I've said before that Musk must have read Surface Detail and assumed Veppers was some kind of 'tragic hero'.
It is remarkable because Banks, as much as I love his writing, is __rarely subtle__ about his beliefs and who the "good guys" are.
(Yes there is a lot of exploration of the grey areas and inhumanities, and thereby legitimately critical questions of the titular society- but Bank's himself has said that he would very much like to live in the Culture, even considering all the uglier parts.)
There was a large section of The Boys viewership that didn't understand that Homelander was a bad guy until season four, or that Walter White was Breaking Bad's biggest villain.
Time after time, an astonishingly large number of readers and watchers assume that main characters are good and are unable to fathom that a main character can be bad. Luckily for the rest of us, this is emotional shibboleth that once identified serves as a high-accuracy litmus test for personal engagement.
"But then there are good, smart, law-abiding people who still root for [Walter White], and I find that a very interesting sociological study"[1] - Vince Gilligan creator of Breaking Bad.
"Nevertheless, [Dan Harmon] and Roiland insist these people are a small subset. The worst of them—the ones who see Rick as a role model—are missing the point."[2] - On Dan Harmon's[Co-creator of Rick and Morty] view of Rickfandom.
"Tyler [Durden] has proven so perniciously stubborn as a hero of alienated young men."[3]
Generally, I see this aligned with Protagonist-centered Morality[4]. The way I discovered this phenomenon was repeatedly observing it in fan forums. I decided not to link to those because they are low signal to noise[5], but you're welcome and encouraged to seek them out. In revisiting them to refresh my memory, my present impression is:
1. Some people just like rooting for and sympathize with the main character above all else - no amount of atrocities can change that.
2. Some people just think the these characters are 'cool'.
Tony Soprano is an interesting case, because the creator was one of the die hard Tony fans, while much of the audience concluded that "He was a fucking murderer." I guess being in the creator seat doesn't magically bestow insight.
See also - A number of fans of "The Man in the High Castle" series on amazon a few years back were expecting it to somehow be a redemption story for the actual chief nazi.
> It is remarkable because Banks, as much as I love his writing, is __rarely subtle__ about his beliefs and who the "good guys" are.
My wife writes some fiction, and one thing I've learned from observing her interaction with test readers is that no matter how heavy-handed the writing, a fair proportion of readers will still misunderstand it. It's practically impossible to make anything so explicit that nobody will get it wrong, even with a bunch of repetition.
Though, most egregious misreading activity does seem to be confined to the same set of readers, across discussion of her test-reads, other writers she knows' test reads by the same readers, and just general conversation about other published fiction—that is, certain readers struggle to follow seemingly every damn thing they read, while others almost never make these kinds of errors. I find it hard to relate to wanting to continue reading books while being so constantly confused by their content, but they do it anyway. Completely alien to me, their experience of reading must be rather impressionistic and seems unpleasant, but to each their own.
> observing her interaction with test readers [...] a fair proportion of readers will still misunderstand it
I did some exploratory education videos, and associated user testing. A hobby project. And I got bitten by what I'm told was a noob mistake - a cartoon character reads a simple sign aloud. Shortly afterward, I'd stop the video for feedback, and get confusion as if the scene wasn't even there. I'd sometimes then replay it, and get "oh yes, this version is much better". Even firm disbelief that they'd already seen it seconds earlier. Apparently the cognitive load spike of having simultaneous reading and listening to do, is known to hammer comprehension of both.
I wonder if there's a body of similar insights for fiction writing. Or transferable insights from say, how to disrupt misunderstandings in science education content. And then, of course, whether these might be made available as automated editor or ghostwriter tooling.
> I've said before that Musk must have read Surface Detail and assumed Veppers was some kind of 'tragic hero'.
I just can't imagine how that would happen. As others mention, missing the point on villains _is_ a thing, but Veppers is almost comically villainous. Like, he all but indulges in Bond-villain-style "have I mentioned that I'm evil" monologuing. He's _awful_.
(I actually think he's likely Banks' most objectionable antagonist.)
I'm not so sure about the author's thesis. One quote alone explains it, "it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital superintelligence." If indeed Musk believes this, then his actions now matter not at all, except insofar as it either helps or harms the birth of "digital superintelligence". This is a similar "ends justify the means" argument to the "effective altruists" and the general idea to "not miss the forest for the trees", the forest being long-term viability of humanity, the trees being individual well-being.
During peacetime, making such an argument justifies the selfish and destructive action they wanted to take anyway. The framing of the assertion is impossible to make an objective assessment of the success of an action, since such an assessment may take a hundred, or a thousand, years. So really there is no way for anyone to judge whether an act is good or bad in this framework, leaving it only as a matter of judgement of the actor. In this sense, Musk's invocation of Banks is simple megalomania with more steps.
> it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital superintelligence.
Isn't this just a restatement of Christianity? Created by an unknowable, all powerful deity with the goal of becoming one with that deity during the rapture?
> Isn't this just a restatement of Christianity? Created by an unknowable, all powerful deity with the goal of becoming one with that deity during the rapture?
Yeah, honestly most Nerd Religion (EA, LessWrong-style 'rationality', etc), is basically just reheated Christianity. Notably, Roko's Basilisk (you should work for the furtherance of magic robots at all costs, lest a future omnipotent magic robot torture a perfect replica of you forever for not doing so) is just a restatement of Pascal's wager, with all the attendant problems.
It's just a similarity between millenarian religious movements, which christianity is and this is also. But it isn't the only, most immediate, or most similar predecessor imo.
Banks has a vision of the future where space travel, AI, and near-immortality are all widely distributed. What other science fiction is optimistic on a grand scale like that?
You can appreciate the overall Banks vision without agreeing on every particular political stance.
Ironically the author of this article missed the key theme that runs throughout the Culture novels: Humans are mere pets in a world where superhuman artificial intelligence exists.
Anyone that wants this future for humanity, wants to be a pet, simple as that.
If Culture humans are pets of AIs, then 99% of current humans are pets of governments, corporations and other human hierarchies.
Culture Minds have far more respect for individual self-determination than any human power structure that has ever existed. I don't weep at all for the 1% of humans who lose the ability to dominate the lives of other humans. The other 99% of humans lose nothing and gain enormous freedom.
Let's assume you have everything in the Culture except the ASIs. So you have full blown Drexlerian nanotechnology, access to all the technology more or less possible out to the limits of physical law. Energy is functionally infinite, and if you want basically anything to be produced you simply order it from the AI equivalent of ChatGPT today and it is directly manufactured from base chemical feedstocks and delivered to you by a simple automaton. Food, clothes, furniture, any sort of electronics. Homes are extremely plentiful and similarly require ~ no effort to obtain, since they are just snapped together from atomically perfect panels. When you're done with something, it gets recycled back to feedstocks to be made into something else.
Okay. Now what? You're free to love who you like, befriend who you like. But nothing you do matters really for anyone else beyond sentimental value, since nothing you do effects whether they live or die (you're all functionally immortal after all, plausibly you can backup your consciousness and get resleeved if something truly catastrophic was to happen to you). There's no scarcity, no need to horde things, you play games and amuse yourself in whatever little hobbies delight you, and you socialize with those who you care to.
What exactly is the grand thing that you think people are going to be doing in that scenario that they can't do in the Culture?
It seems apparent that for the overwhelmingly enormous majority of people the Culture is identical to the case where there are no Minds, because to whatever extent some tiny portion of humans needs to make some sort of major decisions in a post-scarcity world with no Minds, 99.9999+% of people will not be among them. We see mostly people interacting with Special Circumstances (a tiny fraction of the overall population) and most of those who live on GSVs etc managed by Minds in SC themselves are also just going about their days and not involved with whatever machinations the Minds have going on.
Like, what is the problem that ASI really introduces here for regular people? And in a world where you are indeed free to leave the Culture (as we've seen) if you really want to, and there's plenty of variety in how smaller groups in the Culture live their lives, what exactly is missing? There is no oppression, no brutality, no war, disease, famine, poverty, or want and you're free to do as you like except kill people without their consent and/or otherwise hurt others. What more freedom do you really want?
The people who view culture as a dystopia either feel like they must be working and useful and don't see a way to do that when everything is provided if they choose not to work, or (and I hope this isn't it) they want to be relatively much better off than others
I understand the first one but that's something people need to get over, it's already a part of being old or having a handicap that makes you unemployable, I think future generations will grow up without equating hard work with ethics
If (the big if) we ever reach that level of post scarcity, then it will also be possible for people who value scarcity and the meaning they derive from it to live in such a way. Simply create a new environment where labour is required, and those that prefer this can live there.
This is something which comes up _in-universe_, but the general consensus amongst the AIs seems to be that it is _not_ the case, and that they are interdependent.
Agreed. The Minds keep us as pets if you want to view it that way, but they have their own "Society of Minds" to keep each other amused and engaged, and it takes very little of their bandwidth to maintain human concentrations and the general regional-galactical operating environment.
Unlike everything else like the sex changing, it’s in every book and is a plot element instead of mere “background colour”.
All of the big decisions are made by the Minds, and every time a human thinks they’re doing something of their own accord, it is implied (or explicitly stated) that they’re being manipulated by a Mind.
Several of the novels state this outright, including mentioning that Marain, the language of the culture, was explicitly designed to “guide” the thoughts of its human speakers in the “right way” as decided by the Minds that worked on its design. Handcuffs for the human mind so integrated that nobody even realises they’re shackled.
The humans aren’t prisoners, they’re pets allowed to roam “outside”, but they’re not the agents of their future in any real sense.
PS: Horrific betrayal by a highly trusted character in a position of father-like authority is a running theme in Banks’ works. The more utopian and idealistic the scenario, the greater the horror the reader can experience when that is shattered by the realisation that it was all a manipulation.
The Wasp Factory, one of his earlier works, makes this the most explicit with the betrayal of the protagonist’s sexual identity by their own father, but since that book Banks has learned to make this theme less explicit and more implicit, waiting for the reader to discover it on their own and have the “Oh. Ohhhh! Oh God.” moment. Clearly many people missed it in the later Culture books…
I think you're entirely wrong. I didn't read it that way at all. In fact there are humans in the culture novels who choose not to live in the typical way (eg. Genar-Hofoen one who goes to live amongst the Affront). I think they have no less agency than we do today, rather more.
There's actually a scene in one of the books (Consider Phlebas I think?) where the SC character explicitly has a hobby of mountain climbing without all the safety devices the culture has to take away fatal consequences, against the advice and wishes of the minds.
There are other books too where people leave the culture (including entire worlds) and do whatever. Banks is careful to write very meaningful agency into the culture to make it a utopia rather than some paternalistic pet thing.
The only case where that kind of doesn't apply is special circumstances and the interesting times gang, which are heavily controversial within the culture and are explicitly pointed out as solutions that exist outside the normal moral fabric of society.
Except that unlike a pet, Minds will do nothing to prevent you from leaving except for making staying as appealing as possible and in fact will actively facilitate you leaving if you choose to do so.
A pet who gets whatever they want and is encouraged to find and do what makes them happy. Feeling important and actually doing things that feel important is nice but if AI is better than you at everything its the best we can expect we can expect with AI.
I get how it can be dystopian to people who live for competition or just need to feel useful but we need to adapt if AI is going to be better than us at any jobs to feel fulfilled with recreation and hobbies. It's doable, retirees have to face this situation with a bunch of additional stress they don't have in the Culture
I'm with you. I don't think Banks is saying "this is the best way for things to be". I think he's saying "this is the best way things can realistically be once true AI is developed and given appropriate rights".
I think you missed the key theme that human lives still have meaning on their own terms even in a world where personal achievement & competitive excellence do not. The stories are about the struggles of individual humans to discover those terms for themselves, but the work doesn't attempt to show that this quest is impossible or futile.
I mean he's also very much not a libertarian. He's an apparatchik of an authoritarian government. That's pretty much the opposite of being a libertarian.
(Pedantically, there's a lot of overlap between anarchists and left-libertarians, but the terms tainted enough now that no-one much really considers themselves a left-libertarian anymore.)
This seems fair+true. "Libertarian anarchists" is like "jumbo olives".. they want to build their castles in the sky in a free-floating environment that is only free in the particular way that they want; violators will be persecuted.
I've said before that Musk must have read Surface Detail and assumed Veppers was some kind of 'tragic hero'.
It is remarkable because Banks, as much as I love his writing, is __rarely subtle__ about his beliefs and who the "good guys" are.
(Yes there is a lot of exploration of the grey areas and inhumanities, and thereby legitimately critical questions of the titular society- but Bank's himself has said that he would very much like to live in the Culture, even considering all the uglier parts.)
There was a large section of The Boys viewership that didn't understand that Homelander was a bad guy until season four, or that Walter White was Breaking Bad's biggest villain.
Time after time, an astonishingly large number of readers and watchers assume that main characters are good and are unable to fathom that a main character can be bad. Luckily for the rest of us, this is emotional shibboleth that once identified serves as a high-accuracy litmus test for personal engagement.
Do you have some kind of reference for this phenomenon? If so it would be very interesting to read. If not, what is this statement based on?
TVTropes covers it here, with many, many, _many_ examples: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DracoInLeatherPa... and the somewhat related https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisaimedFandom
The Musk/Banks thing even gets a mention under MisaimedFandom.
"But then there are good, smart, law-abiding people who still root for [Walter White], and I find that a very interesting sociological study"[1] - Vince Gilligan creator of Breaking Bad.
"Nevertheless, [Dan Harmon] and Roiland insist these people are a small subset. The worst of them—the ones who see Rick as a role model—are missing the point."[2] - On Dan Harmon's[Co-creator of Rick and Morty] view of Rickfandom.
"Tyler [Durden] has proven so perniciously stubborn as a hero of alienated young men."[3]
Generally, I see this aligned with Protagonist-centered Morality[4]. The way I discovered this phenomenon was repeatedly observing it in fan forums. I decided not to link to those because they are low signal to noise[5], but you're welcome and encouraged to seek them out. In revisiting them to refresh my memory, my present impression is:
1. Some people just like rooting for and sympathize with the main character above all else - no amount of atrocities can change that.
2. Some people just think the these characters are 'cool'.
Tony Soprano is an interesting case, because the creator was one of the die hard Tony fans, while much of the audience concluded that "He was a fucking murderer." I guess being in the creator seat doesn't magically bestow insight.
1. https://filmmakermagazine.com/84504-its-better-to-be-somebod...
2. https://www.gq.com/story/dan-harmon-rick-and-morty-profile?
3. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a44891150/chuck-...
4. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCente...
5. ie: Reddit.
See also - A number of fans of "The Man in the High Castle" series on amazon a few years back were expecting it to somehow be a redemption story for the actual chief nazi.
> It is remarkable because Banks, as much as I love his writing, is __rarely subtle__ about his beliefs and who the "good guys" are.
My wife writes some fiction, and one thing I've learned from observing her interaction with test readers is that no matter how heavy-handed the writing, a fair proportion of readers will still misunderstand it. It's practically impossible to make anything so explicit that nobody will get it wrong, even with a bunch of repetition.
Though, most egregious misreading activity does seem to be confined to the same set of readers, across discussion of her test-reads, other writers she knows' test reads by the same readers, and just general conversation about other published fiction—that is, certain readers struggle to follow seemingly every damn thing they read, while others almost never make these kinds of errors. I find it hard to relate to wanting to continue reading books while being so constantly confused by their content, but they do it anyway. Completely alien to me, their experience of reading must be rather impressionistic and seems unpleasant, but to each their own.
> observing her interaction with test readers [...] a fair proportion of readers will still misunderstand it
I did some exploratory education videos, and associated user testing. A hobby project. And I got bitten by what I'm told was a noob mistake - a cartoon character reads a simple sign aloud. Shortly afterward, I'd stop the video for feedback, and get confusion as if the scene wasn't even there. I'd sometimes then replay it, and get "oh yes, this version is much better". Even firm disbelief that they'd already seen it seconds earlier. Apparently the cognitive load spike of having simultaneous reading and listening to do, is known to hammer comprehension of both.
I wonder if there's a body of similar insights for fiction writing. Or transferable insights from say, how to disrupt misunderstandings in science education content. And then, of course, whether these might be made available as automated editor or ghostwriter tooling.
> I've said before that Musk must have read Surface Detail and assumed Veppers was some kind of 'tragic hero'.
I just can't imagine how that would happen. As others mention, missing the point on villains _is_ a thing, but Veppers is almost comically villainous. Like, he all but indulges in Bond-villain-style "have I mentioned that I'm evil" monologuing. He's _awful_.
(I actually think he's likely Banks' most objectionable antagonist.)
I'm not so sure about the author's thesis. One quote alone explains it, "it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital superintelligence." If indeed Musk believes this, then his actions now matter not at all, except insofar as it either helps or harms the birth of "digital superintelligence". This is a similar "ends justify the means" argument to the "effective altruists" and the general idea to "not miss the forest for the trees", the forest being long-term viability of humanity, the trees being individual well-being.
During peacetime, making such an argument justifies the selfish and destructive action they wanted to take anyway. The framing of the assertion is impossible to make an objective assessment of the success of an action, since such an assessment may take a hundred, or a thousand, years. So really there is no way for anyone to judge whether an act is good or bad in this framework, leaving it only as a matter of judgement of the actor. In this sense, Musk's invocation of Banks is simple megalomania with more steps.
> it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital superintelligence.
Isn't this just a restatement of Christianity? Created by an unknowable, all powerful deity with the goal of becoming one with that deity during the rapture?
Ironically, many of the alien species in Banks's novels have "sublimation" as their goal. Their idea is to transcend space and time. https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/The_Sublimed
So I guess it's just super intelligent turtles all the way down?
> Isn't this just a restatement of Christianity? Created by an unknowable, all powerful deity with the goal of becoming one with that deity during the rapture?
Yeah, honestly most Nerd Religion (EA, LessWrong-style 'rationality', etc), is basically just reheated Christianity. Notably, Roko's Basilisk (you should work for the furtherance of magic robots at all costs, lest a future omnipotent magic robot torture a perfect replica of you forever for not doing so) is just a restatement of Pascal's wager, with all the attendant problems.
It's just a similarity between millenarian religious movements, which christianity is and this is also. But it isn't the only, most immediate, or most similar predecessor imo.
Banks has a vision of the future where space travel, AI, and near-immortality are all widely distributed. What other science fiction is optimistic on a grand scale like that?
You can appreciate the overall Banks vision without agreeing on every particular political stance.
Ironically the author of this article missed the key theme that runs throughout the Culture novels: Humans are mere pets in a world where superhuman artificial intelligence exists.
Anyone that wants this future for humanity, wants to be a pet, simple as that.
If Culture humans are pets of AIs, then 99% of current humans are pets of governments, corporations and other human hierarchies.
Culture Minds have far more respect for individual self-determination than any human power structure that has ever existed. I don't weep at all for the 1% of humans who lose the ability to dominate the lives of other humans. The other 99% of humans lose nothing and gain enormous freedom.
What is a pet in the relevant sense here?
Let's assume you have everything in the Culture except the ASIs. So you have full blown Drexlerian nanotechnology, access to all the technology more or less possible out to the limits of physical law. Energy is functionally infinite, and if you want basically anything to be produced you simply order it from the AI equivalent of ChatGPT today and it is directly manufactured from base chemical feedstocks and delivered to you by a simple automaton. Food, clothes, furniture, any sort of electronics. Homes are extremely plentiful and similarly require ~ no effort to obtain, since they are just snapped together from atomically perfect panels. When you're done with something, it gets recycled back to feedstocks to be made into something else.
Okay. Now what? You're free to love who you like, befriend who you like. But nothing you do matters really for anyone else beyond sentimental value, since nothing you do effects whether they live or die (you're all functionally immortal after all, plausibly you can backup your consciousness and get resleeved if something truly catastrophic was to happen to you). There's no scarcity, no need to horde things, you play games and amuse yourself in whatever little hobbies delight you, and you socialize with those who you care to.
What exactly is the grand thing that you think people are going to be doing in that scenario that they can't do in the Culture?
It seems apparent that for the overwhelmingly enormous majority of people the Culture is identical to the case where there are no Minds, because to whatever extent some tiny portion of humans needs to make some sort of major decisions in a post-scarcity world with no Minds, 99.9999+% of people will not be among them. We see mostly people interacting with Special Circumstances (a tiny fraction of the overall population) and most of those who live on GSVs etc managed by Minds in SC themselves are also just going about their days and not involved with whatever machinations the Minds have going on.
Like, what is the problem that ASI really introduces here for regular people? And in a world where you are indeed free to leave the Culture (as we've seen) if you really want to, and there's plenty of variety in how smaller groups in the Culture live their lives, what exactly is missing? There is no oppression, no brutality, no war, disease, famine, poverty, or want and you're free to do as you like except kill people without their consent and/or otherwise hurt others. What more freedom do you really want?
The people who view culture as a dystopia either feel like they must be working and useful and don't see a way to do that when everything is provided if they choose not to work, or (and I hope this isn't it) they want to be relatively much better off than others
I understand the first one but that's something people need to get over, it's already a part of being old or having a handicap that makes you unemployable, I think future generations will grow up without equating hard work with ethics
If (the big if) we ever reach that level of post scarcity, then it will also be possible for people who value scarcity and the meaning they derive from it to live in such a way. Simply create a new environment where labour is required, and those that prefer this can live there.
This is something which comes up _in-universe_, but the general consensus amongst the AIs seems to be that it is _not_ the case, and that they are interdependent.
I think you're going to want some super intelligence on your side eventually
Calling it _the_ key theme is stretching it quite a bit imo
Agreed. The Minds keep us as pets if you want to view it that way, but they have their own "Society of Minds" to keep each other amused and engaged, and it takes very little of their bandwidth to maintain human concentrations and the general regional-galactical operating environment.
Unlike everything else like the sex changing, it’s in every book and is a plot element instead of mere “background colour”.
All of the big decisions are made by the Minds, and every time a human thinks they’re doing something of their own accord, it is implied (or explicitly stated) that they’re being manipulated by a Mind.
Several of the novels state this outright, including mentioning that Marain, the language of the culture, was explicitly designed to “guide” the thoughts of its human speakers in the “right way” as decided by the Minds that worked on its design. Handcuffs for the human mind so integrated that nobody even realises they’re shackled.
The humans aren’t prisoners, they’re pets allowed to roam “outside”, but they’re not the agents of their future in any real sense.
PS: Horrific betrayal by a highly trusted character in a position of father-like authority is a running theme in Banks’ works. The more utopian and idealistic the scenario, the greater the horror the reader can experience when that is shattered by the realisation that it was all a manipulation. The Wasp Factory, one of his earlier works, makes this the most explicit with the betrayal of the protagonist’s sexual identity by their own father, but since that book Banks has learned to make this theme less explicit and more implicit, waiting for the reader to discover it on their own and have the “Oh. Ohhhh! Oh God.” moment. Clearly many people missed it in the later Culture books…
I think you're entirely wrong. I didn't read it that way at all. In fact there are humans in the culture novels who choose not to live in the typical way (eg. Genar-Hofoen one who goes to live amongst the Affront). I think they have no less agency than we do today, rather more.
There's actually a scene in one of the books (Consider Phlebas I think?) where the SC character explicitly has a hobby of mountain climbing without all the safety devices the culture has to take away fatal consequences, against the advice and wishes of the minds.
There are other books too where people leave the culture (including entire worlds) and do whatever. Banks is careful to write very meaningful agency into the culture to make it a utopia rather than some paternalistic pet thing.
The only case where that kind of doesn't apply is special circumstances and the interesting times gang, which are heavily controversial within the culture and are explicitly pointed out as solutions that exist outside the normal moral fabric of society.
> There are other books too where people leave the culture (including entire worlds) and do whatever.
The direct analogy is a pet that ran away into the forest.
This is the “exception that proves the rule”.
Except that unlike a pet, Minds will do nothing to prevent you from leaving except for making staying as appealing as possible and in fact will actively facilitate you leaving if you choose to do so.
A pet who gets whatever they want and is encouraged to find and do what makes them happy. Feeling important and actually doing things that feel important is nice but if AI is better than you at everything its the best we can expect we can expect with AI.
I get how it can be dystopian to people who live for competition or just need to feel useful but we need to adapt if AI is going to be better than us at any jobs to feel fulfilled with recreation and hobbies. It's doable, retirees have to face this situation with a bunch of additional stress they don't have in the Culture
I'm with you. I don't think Banks is saying "this is the best way for things to be". I think he's saying "this is the best way things can realistically be once true AI is developed and given appropriate rights".
I think you missed the key theme that human lives still have meaning on their own terms even in a world where personal achievement & competitive excellence do not. The stories are about the struggles of individual humans to discover those terms for themselves, but the work doesn't attempt to show that this quest is impossible or futile.
“If you must know, I am a utopian anarchist of the kind best described by Iain Banks,”
It’s amazing that someone with access to so many resources lacks any basic self awareness.
I guest Musk cant difference between anarchism and libertarianism
“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” - Kim Stanley Robinson
I mean he's also very much not a libertarian. He's an apparatchik of an authoritarian government. That's pretty much the opposite of being a libertarian.
(Pedantically, there's a lot of overlap between anarchists and left-libertarians, but the terms tainted enough now that no-one much really considers themselves a left-libertarian anymore.)
To be fair, I've always considered libertarians to be, for the most part, anarchists who won't commit.
This seems fair+true. "Libertarian anarchists" is like "jumbo olives".. they want to build their castles in the sky in a free-floating environment that is only free in the particular way that they want; violators will be persecuted.
Anarchosyndicalism or GTFO. YMMV.