> Anyway, I'm skeptical. For one, that seems to assume an anarchic social order, where anyone can make any choice they like (externalities be damned) and no one

> Anyway, I'm skeptical. For one, that seems to assume an anarchic social order, where anyone can make any choice they like (externalities be damned) and no one can stop them. That doesn't describe our world except maybe, sometimes, at the nation-state level between great powers. In my experience that's exactly the world we live in. The combination of capitalism and science are currently driving the sixth mass extinction. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/ > Secondly, I think embracing that idea would mainly serve to create a permission structure for "techbros" (for lack of a better term), to pursue whatever harmful technology they have the impulse to and reject any personal responsibility for their actions or the harm they cause (e.g. exactly "It's ok for me to hurt you, because if I don't someone else will, so it's inevitable and quit complaining"). I was making an observation of the effects technology has had the last 12000 years. So far it has been predominantly obligate. I want a future where that's not the case anymore. I don't have the full plan on how to get there. But I believe an important step is to get away of our current concept of wealth, as tied to growth and resource usage.