Hi all, just sharing the slides from my recent Research group talk and thought a new thread in the Research rather than Events section might be more appropriate for any further discussion.
Thank you @JonahW for such a rich session and articulation of Wise Altruism. It makes me wonder: if uncertainty truly runs as deep as you describe, might our obsession with quantifying âthe goodâ have always been a misstep, however well-intentioned?
It seems to me that Wise Altruism doesnât merely tweak the methods of Effective Altruism, but invites a deeper shift: from treating ethics as a matter of calculation to seeing it as a practice of wisdom. If the future is radically unknowable, then might cultivating discernment, resilience, and compassion be a more reliable path than optimizing distant expected values?
I also find myself asking: how do we recognize a reliable narrative when so many stories compete for our loyalty? Perhaps itâs less about certainty and more about which narratives enlarge our moral imagination and sustain responsible action over time.
Interestingly, Wise Altruism seems to frame longtermism differently; not as an abstract gamble on future scenarios, but as a commitment to moral stewardship in the present. Could it be that the best way to honor the future is not through prediction, but through the cultivation of wisdom today?
Your post leaves me thinking: perhaps the real task isnât to secure âthe goodâ by force of intellect, but to embody goodness in how we move through uncertainty itself.
Quite a few of the presentations at the past weekendâs UTOK conference on consciousness circled around this cluster of ideas. The conference required registration, but Iâm imagining the recorded sessions will likely come out in public streaming media at some point. In any case, the leading figures from the conference are well-published and well-known.
First of all, there was a general consensus about the unknowability of the future. This relates to Vervaekeâs uptake of combinatorial explosiveness (but not just Vervaeke, of course. There is a wider, deeper research literature behind that idea.). Alexander Bard, likewise, presented a model of past-present-future in which the past is fixed, the present offers limited choices, and the future expansive possibilities. In Bardâs view, we feel our way into the future. Bardâs focus on embodied human cognition incorporating pathos was no outlier among the conference presenters, it was more like a central attractor for the various models.
The cultivation of wisdom theme was also fairly central in the thinking of numerous speakers. The point of my sharing this is not really to turn your or @JonahWâs thinking about Wise Altruism in any different direction than it is already going. Iâm just suggesting that if theoretical reinforcement is needed, we can easily expand our horizons beyond Vervaeke to a much wider circle Vervaeke is engaged with.
Thank you for this, @RobertBunge I appreciate the way you situate these ideas within broader streams like UTOK and Bardâs model. Itâs particularly striking how the consensus around the unknowability of the future, and the emphasis on embodied navigation rather than predictive modeling, resonates with the underlying philosophical orientation of Wise Altruism.
Your point about expanding beyond Vervaeke is crucial. Situating Wise Altruism within a broader epistemic framework, incorporating combinatorial explosiveness, bounded rationality, and the affective turn in cognitive science, suggests that any serious response to radical uncertainty must cultivate both epistemic humility and embodied responsiveness.
Building on @JonahW âs invocation of phronesis (practical wisdom), I wonder if we might further enrich Wise Altruism by drawing explicitly on traditions that emphasize the development of embodied discernment. Theories of bounded rationality (Simon) and affective cognition (Damasio) propose that under conditions of uncertainty, good judgment emerges less from optimizing limited information and more from cultivating emotionally attuned capacities for action. In a similar vein, the enactivist tradition (Varela, Thompson), which conceives knowing as participatory engagement rather than detached representation, could offer deeper theoretical grounding for the intuition that we âfeel our wayâ into future possibilities.
This raises, for me, a developmental question: If Wise Altruism is not merely a strategic recalibration but a deeper practice, how might we cultivate the kinds of virtuous capacities (in a MacIntyrean sense) that enable resilient, context-sensitive altruistic action across radically uncertain futures? What practices (individually and collectively) best train and refine this capacity? And how might we hold the tension between robustness in action and openness to emergent realities?
It seems to me that framing Wise Altruism as a project of virtuous cultivation, integrating cognitive, emotional, and ethical dimensions, could offer a more grounded and generative path forward than simply adjusting existing EA heuristics.
Curious whether this resonates with others or opens further avenues for exploration.
This just popped on Brendan Graham Dempseyâs feed. Anna Riedl was not at the recent UTOK conference (Brendan was), but Annaâs idea of âautopoiethicsâ (ethics of self-organization) is a perfect fit for evolutionary emergence thinking typical of presenters at that conference.
In the video âThe Ethics of Self-Organization,â Anna Riedl introduces the concept of autopoethics, advocating for a holistic and relational approach to ethics that contrasts with traditional utilitarian frameworks like effective altruism (EA). The discussion emphasizes the interconnectedness of individual and collective actions within complex living systems, highlighting the importance of self-care and self-responsibility as foundational to altruistic behavior. Riedl critiques the impartial, context-ignoring stance often adopted by EA, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of ethical implications that acknowledges the subjective human experience and the hierarchical nature of living systems. The conversation spans various themes, including the evolution of ethics through meta-modernity, the intrinsic value of complexity in ethical considerations, and the trade-offs involved in ethical decision-making. Overall, the dialogue calls for a reevaluation of how personal and collective investments in complexity contribute to the well-being of society and underscores the moral imperative to alleviate suffering through a shared sense of humanity.
See less
00:00:00 In this section, the discussion focuses on the concept of autopoethics, a framework that Anna Riedl is developing, which emphasizes a more holistic and relational approach to ethics compared to traditional utilitarian frameworks like effective altruism. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding individual actions as part of a complex living system where relationships and nonzero-sum interactions contribute to the well-being of both individuals and society. The speakers explore how this framework can apply on multiple levels, from individual decision-making to broader philanthropic efforts aimed at maximizing positive outcomes, ultimately contributing to a deeper understanding of collective meaning-making and social flourishing.
00:05:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the relationship between rationality, ethics, and their implications across various scales, from individual actions to multinational corporations and philanthropic organizations. They emphasize the importance of understanding why these concepts matter, reflecting on their own journey to finding personal significance in the subjects of rationality and ethics. The speaker mentions a previous key exposition to a community focused on rationality, where they realized the need to make their academic ideas more relatable and engaging. They argue that both rationality and ethics are interconnected in the pursuit of collective good, as they share the underlying goal of determining how to achieve what is genuinely beneficial. The conversation also touches on how the concept of âautopoethicsâ is proposed as a global ethical framework capable of applying to various scales, contrasting it with effective altruism, which is seen as more suited to collective interventions. The section concludes on the recognition of different ethical systems and their application in diverse contexts.
00:10:00 In this section, Anna Riedl discusses the limitations of effective altruism (EA) and the philosophical underpinnings of its utilitarian framework, particularly as they relate to context-dependent principles and the significance of scales in decision-making. She critiques the impartial, âview from nowhereâ perspective that EA often adopts, emphasizing the importance of local actions within a hierarchical structure of living systems. Riedl argues that the movementâs roots in rationality, particularly through the works of philosophers like Peter Singer and Derek Parfit, overlook the necessity of integrating subjective human experiences and recognizing our inherent boundedness. She posits that the theological undertones of utilitarianism compel a misguided pursuit of unattainable impartiality, ultimately leading to ethical dilemmas. Riedlâs insights connect to broader themes of modernity, critiquing the disconnection prevalent in contemporary ethical philosophies.
00:15:00 In this section, the discussion explores the evolution of ethics through the lens of meta-modernity, emphasizing a shift away from problematic modernist metaphysics towards a more nuanced understanding of ethical behavior. The conversation highlights the importance of considering processes over immediate consequences, stressing that both the implications of actions and their long-term effects are crucial in ethical decision-making, particularly in the context of effective altruism. The concept of autopoetics is introduced, suggesting that the normativity of actions is fundamentally linked to the self-maintenance of entities within their environments. This perspective emphasizes local action and the interconnectedness of rationality and biology, urging a reconsideration of rationality as it applies to ethics, and suggesting that the integration of various realities into ethical frameworks is essential for a comprehensive understanding of human behavior.
00:20:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the concept of self-organization in ethics, emphasizing the importance of self-responsibility before one can effectively help others. The speaker critiques the common perspective that prioritizes altruism and intervention, arguing instead for the notion that taking care of oneself is foundational for being able to contribute to others. This is illustrated through thought experiments, such as the child drowning in a pond, where immediate ethical obligations seem clear, contrasted with scenarios like the lifeboat metaphor, which highlights the complexities of resource allocation and ethical responsibilities in broader contexts. The emphasis is on how self-care and self-awareness provide a solid base for ethical behavior that includes consideration for others, reflecting a more integrated view of morality that acknowledges the interplay between individual well-being and collective responsibility.
00:25:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the ethics of self-organization using the metaphor of a lifeboat scenario, where the focus shifts from merely how many people can fit on the lifeboat to the longer-term sustainability of the lifeboat itself and the roles individuals play within that system. The conversation highlights that ethical considerations extend beyond immediate actions, such as rescuing individuals from the water, to the importance of maintaining the lifeboatâs structure and ongoing viability. The exchange also explores themes like personal boundaries in ethical conduct, suggesting that individuals must balance their altruistic actions with self-care to continue supporting others effectively. It raises questions about the intrinsic motivations for helping others within an autopoietic framework, pondering how self-preservation could inherently lead to an other-focused approach, although there is acknowledgment of the difficulty in articulating this connection explicitly.
00:30:00 In this section, Anna Riedl discusses the complex interplay between individual identity and cultural influences, emphasizing that our sense of self is deeply shaped by the language, socialization, and cultural contexts we are part of. She argues that this interconnection fosters an intrinsic drive to help others, reflecting a shared humanity encapsulated in the notion of âUbuntuââthe idea that our existence is intertwined with that of others. Riedl highlights the moral imperative to alleviate suffering as a core ethical principle, advocating for a communal sense of responsibility to enhance well-being. Additionally, she shares her journey towards understanding animal welfare, illustrating her deep empathy towards sentient beings and the emotional burden that awareness of suffering brings. Despite the debate over gender perspectives in moral philosophy, Riedl contends that the desire to care for others transcends gender and is a universal human concern.
00:35:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the ethical implications of complexity as articulated in the essay âUniversal Ethics: Organized Complexity as an Intrinsic Valueâ by Clement Vidal and Jean Paul Deah, found in the book Evolution, Development, and Complexity. The speaker reflects on how this ethical framework aligns with the concept of autopoetics, emphasizing that complexity itself holds intrinsic value, influenced by the time and energy invested in the evolution of complex systems. The conversation transitions to the emotional responses humans have to suffering in the animal kingdom, suggesting that our empathetic reactions are not just phenomenological but are rooted in our shared evolutionary history with certain species. The dialogue also highlights a gradation in our moral concern for different animals based on their complexity and relational significance to humans, indicating a nuanced understanding of ethical regard that varies among living beings. The exchange concludes by exploring how these views might inform our perceptions of ethical behavior and suffering in the context of complex life.
00:40:00 In this section, Anna Riedl discusses the complexities of resource allocation within the framework of effective altruism (EA) and self-organization. She emphasizes the importance of second-order value over time when making decisions about how to utilize resources effectively. Riedl argues that individuals, especially those not in extreme wealth, must consider the trade-off between personal specialization and helping others, suggesting that investing in oneâs own complexity and specialization is crucial for contributing effectively to society. She points out that this approach may differ from typical EA perspectives, which often prioritize immediate altruistic actions. Riedl concludes by highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of how personal and collective investments in complexity can foster a healthier societal system.
00:45:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the trade-offs individuals make in their daily lives, particularly concerning altruistic choices and resource allocation. The speaker highlights that educated individuals in the Effective Altruism (EA) community often have different perspectives from the broader community on these trade-offs. This ties into larger societal trends such as deindustrialization versus increased complexity and efficiency. The conversation points out that a better understanding of how personal self-actualization interacts with community welfare can shift perspectives, fostering a nonzero-sum interaction where personal success contributes to the greater societal good. The speaker notes that while the insights may seem obvious to some, they can clarify confusion and encourage new interactions with the concept of resource use and altruism, drawing on personal experiences that illustrate the emotional weight of such ethical dilemmas.
00:50:00 In this section, the speaker reflects on the complexity of ethical considerations within the framework of self-organization, emphasizing that moral decisions cannot simply be reduced to simplistic cause-and-effect relationships. They argue that understanding the nuanced dimensions of morality, as laid out by Jonathan Haidtâs moral foundation theory, is crucial. The discussion points out that while utilitarian perspectives focus primarily on care and harm, other moral dimensions such as loyalty and purity also play significant roles in fostering societal welfare. By navigating these trade-offs deliberately, individuals can contribute to the overall complexity and health of the system, balancing personal self-actualization with wider societal benefits, and ensuring that all facets of morality are considered in ethical processes.
00:55:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the complexities of ethical interactions and decision-making within organizational frameworks. The speaker emphasizes the importance of relationships and interconnected structures, arguing that prioritizing short-term gains can potentially damage these relationships over time. They suggest that different political and ethical dimensions influence how individuals perceive and prioritize moral issues, indicating that a deeper understanding of these dimensions requires cognitive development and socialization. The conversation also touches on the optimal allocation of resources, particularly in a humanitarian context, where immediate assistance may seem beneficial but could undermine the long-term efficacy of the organizationâs goals, such as funding research for a cure. Ultimately, the dialogue explores the balance and relevance of various ethical dimensions in differing contexts, highlighting the complexity of decision-making in both individual and communal scenarios.
In the video âThe Ethics of Self-Organizationâ featuring Anna Riedl, the conversation delves into the intricate balance organizations must find between managing overhead costs and achieving effectiveness, using examples like R&D investments and the pitfalls of excessive deliberation. Riedl emphasizes the need for adaptive ethical practices that shift from individual actions to broader institutional frameworks, advocating for tackling local issues as a foundation for addressing global challenges. The discussion highlights the interplay between local and global efforts in effecting systemic change, particularly in complex domains like climate change, while recognizing the value of individual responsibilities. Riedl also explores the sustainability of ethical systems, underscoring the importance of local actions in fostering ethical advancements. The dialogue concludes with an expression of appreciation for Riedlâs contributions, hinting at a commitment to ongoing discussions in the realm of ethics and self-organization.
See less
01:00:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the balance organizations must achieve between overhead costs, such as research and development (R&D), and their overall effectiveness in achieving their goals. The dialogue points out that while organizations need to invest in understanding their systems and improving cost-effectiveness, there is a trade-off involved between gathering information and taking action. This complexity is illustrated with the example of a game where a computational model fails to achieve its goals due to excessive deliberation over trivial decisions. The conversation further examines the challenges of bounded rationality and the need for careful reassessment of investments in R&D, particularly in fields like cancer research, where success is uncertain. It emphasizes the necessity of a diversified approach allowing for trial and error, where unsuccessful methods fade away, while successful strategies can flourish, advocating for a balance between funding ambitious long-term research and supporting more guaranteed but less impactful operations.
01:05:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the dynamics of self-organization within different contexts and scales, highlighting the need for adaptive reflection and operational practices based on environmental changes. Anna Riedl references concepts from Nasim Talib, emphasizing that ethical behavior varies significantly across personal and collective dimensions, advocating for a transition from individual actions to broader institutional adherence. She discusses the importance of starting from local ethical obligations and acknowledges the unique demands posed by specific contexts, arguing that global problem-solving is rooted in addressing local issues first. The segment also touches on the complexity of evaluating systemic impacts and the necessity of considering both personal and collective responsibilities in ethical decision-making.
01:10:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the challenge of effecting change at different levels of complex systems, such as political or economic structures. It is acknowledged that while individual or local actions can contribute to positive outcomes, they often do not address the larger systemic issues driving significant problems like climate change or social inequalities. The speakers contend that interventions need to be directed at higher levels of causality to create meaningful change, which can feel more empowering. However, they also recognize the significance of local initiatives in supporting foundational structures, emphasizing that both local and global perspectives have their own merits and can coexist in addressing complex societal challenges.
01:15:00 In this section, the discussion centers on the relationship between local and global action in the context of addressing global issues like climate change. The conversation highlights the importance of solving local problems as a foundation for broader impacts, while also acknowledging the pitfalls of overreach that can lead to civilizational collapse. The participants reflect on the value of being intensely involved in oneâs immediate environment, suggesting that radical local action could yield significant results. They also debate the integration of global perspectives into local action, emphasizing the necessity of caring for specific individuals while maintaining boundaries and discernment in our actions. Ultimately, the dialogue raises critical questions about rationality, hierarchy, moral decision-making, and the balance between helping others nearby versus those far away, underscoring a complex interplay that could lead to positive outcomes for all.
01:20:00 In this section, the discussion revolves around the complexity of maintaining ethical systems, as Anna Riedl highlights the difficulty of sustaining a structure that allows for moral quandaries to be addressed. She argues that the real challenge isnât merely about utilizing resources effectively, but rather about ensuring the persistence of systems capable of facilitating such discussions. The interplay between maintaining foundational elements and pursuing growth is likened to the trade-offs seen in nature, where resources are allocated either to stabilize or to flourish. Riedl emphasizes the importance of local actions and personal responsibility in maintaining oneâs environment, suggesting that indirect contributions often underpin broader ethical advancements. The conclusion invites continued dialogue and reflection on these ideas.
01:25:00 In this section, the speaker expresses gratitude to Anna for her insights and contributions, indicating a positive relationship and eagerness for future discussions and collaborations. They mention Annaâs presence on X, encouraging engagement with her work, and conclude with well wishes, implying a strong sense of appreciation and anticipation for continued dialogue.
@RobertBunge I was literally watching the video when you dropped your comment.
Total synchronicity!
I always find it so fascinating when little moments like that happen⌠like the universe giving a wink or a high-five
Itâs rare and deeply appreciated when someone not only absorbs valuable content but also distills it thoughtfully for others. I absolutely love it when people take notes and share their insights it enriches the experience for everyone involved. Looking forward to reading every bit of it
Love to take credit for the summary, but thatâs AI. Brendan loves his 90 min. videos, but not everyone can fit in that much watch time! In any case, the topic seemed very on point for this discussion, so I wanted to make the information as available as possible.
After posting the link and the (AI-generated) summary, I then took time to listen to the video conversation itself. The conversation landed for me in a way that was different than what I got from the summary. In a way, that difference illustrates some of the key ideas about âautopoiethicsâ.
By engaging in the conversation vicariously, listening to the speakers interact and forming my own thoughts in relation to the total conversation (including body language and tone of voice), it occurred to me the autopoiethics idea is very developmental. To set it alongside EA as an alternative abstract structure for adjudicating ethical claims would largely be missing the point. Part of that point is we are all works in progress, and our ethical commitments are going to be evolving as part of our own personal growth trajectories.
One thing that stood out for me in processing the conversation is the âautoâ part of autopoiethics makes quite a bit of difference. What is the âselfâ that is being optimized or persisted? Parents gladly sacrifice personal interests for their children all the time. Others give their lives for communities, nations, or even complete strangers in the context of things like rescue attempts. One could argue that selfhood is flexible and expansive in such cases. A flipside of this is that running oneâs personal self ragged in the name of cause or community is not doing larger systems any favors in the long run. Personal self-maintenance (eating, sleeping, bathing, etc.) should not be viewed as a distraction from high moral purpose. Basic self care is more like a necessary prerequisite for high moral purpose.
Thank you @RobertBunge your reflection on the developmental nature of âautopoiethicsâ and the expansion of self resonates deeply.
In particular, the point about the flexibility of selfhood and the necessity of self-care brings to mind the experiences of many activists during and after the Arab Spring in this region. For many, there was a profound expansion of self: a felt merging of personal identity with collective aspirations for freedom and dignity. Yet, alongside that expansion, the cost of neglecting personal resilience and care became painfully clear. Many friends found themselves imprisoned, martyred, or burned out, and even those who survived bore deep psychological and physical scars.
It may not be an overreach to suggest that similar dynamics unfold across many revolutionary contexts: an initial, often ecstatic expansion of self into communal purpose, followed (if unattended) by exhaustion, disillusionment, and profound loss.
Your framing highlights an essential ethical insight: that sustaining high moral purpose requires a commitment not only to external ideals but also to the ongoing cultivation and maintenance of the self understood both individually and relationally. Perhaps one of the critical lessons is that self-care and collective care are not distractions from the ethical project but are themselves intrinsic to it. In this sense, Wise Altruismâs emphasis on humility, embodied responsiveness, and developmental self-cultivation feels not only theoretically sound, but urgently necessary for sustaining ethical commitment over time in the face of radical uncertainty.
