yeah, I mean. if r/acc is simply capital escape, then it's really no different from u/acc, all wailing to the contrary. this is indeed what Land meant by u/acc back in 2014, as an opposition to l/acc. but that's not what we've seen on twitter since (at least) last year.
*Head close to implosion* Nukes don't grow on fucking trees - yet - there *HAD* to be humans to make nukes a possibility.
-
-
I don't see the point of this questions? What is the cash out? Why does it matter that humans "made nukes"?
-
The point of the question is that - and this isn't some form of humanism - humans undoubtedly play a key role in acceleration so it'd be silly to just denounce them into the motion as such. This doesn't mean one has to give them agency though.
-
If they don't have agency then you might as well say this piece of the steel made the nukes. Your question presupposes human agency for the question to be meaningful. But this gets at the basic criticism of r/acc: it's a humanism. So, not that different from l/acc.
-
It doesn't presuppose agency at all, humans without free will could make nukes, no? I'm saying, even if we're just a determinate part to a process, we are, at this stage, an important part. And it's interesting to see how the human 'part' might or did go wrong.
-
it's not like human production isn't a competitive system. even if a part of it goes awry, they get eliminated for their dysfunctionality.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
sure, my point here is merely that they need not meet the nrx or conventional r/acc criteria of desirability
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.
