[technologists]

January 15, 2026

The "[t]echnologist" remains . . . valorized? (at least, in certain San Franciscan subcultures). Tech people who have {passion, taste, discernment}, intrepid changemakers seeking to leverage innovation as a force for good. Perhaps it's Lindy: the word was coined in Bentham's Chrestomathia to describe an expert in "Technology," the "connected view" of arts and manufactures, exactly two centuries ago.

Certainly they play an integral role in a modern society. I do, however, take some issue with:

A “technologist” is anyone who thinks critically about the opportunity for technology to improve society.

(1) Too broad. "Technologists" are builders. The democratization of internet tech came a unification of thought and practice. (The Collisons when building Stripe)

(2) Too narrow. Frontend gardeners and Linus Torvalds provide taste as a public good; curated creation raises the quality waterline; artists shouldn't be excluded.

(3) I worry the predominance of tech, the centralization of progress in tech, takes too much mindshare of the thoughtful and ambitious. Startups are vehicles of a certain type. Venture provides stimulus of a certain type. There are other types.

What will it say about our time that the greatest discoveries were made in industry? Hermits and the military made the atom bomb. Billionaires and not-quite-hermits are making superintelligences, mind uploads, aging cures.

Maybe the not-quite-hermits are not-hermits for lack of places to hermit. Technologisms cannibalize. Memetic centralization may be as dangerous as economic centralization.

Valor is worth its weight in gold. To me, society lacks hermit heroes. There's a place to start.