Human civilization has always been, and is to this day, shaped by a series of compromises between culture and technology - both in the broadest sense possible. This is not bad, we want it to happen. Because we’re utterly dependent not just on technology, but continued technological growth. And not just because we need better technical capabilities, but also because it forces culture to improve (printing press is a case in point). The monster we’re fighting now is a parasite that in one sense has always been there - the cluster of centralization, optimization, quantification, formalization, standardization, as well as short-sighted risk analysis and top-down linear thinking that lends itself to all resource exploitation. It’s not always bad, and indeed often necessary. But it is self-reinforcing, and can quickly get out of hand. It came into our culture after 1871, when the Germans offered the world final proof of the superiority of their militarized model of society (by sweeping the french armies off the map in a matter of months), and every western power promptly copied their school system, as well as their bureaucratic logic. The elimination of the gold standard then became a matter of time - an unavoidable victim in the modern project. A centralizing beast had been implanted into western civilization, which is kinda ironic since its success in the first place came of decentralization. Another irony (or paradox) of the past 100 years is that while unity was sought in politics and statecraft, art and culture faced utter fragmentation and relativism. Dunno what’s going on there, to be honest. Anyway, what is needed is to abandon the exploitation mode, and get back into exploration mode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration%E2%80%93exploitation_dilemma). Civilization thrives when it has frontiers, opportunities and freedom - all fruits on the tree of technology. So I say: Embrace technology, but repudiate the idea that we should control it. We can’t, and shouldn’t try to. It affects us as much as the other way around, and for most of human history, that has been a very good thing indeed. (This is not a comment on Core vs. Knots, btw.)

I’m hopeful that complexity theory offers a way forward in social science. That would provide a major ipgrade in the way we speak about politics, economics, society, even ethics and relationships. Once you understand the fundamental difference between simple, linear, designed systems, that can be tweaked and optimized, and complex adaptive systems, that can only be gently nudged at best, on the other, a lot of the scientific journal literature looks like geocentric astronomy. And once you realize that these are two *worlds*, drawing a sharp line through all of reality, between that which can and cannot be quantified, optimized, formalized, standardized and generally tinkered with, solutions to old problems, large and small, seem obvious. But perhaps the most amazing thing about complexity theory, is that it provides the most forceful arguments for freedom. From its many insights, spanning all the sciences from history and art to physics and economics, a common thread of emergent order and efficiency speaks to the importance of letting systems adapt. And the irony is that those who constantly tell us that gender, ecosystems and sexuality is complex, do so to justify far more dangerous interventions into far more complex, and far more important systems, such as the market, civilization and the scientific enterprise.

«If men must spare women the world, then women must spare men the truth - as though each forever remained alternate halves of the same defenseless child» - R. Scott Bakker

We’ve been here before guys. Knut Hamsun was crystal clear: he supported Hitler because he saw him as the only defense against communism. And why did he – along with hundreds of thousands of other Europeans in the 1920s and ’30s – believe that fascism was necessary to fight communism? Because the liberal elites lacked the backbone to defend Western civilization against the communists’ subversive tactics. This is established history: fascism arose as a reaction to communism. Orwell understood this in Spain, and he tried to warn people about it in Homage to Catalonia. Fascism and communism feed off one another, because both seek a political game whose currency is lies, subversion, and violence. The cure is honesty, and a clear understanding of Popper’s paradox of tolerance. A united civil society must say: “No, it is not acceptable to sabotage others, no matter how repulsive you find their opinions,” and: “Yes, we are not just willing, but positively thrilled to enforce this principle with force if necessary” That is what it entails to defens freedom. Anything less is a green light to escalation, which will end very, very badly. And I want to stress this, because it is EXTREMELY important: what we need is not moderation. What we need is a fierce, uncompromising, radical defense of liberal priciples. We need an unshakable, absolute zero tolerance for violence, sabotage, cancel culture, threats, and abuses of power. In that sense, it is deeply worrying to see how toothless and uninformed our leaders are. They are the ideological kin of those who watched, pathetically and impotently, as Hitler tore down the last remnants of democracy in 1933. It is also worrying to see conservatives gleefully try to get people fired for tasteless comments about Kirk.

To understand the way forward, there is nothing better than reading The Beginning Of Infinity by David Deutsch.

Become a radical, or watch society get destroyed by radicals.

Make no mistake: This has happened once before. Do not run. Become an extremist for tolerance and freedom.

The alternative to the European Union is not a Europe divided. It is a Europe with strength and confidence.

I wrote a bitcoin-pitch disguised as an article about technology.

Technology Makes You Ungovernable

By taking away tools of oppression and empowering individuals, technology forces people to adopt better norms. Moral progress is primarily caused b...

The most important misunderstanding about quantum computers IMO is the largely implicit idea that companies in 2025 are able to build sufficiently fault resistant systems. Google can’t build a non-racist image generator, or stop itself from ruining its own products, BUT they’ll build a 10 million qbit QC before 2035? Come on… If it were batteries, I might’ve been there with you. Better batteries will be incredibly profitable, there’s a real race there. But compare the hype and the results surrounding SS batteries since 2015, and ask yourself whether it makes sense to be more optimistic WRT a technology that is less useful, less profitable, more esoteric and edgy… I think not. Indeed, I don’t think Shor’s algorithm will be breaking anything in my lifetime, even though I think we’ll have fusion. It’s not pessimism, merely a proper respect for how hard it is to build quantum computers.

The absolute state of Euopean politics these days

Might as well start posting here right away. I mean who are we kidding… Europe’s totally gearing up to shut down X.

In Norway it is now faux pas not only to support Trump, but letting Trump-supporters go about their business. It’s taken on hysterical moralism in the blink of an eye.

I think there is no race. The internet is actually running laps around legacy institutions, and has been for years. It’s just not obvious to everyone because measurements are bad. It’s not about who makes the fewest errors, but who is learning fastest. It’s not about who is biggest, but who is growing fastest. It’s not about who is the most powerful, but who is most flexible. Bitcoin beats banks. Twitter beats universities. Youtube beats school. I think this will only get broad recognition after the fact, when people start sifting through the debree of collapsed fiat institutions. View quoted note →

I don’t care how nice you are, how otherwise ethical and productive and intelligent: If you support censorship, you’re my enemy.

There is nothing I hate more than having to deal with the condescending advice of academic supervisors, whose depthless confidense comes from a much honed ability to dissemble and confuse on basic questions of scientific inquiry. In reality, they’re merely enforcing faux rigour in a cargo cult that has nothing to do with truth seeking or genuine original argumentation. Being right, doing something new, or even just contributing to solving a problem, is frowned upon. You’re supposed to just do the thing, with no ambition at all, and prove that you’re a good boy - willing to spend endless hours doing something that’s pointless, boring and technical. Because that’s what employers like to see. Everyone knows that ideas can cause trouble.

Welcome, Brazilians 🥳

Few