> And so is doomerism. The manichaean straw-manning is not helpful (and is in fact one of my main points of contention here). There are clear positions between

> And so is doomerism. The manichaean straw-manning is not helpful (and is in fact one of my main points of contention here). There are clear positions between "doomerism" and "people who own tech firms should never be questioned". I'm occupying one of them, despite how you'd prefer to characterize what I'm trying to say. Please feel free to act as a religious zealot, but you have to understand that other people choose to approach science and tech policy in a more grounded fashion (ie. actually considering the material particulars around a given problem, instead of immediately kicking it up to some abstract ideology for a gut-check). > It was fear and doomerism that prevented us from using it in the first place and brought us to our current situation. Setting aside what I already have said about converting complex engineering questions into quasi-religious "us vs. the enemy" type statements, I would argue that it is in fact our policy choices around fossil fuel usage, as well as the wealthy oil execs who continue to insist on its harmlessness, that are actually the most "at fault" for bringing us here. Moreover, there are many non-nuclear options on the table. Some of these may (horror of horrors) require us to adjust the style of life we have grown used to in the last 5 or 6 decades. Rather than casting this as some kind of sinful violation of the historical march to progress, I think a more grounded historiography is that sometimes progress is a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing and that we might need to try a few options before finding the winning formula. Nuclear was a missed opportunity, for sure, and I support efforts to re-establish it as a long-term power source, but to chalk up and dismiss the entire movement for sustainability or nuclear alternatives as "doomerism" is just mind-killing, culture war nonsense. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in technology: there's just the tool, it's capabilities, and its costs. Sometimes the cost-benefit analysis is done poorly, sometimes it's not. Sometimes people agree on the costs and benefits, sometimes they do not. In any of these cases nobody is served by adding all this manifest destiny stuff on top of it, it only muddies the waters for people who actually have do the work of achieving technological progress. > Today we have the lowest percent of humanity living in poverty ever I'm excessively familiar with this point, it's the only actual empirical thing I seem to be able to find in all this e/acc discussion. Nevermind that this outcome is a product of the balanced and cautious tech development that has predominated throughout human history, what is the actual, concrete, actionable point here? That allowing VC money to do whatever it wants is going to accelerate this trend of progress? That worries about GHG emissions or concern that monocropping will lead to fragile foodsystems are somehow part of a "death cult"? Yes, humanity has made progress in history. Yes, much of this comes from technological and scientific development (as well as managerial, political, artistic, ethical, et.), but trying to extrapolate this one (very broad) observation into specific and practical recommendations for how to run a nationstate and economy I see lots of gaps that are filled in by speculation and (yes) political biases. Here's what I believe: let's fund the sciences, let's make higher education accessible, let's share the bounty of our technological progress widely, let's make it easy for people to use their time contributing to genuine inquiry, rather than the bottom-line of a stock portfolio. If this is what you have in mind when you say "promote technological progress" then I'm 100% on-board, and we can move on to discussing how best to achieve these. But if you want to take the observation that we are no longer hunter-gatherers, and extrapolate it into the ideology that any novel invention anywhere ever is a "net good" and should under no circumstances be questioned or restrained then I'm not really sure what to say. It seems obvious to me that tools should be dealt with as they are, in the context that they operate it, but if you prefer to instead live in the world of myth and narrative that is your prerogative.