I believe in empowering people to fulfill their potential and do what they love. That necessarily means the volume of output of meaningful work will increase, even in the case where people choose to take more time to do higher-quality work. I also believe in giving people tools that make them more effective in their work, to improve focus, reduce toil, and extend human capabilities. That, too, increases the rate of production, again, even if people on an individual level take more time to learn, experiment, and produce at a high level of quality. These changes necessarily create new problems, up to and including resource pressure and overflow downstream that must be managed, as a byproduct of more people having a better quality of life and greater access to opportunity. This position is not accelerationist. The core objective is not to produce more, faster, as a good in-and-of-itself. Accelerationists would not give a flying fuck about managing and mitigating the impacts, and would claim the problems would solve themselves as long as you continue increasing the rate of change. This position does recognize that a likely second-order effect of mass empowerment (the primary goal) is an increase in the production of information that needs to be addressed elsewhere in the system. That is responsible. Handwaving at ~the environment~ as a reason why the status quo is good enough additionally does not track or resonate with me as someone who worked directly on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. The goal is not for eight billion people to live in dirt hovels cooking off coals. It is for more people to live longer, fuller, healthier, safer lives doing what is most fulfilling to them in ways that also make most efficient use of the resources we have available.