You have probably had this experience; you worked on a group project in school, and no one did their fair share. Perhaps one overachiever carried everyone else. Why is this such a common story? This failure mode is universal because of the structure of the group that acts it out

This problem happens predictably, repeatedly, because of a lack of ownership. Everyone has skin in the game in this scenario; there are personal consequences for failure. Accountability is necessary but not sufficient for success.

The concept "group ownership" is a lie. Groups cannot own anything; once a thing has more than one owner, it is contested, and it becomes possible to derive value from it while offloading its costs onto others
(note that value and costs need not be money) https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1025738284520103936

The mentality of “someone else will take care of it” is not mere laziness; it is adaptive behavior, it is brinkmanship in the arena of distributed responsibility, it is leveraged neglect, it forces whoever has the most dire need to pay the highest cost

Think instead of how you treat your personal property, your most prized possessions. How do you care for those things, how do you love them? Those things which you love best, you see as an extension of yourself. Most of all you cherish your identity.

“But I don't define myself, I hate using labels, I'm just who I am, I keep my identity small" I count 4 declarations of identity. Perhaps the will to distribute ownership is the will against self-care. In the end, a certain type of person wants others to pay for his own identity

A man who despises himself nonetheless esteems himself, as a despiser.
--Nietszche https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1024462501306462208

But even those people will spend untold hours building their identity, whether they define it negatively or positively. When a creative project or facet of stewardship becomes intertwined with a man’s identity, then he will pour his soul into it, for he sees no distinction there

Whoever heard of two people sharing a soul? It’s a cute metaphor for a love story, maybe there have been pairs of such friends in history, but it is exceedingly rare. And 3 people? And 5, 25, 150? That’s a cool sci fi plot about a cyborg collective but it’s not real nor desirable

All great works have at their root a single soul, a person of vision who exercises OWNERSHIP, who would no sooner shirk responsibility than try to slice up their own soul. The extended noumenotype; only this; identity; soul-ownership, yields great works of art, music, and virtue

And yet the greatest works of humanity-victory in battle, triumphs of architecture, the glory of empire, the conquest of new frontiers-are the achievement of multitudes. Isn't this of "distributed ownership"?
No.
All of those things are realized through HIERARCHICAL ownership

Hierarchy. Everyone owns something, and that thing becomes a part of their identity. In a real way the people at the top of the hierarchy own the people below them. This is the structure of all traditional societies, where family elders exercise ownership over their progeny

Filial hierarchy is the most human arrangement. It pays a price in individual freedom. I have known people like this, whose lives are an endless web of family obligations. They rarely achieve much by the metrics of western technological modernity. Perhaps they find it fulfilling

The modern arrangement deconstructs the family. Some necessities are administered through distributed ownership (the tyranny of bureaucracy is mostly its inevitable incompetence). Hierarchy is manifest in corporations. This is necessarily "dehumanizing"

2 limitations of filial hierarchy: 1. it is limited in its ability to tap into biocapital (good genes) by genetic proximity. 2. It is subordinated to the family itself, i.e. it is locked into biological paradigms for self-propagation. Technocapital hierarchy evades these limits

Technocapital hierarchy can self-perpetuate by shredding families (coopts resources normally allocated for reproduction) and can recruit biocapital irrespective of genetic distance. Both of these things have costs, but technocapital does not see them

When people praise the accomplishments of democracy (I.e., group ownership) they are actually praising the decoupling of hierarchy from family, a social restructuring that allowed technocapital to "pursue its own ends", burning biocapital to produce technological development

Compare biocapital to oil. Millions of years of fermented fossils under the earth. We dig them up and power our machines. Theoretically we could run out. Technocapital burns biocapital the way our machine infrastructure burns oil.

We hope to find green energy to be freed from the constraint of oil. Technocapital, though it has no human-like agency (yet?), needs to find another source of fuel in case it runs out of biocapital. If there is enough fuel for this task, then technocapital singularity will occur

The schism in accelerationism is between those who think biocapital is dwindling, and those who think it is endlessly abundant, or it is not a meaningful constraint.

Meanwhile, back on earth, we have a sea of normies who deludedly imagine that the power of technocapital can be used to make us "more human", or that technocapital serves humanity, or that humanism and technological progress are symbiotic.

Technological progress and humanity are two opposite poles on the same axis. There is no vector that points in both directions. What do you truly value, normie?