I won’t nitpick, as I understand this is something of a thought experiment, but I’d like to offer one criticism that I think you (and others) may find useful.
Quoting Sauer positively, “Wokeness is here to stay. For we cannot do without it…,” is a mistake.
Conservatives don’t own conservation, progressives don’t own progress, libertarians don’t own liberty, feminists don’t own equality, and wokeness sure as (insert your favorite expletive here) doesn’t own “freedom, equality, and human dignity.” There’s a peculiar fetish, particularly in academia, for naming things that don’t need to be named.
It seems like one could come up with a list of similarities for any two moral/political views. Eg comparing Islam and wokeness:
1. Both have special moralized vocabulary (halal, microaggression)
2. Both are evangelistic, trying to make everyone Muslim/anti-racist
3. Both care about justice (God’s justice or social justice)
But is there something further that we’re supposed to infer from the fact that there are similarities between these movements? Otherwise, I’m not sure I see the value in the exercise
My impression is that people dislike wokeness for similar reasons as they dislike effective altruism, and looking at their similarities may reveal something about human psychology. Moral progress that requires you to make an effort to change your own existing behaviors is uncomfortable, and we would rather just justify why our actions were always ok rather than entertain the change. I think this is also why we see a disproportionate amount of hate towards vegans, even if people admit they’re more moral (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324002829)
Come to think of it... why AREN'T you vegan yet, Professor Bloom? I recall a compelling exhortation to be rationally compassionate in a prior work of yours.
You pointed out my number one gripe with both of these movements, as well as with utilitarianism specifically: the absolutism, the attempt at being universal. (Sometimes this attempt is kind-of sort-of or implicit, and sometimes it's verbally demanded.)
The feeling that I get from Woke is that it is trying to literally legislate a morality that everyone is obligated to follow.
The feeling that I get with (some) utilitarians is that they're trying to come up with an actual formula for universal well-being. As if the sum total of well-being for all living creatures is a mere equation that, if we can just identify the correct variables, can be calculated.
I just find such attempts at absolutism and universality to be not only off-putting in their overzealousness, but so impractical as to be almost inherently a joke.
Religious doctrines, on the other hand (I'm not religious), for instance Christianity, offer an actual recipe for living a good life. Control what you can control, give where you can give, keep your own house clean. I find that redemption at the level of the individual actually does produce a tenable morality, whereas global, collective movements only attempt to.
Thank you for sharing this, even if (or especially because) it "attacks" people on your "side."
I see these tribes (and Vegans) as the modern-day monks and nuns. People turn to religion because the dogma gives them rules to follow, a purpose in life, and a community that validates them as superior. EA, Veganism, and Wokeness are, for many if not most, a religion; e.g., https://www.mattball.org/2023/11/biases-are-inherent-religion-seems.html
I think one important difference between the EA and the woke movement is their different meta-ethical views of the good. Specifically, the EA movement is consequentialist, whereas the woke are virtue ethicists. This is evident not only in the criticisms you provided that each movement poses to the other (which, while superficial, remind some of the criticisms one might find in moral philosophy), but also in their overarching worldview. EA believes that small change is better than no change, whereas the woke sees change as meaningless unless it is radical, and since the small changes that a person is capable of doing in the world are meaningless, the only way to live a moral life is by adhering to virtue regardless of consequences.
In this sense, criticising the woke movement for "virtue signaling" is as ridiculous as criticising EA for "consequence signaling" - it is not a front for something else, it's the whole point. The reason this is somewhat hidden is that while EA actively uses consequntialist language, the woke movement is much less coherent - it has less of a leadership, canon or philosophical backing. Moreover, since both movements are indeed a product of western secular liberal culture, the values they endorse are indeed quite similar - welfare, fairness, liberty etc. this makes you thing they have the same conception of the good, but on the meta-ethical level, they don't.
this is also the reason, I think they are often seen as extreme - most people don't even have a strong meta-ethical view one way or another. each movement demands a subscription to a rather robust form of meta-ethics, that most people feel uncomfortable with. it is easier to go through life without pesky meta-ethical questions that might be dowright unsolvable.
Always found EA's explicit universalism to be opposed to a more self-interested LW rationalism, as it clashes with game theoretic considerations and imo more coherent ethical frames. And such universalism to be quite woke. But I enjoy most EA's companionship, anyway (as they do mine). Also they've got a local meetup and do cool social events.
Woke to me also is just most German mainstream politics, which I despise but that's not a coherent social scene, anyways.
I feel like these kinds of conflicts and discussions are actually pretty timeless. People have been forming groups and arguing against opposite sectors for a few hundred years now, and each group has been presenting some good sides that we now believe are still useful today, as well as some "extreme" sides that we now discard as the limitations of the past.
Think of utilitarianism but to the point where one would even push the fat man off the bridge without a second of hesitation, versus deontology, but to the point where one would not touch the switch and kill off the five people just to be stay "clean" from the dilemma. I think as (hopefully) rational beings, all of us should be able to find things to learn from both philosophies without necessarily murdering the fat man with a smile or simply looking away as the trolley runs over the five people.
Even outside of game theory, historical clashes have always shown us their own takeaways and extremes (like nihilism versus existentialism, rationalism versus empiricism, deism versus humanism -- we can have a preference of one over another but there is always something we can take away from the other side of the argument). So I believe that clashes in the current world will be the same to our descendants, meaning that we should remember to understand why we sway towards a certain side, how far it would be the most helpful to ourselves and the world outside of ourselves, and what we can still learn from the other side.
Interesting take, especially the first point about 'extremes of Western values'.
But I'm not convinced there are enough relevant similarities to call wokeness and EA 'birds of a feather'. Here's why, going in reverse order through the listed similarities:
**Similarities 3 and 4: Both are unpopular and both are probably doing something right.**
Sure, those are similarities, but they are not profound similarities. I wouldn’t compare Nickelback and spam emails just because they are unpopular. Listing several superficial similarities doesn’t make them more similar in any relevant way.
If I wrote an article “Hitler and Stalin – birds of a feather” (and I assume similar articles or books have been written), you’d be very disappointed if my argument was based on both having six-character last names, three letters in common, and both having a prominent mustache.
**Similarity 2: Extreme moral demands**
The idea that doing no harm is not good enough is shared by many other groups. It’s not unique to wokeness and EA, but I agree it is central to both.
As I understand EA, it is not the same as Singer’s shallow pond thought experiment, arguing to donate every dollar beyond basic needs. I can be effective in my altruism without pushing to extremes. Of course, effective altruists encourage giving more, but the guy asking for donations for the local opera house is doing the same.
I might be wrong, but what I think EA is asking of you is this: if you give to charity, give it to an organization where it reduces as much suffering as possible.
The ideas of giving effectively and giving considerably more than the average person are often combined in EA discussions, but you don’t have to go to your limits with your donations to participate.
On the other hand, in woke circles you can face harsh criticism if you don’t support the most woke claims.
**Similarity 1: Wokeness and EA are extremes of Western values**
This point sounds the most interesting and relevant to me.
I agree that both movements build on Western values (interestingly, the woke might disagree with this) and push these ideas to a, for them, logical conclusion.
On the surface, both care about the “moral status of the weak”, but I would argue that this is where you find a fundamental difference between the two.
Wokeness: Membership in a currently or historically disadvantaged or exploited identity group leads to a special moral value. The woke might dispute this, but I think their behavior suggest it: if a woke person hears “Person A has stabbed person B” they have a mild adverse reaction, since this happens somewhere every day. When they later learn which identity groups these two individuals belong to, their reaction can drastically change, without any other new information about the incident, motive, or the individuals involved.
EA: Moral status is based on the capacity to suffer. An effective altruist doesn’t prioritize donating to a malaria prevention organization because it supports a group that is disadvantaged compared to white Americans. The child in Africa has the same moral value as the corporate lawyer in Boston. But a bed net reduces more suffering than a slightly softer cushion on an opera seat.
Genuinely curious: do you really think that the idea that "factory farming is akin to the holocaust" is a rather incredible idea, or are you just writing that for balance? :) (imho it may be offensive to jewish people, but it's not incredible at all)
I’m on the fence here myself, but I do think (and this was the point of my example) that most normal people do find it an incredible idea, just as incredible as the woke claims that I listed.
right, i can see that. Though if the term holocaust or genocide isn't used, I guess what's stopping people from seeing it is mainly motivated reasoning / being a "steakholder"...
you know I don't like general conceptions that create desires but have little practical application other than developing longings and expectations. You can argue for or against wokeness or any other sensibility to, how do I put it, end racism, or sexism; create a better world by treating people somehow better.
They reach people only as ideas we long for, but where do the ideas of what anyone thinks should be intersect with the accomplishment and become more than the development of a longing for the accomplishment of the conception?
And so, yes, birds of a feather, to do or not to do this or do or do not that to achieve lofty goals but leave people with hunger for the doing of they don't know what, but other than what is being done.
I would therefore entirely disagree. We know when something is harmful, denying a man working in the sun is harmful.
Abortion cannot be defined however as a good (right) or evil (wrong) because to deny an abortion can be harmful but to promote it recklessly as a valid alternative frequently leaves emotional scars on the woman who got the abortion or who didn't.
It other words righting wrongs can never really be accomplished unless one sees a wrong, a man in thirst, for instance, and let him have water;a man being lynched and cut him down.
For the rest we muddle through and one man's good is another man's evil.
But I can see harm (evil) and good would be acting to alleviate that harm; but when I can't see harm I end up creating harm by defining something as good and any good thus created can in turn cause harm.
For me, Kant presented the only viable ethic, and though he is often seen as a deontologist,but the duty Kant argues for is not what one must do to act in goodness, but an absolute to understand when harm is being done one mustn't do it. I would argue that one should act to prevent it; but the absolute good thing to do is actually absent in Kant's ethic, and he argues when should absolutely not do evil because any definition of what might be a good thing to do can at times be a bad thing to do; evil or harm-creation can be seen, it can be witnessed. Good cannot be witnessed but it can be experienced when one is not feeling harmed or threatened.
From this perspective good cannot be done only harmful works that create discomfort mentally or physically. Good and evil are subjective experiences and objectifying either leads to evil.
Thank you for this nice overview of 2 world-views that I have tried to make sense of. As a WEIRD technologist, artist, and grandmother, the use of words to express complex perspectives is challenging....and in a sense these distinctions seem to be about experiences at different levels of abstractions. From a perspective of how to improve the chances of Humanity for universal wellbeing and sustainable futures, it seems that the human organizational structures of the past...which are top-down, control-flow...need to be transitioning towards holistic structures that integrate top-down with bottom-up information flows..as in a holarchy...which has been used for as an information flow model for smart-grids and agile software methodology. These recognize that we're living in the midst of legacy-trauma due to colonialism, where a dominance hierarchal model eliminated world views and knowledge of indigenous cultures. With information technologies operating with extractive algorithms based on capitalism as an economic model, we can understand these patterns resonate across cultures that reflect differences between EA and woke perspectives. The use of tech to inform field of neuroscience, physics, with models of consciousness and human cognition,....can provide a path forward....Active inference models, when combined with frontier models of consciousness show that we're all vibrations....and that hidden trauma distorts our limited world models making us reactive and defensive. Research in psychedelics can show potential for healing from trauma where individuals nervous systems...that aligns with contemplative arts practices...so that we develop habits that align with compassion and expansive states of being. In order for humanity to transition through this paradigm shift from dominance hierarchies towards holarchies for organizing human systems.....complexity science shows that we need to appreciate the value of diverse perspectives recognizing that we all need to expand our world-models and that can be modeled with a metaphor of a thermodynamic shift ..... an avalanche of kindness......So, random acts are insufficient, intensional radical kindness means we recognize the dysfunctional decision-making of leaders who project violence, dominance, and accelerationism. Engineering emergence will require bottom-up collaboration networks that honor the dignity of living systems...using holistic models to insure integration of negative feedback to guide stability in the midst of radical change and uncertainty. Thank you....a thoughtful narrative of these ideas is necessary but not sufficient....so EA and Woke perspectives are both useful.
Tangentially related: One solution I found to the effective/utilitarian dilemma (not that I have anything of note to donate charitably but it still works in mental arithmetic) is that I see supporting local causes as essentially self-interested, so not part of the "moral charitable obligation". This allows me to volunteer for a local community group or bake for an event without feeling that I would be better trying to earn a little more money and donate that to the malaria foundation. The former becomes more like a social activity (with positive side effects) than a "giving".
I find woke a very useful reminder that many, many people care incredibly highly about fairness, sense of justice and emotional/social recognition. It's probably a human universal, and my caring substantially less than average is a defect more than an achievement I tend to think it is. The specific dimensions of fairness, justice and recognition are ... Annoying from my pov of middle aged, very poor, highly educated woman in a nearly fully white area of a rapidly fading post-imperial state, but at high level of abstraction, it's a useful call.
I won’t nitpick, as I understand this is something of a thought experiment, but I’d like to offer one criticism that I think you (and others) may find useful.
Quoting Sauer positively, “Wokeness is here to stay. For we cannot do without it…,” is a mistake.
Conservatives don’t own conservation, progressives don’t own progress, libertarians don’t own liberty, feminists don’t own equality, and wokeness sure as (insert your favorite expletive here) doesn’t own “freedom, equality, and human dignity.” There’s a peculiar fetish, particularly in academia, for naming things that don’t need to be named.
It seems like one could come up with a list of similarities for any two moral/political views. Eg comparing Islam and wokeness:
1. Both have special moralized vocabulary (halal, microaggression)
2. Both are evangelistic, trying to make everyone Muslim/anti-racist
3. Both care about justice (God’s justice or social justice)
But is there something further that we’re supposed to infer from the fact that there are similarities between these movements? Otherwise, I’m not sure I see the value in the exercise
My impression is that people dislike wokeness for similar reasons as they dislike effective altruism, and looking at their similarities may reveal something about human psychology. Moral progress that requires you to make an effort to change your own existing behaviors is uncomfortable, and we would rather just justify why our actions were always ok rather than entertain the change. I think this is also why we see a disproportionate amount of hate towards vegans, even if people admit they’re more moral (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324002829)
Come to think of it... why AREN'T you vegan yet, Professor Bloom? I recall a compelling exhortation to be rationally compassionate in a prior work of yours.
You pointed out my number one gripe with both of these movements, as well as with utilitarianism specifically: the absolutism, the attempt at being universal. (Sometimes this attempt is kind-of sort-of or implicit, and sometimes it's verbally demanded.)
The feeling that I get from Woke is that it is trying to literally legislate a morality that everyone is obligated to follow.
The feeling that I get with (some) utilitarians is that they're trying to come up with an actual formula for universal well-being. As if the sum total of well-being for all living creatures is a mere equation that, if we can just identify the correct variables, can be calculated.
I just find such attempts at absolutism and universality to be not only off-putting in their overzealousness, but so impractical as to be almost inherently a joke.
Religious doctrines, on the other hand (I'm not religious), for instance Christianity, offer an actual recipe for living a good life. Control what you can control, give where you can give, keep your own house clean. I find that redemption at the level of the individual actually does produce a tenable morality, whereas global, collective movements only attempt to.
In any case, very articulate and enjoyable read.
This is fantastically insightful, Dr. Bloom, and pretty even handed. (You are kinder to EAs than I am; e.g. https://www.mattball.org/2025/10/this-is-neither-rational-nor-objective.html)
Thank you for sharing this, even if (or especially because) it "attacks" people on your "side."
I see these tribes (and Vegans) as the modern-day monks and nuns. People turn to religion because the dogma gives them rules to follow, a purpose in life, and a community that validates them as superior. EA, Veganism, and Wokeness are, for many if not most, a religion; e.g., https://www.mattball.org/2023/11/biases-are-inherent-religion-seems.html
Yep this is mostly a proto religion and the need to feel superior via morality.
They choose that route because they are generally pretty bad at most useful things.
Like religious people I find them insufferable, shallow and stupid.
If they could keep to themselves in monasteries it would be great.
I think one important difference between the EA and the woke movement is their different meta-ethical views of the good. Specifically, the EA movement is consequentialist, whereas the woke are virtue ethicists. This is evident not only in the criticisms you provided that each movement poses to the other (which, while superficial, remind some of the criticisms one might find in moral philosophy), but also in their overarching worldview. EA believes that small change is better than no change, whereas the woke sees change as meaningless unless it is radical, and since the small changes that a person is capable of doing in the world are meaningless, the only way to live a moral life is by adhering to virtue regardless of consequences.
In this sense, criticising the woke movement for "virtue signaling" is as ridiculous as criticising EA for "consequence signaling" - it is not a front for something else, it's the whole point. The reason this is somewhat hidden is that while EA actively uses consequntialist language, the woke movement is much less coherent - it has less of a leadership, canon or philosophical backing. Moreover, since both movements are indeed a product of western secular liberal culture, the values they endorse are indeed quite similar - welfare, fairness, liberty etc. this makes you thing they have the same conception of the good, but on the meta-ethical level, they don't.
this is also the reason, I think they are often seen as extreme - most people don't even have a strong meta-ethical view one way or another. each movement demands a subscription to a rather robust form of meta-ethics, that most people feel uncomfortable with. it is easier to go through life without pesky meta-ethical questions that might be dowright unsolvable.
Always found EA's explicit universalism to be opposed to a more self-interested LW rationalism, as it clashes with game theoretic considerations and imo more coherent ethical frames. And such universalism to be quite woke. But I enjoy most EA's companionship, anyway (as they do mine). Also they've got a local meetup and do cool social events.
Woke to me also is just most German mainstream politics, which I despise but that's not a coherent social scene, anyways.
I feel like these kinds of conflicts and discussions are actually pretty timeless. People have been forming groups and arguing against opposite sectors for a few hundred years now, and each group has been presenting some good sides that we now believe are still useful today, as well as some "extreme" sides that we now discard as the limitations of the past.
Think of utilitarianism but to the point where one would even push the fat man off the bridge without a second of hesitation, versus deontology, but to the point where one would not touch the switch and kill off the five people just to be stay "clean" from the dilemma. I think as (hopefully) rational beings, all of us should be able to find things to learn from both philosophies without necessarily murdering the fat man with a smile or simply looking away as the trolley runs over the five people.
Even outside of game theory, historical clashes have always shown us their own takeaways and extremes (like nihilism versus existentialism, rationalism versus empiricism, deism versus humanism -- we can have a preference of one over another but there is always something we can take away from the other side of the argument). So I believe that clashes in the current world will be the same to our descendants, meaning that we should remember to understand why we sway towards a certain side, how far it would be the most helpful to ourselves and the world outside of ourselves, and what we can still learn from the other side.
Interesting take, especially the first point about 'extremes of Western values'.
But I'm not convinced there are enough relevant similarities to call wokeness and EA 'birds of a feather'. Here's why, going in reverse order through the listed similarities:
**Similarities 3 and 4: Both are unpopular and both are probably doing something right.**
Sure, those are similarities, but they are not profound similarities. I wouldn’t compare Nickelback and spam emails just because they are unpopular. Listing several superficial similarities doesn’t make them more similar in any relevant way.
If I wrote an article “Hitler and Stalin – birds of a feather” (and I assume similar articles or books have been written), you’d be very disappointed if my argument was based on both having six-character last names, three letters in common, and both having a prominent mustache.
**Similarity 2: Extreme moral demands**
The idea that doing no harm is not good enough is shared by many other groups. It’s not unique to wokeness and EA, but I agree it is central to both.
As I understand EA, it is not the same as Singer’s shallow pond thought experiment, arguing to donate every dollar beyond basic needs. I can be effective in my altruism without pushing to extremes. Of course, effective altruists encourage giving more, but the guy asking for donations for the local opera house is doing the same.
I might be wrong, but what I think EA is asking of you is this: if you give to charity, give it to an organization where it reduces as much suffering as possible.
The ideas of giving effectively and giving considerably more than the average person are often combined in EA discussions, but you don’t have to go to your limits with your donations to participate.
On the other hand, in woke circles you can face harsh criticism if you don’t support the most woke claims.
**Similarity 1: Wokeness and EA are extremes of Western values**
This point sounds the most interesting and relevant to me.
I agree that both movements build on Western values (interestingly, the woke might disagree with this) and push these ideas to a, for them, logical conclusion.
On the surface, both care about the “moral status of the weak”, but I would argue that this is where you find a fundamental difference between the two.
Wokeness: Membership in a currently or historically disadvantaged or exploited identity group leads to a special moral value. The woke might dispute this, but I think their behavior suggest it: if a woke person hears “Person A has stabbed person B” they have a mild adverse reaction, since this happens somewhere every day. When they later learn which identity groups these two individuals belong to, their reaction can drastically change, without any other new information about the incident, motive, or the individuals involved.
EA: Moral status is based on the capacity to suffer. An effective altruist doesn’t prioritize donating to a malaria prevention organization because it supports a group that is disadvantaged compared to white Americans. The child in Africa has the same moral value as the corporate lawyer in Boston. But a bed net reduces more suffering than a slightly softer cushion on an opera seat.
thanks for this insightful piece.
Genuinely curious: do you really think that the idea that "factory farming is akin to the holocaust" is a rather incredible idea, or are you just writing that for balance? :) (imho it may be offensive to jewish people, but it's not incredible at all)
You’re very welcome.
I’m on the fence here myself, but I do think (and this was the point of my example) that most normal people do find it an incredible idea, just as incredible as the woke claims that I listed.
right, i can see that. Though if the term holocaust or genocide isn't used, I guess what's stopping people from seeing it is mainly motivated reasoning / being a "steakholder"...
You might be interested in the conflict between "AI ethicists" (~woke) and "AI safetyists" (~EA/rat).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TESCREAL
you know I don't like general conceptions that create desires but have little practical application other than developing longings and expectations. You can argue for or against wokeness or any other sensibility to, how do I put it, end racism, or sexism; create a better world by treating people somehow better.
They reach people only as ideas we long for, but where do the ideas of what anyone thinks should be intersect with the accomplishment and become more than the development of a longing for the accomplishment of the conception?
And so, yes, birds of a feather, to do or not to do this or do or do not that to achieve lofty goals but leave people with hunger for the doing of they don't know what, but other than what is being done.
I would therefore entirely disagree. We know when something is harmful, denying a man working in the sun is harmful.
Abortion cannot be defined however as a good (right) or evil (wrong) because to deny an abortion can be harmful but to promote it recklessly as a valid alternative frequently leaves emotional scars on the woman who got the abortion or who didn't.
It other words righting wrongs can never really be accomplished unless one sees a wrong, a man in thirst, for instance, and let him have water;a man being lynched and cut him down.
For the rest we muddle through and one man's good is another man's evil.
But I can see harm (evil) and good would be acting to alleviate that harm; but when I can't see harm I end up creating harm by defining something as good and any good thus created can in turn cause harm.
For me, Kant presented the only viable ethic, and though he is often seen as a deontologist,but the duty Kant argues for is not what one must do to act in goodness, but an absolute to understand when harm is being done one mustn't do it. I would argue that one should act to prevent it; but the absolute good thing to do is actually absent in Kant's ethic, and he argues when should absolutely not do evil because any definition of what might be a good thing to do can at times be a bad thing to do; evil or harm-creation can be seen, it can be witnessed. Good cannot be witnessed but it can be experienced when one is not feeling harmed or threatened.
From this perspective good cannot be done only harmful works that create discomfort mentally or physically. Good and evil are subjective experiences and objectifying either leads to evil.
This was a really valuable comparison and analysis, thank you.
Thank you for this nice overview of 2 world-views that I have tried to make sense of. As a WEIRD technologist, artist, and grandmother, the use of words to express complex perspectives is challenging....and in a sense these distinctions seem to be about experiences at different levels of abstractions. From a perspective of how to improve the chances of Humanity for universal wellbeing and sustainable futures, it seems that the human organizational structures of the past...which are top-down, control-flow...need to be transitioning towards holistic structures that integrate top-down with bottom-up information flows..as in a holarchy...which has been used for as an information flow model for smart-grids and agile software methodology. These recognize that we're living in the midst of legacy-trauma due to colonialism, where a dominance hierarchal model eliminated world views and knowledge of indigenous cultures. With information technologies operating with extractive algorithms based on capitalism as an economic model, we can understand these patterns resonate across cultures that reflect differences between EA and woke perspectives. The use of tech to inform field of neuroscience, physics, with models of consciousness and human cognition,....can provide a path forward....Active inference models, when combined with frontier models of consciousness show that we're all vibrations....and that hidden trauma distorts our limited world models making us reactive and defensive. Research in psychedelics can show potential for healing from trauma where individuals nervous systems...that aligns with contemplative arts practices...so that we develop habits that align with compassion and expansive states of being. In order for humanity to transition through this paradigm shift from dominance hierarchies towards holarchies for organizing human systems.....complexity science shows that we need to appreciate the value of diverse perspectives recognizing that we all need to expand our world-models and that can be modeled with a metaphor of a thermodynamic shift ..... an avalanche of kindness......So, random acts are insufficient, intensional radical kindness means we recognize the dysfunctional decision-making of leaders who project violence, dominance, and accelerationism. Engineering emergence will require bottom-up collaboration networks that honor the dignity of living systems...using holistic models to insure integration of negative feedback to guide stability in the midst of radical change and uncertainty. Thank you....a thoughtful narrative of these ideas is necessary but not sufficient....so EA and Woke perspectives are both useful.
Tangentially related: One solution I found to the effective/utilitarian dilemma (not that I have anything of note to donate charitably but it still works in mental arithmetic) is that I see supporting local causes as essentially self-interested, so not part of the "moral charitable obligation". This allows me to volunteer for a local community group or bake for an event without feeling that I would be better trying to earn a little more money and donate that to the malaria foundation. The former becomes more like a social activity (with positive side effects) than a "giving".
I find woke a very useful reminder that many, many people care incredibly highly about fairness, sense of justice and emotional/social recognition. It's probably a human universal, and my caring substantially less than average is a defect more than an achievement I tend to think it is. The specific dimensions of fairness, justice and recognition are ... Annoying from my pov of middle aged, very poor, highly educated woman in a nearly fully white area of a rapidly fading post-imperial state, but at high level of abstraction, it's a useful call.
Meh. The woke are largely fraudulent. They don’t actually do anything other than virtue signal.
Pretty much. If they would act as much as they complain and try to scorn everyone, they could actually get shit done.
But of course the point is to gain power through image while not actually doing anything of value.
Those people are despicable actually, way more than religious who actually do some useful things sometimes.