I’ve never published an essay quite like this. I’ve written about my life before, reams of stuff actually, because that’s how I process what I think, but never for public consumption.

I’ve been pushing myself to write more lately because my co-authors and I have a whole fucking book to write between now and October. After ten years, you’d think this would be getting easier, not harder.

There’s something about putting out such memoiristic material that feels uncomfortably feminine to me. (Wow, ok.) I want to be known for my work, not for having a dramatic personal life. I love my family and don’t want to put them on display for the world to judge. And I never want the people I care about to feel like I am mining their experiences for clicks and content, whether that’s my family or my coworkers.

Many of the writing exercises I’ve been doing lately have ended up pulling on threads from my backstory, and the reason I haven’t published them is because I find myself thinking, “this won’t make any sense to people unless they know where I’m coming from.”

So hey, fuck it, let’s do this.

I went to college at the luckiest time

I left home when I was 15 years old. I left like a bottle rocket taking off – messy, explosive, a trail of destruction in my wake, and with absolutely zero targeting mechanisms.

It tells you a lot about how sheltered I was that the only place I could think of to go was university. I had never watched TV or been to a sports game or listened to popular music. I had never been to a doctor, I was quite unvaccinated.

I grew up in the backwoods of Idaho, the oldest of six, all of us homeschooled. I would go for weeks without seeing anyone other than my family. The only way to pass the time was by reading books or playing piano, so I did quite a lot of both. I called up the University of Idaho, asked for an admissions packet, hand wrote myself a transcript and gave myself all As, drove up and auditioned for the music department, and was offered a partial ride scholarship for classical piano performance.

I told my parents I was leaving, with or without their blessing or financial support. I left with neither.

My timing turned out to be flawless. I arrived on the cusp of the Internet age – they were wiring dorms for ethernet the year I enrolled. Maybe even more important, I arrived in the final, fading glory years of affordable state universities.

I worked multiple minimum wage jobs to put myself through school; day care, front desk, laundry, night audit. It was grueling, round the clock labor, but it was possible, if you were stubborn enough. I didn’t have a Social Security number (long story), I wasn’t old enough to take out loans, I couldn’t get financial aid because my parents didn’t file income taxes (again, long story). There was no help coming, I sank or I swam.

I found computers and the Internet around the same time as it dawned on me that everybody who studied music seemed to end up poor as an adult. I grew up too poor to buy canned vegetables or new underwear; we were like an 1800s family, growing our food, making our clothes, hand-me-downs til they fell apart.

Fuck being poor. Fuck it so hard. I was out.

I lost my music scholarship, but I started building websites and running systems for the university, then for local businesses. I dropped out and took a job in San Francisco. I went back, abortively; I dropped out again.

By the time I was 20 I was back in SF for good, making a salary five times what my father had made.

I grew up with a very coherent belief system that did not work for me

A lot of young people who flee their fundamentalist upbringing do so because they were abused and/or lost their faith, usually due to the hypocrisy of their leaders. Not me. I left home still believing the whole package – that evolution was a fraud, that the earth was created in seven days, that woman was created from Adam’s rib to be a submissive helpmate for their husband, that birth control was a sin, that anyone who believed differently was going to hell.

My parents loved us deeply and unshakably, and they were not hypocrites. In the places I grew up, the people who believed in God and went to church and lived a certain way were the ones who had their shit together, and the people who believed differently had broken lives. Reality seemed to confirm the truth of all we were taught, no matter how outlandish it sounds.

So I fully believed it was all true. I also knew it did not work for me. I did not want a small life. I did not want to be the support system behind some godly dude. I wanted power, money, status, fame, autonomy, success. I wanted to leave a crater in the world.

I was not a rebellious child, believe it or not. I loved my parents and wanted to make them proud. But as I entered my teens, I became severely depressed, and turned inward and hurt myself in all the ways young people do.

I left because staying there was killing me, and ultimately, I think my parents let me go because they saw it too.

Running away from things worked until it didn’t

I didn’t know what I wanted out of life other than all of it; right now, and my first decade out on my own was a hoot. It was in my mid twenties that everything started to fall apart.

I was an earnest kid who liked to study and think about the meaning of life, but when I bolted, I slammed the door to my conscience shut. I knew I was going to hell, but since I couldn’t live the other way, I made the very practical determination based on actuarial tables that I could to go my own way for a few decades, then repent and clean up my shit before I died. (Judgment Day was one variable that gave me heartburn, since it could come at any time.)

I was not living in accordance with my personal values and ethics, to put it lightly. I compartmentalized; it didn’t bother me, until it did. It started leaking into my dreams every night, and then it took over my waking life. I was hanging on by a thread; something had to give.

My way out, unexpectedly, started with politics. I started mainlining books about politics and economics during the Iraq War, which then expanded to history, biology, philosophy, other religious traditions, and everything else. (You can still find a remnant of my reading list here.)

When I was 13, I had an ecstatic religious experience; I was sitting in church, stewing over going to hell, and was suddenly filled with a glowing sense of warmth and acceptance. It lasted for nearly two weeks, and that’s how I knew I was “saved”.

In my late 20s, after a few years of intense study and research, I had a similar ecstatic experience walking up the stairs from the laundry room. I paused, I thought “maybe there is no God; maybe there is nobody out there judging me; maybe it all makes sense”, and it all clicked into place, and I felt high for days, suffused with peace and joy.

My career didn’t really take off until after that. I always had a job, but I wasn’t thinking about tech after hours. At first I was desperately avoiding my problems and self-medicating, later I became obsessed with finding answers. What did I believe about taxation, public policy, voting systems, the gender binary, health care, the whole messy arc of American history? I was an angry, angry atheist for a while. I filled notebook after notebook with handwritten notes; if I wasn’t working, I was studying.

And then, gradually, I wound down. The intensity, the high, tapered off. I started dating, realized I was poly and queer, and slowly chilled the fuck out. And that’s when I started being able to dedicate the creative, curious parts of my brain to my job in tech.

Why am I telling you all this?

Will Larson has talked a lot about how his underlying motivation is “advancing the industry”. I love that for him. He is such a structured thinker and prolific writer, and the industry needs his help, very badly.

For a while I thought that was my motivation too. And for sure, that’s a big part of it, particularly when it comes to observability and my day job. (Y’all, it does not need to be this hard. Modern observability is the cornerstone and prerequisite for high performing engineering teams, etc etc.)

But when I think about what really gets me activated on a molecular level, it’s a little bit different. It’s about living a meaningful life, and acting with integrity, and building things of enduring value instead of tearing them down.

When I say it that way, it sounds like sitting around on the mountain meditating on the meaning of life, and that is not remotely what I mean. Let me try again.

For me, work has been a source of liberation

It’s very uncool these days to love your job or talk about hard work. But work has always been a source of liberation for me. My work has brought me so much growth and development and community and friendship. It brings meaning to my life, and the joy of creation. I want this for myself. I want this for anyone else who wants it too.

I understand why this particular tide has turned. So many people have had jobs where their employers demanded total commitment, but felt no responsibility to treat them well or fairly in return. So many people have never experienced work as anything but a depersonalizing grind, or an exercise in exploitation, and that is heartbreaking.

I don’t think there’s anything morally superior about people who want their work to be a vehicle for personal growth instead of just a paycheck. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with just wanting a paycheck, or wanting to work the bare minimum to get by. But it’s not what I want for myself, and I don’t think I’m alone in this.

I feel intense satisfaction and a sense of achievement when I look back on my career. On a practical level, I’ve been able to put family members through college, help with down payments, and support artists in my community. All of this would have been virtually unimaginable to me growing up.

I worked a lot harder on the farm than I ever have in front of a keyboard, and got a hell of a lot less for my efforts.

(People who glamorize things like farming, gardening, canning and freezing, taking care of animals, cooking and caretaking, and other forms of manual labor really get under my skin. All of these things make for lovely hobbies, but subsistence labor is neither fun nor meaningful. Trust me on this one.)

My engineer/manager pendulum days

I loved working as an engineer. I loved how fast the industry changes, and how hard you have to scramble to keep up. I loved the steady supply of problems to fix, systems to design, and endless novel catastrophes to debug. The whole Silicon Valley startup ecosystem felt like it could not have been more perfectly engineered to supply steady drips of dopamine to my brain.

I liked working as an engineering manager. Eh, that might be an overstatement. But I have strong opinions and I like being in charge, and I really wanted more access to information and influence over decisions, so I pushed my way into the role more than once.

If Honeycomb hadn’t happened, I am sure I would have bounced back and forth between engineer and manager for the rest of my career. I never dreamed about climbing the ladder or starting a company. My attitude towards middle management could best be described as amiable contempt, and my interest in the business side of things was nonexistent.

I have always despised people who think they’re too good to work for other people, and that describes far too many of the founders I’ve met.

Operating a company draws on a different kind of meaning

I got the chance to start a company in 2016, so I took it, almost on a whim. Since then I have done so many things I never expected to do. I’ve been a founder, CEO, CTO, I’ve raised money, hired and fired other execs, run organizations, crafted strategy, and come to better understand and respect the critical role played by sales, marketing, HR, and other departments. No one is more astonished than I am to find me still here, still doing this.

But there is joy to be found in solving systems problems, even the ones that are less purely technical. There is joy to be found in building a company, or competing in a marketplace.

To be honest, this is not a joy that came to me swiftly or easily. I’ve been doing this for the past 9.5 years, and I’ve been happy doing it for maybe the past 2-3 years. But it has always felt like work worth doing. And ultimately, I think I’m less interested in my own happiness (whatever that means) than I am interested in doing work that feels worth doing.

Work is one of the last remaining places where we are motivated to learn from people we don’t agree with and find common pursuit with people we are ideologically opposed to. I think that’s meaningful. I think it’s worth doing.

Reality doesn’t give a shit about ideology

I am a natural born extremist. But when you’re trying to operate a business and win in the marketplace, ideological certainty crashes hard into the rocks of reality. I actually find this deeply motivating.

I spent years hammering out my own personal ontological beliefs about what is right and just, what makes a life worth living, what responsibilities we have to each another. I didn’t really draw on those beliefs very often as an engineer/manager, at least not consciously. That all changed dramatically after starting a company.

It’s one thing to stand off to the side and critique the way a company is structured and the decisions leaders make about compensation, structure, hiring/firing, etc. But creation is harder than critique (one of my favorite Jeff Gray quotes) — so, so, so much harder. And reality resists easy answers.

Being an adult, to me, has meant making peace with a multiplicity of narratives. The world I was born into had a coherent story and a set of ideals that worked really well for a lot of people, but it was killing me. Not every system works for every person, and that’s okay. That’s life. Startups aren’t for everyone, either.

The struggle is what brings your ideals to life

Almost every decision you make running a company has some ethical dimension. Yet the foremost responsibility you have to your stakeholders, from investors to employees, is to make the business succeed, to win in the marketplace. Over-rotating on ethical repercussions of every move can easily cause you to get swamped in the details and fail at your prime directive.

Sometimes you may have a strongly held belief that some mainstream business practice is awful, so you take a different path, and then you learn the hard way why it is that people don’t take that path. (This has happened to me more times than I can count. )

Ideals in a vacuum are just not that interesting. If I wrote an essay droning on and on about “leading with integrity”, no one would read it, and nor should they. That’s boring. What’s interesting is trying to win and do hard things, while honoring your ideals.

Shooting for the stars and falling short, innovating, building on the frontier of what’s possible, trying but failing, doing exciting things that exceed your hopes and dreams with a team just as ambitious and driven as you are, while also holding your ideals to heart — that’s fucking exciting. That’s what brings your ideals to life.

We have lived through the golden age of tech

I recognize that I have been profoundly lucky to be employed through the golden age of tech. It’s getting tougher out there to enter the industry, change jobs, or lead with integrity.

It’s a tough time to be alive, in general. There are macro scale political issues that I have no idea how to solve or fix. Wages used to rise in line with productivity, and now they don’t, and haven’t since the mid 70s. Capital is slurping up all the revenue and workers get an ever decreasing share, and I don’t know how to fix that, either.

But I don’t buy the argument that just because something has been touched by capitalism or finance it is therefore irreversibly tainted, or that there is no point in making capitalist institutions better. The founding arguments of capitalism were profoundly moral ones, grounded in a keen understanding of human nature. (Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” gets all the attention, but his other book, “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, is even better, and you can’t read one without the other.)

As a species we are both individualistic and communal, selfish and cooperative, and the miracle of capitalism is how effectively it channels the self-interested side of our nature into the common good.

Late stage capitalism, however, along with regulatory capture, enshittification, and the rest of it, has made the modern world brutally unkind to most people. Tech was, for a shining moment in time, a path out of poverty for smart kids who were willing to work their asses off. It’s been the only reliable growth industry of my lifetime.

It remains, for my money, the best job in the world. Or it can be. It’s collaborative, creative, and fun; we get paid scads of money to sit in front of a computer and solve puzzles all day. So many people seem to be giving up on the idea that work can ever be a place of meaning and collaboration and joy. I think that sucks. It’s too soon to give up! If we prematurely abandon tech to its most exploitative elements, we guarantee its fate.

If you want to change the world, go into business

Once upon a time, if you had strongly held ideals and wanted to change the world, you went into government or nonprofit work.

For better or for worse (okay, mostly worse), we live in an age where corporate power dominates. If you want to change the world, go into business.

The world needs, desperately, people with ethics and ideals who can win at business. We can’t let all the people who care about people go into academia or medicine or low wage service jobs. We can’t leave the ranks of middle and upper management to be filled by sycophants and sociopaths.

There’s nothing sinister about wanting power; what matters is what you do with it. Power, like capitalism, is a tool, and can be bent to powerful ends both good and evil. If you care about people, you should be unashamed about wanting to amass power and climb the ladder.

There are a lot of so-called best practices in this industry that are utterly ineffective (cough, whiteboarding B-trees in an interview setting), yet they got cargo culted and copied around for years. Why? Because the company that originated the practice made a lot of money. This is stupid, but it also presents an opportunity. All you need to do is be a better company, then make a lot of money.

People need institutions

I am a fundamentalist at heart, just like my father. I was born to be a bomb thrower and a contrarian, a thorn in the side of the smug moderate establishment. Unfortunately, I was born in an era where literally everyone is a fucking fundamentalist and the establishment is holding on by a thread.

I’ve come to believe that the most quietly radical, rebellious thing I can possibly do is to be an institutionalist, someone who builds instead of performatively tearing it all down.

People need institutions. We crave the feeling of belonging to something much larger than ourselves. It’s one of the most universal experiences of our species.

One of the reasons modern life feels so fragmented and hard is because so many of our institutions have broken down or betrayed the people they were supposed to serve. So many of the associations that used to frame our lives and identities — church, government, military, etc — have tolerated or covered up so much predatory behavior and corruption, it no longer surprises anyone.

We’ve spent the past few decades ripping down institutions and drifting away from them. But we haven’t stopped wanting them, or needing them.

I hope, perhaps naively, that we are entering into a new era of rebuilding, sadder but wiser. An era of building institutions with accountability and integrity, institutions with enduring value, that we can belong to and take pride in… not because we were coerced or deceived, not because they were the only option, but because they bring us joy and meaning. Because we freely choose them, because they are good for us.

The second half of your career is about purpose

It seems very normal to enter the second half of your 40 year career thinking a lot about meaning and purpose. You spend the first decade or so hoovering up skill sets, the second finding your place and what feeds you, and then, inevitably, you start to think about what it all means and what your legacy will be.

That’s definitely where I’m at, as I think about the second half of my career. I want to take risks. I want to play big and win bigger. I want to show that hard work isn’t just a scam inflicted on those who don’t know any better. If we win, I want the people I work with to earn lifechanging amounts of money, so they can buy homes and send their kids to college. I want to show that work can still be an avenue for liberation and community and personal growth, for those of us who still want that.

I care about this industry and the people in it so much, because it’s been such a gift to me. I want to do what I can to make it a better place for generations to come. I want to build institutions worth belonging to.

I want the ideals I care about to become associated with success. I want people to cargo cult them and spread them throughout the industry, even if they don’t necessarily understand why. I think that companies that practice transparency can be better companies. I think that leaders held accountable can be better leaders. Let’s go and prove it.

The heat is what strikes you first. The morning is still young, barely eleven, but the sun scorches where it hits. All around you the tide of humanity floats in a brownian motion. The largest tents and the most colourful are those that promise food. Tacos, pizza, margaritas, deep friend oreos on a stick, cheesy fries and non cheesy fries. There is candy everywhere, in all colours and flavours and sizes.

There are children, but the children are somehow outnumbered by the adults, some of whom seem to be there with the children. I’ve gone with family and friends, four kids in total, ages 2 to 7. 3:4 adult ratio. And maybe a third of the overall visitors are youth? It’s higher than the national average, but it’s still far lower than what one might naively expect.

The people around are a microcosm of the country. You can hear all sorts of accents. There’s a dad with three daughters getting angry irrationally at them for asking for something. He’s wearing a black singlet and tattooed all over. There’s a family with grandma and three young elementary school age kids, and they’re bargaining over the toys they each got. There’s an Indian family busily tucking into a whole table full of stuff they bought. The dad’s inexplicably eating a tub of popcorn himself. The couple who are clearly on a date, she’s laughing at his jokes, he’s laughing at his own jokes, drinking a giant cup of blue.

Every inch of space around promises happiness. Each toy, each multicoloured ride, each game, all of them.

The core fact that one notices about fairs is that they are the final boss of capitalism. Once you enter you enter into a captive world. Every experience is mediated to be the perfect buyable representation of something you want, but in its inner hyde-esque distilled sense. Sells you ‘id’, attracts you with colours and lights. It's a place where money ceases to have any meaning. They design it so, you are meant to convert money into tickets, and then do the maths on those tickets, so you have to do rather complex maths if you want to figure out how to maximise your “fun”. Do I believe I will take 3 rides? 5? 10? What about games? And if so does it make sense to spend $20 for 17 tickets, when the average ride takes 4-5 tickets, depending on the rise, or should I take the addition to spend also on 2 games? The full package or the summation of two middling ones? How much will I actually like these? Should I swap my enjoyment from this ride for that game?

And then do the maths again for your kids. You can ask them, and they'll give you a response too, but can you trust the response? You make sure. Four, seven, ten year olds standing around while their parents try and do differential equations with plugged in utility numbers to figure out what’s the right amount to spend.

But you don't need to worry. The little booths stand around like small purple cartoon-emblazoned ATMs ubiquitous to the point you cannot ever make the excuse of not having enough tickets to get a ride for your child.

The food is everywhere. Pungent but preserved so it stays in the sun. Carefully crafted to give you the impression of indulgence, with none of the consideration for quality, or nutrition, much less taste. The pizza slices are inside hot boxes but are inexplicably room temperature. Too much cheese, runny tomato sauce that is processed enough that it has lost the taste of tomato, and crust thick enough to fill any stomach. A slice of pizza the price of a whole pizza. A pizza-esque experience, at least, if not with the succour a pizza slice demands. You pay for being able to carry a slice with you, it cannot bend nor break, and the portability premium easily supplants the edibility discount.

Is $10 for a cup of coffee too much? A mile to the left or right that would be robbery, double the price with tip, but here? No. You’re paying for the ambience, or the location, or something. For the convenience of being able to go to a corner shop and get the same coffee from the same machine manned by the same disinterested teenager.

And why would he be interested? I look around and I can feel myself getting satiated, can you imagine working here? To feel your neurons get numb at the sight of fried cheese and mozzarella balls, with families fighting to decide who will spend that last token at the game where you throw a little ball into a frog’s mouth to win a stuffed teddy they will forget in a week?

Despite the abundance there is scarce variety. You're hedonically adjusted all the way up. You can only compare the joy of this against the experience of everything else outside the fair in your life but if you work there the memories fade. They must.

A long time ago I went on a cruise, only for a day, in Scandinavia. It was for work (really), and it was the most extraordinarily boring day I’ve spent anywhere, despite being tailor made to satisfy human desire. Something about the extreme convenience and mediocre imitations of everything you might like, together in a shopping mall, seemed to be a mockery of our existence. It’s like the proprietors did an equation - what’s the lowest quality people will agree to consume for our food, music, art or pool hygiene, against what’s the most we can get away with charging them.

I get it. That’s exactly the equation to be maximised. But when “exit” is no longer an option, as you’re floating in the open ocean, you realise the equilibrium price is dramatically lower than what it would’ve been on land.

And shorn of the need for any actual effort, since the pool and casino and observation deck and comedy cellar and jazz lounge are all in walking distance carefully calibrated to seem short to even those on walkers, one ends up feeling a weird form of ennui. A feeling of “is this all there is to life”? You look at others smiling and laughing and feel ever so slightly jealous.

The children wait in line for rides far more patiently than they have ever waited for anything else. But the distinction between the rides are blurred, when you ask them.

“Did you enjoy riding the boat?”

“Yes, it was fun.”

“Was it more fun than the rotating bears?”

“That was also fun.”

And so on. I am somewhat in awe of the creators here. The machines, and these are machines, help swing, rotate and shake with confidence. They sound like a washing machine ready for repair but the groans are ignored in a form of consensual hallucination and a belief in civil society that's unheard of in other realms of modern life. We don't even suffer schools like this. This is trust, trust in the system.

I looked up what certifications a fairground ride has to go through. There are annual inspections and permits and all forms of documentation of accidents and maintence that’s needed. California isn’t shy about regulating. They must have insurance to. Reading up later I learn that there are multiple committees and standards - NAARSO and AIMS for ride inspectors and operators. And compliance with ASTM. Of course Cal/ OSHA. Title 8. It’s not easy, it would seem, because there are 50 rides, occasionally varying, sometimes more, but enough to require capital M management.

I wonder idly how much money they might have made. I can’t help it, businesses are businesses. If you have ten thousand people visiting, and a third are children, many of whom ride and many of whom will buy the $45 ticket, they might well make up to $100-200k a day. More on weekends.

I can’t easily tell if it’s good. It sure is a lot of effort to go through! The fairgrounds itself is around 270 acres. There are maybe a hundred rides and game booths. Probably more. And then there is food and shopping. Many of them seem small, selling sombreros and so on.. There are a thousand or fifteen hundred workers. When you look at it like that, the $100-200k a day seem not that impressive. It’s a hard way to make money, but then they all are.

There was a circus we went to see not that long ago. Venardi circus. They explained why the name earlier but I forgot the reason. But even as a small circus touring the east bay it had exceptional acrobats. Some more than a few generations in the circus life. I thought the same then, as they swung above us and twirled impossibly, how much effort is needed to get good at this, and how little society actually values it.

The reason I keep thinking about this is not that the economics are fascinating, though they are, but the overwhelming feeling I get from fairs is to find a quiet place in the shade and to have a beer.

That too is in offer at the fair. In fact, that’s inescapable. There are stands everywhere selling beer and lemonade and large cups of blue whose names I forget. The beer is also an emblem, not of beer per se but the existence of beer, because having one on a warm day as a form of respite provides respite even above the beverage itself.

My kids end up wanting to go to a Professor Science show. He asks questions, they know some of the answers. “What’s the name of the large telescope orbiting the earth?” he asks. My seven year old turns to me and asks, “Galileo?”. The logic is correct, the knowledge however isn't there yet. “Hubble,” I tell him. I’m sure he’ll remember Hubble though, I first remember learning about it in a similar fashion, when my dad told me about it. The new oral tradition.

(I also told him about cavitation, I’m not sure why, because it happens when I crack my knuckles, about mantis shrimp, and the apocryphal tail whips of apatosaurs also causing the phenomenon.)

But the scientist, an older gentleman assisted by his wife of forty four years, shows more props. My attention drifts. They get a gang of kids together, get them to break a lightbulb by screaming standing together in a semicircle. They make anodyne jokes, “your parents must be so proud.” The audience laughs.

We go back to the rides. There’s a small rollercoaster shaped like a dragon, riding in a lopsided figure 8. The kids seem to love it, some of them even try to take their hands up while the whiplash makes their necks wobble. Did they enjoy it? Yes, they say.

Next they go to one that does the same as the rotating multi-coloured bears but in multicoloured helicopters.

Why do they all look and feel the same? Ferris-wheel, boom-flipper (Zipper), spinning drum (Gravitron), tilt-platform, Himalaya oval. I imagine it has to do with the fact that fairs aren’t permanent. They evolved into the sizes that would allow maximum enjoyment but can be “folded up” and transported on a trailer to the next fair. It also can’t be too complex, the workers know the machines but they’re not experts. And they have to pass inspections, which means building things that the inspectors know how to pass.

Convergent evolution is at work here. The rotating swings are like the eyes of the natural world, showing up again and again because it’s the best fit functionally to satisfy the csontraints. Which is also why there aren’t that many suppliers. I learn that there are only three - Chance RIdes which makes the Zipper type coasters. Wisdom Rides making Gravitrons and Himalayas. And a few international ones - Zamperla and Fabbri from Italy, KMG from Netherlands - which make up most of the portable ride market.

And because there are only a few suppliers, the only way to stand out is to add more colours, more art. Like motorheads painting their cars with fire. The carnivals buy them from each other, re-skin them, add more LEDs, different colours, an inevitable trend towards complete garish oversaturation of the visible spectrum until the entire eyeline is covered in neon in several hues of red and yellow and orange. The fact that this is a small market, highly incestuous, where everyone wants to reuse everything shows up in the extreme mundanity of what we all see. They look the same because they literally are the same, just new coats of paint to trick the eyes.

The diversity comes entirely from the things around the rides and the food and the games. Or rather, those sources of diversity exist, whether or not they actually succeed. The music stands set up at regular intervals where local bands can play cover songs from the eighties and nineties that evokes nostalgia for the parents and apathy for the kids.

Professor Science was one of those, though in the United States success breeds replication so now there are Professors of Science across multiple fairs. He too sells a little backscratcher looking thing for five dollars that has an optical illusion at the back of it. Promising a short exploration of the optical system within kids but mostly destined to end up at the bottom of a toybox, as part of a short but fascinating life of a low priced mass manufactured mini toy.

The existence of a form of entertainment has transformed into a beautifully stylized supply chain, a few suppliers who build a few machines that pass inspection, and seemingly a caste of people who think of this as their whole way of life. Occasionally maybe a new game or ride breaks out, or a new cuisine, but by and large this seems an invariant source of entertainment across the ages. With the addition now being of the items on offer squeezed to their ultimate essence, of separating capital from its owners with maximum alacrity. Every trick in the book applied simultaneously.

The biggest attraction though was courtesy of the local pet shop. A large hall filled with animals. Perhaps it came at the end, but perhaps because of what it was. Kids yearn to be with animals. Bunnies, geckos, snakes, birds, turtles, some hissing cockroaches, and pygmy goats. You could touch them, play with them, and of course buy them!

To me it provided a brief respite from the sun. The hall had benches the adults can sit on, to rest from the extreme calf pain only brought about by slowly walking around and occasionally standing.

The detritus of people continues to float in all directions. There are more people, there are also more stationary forms under the shades of trees and awnings. It’s past noon, there’s food everywhere.

We walk out before we melt. The kids are tuckered out from the rides physically but not mentally, every new with is a promise that this one's amazing and even if it looks the same as the old ones they pull on the little heartstrings, holding kitschy toys that they'll forget in a day (they did!) and passing a larger group of people walking in.

The tumult is the attraction. Individually each aspect seems dull, even banal, the same thing one has seen a thousand times over in any lifetime, but together they create a space that invites you to create your own reality. “This is fun” they say, and in saying so repeatedly and liberally try to get you to agree with them. After all, what’s not fun about a rollercoaster at 11 am followed by a cheesy medium-warm hot dog and then a cold beer? Isn’t this the very goal of life?

The metal and plastic are hot but the ridership isn’t down. Kids and couples are still queuing up to go up the dragon and down the misshapen ships. They don’t seem to mind the heat.

As I admitted at the time, my review essay on Adam Becker’s More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity was a bit of a bait-and-switch. Becker’s book explains how the dreams of science fiction have shaped Silicon Valley’s dreams of technology in general. I deliberately made a comparison that was both narrower and more fantastical: emphasizing how debates over AGI resembled the dreams of Renaissance alchemy. In partial redress, here’s a more specific argument about the relationship between science fiction and Silicon Valley.

Again, it’s more a riff on Becker than a bald presentation of his argument, but the connections are much clearer, even if it isn’t quite the same argument that Becker makes. What Becker sees as rooted in 1950s and 1960s science fiction arguably goes back a few decades further: to the fusion of “scientifiction” and technocracy that happened in the early 1930s, right at the beginning of the so-called “Golden Age” of science fiction.

Silicon Valley is trapped in a new version of the Gernsback Continuum - a situation in which it is collectively haunted by the visions of an imaginary future of endless expansion that didn’t happen and never will. Our escape route, as Becker suggests, is to acknowledge the physical and social limits that we can’t escape, and to try to construct better futures within those limits.

Subscribe now

*****

Becker contends that Silicon Valley’s vision of the future borrows heavily from the dreams of a particular era of science fiction.

The 1950s and ’60s are the middle and end of the Golden Age of science fiction, which started with pulp sci-fi magazines in the very late 1930s like Astounding Science Fiction. The authors who dominated … were almost all white men, and they wrote primarily about a future in space. Asimov’s stories were often centered around robots, space empires, or both, with nuclear power depicted as a nigh-limitless energy source used for everything from rockets to radios. Heinlein’s stories frequently had a flavor of Ayn Rand in space, usually featuring a self-reliant, polymath male hero dabbling in eugenics or undermining workers on strike for a living wage.

I think that’s right, but I’d go back a few decades further than Becker. If you want to understand the relationship between science fiction and technocratic aspiration, you should start with Hugo Gernsback, the man who brought them both together. To understand this, read William Gibson’s “The Gernsback Continuum,” which is one of the great science fiction short stories of the last half-century, as well as a sly and pointed social history of the genre. It’s in his collection, Burning Chrome, and can easily be found in pirated versions online that I’m not going to point you to, because that would be rude.

Gibson’s 1980s short story depicts a man who is haunted by hallucinations of a future that never happened of “flying-wing liners” that pass above in the sky, and freeways that perpetually threaten to unfold into “gleaming eighty-lane monsters.” He has been hired to photograph the isolated remnants of 1930s and 1940s buildings that promised a future of vast art-deco cities surrounding gleaming ziggurats, traversed by curving roads in the air, hovering blimps, air-cars and gyrocopters. As the narrator travels in search of fragments of this lost American dream of a clean and efficient future, he becomes infected by its “semiotic phantoms, bits of deep cultural imagery that have split off and taken on a life of their own, like the Jules Verne airships that those old Kansas farmers were always seeing.” Gibson’s hero finally exorcises himself by plunging into the seediest aspects of the “near-dystopia we live in,” watching Nazi Love Motel until the ghosts fade away.

It’s a wonderful short story that influenced me at an early age, but I didn’t really know what it was about until I read Finn Brunton’s book Digital Cash a few years ago. Finn’s book begins by describing the Technocrats, a group that I had never understood were an actual political movement, which really got going in the Great Depression.

The Hugo Gernsback of the “Gernsback Continuum” was the founding publisher and editor of Amazing Stories, the pulp magazine that launched the genre of “scientifiction.” Science fiction’s most important awards, the Hugos, are named after him. But Gernsback also the founding publisher and editor of a briefly lived publication, Technocracy Review. I own a copy of Issue 1, Volume 1 (I’ve made an imperfect but readable scan available here if you want to read it; the various illustrations throughout this post are taken from it). As one of the articles describes the technocratic movement:

With a slide rule in one hand, the other gripped upon the switch of a dynamo, Technocracy says pompously, “Science - that is the solution. You babbling fools know not this industrial machine you quarrel over. Only I know it, for I have made it from my brain. I and the technicians I represent. You should surrender it to me, therefore, and when that is done your troubles are over. With this left hand I will work out formulae. With the right, controlling almost infinite power, I shall send new life, the pulsing life of electricity, into the sluggish veins of industry. Away with your foolish theories, they are old, stale and unprofitable. A new world opens, the world of Technocracy.”

Substitute “software” for “power,” and you have Marc Andreessen circa 2011. Substitute “power” back in again and you have Silicon Valley energy debates circa 2025.

In retrospect, it isn’t surprising that science fiction merges into technocracy which in turn merges into techbro exhortations. All are narratives of technological enthusiasm, depicting a future in which the engineers have taken charge, and in which innovation is a fountain of boundless possibilities. As the writer J.G. Ballard described the science fiction genre in a 1967 interview:

There’s a tremendous confidence that radiates through all modern American science fiction of the period 1930 to 1960; the certainty that science and technology can solve all problems.

And as Becker’s book emphasizes, much of this was based on assumptions about boundless energy. Technocracy’s entire political ideology centered on energy, proposing a new currency denominated in watts.

This dream of limitless energy and endless possibility is notably congenial to a particular kind of politics. The most crucial passage of “The Gernsback Continuum” describes a nuclear families from this imagined future:

They were standing beside their car, an aluminum avocado with a central shark-fin rudder jutting up from its spine and smooth black tires like a child's toy. He had his arm around her waist and was gesturing toward the city. … They were white, blond, and they probably had blue eyes. They were American. Dialta had said that the Future had come to America first, but had finally passed it by. But not here, in the heart of the Dream. Here, we'd gone on and on, in a dream logic that knew nothing of pollution, the finite bounds of fossil fuel, or foreign wars it was possible to lose. … They were smug, happy, and utterly content with themselves and their world. And in the Dream, it was their world. Behind me, the illuminated city: Searchlights swept the sky for the sheer joy of it. I imagined them thronging the plazas of white marble, orderly and alert, their bright eyes shining with enthusiasm for their floodlit avenues and silver cars. It had all the sinister fruitiness of Hitler Youth propaganda.

*****

Gernsback’s future of shark-finned aircars and gleaming cities is the proximate ancestor of today’s Silicon Valley rhetoric. Becker writes about J. Storrs Hall, whose book, Where Is My Flying Car: A Memoir of Future Past, is one of the keystone texts for Silicon Valley right luminaries such as Peter Thiel. Hall’s book begins with the “classic art-deco exposition of the technological Utopia” in the 1930s movie, The Shape of Things to Come. It goes from there to ask why we expected flying cars, the spread of mankind throughout the galaxy, and other such forms of progress and to inquire why we never got there. The answer, crudely summarized, is that we gave up, and we shouldn’t have. Hall mentions Gibson’s other writing in passing, but doesn’t seem aware that he is performing a thudding cover version of “The Gernsback Continuum,” in which Gibson’s mordant humor is excised in favor of technophilic literal-mindedness. Hall’s extended discussion of the mechanics of gyrocopters is actually quite funny, viewed from a certain perspective, but it certainly isn’t intended to be.

More recent texts of the Silicon Valley right, such as Andreessen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto similarly exhort a return to this defunct dream world of the future, where the problems of technology dissolve into the certainty that science and technology can solve all problems, provided only that we smash the obstacles - DEI, regulations, environmentalism - that stand in their way.

Like the Golden Age science fiction that they draw on, these arguments are not based on scientific claims, but an elaborate ideology in which science is a kind of magical artifact from which progress inevitably flows. Ballard again (this interview from 1968):

The science fiction written in those days came out of all this optimism that science was going to remake the world. Then came Hiroshima and Auschwitz, and the image of science completely changed. People became very suspicious of science, but SF didn’t change. You still found this optimistic literature, the Heinlein–Asimov–Clarke type of attitude towards the possibilities of science, which was completely false.

Or in the Silicon Valley remix: once we begin to construct our flying cars; once we again reach for the stars; once we have AGI to create the earthly paradise, there is nothing that can constrain us from grasping the destiny of our species.

Just as in Gibson’s story (written more than 40 years ago!) there is a decided political whiff emanating from many versions of this ideology. If you get its logic, it is not at all surprising that so many people on the Silicon Valley right have jumped from techno-optimism into fascism, nor that they see little distinction between the two. Notoriously, Andreessen’s manifesto riffs on Marinetti, a technology obsessed fascist.

Equally, not all people who embrace this style of thinking are fascists, or even slightly fascist adjacent. If you read the liberal-leaning technocratic utopianism of Demis Hassabis or Dario Amodei, you’ll find the suggestion there too that technology - and in particular AI - is a limitless cornucopia of possibilities. See Hassabis’ WIRED interview a few weeks ago:

If everything goes well, then we should be in an era of radical abundance, a kind of golden era. AGI can solve what I call root-node problems in the world—curing terrible diseases, much healthier and longer lifespans, finding new energy sources. If that all happens, then it should be an era of maximum human flourishing, where we travel to the stars and colonize the galaxy. I think that will begin to happen in 2030.

Again, this leans on a particular reading of science fiction. The future that they aspire to is explicitly the future of Iain M. Banks’ Culture novels, in which vast intelligent AI Minds underpin a civilization in which people can do more or less whatever they want.

Amodei:

I think the Culture’s values are a winning strategy because they’re the sum of a million small decisions that have clear moral force and that tend to pull everyone together onto the same side. Basic human intuitions of fairness, cooperation, curiosity, and autonomy are hard to argue with, and are cumulative in a way that our more destructive impulses often aren’t. It is easy to argue that children shouldn’t die of disease if we can prevent it, and easy from there to argue that everyone’s children deserve that right equally.

Hassabis:

I would recommend “Consider Phlebas” by Iain Banks, which is part of the Culture series of novels. Very formative for me, and I read that while I was writing Theme Park. And I still think it’s the best depiction of a post-A.G.I. future, an optimistic post-A.G.I. future, where we’re traveling the stars and humanity reached its full flourishing.

On the one hand, this is obviously much more attractive, and far less sinister, than the Andreessen version. It’s an optimistic liberal bet on the boundless cornucopia of technology. Banks was a Scots socialist who detested authoritarianism with a passion.

On the other, Banks was making a much more complex and ambiguous argument than the version that Hassabis and Amodei present. The Culture is, to steal Ursula K. Le Guin’s term, an ambiguous utopia, in a universe that is emphatically not a mere backdrop for the playing out of the manifest destiny of mankind.

Some of the best and most moving parts of Becker’s book describe the difference between this ideology of science and what science actually says. Becker has a Ph.D. in cosmology, and knows that the universe is a place of hard, cold limits. He quotes Carl Sagan:

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. . . . There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

That too, is Banks’ understanding. The physical universe is a “dark background,” shaped by the brute limits of material existence rather than human desire. As Francis Spufford emphasizes in his wonderful obituary, Banks revived the form of the classic Golden Age space opera, but combined it with an enduring sense of human tragedy. The Culture is indeed a kind of flourishing - but it is one that will wither and die (the books repeatedly emphasize that it is a temporary and evanescent phenomenon; at best a footnote in the history of the galaxy).

Banks uses the trappings of utopianism to convey a far bleaker and more realistic understanding of the human condition. What speaks definitively in the end is not human destiny, but what Banks describes elsewhere as the “faint, not even ironic hiss” of the universal zero. Entropy, not human flourishing, is the logic of the universe.

The great advantage of Becker’s book is not simply that it explains how tech thinking has gone wrong by positing a universe of “more everything forever,” where all that we need is gumption and optimism to transform the human condition and bring about the universal utopia. It is that it also articulates the beginnings of an alternative understanding, which sets out the actual limits of what we can do.

As Kim Stanley Robinson (another poet of hard physical limits) emphasizes in his recent work, we are almost certainly not going to be able to spread out among the stars. What we have on this planet is pretty well what we have. That doesn’t mean that we can’t do much better than we are doing. We can achieve greater forms of material abundance. But pretending that the hard problems simply don’t exist, or that they will be solved by some magical technology that is right around the corner, is a recipe for the embrace of fascism at the worst, and starry-eyed ingenuous optimism at the best. As I’ve written before, we need usable futures. But to get there, as Becker argues, we need to discard the imagined futures of a past world whose aspirations and understanding of the world are a very poor fit with the present that we find ourselves in.

Subscribe now

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
Really, any noise other than hatred or complete lack of interest should not be allowed.