How does this all work? The application process is straightforward and insightful, working with research partners, Part + Sum, for a methodology specifically made for creative teams. This consists of two parts:
A short employer survey on current policies, practices and general industry sentiment.
An anonymous employee survey about your company’s culture, craft and leadership.
The team will collate results and announce the winner in October. Full application details can be found here.
This year, we’re also offering optional reports for those who want to benchmark their business, whether or not you win:
Comprehensive Report: covering pay, benefits, working hours and policies across all participating creative companies and what employees prioritise.
Individual Evaluation Framework Report: anonymised feedback from your own employees on how your company measures up with organisations of a similar size.
If you’ve completed the application process entirely for both Part 1 and Part 2, you get a Comprehensive Report for free and Individual Evaluation Framework Report for your own team’s insights at a nominal admin fee of £99.
Both reports will be available to purchase separately and can provide valuable insight whether you enter or not. You will be charged a higher fee if purchased outside of the application cohort. You must be a UK based company operating for over a year and have a total headcount of ten. Entry is completely free.
Ready to be recognised as one of the top creative employers in the UK?
Click here to apply. Applications close 29 August 2025.
Hey, folks. I just wanted to let you know that I’m going to be away from the site for a couple of weeks for a family vacation. No guest editor or anything…just going off the air for a much needed rest. Wishing everyone well and I will see you in mid-June.
Dan Zimmer is a political scientist and lecturer with the Civic, Liberal, and Global Education program at Stanford University.
In April, Michael Kratsios, the science advisor to the president, announced, “President Trump has given all of us who serve in his administration a monumental task — the renewal of our nation.” Prior leaders have spoken of moral or spiritual renewal, while Trump spent his first presidency promising rebirth in nativist terms. Today, renewal takes a new form, with Kratsios claiming: “Our technologies, and what we do with them, will be the tools with which we will make the destiny of our country manifest in this century.”
Few have been prepared for how thoroughly the second Trump administration has pivoted toward technology. At the same time, while it may seem like techno-oligarchs such as Elon Musk or the financiers Peter Thiel (Kratsios’ former boss) and Marc Andreessen have firmly aligned with the political right, there is nothing meaningfully “conservative” about these figures. To them, Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon warned in a January interview, “you’re just a digital serf. Your value as a human being … they don’t consider that. Everything is digital to them … they’re all super-progressive liberals. They’re all techno-feudalists. They don’t give a flying fuck about the human being.” Bannon is broadly right about this, and the sooner we can come to grips with why human welfare has fallen out of the equation, the sooner we can begin to regain our political bearings amid the ongoing scrambling of left and right; liberal, conservative, and digital “super-progressive.”
The techno-oligarchic takeover of the American federal government may seem like a bolt from the blue, but closer inspection reveals this to be merely the latest stage of a conflict that has been quietly reshaping political priorities for over half a century. The enemy of this rising technological faction is less the traditional left or right than environmentalists and the regulations that they have been crafting to restrain technology since the 1970s. This tension between technologists and environmentalists cuts across traditional political boundaries, splitting the MAGA movement into “tech” and “green” factions and increasingly dividing the left into its own techno-solutionist and ecological camps.
While the traditional left and right focus on human welfare, contemporary politics is being reshaped by people who claim to champion the cause of nothing less than Life itself. As one of today’s leading technologists, Musk has asserted that he is “accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary and extend the light of consciousness to the stars,” while those on the other side strive to guide Life back to earthbound stability. What makes this growing conflict so fierce is that both sides position themselves as the true servants of Life-with-a-capital-L (that is, the sum total of all living things reconceived as a single process and proper noun). Even if Musk and the Trump-led MAGA movement appear to have parted ways (for now), the deeper reorientations that initially drew them together persist.
Today’s growing political fault line runs deeper than merely a preference for technological or ecological solutions, however, for it turns out that these new servants of Life also disagree on what Life itself is. One camp views Life primarily as an information process to expand and enhance, while the other conceives of Life chiefly as a complex system to maintain and balance. These contrasting perspectives inspire rival political visions: one gazing upwards towards Life’s cosmic conquests and the other turning down towards Life’s planetary entanglements. They demand a new political language and orientation — neither left nor right — that I propose can best be captured by the contrast between a technological “Up” and an ecological “Down.”
The more we feel caught between technological transcendence and ecological collapse, the more our politics will be reshaped by the conflict between the Up and Down wings over the fate of Life itself.
The End Of Man
We can better understand the rise of Up versus Down by pausing to consider the origins of left versus right.
What we call Western political modernity grew out of the legacy of terrible European wars of religion. It began when early modern thinkers tried to bracket the endless theological disputes by shifting the focus of politics from glorifying God to serving Man. This meant adopting a deliberately anthropocentric, this-worldly focus. The political humanism that resulted took the following as its central tenets: that there is something essentially unique about human beings; that this characteristic humanity is what gives human life value; and that the chief end of politics is to promote the full flourishing of Man’s humanity. (The fact that the universal human ideal is gendered male is by no means incidental.)
Although modern liberals, communists, socialists, syndicalists, anarchists, monarchists and conservatives of all stripes came to define Man’s humanity differently, all agreed politics should strive to express whatever is highest in human nature while respecting human limitations. As George Orwell once put it, “One must choose between God and Man, and all ‘radicals’ and ‘progressives’, from the mildest Liberal to the most extreme Anarchist, have in effect chosen Man.”
Ever since the French revolutionaries of 1789 first chose to segregate by seating preference, those on the left have typically held that human beings have the capacity to create far more universal, just and rational political orders than those that currently exist. Meanwhile, those on the right have tended to accept some degree of inequality, irrationality and division as a necessary consequence of human frailty. And yet, for all the fierce debates dividing left and right, everyone agreed that politics ought to revolve around Man and his needs. This humanist political consensus held so strongly, in fact, that well into the 20th century some of its fiercest critics, such as the philosopher — and erstwhile Nazi — Martin Heidegger, only protested that “humanism is opposed because it does not set the humanitas of man high enough.” Meanwhile, another philosopher, Michel Foucault, could wryly recall, “a time when people supported the humanistic values represented by National Socialism, and when the Stalinists themselves said they were humanists.”
And yet, while the roots of political humanism reach deep into the foundations of Western philosophy, the underlying reasons for believing in human exceptionalism rapidly eroded over the course of the 19th century. Chemistry revealed human beings to be composed of the same elements as everything else, while the emerging fields of neurophysiology, ecology, and evolutionary biology revealed human beings to be far more similar to — and mutually reliant upon — other organisms than previously believed.
By the early 20th century, scientists began abandoning their centuries-long search for the vital substance that gave life. Instead, they came to increasingly conclude that the essence of living beings lay not in the substance of their matter, but rather in how it is arranged. The watershed moment came with physicist Erwin Schrödinger’s famous 1943 proposal that “what an organism feeds upon is negative entropy.” Within a decade, this concept of “negative entropy” had been rechristened “information,” opening the door to fundamentally rethinking the nature of both humans and other living things as complex information processing systems.
The Rise Of Life
Many streams of thought may have fed into the rise of Life-with-a-capital-L, but it was not until the middle of the 20th century that these developments merged into a coherent whole. In 1948, the mathematician Norbert Wiener introduced the term cybernetics to describe a new scientific super-discipline devoted to studying how complex systems survive in a hostile universe. How was it, Wiener wondered, that when the Second Law of Thermodynamics tends inexorably to dissolve difference into sameness, some systems prove able to process the information required to secure the energy needed to maintain their complexity? He proposed expanding the term Life to cover all those places where the flow of entropy had temporarily reversed. Living things occupied what Wiener called“an island here and now in a dying world.” Accordingly, he proposed expanding the meaning of Life to “cover all phenomena which locally swim upstream against the current of increasing entropy.”
When reconceived in these terms, it became clear that Life constitutes a continuum of increasingly complex systems that shades into being somewhere between crystal and virus. From here, Life extends to encompass unicellular organisms, the panoply of multicellular beings, the ecosystems these beings form, and the mutually sustaining mass of ecosystems that comprise the planetary ecosphere. At the same time, by redefining living things as complex information processing systems, it became possible to plot human-built artefacts along the same continuum. Everything from the humble thermostat to analog and digital computers to human communication networks, societies, and economies could be assigned their own place on the same axis.
The new cybernetic systems ecology of the 1960s soon revealed that the flows of matter, energy and information sustaining these systems were all interconnected. Over the course of the 1970s, Life itself took shape as the system of systems formed by human beings, their technical artefacts, and all earthbound biological organisms in their upstream swim against entropy.
By the end of the 1970s, the influence of cybernetics had become so ubiquitous that the outlines of the field dissolved to spawn dozens of daughter disciplines. Although the many scions of cybernetics all saw the world as a tangle of complex information processing systems, some gravitated towards the complex systems side of Life. Because every complex system requires continuous flows of matter, energy and information, no system can be fully understood in isolation from its environment. These environments, in turn, constitute their own systems, which have their own environments.
Once you begin to map these system-environment couplings, it soon becomes clear that “everything is connected to everything else” — Barry Commoner’s first law of ecology. Cybernetics provided ecologists such as Commoner with a new set of tools for parsing these complex interdependencies in far greater degrees of detail. This in turn helped shape new fields such as systems ecology, Earth System Science and — perhaps most famously — James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis’ Gaia Hypothesis, which Lovelock called simply “a more convenient term than ‘Biological Cybernetic System with Homeostatic Tendencies.’”
Meanwhile, others proved to be more interested in Life’s information processes. By the 1960s, some researchers began to conclude that brains and machines manifest structurally similar patterns of information processing. New fields such as cognitive science, artificial intelligence research, and bioinformatics began studying these analogies. By the 1970s, a growing cohort of people in the computing, engineering and information sciences had ceased to recognize any functional difference between the computations taking place in a human brain or on a silicon wafer. While the complex systems camp found themselves drawn more deeply into the tangle of Life, those who focused on information processing tended toward ever greater abstraction from the organic world.
The scions of cybernetics might have continued to gently drift away from one another had it not been for the environmental crises of the 1960s and 1970s. Confronted by burning rivers, deadly smog, acid rains and a growing ozone hole, early computerized world system models convinced many that the scale of global civilization had begun to undermine planetary habitability.
Faced with the harms that human beings were causing, those in the systems camp proposed adopting limits to human growth to help sustain Life on a finite planet. This meant shifting their allegiance from a narrow concern with human flourishing to a more holistic understanding of how humans relate to the rest of Life. The aforementioned Lovelock likened his change in perspective to a kind of conversion experience, later recalling how: “I began more and more to see things through her [Gaia’s] eyes and slowly dropped off, like an old coat, my loyalty to the humanist Christian belief in the good of mankind as the only thing that mattered. I began to see us all, as part of the community of living things that unconsciously keep the Earth a comfortable home, and that we humans have no special rights, only obligations to the community of Gaia.” Over the last several decades, those who adopt a similarly non-anthropocentric concern for the complexly entangled community of Gaia have come to identify as posthumanists.
Meanwhile, those who pursued the information processing path out of cybernetics were no less impacted by the sustainability crises of the 1970s — they simply drew the opposite conclusion. While posthumanists have come to prioritize preserving the mutually sustaining integrity of Earth’s ecosphere, a growing group of self-described transhumanists has come to view the boundaries of terrestrial biology not as limits that must be respected, but technical challenges to overcome. Transhumanists seek ways to upgrade the body, fuse it with the machine, and ultimately leave the high latency of flesh behind to enjoy the unencumbered immortality of a purely digital existence.
Transhumanists posit that if the planet cannot sustain infinite growth, then the future of Life must lie beyond Earth. Rather than striving to achieve posthuman visions of deeper ecological entanglement, transhumanists view human ingenuity as the escape hatch Life has built to free itself from all the earthly ties that bind it.
The Up/Down Distinction
As far as I am aware, the first person to propose supplementing left versus right with an Up/Down dichotomy was the pioneering transhumanist FM-2030 (né Fereydoon Esfandiary). His pathbreaking 1973 manifesto “Up-Wingers”repudiated the anthropocentrism of both the left and right, declaring instead that “Life itself is the greatest revolution.” Not one for subtlety, FM-2030 then used “Up” to encompass everyone who shared his transhumanist visions for the future of Life, while reserving “Down” as a catch-all term for all those that transhumanism had left in the dust.
This piece repurposes the Up/Down distinction to offer a more nuanced way to parse trans- and posthumanist priorities. While I continue to use Up to designate transhumanism in its broadest sense, I apply Down more narrowly to describe specifically posthumanist positions. This means that the Up/Down divide does not encompass the entire field of contemporary politics. Instead, it only applies to those who have come to reconceive human beings as complex information processing systems and, in doing so, shifted their political allegiance from Man to Life.
Where left and right veer anthropocentric, Up and Down are biocentric. The defining tension between Up and Down concerns not just whether you favor technology or ecology but, on a deeper level, whether you conceive of Life in primarily informational or systemic terms. The Up/Down distinction, therefore, operates independently of left/right distinctions and arises from the ontological shift that recasts human beings as complex information processing systems. This makes Down-wing thinking complementary to — but ultimately distinct from — similar positions derived from Buddhist or Indigenous ontologies, for instance.
As with the case of left versus right, Up/Down distinctions also fall along a spectrum, with a moderate middle-range shading toward extremes at both poles.
At the same time, this can be overlaid on the existing left/right continuum — at least up to the point beyond which visions for the future of Life cease to be compatible with human flourishing and lose any remaining left/right bearing.
Down-Wing Wisdom
One of the most defining features of Down-wing thinking proves to be an embrace of transience, finitude and self-limitation. The Down-wing refines the tragic ethos that Wiener placed at the heart of cybernetics when recasting Life as “an island here and now in a dying world.” The Down-wing roots itself in the conviction that, as Wiener put it, “Like the Red Queen [from Alice in Wonderland], we cannot stay where we are without running as fast as we can. We are not fighting for a definitive victory in the indefinite future. It is the greatest possible victory to be, to continue to be, and to have been. This is not defeatism, it is rather a sense of tragedy in a world in which necessity is represented by an inevitable disappearance of differentiation.”
By the 1970s, it became clear to system scientists that while the entire planetary system possesses remarkable powers of self-stabilization, it also manifests the kind of positive feedback loops that risk amplifying seemingly tiny disturbances into planet-wide catastrophes — an awareness brought home by the newly discovered link between trace CFCs and a growing ozone hole.
The Down drew deeply from systems science to cultivate a keen sense of how complex interconnections undermine efforts to exert human mastery. Microbiologist and Down-wing luminary Lynn Margulis proposed: “No matter how much our own species preoccupies us, life is a far wider system. Life is an incredibly complex interdependence of matter and energy among millions of species beyond (and within) our own skin.” When viewed from the perspective of Life itself, modern human gains represent a major net loss, replacing a riot of diverse ecosystems with complex but homogenous human societies sustained by the pesticide-drenched deserts of monocrop agriculture.
The Down-wing warns that, although complex systems can demonstrate remarkable powers of adaptation, they also risk catastrophic breakdown when pushed beyond thresholds that can be difficult — if not impossible — to identify in advance. This demands cautious self-limitation based on the awareness that, as complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman once warned, “Your own best footstep may unleash the very cascade that carries you away, and neither you nor anyone else can predict which grain will unleash the tiny or the cataclysmic alteration.”
Ultimately, this mingled sense of tragedy, precarity and responsibility led Down-wingers to embrace wisdom as their cardinal virtue. If cunning implies the ability to exploit systems for immediate personal gain, then wisdom entails respecting the patterns that maintain the integrity of the system and support the well-being of its members. As used by the Down-wing, wisdom has come to refer to the ability to recognize the integrative ways in which systems sustain themselves over time, repairing damage and resisting the temptation to sacrifice long-term survival for the sake of short-term expansion.
Where humanists spent centuries trying to isolate the defining characteristic of Man, the Down-wing finds in wisdom a virtue common to all complex systems. Ironically, this means that many bacterial colonies prove to be far more systemically wise than modern human communities. Ultimately, it takes wisdom in this sense to recognize that the complexity of the planet will often defeat deliberate human interventions. It is therefore wise to accept the finitude of seeking simply to establish durable patterns in symbiosis with the rest of Life and to know that, even then, nothing lasts forever.
Up-Wing Intelligence
While the Down-wing embraces the complex systems side of Life, the Up-wing privileges its information processing dimension. If the Down-wing favors a tragic ethos of wise self-limitation in service of Life, the Up-wing envisions a heroic future broadened by Life’s limitless expansion. Where the Down-wing views the history of planetary Life as a nearly four-billion-year struggle to maintain homeostasis, the Up-wing sees a continuous growth in information processing power. Transhumanists may be eager to upgrade human genomes or fuse with machines, but they ultimately conceive of humankind as merely one significant stepstone on Life’s journey from slime mold to the stars.
Although Up-wingers value humankind as the planet’s so-called apex cogitator, this value stems from the hope that human beings will create something far greater than themselves. However strange this approach to Life may be, it is at least self-consistent. Visions for the cosmic conquest of Life unfold logically once you accept the prospect that Life represents a pattern of information processing that can operate just as well in binary formats as it can in flesh. If you take it to be axiomatically true that mind equals brain and brain equals machine, then it becomes possible to view the jump from organic biology to computing substrates as the narrow aperture that Life must pass through to unlock a literal universe of possibility.
Where the Down-wing came to prize wisdom as the virtue that will guide Life back into balance, the Up-wing has come to champion intelligence as the key to Life’s escape. However, while wisdom is inherently self-limiting — for to be truly wise requires recognizing the limits of your own understanding — the Up-wing holds intelligence to be infinitely scalable. As far back as 1956, the designers of a program for discovering proofs in symbolic logic — the Logic Theorist — explicitly described their achievement as a new kind of complex information processing system. The summer of that same year saw a renowned conference at Dartmouth popularize the term artificial intelligence to describe this kind of extra-somatic cognition.
It did not take contemporaries long to realize that if some of the most defining traits of human intelligence — such as the ability to solve proofs of symbolic logic — could be replicated in a machine, then it should, in principle, be possible to produce vastly greater than human intelligence. In 1962, one of Alan Turing’s former colleagues — the mathematician I.J. Good — famously speculated that, if the ability to build intelligent machines is itself a function of intelligence, and human beings prove capable of building an artificial intelligence on par with themselves, then the resulting machine should be able to improve itself still further.
Because artificial or extra-somatic intelligence lacks the hardware constraints of a human body, it could in principle recursively improve itself in such a way that it rapidly leaves the cognitive capacities of humankind behind. The result would be what Good termed an “intelligence explosion.” Visions of a coming artificial intelligence explosion came to be rechristened the Singularity during the 1990s. Here, the Singularity marks the moment where the slow-building exponential curve in Life’s information processing power hits the inflection point that sends it skyrocketing asymptotically towards infinity.
More recently, the goal of creating an omni-competent, human-equivalent information processing system has been recast as the pursuit of artificial general intelligence or AGI. Meanwhile, the transcendent mind that emerges on the far side of the singularity has been rechristened with the blander title of artificial superintelligence or ASI. Although the Up- and Down-wings value different things, here too, it becomes clear that human beings do not fare very well when judged against the hypothetical limits of superintelligence.
Despite all this, it remains important to note that the Up wing is not necessarily anti-ecological. For many Up-wingers, their highest goal remains making sure that Gaia’s wonderful reversal of entropy does not merely perish on the Earth, but spreads to the cosmos. They envision a universe of cold, dead matter brought to consciousness by teeming digital shoals of Life — the kind that can be lived at nearly infinitely vaster scales and faster speeds than would ever be possible within the fragile film of Earth’s ecosphere.
Up/Down Conflict
For over half a century, Down-wingers have contended that human beings must shrink their footprint to return planetary Life to a sustainable balance. For just as long, Up-wingers have condemned the Down wing for accepting planetary limits to growth “without first examining the limits of technology,” as engineer (and coiner of the term nanotechnology) K. Eric Drexler once put it. For it may well be that the vastly greater than human complexity of the Earth System merely remains a problem to be solved. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist — and prominent transhumanist — Max Tegmark has proposed defining intelligence as “intelligence equals the ability to accomplish complex goals.” If we accept this to be the case, then “artificial super-intelligence = the ability to accomplish super complex goals.”
Tegmark and fellow transhumanists have already long since turned their eyes from merely fixing the ecosphere to speculating about how much of the universe an artificial superintelligence could be capable of colonizing. These speculations, in turn, have inspired back-of-the-envelope calculations concerning how many worthwhile human-like lives could be simulated between now and when all protons finally decay. (The transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom suggests that the answer is 10 to the 58th power, if you were curious.) For such people, the notion that this kind of cosmos-spanning intelligence could have any trouble fixing whatever harm human beings have caused to Earth’s ecosphere is laughable. The coming super-intelligence can be expected to render such super-complexities trivial. (The fact that this is a tautology does not seem to bother Up-wingers.)
Whatever the near-term human or ecological cost, all Up-wingers must do is keep the interlocking gears of economic and technological progress grinding until they trigger the intelligence explosion. Then, if the world of organic biology still matters on the far side of the Singularity, it will be a comparatively simple matter for the coming artificial superintelligence to reverse all the ecological harm done. While it may be more difficult to bring back all the millions or billions of human dead that perished on the path to transcendence, their lives will count for next to nothing when weighed against the cosmos-spanning future of Life that their sacrifice made possible. As the prominent Singularitarian–turned-AI-safety-researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky once put it, “Our sole responsibility is to produce something smarter than we are; any problems beyond that are not ours to solve.”
Ultimately, the extreme positions of Far Up and Deep Down are not only incompatible, but they are also mutually hostile. If the Far Up is correct in viewing human beings as the vehicle for freeing Life from its biological shackles, then the Down-wing’s drive to relinquish technical mastery and achieve planetary homeostasis needlessly condemns Life to perish on Earth. If the Down-wing proves right to doubt the limits of deliberate human agency, however, then the ecological havoc that the Up-wing is willing to unleash along the path to progress risks ending complex Life on Earth over a billion years before its time. One group promises that everything can be improved, while the other warns of the ease with which everything can be destroyed.
Today’s most influential tech magnates are committed Up-wingers. If the likes of Musk, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos have chosen to throw their lot in with the MAGA movement, it is not because they have all shifted their allegiance from the political left to the political right. Rather, it is because they see in Trump someone who lacks either the interest or the administrative competence required to rein in their drive to push technological advancement to the point of either ecological breakdown or transcendent breakthrough. Although the unusually close bond between Trump and Musk appears to have exploded in the most catastrophic (and, given the idiosyncratic personalities of the two men involved, predictable) way possible, this does not change the underlying logic that led them to embrace in the first place — or the fact that, as Jan-Werner Müller aptly notes, “Trump’s and Musk’s fates remain entwined.”
What might the future hold? Ever since the 1970s, those on the Down-wing have recognized that the only sure way to sustain Life on Earth is to reintegrate human beings into the cycles of the Earth System and respect planetary boundaries. Those on the Up wing, by contrast, have pursued growth without limit, finding allies of convenience on the libertarian right as they prepare to burst from the biosphere like an egg and leave the ruins of organic life behind.
My fear is that, whether you want to return Gaia to homeostasis or escape the mess of Earth and flesh, those on the far ends of the Up/Down dichotomy have already laid the foundations for justifying the kinds of mass death that risk eclipsing the worst genocides of the 20th century. For despite treading opposite paths, both the Far Up and Deep Down have converged on the conviction that flesh-and-blood humans have little — if any — place in the future of Life. Whether you see humankind as an ecological cancer or, in Musk’s words, merely a “biological bootloader,” it becomes equally clear that human extinction is not the end of the world and may well render a far higher service to Life itself.
As the forests burn, the ice caps melt and new AI systems continue to eclipse human capacities, we enter a world increasingly caught somewhere between technological transcendence and ecological collapse. These are extreme times, and today’s global rise of the far right may soon be eclipsed by new extremisms — whether this be the Far Up-wingers trying to break free of human biology or the Deep Downs who advocate genocide as the solution to ecocide.
One urgent task for the near future involves building new kinds of coalitions that prove durable enough to resist the growing extremes of Up and Down. This will require convincing those who remain on the modern political left and right that no vision of human flourishing can succeed without accounting for human beings’ ecological entanglements, technological entailments and the broader demands of Life itself.
At the same time, while it is crucial to help humanists expand their horizons, it is equally important to build better bridges across the middle ranges of the Up/Down spectrum. Many Up- and Down-wingers remain eager to work across their differences toward broadly similar goals. Much room remains to build coalitions across both axes to chart a more flourishing, enduring and open future for humankind and the whole of Life.
Ultimately, the most significant implication of the Up/Down distinction may well be that technological and ecological approaches to Life itself do not differ as much as we may think. The extreme ends of the spectrum mirror one another in their impatience to see humankind give way to Life’s greater goals, while the middle ranges open onto broad areas of overlap—new terrain where developments in information processing technology enrich our understanding of complex planetary systems and vice versa. It is in the estuary where Up and Down mingle that a truly progressive politics that serves all that lives will grow.
Around midnight at Samsung Electronics’ semiconductor offices outside Seoul, Han Ki-bak, a chip design engineer, saw a colleague collapse after working months of grueling late nights. Stunned, Han couldn’t move.
“Because I had pulled so many all-nighters, I was out of my mind. Instead of rushing to help her, I just sat in my chair, wondering, ‘What should I do?’” he recalled about the incident in 2020, speaking to Rest of World.
As paramedics arrived, Han looked on in a daze.
Years later, Han, the former head of a Samsung workers’ union, continues to pull all-nighters during crunch periods. Although chips have gotten more technically advanced over his 14 years at the company amid an accelerating global chip race, Han’s engineering team has grown leaner.
“Each engineer used to be assigned a single [part of a chip’s design], but now juggles two or three,” he said. “At this rate, I feel like I’m going to die.”
Scarred by long hours, heavy workloads, and lower bonuses compared to rivals, many Samsung engineers are leaving for South Korean chipmaker SK Hynix, 10 current and former engineers told Rest of World. Some are moving to Micron and Intel in the U.S., as well as Chinese competitors such as CXMT and YMTC. Burnout is deepening across short-staffed teams already stretched thin, they said. All workers except Han requested they be identified by pseudonyms because they feared retaliation from the company.
“The general vibe among engineers is that we’ll work here for a short while before leaving for another company,” Han said, referring to his colleagues’ outlook in the past year.
Semiconductors underpin all modern electronics from LEDs to Teslas, and the kind that Samsung specializes in — high-bandwidth memory chips — are crucial for powering Nvidia’s cutting-edge hardware used to train artificial intelligence models. Samsung reigned as the world’s top memory chipmaker for more than three decades until this year, when it was dethroned by SK Hynix, another South Korean semiconductor titan.
Samsung’s foundry business, which makes chips for clients, is also struggling to compete with Taiwan’s TSMC, which controls more than two-thirds of the foundry market. Samsung’s foundry and chip design divisions lost 3.18 trillion won ($2.4 billion) in 2023.
“Samsung is facing a do-or-die crisis,” Lee Jae-yong, Samsung’s chairperson, told executives in March, promising reform. The company has planned internal audits of its semiconductor departments to improve competitiveness.
Samsung’s leaders have tied the company’s crisis to a non-communicative and hierarchical work culture. “The culture of hiding or avoiding problems to get through the moment, and reporting unrealistic plans based solely on hopeful expectations, has spread and exacerbated our problems,” Jun Young-hyun, the semiconductor business head, wrote in a staff memo last August.
A spokesperson from Samsung told Rest of World the company is “focused on reinforcing its technological competitiveness and fostering a healthy workplace culture.”
All the talented engineers are leaving. That’s how we’re falling behind.
Samsung is South Korea’s most valuable company, with a market capitalization of about $271 billion on June 10, accounting for 16% of the value of the country’s stock exchange. Founded in 1938 as a shop selling vegetables and dried fish, Samsung has since grown into a global semiconductor powerhouse fueled by an intense hustle culture.
Some 70,000 employees work in Samsung’s semiconductor division, spread across rows of glass-walled office buildings and manufacturing plants. These are woven through landscaped gardens in Hwaseong, Giheung, and other industrial cities outside Seoul that house some of South Korea’s biggest technology companies.
Samsung’s Hwaseong semiconductor facility employs some of its 70,000 workers. Samsung
Not that long ago, Samsung was considered a dream job and its workers were referred to as “Samsung men” — members of an elite corporate class who wore their Samsung affiliation as a badge of honor.
“We used to say we have blue blood flowing through our veins. That’s not the case anymore,” Jin, an equipment engineer who has worked at Samsung for a decade, told Rest of World, nodding to Samsung’s blue logo.
Leaving for a rival was once taboo, but now, “openly applying to SK Hynix has become our culture,” Cho, a process engineer, told Rest of World.
Young engineers at Samsung are scouring workplace review websites like Blind, and flooding group chats on the instant messaging platform Kakao Talk with job application tips, engineers said.
Senior engineers are leaving for tech giants abroad, including Micron, Intel, Apple, and Google in the U.S., where salaries are higher and perks are more lavish, they said. That’s despite a broader shift in tech, even in Silicon Valley, where longer work hours and more unstable jobs are becoming common.
In 2024, Samsung fell to sixth place in a South Korean employer ranking survey, from second the previous year.
Cho said he was exhausted after working excessive weekend shifts for many months to cover for four vacancies on his team. The 29-year-old is now workshopping his cover letter for SK Hynix with his coworkers. Even his manager has encouraged his team to jump ship, Cho said. “‘Why aren’t you applying to SK Hynix?’” he recalled the manager saying. “‘Get out of here fast!’”
“All the talented engineers are leaving,” he said. “That’s how we’re falling behind.”
Engineers are asked to log overtime as “nonworking” hours so that Samsung doesn’t violate the government’s 52-hour workweek limit, Han and five others said. “I work many hours for free,” Han said.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Employment and Labor told Rest of World the ministry is aware of similar alleged violations at another Samsung division. But they have not received any complaints from Samsung’s chip workers, he said.
When an executive shifts blame, it rolls down to the managers, then onto employees. As a result, false reporting became commonplace.
Samsung has grown into a bureaucracy that is slow to innovate, Kim Yong-jin, a professor of management at Sogang University, told Rest of World. Even as SK Hynix heavily invested in developing the next generation of memory chips, Samsung held back thinking the high development costs were not justified by the niche market. Its foundry business also struggled to retain clients. Then, the AI boom hit.
Following a steep drop in revenue in 2023, Samsung paid no bonuses to employees. Employee bonuses last year were 72% lower than payouts during the pandemic’s boom years, engineers said.
“It’s like being slashed to a third of your salary,” Cho said. Once eager to stay late and push through extra work, he now clocks out promptly at the end of his shift. “Even if we work hard, we’re not getting paid any bonuses,” he said. “The work culture has changed.”
The Samsung spokesperson told Rest of World the company implements “a clear performance-based compensation system to support sustainable growth.”
The company has opted not to backfill positions, leaving staff scrambling, multiple engineers told Rest of World. “Recognizing that they’re in a precarious position, Samsung has temporarily stalled hiring,” said Park Jun-young, a semiconductor researcher at the Institute of Industrial Anthropology, who worked at Samsung as an engineer and recruiter for a decade.
In the past year, process engineer Kim has watched 12 out of about 70 engineers on his team leave. Still, no new hires were made until last month, when more engineers quit his team in frustration over chronic understaffing, he said. “Management knows we’re struggling to work because we’re understaffed, but doesn’t budge to backfill roles until a crisis breaks out,” Kim told Rest of World.
Short-staffed teams are taking on dangerous responsibilities. An equipment engineer on the shop floor told Rest of World he works overnight shifts alone, violating safety protocols requiring two engineers per shift, while lifting heavy metal gratings and monitoring robots. He sprints between rows of fabrication equipment through the night to perform checks. “That’s when accidents happen, and defects start showing up in products,” he said.
The spokesperson from Samsung told Rest of World the company is committed to providing “a safe working environment that strictly adheres to local rules and regulations.”
Whenever we have a problem, we wipe it out military-style, instead of finding a proper solution. It’s called the ‘Samsung way’.
Samsung’s organizational culture soured in 2018, during the tenure of Kim Ki-nam, then-head of Samsung Device Solutions and currently a senior adviser, said semiconductor anthropologist Park. Under Kim’s micromanaging leadership, a blame-shifting hierarchy hardened into the norm, he said.
“When an executive shifts blame, it rolls down to the managers, then onto employees. As a result, false reporting became commonplace,” Park said.
Kim Ki-nam did not respond to Rest of World’srequest for comment.
Engineers today describe Samsung’s culture as “militaristic” and “hierarchical,” and say they are at the mercy of their managers. The managers, in turn, face rigid annual performance reviews based on granular metrics such as yield rates, production costs, and defects.
The managers are often longtime bureaucrats promoted for their ability to process paperwork rather than their technical competence, two engineers said. They focus on short-term projects that can meet annual performance goals, three engineers said. Managers are also given impractical cost-cutting targets, which they pass on to their employees, five engineers said.
The rigid performance metrics “fail to give managers room to reflect, recalibrate, and pursue long-term trial and error to build something new,” said Kim, the professor of management. Instead, they’re pushed to exaggerate their achievements, conceal mistakes and accidents, and pitch flashy but unworkable engineering plans, he said.
Four engineers told Rest of World they are routinely pressured by managers to fabricate or distort data to help meet these targets. Three of them said they witnessed engineers and managers inflate yield rates, which refers to the percentage of non-defective chips produced from a wafer. They also underreported defects, they said.
“Go rewrite your report,” Im, a 28-year-old equipment engineer, recalled his manager saying after he submitted a report with bleak but genuine data. “Then we go massage our data,” he said.
A former design engineer told Rest of World his manager implemented dysfunctional automation scripts, which he then reported as improving a chip design. Han, the former union head, recalled a manager pushing through unworkable designs over their team’s objections.
“Defects slip through quietly,” Im said.
Pushing back against hierarchy can result in poor performance reviews, some engineers told Rest of World. Others said the reviews are objective and metrics-based. “Performance reviews are our lifeline, pressure point, and carrot,” Jin said.
The Samsung spokesperson told Rest of World the company “ensures engagement with [its] employees is based on fairness, transparency, and flexibility.”
The organizational culture at Samsung has now earned a dubious descriptor — the “Samsung way,” which refers to a habit of obfuscating data and concealing problems, Jin said.
“Whenever we have a problem, we wipe it out military-style, instead of finding a proper solution,” he said. “It’s called the Samsung way.”
Reflecting on the troubles at work, equipment engineer Im said the company’s top-down culture has backfired on engineers’ performance and morale.
“Maybe that’s what gradually cost Samsung its competitive edge,” he said.
The new HBO ‘Harry Potter’ TV series has been shrouded in controversy since it was first announced. And with casting being a particularly contentious element, everyone is desperate to know who is going to play Voldemort.
68245
Casting controversies have plagued the new HBO Max reboot of the Harry Potter series, with fans regularly expressing disappointment about seeing their favourite actor join forces with well-known transphobe JK Rowling. Indeed, Tom Felton, who will be reprising his role as Malfoy on Broadway, recently received a lot of criticism for his rather dismissive comments regarding the author’s tirade against trans communities. And now, people are starting to worry about the possibility that we might lose our favourite Irish heartthrob to the franchise.
A number of news outlets have recently hinted at the fact that Peaky Blindersstar Cillian Murphy is currently predicted to be the frontrunner to play Voldemort in HBO’s upcoming Harry Potter series.
Back in February, Ralph Fiennes—the man who originated the role of Voldemort in the film franchise—publicly endorsed Murphy, telling interviewers: “He’ll be fantastic, he’s a great great actor, of course he’ll be wonderful.”
“He’ll be wonderful”⚡️ SPIN caught up with #RalphFiennes at the opening of the Dublin International Film Festival, and got his take on #CillianMurphy taking over the role of Lord #Voldemort🐍 What do you think of Cillian joining the #HarryPotter series? For more see spin1038.com #irish#film#News#Dublin
Fans of the Oppenheimer star have been taking to social media in droves, making it abundantly clear that they do not want Murphy to take on this role. And if he does, he very well might experience a serious drop in public support.
We’re all boycotting Cillian Murphy if he’s in that Harry Potter show right?
When asked about any announcements regarding a casting decision on the Dark Lord, Channing Dungey, Warner Bros. TV CEO, maintained every composure. Speaking with Deadline, the exec stated: “You’re missing [Voldemort] in your deck, because we are still weighing a couple of different options there, so we’re not quite ready there yet. That’s an important role to get right.”
And when the interviewer pushed Dungey to make a comment regarding the favouritism surrounding Murphy, the CEO simply replied: “I have no comment, no comment, no comment.”
Murphy himself has also made no inclinations that he might be joining the cast. The Irish actor is notoriously anti-social and so it’s likely that he isn’t even fully aware of the online discussions going on right now. Only time will tell who will take on this rather iconic role.
