
How your personal moral compass helps you build a better world | SJ Beard
The Existential Hope PodcastShow Notes
To make the future go well, we might not need a perfect model for its end state, or an abstract philosophical theory to guide us. Can your own sense of “the right thing to do” actually help make the world better? In this episode we talk with SJ Beard, researcher at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, and author of the book “Existential Hope”. Some of the topics we discuss: How to shift our focus from "preventing the end of the world" to actively building a future worth living. Why aiming for a “happy ever after” state of the world might be dangerous, and why improving the world one generation at a time is less likely to backfire. Relying on our own sense of “the right thing to do” as a practical guide to make the world better. Why decisions about AI and global risk need input from a broad mix of people and their real-world experiences, not just experts at the top. Why building AI with compassion and curiosity about human values may be safer than giving it a rigid list of rules to follow.
Timestamps: [01:31] SJ’s background in philosophy and existential risk [02:02] Why write a book on existential hope? [04:43] Defining existential hope, and its relationship with existential risks and existential anxiety [11:09] Human agency without the guilt [13:59] Why there are no truly "natural" disasters [16:49] Why we shouldn’t try to build a perfect utopia [19:05] Protopia: is iterative improvement enough? [22:19] Defining progress: what does it mean to "get better"? [26:13] Protopia vs. viatopia: setting goals and achieving a great future [29:48] Existential safety as a collective project [35:06] Using participatory tools to make global decisions [36:32] Making existential hope reasonably demanding [40:06] Can we achieve systemic change in a tech-focused world? [46:00] Concrete socio-technical projects for AI safety [49:02] Aligning AI by building its character [51:45] The importance of history in building a good future [54:24] Key 17th-century ideas that are shaping modern society [58:20] Cultivating "humanity as a virtue" [01:04:37] Lessons from nuclear near-misses: the example of Petrov [01:09:20] The trade-offs of a humanistic, bottom-up approach to decision-making [01:12:16] Literacy vs. orality: how ideas become simplified [01:16:45] Meme culture and the transmission of deep context [01:18:48] How writing the book changed SJ’s mind [01:21:38] SJ Beard’s vision for existential hope On the Existential Hope Podcast hosts Allison Duettmann and Beatrice Erkers from the Foresight Institute invite scientists, founders, and philosophers for in-depth conversations on positive, high-tech futures.
Full transcript, listed resources, and more: https://www.existentialhope.com/podcasts
Follow on X. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
More from The Existential Hope Podcast
We see elections as the foundation of our democracy, but Aristotle thought they create an oligarchy. In ancient Athens, democracy worked by choosing leaders among ordinary citizens by lottery. How could we revive this idea to improve today’s democratic systems?
For 50,000 of generations, humans have passed civilization down to their children. We could be the first generation to hand its future to AIs instead. Should we? Or could the best AI be the kind that chooses to step back and leave some things to us?
Google DeepMind has a 7-hour-long roleplaying game that helps real scientists and policy makers understand how AI will transform science by 2030. And those who played it have found it more informative than any policy brief.
In 2024, Taiwan was flooded with deepfake scam ads. Instead of a crackdown, the government texted 200,000 random citizens: what should we do? People’s proposals became law within months, and by 2025 deepfake ads were down 94%.
There are AIs running labs with little human intervention right now. And they’re doing experiments that human experts would never try. Is this changing what and how science gets done?