Marc is Wrong
I recently read The Techno-Optimist Manifesto by Marc Andreessen, and it gave me a lot to think about. Andreessen, one of the pioneers behind Netscape1, the first browser I used on my personal computer, believes that technology and capitalism are the foundations of human progress. To him, stagnation is humanity’s greatest enemy, and constant progress should be our natural state.
He stresses over and over that technological progress is essential, even accusing those who resist it of committing a “crime against humanity.” He calls such critics “Enemies” and includes corruption, bureaucracy, cartels, and “anti-greatness” attitudes on his list. The article ends by referencing Nietzsche’s idea of the Last Man.2
Andreessen says:
Lies
"We are being lied to.
We are told to be pessimistic.
We are told to be angry, bitter, and resentful about technology.
We are told to be miserable about the future."
Truth
"Our civilization is built on technology.
It is time to be Techno-Optimists."
There are, of course, many critics of technology, and we cannot ignore their concerns. In 1750, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, warned against the Enlightenment’s optimism about progress. He argued that science and art might corrupt morals, pulling people away from simple virtues and harmony with nature. For Rousseau, technology brought shallow success rather than true improvement.
Neil Postman makes a similar argument in The Disappearance of Childhood, a book I greatly enjoyed. He claims that media and technology, by giving children instant access to adult content, destroy the distinction of childhood and weaken deep thinking. While technology does make information easier to access, Postman shows how it can also distract us, encourage shallow engagement, and even harm social bonds.
This is why I don’t think philosophers like Kant, Montesquieu, Rousseau, or later critics such as Postman and McLuhan have “lied” to us, as Andreessen suggests. On the contrary, they seriously examined the risks of unchecked technological progress. Questioning technology’s impact, exploring its dangers, and building sustainable, human-centered approaches are not crimes, they are necessary steps for society.
Andreessen presents technology almost as a power that can be turned on and off with a key, easily controllable. Regarding artificial intelligence (AI), he makes the following statement:
“We believe any deceleration of AI will cost lives. Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder.”
But advanced technologies like AI are not just tools, they reshape entire cultures and power structures. AI may bring breakthroughs in medicine, industry, and beyond, but it also raises profound risks. Organizations like the Center for AI Safety (CAIS) are already researching these social impacts and advising governments. The benefits are real, but so are the dangers.
Here, the Roman phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—“Who watches the watchers?”—becomes relevant. History shows that unchecked power breeds corruption. Similarly, AI without limits could create “surveillance societies,”3 where states can monitor citizens constantly, removing even the natural limits of dictatorship.
So, we need to discuss the limits of artificial intelligence and technology, as well as ethics and social responsibility. Technology has the power not only to make life easier but also to change the structure of society. To protect social well-being, it’s essential to question, regulate, and keep this power within ethical limits.
1. Netscape played a central role in the “browser wars” of the 1990s.
2. Nietzsche’s Last Man is a symbol of complacency and mediocrity in society.
3. I first encountered this term in a essay by Michel Foucault where he interprets Immanuel Kant’s essay of the same name, What Is Enlightenment?