Even being as charitable as possible, shackle seems reasonable to me. The essay is practically a catalogue of prohibitions: no AI, no markets, no evolution beyond the ape, no leaving the garden, no demons, no transgression of unitary being...
-
-
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Maybe I am pigeonholed. If you want to spell out what kind of "evolution" or "creative power" decelerationism will make possible, I'm all ears. But as far as I can tell, it's defined in opposition to evolution.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Capital and nature aren't rigorously separable (original essay touched on this). Genes are already primitive capital, the biosphere is already primitive mechanosphere. Those are pretty big creative avenues. So it's not clear to me what separates you from garden-variety nihilism.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Negating "limited distinct phenomena" like environmental destrumction inevitably entails limiting future potentialities to a vast extent (most notably, AI). The trade can only be made to look appealing by romanticizing the eons of slaughter and fornication we call "nature."
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It is scary, that future thing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.