Author: kyla scanlon, macro analyst

Translation: Felix, PANews

Macro analyst kyla scanlon recently wrote a lengthy article pointing out that the "optimization" narrative currently sold in society is essentially an escape, turning the body, self, and beliefs into tradable assets, creating a dependence on "quick fixes" without ever addressing systemic roots. Below are the details.

I had to start trying the "elimination diet" because my gut was self-consuming, and this was evidently destroying my thyroid, leading to an inability to absorb any nutrients. To resolve this, I had to stop eating wheat, dairy, corn, eggs, tomatoes, peanuts, coffee, soy, cocoa, sugar, and many other things (this is not like juice detox or something fun; this is an action I must take to stop my body from attacking itself). I had to record what I was eating and feeling to evaluate what I could eat.

If there was some quick fix (like a shot), I would have tried it. I don't even know what's wrong with me; I just know I had several vials of blood drawn, and modern science tells me that some conditions in my body are very bad.

But interestingly, part of the problem lies in my constant desire to take shortcuts. Last year I was traveling for 40 weeks, and on some days, I survived on granola bars and about 14 cups of coffee. I also ran crazily, worked obsessively, and slept very little because I felt completely invincible. After all, I used to be an "efficiency machine."

For a time, I really was, but then I no longer was. It turned out I wasn't truly optimizing anything; I was merely escaping what I really should have been doing, like sleeping. What I needed was not to keep piling it on myself but to start figuring out what was making me sick. This is exactly contrary to the idea we have been instilled with.

"Ozempicization"

Americans love optimization. So when something promises to optimize us further, providing almost instantaneous quick fixes, it's hard to refuse. Our identity is almost built around "efficiency."

Now, there is a strong desire for control among people, permeating almost every corner of the digital and physical worlds.

• I think this is actually a response to financial nihilism. People no longer believe the underlying economy will serve them, turning instead to quick and opportunistic means, seeking gambling or other seemingly quick ways to achieve stability.
• According to a survey by Northwestern Mutual, 80% of Generation Z and 75% of Millennials feel behind, a feeling that drives them to speculate.
• Social media is the same: If you find it difficult to build relationships in real life, the online world offers some form of substitute, but people are increasingly uneasy about the collective reliance on social media.

Consequently, some industries have emerged that monetize this nihilism by providing promised solutions. But the solutions never come, for nihilism and the spirit of resignation must persist for these products to survive. This aligns with Ivan Illich's view in his book "Limits to Medicine." Ivan pointed out that the medical system itself creates illness, as it makes people dependent on professional intervention rather than committed to maintaining health. This effect exists in all optimization tools, making people dependent on "fixes" rather than addressing the root causes. The "optimization economy" cannot provide a sense of control, as "despair" itself is its market operating condition, and seeking control through optimization is, in itself, a form of losing control.

Our tools are also overly focused on individuals. As Raymond Williams wrote in his 1975 publication "Television: Technology and Cultural Forms":

• The early public technology period, represented by railroads and urban lighting, is being replaced by a yet-to-be-satisfactorily-named technology that serves a lifestyle both mobile and family-centered: a form of mobile privatization.

Williams described the transition from infrastructure that served everyone to technology constructed around mobile, private individuals. The transition from railroads to peptides is a shift from "we build for everyone" to "you can purchase for yourself."

A truly effective tool for personal optimization is Ozempic (semaglutide, a weight-loss/diabetes medication). Some people need to use it for medical reasons, while others openly admit to using it for beauty. It should be clear that Ozempic is an outstanding technology that indeed addresses actual problems faced by individuals, but it does not touch on collective issues like the food system and healthcare accessibility.

This also signifies a shift. We can genuinely control certain aspects of our bodies' interiors over time and resources. What we now have is everything can be "Ozempic"-optimized, or what we call "Ozempicization." We now have a set of peptides and various forms of "magic injections" that can help you skip the effort, discomfort, and complexity. Everything can be optimized. Everything can be controlled.

Controlling the Body

The body has always been a site of control, as it is a system that still responds to external inputs. Today, various systems are hostile. Economies and institutions often ignore personal predicaments, but the body does not.

It is no surprise that Bryan Johnson's multi-million dollar "longevity" experiment has attracted widespread attention. Bryan Johnson has what everyone desires—complete control over outcomes. The allure of "immortality" lies in that sense of control: control over your nutrition, supplements, lifespan. And for the audience, that is exactly its appeal: in an era where everything feels out of control, the body becomes an object that can be controlled.

This pattern is not uncommon. Personally, during my college years, my father was severely ill, and I suffered from a serious eating disorder, attempting to regain control over everything. When all external factors became unmanageable, controlling the body became the last line of defense (regardless of gender). Among humanity, many ultimately resort to bodily control. And this method of control is gradually evolving into a form of content consumption.

Clavicular is a recently emerged streamer known for "bone-breaking" and "maximizing attractiveness," existing in a WWE-like universe of his own. His universe has its own language, in a battle for "number one tough guy" (determined by online rankings). He is obsessed with his appearance and also with control.

"Maximizing attractiveness" itself mimics a value these individuals might not be able to possess financially (status, charm). It is a means of bodily control to compensate for their lack of economic control. This phenomenon also appears in health culture, peptide drugs, cosmetic surgeries, and various enhancements. It satisfies individuals' desires to become healthier or stronger but also serves economic purposes, constituting another means of control.

Silicon Valley's current buzzword is "agency," which is actually glossing over a desire for control. Optimization is the process; control is the goal, and "agency" is branding. In the startup realm, the meaning of "agency" is not clear-cut, but it does imply someone will find a way to force the world to yield to their will.

Cluely is a company that wholeheartedly embraces this idea, deemed the ultimate Boss of the "entrepreneurial economy." Their original concept was "scamming" (later transformed into AI notes) and they have raised millions. For them, "scamming" is "agentic," as Sam Kriss wrote in the article "Child’s Play," this indeed is "Silicon Valley's hottest commodity":

• The future will belong to those who possess specific personality traits and sexual psychopathologies. AI's programming speed may be faster than yours, but humans still hold an advantage, that is agency, or high autonomy. Highly autonomous individuals are those who act.

They act out of fear of permanently becoming the lower class and becoming useless in the age of AI. Clearly, the way to avoid these two scenarios is "constantly chasing trends online."

Bryan Johnson's approach is highly autonomous and heavily reliant on the web. He has been experimenting on himself with supplements and psychedelics, adhering strictly to diet and exercise regimens. This may be the greatest extent of control (or "agency?") one might have over their own body. In fact, he seeks such strong control that he almost plays a god-like role in some sense.

People must ask themselves:

• Do I believe his claim that we can achieve immortality?
• Do I believe his body is the verification of the concept?
• Do I believe his continuous output of content is enough to prove the project's credibility?

This quickly evolves into a market of faith, while Bryan Johnson becomes an asset. Cluely does the same, investing based on faith, a belief in control and autonomy. However, once the body (or, in terms of autonomy, the mind) becomes an object that can be optimized, the self turns into an asset class. It is mainly driven by narratives, and once that happens, you have already fallen into the logic of the faith market.

Faith Market

Predictive markets and cryptocurrencies follow the same logic: betting on narratives rather than fundamentals to gain autonomy through participation. The faith market promises an escape from limitations (be they physical or financial). They monetize the fear of being left behind, which manifests as:

• I die when others are alive
• I didn't cheat when others cheated
• I am poor when others are rich

All of these mark a transformation that is taking place:

• Old capitalism prized productive capacity, i.e., the ability to manufacture products.
• Financial capitalism values cash flow rights, that is, the right to future earnings.
• What we might call the values of faith capitalism is narrative dependency, which is sustaining enough people in a story long enough to keep the story impactful.

The faith market needs to create a facade of easy participation to survive. The product it sells is "you can do it too." Coinbase's Brian Armstrong thinks like Bryan Johnson. He is also enthusiastic about longevity and biohacking (and predictive markets), believing aging should be avoidable in the future.

This idea is also reflected in his products. The promotional slogan of Coinbase's predictive market straightforwardly states "regain control." Its predictive market competitor, Kalshi, has the slogan "make your descendants proud."

Use friendly neighborhood betting apps to take control of your future. Another predictive market app, Novig, claimed that only 20% of its users make money, which is alleged to be far above the industry average. This does not sound like control, nor does it sound like a future.

Everyone is chasing gold. Everyone is trying to get rich quickly and easily, just as Allison Schrager wrote, "catch the next hot trend and then pray for good luck."

A universal lack of rules, coupled with promises to regain control that cannot be fulfilled, constitutes the exploitative nature of the faith market. There exists a vast gulf between the promise of participation (gaining freedom) and the actual results (massive losses, or even less freedom than before).

More illustrative than mathematics

Every promise of a sense of control comes with a "systemic failure" solution packaged as a product, trapping you deeper into the dilemma you initially wanted to escape.

"Manosphere" Case Study

The extraction logic of the faith market migrates to any area with a desperate population, and the "manosphere": this networked world promoting masculinity, is a vivid epitome of this desperation. I think the audience for the "manosphere" is actually smaller than imagined, but it vividly demonstrates control cravings, the faith market, and its subsequent extraction, and the curiosity economy.

Louis Theroux's documentary "Into the Manosphere" captures these faith markets in a thought-provoking way. It showcases the paranoia of livestreaming personal lives to thousands. The men in the film fear being seen as small, poor, weak, and unattractive, so they create imagined enemies in their minds (Louis himself becomes one of those enemies) and obsessively strive to escape the "matrix."

The streamers of the "manosphere" (and other areas) are essentially like zoo exhibits. People throw snacks into their "cages," demanding them to perform (for example, on Twitch and Kick, streamers receive dozens or even hundreds of dollars to answer questions, perform backflips, etc.).

This leads to the emergence of "vice signals" (catering to our darkest sides) as audiences demand crazier things, prompting streamers to perform crazier actions. These outrageous contents are edited, published, and shared with the goal of going viral. Sometimes, these snippets are out-of-context interviews, provocative anger-inducing content, or worse, and then everyone angrily shares, eventually going viral, leading society to further fracture at the margins. You can even easily earn millions based solely on these video clips.

The influencers of the "manosphere" are essentially pyramid scheme leaders. They recruit young men and women into their trading courses or brokerage firms, taking a cut of the profits, compensating for their pain and despair.

The predictive market Polymarket is doing something similar with its new referral program. Predictive market influencers earn rewards for bringing new users to the platform, taking a share from fees generated by new users. Polymarket also follows the information delivery strategy of the "manosphere." As reported by Stuart Thompson, David Yaffe-Bellany, and Mike Isaac in The New York Times, they "amplified unverified claims and unfounded conspiracy theories by the Trump administration," intending to "attract young men who are likely to become paying users."

They teach people that it's easy, it's simple; just keep an eye on the crude oil price charts, look for signs of a "Triple Witching Day" (Note: referring to days when stock index futures, stock index options, and individual stock options expire simultaneously; market volatility usually increases significantly around "Triple Witching Days"), or bet on snowfall, or wager on the Oscars, most importantly, bet on yourself, and you can become a millionaire like me. That's right; you must effortlessly acquire it all, because everything is easy now. But that is not the case. As Benjamin Fogel wrote regarding "manosphere" leader Andrew Tate:

• He represents a new form of capitalism, this capitalism holds no illusions about progress. For Tate and his fans, the entire system is a scam, and the only way to succeed is to oppress others, climbing to the top.

Tate is the core figure of the "manosphere," and he never pretends to have done anything beneficial. He gleefully accepts his "predatory, exploitative, and ruthless pursuit of fame and fortune" because everything is a scam. He makes a good point. Fogel also noted:

• A decade of slow growth following the financial crisis has given rise to the "gig economy" characterized by unstable jobs. This economic model is marketed as empowering but is actually just a way to subsidize the income of the poor. Today, "gigs" have become completely available. From Amazon dropshipping to crypto day trading, anyone can participate.

So, can you really condemn the "manosphere" saying "this is all a scam, the strong prey on the weak," while cheering excessive share buybacks or leveraged buyouts (which extract value by burdening acquired companies with massive debt and laying off workers)? The strategy of the "manosphere" is: Extract value from the weak without taking any responsibility, then shift targets; while private equity models are: Identify undervalued assets, improve operational efficiency, and return capital to shareholders. Is there really such a big difference between the two?

Chaos and nihilism are products of this regressive world, not symptoms. Those selling "agency" profit in a world of untrusted institutions, as distrust itself is the market environment that makes their products essential. Tate needs this system to be a scam, Polymarket needs uncertainty to be the norm, the worse the conditions, the more their pitches work.

The "manosphere" fans interviewed by Theroux have heartbreaking experiences (some of the "manosphere" creators do too), having gone through homelessness, loss of a father, and unemployment, suffering greatly. They watch people like HSTikkyTokky because they want to imitate him; they want to become wealthy.

This behavior is merely a disguise, but the message it conveys does work. People believe it because they are inherently eager to find quick and easy ways to solve these immense and frightening problems. As Fogel wrote:

• This has nothing to do with the progressive capitalist vision, which views capitalism as a system that can increase productivity by creating technologies that save labor or produce real products. What it sells is debt-laden, anxiety-ridden consumerism.

Anxious and lonely people desire to control everything. The "manosphere" extracts value through curiosity from desperation. AI does the same, but it does not need a desperate person to perform for a crowd of desperate spectators. It uses a synthetic sensation to replace reality itself. We have shifted from "extracting through curiosity" to "simulating through curiosity."

Spectacle and War

We tend to seek control in every aspect of life, including information acquisition. Amanda Mull wrote an article on "surveillance of the situation": people (including myself) addicted to screens, trying to piece together various information. There is indeed a lot of information that needs sorting: wars, parts of the government shutting down, unstable fiscal policies, a weak labor market, high prices, and so forth. Browsing platforms like Twitter, reading open-source intelligence (OSINT) feels like holding information, which provides some comfort. As Mull incisively wrote:

• If you can precisely tune the algorithm of the information flow, perhaps you could achieve a full "witness" effect, making you feel as if you are participating in it all, even controlling everything. After all, there is abundant evidence that those who throw bombs are also monitoring the same flows of information as you.

We monitor the situation because surveillance itself makes us feel like we are participating, and the government uses that, replacing the real situation with curiosity. Throughout the war, the White House relied entirely on AI-generated memes for communication, similar to "Fruit Love Island" (an account on TikTok featuring AI-generated plots about fruits), combining video game graphics with bombing footage. According to Politico, a senior White House official also expressed a similar sentiment:

• "Bro, we've been cranking out explosive memes over here."

First a farce, then a tragedy, or something similar.

But just as individuals use various means to simulate control, institutions are increasingly using curiosity to simulate the stability they can no longer guarantee. Curiosity is the solution because seriousness demands accountability, accountability requires consequences, and consequences need institutions willing to enforce them. Currently, such institutions seem to be absent.

The Federal Reserve is on the sidelines, doing all it can in the current situation. The government is partially shut down. Corruption is spreading in the sewers, overflowing from the vents. Diplomatic means have also been replaced by memes. Iran and America have been waging this war through Twitter. The Iranian parliamentary speaker tweeted:

• We know what is happening in the paper oil market, including those hired to influence oil futures. We have also seen a broader public opinion offensive. But let’s see if they can turn that into "actual fuel" for gas stations, or print gasoline molecules!

This is a satire on the financialization of America and the way Trump has handled this war (don't fight during trading hours, only on weekends; endless theatrics). He is right: You cannot win a war with memes (though the market currently seems indifferent to it all).

As Juliette Kayyem wrote in The Atlantic regarding the long lines at the TSA and the LaGuardia airport crash:

• These two crises appear independent but are actually interrelated: they are both the result of governance methods ignoring governance work. [...] The Trump administration has been busy creating false threats while neglecting many real threats, such as departments and systems intended to protect the public (including air travelers), which are continuously being weakened.

• Public safety is not a given—Americans are gradually realizing they can no longer take public safety for granted.

This administration only focuses on false threats. Baudrillard, Debord, Postman, and others have foretold all of this. People are now witnessing it all coming to fruition. But now, the real crises have arrived. This is an economic war where 25% of the global oil trade and nearly half of urea (agricultural fertilizer) are at risk. Oil prices could soar to $200 per barrel, triggering another round of inflation spiral even more severe than during the pandemic. What is all this for? People are dying. Such immense risks seem merely for... participation?

In such a world, what else can people do but try to regain control of what they can, pursue optimization, and demonstrate "agency"? When uncertainty becomes the dominant force, and the paths leading in different directions are unclear, people will naturally seek quick fixes and simple solutions. What else can they do?

Return

It feels like if Trump had an "Ozempic" for geopolitics, he would have injected it long ago. However, we currently do not have a "peptide solution" for the economy, at least not yet. In the face of ongoing instability over many years, people's cultural response is to seek some seemingly optimizing yet essentially escapist quick solutions, which is understandable.

• These solutions only address the symptoms (I feel out of control),
• yet fail to touch the root of the issue (the economic upward path is severed).

The pain driving people into the "manosphere," predictive markets, and speculation is real. But the entire pattern is built on a foundation of nihilism.

Raymond Williams wrote in 1961: "Every aspect of our personal lives is fundamentally affected by the overall quality of life," yet we insist on viewing issues from a completely personal perspective. The so-called "personal control" is not true control. True control should transcend the personal level, meaning affordability, well-functioning institutions, as Kayeem puts it, signifies a government that genuinely governs effectively. Yet what is being sold now is a sense of personal control crafted through gambling, hacking, information push, subscription services, optimization, and so forth.

The reason we cannot solve problems is not due to a lack of tools or information, but because the methods (adding, optimizing, measuring) are not suitable for resolving the issues (finding out the source of poisoning). Go do those slow and tedious tasks, and do not think of yourself as omnipotent. Perhaps the economy (like the body) needs a kind of "elimination diet." People are trying this method, like Mamdani, the Chief Savings Officer in New York. What expenses can we cut to operate in a healthier way?

Williams also wrote that genuine radicalism lies in making hope possible, rather than making despair convincing. Despair is currently highly convincing and tremendously profitable. Hope, conversely, works without needing you to feel despair.

Further Reading: Goldman Sachs interprets "how long will the Iran war last": markets have only traded "inflation," not yet trading "recession"

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。