Is Capital a progressively hegemonic historical telos colonizing the whole of human existence?

[Vosem]

no

read your spengler... force ends up triumphing over money every time in history

Technological trends have these becoming less differentiated with time, right? The more complex the weaponry, and the more that you need large amounts of money to own or operate it, the more potential application of force starts to be indistinguishable from simple wealth.

I don't think these things ever quite become the same, but a modern centibillionaire who could in principle build vast drone forces that can bomb countries into submission, and hire some comparatively small number of operators and technicians, is more easily analogizable to a classical warlord than a classical merchant.

Anyway, OP is on the one hand spouting nonsense but on the other hand is gesturing towards a truth that it seems like a law of history to date that the influence of capital becomes stronger, and more obvious, (and ISTM more welcomed) over time.

[Vosem]

no

read your spengler... force ends up triumphing over money every time in history

Technological trends have these becoming less differentiated with time, right? The more complex the weaponry, and the more that you need large amounts of money to own or operate it, the more potential application of force starts to be indistinguishable from simple wealth.

I don't think these things ever quite become the same, but a modern centibillionaire who could in principle build vast drone forces that can bomb countries into submission, and hire some comparatively small number of operators and technicians, is more easily analogizable to a classical warlord than a classical merchant.

Anyway, OP is on the one hand spouting nonsense but on the other hand is gesturing towards a truth that it seems like a law of history to date that the influence of capital becomes stronger, and more obvious, (and ISTM more welcomed) over time.

I'd be careful about generalizing from the past 200 years or so for longterm patterns. The presence of both cheap fossil fuels and populations of high-IQ races existing in large numbers as opposed to existing as rare curiosities in burnt out ruins aren't guarantees.

Neither of these seem like likely obstacles in the near future to me -- estimates on total fossil fuels remaining are enough to last us for centuries even before accounting for likely falling population (or progress in solar/nuclear power) without fertility breakthroughs -- which, OTOH, have already occurred: the existence of a small number of wealthy fertility-maximizers using surrogate mothers (some multimillionaires with dozens of children on account of surrogates already existing) suggests most of humanity will come to be descended from such people in fairly short order assuming fertility preferences are even slightly hereditary, once you consider exponential growth. These people may not be eminent scientists but they're also obviously not dumb, and are probably likelier than most to use things like embryo selection for whatever traits they want (of which intelligence would be one; at least one embryo-selected child has been born in the US and companies to organize more exist. (This would also correlate wealth more closely with fertility, in addition to force, which probably forestalls the scenario you're assuming here).

[Vosem]

You woefully underestimate the amount of influential liberals clueless about biotech there are if you don't expect a probable slowdown, potential full stop in biotech advancement soon.

This is like expecting a slowdown in the development of novel recreational drug replacements. All the tools and technology already exist, and can be used even in quite poor countries; only adoption is left, and even adoption by a tiny fraction of humanity would meaningfully alter the current direction of human evolution.

Note that the multimillionaires in the article I cite above are residents of Sakartvelo, which is not exactly a biotech hotspot.