Will Techno-Optimism Save the World? Summary

Robert B. Kozma, PhD

This is the summary of a four-part series of articles in response to @Marc Andreessen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto.? The series is: Part I. Technology, II. The Economy, III. Government, IV. Philosophy.

On October 16, 2023, Marc Andreessen published The Techno-Optimist Manifesto.? If you know him at all, you know him as the principal partner of #Andreessen-Horowitz, a Silicon Valley venture capital investment company with nearly $36 billion in assets under management.? With that much capital to invest, Andreessen’s words must be considered if you are involved in (or impacted by) technology, especially if those words are formulated as a “manifesto”.? It is likely that anyone who needs capital to develop their technology-based idea will shape their thoughts and projects around his words—indeed, that’s his intent.? And if everyone in that position shapes their ideas and products around Andreessen’s words, it shapes directly or indirectly much of the technology that affects all of us and our world.? This makes the Manifesto particularly important document to analyze and critique.

Andreessen believes that technology is an inherent force for good and an unbridled deference to its development is necessary in order for it to save the world.? He believes, for example, that technology is “inherently philanthropic.”? That it “is the spearhead of progress and the realization of our potential.”? That a “technologically advanced society has unlimited clean energy for everyone.”? With technology “we can advance to a far superior way of living and of being.”? And there is “no problem that can’t be solved by more technology.”? There is even an element of magical thinking in Andreessen’s beliefs when he says, “We believe Artificial Intelligence is our alchemy, our Philosopher’s Stone.”

Central to Andreessen’s optimistic claims about the positive impacts of technology is the connection between technology and economic growth, what he refers to as the Techno-Capital Machine. ?For Andreessen, the value of economic growth is the source of all good.? As he puts it, “We believe growth is progress – leading to vitality, expansion of life, increasing knowledge, higher well being.”? And “We believe everything good is downstream of growth.”? He believes that the Techno-Capital Machine is the “engine of perpetual material creation, growth, and abundance” and that “the techno-capital machine of markets and innovation never ends, but instead spirals continuously upward”, resulting in falling prices, that free up purchasing power and creating demand, deploying unlimited numbers of people and machines in the process.? “Productivity growth, powered by technology, is the principal source of economic growth, wage growth, and the creation of new industries and new jobs … improving the material well being of the entire population.”?

He not only asserts these grandiose claims about technology and economic growth but rails against “lies” we are told and “enemies” who propose caution.? Among the “lies” Andreessen identifies are that “technology takes our jobs, reduces our wages, increases inequality, threatens our health, ruins the environment, degrades our society, corrupts our children, impairs our humanity, threatens our future”.? And among his enemies are Sustainable Development Goals, social responsibility, stakeholder capitalism, trust and safety, tech ethics, risk management, and the Precautionary Principle, which he considers “deeply immoral” and which must be jettisoned “with extreme prejudice”.

Andreessen is asking us to join him in his techno-optimism.? But should we abandon caution, when it comes to technology development?? Can we believe his claims?? Should we be optimistic?? Will unbridled technology development save the world and benefit us all?? Or will it further enrich those it has already enriched and cause harm to others?

Let’s begin by examining some of the claims Andreessen considers to be “lies”, for example, that AI may take jobs, reduce wages, and increases inequality.? Andreessen claims that it won’t happen because it hasn’t happened with the introduction of any other major technology throughout history.? But an analysis by Stanford economist Michael Webb finds a direct connection between the capabilities of various technologies and the elimination of jobs in certain occupations, with robots displacing jobs related to motion and mechanical operation, software productivity systems displacing jobs that involve the processing of information, and AI displacing jobs that involve detecting patterns and making judgments.? This job elimination creeps up the skill ladder with the introduction of robots, software, and AI moving from the displacement of manual jobs by robots, routine cognitive jobs by productivity software and more-advanced cognitive jobs by AI.? Webb also found that not only have many jobs been eliminated with the introduction of these technologies but the wages were lower among those who remain employed.? This trend also goes up the skill ladder.?

Andreessen tells us that another “lie” is that technology “corrupts our children”.? But #Meta for example, designed features in its products #Facebook and #Instagram that maximizes engagement and therefore profit, even when this engagement harms teenage girls. ?This practice and its impact undercut Meta’s professed value of building safe communities, particularly when they know that that the harm is happening and is linked to their technology.? This harm also undercuts Andreessen’s claims that precaution is immoral and that unbridled technology development will advance our well-being and benefit us all.

His claim of universal benefit is also expressed in economic terms when he says, “productivity growth, powered by technology, … improvi[es] the material well being of the entire population.”

But this claim does not hold either.? While both consumers and businesses have significantly increased their purchase of technology since 2000, data shows that productivity increases have not tracked with that trend.? And a Pew Research Center study found that this period of technology expansion did not benefit all but only one group of people: ?The top third of the wealthiest families in the U.S. accrued more and more wealth and the bottom two thirds, particularly the middle third, lost wealth.

Why does the technology-fueled growth of Techno-Capitalist Machine not work to benefit us all, as Andreessen contends??

Two of the many “patron saints” Andreessen identifies explain the disconnection:? Milton Friedman and Fredrich Nietzsche.

In a 1970 New York Times editorial entitle “A Friedman doctrine”, neoliberal economist Milton Friedman wrote “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits”.? For neoliberals, the self-interest of corporations excludes any other interest and the only value is profit, despite the claim it will benefit others.? When the capital resources of a company—such as technology and its development—are pitted against those of individuals—consumers or workers—from whom that profit is derived, self-interested capital invariably prevails and those with it benefit most.

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th century German philosopher who Andreessen quotes profusely in the Manifesto.? Central to the moral elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy are the opposing moral couplets of “good and bad” and “good and evil”.? In his work Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche describes the good-bad moral framing, which he calls this the “master morality”. ?In this framing, “good”, by which he means “noble”, is distinguished from “bad”, which means “despised”.? The master morality is a “higher” moral framing, a device used by the noble class—the “ruling caste”, the “powerful ones”, the “truthful ones”—to define what’s best in life and to distinguish themselves from the lower classes—the “despicable ones”.?

It is this moral framing that Andreessen embraces.?

On the other hand, the good-evil framing, which Nietzsche refers to as the “slave morality”, is a construction of the “cowardly”, the “timid”, the “insignificant”, and the “liars”, built out of resentfulness by “the self-abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused” as a way to attack the noble class and their actions as “evil”.

Nietzsche notes that the noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not need approval; he passes the judgment: “What is injurious to me is injurious in itself.” ?He honors whatever he recognizes in himself and in this way, morality equals self-glorification. ?

Andreessen’s philosophy of machismo and unfettered technological acceleration is not futuristic; it is an updated, fantastical version of the European Romantic Movement, of the 19th and early 20th centuries, replacing the love of nature with the love of technology.? His Manifesto is filled with good and bad, enemies and saints.? It is a world where “we” are strong, not weak; “we” believe in pride and self-respect, but only if it’s earned; “we” believe in bravery and courage, in ambition, aggression, persistence, and relentlessness, because “we are the apex predator”.? Andreessen claims our birthright is to control nature, which will otherwise kill us.? With these statements, the Manifesto sounds more like a fantasy video game than a serious rationale for being optimistic about the impact of unrestrained technological development.?

The Manifesto could be ignored if it wasn’t for the fact that it is attached to $36 billion dollar investment fund that shapes how technology will be implemented in the U.S. economy.? It is not accidental that following the recommendations of Andreessen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto would enrich him even more or that approaching technology with some caution might hurt his bottom line.? As with Nietzsche, Andreessen honors whatever he recognizes in himself and what is injurious to him is injurious in itself.

Unfortunately, he does not recognize himself when he calls “enemies” those who indulge in “abstract theories, luxury beliefs, social engineering, disconnected from the real world, delusional, unelected, and unaccountable – playing God with everyone else’s lives, with total insulation from the consequences.”

Can we feel optimistic about technological development in the hands of such gods??

How can we be confident that we will benefit and not be harmed when the Techno-Capital Machine is ruled by an economic philosophy where maximizing profit is the only social responsibility and when techno-optimism is the purview of the noble techno-class that honors whatever they recognize in themselves and where harm is only that which injures them?

What would techno-optimism look like if it was based on a philosophy where avoiding harm to all was a value and where all truly benefitted?? The features and functions of technology would more often be used to reduce the addictiveness of products rather than promote it, detect situations where people are vulnerable and recommend interventions, and protect creative products of artists and others rather than hoover them up into their databases.? They would increase the beneficial impact of technology, making it more likely that AI is used to cure disease, educate children and adults, promote civil democratic discourse, and mitigate global warming rather than breaking our passwords and disrupting our businesses and our civility.? And it would be a world in which Sustainable Development Goals, social responsibility, stakeholder capitalism, trust and safety, tech ethics, risk management, and the Precautionary Principle are friends of technological development, not enemies.

It is under those circumstances that I can be optimistic—downright enthusiastic—about the prospect of technology saving the world.