I Think Rutger Bregman and the School for Moral Ambition Are Full of Shit

The basic message is sound. Bregman himself seems a bit more confused than the (moral) clarity he attempts to project. This is fine.

Interesting that the guy who rightly criticizes billionaires for not paying their fair share of taxes thinks those same billionaires are going to use AI for maximizing the common good. Already there is much evidence that they are not.

> AI will create an utopia where people can actually work less hours

well if you're unemployed, how many hours are you working

When I look at society, I always think that the term 'moral' is used when you have nothing particularly superior to the other person.

After reading the entire article, I agree with the criticisms about Bill Gates funding, receiving large sums of money from Trump supporters, and the organization becoming increasingly elitist.

However, linking AI skepticism with climate change denial is a false equivalence. I'm positive about AI, but I'm also positive about the reality of the climate crisis. Anyway, the article went off track in the middle, but here's my take:

At the core of these social gatherings and moral consciousness, it usually becomes about elitism and networking for elite students who lack connections. I tend to agree with the author's concerns.

Seeing this makes me think about how criticism of the mainstream generally goes as follows:

People usually invoke 'morality' and, in order to raise their own name recognition and reputation, they look for counter-arguments based on morality—safe points of criticism. Issues like 'taxing billionaires' sound very attractive and revolutionary when declaimed at places like Davos, but in reality, they are extremely safe agendas that don't harm the speaker at all. Truly dangerous criticism is strongest when it comes from within one's own world. Bregman's logic is the typical kind that avoids extreme, raw truths, says 'the macro system is the problem,' and lands safely. Bregman simply finds refined answers that the public will like, without threatening his own privileges (fame, network).

Morality is pure. And it is good. But it is also the most convenient way to secure one's own superiority in social competition.

'I have produced something great' can be proven because it's visible right away, but saying 'I am more righteous' is difficult to prove—it cannot be proven.

I'm not saying that moral consciousness is the problem. It's just that morality often becomes the language of status competition.

But is that bad? It's not bad. Everyone desires fame, everyone is driven by greed. The problem is just that her fault is that her hypocrisy was exposed too quickly.

It is the incompetence that got caught before symbolic capital could be converted into real power—that is what makes the author angry.

Bill Gates' money? You can take it. Getting caught with crypto billionaires and the elite reproduction system? That can happen. The real problem is getting caught while selling public lectures and books. If you're going to deceive, you need to be thorough about it.