[gom_jabbar]

You're absolutely right - Land's vision of technocapital is fundamentally anti-human, while Marc Andreessen's is pro-human. Mark Fisher criticized Land for underestimating the importance of the human face in keeping capitalism functional. However, I'd argue that for Land, camouflage has always been central to pre-singularity capitalism. A human face can serve as useful cover, helping technocapital advance toward its ultimately non-human ends.

[almostdeadguy]

Millenarian philosophers whose arguments rest on this kind of technological singularity/rapture event, especially one fueled by technocapital development have to contend with the fact that historically capital has stepped away from the fray multiple times. And it's in their interest to, as they want to preserve class relations. A bolstered welfare state and worker protections passed during times of upheaval have happened periodically when there's been backlash. This is how we end up in "The End of History", and though that seems to be unraveling, there's no reason to believe the politics of today aren't a temporary push of capital to reorganize the world that will also come with a backlash. This is where I take issue with orthodox Marxism, because ultimately capital does not want to destroy class relations. Will this be the case in the future? I'm skeptical of anyone saying it won't or can't, but I ultimately have no interest in this kind of prediction market philosophy of historical materialism.