I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity.
Or maybe (I think Sidgwick):
The English system is "No system", Which is also a system, only better.
Robin Hanson has perhaps not read much of Max Weber or Franz Kafka to understand why, in science fiction, bureaucracy is seen as something a successful technological society has overcome.
The article starts with a value neutral account of "futurists" (whatever that may be) engaged in harmless prediction. Without skipping a beat he then proposes a value active role in maximising a set of qualities not all of which are desirable or mutually compatible.
This is why I don't like "futurists" of this persuasion. They have agendas. They sell these agendas based on flimsy and philosophically unsound extrapolation dressed up as "inevitability". "the arc of history" or "determinism".
I'm not buying it. Human intelleigence is the art of outsmarting "futurists" (Like Malthus and Fukuyama) who would have us believe "history is at an end and all we must do is keep dranking the handle on the machine". If anything proves that history is not finished, or that the future is not merely tracing a line on a graph, I would say that wars and pandemics might be clues.
Systemetisation and bureaucracy are not engines of wealth creation. Far from it, they are unfortunate side effects of industry that most wise industrialists and engineers attempt to eliminate. On the contrary, complexity is now a significant threat to a gamut of other desirable human values, like stability, security, freedom, and innovation.
And yet the author seems to celebrate bureaucracy. I cannot fathom this.