brockm on Nostr: Technological determinism is a real mind virus that afflicts way too many people in ...
Technological determinism is a real mind virus that afflicts way too many people in my field. It’s pervasive and has led an incredibly large group of people to make dramatic philosophical errors. The book, the Sovereign Individual, has played at outsized role among many people — especially in the “web3” space — at convincing people of the inevitability of future outcomes. Balaji’s “network states” are really just another revision on these philosophical errors, born of foundationalist a priori notions about moral truths.
The best attempts at defending these moral truths — such as things like praxeology — are completely unconvincing and are just tautologies that assume the things they set out to prove. In particular, property rights as intractable consequences of the moral necessity to enable human action by a fundamental — not social — right to the product of one’s own labor.
These arguments all also boil down to “this future is going to happen whether you like it or not”, which really betrays the epistemically authoritarian nature of this thinking, which denies the possibility for, and the normative possibility of collection action in defense of a common good.
Published at
2024-04-21 16:43:07Event JSON
{
"id": "7ff6d4265e7c2bbed1684bde434110458069f040e795dae3458d3f1122234277",
"pubkey": "b9003833fabff271d0782e030be61b7ec38ce7d45a1b9a869fbdb34b9e2d2000",
"created_at": 1713717787,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Technological determinism is a real mind virus that afflicts way too many people in my field. It’s pervasive and has led an incredibly large group of people to make dramatic philosophical errors. The book, the Sovereign Individual, has played at outsized role among many people — especially in the “web3” space — at convincing people of the inevitability of future outcomes. Balaji’s “network states” are really just another revision on these philosophical errors, born of foundationalist a priori notions about moral truths. \n\nThe best attempts at defending these moral truths — such as things like praxeology — are completely unconvincing and are just tautologies that assume the things they set out to prove. In particular, property rights as intractable consequences of the moral necessity to enable human action by a fundamental — not social — right to the product of one’s own labor. \n\nThese arguments all also boil down to “this future is going to happen whether you like it or not”, which really betrays the epistemically authoritarian nature of this thinking, which denies the possibility for, and the normative possibility of collection action in defense of a common good.",
"sig": "da1a86e6c8693e7cf6efd1a9bea5452df0f358b6dda276df2f144a1c1a84cb7ce91ea67203341974035e7614b8ea009fff436f27cfece86fc920cf2607f352ac"
}