Thank you for elaborating — your vision of creating a rational ‘moral elite’ is truly fascinating! You’re absolutely right about the core issue: today’s hierarchy, centered on financial achievement and consumption, stifles moral development. Your proposed alternative — a system where status derives from prosocial behavior (‘saintliness without dogma’) — strikes at the heart of the problem.
However, I see two practical challenges:
Systemic dependency: Such a transformation requires overhauling economic incentives and institutions, not just adopting new norms. As your own examples show (Tolstoyans, AA), local communities can create pockets of alternative ethics, but scaling this to a societal level clashes with systems built on competing principles (e.g., market competition). This doesn’t invalidate the idea — it simply means implementation must be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Fragmentation risk: Replacing one hierarchy (financial) with another (moral) could spark new conflicts, especially with religious communities for whom ‘saintliness’ is central. For global impact, any framework must be inclusive — complementing existing paths (religious/secular) rather than rejecting them.
This is where EA’s evolutionary approach — and your own work — shines:
We operate by gradually ‘embedding’ high-moral norms (δ↑, w↑) into the basic layer (ρ↑) through evidence, institutions, and cultural narratives.
Your ideas about intentionally shaping prosocial norms through communities aren’t an alternative but a powerful complement! They’re tools to accelerate shifting norms (e.g., long-term AI ethics or planetary stewardship) from ‘high’ to ‘basic’.
A timely synthesis: I’m currently drafting a post applying Time × Scope to AI alignment. It explores how a technologically mediated moral hierarchy (not sermons or propaganda) could act as a sociotechnical solution by:
Rewarding verified contributions to common good (e.g., AI safety research, disaster resilience) via transparent metrics.
Creating status pathways based on moral impact — not wealth.
Evolving existing systems: No economic upheaval or religious conflict; integrates with markets/institutions.
Inclusivity: Offers a neutral ‘language of moral contribution’ accessible to all worldviews.
Your insights are invaluable here! If you’d like to deepen this discussion:
Let’s connect via DM to explore your models for motivation/community design.
I’d welcome your input on my AI alignment framework (especially how to ‘operationalize’ moral growth).
Your focus on inner transformation is key to ensuring technology augments human morality — it’s worth building together.
Perhaps the ‘lighthouse’ we need isn’t a utopian ideology, but a practical, scalable approach — anchored in evidence, open to all, and built step by step. Would love your thoughts!
Thank you very much for your attention to my proposal. I know that new ideas are difficult to understand (especially if you’re not very good at explaining them), and particularly when something as unusual as promoting new ideological movements (let’s say, “utopian”).
I just want to make a few brief clarifications:
your vision of creating a rational ‘moral elite’
Moral evolution initiatives in the sense of pacifism, altruism, and benevolence stemming from monastic structures do not seek to create elites, as they are situated outside the conventional world. They can also be referred to as community initiatives of “witness” (for example, the case of Anabaptist communities or Quakers). However, associations such as Freemasonry, Opus Dei, and even initiatives associated with EA, such as “80,000 Hours,” are initiatives to create elites. They do agree that they are influential minorities, in one way or another (all social change is logically set in motion by minorities).
Your ideas about intentionally shaping prosocial norms through communities
I don’t propose “norms,” but rather styles of behavior based on internalized ethical values. A non-coercive prosociality.
All activities based on altruism can be complementary, although dilemmas about priorities always arise.
I understand the importance given to “long-term” issues and the alarm created by issues related to AI. Unfortunately, not all of us are sufficiently prepared to grasp the magnitude of such threats to the common good.
In my opinion, the essential factor for the progress of civilization is moral progress, and moral progress occurs through social psychological mechanisms that are often more accessible to the understanding of people motivated by empathy and altruism, and that falls more within the realm of “wisdom.”
Thank you for this thoughtful exchange—it’s helped clarify important nuances. I genuinely admire your commitment to ethical transformation. You’re right: the future will need not just technological solutions, but new forms of human solidarity rooted in wisdom and compassion.
While our methodologies differ, your ideas inspire deeper thinking about holistic approaches. To keep this thread focused, I suggest we continue this conversation via private messages—particularly if you’d like to explore:
Integrating your vision of organic prosociality into existing systems,
Or designing pilot projects to test these concepts.
For other readers: This discussion vividly illustrates how the Time × Scope framework operates in practice—‘high-moral’ ideals (long-term δ, wide-scope w) must demonstrate implementability (↑ρ) before becoming foundational norms. I’d love to hear: What examples of such moral transitions do you see emerging today?
Thank you for elaborating — your vision of creating a rational ‘moral elite’ is truly fascinating! You’re absolutely right about the core issue: today’s hierarchy, centered on financial achievement and consumption, stifles moral development. Your proposed alternative — a system where status derives from prosocial behavior (‘saintliness without dogma’) — strikes at the heart of the problem.
However, I see two practical challenges:
Systemic dependency: Such a transformation requires overhauling economic incentives and institutions, not just adopting new norms. As your own examples show (Tolstoyans, AA), local communities can create pockets of alternative ethics, but scaling this to a societal level clashes with systems built on competing principles (e.g., market competition). This doesn’t invalidate the idea — it simply means implementation must be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Fragmentation risk: Replacing one hierarchy (financial) with another (moral) could spark new conflicts, especially with religious communities for whom ‘saintliness’ is central. For global impact, any framework must be inclusive — complementing existing paths (religious/secular) rather than rejecting them.
This is where EA’s evolutionary approach — and your own work — shines:
We operate by gradually ‘embedding’ high-moral norms (δ↑, w↑) into the basic layer (ρ↑) through evidence, institutions, and cultural narratives.
Your ideas about intentionally shaping prosocial norms through communities aren’t an alternative but a powerful complement! They’re tools to accelerate shifting norms (e.g., long-term AI ethics or planetary stewardship) from ‘high’ to ‘basic’.
A timely synthesis: I’m currently drafting a post applying Time × Scope to AI alignment. It explores how a technologically mediated moral hierarchy (not sermons or propaganda) could act as a sociotechnical solution by:
Rewarding verified contributions to common good (e.g., AI safety research, disaster resilience) via transparent metrics.
Creating status pathways based on moral impact — not wealth.
Evolving existing systems: No economic upheaval or religious conflict; integrates with markets/institutions.
Inclusivity: Offers a neutral ‘language of moral contribution’ accessible to all worldviews.
Your insights are invaluable here! If you’d like to deepen this discussion:
Let’s connect via DM to explore your models for motivation/community design.
I’d welcome your input on my AI alignment framework (especially how to ‘operationalize’ moral growth).
Your focus on inner transformation is key to ensuring technology augments human morality — it’s worth building together.
Perhaps the ‘lighthouse’ we need isn’t a utopian ideology, but a practical, scalable approach — anchored in evidence, open to all, and built step by step. Would love your thoughts!
Thank you very much for your attention to my proposal. I know that new ideas are difficult to understand (especially if you’re not very good at explaining them), and particularly when something as unusual as promoting new ideological movements (let’s say, “utopian”).
I just want to make a few brief clarifications:
Moral evolution initiatives in the sense of pacifism, altruism, and benevolence stemming from monastic structures do not seek to create elites, as they are situated outside the conventional world. They can also be referred to as community initiatives of “witness” (for example, the case of Anabaptist communities or Quakers). However, associations such as Freemasonry, Opus Dei, and even initiatives associated with EA, such as “80,000 Hours,” are initiatives to create elites. They do agree that they are influential minorities, in one way or another (all social change is logically set in motion by minorities).
I don’t propose “norms,” but rather styles of behavior based on internalized ethical values. A non-coercive prosociality.
All activities based on altruism can be complementary, although dilemmas about priorities always arise.
I understand the importance given to “long-term” issues and the alarm created by issues related to AI. Unfortunately, not all of us are sufficiently prepared to grasp the magnitude of such threats to the common good.
In my opinion, the essential factor for the progress of civilization is moral progress, and moral progress occurs through social psychological mechanisms that are often more accessible to the understanding of people motivated by empathy and altruism, and that falls more within the realm of “wisdom.”
Thank you for this thoughtful exchange—it’s helped clarify important nuances. I genuinely admire your commitment to ethical transformation. You’re right: the future will need not just technological solutions, but new forms of human solidarity rooted in wisdom and compassion.
While our methodologies differ, your ideas inspire deeper thinking about holistic approaches. To keep this thread focused, I suggest we continue this conversation via private messages—particularly if you’d like to explore:
Integrating your vision of organic prosociality into existing systems,
Or designing pilot projects to test these concepts.
For other readers: This discussion vividly illustrates how the Time × Scope framework operates in practice—‘high-moral’ ideals (long-term δ, wide-scope w) must demonstrate implementability (↑ρ) before becoming foundational norms. I’d love to hear: What examples of such moral transitions do you see emerging today?