This essay is part of The Blueprint, a series exploring what contribution looks like in practice. It builds on The Default is Contribution, which argued that moral responsibility is the foundation (Part 1), contribution is architecture (Part 2), and the purpose of productivity gains is human flourishing (Part 3).
In the early 1990s, ornithologists at Keoladeo National Park in Rajasthan noticed that the vultures were disappearing. Not gradually. Catastrophically. Breeding colonies that had darkened the sky were thinning to nothing.
This is Part 3 of a three-part series. Part 1: The Forgotten Book established that moral responsibility is the foundation, not the add-on. Part 2: The Reset explored what changes when contribution becomes architecture.
There is a prediction that haunts the AI debate, though most people making the debate have never read it.
In 1930, John Maynard Keynes published a short essay called Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren. In it, he made a startling claim: within a hundred years — by 2030 — the economic problem would be solved.
This is Part 2 of a three-part series. Part 1: The Forgotten Book established that moral responsibility is the foundation, not the add-on. Part 3: The Question of Time asks what we do with the hours machines give back.
In Part 1, I argued that “Tech for Good” is a philosophical error — that Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments established contribution as the default, not a department. The impartial spectator cannot be outsourced.
This is Part 1 of a three-part series. Part 2: The Reset explores what changes when contribution becomes architecture. Part 3: The Question of Time asks what we do with the hours machines give back.
There is a phrase that has always bothered me: “Tech for Good.”
It sounds noble. It appears on conference agendas and in corporate mission statements, usually next to a photograph of someone holding a tablet in a field.
