Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kevin's avatar

My interpretation of Andreessen's recent writings is that he is not trying to inspire people, per se, but instead trying to clarify how his own ideological position is different from the Democrat-Republican axis. Most people in tech are Democrats so it's particularly relevant how he differentiates from the Democratic political consensus:

1. Anti AI safety

2. Pro nuclear fission

3. Pro nuclear fusion

4. Anti ESG

5. Pro free speech

6. Anti academia

As a VC who writes large checks his job is generally not to "inspire people" - that happens earlier in the process. This is more of a "brand positioning" statement.

Expand full comment
Stephen Lindsay's avatar

On inspiration. I’ve been reading a little on the origins of Critical Theory (Max Horkheimer and the Frankfurt gang), that has spread and captured the world now. Three important choices they made in the early 1930s. 1) rejected scientific positivism and even rationalism to some extent. This allowed for discussion on a more holistic level of things like fostering a new “consciousness.” Not scientifically precise but it carries a powerful meaning that resonates. It’s hard to be inspiring when the conversation centers on soulless technology and economics. And 2) while touting their socialist vision in vague holistic terms they were highly focused on hammering the cultural fissures and absurdities (there are always absurdities) of the capitalist status quo.

So maybe my suggestion is to not be soulless. What does the techno-future do to enable the thriving of humanity on a spiritual level (beyond “mere”economic prosperity). And maybe more importantly, how does the current state of stagnation and decline restrict and cripple the inner human soul. You don’t need to use the word soul or spiritual (I know that goes against the grain here) but somehow your rhetoric must accept that man does not live by bread alone.

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts