This is written from the perspective of someone who doesn't have dependents.
I'm all about changing the world, but I also have an obligation to take care of my family, so my way of changing the world is working a traditional job, donating to charity from my earnings, and using my time/talent/treasure outside of work hours to make a difference.
The most efficient charity might be the expenditure of your taxes. I know this evokes a natural visceral reaction among many people, but my data point is that liberal democracies with bureaucratic governments seem to be better off in terms of overall human welfare, than countries that depend on private charity.
You're taking care of your family right now, and that's great, but ask yourself: could you take care of them better by building something that makes the World a better place for them to grow up into, and for their children? Or are you OK with the status quo?
So I'll ask you straight out: why is the choice you've made salary man or nothing? Why can't you get started with a side hustle, and then if it gets traction, you can quit your job and it becomes your main living?
One of the big barriers to this is a lot of investors seem to expect founders to work for nothing in the early years, which is a pretty privileged place to be: most people with dependents just can't do that, so I hear you.
But you don't need VCs. You don't need to live on noodles. You can build something that replaces your day job, you just need to figure it out.
I think a better solution than a side hustle, is to gather your friends or coworkers to propose to create, collectively, a worker owned co-op (of whatever idea seems profitable).
As it's being done collectively, there's more of a chance of it getting off the ground, as people could take turns working on it in their spare time instead of a side-hustle dominating your time.
Once it's established, those people could then quit their job and work at the coop.
There are credit unions that could help with startup costs, as well as guides on how to structure it based on other successful coops.
Working full time for someone and doing a side hustle is hard, from experience.
What I’ve found is that trying to do the side hustle takes away from a lot time spent with your dependants, which you will never get back, unless you are lucky enough to “make the break”
Not impossible, and you’ve got to try and find a balance. But it just may never happen.
> Now, you might be thinking: that’s all well and good, but I’ve got a full-time job, two kids and a mortgage. I’m happy to recycle and eat some tofu now and then, but a “fundamental transformation”? No thanks.
In that case, moral ambition may not be for you. I mean, once you have a labradoodle, a set of cheese knives or a robot mower, there’s generally no going back
Did you have parents who looked after you when you were a child? Did they try to provide a reasonable standard of living for you? If so, do you wish that they hadn't done so?
I'm not immune to this kind of comment myself, but what is it about the comment section on this website that brings out these kinds of toxic comments? Like, this is just a cynical attack on anyone who succeeds in having a modestly comfortable life. What's the point? People don't like it when this website is compared to Reddit but honestly it's worse. You people are just mean.
In fact, I'd argue that taking care of your family _is_ a morally right and meaningful way of contributing to the world.
There's a reason traditional Christian ethical frameworks often prioritize responsibilities in layers: first to God (or core principles), then to family, then to the neighbor (broader community).
It's the children of the billionaires that will inherit the world. Your children will only get to rent it from them. Any inheritance you hope to leave them will be spent paying for your retirement and end-of-life care.
> Now, you might be thinking: that’s all well and good, but I’ve got a full-time job, two kids and a mortgage. I’m happy to recycle and eat some tofu now and then, but a “fundamental transformation”? No thanks.
In that case, moral ambition may not be for you. I mean, once you have a labradoodle, a set of cheese knives or a robot mower, there’s generally no going back. But if that’s irritating to hear – and I imagine it might be – then by all means, prove me wrong. I have learned that there are always exceptions, and I want to show that you can be that exception. It’s never too late to step up.
So what is the difference between moral ambition and hubris?
To me limiting oneself to “idealistic but not ambitious” with a focus on fulfilling relationships and positive impact on family, friends, and local community seems like a good way to go.
“To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good, or else that it's a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions...
Ideology—that is what gives the evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
It's discussions like these that make romanticizing our non-agrarian ancestors so easy.
Before the agricultural and industrial revolutions and our correct system of highly specialized labor, it feels as though everyone just hung out together, having a good time, and doing what was needed to feed the tribe. Minus the disease and war, of course.
There wasn't this need for an existential discussion about this job or that job, or whether you're lifestyle was morally justified.
There weren't power structures that existed on a scale larger than a single community, invisibly guiding everyone's lives in ways they couldn't control.
One theory about the Jacob and Esau story is that it's about a hunter gatherer (Esau) surrendering political power to a farmer (Jacob) because the farmer has much more reliable access to protein than the hunter, meaning that sooner or later, he can gain the upper hand in a negotiation with someone who's otherwise starving.
You might not ascribe value to this type of biblical 'economic history'. But the theory has explanatory power - if it wasn't for food shortages, why would our ancestors have given up 'hanging out together and having a good time' to embrace the toil of hoeing and herding?
This statement is subject to inverse survivor bias, gatherers and pastoral societies tended to not run out, they tended to move instead.
Agriculture based early societies tended to run out or get decimated by plagues, thus leaving concentrated evidence of their passing.
However due to the one way early ones are tracked by looking at stable settlements, the evidence is stacked against the nomadic ones. While what they often had is meeting places rather than residences. What we find is megaliths, but not the settled cities to support their building.
If you move and properly do not leave much behind, there will be no evidence left.m, especially after centuries, sometimes even years.
> There weren't power structures that existed on a scale larger than a single community, invisibly guiding everyone's lives in ways they couldn't control.
Eurocentric and thus wrong.
There were multiple societies that has structures of federation and collective government. It's just Europe that did not at the time.
Then you get to join the 99% of the rest of humanity that views work as something necessary to enable the things they enjoy and find purpose in when they're not working.
Finding purpose, fulfillment or joy in your work is nice, but as you grow as a human, or as the field you're in changes, or as the work dries up... well, you're left thoroughly adrift.
I work in education, a field famous for attracting people based on their own willingness to do good work for good reasons.
And at the end of the day, a job is a job. I do it because it allows me to live a lifestyle close to what I want, while not being soul crushingly boring most of the time.
I came to terms with the fact that I'm not going to change the world. The best I can do is not fuck it up anymore than when I got here. That's about as good as most of us can expect, since most of us are average in many aspects. Without stunning amounts of genius or resources, I think that hoping just to fade into obscurity is the best you can do, really.
I feel this. I do think though, he mentions that this is the exact trap that is laid down for you when you enter society. You’re led to believe resources/genius is what separates do’ers, but I think he wants us to believe in the blind faith doing = progress. The other is option is doing nothing at all and succumbing to obscurity like you’re saying.
Great read! I didn’t know about Clarkson at all. I know the article talks about all the evils in the world to choose to battle, I will say though as 21 year old it’s easier to be outraged rather than do something. The third category he mentions is what most of the world has become. One thing I did take away is belief in the power to change things is the basic requirement behind moral ambition. Something I intend to work on myself.
It goes to show that the common system of employment, in which we spend our time toward the purposes and meanings of others, tends to provide no purpose or meaning for ourselves.
>It goes to show that the common system of employment, in which we spend our time toward the purposes and meanings of others, tends to provide no purpose or meaning for ourselves.
Work certainly provides meaning, you'll notice this when you can't find work for a while, ie. involuntarily unemployed. Also, you have to find deeper meaning outside of work: church, social clubs, raising kids, taking care of elderly parents, volunteering, etc. Getting paid to do moral work is rarely a thing and somewhat defeats the purpose.
I think the author is confused about just how few jobs provide value to society. Individuals can pivot and take more meaningful positions, but this isn't possible en masse. Even if everyone were will to make bigger sacrifices, there just are not actually that many available jobs that are beneficial.
Yes, there aren't many jobs where you get to change the World. Go make your own, where you actually do.
Why are we all here, on this specific site, if we're not interested in building something ambitious and shaped on our own ideals of what we think the World needs? We might not be right, but it's each of ours, individually.
The people playing this game and winning at the moment are ambitious, but morally... I think we're starting to have some questions about their big ideas, more recently... and so you have the option: go do something to change the game and take the attention away from them.
Big changes come from small ones. If you don't like the status quo, figure out how to change it by building something better. And yes, it's hard, but you don't need to solve the whole thing, particularly when getting started, just a small corner of it.
Agreed. I don't exclude the possibility of large scale changes in society, but until that day, maybe 20% of people who need to work to eat and pay bills can do genuinely valuable work.
I'm sure many of the other 80% would like to do something more positive. Should we really be trying to start a culture war between the two groups, rather than acknowledge that the system isn't great for anyone?
Readit News
I'm all about changing the world, but I also have an obligation to take care of my family, so my way of changing the world is working a traditional job, donating to charity from my earnings, and using my time/talent/treasure outside of work hours to make a difference.
So I'll ask you straight out: why is the choice you've made salary man or nothing? Why can't you get started with a side hustle, and then if it gets traction, you can quit your job and it becomes your main living?
One of the big barriers to this is a lot of investors seem to expect founders to work for nothing in the early years, which is a pretty privileged place to be: most people with dependents just can't do that, so I hear you.
But you don't need VCs. You don't need to live on noodles. You can build something that replaces your day job, you just need to figure it out.
As it's being done collectively, there's more of a chance of it getting off the ground, as people could take turns working on it in their spare time instead of a side-hustle dominating your time.
Once it's established, those people could then quit their job and work at the coop.
There are credit unions that could help with startup costs, as well as guides on how to structure it based on other successful coops.
Working full time for someone and doing a side hustle is hard, from experience.
What I’ve found is that trying to do the side hustle takes away from a lot time spent with your dependants, which you will never get back, unless you are lucky enough to “make the break”
Not impossible, and you’ve got to try and find a balance. But it just may never happen.
If all you optimize for is the well-being of your family, your efforts should go into amassing wealth, not changing the world.
According to Wikipedia, the author has dependents.
"Bregman is married to Maartje ter Horst, a photographer.^[43]^[44] They reside in Brooklyn as of 2025 and have a child together.^[45]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutger_Bregman
(Attention Wikipedia editors: Unless I missed something, reference #45 appears to make no mention of Bregman's family.)
In that case, moral ambition may not be for you. I mean, once you have a labradoodle, a set of cheese knives or a robot mower, there’s generally no going back
In fact, I'd argue that taking care of your family _is_ a morally right and meaningful way of contributing to the world.
There's a reason traditional Christian ethical frameworks often prioritize responsibilities in layers: first to God (or core principles), then to family, then to the neighbor (broader community).
The author speaks to this directly:
> Now, you might be thinking: that’s all well and good, but I’ve got a full-time job, two kids and a mortgage. I’m happy to recycle and eat some tofu now and then, but a “fundamental transformation”? No thanks.
In that case, moral ambition may not be for you. I mean, once you have a labradoodle, a set of cheese knives or a robot mower, there’s generally no going back. But if that’s irritating to hear – and I imagine it might be – then by all means, prove me wrong. I have learned that there are always exceptions, and I want to show that you can be that exception. It’s never too late to step up.
To me limiting oneself to “idealistic but not ambitious” with a focus on fulfilling relationships and positive impact on family, friends, and local community seems like a good way to go.
“To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good, or else that it's a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions... Ideology—that is what gives the evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
He’s an author and journalist, not a doer of any kind as far as I can tell from his bio.
Before the agricultural and industrial revolutions and our correct system of highly specialized labor, it feels as though everyone just hung out together, having a good time, and doing what was needed to feed the tribe. Minus the disease and war, of course.
There wasn't this need for an existential discussion about this job or that job, or whether you're lifestyle was morally justified.
There weren't power structures that existed on a scale larger than a single community, invisibly guiding everyone's lives in ways they couldn't control.
One theory about the Jacob and Esau story is that it's about a hunter gatherer (Esau) surrendering political power to a farmer (Jacob) because the farmer has much more reliable access to protein than the hunter, meaning that sooner or later, he can gain the upper hand in a negotiation with someone who's otherwise starving.
You might not ascribe value to this type of biblical 'economic history'. But the theory has explanatory power - if it wasn't for food shortages, why would our ancestors have given up 'hanging out together and having a good time' to embrace the toil of hoeing and herding?
This statement is subject to inverse survivor bias, gatherers and pastoral societies tended to not run out, they tended to move instead. Agriculture based early societies tended to run out or get decimated by plagues, thus leaving concentrated evidence of their passing.
However due to the one way early ones are tracked by looking at stable settlements, the evidence is stacked against the nomadic ones. While what they often had is meeting places rather than residences. What we find is megaliths, but not the settled cities to support their building.
If you move and properly do not leave much behind, there will be no evidence left.m, especially after centuries, sometimes even years.
Eurocentric and thus wrong.
There were multiple societies that has structures of federation and collective government. It's just Europe that did not at the time.
Eventually you're going to find nothing but lots of loose collections of a hundred to a few thousand people.
I'm not sure why you're saying this. It's a similar story in most prehistoric societies, from Polynesia, to North America, to Europe.What if the work itself isn't "the most important" thing in the person's life?
Finding purpose, fulfillment or joy in your work is nice, but as you grow as a human, or as the field you're in changes, or as the work dries up... well, you're left thoroughly adrift.
And at the end of the day, a job is a job. I do it because it allows me to live a lifestyle close to what I want, while not being soul crushingly boring most of the time.
I came to terms with the fact that I'm not going to change the world. The best I can do is not fuck it up anymore than when I got here. That's about as good as most of us can expect, since most of us are average in many aspects. Without stunning amounts of genius or resources, I think that hoping just to fade into obscurity is the best you can do, really.
Deleted Comment
Do yourself a favour and actually read the article this time.
It is very convincing for me personally, and it's got me considering making some big changes.
Deleted Comment
Work certainly provides meaning, you'll notice this when you can't find work for a while, ie. involuntarily unemployed. Also, you have to find deeper meaning outside of work: church, social clubs, raising kids, taking care of elderly parents, volunteering, etc. Getting paid to do moral work is rarely a thing and somewhat defeats the purpose.
Why are we all here, on this specific site, if we're not interested in building something ambitious and shaped on our own ideals of what we think the World needs? We might not be right, but it's each of ours, individually.
The people playing this game and winning at the moment are ambitious, but morally... I think we're starting to have some questions about their big ideas, more recently... and so you have the option: go do something to change the game and take the attention away from them.
Big changes come from small ones. If you don't like the status quo, figure out how to change it by building something better. And yes, it's hard, but you don't need to solve the whole thing, particularly when getting started, just a small corner of it.
I'm sure many of the other 80% would like to do something more positive. Should we really be trying to start a culture war between the two groups, rather than acknowledge that the system isn't great for anyone?
Deleted Comment