1 min read

Does fixed-point futurism make sense?

In an interview, Venkatesh Rao defined fixed-point futurism something like the following. You pick an arbitrary thing, anything at all, and try to make that true. That's your fixed point. For example, your fixed point might be: I am going to wear red shirts. That's now your thing, and a source of meaning or narrative. And at the end of the episode there's this imaginary scenario where everyone gets a random such thing, implying that the details of this thing or of choosing it don't matter at all.

This seems pretty silly. It sounds like existentialism but without the alleged focus on freely choosing. This doesn't seem like it should work. I can try, but I can't seriously believe that wearing a red shirt rather than an arbitrary shirt color makes any difference. To do that I'd have to build a story around it that kind of makes sense. I think that is the other half of Venkatesh's fixed-point futurism. I don't buy that this can work for arbitrary fixed points. The red shirt thing — maybe I could fool myself for a while, but this is such a stupid fixed point that I hope I couldn't.

The red shirt thing is so arbitrary that that even if this idea would "work" in some sense, I wouldn't want to do it, because what a stupid fixed point. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If I were to buy into this idea at all and have any kind of fixed point, it would be not accepting such a stupid fixed point.

Why bother with arbitrary fixed points? Reasonable candidate fixed points arise and pass all the time, and people take them up. Like: "I want my kid to get a good Blubish education." One could say — yeah, but that's socially conditioned and optimzing. But that would bring this closer to existentialism rather than further away.

Leaving aside the quality of fixed point chosen, I'm still leery of the idea of fixed-point futurism, specifically the "fixed" part. Fixed in what sense? Fixed across time? Permanent? Because that sounds messed up.

I think it doesn't. But I wonder.