Definitions/Collapsing Binaries

My second proposition, altruistic self-interest—ASI, is essentially a governance principle imbued with moral pragmatism, and one that has political philosophical implications. It attempts to bridge the apparent contradiction of altruism and self-interest. That if we collapse the received binary distinction between the two, we produce something that can provide methodological purchase for the prospect of governance in the age of AI. The short concise definition of ASI is: It is in one’s best self-interest to altruistically regard the self-interests of others. From that we can expand to this: The Principle of Altruistic Self-Interest can be defined as the fundamental belief that the most effective way to serve one’s own self-interest is by altruistically considering and serving the interests of others. It acknowledges the interdependence of individuals in society and across cultures to affirm that thought and action that promotes the well-being of others ultimately leads to better outcomes for the individual as well.

A definition emphasizing a focus on reciprocity, that conveys the collapsed binary opposition between self-interest and altruism well. That is, if self-interest is understood from the outset as something confined to an isolated individual, then altruism towards others appears to be a generous, yet an unnecessary departure from those interests—something given away, something sacrificed. But the self-interested individual is already living amongst others, already dependent and interpellated into an environment of relationships, that can either secure or compromise those interests. Therefore the wellbeing of others enters into the effective pragmatic calculation regarding the sovereign constitution of one’s own wellbeing. ASI gives us a way to think through that interdependence. It is descriptive in drawing attention-outlining the mutual relationships through which our fundamental self-interests take shape, and prescriptive in directing us to altruistically regard the interests of others in order to produce a coherent means of establishing the possession of those fundamental self-interests. Any economic or governmental system that can foster this stringent reciprocity— to include as many interdependent nations of individuals as possible—will benefit from the security and prosperity of this morally logical arrangement.

Monotheism & Morally Constituted Subjects

Communication theorists should be impressed, as I’ve been myself, with the informational success, with the textual performativity of the core tenets of monotheism: their capacity to reproduce themselves. With what, in colloquial terms, is referred to as the spreading of the faith. A message transmitted, received, inhabited then passed on; one through which individuals come to understand themselves as participants in a shared moral world. What’s also remarkable is that amongst this process of defining cultural identity through the production and transmission of biblical texts, we can discern a psychological and cultural mechanism capable of consolidating this activity as a governance process. One that must have felt revelatory; one whose implications for the individual, and for the community of individuals, could readily be experienced as divinely inspired. One also made to share, and what I’m identifying here as the principle of altruistic self-interest—ASI. That from this agnostic theological perspective, can either be regarded as a correlate, or an extension of that faith commitment.

In the abstract, the content for the self that is of self-interest is the possession of morally constituted subjectivity. The understanding of oneself as a moral subject: someone whose conduct matters, whose life possesses significance, and whose capacity to regard others is part of what makes that life meaningful. It’s yours; and it’s free. And in its DNA is the very repeatable message: it’s in your best self-interest to altruistically consider the self-interests of others, especially where those interests involve the recognition of humanities evolving capacity to benefit from morally reasoning subjects. There is something consequential about this formulation: The status I come to value in myself, that I possess, becomes a status I have reason to recognize in you. In recognizing it in you, I participate in reproducing the moral world in which that status can be possessed by us both, we become connected as possessive individuals. The principle carries within it an invitation, as with the operational virtue of faith, to extend the conditions of its own possibility. In the vernacular of our increasingly digital lives, this has something of the character of an original viral concept. As a revelation fueling-propelling morally constituted subjectivity, it continues to orbit our planet like a gravity-defying satellite beeping out its message; the expansive capacity of its consummate promise patiently waiting for further-fuller occupation.

ASI As Agnostic Theology

Morally, of course, we can say that the stipulated contractual aspects of the covenants with God, together with the received sense of divinity through which those covenants continue to be experienced, have considerable bearing here. But what surely also motivates those of faith in the past, and to the present day, is the desire to spread the word, to communicate. That is, it’s in the best interests of those of faith to think altruistically about the self-interests of others in this regard. This is circular until you appreciate that what’s being offered is the security and trust of an unquestionably good place. That not only is there safety in numbers, but there’s also a personal existential security being offered. From what ultimately still presents as an indeterminate-unfathomable existence; whose only fixed determination—for now—is that it will end. What monotheism embodies is a communication that offers control, therefore it’s functionally adaptive, useful as well as spiritually uplifting. Its significance for governance offers a complete ecology for existence that cannot be reductively psychologized away. An answer, to what was even way-back-then, the well-established perennial problem of who was, or who should be, or what was the best way of controlling, guiding, steering, and so ultimately governing, human affairs.

From my own agnostic perspective, what personally spiritually resonates regarding the advent of the monotheistic Godhead, is that the gift of this sophisticated psycho-social formulation, regardless of its epistemological derivation—which in its profound totality is beyond my current capacity to fully grasp—should present as such a brilliant idea. If you’re interested in governance at all, then what there’s to learn from the example of monotheism is clearly obviously apparent. What thus far I’ve garnered is that in terms of the prospect for governance in the age of AI, exactly what values—and necessarily what species wide neutral ones that can be endorsed and delivered by AI—as it transposes into AGI and beyond, are potentially those in which we’ve already historically invested with a certain moral pragmatism. The principle of ASI developed here can be viewed as either a secular corelate to the moral pragmatism of monotheism, or indeed an extension of it. Pragmatism of some universal application, that I argue has political philosophical implications and purchase with regards to the status of the sovereign biological individual. Which I wish to further argue, substantively occupies our governance nomos, providing methodological purpose for steering governance with, and within the context of, advance AI.

Simply put, ASI states that our own self-interests are best served by altruistically considering the self-interests of others. A seemingly obvious, yet precise principle of governance, formulated to cultivate the moral and logical virtue of cooperative networks. To deliberately offset the competitive, deleterious consequences of zero-sum game dynamics that currently beset global governance relations. That there’s now a pressing case for mobilizing the moral pragmatism of ASI at the advent of emergent AI. An opportunity—and this is the political philosophical consequence of significance—that of necessity we need to take to secure the developmental status and security of the sovereign biological individual-SBI. ASI as the nomos of cybernomos, names the law, order, or governing principle by which the cybernetic processes of communication and control—must—be directed. There was the world that existed prior to the advent of AI. Then the world after it; in this world humanity needs to adapt to the porous ubiquitous reality of computational intelligence, or face the consequences.