Effective Accelerationism & Transhumanism Movements
The e/acc movement's ultimate goal is technology replacing humanity. Not so for Transhumanists. So what are these movements? Why should we care?
We are in the early days of the Digital Age, a time when digital technologies, especially ones that augment our cognitive abilities are changing our societies. As part of this shift, we are starting to see new sociocultural movements forming that are creating interesting ideas around humanity’s relationship with these technologies. Some in quite remarkable, disconcerting, ways. Perhaps the most aggressive and radical of these movements is Effective Accelerationism or e/acc as is often written which might also be defined as Posthumanism.
As a movement, e/acc is relatively new and has emerged mostly out of Silicon Valley, although it has members around the world. The e/acc movement has some shared interests with the Transhumanist (no, not transgender, two very different things) movement. It’s more prominent adherents are Sam Altman of OpenAI, Elon Musk, venture capitalist Marc Andreeson and Lex Fridman.
In this article, I explore what this movement is compared to Transhumanism and why it’s important to understand the e/acc movement and it’s potential implications for the Digital Age and the role we want digital technologies to play in our societies and cultures.
The key difference between e/acc and Transhumanism is that e/acc is a bit more radical and less human centric. Transhumanists have a greater degree of care with regard to human agency, values and rights. The e/acc movement does not. The e/acc movement essentially sees humanity in a state of entropy, that as a species, we are simply in decline and that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is the next phase of intelligence. So, goodbye humans.
Transhumanists at least, have principles and ethics when it comes to how humanity, Artificial Intelligence, genetic engineering etc., should evolve by seeking to improve the human condition through technologies. Transhumanists don’t want to replace humans. For the e/acc movement, they’re largely indifferent to human suffering and extinction. To them, humans are very much replaceable.
“My Mallory heart is sure to fail
I could crawl around the floor just like I’m real
Like you” — Gary Numan, Metal
We might say that Transhumanists are much more optimistic about humanity while e/acc adherents are nihilists. Both believe that the core technologies to achieving their visions are ones like genetic engineering, Artificial Intelligence (AI), cybernetics, bioengineering and nanotechnology.
e/acc: Cult, Religion, Philosophy or Something Else?
In a sense, the e/acc movement could be seen as a cult, but not really. There’s no charismatic single leader, but rather a group of elites, disconnected from societal realities. The closest ideological or perhaps cult-like statement or titular leader is Marc Andreeson as posited via his manifesto released in the fall of 2023. But e/acc isn’t a cult at the end of the day, but could, essentially, become one. Andreeson’s manifesto is more a mish-mash of ideas, misquotes and conspiracy theory tropes.
So. A religion? There’s no apparent belief in a supreme being. But one could ascribe the view that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) as a new sentience and consciousness could have a religious undertone in the idea of creating a supreme being. But that would, er go, mean humans are essentially, gods. Or demons, depending on one’s perspective. But there’s no system of worship, ritual or other elements of a religion. So, no.
“We’re in the building where they make us grow
And I’m frightened by the liquid engineers
Like you” — Gary Numan, Metal
A philosophy? To a degree, yes, but it’s not fully formed yet. Rather, it’s an ideology. Or set of ideas with the ultimate aim being the end of humanity, and a lot of other ideas like Technolibertarianism tossed into the salad mix.
What fits better is the term Revitalisation Movement, a term coined by anthropologist Anthony F.C. Wallace in the late 1950’s. These movements take on various forms like nativistic, messianic, utopian or even techtopian. Christian Nationalism is a Revitalisation Movement that wants to create a future America that is pretty much the same as the Taliban have done Afghanistan, only using their twisted version of Christianity instead of the Taliban’s twisted version of Islam.
Revitalisation Movements have existed for much longer than the 1950’s. That’s just when anthropology put a name and definition around them. The Ku Klux Klan, now essentially Christian Nationalism without the hoods, was a Revitalisation Movement as well. Some similar technology ones have been the Solarpunk and Raelianism movements.
All have a vision of a future human social state. Except the e/acc movement which sees no humans in the future state. Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
Should We Be Worried About Effective Accelerationists?
Not really, but also, yes. To a small degree. Fascism was (is) a political ideology, but started out as a Revitalisation Movement. Hitler and Mussolini had a desired future state. A rather horrific one and millions of Jews died as a result. And millions of others. So yes, a Revitalisation Movement, should it evolve into a political ideology and movement, can become dangerous. I am not comparing e/acc adherents to fascists. Not at all. Simply as an example of how a movement can become globally dangerous.
But some of the primary e/acc people, mostly men, one might note, are quite powerful in both financial and social influence terms. But such a radical agenda as seeking to use technological advancement to end humanity is not likely to get much political traction. Even autocrats like Putin and Xi want to have humans around to do their bidding.
What is the Future of Effective Accelerationism?
While it’s impossible to really predict a future, they’re likely to remain a small group, seeming as they don’t care much for the condition of the common folk. Hardly a good recruiting message. They’ll certainly continue to have significant influence on what technologies get funded and some degree of lobbying influence, but that will largely be just in the USA. One thinks it might be hard to get people to sign up for the goal of ending the existence of humanity. People, generally, do prefer being alive and having future generations around.
The Transhumanist movement has been around quite a while and formed some very interesting organisations around it such as the Singularity University and the Long Now Foundation. These folks at least, believe in human values and rights. And, most importantly, not the end of humanity.
The ideas of Marc Andreeson and quasi celebrity Lex Fridman are mostly only heard in the world of technology and generally don’t seep out into the public narrative, except when Andreeson writes a manifesto that he says isn’t a manifesto. Sure Marc.
Yet neither e/acc or Transhumanism are likely to result in a massive political movement that ends up running the country. But hey, MAGA. But they’re a political movement, not a Revitalisation Movement.
But nor can we simply set the e/acc bunch aside as a small, elitist, radical group. They do have some political influence (not as much as they’d like though) and a lot of money. So they can create some bumpy spots and potholes along the information superhighway of the Digital Age. Thus, the e/acc movement can influence certain technologies in certain directions.
In one sense, however, understanding the ideology of the e/acc movement and it’s desired end goal, no more humans, can serve as fair warning to the rest of the society of technological idealism run amok.
“All I know
Is no one dies
I’m still confusing love with need.” — Gary Numan, Metal
In my a future article I’ll dive a bit more into the Transhumanist world. I did once before, but the next article will draw some comparisons between Christian theology and Transhumanism which while a Revitalisation Movement, has some theological elements and is a more refined set of ideas and philosophies and not a fan of the end of humanity.