Accelerationism is acceptable to people who think they have little to fear from a (hopefully) short spike in terrible things, because they might come out of the other side worse for wear, but they will make it through.
But for everybody who’s part of a vulnerable group it’s throwing them to the wolves, because likely, they will not come out of the other side.
(I want to be clear that I’m not advocating for accelerationism, I’m just seeing holes in the argument)
Pushing people in a vulnerable position now to make change for the future is a great example of the needs of the many ethical arguments. Advocating against change because it hurts me in the short term is inherently selfish.
I know people that are accelerationists, and The ones I know don’t assume that they’ll come out ahead or even the same. They recognize that the system is inherently broken and they think they need more people uncomfortable to make meaningful change.
Accelerationism is acceptable to people who think they have little to fear from a (hopefully) short spike in terrible things, because they might come out of the other side worse for wear, but they will make it through.
But for everybody who’s part of a vulnerable group it’s throwing them to the wolves, because likely, they will not come out of the other side.
(I want to be clear that I’m not advocating for accelerationism, I’m just seeing holes in the argument) Pushing people in a vulnerable position now to make change for the future is a great example of the needs of the many ethical arguments. Advocating against change because it hurts me in the short term is inherently selfish. I know people that are accelerationists, and The ones I know don’t assume that they’ll come out ahead or even the same. They recognize that the system is inherently broken and they think they need more people uncomfortable to make meaningful change.