Archetype
We estimate roughly 0.2% of people fit this profile — about 1 in 500.
You believe technology and global markets will solve humanity's greatest challenges. Innovation thrives with free trade, open borders, and rapid social change.
Wondering if this is you? Take the 4-minute assessment →A snapshot of where this archetype sits — what holds it together, what it inherits, and where it meets others on the map.
The thinkers whose ideas this type descends from. Most lived in other eras and never identified with it.
1748–1832
Bentham's faith in rational planning, systematic reform, and calculation applied to social problems is the philosophical seed of technocratic progressivism. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation is where it's planted.
b. 1946
Draw your moral circle by the capacity to suffer, not by species or borders, and you are reasoning with Animal Liberation and his famine-relief argument. The pull toward evidence-driven benevolence—doing the most good measurably possible—runs straight through effective altruism to his utilitarian premises.
b. 1964
More founded extropian transhumanism by fusing libertarian self-ownership with a faith that technology can extend life and remake the human condition itself. You feel its pull: no limit is fixed, the body included.
b. 1973
Faith in technology carries a shadow: the same power that could remake humanity could also end it — which turns existential risk and superintelligent AI into questions of governance, not science fiction. Bostrom set the long-term future of humanity on your ledger.
b. 1979
When you insist that emerging technologies demand rigorous, probability-weighted reasoning rather than optimism or dread, you are working in the tradition he built. Through LessWrong and his AI-risk writing, he made existential risk and the discipline of calibrated judgment central to how technologists think about the future.
d. 1983
Fuller reframed politics as a global engineering problem: do ever more with ever less, and there's enough for everyone. In that light scarcity is a design failure, not a law of nature — which is exactly how you tend to see it.
Public figures associated with this position today. Listed for recognition, not endorsement.
b. 1986
Abundance, the book Thompson co-wrote, locates liberalism's real failure on the supply side — and you read the capacity to build and produce, not merely redistribute, as the heart of a workable pro-growth politics.
b. 1984
A liberalism that builds housing, transmission lines, and clean energy instead of one that only writes rules. Abundance, the book Klein wrote with Derek Thompson, is the manifesto for that turn, and it reads like a map of your instincts.
Progress isn't merely useful, it's a moral good — that's the claim you carry, and it's the one Crawford built The Roots of Progress to press, staking a moral case for technological and material advance inside the young progress-studies movement.
b. 1958
The Rational Optimist argues that markets and spontaneous order, not central design, are what actually drive human progress — the libertarian strain in your optimism. It runs back through Ridley's case for letting order emerge.
b. 1981
Growth is a progressive value: more people, more housing, more energy. One Billion Americans pushes the argument to national scale, and Yglesias's relentless case for building has been pulling his party toward it ever since.
When you insist that a liberalism worth having must be growth-focused and abundance-minded — refusing both scarcity politics and reflexive anti-market suspicion — you're working Smith's line. Noahpinion is where he keeps drawing it.
b. 1988
"Progress studies" — the field Collison helped launch — insists stagnation isn't neutral: whether a society still innovates is itself a political question. You treat the pace of invention as something to fight over, not wait on.
b. 1985
Transformative technology should be steered toward the common good — governed with regulation, its gains spread through something like a universal basic income — not simply unleashed. You take governing the technology as inseparable from building it.
b. 1954
The conviction that Enlightenment reason and hard evidence of human progress can settle an argument — rather than mood or pessimism — sits at the core of how you read the modern world. Pinker made that optimism a touchstone in the fights over liberalism and modernity.
The intellectual tradition this type is rooted in.
Traditions reached through the thinkers above — the more of them a tradition claims, the more this type leans on it.
Written for someone who matched the Techno-Progressive — the tradition it descends from, and the thinkers who built it.
The Techno-Progressive tradition holds a belief the rest of the political spectrum has half-abandoned: that the human condition is dramatically, measurably improvable, and that the way to improve it is to build. Where others see scarcity, conflict, and limits as permanent features of the world to be managed or mourned, your worldview sees problems — and problems, given enough ingenuity, technology, and rational design, get solved. You trust innovation, open exchange, and measurable results over both nostalgia and despair; you believe free trade, open borders, and rapid technological change are engines of human flourishing rather than threats to it; and you hold, against the prevailing pessimism of left and right alike, that the future can be made better than the past on purpose. Yours is the progressivism of abundance.
The founding method is Jeremy Bentham's. The father of utilitarianism gave the tradition its decisive move: that institutions and policies should be judged not by tradition, sentiment, or abstract right but by their measurable consequences for human well-being — the greatest happiness of the greatest number, pursued through rational calculation and systematic reform. Bentham brought the spirit of the engineer to morals and legislation, treating prisons, laws, and welfare as problems to be designed well or badly, and insisting that good intentions count for nothing if the results are bad. That confidence in reason applied systematically to social problems is the philosophical seed of every technocratic progressivism since.
Norbert Wiener supplied the modern science of steering complex systems. The founder of cybernetics — the study of control and communication in animals and machines — Wiener gave the twentieth century its language of feedback, information, and self-regulating systems, and with it the idea that society and technology alike can be understood and intelligently guided. But Wiener was no naïve enthusiast: he warned early and clearly about the human costs of automation and the danger of machines that outrun human control. From him your worldview inherits both its systems-thinking optimism and, at its best, the humane caution that the point of steering is human flourishing, not efficiency for its own sake.
Buckminster Fuller turned the optimism into a design philosophy. Fuller's whole career was a wager that we could do "more with less" — ephemeralization, he called it, the steady trend by which technology lets us accomplish ever more with ever fewer resources — and that careful design could lift all of humanity to abundance without the scarcity-driven conflicts that had defined history. His image of "Spaceship Earth," a single craft whose passengers must learn to manage their shared resources intelligently, captures the tradition's conviction that the constraints we treat as fixed are usually just problems we haven't yet engineered our way past.
Julian Simon made the optimism a testable claim and won the bet. Against the doomsayers who predicted that population growth would exhaust the earth's resources and end in catastrophe, Simon argued that the ultimate resource is human ingenuity itself — the one input that does not run out but compounds, so that more people, freer to trade and invent, means more solutions rather than fewer. He famously wagered the leading prophet of doom that the real prices of key resources would fall over a decade rather than rise, and he was right. Simon is your tradition's proof that pessimism about human possibility has a poor track record, and that freedom and innovation have repeatedly turned predicted disasters into solved problems.
What you inherit, then, is the conviction that scarcity and suffering are challenges to be engineered away rather than permanent facts to be accepted, and that the right response to humanity's problems is to invent, to build, and to measure whether it worked. From Bentham, the consequentialist method that judges everything by measurable well-being. From Wiener, the science of steering complex systems toward human ends. From Fuller, the design optimism that does more with less. From Simon, the faith in human ingenuity as the resource that never runs out. The throughline is a recovered Enlightenment confidence — that reason and technique, applied freely and rationally, can make the human condition radically better, and that the burden of proof is on the prophets of limits, not on the builders. The tension you carry is the shadow side of your own method: the Benthamite calculus that measures well-being can flatten the goods that resist measurement, licensing a cold technocracy that optimizes the metric and loses the human; the optimism that focuses on aggregate progress can blind you to the people disruption leaves behind, the communities a "rapid social change" dissolves on its way to the future; and your faith that open markets and technology lift everyone has to answer the charge that they have lifted some far more than others. You are also, strikingly, barely on speaking terms with the structural-critique progressive who shares your family — where they see systems of power to be unmasked, you see systems of production to be optimized, and the two of you scarcely recognize a common project. But you hold the conviction the modern world keeps vindicating even as it doubts it: that almost everything good about the present was once dismissed as impossible, and that the people who actually improve the human condition are the ones stubborn enough to try to build the future rather than merely fear it.
A four-minute assessment across four axes — no account required, no signup, no spam.
Begin the assessment