I'll also take this opportunity to point out that @ObCap's essay that Land called "fundamentalist" was deemed as such for taking accelerationism thought to its core, by tracing D&G back into Marx and Nietzsche, and that this was something to be affirmed.
You can't imagine how politics or morality will interfere in the development of technology? CRISPR? AI? For these two, it is not difficult imagining a left/right coalition standing against it.
-
-
This is one of the chief reasons Land says that China is the future. Confucianism is more flexible on this tech than Christianity (in its left or right variant).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I can, but what the ‘must’? . I can also imagine a politics that embraces both those technologies. I have a good imagination. Politics managed the advent of nuclear tech. Capitalization of nukes may not have become the most beneficial option/trajectory.
-
It is also not clear to me that politics managed the advent of nuclear tech, more than strapped itself in and was taken for a ride. Once the physics became possible, could not be developed? Once the US used it once, could it have been stopped?
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.