Any thoughts about the implications of all these technocrats from Silicon Valley being so cordial with the current federal government, which defends a “certain” Christian morality? It's all about greed, ambition, and exploitation?
> Any thoughts about the implications of all these technocrats from Silicon Valley being so cordial with the current federal government, which defends a “certain” Christian morality? It's all about greed, ambition, and exploitation?
A great question!
From an ideological standpoint, I see the technocratic worldview and the Christian nationalist worldview coming together in two aspects: 1) a willingness to rank humans based on their perceived value and 2) an instrumental attitude towards sapient beings.
On point 1, what I observe is that the technocrats and their ideologists like Nick Bostrom embrace utilitarian ethics, which fundamentally relies on an assumption that it is possible to measure people's well-being on a common scale. Then, in that worldview, there can be methods that contribute more or less to aggregate wellbeing, which leads to conclusions like how it is more important to ensure a future with a huge number of happy simulated posthumans than to address actual suffering today. Meanwhile, JD Vance has attempted to justify his policies by citing the theological concept of "ordo amoris," or the "order of love," suggesting that love should begin with one's family and diminish as it extend outwards. Ironically both the late Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV have criticized this idea, so the leadership of the Catholic Church does not endorse this worldview at all. From my point of view, this idea of ranking loves is fundamentally anti-Christian because it goes against Jesus's teaching, "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged" (Matthew 7:1). God does not love people on the basis of the value God assigns to them, because there is nothing in all of creation that can separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:31-39).
On point 2, I find a disturbing overlap between the technocratic interest in creating artificial general intelligences (AGI) and the Christian nationalist interest in natalism. In both cases, there is a desire to bring more sapient beings into the world, but the desire, as far as I see it, is purely instrumental. The technocrat wishes to develop an "aligned" AGI, because this will allow for creating an unlimited number of (super-)human economic agents which serve as instruments for achieving the technocrat's goals. Meanwhile, the Christian nationalist pushes for increased birth rates, not out of regard for the well-being of particular families or particular children, but in order to achieve aggregate goals like expanding the labor force or reshaping ethnic and religious demographics. In both these cases, bringing about more sapient beings (whether through the instantiation of human-level AI or through increased human birth rates) does not serve the goals of the sapient beings themselves, but the goals of the policymaker. This stands in clear contrast with the Christian view of God whose love is particular to each person, such that not even a sparrow will fall to the ground without God taking notice (Matthew 10:29).
Any thoughts about the implications of all these technocrats from Silicon Valley being so cordial with the current federal government, which defends a “certain” Christian morality? It's all about greed, ambition, and exploitation?
> Any thoughts about the implications of all these technocrats from Silicon Valley being so cordial with the current federal government, which defends a “certain” Christian morality? It's all about greed, ambition, and exploitation?
A great question!
From an ideological standpoint, I see the technocratic worldview and the Christian nationalist worldview coming together in two aspects: 1) a willingness to rank humans based on their perceived value and 2) an instrumental attitude towards sapient beings.
On point 1, what I observe is that the technocrats and their ideologists like Nick Bostrom embrace utilitarian ethics, which fundamentally relies on an assumption that it is possible to measure people's well-being on a common scale. Then, in that worldview, there can be methods that contribute more or less to aggregate wellbeing, which leads to conclusions like how it is more important to ensure a future with a huge number of happy simulated posthumans than to address actual suffering today. Meanwhile, JD Vance has attempted to justify his policies by citing the theological concept of "ordo amoris," or the "order of love," suggesting that love should begin with one's family and diminish as it extend outwards. Ironically both the late Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV have criticized this idea, so the leadership of the Catholic Church does not endorse this worldview at all. From my point of view, this idea of ranking loves is fundamentally anti-Christian because it goes against Jesus's teaching, "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged" (Matthew 7:1). God does not love people on the basis of the value God assigns to them, because there is nothing in all of creation that can separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:31-39).
On point 2, I find a disturbing overlap between the technocratic interest in creating artificial general intelligences (AGI) and the Christian nationalist interest in natalism. In both cases, there is a desire to bring more sapient beings into the world, but the desire, as far as I see it, is purely instrumental. The technocrat wishes to develop an "aligned" AGI, because this will allow for creating an unlimited number of (super-)human economic agents which serve as instruments for achieving the technocrat's goals. Meanwhile, the Christian nationalist pushes for increased birth rates, not out of regard for the well-being of particular families or particular children, but in order to achieve aggregate goals like expanding the labor force or reshaping ethnic and religious demographics. In both these cases, bringing about more sapient beings (whether through the instantiation of human-level AI or through increased human birth rates) does not serve the goals of the sapient beings themselves, but the goals of the policymaker. This stands in clear contrast with the Christian view of God whose love is particular to each person, such that not even a sparrow will fall to the ground without God taking notice (Matthew 10:29).