What happens when an economist starts designing a future society?

Thirteen years ago, I sat down with Robin Hanson for a second time. It became the most vigorous debate ever recorded.

I rarely disagree with a guest. With Robin, I disagreed more than I ever had.

Here is what unsettled me. His work on the Em Economy reads like social science. It uses the language of markets, incentives, and equilibrium. But underneath the economic reasoning sit choices that are not economic at all. Policies of social discrimination. The full privatization of law and punishment. Minds run a thousand times faster, and handed a thousand times more voting power. Emulations deleted when they cannot pay their storage fees.

These are not technical footnotes. They are ethical and political decisions wearing the costume of impartial analysis.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, was first a moral philosopher. He understood where the tools of his discipline stop being useful and start being dangerous.

So the question I keep returning to is simple and uncomfortable: is this rigorous futurism, or is it ideology in disguise?

Robin is brilliant, gracious, and genuinely committed to the future.

That is exactly why his ideas deserve real scrutiny rather than applause. Technology is the How. It is never the Why or the What. The same goes for economics. #futurism #AI #transhumanism #economics #Ethics.

Watch the full debate and decide for yourself.

(https://www.singularityweblog.com/robin-hanson-social-scienc…-disguise/)

2nd interview with Robin Hanson was by far the most vigorous debate ever on Singularity 1 on 1. I haven’t disagreed more with any of my podcast guests before. So, why do I get so fired up about Robin’s ideas you may ask?!