e/acc as a Religion

Recently, while attending a lecture in one of the obligatory courses in our computer science program, we heard a guest professor from … discuss how the ending of Moore’s Law is to be regarded as a positive development, as it will help mitigate some of the negative effects that the increase in computational power has had on the environment. He pointed to how cloud computing has led to a significant increase in energy consumption, requiring even greater energy production.

If we ignore the questionability of whether Moore’s Law is truly nearing its end—most estimates suggest hitting the limit of transistor miniaturization due to electron tunneling by the mid-2030s—it was confounding to encounter a perspective critical of a principle that has enabled significant technological progress. listening to a professor who essentially looked unfavorably upon the most foundational principle that had enabled the very discipline through which he made his livelihood.

The obligatory nature of such courses—not only for computer science students, but for those in almost every engineering program at our university—amplified this confusion. Despite significant data that clearly indicates technology has been a net positive force for increasing human quality of life, we were being lectured on how innovation leads to more consumption, waste, and emissions. For the sake of argument however, let us assume that whether technology—and by extension, Moore’s Law—is inherently a force for good or ill is a subjective matter of perspective.

If this is indeed a matter of perspective, then the value of Moore’s Law—and, broadly, technology as a driver of human advancement—becomes a question of belief, rather than an objective truth. This is particularly absurd given that the computer science program consists mostly of courses concerning mathematics and programming, subjects which are fundamentally based on mathematical facts, not subjective interpretations. Introducing a subjective, belief-driven course as a mandatory requirement within an otherwise objective, fact-based program undermines the integrity of the curriculum and its focus on evidence-based learning.

This raises a broader question: why should any particular worldview, even one as broadly accepted as the importance of sustainability, be enforced as compulsory for all students, especially when sustainability does not directly relate to computer science. (And I disregard the argument that people who hold these lectures make that we are all affected by questions regarding sustainability, as the same argument could be made by meteorologists, but I haven’t seen anyone trying to force us to study different weather patterns.) While sustainability is undoubtedly important, whether a computer science student should take such courses should be a matter of personal choice, as sustainability does not directly relate to the core subjects they work with. Instead, it should be available as an elective for those who are motivated to engage with such questions.

The advent of acceleration

e/acc, or effective accelerationism is an emerging ideology that sees technological acceleration as not just an inevitable trend, but a moral imperative. It emphasizes the potential of technology to solve humanity’s greatest challenges—including climate change—through rapid innovation, rather than through constraints on progress. In this view, Moore’s Law is not just a technical observation; it is a core tenet of belief, a path to maximizing human potential by enabling more computing power, faster breakthroughs, and ultimately, a better quality of life for all.

This brings me to a rather practical, albeit unconventional, proposition: e/acc should be recognized as an official religion.

As there are no reasonable ways to stop students and employees from being forced to engage with such obligatory courses, recognizing e/acc as a religion could provide a path for conscientious objection to mandatory sustainability courses—not to avoid education, but to allow a path to those who want to focus on subjects directly relevant to their field. If sustainability courses are made mandatory because they reflect a particular perspective on humanity’s relationship to technology and the environment, then those who prioritize objective, field-specific studies deserve the same respect. This extends beyond students; employees in tech-driven sectors should also have the option to opt out of mandatory sustainability training if it does not contribute directly to their professional work.

Some believe in slowing innovation for sustainability, while others advocate for accelerating it to achieve the same goals. It is important to recognize that this choice should be left to individuals. The idea of imposing one path over the other in an otherwise objective program like computer science seems in alignment with the stereotypes that have been shaped about the lack of plurality in academia. Instead, individuals should have the freedom to align their educational and professional pursuits with their own perspectives on how best to address global challenges, if indeed they choose to engage with such questions at all.

The right to choose

This suggestion highlights a fundamental issue: education in subjective issues should be about choice, not the enforcement of a singular belief. Whether one believes that the path to sustainability lies in slowing progress or accelerating it, neither perspective should dominate the educational agenda. Both views should be offered as choices, allowing students and employees to decide for themselves which aligns with their values and professional goals. No single belief should override the choices of others, especially in an educational setting that claims to foster intellectual diversity.

Ultimately, the focus is not on formally registering e/acc as a religion, but on ensuring that individuals have the freedom to opt out of mandatory courses that do not align with their professional focus or are antithetical to their personal positions. Until sustainability courses either become non-mandatory or incorporate both accelerationist and decelerationist perspectives, those who find them irrelevant should have the option to avoid them. Intellectual diversity and the freedom to choose one’s approach are crucial. Students and employees should have the choice to engage with sustainability in the way they see fit—whether through caution and restraint or through a belief in technological acceleration as a solution.

Related Articles

• Forecasting the progression of human civilization on the Kardashev Scale through 2060 with a machine learning approach
• Is the EU overreaching with new digital regulations?
• The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
• The EU according to Draghi – as competitive as needed, as sustainable as possible