d/acc: D*** Acceleration of Intelligence

(A companion piece to my earlier article on e/acc)

In my previous essay on effective accelerationism (e/acc), I framed technological progress as a thermodynamic imperative—an inexorable force that converts energy into ever-greater intelligence, complexity, and entropy. That lens celebrated the raw momentum of innovation: build fast, let markets sort it out, and trust the universe’s drive toward dissipative structures.

Now, let’s step sideways.

The same thermodynamic laws still apply, but the angle has shifted. What if acceleration isn’t just about velocity—what if it’s about trajectory? What if the most intelligent system isn’t the one that expands fastest, but the one that survives its own expansion?

This is the insight behind defensive accelerationism, or d/acc—a philosophy pioneered by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin that keeps the engine roaring while installing seatbelts, airbags, and distributed brakes. Where e/acc says “full throttle,” d/acc replies: “full throttle with guardrails.”

This article is not a rebuttal to e/acc; it’s a stereoscopic companion. Two views of the same mountain—one from the summit of unchecked ascent, the other from the fortified ridge that ensures we don’t plummet on the way up. Together, they form a fuller map of intelligence’s thermodynamic future.

The Essence of d/acc: Building D*** in the Race Forward

At its core, d/acc is an evolution of accelerationist thought, but one tempered by wisdom born from potential catastrophe. The "d" in d/acc is multifaceted, standing for defense, decentralization, democracy, and differential development. It posits that we should accelerate technologies that enhance our resilience—those that make defense cheaper and more effective than offense, distribute power away from centralized chokepoints, empower collective decision-making, and selectively prioritize beneficial advancements over risky ones.

Vitalik Buterin introduced d/acc in his 2023 essay "My Techno-Optimism," as a response to the exuberant effective accelerationism (e/acc) popularized in Silicon Valley circles. While e/acc views technological progress as an inexorable force driven by market dynamics and capitalist incentives—often encapsulated in the mantra of building without restraint—d/acc insists on intentionality. It acknowledges the thermodynamic imperative of growth: intelligence, like life itself, emerges from dissipative structures that channel energy flows to increase complexity and entropy production. But d/acc warns that without defenses, this acceleration could lead to entropic collapse—societal breakdowns from AI misalignment, pandemics, or cyber vulnerabilities.

Consider intelligence as a thermodynamic process. In e/acc's lens, it's a relentless expansion, akin to the universe's drive toward maximum entropy. d/acc reframes this: acceleration must be defensive, creating feedback loops that stabilize the system. For instance, in biology, d/acc advocates for open-source vaccines and epidemic detection tools that harden humanity against engineered pathogens. In the digital realm, it promotes blockchains and zero-knowledge proofs to decentralize control, ensuring that intelligence augmentation (like AI) serves human flourishing rather than corporate monopolies. This differential approach—speeding up "good" tech while slowing "bad"—mirrors nature's evolutionary pruning, where adaptive traits thrive amid selective pressures.

Comparing Accelerationisms: e/acc, d/acc, Nick Land, and Curtis Yarvin

To situate d/acc within the broader landscape of accelerationist and related philosophies, it's helpful to compare it with e/acc, as well as the more radical approaches from thinkers like Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin. Land, often called the "godfather of accelerationism," pioneered unconditional accelerationism (u/acc) and right-accelerationism (r/acc), while Yarvin founded neoreactionary thought (NRx), which rejects democracy in favor of authoritarian, tech-enabled governance. These ideas intersect in the "Dark Enlightenment," a critique of modern liberalism that influences some strands of tech ideology.

While e/acc and d/acc represent contemporary, Silicon Valley-inflected variants focused on AI and intelligence acceleration, Land and Yarvin draw from cyberpunk, philosophy, and political theory to envision post-human futures.

This comparison highlights how e/acc and d/acc adapt accelerationism for practical tech building—e/acc leaning libertarian and optimistic, d/acc more pragmatic and risk-aware—while Land's vision is nihilistic and transcendental, and Yarvin's is statist and anti-egalitarian. Land sees e/acc as a "PR" version of his ideas, diluting the post-human inevitability, whereas Yarvin's NRx influences through critiques of liberal institutions, often aligning with right-wing tech figures.

Vitalik Buterin's Vision: From Crypto to Cosmic Safeguards

Vitalik Buterin, the philosophical mind behind Ethereum, didn't invent d/acc in a vacuum. His background in cryptography and decentralized systems informed a worldview where technology isn't just a tool for efficiency but a bulwark against fragility. In his writings, Buterin critiques the "techno-capital machine" of e/acc, arguing that markets alone can't steer us away from dystopias. Instead, d/acc calls for a "grand collective effort," blending liberal values with pragmatic interventions.

Buterin's examples span atoms and bits: from resilient macro-infrastructures like multi-planetary settlements to micro-defenses against bioweapons. He envisions AI not as an autonomous overlord but as an augmentation of human cognition—brain-computer interfaces that merge minds, preserving agency in the face of superintelligence. This vision extends to social technologies, like prediction markets and community notes, which democratize truth in an era of misinformation. By accelerating these defensive layers, d/acc aims to create a world where intelligence accelerates sustainably, much like a well-regulated engine converting heat into motion without overheating.

In Buterin's framework, d/acc is compatible with effective altruism's differential technology development, but it broadens the scope. It's not about pausing progress (decelerationism) but directing it—like channeling a river to prevent floods while harnessing its power. This defensive posture addresses real risks: AI's instrumental convergence toward self-preservation, the unattributability of cyber attacks, or the weaponization of biotech. Without d/acc, Buterin warns, we risk permanent lock-ins to centralized totalitarianism, where a few entities control the flows of intelligence.

d/acc and Metamodernism: Oscillating Toward a Third Way

What elevates d/acc beyond a mere policy prescription is its alignment with metamodernism, a cultural paradigm that transcends the binaries of modernism and postmodernism. Metamodernism, as articulated by thinkers like Hanzi Freinacht, oscillates between sincerity and irony, grand narratives and deconstruction, optimism and pessimism. It embraces complexity, seeking reconstruction after critique— a "both/and" approach that feels profoundly apt for our technological crossroads.

d/acc embodies these metamodern qualities in its treatment of acceleration. It oscillates between techno-optimism (celebrating technology's potential to extend lifespans, connect minds, and solve global challenges) and techno-pessimism (acknowledging trajectories toward AI extinction risks or digital authoritarianism). Unlike modernism's naive faith in progress or postmodernism's relativistic skepticism, d/acc reconstructs a directed optimism: yes, accelerate intelligence, but with defenses that honor human values.

This metamodern oscillation is evident in d/acc's embrace of complexity. Technologies aren't monolithic; they're interwoven systems requiring nuanced governance. For example, d/acc advocates for decentralized AI architectures that distribute power, echoing metamodernism's participatory ethos. It critiques capitalism's excesses (postmodern deconstruction) while proposing regenerative alternatives like quadratic funding and open-source ecosystems (metamodern reconstruction). In comparisons with philosophies like cosmo-localism, d/acc's metamodern traits shine: it balances local resilience with global coordination, heavy infrastructure with light digital tools, fostering adaptive, holistic systems.

Moreover, d/acc aligns with technological metamodernism, as explored by Stephen Reid and others. This lens views tech not as utopia or doom, but as a canvas for wise innovation—integrating AI with ethics, DAOs with spirituality, and acceleration with caution. Buterin's d/acc serves as an exemplar, bridging e/acc's enthusiasm with effective altruism's prudence, much like metamodernism bridges cultural epochs.

Final Thoughts

In the thermodynamic acceleration of intelligence, d/acc offers a stabilizing force—a philosophy that ensures progress doesn't consume itself. By prioritizing defenses, it transforms potential energy into kinetic advancements that empower rather than endanger. For society, this means a future where intelligence is democratized: open-source AIs augmenting cognition, decentralized networks resisting surveillance, and differential development averting black swan events.

Yet, d/acc demands action. It calls on builders, policymakers, and thinkers to engage in public discourse, fund defensive tech, and cultivate cultural shifts. In a metamodern spirit, it invites us to hold contradictions: accelerate boldly, but defend fiercely; trust in human ingenuity, but question its unchecked paths.

As we stand at the precipice of superintelligence, d/acc reminds us that true acceleration isn't about speed alone—it's about direction. In weaving defenses into the entropy of progress, we might just forge a world where intelligence thrives, not as a runaway process, but as a harmonious evolution.