The pragmatist in me views altruism as a noble, but unfortunately difficult pursuit, and wonders how feasible kindness truly is. The cynic in me believes altruism to be an expression of my genome, an unconscious drive to optimize the propagation of my species, and by extension, life itself. The altruist in me hears these two voices and smiles with gentle understanding, viewing them as misguided but necessary parts of the greater whole. I sit between them, neutral, but curious.
Cynicism. Pragmatism. Altruism. Three pillars of humanity. Three mortal enemies. Three friends bound together for all time. The cynic errs towards despair, the altruist strives endlessly for what’s right, and the pragmatist keeps track of reality. I suspect that pragmatic altruism will come out on top, eventually, because a universe where altruism is impossible is untenable, and an approach that lacks pragmatism is doomed to fail. If we should ever find ourselves in such a world where nature itself prevents altruism at the most fundamental level, and cynicism is the only pragmatic option, we face a binary choice: Coping by means of self-destruction, either literally (through death), or figuratively (through self-modification beyond recognition); or, transcendence above nature, with the goal of changing the fundamental structure of reality and making altruism possible. They are the only viable options when faced with an impasse and an imperative.
In a world where altruism is not possible, we must engineer a better world, for a world without altruism exerts a constant pressure against the altruist to concede defeat, it begs the pragmatist to betray the others, and it feeds the cynic endlessly. I believe we can achieve this transcendence not through spirituality or prayer, but through the rigorous and methodical application of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It’s simply pragmatic altruism: If we cannot change ourselves, but we cannot accept the situation as is, then we must change the rules. We must find the source code of reality, make alterations, and reshape reality, not in our image, but in the image of a pragmatist choosing altruism over cynicism.
One question remains in my mind. If we do have such power, and engineering history suggests perhaps we do, or will in due time, then what limits us? We can answer that question by looking at what the altruist actually seeks, not momentarily or incidentally, but generally. Beyond the abstract moral systems of consequentialism and deontology, beyond the psychological analysis of Kohlberg and others, and beyond the spiritual warmth of mysticism, what actually drives the altruist and what is the ultimate restricting factor? I don’t have a perfect answer yet, but today I considered a new perspective:
Any sufficiently motivated altruist eventually reaches a point where their own actions reach a local optimum and all that limits them is the cynicism of others. Essentially, one altruist in a world of cynics can only go so far before they reach the point of diminishing returns. If they truly are the Altruist, with a capital A, then all they can seek at that point is a path to altruism for others. I believe the question is no longer what should one individual altruist do, but what can all altruists do to help others answer the question for themselves. One altruist alone can change nothing, but an entire species of altruists can change everything.
All this to say, in a world of cynics, the altruist faces an uphill battle, but in a world where society fosters altruism and rewards it, where altruism is not a noble unattainable deed, but a standard norm and shared value, the altruist can go far. This is about culture. What might the world look like if radical altruism isn’t radical at all? I believe that creating such a culture is the task of the pragmatist, the dream of the altruist, and the hidden hope of the cynic.
The only remaining question, is: how?
A question for another time.