>These economic systems have ranged from simple hunter-gather societies to globally interconnected ones and although the differences might seem stark, since the very start humanity has always been interconnected and has been a global society.

Hunter gather societies were definitely not a global society. Most couldn't even cross their subcontinent, unless by means of an extremely risky boat mission.

>all things must evolve for them to continue to exist in the universe. This law is universal at every level of the universe.

I've never heard of such a law and it seems entirely made up. I might even argue, that something isn't "the same thing" anymore once it evolves.

>Because everything must evolve it must adapt and this includes humans and its meta information.

I'm sorry but the paragraph following this line makes me want to say "Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?". I don't know if it's me who doesn't get it or it's poorly written.

>The point is that all information structures evolve and that includes human societies.

I don't disagree that societies recognized as human have evolved, but human societies mght be more than information structures. I don't think it's definitively decided upon wether every physical entity can be reduced to the concept of information, especially if you take subjective experience (qualia) into consideration.

>Technology as we think of it can be boiled down to a tool. A tool that optimizes something in the universe to accomplish some task. We like to think that our tools don’t control us and this is actually true at the local level but at the meat level technology controls everything because it is the form of information that can optimize itself at a speed biology and chemistry cannot.

Technology does indeed NOT control us, but humans control each other by threatening to destroy if one doesn't use it or make more of it. Technology development is therefore necessary to survive, but only in our global society as we know it. You could largely escape this dynamic by means of some grand revolution or world federalism.

>This is because capitalism is the system that leads to technology to faster and faster progress

I don't think so. There are a lot of theoretically possible societies, that would seem very non-capitalist yet have furious technological development. Capitalism was fitting in the historical context. It allowed a lot of people to be united under the same country and for technological development but it's also an imperfect compromise. The workers are relatively satisfied by being able to vote, the rich are satisfied by well... being rich. It might not even be the most competitive system for its time in history yet the only one that had a reasonable chance of appearing

>We deserve capitalism not because of some moral consequence but because that is who we are as a species. Our purpose is to be another node in the technology evolution tree.

Might be your purpose, not mine :D

>We deserve because we selfishly refuse to die out and will continue to improve technology because without it we cannot exist.

You're making some overly generalizing metaphysical claims here.

>We cannot exist without technology and it cannot exist without us. We will follow the trees path to acceleration .

Seems like this was some kind of love letter to technology and capitalism. Few points were made other than that our relationship with technology "is meant to be" or something. All in all, not very interesting now that I've read it a second time.

I didn't want to be mean by pointing out that you sound high af in the original post, but... yeah haha.