We must begin by defining terms. Neither term is meant in any way to be derogatory in and of itself.
A Techno-Optimist:
Someone who believes that technology can solve the majority of problems we face. They place faith that a new technology will magically change the conditions. Examples would include: nuclear power - people who talk about how nuclear power is the solution to the energy crisis are techno-optimists. Another example would be people who think lab-grown meat is a good idea worth pursuing. A techno-optimist also tends to believe that technology is neutral. They have a belief that it can be used for good or bad and do not entertain notions that value may exist within a technology. They are optimists in such that they see continued technological development in this broadly progressive mindset. Things can only get better, through technology. A techno-optimist trends towards a Hegelian view of history.
Collapse-Pessimist:
Someone who sees a collapse as a more likely outcome of the future. They believe that increasing complexity of systems leads to system break down and collapse. They subscribe to notions about energy use that hinge on the fact fossil-fuels have propelled growth but that fossil fuels and other resources are not finite. They have evaluated the promised savior options of renewable energy sources and do not see them as realistic options. They also view the dysgenic trend of humanity has inherently limiting factor, through our softness bred of technological dependence we are softer and weaker and thus more vulnerable. A collapse-pessimist is more likely to subscribe to the idea that history is cyclical.
There is a general feeling and type of person drawn to each of these broad camps. I’ll firmly place myself in the collapse-pessimist camp so much so that I have spent time and resources deliberately going ‘backwards’ in some areas away from conventional notions of progress. For example I have worked to deliberately remove synthetic fabrics from my daily clothing, sacrificing increased performance and lighter weight fleece for heavier wools.
There is a burgeoning growth in techno-optimists who are smart enough to identify some problems with their inherently bugman ideology. These are few and far between but they reach similar conclusions. A simple example would be in architecture. The ‘trad’ pilled techno-optimist realizes that the ugly bland concrete brutalist housing that is replacing individual regional styles is bad.
It remains to be seen how successful they will be - the success of these buildings lies in the very myth and fabric of modernity and progress that their own beliefs are wedded to. It places emphasis on measurement and data - optimization! Everything can be made cheaper and more efficient. Triple paned windows that never open to preserve heat. People of today are not nationalists because they forgot about their nation so much as they see themselves as children of time. Of now. The scramble to adopt the new, to keep pace with what is modern is part of identity in a way that will take time to undo. The techno-optimist is comfortable with this, or at least more so than their counter part the collapse-pessimist.
What I see when I read the techno-optimists on here is a mish-mash of positions. They are trying to merge two conflicting ideas most of the time. They want hedonistic openness where sexual and drug use are liberalized but also to appeal to TERFs to shut down trans discourse. They want to promote artificial meat but to limit micro-plastic production. These are just outright contradictory and confused positions. A factory made to produce fake meat will by necessity employ plastics where a cow in a field will produce none. These are real proposals from people, not strawmen arguments I’m making up. (You’ll find them yourself easily enough and I am not linking because it’s not about milking engagement).
To be clear I still enjoy reading much of what the techno-optimist have to say. In these spaces some align clearly on what I believe even if they wander off to places I will not follow. The point of this is not to argue them around, to try and convince them. It is to highlight this growing divergence in worldview and approach. When argument does arise there is this tendency for the techno-optimist to talk about pessimism and blackpilling and that solutions must be found. Collapse-pessimists agree entirely but the solutions are so radically different that each side often misses the forest for the trees.
In some ways I think those of us collapse minded are more driven to seek smaller scalable solutions in our own lives. Imagine we are concerned about food security of the near to mid future, or climate change. Many people I know are thinking about that and orienting themselves to better face that, it could be as simple as moving to an area with more natural rainfall. The techno-optimist might talk about the grandiose climate engineering schemes being touted to solve that and each side likely looks at the other as mad. Both pursue solutions. If you feel more unsafe in your own home because of rising petty crime the solution is not either or - you can put a better deadbolt on your front door AND engage in the political process in an attempt to reverse things. It can be done, we have seen it done, I have even argued about that recently with people who forget just how fall NYC had fallen before it restabilized thanks to careful application of force.
This divide will likely continue because people naturally tend a certain way. They act in accordance with their personality traits. What we consume shapes our outlook. Both sides have their own positive vision for the future weirdly enough. The collapse-pessimists after all see the system buckling and falling apart as the end of liberal hegemony. It will be painful but it will signal an end of so much wrong and people always survive. The techno-optimist sees a way to take power back and then leverage technology to solve the problems. Both parties want a similar outcome in a few key areas, and differ in others. This isn’t really a question of alliances or not though, nor are we really seriously thinking about the fringe accelerationists. To me, as a poet what echoes more and more in my mind are those lines from Yeats:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.