Nick Lan's work is very vibey.
It's really vibey.
He has an intense, prosaic writing style that is provocative, intentionally grandiose.
What's happening is new technology is being created which is leading to a ton of demand for a thing which is exposing the fact that we don't have a bunch of supply for that thing.
And so now a bunch of supply is getting built to unlock new demand.
And so new technology will get created which will unlock new demand, which will expose more supply that hasn't been built.
And the flywheel will go, and that's where we get prosperity and economic growth and GDP.
America at its finest.
Exactly.
This is what it's all about, baby.
This is why we're here, building companies in America.
Thank you.
We dig into how to make local power generation affordable, what most people get wrong about the data center buildout and how we might actually fix the US electricity grid.
Then Catherine and I are joined by A16Z's Eddie Lazarin to discuss the philosopher shaping parts of Silicon Valley's intellectual underground Nick Land.
Let's get into it.
Zach, welcome to Monitoring the Situation.
Thank you for having me.
I'm excited to be here.
So congrats on the Series C.
For people who are unfamiliar, why don't you explain?
BASE, the company mission, and we'll get into the state of it today.
Yeah, BASE is an energy technology company working to bring affordable and reliable power to America.
So we started the business almost three years ago now, focused on Texas homeowners and selling batteries on their homes and using those batteries as a grid resource when the grid is up and running and then giving that battery capacity back to the homeowner when the grid goes out to protect their home from power outages.
And we also sell power to the homeowner.
So we're able to save people on the order of 10, 20% a month on their electricity bills.
That was kind of how we got started using off-the-shelf hardware, all custom-built software.
And over the course of the last two and a half years, we've really built out this vertically integrated strategy where we're now building our own batteries, designing them, manufacturing them through our own installations, owning them, operating these batteries in wholesale markets.
And now we're starting to enter other markets.
So we have a regulated utility partnership model where we take our technology, our hardware, our software and we sell it to these utilities and help them do the same thing lower costs, increase reliability on the distribution grid.
So really the mission here is bring down the cost of electricity for all, make power more affordable, more reliable, go through technology, vertical integration.
Yeah, that's a quick high level.
I feel like people talk a lot about generation with data centers and all new types of power.
And is it more gas plants or is it more solar or nuclear?
And pulling generation closer to the actual usage.
But maybe talk to us about why energy storage is such an important part of the puzzle in keeping electricity prices down.
Yeah, so again, it all comes back to price, right?
Electricity is a commodity and the best electron is the cheapest electron.
And when you think about electricity prices, there are two components to price.
One is the cost to generate the electron, and the other component is the cost to move the electron.
Wind as well, but mostly solar, right?
So cost to generate power has gone down, but the total cost of the electron has gone up, which means that the cost to move electrons, the cost of distribution and transmission, has gone up really significantly.
And this is because our infrastructure is aging and these poles and wires are breaking and they need to get replaced.
And so there's a lot of capex that has to go into building out this transmission- distribution infrastructure.
And what we realized is poles and wires move power through space and batteries move power through time right.
So batteries and software are actually a way more efficient alternative.
And there's a kind of academic term for this in NWA, non-wires alternatives, not the other NWA.
And it's a very effective mechanism for driving down the cost of electricity because you can capture the decrease in the cost to generate the power by really also helping bring down the cost to move the power by having batteries on site.
So we deploy batteries where the load is, where interconnection is, and that makes for a much more efficient system.
So can I pop up for a second?
Because I want to get back to your origin story, which I feel like you were in a very unique position.
Remind us again when you started the company, but you had been thinking about energy even a lot longer, before BASE was founded.
And I was wondering if part of it was that you were spending so much time in AI.
You know, it's like ChatGPT had the big moment in November 2022.
You were an investor at Thrive.
Like, how were you thinking about energy being such an important component of this AI revolution?
And what made you say okay, like this is where we need to be spending time, especially on the consumer side, just given how energy needs are about to explode.
Yeah, I mean, this was really a five plus year buildup for me.
I started working on energy projects in college, actually.
And I was kind of really in the weeds working to develop a way to do anaerobic digestion to turn human waste into biogas in rural parts of the world, to create low cost energy and also a sanitation solution.
And that was a sticky, painful, messy problem to say the very least.
But that was kind of my first foray into energy.
And then actually at the end of college I tried to put together this deal to go lease a bunch of lava rock in Hawaii and put solar panels on it and sell the power back to the government and went to a bunch of banks to try to get financing.
And they were like, what, you're in college?
Who's going to manage this?
And I was like, okay, fair point.
Maybe this doesn't make sense.
Then I ended up going to Blackstone and I was on the private equity team there and looked at a bunch of stuff all across energy infrastructure.
And I think really, when I was at Blackstone, that's where this paradigm shift hit me, where I saw okay, the last five decades of energy have been defined by coal and the natural gas and the next five decades are going to be defined by solar and storage.
And really what that means is the marginal megawatt.
The low-cost marginal megawatt is going to be solar and storage.
And that is going to change the way our energy infrastructure looks and works and the way the value chain is kind of built out.
And this really stuck with me.
And then I left Blackstone, obviously, and joined Thrive Capital.
And I got to see really exemplars for companies that were innovating and taking market share from big incumbent dominated industries that were not engineering led or technology driven R&D focused.
Obviously, SpaceX and aerospace and Anduril and defense being the kind of core examples.
And this energy thesis kind of stuck with me.
It was like, well, this paradigm shift is coming.
Energy is really the last great part of the economy that's gone undisrupted.
Why can't we go do to energy what those companies did to those respective industries?
And then, of course, towards the end of my time at Thrive, we became large investors in OpenAI.
And to your point Aaron, started to see this massive tidal wave coming of this data center build out.
And I think... found ourselves in the midst of a generational increase in electricity demand.
And now that has just reached a total fever pitch.
And we're seeing this insane build out of data centers in Texas, you know, in Northern Virginia obviously, which we've been having for a long time, and really across the whole country.
And the constraint is electrons.
It's not chips, right?
Like the whole economy has been kind of constrained by electrons now, which is a new phenomenon.
And so utilities are uniquely constrained. open to new technologies, new solutions.
And so that's been a really awesome opportunity for us to build into.
Honestly like I feel like we're kind of like staring down the barrel or in the early innings of basically the largest industrial build out that the US has seen ever in all of history, like bigger than every industrial build out that we've ever seen combined, which is great news for us as American dynamism investors.
Like we don't have an industrial base.
We don't have a military industrial base.
We don't have all these other things.
So I'm grateful to AI honestly for pushing us to figure out a lot of these thorny challenges that we're going to have to figure out if we want to be able to win a war with China, et cetera, et cetera.
Yeah, these are very good problems to have, right?
What's happening is new technology is being created which is leading to a ton of demand for a thing which is exposing the fact that we don't have a bunch of supply for that thing.
And so now a bunch of supply is getting built to unlock new demand.
And so new technology will get created which will unlock new demand, which will expose more supply that hasn't been built.
And the flywheel will go, and that's where we get prosperity and economic growth and GDP.
America has the finest.
Yeah.
Exactly.
This is what it's all about, baby.
This is why we're here building companies in America.
So it's the greatest time in history to be building a company in this great country.
Totally.
I will say the speed also matters so much because on monitoring the situation we spent a lot of time on the internet.
And one of the memes that's really popped up recently, both on the left and the right, is okay, all of this AI is taking way too much energy.
And it's actually driving consumer energy prices up.
It's driving costs up.
It's something that is not sustainable.
So I would love to hear your thoughts on how quickly you have to build, what needs to be done.
I mean, in some ways Texas has figured out and maybe you can talk a little bit about why Texas is such a unique place to build but Texas has figured out how to deregulate and to make things much more affordable.
Maybe talk about sort of what you could see that as a model for the country, not only building, but also sort of the regulatory regime.
Yeah.
So price economics 101, right?
Price is a function of supply and demand.
And when you have a ton of demand and low supply, you have prices going up.
And that's largely what's happening in the energy space today.
In Texas, you have, to your point, Catherine, a competitive free market.
So...
Market participants are exposed to price signals and there's a strong incentive to go build when prices go up right.
And that's why Texas leads the nation in solar and wind.
Now it also happens to sit in the middle of the Sun Belt and the middle of the wind corridor, which is really helpful, but it's got liquid price signals.
And so there's a strong incentive for developers to enter that market.
That's why you're seeing a lot of these data.
I mean the second biggest data center market in the country behind Northern Virginia is Dallas-Fort Worth right.
And it's really easy to build there.
There's a lot of developers around.
You can interact with the wholesale power markets in creative ways.
And so I think, And if you kind of rewind the clock and look at the early 2000s, like why did so much of the kind of wind boom, solar boom happen in Texas before other places?
Well, because it was the first state to deregulate.
Actually, not the first.
California deregulated first, and then Enron put a quick stop to that.
And so Texas kind of picked up the torch and ran with it.
And so you had a bunch of developers go to Texas, and now Houston is really the energy capital of the country.
And that's because of this free market dynamic.
And so I think that, over time, the more that we can expose people companies, organizations to price signals, the more innovation we'll have, the more technology will get deployed.
And you'll see prices go down over time, right?
Because demand goes up, supply stays the same, prices go up.
A bunch of supply comes in to arbitrage that away.
And then prices go down, demand goes up again, right?
And that's what markets are for.
So I'm optimistic that we will see prices come down as more supply gets built out.
But this is kind of the natural cycles of markets.
And I think it's largely healthy.
We've seen a little bit of you know we're all excited about, but there's some backlash to the sort of data center surge or build out.
What's misunderstood about or what do people not fully appreciate about what's going on here?
Well, I think it's really easy in.
You know, we've seen I mean, I haven't seen all that many, I'm not that old, but there's, you get these boom and bust cycles all the time right.
You know, whether it's you know crypto or you know labubus or whatever, you've got just like crazy hysteria that happens around big paradigm shifts and big demand cycles.
And we're seeing this in AI, right?
It's like, we all remember the first time we used ChatGPT and our minds were blown.
And you know these products.
And then Cloud came out and Grok came out and you know all these new things and you know Cursor and Cognition and all these new products that our team uses every day and all the companies you work with use every day.
And that has created this just insatiable demand for compute.
And the build-out and the investment I mean the speculation in this market is really unprecedented.
I mean you're seeing.
You know I've got friends that work at hedge funds who have, you know, land man equivalents of people who are driving around Texas just looking for land to buy to put data centers on.
And they're just writing checks blindly from their offices in New York because they're like hey, someone's going to take this off our hands.
And, you know, everyone and their cousin is in the powered shell business now, right?
And so you're seeing just incredible amount of speculation.
And it's like, well, are we overbuilding?
Are we underbuilding?
And the answer is like probably both, right?
Like we're going to overbuild and then we're going to underbuild, and then we're going to overbuild and then we're going to underbuild.
And there's going to be this, just because it's such a big part of the market and there's so much demand, there's so much capital you're going to have.
You know, boom bust, kind of market economics play out.
So I don't know that I have anything all that intelligent to say about.
Oh, there's this thing that no one's talking about.
That's you know, under the scenes here.
You know, one thing would be, you know, model efficiency, right?
Like we saw the deep seek breakthrough and I think there's other things kind of happening with being able to train these models and run inference in more efficient ways that need less compute.
But you know, it's anyone's guess to determine like, where the compute kind of battle is going to end.
And you've got these.
You know all these public companies that their stocks have gone totally crazy and who knows how it's going to play out.
I think that there will be a bit of a snapback.
And then I think, I do think the kind of the steady march of demand will keep going.
And over time we will need a lot of this compute.
But it's really hard to get the supply demand math correctly in the near term.
And there will be some, some ugly outcomes as a result.
Yeah.
One thing that you know has been big in the news this week, at least for people who read the news in Chinese, is basically the closing down of a lot of the critical metals and minerals that are probably upstream of you in the supply chain from China.
Um would like like you know how.
How does that affect this whole power build out?
Like, how are you guys thinking about that?
What should we, what should we all be thinking about more um, as we look towards those uh upstream Chinese supply chains?
Yeah, I really have two minds here.
Uh One, and maybe not what you expect me to say of it, but is my real opinion, which is like I believe a global economy is a better economy.
It's a bigger economy.
And I believe in free markets and labor specialization.
And I think that yeah, a global economy where we can collaborate and coordinate with large global powers, whether it be China or otherwise, is good for the world.
But we are in a time where there are a bunch of forces at play and we have a particularly aggressive president with regards to tariffs.
And if you are in the business of making things and some of the things that you need are largely made in China you've got to take matters into your own hands.
And, you know, we've been very loud about this.
Like we accelerated our plans to build a factory in Texas to make this stuff ourselves because of what's happening in the geopolitical arena right.
And so if you source rare earths or you know components or batteries or whatever it might be from China like you, better have a backup plan.
And there's some places, some things that you can't and you're gonna have to make yourself.
And does it make sense to make them in the US, or should you actually make them in Mexico or make them somewhere else, right?
It's all about transformation cost and well actually, you know where do you source the components and how are they assembled?
And so there's no one-size-fits-all.
It's not like, oh, yep, go ahead and just make everything in the U.S.
Let's just like click the reshore button and then you know, put a billion dollars in the ground, and then it happens.
It takes time and it's all nuanced.
But, you know, I'll just speak for BASE.
I mean, we are doing as much as we can to control our destiny here and make as many of the things that are core to us uh, that make sense from a kind of transformation cost perspective ourselves in texas um now, we also highly value having engineering and manufacturing very close to each other and having this tight feedback loop and iterations and uh, maybe not all people value that and so they want to make stuff elsewhere and engineer it far away, and that's fine too, and i think it very much depends on the product strategy and the kind of company you're building.
So yeah, it is a hard time to be building things, because it's just always hard to build things.
And, you know, I think the best thing you can do is kind of take stock of your situation relative to your company and the thing that you make and just figure out the most strategic way to control your own destiny, so to speak.
I will say it's pretty nice to have a backup plan where you can raise a billion dollars to build in Texas.
Like, that's a really nice backup plan.
And one testament to you all, too.
Yeah, it certainly helps.
Look.
We're very grateful for the support of our investors, Andreessen included, who see this big vision.
And we're not like oh, you know, tariffs hit, we need a billion dollars because like, our stuff's getting more expensive, right?
It's like, okay, we have a plan.
Here it is.
This is what we're going to do.
This is how we're going to do it.
This is what it's going to cost, right?
And so we're going to execute against that plan as quickly as we can.
Yeah, I want to talk a little bit more about just building in Texas, because I think a couple years ago and we talk a lot about this on the American Dynamism team it was like everything was concentrated in California.
Saying you were going to build in a new ecosystem like Austin was sort of seen as radical or crazy and like the sort of the kind of top line kind of that everyone would say is well, there's not enough talent.
Like you're going to have a hard time getting the engineering talent.
As you said, like manufacturing, engineering need to be near each other.
How are you going to be able to do that?
And so you were sort of proving all the naysayers wrong.
Maybe talk about why Texas is the future and why, if we're looking 20 years out, we might see 10 new you know, physical world ecosystems that are really benefiting from this movement.
Yeah, look, I'm very biased here because I was born and raised in Austin.
So this is home for me.
But first of all, Austin is an amazing place to live.
It's an amazing place to build a family.
It's got great schools.
It's got great, you know, outdoor nature.
It's got the arts.
It's got music.
It's got the Texas Longhorns.
It's, you know, has all the charm of a small city and all the resources of a big city.
It's got the restaurants.
It's got barbecues.
That's important.
And barbecue, right?
And great Mexican food.
And so the livability is extremely high.
So, you know, we do a lot of relocating people to Austin, right?
We're like, hey, you know, and it's a good selection mechanism for people who are really serious.
Because look, we work really hard here.
Like this is an intense place to work.
And if you're not willing to pick up your life and move to Austin like, you're probably just not the right fit for the company because it's just an intense group of people.
And so we've been able to relocate a lot of people here because it's a great place to live.
But the actual fundamentals of the city make it a really good place to build.
It's incredibly pro-business.
There's a massive hub, highly competent set of young college-educated people coming out of the University of Texas.
Elon has built Gigafactory here, which has brought tens of thousands of incredible engineers here, many of which we've hired.
And you know SpaceX now has a site in Bastrop.
You know Amazon and Apple and Meta and you know all these companies have big offices here.
So it's become a technology hub.
The local hiring pool has gotten better.
Our ability to recruit people here has gone up as the city has gotten better.
And as someone who grew up here and, you know, spent the last, you know whatever 30 years here, like the next 10 years for Austin, are going to be a lot better than the last 10 years.
And we're kind of hitting this inflection point where it's becoming a major metro in the country.
And so I'm extremely bullish on the city.
And obviously our friends at Ceramic are building a really incredible hardware company here.
And we're excited about what they're doing.
And there's going to be more behind us that are, you know, building hard things, doing hard work here in Texas.
And it's really exciting to see.
Zach?
So modernizing the grid is an important topic that people talk a lot about.
Obviously not the sexiest topic.
I think it's pretty sexy.
Exactly.
It needs to be done.
Why don't you give an overview of how the grid got so bad in the first place and what needs to happen?
Yeah, so the backstory here is interesting and complicated.
I mean, the grid was largely kind of federalized and regulated, right?
And you know, in the early 1900s, when we started building out what is now a grid infrastructure, the available technology was less.
Our kind of cities were more rural.
You had to have like a ton of coordination infrastructure. to get these things done.
And so you had a lot of these municipal utilities get built out there, you know, run by the city.
Um, and then over time, you know, you saw other parts of the economy deregulate, right?
Like, um, you know, trucking and airlines and telecom and the grid just largely didn't.
Um, and it stayed, you know, highly regulated.
And I think, and I think that when you have parts of the economy that are controlled by the government, you definitionally have less innovation.
And so right now, on the order of 40%, 50% of grid infrastructure was built in the 60s.
And so there has not been a strong incentive.
When you have monopolies, you don't have competition.
There's very little incentive to innovate, right.
Because there's no competition.
And so you have old infrastructure where there's no incentive to upgrade it and rebuild it.
And so we have a system that is basically old and too small is kind of the punchline.
As I mentioned, in the early 2000s, late 90s, this deregulate the grid kind of movement started in California.
It was quickly cut off at the knees around the Enron situation.
Texas picked up the torch, deregulated, and then a bunch of states in the Northeast followed.
But it kind of stopped there and a lot of the country is still regulated, and partially for good reason.
I mean, I think that at least the transmission distribution it does make sense to have regulated monopolies in that part of the economy, because it doesn't make sense to have, you know, 10 different power lines running through the neighborhood, right?
So it's kind of like the roads, right?
Like most roads are not privately owned.
It makes sense to have these roads owned by the government, but the cars that drive on them and the the kind of stores that line them are not government owned.
And it's kind of like other, you know, there are proxies in the economy.
When you have no competition and government regulation, you don't have innovation and you have very little incentive to upgrade.
So we have to change that.
And we're starting by entering the deregulated market of Texas, where there is an incentive to innovate and we are exposed to price signals.
And that's why Texas has become a laboratory for energy innovation because it's a free market and you can go capture market share and profits by coming up with great technology.
Now what we're doing is we're taking all the technology that we've built over the last two and a half years in Texas the hardware, the software, the deployment operations and we're packaging it and bringing it to those regulated utilities across the country who are seeing this once-in-a-generation power demand and saying we need technology.
And they know that they're not really built for R&D, right?
And so they need a partner.
And we show up and say, hey, we are your outsourced R&D.
We have this technology that we can provide to you.
It's going to help you decrease your costs and increase your reliability.
I'm like, okay, that sounds pretty interesting.
So we're working on partnering with these regulated utilities.
We're not here to deregulate them, right?
We're here to partner with them and help them do their jobs better outside of Texas.
And then the other deregulated markets, we're going to compete in the free markets, right?
And I hope that other competition shows up, right?
Competition is good.
Competition equals lower prices and better services for consumers.
And and it'll help us do better at our job.
So I hope there are more energy technology companies that show up in the competitive parts of the market and help us, push us to do better.
And then conversely, also go to the regulated parts of the market and start building technology and doing RD on behalf of these regulated utilities.
Yeah, I think it's a great, great explanation.
I wonder if that's a, if that's an inspiring and good note to try.
I like the phrase, but the competition is good because, you know, zero to one got so popular.
People have like been, have been less excited about competition as it relates, in terms of, you know, its overall benefits to the, to the ecosystem.
So I appreciate you calling that out.
Yeah.
If you're going to.
You know, winning in an uncompetitive market is like that is not really a thing, right?
Like, any good opportunity gets competed.
If what you're doing is actually that interesting economically and societal, like it should be competed on right.
And someone should show up and say, hey, I want that too, right?
So, you know, right now, if you said, hey, Zach, who else is working on this in this way?
Like, Actually, there's nobody.
Like, there are other people that make batteries.
There are other people that write software for batteries.
No one has the model that we have.
Someone better show up soon or else, like, what we're doing clearly isn't working.
Now, I think it's working and the market thinks it's working.
The business model works and the customers love it.
And so I imagine that someone will show up soon.
Now, I think we've got a nice head start and, you know, we're rather competitive people.
So, you know, bring it on.
But I do think that, like, good, you know, competitive markets are healthy.
Yeah.
Totally.
Totally.
Yeah.
And to our friends.
If you want to read more about BASE, Marina Mag has the definitive profile of you guys and what we're building in Texas.
Check it out this weekend.
Erin, did you want to say something?
Oh, I was just, you brought up Peter Thiel, Eric, and zero to one.
And, you know, it's better to not have a competitor than have a competitor.
And I loved Zach's spicy take.
And I remember, you know, when I was at Palantir, we talked a lot about not having a competitor.
And now every company I talk to is Palantir for XYZ.
So I imagine we'll, you know.
Yeah, Palantir has tons of competitors.
NVIDIA has tons of competitors.
In 10 years hearing.
OpenAI, yeah.
Name a great business that doesn't have competition.
I mean, yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Awesome.
Well, on that note, Zach, thanks so much for coming to the Modern News Situation.
Thanks for having me, guys.
It was fun.
Great.
Well, we're now excited to have our second guest on the Modern News Situation segment, Eddie Lazarin.
Who's going to be talking to us about?
Who is Nick Land?
Eddie, we've been looking for an excuse to bring up Nick Land in A6Z podcast for a while now.
And I think we finally found it.
Tucker Carlson had a guest on the podcast, which talked about the Nick Land phenomenon in Silicon Valley and how it's inspired AI.
And they're worried about, you know, It being a sort of the summoning of the demons, so to speak.
There was a great profile on Tablet on who is Nick Land.
Nick Land also went on a podcast in this debate with... The current issue of Tablet.
Yes.
Yours.
Exactly.
Nick Land also did a debate with Alexander Dugan on Mike Dyer's podcast.
So in the news right now and people are asking who is Nick Land and what is his connection to Silicon Valley.
Eddie, help us make sense.
Yeah.
So I'll say I will layer on caveat after caveat until maybe we get an answer.
Right.
Like maybe that will maybe that's how we'll get there.
But so for first I'll say, like I don't think people need to understand who Nick Land is, any more than you need to understand who Deleuze and Guattari are or who Hegel was, or you know who any of these somewhat inscrutable continental philosophers are.
Right.
I don't.
I don't think that you necessarily need to, although I think these figures do have an effect on mainstream culture.
They do.
It's usually through their ripple effect over layers and layers of culture, as they're kind of digested and recomputed by people, right?
We kind of achieve an understanding of them.
So I'll say Nick Land is that type of figure.
So he's incredibly difficult to understand, not just because he's from an intellectual school that's hard to understand, like the continental philosophers in general, but because the topics he chooses to talk about are themselves inscrutable.
His writing style is inscrutable because it's sort of taking these flourishes and density from these famous like 20th century French philosophers and stuff like that.
Obviously, he's writing in English and he's very much an Englishman.
But all these layers make it incredibly difficult to understand who Nick Land is.
So first, if you have no interest in continental philosophers, if you have no interest in this type of thing, You don't need to know.
You're good.
Turn it off.
Skip the podcast.
Enjoy.
Have a good afternoon.
You know, whatever.
But if those types of things are interesting to you, then Nick Land is very, very interesting.
And I find it.
I'm a huge fan.
I find it very interesting.
What makes him interesting is that he takes a lot of the most interesting post-industrial revolution themes and he modernizes them into an ultra-modern cypherpunk context.
Right now, as I said, he's hard to explain, so I'm being really reductionistic here, right?
And I'm overly simplifying what he is.
But Nick Land has had two famous phases, two phases in his intellectual development which is not uncommon for people like him, people who are kind of playing in this really complex mind space and trying to make sense of things using using really high level conceptual tools.
Nick Land was taking all these themes about industrial development and capitalism and the internet and cities and the intensity and heat and chaos and entropy of modern culture as we saw it in the 90s, in the 70s and 80s and 90s in a way we'd never seen before.
And he's trying to make sense of it in terms of its grand historicity.
What does it mean in the big picture of the development of humanity?
And during that period, I think he was a little more cynical about capitalism.
Like he kind of flipped his views on how he thought about capitalism, technological development, as something that was creating a lot of problems for people, but also something that was brimming with incredible potential.
In his more recent period, maybe like since 2012, 2013-ish or something like that he has remained focused on similar themes.
But he has kind of flipped around a little bit where he sees technological development and the feedback loop of capital and technology and capital and technology and money and capital and technology differently as maybe culminating a huge project.
Now, whether it's a human project or whether it's a project from an AI from the future is kind of a complex idea.
But gets at another theme of his, which is this esoteric mysticism.
Now, I'm not a particularly esoteric mysticism type person.
Actually I studied philosophy in school, but I studied analytic philosophy, which is like the boring draw math, equations and logic.
You know logical explanations type philosopher.
The type who maybe makes things clear at the expense of them being interesting, right?
But the continental school, land school, is very much the opposite.
Maybe leaning maximally into interestingness.
Maybe at the expense of clarity, right?
And I'd say that Land's unpacking of all these ideas is often layered with his esoteric tools, right.
And those are things like the numagram, which I regret I crunched up slightly, but it doesn't help.
It wasn't going to make sense anyway, right?
So the...
I'm not going to bother to try to explain the numogram.
It's actually a really cool three-hour, 33-minute podcast on YouTube where he explains it in depth.
But the way that I maybe rationalize it to myself is I think of it like that brilliant friend of yours who really does have a great grasp of people but maybe relies on tarot as like a tool of their brilliant otherwise brilliant psychologizing right.
That's kind of how I think about it.
So what makes Land so interesting to Silicon Valley people?
Right, because that's just a pushback on the Hegel or Deleuze.
Like, they're not people who inspire, you know, Silicon Valley in the same way.
So Land is more relevant and more pertinent.
And that's because he takes a lot of the interesting themes from those philosophers.
I'm trying to avoid getting, like, a little too deep into the specifics.
I can, and I'd be happy to, but...
He takes a lot of the themes that these philosophers talk about and he embeds them very, very specifically in technological progress, in the internet, in what is new.
And I say this very much being a part of the crypto team and on the crypto fund.
He has probably the most interesting, dense treatment of Bitcoin as a philosophical object.
That has ever been written, for sure.
I found super, super interesting.
It always seems to surprise me with ideas when I go back to it.
It's like a 150-page book or so, right?
So part of what makes his appeal so great is specifically embedding these things in contemporary technological themes and developments, as opposed to kind of waving the hand and looking at like I would describe most philosophers as kind of looking at technological progress as like well look, they're making more stuff faster.
You know, like, okay, they made the pin factory 10 times cheaper.
Wow, those industrialists, you know.
Whereas I think land identifies a qualitative change, right?
In technological progress, we see something maybe almost spooky.
And I think that that's where that spookiness is what Tucker's guest was correctly identifying.
Now I think his analysis was maybe not the way that I see land and I think there was a lot of projection from his personal analysis of things.
I think that I really I thought it was very entertaining and fun, but the truth is I don't think it was particularly accurate.
But he is correctly picking up, at least, on the spookiness.
There is something a little bit spooky sometimes about the rate that technological progress compounds and the way that it maybe erodes at the same time that it adds on to the human condition.
And I think that makes it really interesting.
Now I'll say just to maybe situate the prompt about Silicon Valley a little bit more specifically I don't actually know that many people in Silicon Valley who like Nick Land.
I'm going to be honest.
It's not like you go around the streets of San Francisco and you talk to people.
This really cool book, this compilation of Land's blog posts from Passage Press came out.
Yes.
I think last year— That's what I was going to ask, because I, you know, I first—.
I feel like Nick Land's a name you've heard if you've been in Silicon Valley, but it's also a name you've heard if you've been in certain circles online.
And I think the passage press point is a very good point, right?
Like, they were—they published CINO systems.
I'd love to get into what that is and why it's important.
But on the online right, he's also— a figure that people care about.
And now that he's sort of mainstreamed into like the mainstream online right with Tucker, curious why you think those worlds are colliding.
Because his work, if you actually you know, and again, I think the tablet piece that came out a couple weeks ago, goes through like the entire history of what he's done.
He's not really a... typical like American right figure, right?
Like he doesn't really fit in that context.
He was, he's, you know, at the, at the, it was at University of Warwick.
Was that in England?
And then he moved to Shanghai, right?
Like he's not really part of American politics or American culture, yet he's had an influence on these kind of very small pockets.
So I would just be curious maybe we'll start with what is Xenosystems and the book from Passage Press, and then how does he fit into all of these weird subcultures?
In a peculiar way, but doesn't necessarily.
As you said, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in Silicon Valley who's read a lot of Nick Klan's work.
Yeah no yeah, I don't.
I really honestly I don't.
Of course, I don't mean this in a disparaging way.
I don't really see Nick Land's ideas as being like broadly influential in Silicon Valley in the way maybe they were characterized in the Tucker project.
But there's kind of this, the accelerationist thing leading to, yeah.
Yeah, so distillations of some of the ideas that have been kind of like reimagined and digested have made their way in.
And part of that is because and this is I'm going to, maybe this is a funny way to try to put it is that Nick Land's work is very vibey.
Okay.
It's really vibey.
Okay.
If you go look at that meltdown piece from 94, you look at a random essay from Xeno systems.
Like he has a intense prosaic writing style that is provocative, intentionally inflammatory, not inflammatory, intentionally grandiose, right.
Yeah.
And he can create a lot of imagery in his work.
So the way he describes acceleration is it's more than just like making the pins faster and cheaper.
Acceleration is like almost an, you know, it's like a world-changing project, right?
He describes Bitcoin as like maybe the most profound thing that's happened on the internet, right?
Like he has incredible theater to what he says that comes from the continental school.
So people have taken that and really enjoyed that, right?
Like I think if you read any of his stuff, you'll see that.
So like what is Xenosystems and so on.
So I'll say his presence in the online right Xenosystems On the online right.
He got there in an interesting way.
I think if people are kind of familiar with horseshoe theory, right?
Land has not always been like a figure on the right.
In fact, many have described his earlier phase differently.
With the CCRU, kind of this like ragtag.
Very interesting, very artistically sensitive writing group, basically art group.
I think of them as an art group at least.
They would have described them as actually on the far left, right?
As a far on the anti-capitalist left.
Yeah.
And his arrival on the right was kind of jumping across the gap in the horseshoe, so to speak.
A very good friend of mine, a philosopher who identifies as more of a communist, a college friend of mine.
He says, like I often feel, like when I read Nick Land, that I could like reach across and like kiss him over the gap in the horseshoe right.
Yeah.
So I wouldn't say that he's a representative figure of Silicon Valley.
I don't think Silicon Valley is like this, right?
But he is a fantastic poster and very insightful and cutting and controversial.
And I think that that has made him very exciting and very interesting to the right, to the online right recently, because the online right doesn't really have this type of voice right.
Someone with, you know, deep in the continental weeds, so to speak.
So what explains his shift from left to right, basically?
You know, it's funny.
He hasn't really explained that himself, right?
Nick Lant.
I mean, if you read his themes it's not like the subject of his attention has changed totally.
It has certainly evolved, and there's all kinds of things he posts about and talks about today that he didn't in the past.
So he has certainly evolved, but he kind of disappeared for a while.
Hmm.
And then he just kind of came back and everything had changed, right?
And now he just writes from that perspective very – I can say the types of things that he believes, right?
You know, like he's very preoccupied with liberalism.
When I say liberalism, I mean in the –
European sense, right?
In the freedom, you know, individualist sense.
He's very preoccupied with, like liberalism in the West and like what that means and how it has evolved and, in particular, how it has pathologized in some ways and evolved into like contemporary progressivism, which he sees as like not just its own kind of isolated political system, but as something that is clearly identifiable as an evolution of Protestantism, of older liberalism, of the change in the makeup of the Western electorate and so on.
But the debate he was having with Dugan was whether – that's kind of endemic to liberalism or whether that was just a, you know mutation, but not necessarily inherent to the form.
Yeah, yeah.
So those types of themes are part of why he's also so interesting to the right, because I think a lot of people on the online right today and I don't mean like the whole right remember I'm speaking in generalities obviously, but I'm talking about the type of people who are very interested in trying to take a diagnostic lens to what has happened in American politics and American culture over the last 20, 30 years, maybe in light of the internet specifically, and trying to understand it in its big historical frame.
And that's an interesting project.
It's a difficult project.
I don't pretend that he has the answers necessarily.
I don't think he would even.
I mean, he's trying to understand it.
It makes him interesting.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I just thought the Tucker podcast was fascinating how it sort of brought together these sort of weird cultural things.
Again, if you're truly monitoring the situation.
There are things happening across the internet like discussion of Revelation, the Antichrist and really linking Nick Land and accelerationism to sort of this bigger question of are we at the end of the world?
And I'm very curious, was that more of like the the Tucker framing of it?
Or is that like actually part of Lan's work that we hit?
I mean, I know he's talked a lot about singularity and sort of these forces coming together.
I've never thought of his work as like end of the world project.
So I'm curious how it's getting lumped.
Yeah, I mean, he does see history as this grand project, right?
And he is very preoccupied with the shape of history and the shape of time.
A lot of really interesting, crazy sci-fi themes in there.
But I don't really you know.
He's somebody that I'm sure could hold a conversation about, like the Antichrist and so on and eschatology in the Western tradition.
That is something he's talked about now and then, but I don't see that as a key theme in his works.
And like, you know, as an example, that's not a key theme in Xenosystems, right?
Like the book that like kind of, has reignited some interest and some attention in his work.
You know, I say this, this is not like a content warning.
I'm not that, but you know, I'd say, if you're the type of person that wants to clutch their pearls and like, get upset about, like things that you read, then don't read Xenosystems, right?
But if you're the type of person that wants to read a wide array of ideas from someone who's dedication as a philosopher to unfettered idea work, and you can appreciate the sort of sloppiness and craziness of someone who's really trying to think through things, then I think that it's a really interesting piece from a perspective that is pretty uncommon.
Yeah.
The one thing that really came out from a lot of the conversations and discourse happening this week on him is, like I actually don't think Silicon Valley has its own philosophical community.
Like there aren't.
Like you can't point to someone in Silicon Valley and say this is the key philosopher, because most people in Silicon Valley are doers and they're building things and they have a very different way of how they interact with whether it's their art or their projects.
And so I guess is part of this that we just lack such a philosophical culture?
That maybe he's getting credit for something that's very, very distinct.
I agree with that.
I think that's a great read.
And in fact, I'd extend that read.
Something that's been – I'm amazed to mention this on a podcast.
This is kind of like an Eddie Shower thought here, right?
But like – but for some time – because I told you I did philosophy in school.
It's been like a longtime interest of mine, right?
I kind of have this like lingering belief, you know, not –
Not something I'm totally sure about, but like a feeling that I think a lot of the great philosophers were epiphenomenal, to use a philosophy word, which means that their work was sort of capturing what was already in the spirit of the culture that they were occupying.
And that they may have made, and in a lot of their works this is not always the case, but a lot of the time were actually doing a brilliant job capturing the spirit of the times and capturing what thinkers were working on.
And we look back on them as causal, as having caused those periods.
But in fact they're just taking a beautiful crystallized snapshot that now becomes retroactively representative of that period.
I think moving to Silicon Valley gave me conviction in this belief because I thought of when I came to Silicon Valley in 2011.
When I came by, I thought that to embark on such grand projects, I always heard about the incredible ambition of Silicon Valley.
That was always something that stuck out to me like the massive, the willingness to change the world.
This sort of craziness.
I thought of this as something that required a distinctly philosophical motivation, if not a spiritual motivation.
I thought of it as something that required this.
And so I thought that when I came to Silicon Valley, I'd meet a bunch of people who adhered to very specific, explicitly held in their hearts these types of systems.
And they don't at all.
They don't at all.
And what actually is the case is that people live in this, it's like a fish in water, right?
They just kind of like swim in this culture.
And some people are so good at getting a little grip on it and like capturing it in words, its spirit in words, through aphorisms, if not full, fully developed philosophical treaties, right.
And land captures.
Some of that, some of the, I would say, the kind of more, some of the most extreme and interesting cypherpunk elements of it, for sure.
And he has gone on an interesting evolutionary journey that many have in their reaction to the internet.
But I don't see it as causal, right?
I don't think people are acting out, developing AI, following Nick Land.
Like that's honestly absurd to me.
But instead Nick Land's like profound enthusiasm about it and his seeing extreme consequences in its development is something that a lot of people in Silicon Valley share for a variety of other reasons.
Yeah.
One thing I think he's also very good at that Silicon Valley actually understands and sort of the builder culture versus the thinking culture is.
He's extremely good at memes, extremely good at naming things.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
And Silicon Valley cares about that, right?
So it's like, of course, accelerationism is like a beautiful.
It's a beautiful concept, it's a beautiful word and it's also something that sticks right.
Like, we need those words.
So I guess there's something about that too, where we're so devoid as an ecosystem of writers and thinkers because people don't come to Silicon Valley to write.
They come to Silicon Valley to build.
And if you come as a writer, you get co-opted into some aspect of our ecosystem where you're not writing in many ways.
It feels like he's kind of connected at places where our world actually understands certain parts of the language, even if we don't understand the actual doctrines.
Totally, totally.
And some people make this critique that they say hey, accelerationism is.
Some people had this view that it was kind of like you know, burn it all down, but we needed to, things needed to be burned down to get better and sort of accelerate that.
That's like one branch of it.
Yeah.
But that we've sort of Silicon Valley sort of adopted that to mean that term accelerationism, but in a more positive, like you know, build up in some sense and and some people would critique and say oh, because we're doing that, we're like we don't quite understand the original philosophy or something, but maybe in fact we're just using it for our own purposes.
You know yeah well well, but but the the history of thought is full of these types of versions of co-opting like yeah left, accelerationism right.
Which is like this idea that you heighten the contradictions of capitalism by like being faster bigger, Make the pin factory a thousand times bigger.
Make the planet a pin factory, right?
And then like it will eventually detonate and then we can return to whatever communists think.
But then, but of course, right acceleration.
In fact, I'd say I think there's a lot of nuance in right acceleration.
There are some people who think that it leads to kind of a bizarre cataclysm, and there are in a good way, whatever that means.
And then there are some people that think of it as just a fundamentally productive project.
Yeah.
It's like abundance creates abundance creates abundance, right?
Acceleration creates acceleration.
And we've enjoyed these fruits so far.
Why not more?
Yeah.
So could I ask you know for people who have heard a couple podcasts this week and are like, actually I'm really interested.
For the novice, where do you begin?
What's the most interesting work to dive into first?
Like, where would your sort of Eddie's tour of Nick Land begin?
Well, like I said at the beginning, the truth is you don't need to understand Nick Land.
It's okay.
Turn off the podcast, touch grass, and do your thing.
You don't need to.
Show us the picture again.
Just show us.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Do you really want to understand this?
Do you really want to understand the new?
It's the it's sunny in Philadelphia.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't think you do.
But if you, but if you really do want to understand these types of things, like I'd say bring, bring an LLM along to support you, because it's all it's a very dense.
His work is very, very dense, full of references to other philosophers and specific phrases and framings.
I think Xenosystems is a great place to start.
Uh, if you want to just get the vibe, I think that Meltdown essay is really good.
It's, you know again, content warning or whatever, but I think that that's a great way to get the vibe.
Um, Yeah, I think that's – I mean, I could say more.
Maybe I'll put some links in the notes.
He's also great on podcasts.
He's such a – it's so funny.
We hear this – I remember the first time I heard of him like 15 years ago or so.
I remember he was explained to me as a menacing figure almost, which is incredible in retrospect.
But if you listen to him on one of the podcasts, he's like the most gentle guy.
He's like the sweetest guy.
He's like literally the sweetest guy.
I can't even – I mean, I've never met him.
But he seems like a very – And very clear.
A very clear, very careful, very deliberate with his words type of guy.
I think you'll enjoy it.
You might have to play things at 1.5x.
I recommend the same thing for my videos for what it's worth.
But yeah, I think just dive in.
And I think I've been pretty impressed candidly with the Waze LLMs, especially when you give them some think time and you let them look at some links.
They do a really good job of putting things into very legible form.
Yeah.
I think it's a good place to wrap.
Eddie, thanks for coming on.
Thanks so much for coming.
Thanks for listening to this episode of the A16Z Podcast.
If you liked this episode, be sure to like comment subscribe, leave us a rating or review and share it with your friends and family.
For more episodes, go to YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.
Follow us on X and A16Z and subscribe to our Substack at a16z.substack.com.
Thanks again for listening and I'll see you in the next episode.
As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal business tax or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast.
For more details, including a link to our investments, please see a16zcom forward slash disclosures.
