! Ranting like someone who desperately needs to go outside and touch grass. Such wrong impressions can occur if clue yourself too deeply into the faux intelligentsia of journalists or the twitter mob; where people treat technology as the plague by focusing exclusively on its bad effects.
My charitable interpretation is that Marc is just playing the perception game — by shouting about unleashing shackles — this post would appear super attractive to entrepreneurs — especially the true believers - typically naive, young, foolish ones, benefiting a16z. My sad interpretation is Marc might be going the Kanye way and we won’t even get edgy new logos out of this.
