upvote
This is hogwash. It's incel and eugenic reasoning wrapped up all together.

Not every smart person (or even most) are engineers, and of the ones that are they don't all move to tech hubs, and the ones that do not all of them can't get laid.

And I'll give you a great reason why it's hogwash, the "brilliant" engineers that can't get laid in Singapore are the same "brilliant" engineers that can't get laid in their home town

reply
We can blame the individual for the cost we've outsourced into him. When he collapses under that load, we can attribute it to personal shortcomings. Some people survive, even thrive, in the current environment, after all. We've coalesced a plurality of games into a single one, and in a sense, it works great. We have our smartphones, AI, online shopping, and targeted advertising.

Notepad now has Copilot built right into it, after all. That wasn't going to happen by now if we took the human psyche as a given and built around that.

reply
…not to mention they are completely ignoring the existence of smart girls as well
reply
deleted
reply
>>It's incel and eugenic reasoning wrapped up all together.

More like French post-structuralism.

reply
It’s the same nonsense as people going “Idiocracy is a documentary.“ Of course none of them think they’re the idiots.
reply
What amazes me about this theory is that being the 115 IQ guy in a town where the next guy is 105 isn’t better than being the 115 IQ guy in and office averaging 120.

Or put more plainly, being a big fish in a small pond is not better than being a small fish.

reply
What’s the alternative. Keep the smart physically separated, can never collaborate to make anything paradigm shifting and we just prod along with small town paper mills and marginally better local government?
reply
Within the Landian system, I suspect he'd say the answer is economic "territorialization", the economic equivalent to the mechanism originally defined by Deleuze+Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus based on the territoriality of earlier work.

It's the process where social, political, or cultural meaning is rooted in some context. It's a state of stability and boundaries. For just the economic, the geographic would likely be the centroid of that, but the other vectors are not irrelevant.

One could argue that we suffer to the degree we are deterritorialized, because the effects thereof are alienating. So, we need structure that aligns both our economic and psychological needs. What we have is subordination to the machine, which will do what it's designed to: optimize for its own desire, which is machinic production.

Note that none of this is inherently good/bad. Like anything, a choice has trade-offs. We definitely get more production within the current structure. The cost is born by the individual, aggregating into the social ills that are now endemic.

reply
Land himself has suggested a very anti-human solution to the problem of "IQ shredders":

"The most hard-core capitalist response to this [IQ shredders] is to double-down on the antihumanist accelerationism. This genetic burn-rate is obviously unsustainable, so we need to convert the human species into auto-intelligenic robotized capital [a]s fast as possible, before the whole process goes down in flames." [0]

[0] Nick Land (2014). IQ Shredders in Xenosystems Blog. Retrieved from github.com/cyborg-nomade/reignition

reply
Thanks, been awhile since I read it.

I think the only solution is territorialization if you want to preserve the human. If you don't care about that (or think that it's not possible anyway), then yes, accelerate.

reply
California had a great mechanism for this in their land grant colleges, which back before the protests of the Vietnam War were required to offer the valedictorian of nearby high schools (or the person with the highest GPA who accepted) full tuition and room and board --- then Governor Ronald Reagan shut down this program when the students had the temerity to protest the Vietnam War --- it was also grade inflation to keep students above the threshold necessary for a draft deferment which began the downward spiral of American education.
reply
deleted
reply
A little less min-maxing, perhaps.
reply
A cohesive culture that has strong bonds that transcend class. Rich people choosing to allocate capital in a manner that benefits them at the expense of others isn’t a new phenomenon by any means. We need rulers who value noblesse oblige. The current ones see us as cattle (the term popping up the Epstein emails so frequently is kinda funny).

“Blood and soil” is such a taboo in today’s society because it’s the solution to the problems we have. I don’t say this to be edgy. Scaling trust is the most important thing in human societies, and race, cultural history, shared religion etc are the absolute best ways to do this. Think about it this way:

Every morning men like Sam Altman wake up and decide to keep pursuing billions of dollars with no thought of how to ensure the rest of his people (because they aren’t you and me) are going to get by. He could very easily make this a core tenet of OpenAI (in a way inline with its original incarnation) and be _loved_ by the people. We don’t have a single elite that behaves this way: Musk, Trump, Altman, etc are all parasites that do not care if we live or die.

Land and co. are more or less transhumanist Thiel cronies so you’re not gonna get great analysis from them.

reply