This is a stated worldview rather than a method, and it says so: short declarative sections, an enemy named on purpose, a values list, and a slogan at the end. It governs the prior question sitting under any decision about technology, whether you treat capability as the thing that produces human progress or as the thing that endangers it, and it answers that question in one direction without hedging. The Do and Don't sections below are what the document actually asks of a reader. Its load-bearing assertions, several of which are contested and none of which it demonstrates, are collected under Hold and stated as the positions it takes, not as settled fact.

Do

Make yourself technically capable instead of remaining a spectator. The call is for active self-transformation through technical education, hands-on building skill, and teamwork, on the argument that the technological frontier is still wide open in the way the geographic one no longer is. The posture it asks you to drop is the one where technology is something that happens to you. [Source: "Technological Supermen and Values"]

Adopt a named list of virtues rather than a general enthusiasm. The values section is specific: ambition, aggression, persistence, merit, achievement, bravery, pride, free thought and speech, the scientific method, individualism, competition, and what it calls radical competence, with abundance and cheapness explicitly preferred over scarcity and expense. It also favors intrinsic reward over extrinsic, summarized as flourishing through excellence. A list you can be measured against is the point. [Source: "Technological Supermen and Values"]

Use falling prices as the scoreboard for whether anything is actually improving. Abundance is defined in strictly economic terms, as prices falling far enough that a good stops factoring into decisions at all, with the ordinary pencil as the example of something already there. Andy Warhol's observation that mass production has a rich person and a poor person drinking the same Coca-Cola, and Buckminster Fuller's ephemeralization, doing more with progressively less material, are the scaffolding. [Source: "Abundance and Not Utopia"]

Argue markets as specific mechanisms, not as an identity. The case is made mechanism by mechanism: prices carry information that could not be computed centrally, profit motivates people to actually supply what is needed, and competition disciplines producers into improving rather than coasting. Stated that way it is checkable; stated as an allegiance it is not. [Source: "Markets and the Techno-Capital Machine"]

Back the two concrete bets, not the general mood. Of everything in the document, two technologies are named as the live ones: intelligence, meaning both artificial intelligence and humans augmented by machine tools, and energy, where nuclear fission is named as the available answer for zero-emissions power at scale and fusion is placed behind it as a longer horizon rather than as a reason to wait. [Source: "Intelligence and Energy"]

Name the ideas you are against, not the people who hold them. The enemies section opens by explicitly framing its target as a set of ideas rather than a roster of individuals, and then lists them at length: stagnation, statism and central planning, bureaucracy, vetocracy, gerontocracy, regulatory capture, monopoly protection, unaccountable credentialed experts, and speech control. Whether the section holds to its own rule is worth judging for yourself; the rule itself is sound. [Source: "Naming the Enemy"]

Pair any sweeping claim with a constrained one so it stays testable. Immediately after predicting abundance for tens of billions of people, the document disclaims utopianism and adopts what it calls a constrained vision, progress through trial, error, and individual choice rather than a perfectible master plan, borrowing the phrase slouching toward Utopia to describe the pace it actually expects. Without that qualifier the abundance claim would be unfalsifiable. [Source: "Abundance and Not Utopia"]

Publish your influences so the view can be traced. The closing lists dozens of named sources across rival traditions: Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, Paul Romer and William Nordhaus, Ray Kurzweil, Richard Feynman, John von Neumann, Ada Lovelace, Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, Buckminster Fuller, Andy Warhol. It ends with a plain disclaimer that the views are personal rather than the firm's. Both moves let a reader audit where a position came from. [Source: "Patron Saints and the Closing Charge"]

Don't

Don't let a precautionary default settle a question on its own. The precautionary principle is singled out and charged specifically with blocking nuclear power at the scale the document argues for, which is what ties the abstract objection to a concrete cost. The complaint is not that caution is wrong, it is that caution used as an automatic answer never has to show its own arithmetic. [Source: "Naming the Enemy"]

Don't answer rising demand with rationing. Cheap, abundant energy is treated as foundational to every other form of progress, and the prescribed response to growing demand is expanding production rather than conserving or allocating a fixed supply. [Source: "Intelligence and Energy"]

Don't let the machine become the point. The relationship is framed deliberately as service in one direction: markets and machines exist to serve human ends, not the reverse. This is the distinction the document leans on later when it pushes back on fears of technology escaping human purpose. [Source: "Markets and the Techno-Capital Machine"]

Don't mistake being comfortable for having arrived. The enemies list ends on Nietzsche's Last Man, a person so comfortable and so risk-averse that ambition itself starts to look suspect, offered as the psychological endpoint the whole document is written against. [Source: "Naming the Enemy"]

Hold

These are the manifesto's belief claims. Each is a position it asserts rather than a finding it establishes, and several are actively contested. They are listed here so that the program above can be evaluated separately from the premises underneath it.

Growth comes from technology, and from nothing else, once the easy sources are exhausted. The definition is narrow on purpose: once population growth and easy resource extraction stop being sufficient, technology is treated as the only remaining lever, and stagnation on that lever is framed as leading toward civilizational collapse rather than mere slowdown. This is the premise the entire document rests on, and it is asserted rather than argued. [Source: "Lies, Truth, and Technology"]

The pessimistic account of technology is a lie, not a rival position. The opening move is a deliberate inversion: rather than defend techno-optimism as one reasonable view among several, it opens by naming the opposing narrative false and its own simply true, and traces the cultural pessimism partly to old templates, Prometheus punished for fire, Frankenstein, the Terminator. Holding this makes the debate a correction rather than a conversation, which is the tone the rest of the document sustains. [Source: "Lies, Truth, and Technology"]

Building a profitable technology company is inherently philanthropic. The claim rests on a specific figure: innovators are said to capture only a few percent of the value they create, with the large majority flowing to society as consumer surplus, which is what makes the philanthropic conclusion follow even when nobody intended it. The figure does the whole job and the document does not defend it. [Source: "Markets and the Techno-Capital Machine"]

Slowing AI development is framed as costing lives that could have been saved. This is stated as one of the document's most deliberately provocative claims, and it is a moral inversion of the usual risk framing rather than an empirical result: the argument is that delay forfeits medical and scientific progress that would have saved people. Whether you hold it or not, recognize it as an argument built to reverse the burden of proof in AI safety debates. [Source: "Intelligence and Energy"]

More technology, not less, is what improves environmental outcomes. The premise that technological and energy growth are inherently harmful to the environment is rejected outright, and continued advancement is offered as the actual mechanism of improvement. This is what sets up the later attack on sustainability and the precautionary principle as opponents rather than as considerations. [Source: "Intelligence and Energy"]

Abundance can support tens of billions of people, then extend past Earth. The prediction is that the compounding loop of markets and technology, if left to run, supports a far larger population on Earth alone, with abundance itself drawing in the additional talent that accelerates the loop further, before settlement eventually extends beyond the planet. It is a forecast offered without a mechanism for checking it. [Source: "Abundance and Not Utopia"]

Techno-optimism is claimed as a material philosophy rather than a political one. The position is that material abundance is what gives people real freedom to choose their own religion, politics, and way of living, and the values are described as indifferent to race, gender, religion, and nationality. Held alongside it, in the same cluster of sections, is the argument that the United States and its allied liberal democracies should remain technologically dominant to secure global security and liberty. Both claims are made; the tension between them is not resolved. [Source: "Technological Supermen and Values"]

An open future creates a duty to be optimistic. David Deutsch's argument is invoked as the final support before the closing slogan, and the ending presents a binary choice between a future of fear, guilt, and resentment and one of ambition, abundance, and adventure. Optimism here is framed as an obligation you choose, not a prediction you verify. [Source: "Patron Saints and the Closing Charge"]

The one line

Everything in it follows from one premise, that technological capability is the whole engine of human progress, so decide whether you accept that premise before you adopt the program it produces.