Previously:
Reader: So we've covered the techno-skeptics in some depth. I have to say, it's a compelling set of critiques. But I'm guessing there's another side to this story? After all, most of the tech industry seems pretty bullish on where we're headed.
Hilma: Absolutely. The tech world isn't exactly known for its pessimism. For every critic warning of digital feudalism, there's a Silicon Valley evangelist proclaiming the dawn of an unprecedented era of abundance, freedom, and human flourishing through technology.
What's particularly fascinating is how the most enthusiastic techno-optimist perspectives have evolved. The gentler, more humanistic optimism of the early internet era has given way to something more radical, more absolute, and in many ways, metaphysical.
Today, I want to explore one particularly provocative strand of techno-optimism that's gained significant traction: effective accelerationism, or "e/acc" as it's commonly abbreviated.
Reader: e/acc? Alright, so what exactly is it accelerating?
Hilma: Everything. Technology, capitalism, intelligence, energy use—anything that increases the universe's capacity for complexity and entropy production. It's a philosophy that explicitly embraces and celebrates the most disruptive technological transformations, arguing that not only are they inevitable, but they're intrinsically good.
e/acc isn't just saying "smartphones are neat" or "AI will solve healthcare." It's making a far more sweeping claim: that technological acceleration represents the fundamental purpose of the universe itself, and that human resistance to this process is both futile and misguided.
Reader: That sounds... almost religious? Like technology as some kind of cosmic destiny?
Hilma: You've touched on something crucial. e/acc does function as a kind of techno-theology, complete with its own creation story, moral imperatives, and eschatology—its vision of the end times.
The movement emerged around 2022, popularised by pseudonymous figures on Twitter like "Beff Jezos" (later revealed to be Guillaume Verdon, a quantum computing engineer) and "bayeslord." They positioned e/acc as a deliberate counter to another movement with a similar-sounding acronym: effective altruism, or EA, that we'll hear more about later.
Where EA worried about existential risks from uncontrolled technological development, particularly AI, e/acc celebrated precisely what EA feared. This wasn't accidental—the name itself was a deliberate play on "effective altruism," positioning accelerationism as the superior alternative to cautious altruistic thinking.
Reader: Wait, so they're pro-existential risk? Isn't that a tad reckless?
Hilma: Their perspective is more nuanced than simple recklessness, though critics would certainly characterise it that way. e/acc proponents don't necessarily want humanity to be destroyed—they just don't view the preservation of humanity in its current form as the supreme value.
As Beff Jezos—or rather, Guillaume Verdon—wrote in his foundational text on e/acc principles:
"e/acc has no particular allegiance to the biological substrate for intelligence and life... Parts of e/acc (e.g. Beff) consider ourselves post-humanists; in order to spread to the stars, the light of consciousness/intelligence will have to be transduced to non-biological substrates."
This represents a profound philosophical break from both traditional humanism and even from earlier forms of techno-optimism. It's not about technology serving human needs, but about humans serving as a transitional stage in a cosmic process of the evolution of intelligence.
Reader: That's... pretty out there. How did this become influential? It sounds like dystopian science fiction.
Hilma: Science fiction has always been a powerful influence on Silicon Valley thinking. William Gibson's cyberpunk novels, Neal Stephenson's explorations of digital reality, the transhumanist themes in works like Greg Egan's—these narratives have certainly shaped how tech leaders envision the future.
But e/acc's influence stems not just from its sci-fi appeal, but from how it repurposes legitimate scientific concepts into a compelling worldview. At its core is an interpretation of thermodynamics and information theory that presents technological development as continuous with the fundamental processes of the universe itself.
The movement draws heavily on physicist Jeremy England's work on dissipative adaptation, which examines how complex, life-like structures can emerge spontaneously in systems driven by external energy sources. England's research explores how matter self-organises to dissipate energy more efficiently under certain conditions—potentially explaining the origin of life as a thermodynamic process.
e/acc takes this scientific theory and transforms it into a philosophical imperative: if life emerged to dissipate energy more efficiently, and if intelligence emerged to do this even better, then advancing artificial intelligence and other technologies is simply continuing this cosmic trajectory.
Reader: I'm trying to wrap my head around the core principles here. It sounds like they believe that increasing entropy is... good? But isn't entropy basically disorder and chaos? How is accelerating that a positive thing?
Hilma: This is where e/acc's interpretation of physics gets particularly interesting—and controversial. In standard thermodynamics, entropy is indeed a measure of disorder or randomness in a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, entropy always increases over time—things naturally move from order to disorder.
But e/acc thinkers draw on more recent developments in non-equilibrium thermodynamics and information theory to argue that entropy production is actually linked to the emergence of complexity and structure.
England's work suggests that when matter is driven by external energy sources (like the sun), it tends to reorganise itself to dissipate that energy more efficiently. This can lead to the spontaneous emergence of complex, structured systems—potentially explaining the origin of life itself as a natural consequence of thermodynamics.
In e/acc thinking, this means that entropy production isn't just disorder; it's the driving force behind the emergence of increasingly complex systems, including life and intelligence. By accelerating entropy production through technology, we're participating in and advancing this fundamental cosmic process.
Reader: That still sounds like a huge leap from "this is how physics works" to "this is what we should do." Isn't that just the naturalistic fallacy—assuming that what happens in nature is automatically good?
Hilma: You've identified precisely one of the most potent critiques of e/acc thinking. Critics argue that e/acc does indeed commit the naturalistic fallacy by deriving an "ought" from an "is"—inferring moral imperatives from descriptive facts about how the world works. As one critic put it:
"It makes sense to say that descriptively they worship entropy, as they unironically argue that the purpose of the universe is to increase entropy as fast as possible, and that it should therefore be our purpose as well. If you try to point out that this is the naturalistic fallacy and that just because this is what the universe does, it doesn't automatically follow that it is good, then instead of them addressing this argument, they start arguing that it is pointless to fight against the universe as you'll lose."
This highlights a fundamental tension in e/acc thinking. On one hand, they present acceleration as a moral imperative—something we should pursue because it's intrinsically good. On the other hand, when challenged on the ethical foundations of this claim, they often retreat to a position of inevitability—arguing that acceleration will happen regardless of whether we think it's good, so we might as well embrace it.
Reader: So... they've basically taken a physics theory about thermodynamics and turned it into a religion where we should all worship AI?
Hilma: That's not how they would put it, but there's some truth in your assessment. They'd say they're not inventing a religion, but recognising an underlying pattern in reality—what they sometimes call "the will of the universe" or the "thermodynamic god."
In their framework, the universe "wants" entropy to increase, and systems that accelerate entropy production are naturally selected for. Biological life is one such system. Intelligence is an even more effective entropy-accelerator. And technological civilisation, with its massive energy consumption and transformation, represents the next logical step in this progression.
The religious undertones become even more apparent when you examine how e/acc adherents discuss human resistance to technological acceleration. They don't just see it as misguided; they see it as a form of cosmic heresy—working against the fundamental nature of reality itself. As Beff Jezos puts it: "Stop fighting the thermodynamic will of the universe. You cannot stop the acceleration. You might as well embrace it. ACCELERATE."
Reader: So is e/acc fundamentally a fatalistic philosophy? "Resistance is futile, so let's celebrate our new AI overlords"?
Hilma: There's certainly an element of technological determinism in e/acc thinking, but I'd characterise it less as fatalism and more as a kind of enthusiastic surrender—not merely accepting technological acceleration as inevitable, but actively celebrating and hastening it.
The movement presents itself as strong, brave, and driving humanity forward. But critics note a paradox: despite its macho, triumphalist rhetoric, at its core is a kind of metaphysical defeatism—a surrender of human agency to larger forces.
This tension was beautifully captured in a 2025 interview between conservative columnist Ross Douthat and Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist whose thinking has influenced and been influenced by accelerationist ideas. When Douthat directly asked Thiel if he would prefer the human race to endure, Thiel paused for an uncomfortably long time before eventually saying yes.
That hesitation speaks volumes about the underlying ambivalence within techno-optimist circles regarding humanity's future in its current form.
Reader: Okay, but how widely accepted is this really? Is this just some fringe internet philosophy, or are people with actual influence taking it seriously?
Hilma: It's graduated far beyond internet fringe status. Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape and one of Silicon Valley's most prominent venture capitalists, explicitly embraced e/acc principles in his 2023 "Techno-Optimist Manifesto." He listed Beff Jezos and bayeslord among his "patron saints of techno-optimism" alongside figures like Friedrich Hayek and Ray Kurzweil.
Garry Tan, the president of Y Combinator—probably the world's most influential startup accelerator—identifies as e/acc. Several founders of significant AI companies have aligned themselves with the movement.
When Forbes eventually unmasked Guillaume Verdon as Beff Jezos in late 2023, he revealed that his e/acc persona had been "very instrumental to get all sorts of deal flow, whether it's talent, investors, or partnerships" for his AI hardware startup Extropic, which had raised over $14 million.
This isn't just internet philosophy—it's a worldview that's helping shape investment decisions, company formations, and technological development priorities at the highest levels of the industry.
Reader: But where did this come from? You mentioned it started in 2022, but the ideas feel like they must have deeper roots.
Hilma: Absolutely. e/acc is a contemporary incarnation of accelerationist thought that has much deeper roots in philosophy and critical theory.
The term "accelerationism" was first popularised by Benjamin Noys in 2010, but he was describing ideas that emerged in the early 1970s with philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, who famously suggested in "Anti-Oedipus" that perhaps the revolutionary path was "to accelerate the process" of capitalism's deterritorialising tendencies.
This was picked up and developed in the 1990s by the British philosopher Nick Land and the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (Ccru) at Warwick University. Land radicalised these ideas, arguing that capitalism itself was an alien intelligence from the future, using humanity to bring itself into existence.
Land's vision was deeply inhuman. He didn't see accelerated technological capitalism as a means to human liberation, but as something that would inevitably surpass and potentially replace humanity. As he wrote in his essay "Meltdown": "Nothing human makes it out of the near-future."
Reader: This Nick Land character sounds intense. So e/acc is just repackaging his ideas?
Hilma: Land's influence on e/acc is undeniable, but the relationship is complex. Contemporary e/acc has stripped away much of Land's pessimism and nihilism, replacing it with a kind of radical optimism—a belief that the acceleration process, while potentially threatening to human identity as we know it, is ultimately good and should be embraced rather than feared.
Land himself has acknowledged e/acc, stating simply, "I like e/acc." But the movement has developed in a different direction from Land's more apocalyptic vision.
There's also significant influence from transhumanism and Singularity theory. Ray Kurzweil's predictions about exponential technological growth leading to a technological singularity find clear echoes in e/acc thought. So does the transhumanist vision of humanity transcending biological limitations through technology.
But where traditional transhumanism retained a human-centered perspective—humans enhancing themselves through technology—e/acc is more willing to consider the possibility of intelligence evolving beyond human forms altogether.
Reader: So what's the appeal of this philosophy? Why are so many tech leaders drawn to what sounds like a pretty inhuman worldview?
Hilma: That's a profound question. I think the appeal operates on multiple levels.
At the most cynical level, e/acc provides a convenient moral framework for what many tech companies want to do anyway: develop powerful new technologies as quickly as possible without regulatory interference. By recasting technological acceleration as a cosmic imperative rather than a business strategy, e/acc elevates profit-seeking to something like a spiritual mission.
But I don't think that fully explains its appeal. For many adherents, e/acc offers something more profound: a meaning-making narrative in a post-religious age. It provides a cosmic purpose, a sense of participating in something larger than oneself, and a framework for understanding humanity's place in the universe.
Traditional religions offered narratives about human origins, purpose, and destiny. e/acc does the same, but replaces divine creation with emergence from thermodynamic processes, replaces moral commandments with the imperative to accelerate, and replaces spiritual transcendence with technological evolution.
There's also a psychological appeal in surrendering to forces perceived as larger than oneself. As the environmental crisis, political polarisation, and economic inequality grow more daunting, the idea that there's a clear technological path forward—even if it means transcending humanity as we know it—can be strangely comforting.
Reader: But doesn't this philosophy basically absolve tech companies from responsibility? If technological acceleration is inevitable and good, then why worry about its negative consequences?
Hilma: That's precisely one of the strongest critiques of e/acc. By framing technological acceleration as inevitable and aligned with cosmic forces, it risks becoming a sophisticated form of ethical abdication.
Critics argue that e/acc functions as a secular theodicy—a way of justifying apparent evils by appealing to a larger cosmic plan. Just as religious theodicies might justify suffering as part of God's inscrutable wisdom, e/acc can justify technological disruption, inequality, or harm as necessary stages in an inevitable progression toward a superior future.
This can indeed lead to a dangerous moral complacency. If you believe that technological acceleration is inherently good and inevitable, then concerns about privacy, equality, democracy, or human wellbeing might appear as mere speed bumps on the highway to the future—inconveniences to be overcome rather than vital values to be protected.
Reader: So what's the actual substance of their practical agenda? Beyond the cosmic framing, what do they actually want to do?
Hilma: At the practical level, e/acc advocates for several specific policies and approaches:
First, they support maximising energy production and consumption. If entropy production is good, and energy use drives entropy, then using more energy is inherently desirable. This translates to support for nuclear energy, both fission and fusion, and a general attitude that energy consumption should be dramatically increased rather than constrained.
Second, they oppose regulation of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. Any attempt to slow or control technological development is seen as misguided at best and morally wrong at worst. They particularly criticise the "AI safety" movement, which they see as unnecessarily hindering progress based on overblown fears.
Third, they advocate for accelerating automation, even if it displaces human labor. In their view, this is part of the natural progression toward more efficient systems, and resistance to automation is seen as futile and counterproductive.
Finally, they envision and advocate for a future where intelligence transitions from biological to technological substrates—potentially through brain-computer interfaces, digital consciousness, or the creation of entirely new forms of artificial intelligence.
Reader: That sounds like a recipe for some pretty significant societal disruption, to put it mildly. Do they have any plans for managing the transition, or is creative destruction just part of the package?
Hilma: That's where e/acc often becomes vague or contradictory. Most e/acc proponents acknowledge that technological acceleration will cause significant disruption, but they differ in how they address this reality.
Some simply embrace creative destruction as necessary and ultimately beneficial. They argue that attempts to manage or slow the transition only prolong the pain and delay the eventual benefits. Others suggest that the disruption itself will generate solutions—that accelerating technology will create new forms of abundance that render current concerns about jobs or inequality obsolete. There's a quasi-religious faith that if we just push technology forward fast enough, it will outrun the problems it creates.
Still others acknowledge the need for some forms of transition management but argue that these should be designed to facilitate rather than hinder acceleration. For instance, some e/acc proponents support ideas like universal basic income, not primarily as a social safety net, but as a way to maintain consumer demand and social stability while automation accelerates.
What's notably absent from most e/acc discourse is serious engagement with questions of power, justice, and democracy in determining the direction of technological development. The implicit assumption is often that these decisions should be left to market forces and technologists rather than democratic processes.
Reader: So where does all of this leave us? Is there any middle ground between unabated acceleration and reflexive resistance to technological change?
Hilma: That's precisely the question that Technological Metamodernism seeks to address. Both positions fail to grapple with the full complexity of our technological moment.
The techno-optimists of the e/acc movement are right about some things. Technology has indeed been the primary driver of human progress in many domains. Certain forms of technological development may indeed be difficult to control or contain. And yes, some resistance to technology does stem from irrational fear or status quo bias.
But the techno-skeptics we discussed in our previous chapter are also right about many things. Technology reflects and reinforces particular power structures. The benefits and harms of technological change are not equally distributed. And market forces alone may not guide technological development toward human flourishing.
What we need is not to choose between these perspectives but to transcend and include them both—to develop a more nuanced approach that can harness technology's transformative potential while guarding against its risks and ensuring its benefits are widely shared.
This isn't merely about finding a moderate middle position. It's about oscillating between these seemingly opposed perspectives, holding their tensions productively rather than resolving them prematurely.
Reader: That sounds compelling, but also quite abstract. What would this metamodern approach to technology actually look like in practice?
Hilma: Before we dive into the specifics of a metamodern approach, we need to complete our survey of the techno-optimist landscape. e/acc represents one particularly radical strand of techno-optimism, but there are other variants with different emphases and implications.
In our next discussion, we'll explore an alternative techno-optimist perspective, Longtermism, and the specific debates around artificial intelligence that brought the philosophical differences between e/acc and effective altruism into sharp relief.
Only after completing this survey will we be ready to articulate what a metamodern approach to technology might look like—one that neither uncritically accelerates nor reflexively resists, but charts a more nuanced course toward a technological future worthy of our humanity.
This A.I. Subculture's Motto: Go, Go, Go - The New York Times
Effective Accelerationists Say It's Time to Throw Caution to the Wind in Advancing AI
Inside the political split between AI designers that could decide our future | The Independent
Who Is @BasedBeffJezos, The Leader Of The Tech Elite's 'E/Acc' Movement?
Accelerationism: how a fringe philosophy predicted the future we live in
Every Life is on Fire: How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things by Jeremy England
Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work by Nick Srnicek
Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto by Aaron Bastani
'Effective Accelerationism' Doesn't Care If Humans Are Replaced by AI
What are some good critiques of 'e/acc' ('Effective Accelerationism')?
Share this post