I Believe

About I Believe

Philosophy from the American Experiment | A Spotify Rising Star Podcast joelkdouglas.substack.com (https://joelkdouglas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Joel K. Douglas

Category

government · society & culture

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

11 Sept 2023

Latest episode

7 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

154 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   7 Oct 2026

   Poverty, Work, and Dependency

   Beautiful October day. I’m walking in the park for some exercise. The leaves on some of the trees have turned yellow, with small flashes of red. There’s a maple tree that has turned maybe a dark burgundy. Blue skies, white clouds, green grass. The park has quite a few people today. There’s an older guy and a younger guy tossing a football, maybe father and son. And there’s a white butterfly floating across the green grass. My brain doesn’t turn off very easily. I’m exceptionally bad at small talk. Put me at a party with someone I don’t know, and I’m probably not very good at talking about nothing. Maybe these two things are related. Because here I am, walking through a park on a beautiful October afternoon, and what I’m thinking about is immediate need and permanent dependency. It’s a question that sounds simple until you start pulling on it: if part of my taxes goes to feed people, house people, provide medical care, or otherwise support people who need help, does any of that count toward our Christian obligation to give? This is not a question about Christianity as a whole, and it is not an attempt to define what every Christian should believe about government. It is a question about America. You can argue that America is not a Christian nation and still advocate strongly for public assistance to people in need. Or you could argue that the bedrock and basis of America’s Constitution and law is in Christian theology. Either way, here’s the question. If we use public money to help people in need, should the design of that help reflect the moral logic Christians see in Scripture? I do not know the answer. I am not the Almighty, and I’m not going to pretend that I can settle a theological question Christians have argued about for generations. But I think the question becomes more interesting when we stop asking only whether taxes count as a tithe and ask instead what a tithe, or Christian giving more broadly, is supposed to achieve. The biblical idea of giving was never simply to, “Take ten percent of your income and put it in an envelope for your local church.” In ancient Israel, tithes supported the religious community, including the Levites, but they also helped support widows, orphans, foreigners, and others who were vulnerable. That makes the modern situation complicated. Today, the government performs some of those functions. We pay taxes, and a portion of that money goes toward food assistance, housing assistance, medical care, disability programs, and other forms of public support. So maybe the question isn’t whether government should provide that assistance. If government is using our taxes to provide some of the same kinds of help Christians are commanded to provide, should that assistance follow the same moral logic? And that brings me to two stories. Consider the feeding of the five thousand. Whatever else that story means theologically, there is an extraordinarily simple act in the middle of it. People are hungry, and Jesus feeds them. He doesn’t stop to ask whether they made good choices. He doesn’t set up a job-training program before allowing them to eat. There is an immediate human need, and he meets it. Sometimes compassion is that simple. Someone is hungry tonight—feed them. Someone has nowhere to sleep—give them somewhere safe to sleep. Someone is sick—treat them. Immediate suffering creates an immediate obligation. But there is another category of stories in the Gospels. Jesus heals the blind. He heals the lame. He restores people who had been physically excluded from ordinary life. These people were restored to participation in society. They could move through their communities, support their lives where possible, participate in family and economic life, and become less dependent on others. And they could work. Possibly the most important way to participate in society and be independent, to eat your bread as a result of the sweat of your effort. So those stories suggest a second principle of compassion: meet the immediate need when the need is immediate, but when restoration is possible, structure the help toward restored capacity rather than unnecessary permanent dependency. That gives us a standard by which we can begin judging assistance itself. Does it function as a bridge through a period of need? Does it restore a person’s capacity to function and support his own life, where possible? Or does the system gradually become a permanent structure of dependency? And that question doesn’t apply only to the person receiving assistance. It can apply to businesses, too. If taxpayers repeatedly make up the difference between what a worker earns and what that worker needs to live, then assistance may be helping the worker survive, but it may also be allowing an employer to build that subsidy permanently into its labor model. So both sides become dependent on the system. But there is another side to this. Reducing dependency cannot simply mean reducing assistance. If someone is working and still cannot support a reasonable life, cutting aid does not restore independence. It simply recreates the immediate need. If the goal is restoration, reform has to work from both directions. Assistance should be structured so that people can move out of dependency. But our economy also has to make it possible for someone who works to actually make that move. Otherwise, we are not building a bridge out of poverty. We are pulling the bridge away while someone is still standing on it. So. Have we built a system that needs poverty to justify itself? And if that system perpetuates long-term dependency, then as Christians, shouldn’t we push to reform it so that it better aligns with the logic of the Almighty—meet the immediate need, restore the person where possible, avoid creating dependency, and build an economy in which that restoration can last? And maybe there is some humility required here, too. We have a tendency to believe that, with enough policy and expertise we can design a system better than the moral order we inherited. But we are not wiser than that moral order. It’s hilarious that we think otherwise, but the Almighty will not be mocked. A system that abandons people in genuine need will create resistance, because leaving suffering unanswered violates something deeply rooted in us. And a system that turns temporary help into permanent dependency will create resistance, too, because dependency is not restoration. Maybe the mistake is thinking we have to choose between compassion and independence. Can we build an American system that respects both? Sources Biblical tithing and support for Levites, foreigners, orphans, and widows: Deuteronomy 14:22–29 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+14%3A22-29&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com); Numbers 18:21–24 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+18%3A21-24&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) Christian obligation to feed, shelter, and care for those in need: Matthew 25:35–40 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:35-40&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT+25%3A35-40&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) Jesus feeding the five thousand and meeting an immediate need: Matthew 14:13–21 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14:13-21&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) Jesus healing and restoring people to ordinary life and community: Matthew 11:2–6 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A2-6&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com); John 9 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) Work, independence, and providing for those in need: Genesis 3:19 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3:19&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com); 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+4:11-12&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+4%3A11-12&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com); Ephesians 4:28 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4:28&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph+4%3A28&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) Work, provision, and eating by the labor of one’s own effort: Genesis 3:19 — Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3:19&version=NIV&utm_source=chatgpt.com) — “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food.” Federal food, housing, medical, and disability assistance programs: USDA — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program?utm_source=chatgpt.com); HUD — Housing Choice Voucher Program (https://www.hud.gov/hcv?utm_source=chatgpt.com) HUD (https://www.hud.gov/hcv?utm_source=chatgpt.com); Medicaid.gov — Medicaid (https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Medicaid (https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid?utm_source=chatgpt.com); Social Security Administration — Benefit Types, including Disability and SSI (https://www.ssa.gov/benefits?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Social Security Administration (https://www.ssa.gov/benefits?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Working Americans who still rely on public assistance: U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal Social Safety Net Programs: Millions of Full-Time Workers Rely on Federal Health Care and Food Assistance Programs,” October 19, 2020 (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Government Accountability Office (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Benefit phaseouts, effective marginal tax rates, and incentives affecting movement from assistance toward greater earnings: Congressional Budget Office, “How Taxes and Transfers Affect the Work Incentives of People With Low and Moderate Income,” March 17, 2017 (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52472?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Congressional Budget Office (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52472?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Religion, Christianity, and the intellectual and political environment surrounding the American founding: Library of Congress, “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic” (https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/?utm_source=chatgpt.com); Library of Congress, “Religion and the American Revolution” (https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe (https://joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

2. 

   6 Oct 2026

   Equal Access, Equal Obligation?

   I was cooking the other day when I thought about a lieutenant I haven’t seen in years. I don’t know why. That happens to me sometimes. A memory will just show up. Nothing in particular brings it to mind. I’ll be driving, or walking, or standing in the kitchen cutting onions, and suddenly I’m back in some room I haven’t thought about in years. This one has come back to me a couple of times recently. It was sometime around 2018 or 2019. I was a squadron commander in the Air Force, and one of my flight commanders, a captain and a mother, came to see me about one of her lieutenants. The lieutenant was a woman who had recently had a baby and had been away from normal operational duty for quite a while. I don’t remember the exact amount of time anymore, and I don’t want to pretend that I do. The Air Force had become increasingly generous with maternity and caregiver leave, and by the time this lieutenant was due to return, she had already been away for a significant stretch. Eventually, though, the leave ended. She was expected to come back to duty. In our squadron, duty didn’t mean showing up at an office at eight in the morning and going home at five. It meant going out on a weapons-system alert. Roughly thirty-six hours away from home. The lieutenant told her flight commander that she couldn’t go. She needed more time. She was breastfeeding. More specifically, she said she couldn’t pump enough breast milk ahead of time to leave her baby for the duration of the alert. Her husband was also active duty, but he worked a job that allowed him to be home. He could care for the baby while she was gone. The problem was not that there was no one to take care of the child. The problem was feeding the child. So my flight commander came to me and asked the question commanders eventually get paid to answer: What do we do? Do we send her back on duty? Do we give her more time? How much more? A month? Three months? Until the child turns one? And if nothing changes, then what? Do we simply accept that she cannot perform that portion of the job for as long as she is breastfeeding? I remember the problem because no answer made everybody happy. And I believed the lieutenant. I want to make that clear. I did not think she had invented a breastfeeding problem because she didn’t want to work. I think she had a baby, she was trying to feed that baby, and she was looking at thirty-six hours away from her child and saying, I don’t know how I can do this. That mattered. She had a responsibility for the child. But something else mattered too. Somebody had to go on alert. The mission didn’t disappear because one lieutenant had a difficult family situation. If she didn’t go, somebody else did. Somebody else stayed away from his or her family. Somebody else carried the burden. And suddenly a question that sounds like a personnel problem becomes a philosophical one. If we say everyone can do this job, can we also say some people don’t always have to do all of it? And if we say that, who decides when that is okay? That question is bigger than breastfeeding. But breastfeeding is what makes the question difficult, because biology is not imaginary. Pregnancy is real. Childbirth is real. Recovery is real. Breastfeeding is real. None of those things disappear because an institution adopts a policy of equal opportunity. That is where equality gets complicated. We often use the word equality as though it answers a question. Sometimes it only starts one. There is equality of access. Can you enter the profession? Can you compete for the position? Can you command? Can you serve in the operational role? Can you serve on the combat team? And then there is equality of obligation. Once you have the position, are the expectations the same? That distinction becomes uncomfortable because we like clean moral principles. Treat everyone the same. Accommodate people according to their circumstances. Both sound good until they run into each other. One way of thinking about this is the difference between equality and equity. Equality says people occupying the same role ought to face the same essential obligations. Equity says relevant differences may justify different treatment. The hard part is deciding which differences matter, and how much difference in treatment is still compatible with calling it the same job. Another way of thinking about it is role morality. Certain roles carry obligations that ordinary life does not. A judge cannot decide a case based on friendship. A physician cannot simply abandon a patient in the middle of surgery. A military officer accepts obligations that most citizens do not. That does not mean the officer stops being a mother, father, husband, wife, son, or daughter. It means those obligations sometimes collide. The philosopher W. D. Ross wrote about competing duties. You can have more than one genuine moral obligation at the same time. You can have a duty to your child, a duty to your fellow officers, a duty to the mission, a duty to obey lawful orders, and a duty not to place unreasonable burdens on other people. The fact that one duty is real does not make the others disappear. That is the part that gets lost when we turn difficult problems into slogans. Sometimes two good things really are in conflict. You can even make what you believe is the right decision and still leave something valuable damaged. Maybe you order the lieutenant back onto alert. The squadron is treated fairly, the mission is covered, and a mother believes she has been forced into a situation that makes caring for her infant harder. Something has been lost. Or maybe you excuse her. The mother and baby are protected, but another lieutenant goes in her place. And another time. And another. Something has been lost there too. There is no administrative form that makes the loss disappear. This question also has an interesting history in the American military. For much of the twentieth century, the institutional answer to pregnancy and motherhood was much harsher than it is today. Women could serve, but pregnancy would effectively end that service. One of the important cases in that history involved Air Force Captain Susan Struck, a nurse who became pregnant in 1970 and challenged the policy that would have forced her out of the service. Her case became part of the broader movement away from treating pregnancy as automatically incompatible with military service. That change was important. But it didn’t eliminate the problem. It moved the problem. At first, the institutional answer had essentially been: women can serve, but motherhood may end that service. Then the answer became: women can serve and become mothers. Which immediately creates another question: what happens when the obligations of motherhood and the obligations of military service conflict? That is not an argument against women serving. It is simply the next question. And over time the question became sharper. The military opened more roles to women: aviation, ships, operational specialties, and eventually direct ground combat positions. Each time a barrier came down, the debate centered on equal access. But another question always follows behind it. Does equal access imply equal obligation? Or can equal access coexist with different obligations? And if the answer is yes, how different can those obligations become before we are no longer talking about the same job? This is where historical fights over equality become more complicated than they first appear. A woman like Susan Struck was effectively saying that pregnancy shouldn’t automatically end her military career. I think she was right. But once an institution accepts that principle, it has to turn an individual claim into a general rule. Not because every woman necessarily wants exactly what she wanted. Not because every future mother will make the same decision. Institutions simply cannot operate on individual intent. They need principles. A person fights for the right to remain. The institution recognizes that right. Then, years later, someone else enters under that right and asks for an accommodation the earlier system would never grant. That does not mean the original principle was wrong. It means principles have consequences. Rights create obligations. Access creates expectations. Equality is not complete until we talk about both. There is an old philosophical test that helps here: ask what happens if the exception becomes the rule. Not because exceptions are always wrong. They are not. But because a functioning institution has to know where exceptions stop. Suppose any member with a serious personal obligation could decline an essential operational duty whenever the two conflicted. That sounds compassionate. It may be compassionate. But could the unit function? If not, then you need a limiting principle. Which circumstances justify accommodation? For how long? Who carries the burden in the meantime? At what point does accommodation change the nature of the position itself? Those questions apply far beyond pregnancy. A father can become a sole parent. A spouse can become seriously ill. A parent can require constant care. An officer can be injured. A family can suffer a tragedy. Everybody eventually encounters something outside work that matters more to them than work. And yet some professions exist precisely because society needs people who will sometimes place the obligation of the role ahead of the obligation of the moment. That is especially true in the military. Which brings me back to that lieutenant. She had a baby. She wanted to breastfeed. She said she could not produce enough milk to leave the child for thirty-six hours. Her husband could care for the baby. Her authorized time away from duty had reached its end. Her flight commander came to me and asked: What do we do? I know what I decided. I am not sure I want to tell you. At least not yet. Because the more interesting question is what you would have decided. Do you order her back on duty? Do you give her more time? If so, how much? And what principle are you using to decide? Because whatever rule you create for her has to become a rule you could defend for everyone else. Maybe that is the hardest part of leadership. Compassion is personal. Command cannot always be. So here is the question. If we say everyone can do the job, can we still say some people don’t always have to do all of it? And if the answer is yes, who decides when that is okay? Sources Air Force maternity-leave policy in effect beginning in 2016—12 continuous weeks of paid maternity leave: U.S. Air Force, “AF Implements New DOD-Wide Changes to Maternity Leave,” February 9, 2016 (https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/652799/af-implements-new-dod-wide-changes-to-maternity-leave/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Air Force (https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/652799/af-implements-new-dod-wide-changes-to-maternity-leave/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Air Force parental-leave policy adopted in 2018—six weeks maternity convalescent leave, six weeks primary-caregiver leave, and three weeks secondary-caregiver leave; caregiver leave was in addition to maternity convalescent leave: U.S. Air Force, “Air Force Implements New Parental Leave Policy, Secondary Caregivers Given 21 Days,” June 8, 2018 (https://www.af.mil/News/Features/Article/1545568/air-force-implements-new-parental-leave-policy-secondary-caregivers-given-21-da/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Air Force (https://www.af.mil/News/Features/Article/1545568/air-force-implements-new-parental-leave-policy-secondary-caregivers-given-21-da/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Contemporaneous Air Force summary of the 2018 policy, including its retroactive applicability and the distinction among maternity convalescent, primary-caregiver, and secondary-caregiver leave: U.S. Air Force, “Air Force Parental Leave,” June 18, 2018 (https://www.af.mil/portals/1/documents/cct/2018/june/cct-180601_parental_leave_v3.pdf) Air Force (https://www.af.mil/portals/1/documents/cct/2018/june/cct-180601_parental_leave_v3.pdf?ver=2018-06-26-115913-373&utm_source=chatgpt.com) The 1948 law formally integrating women as permanent members of the armed services: U.S. Government Publishing Office, Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948, Public Law 80-625, June 12, 1948 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/62/354?utm_source=chatgpt.com) GovInfo (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/62/354?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Historical overview of the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act, including the original limits on women’s participation and combat service: Naval History and Heritage Command, “Women’s Armed Services Integration Act”Naval History and Heritage Command (https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-topic/organization-and-administration/regulations-and-policy/WASIA.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Captain Susan Struck’s challenge to the Air Force regulation requiring discharge of pregnant female officers; the appellate opinion describes her pregnancy while serving in Vietnam and the Air Force’s attempt to discharge her: Struck v. Secretary of Defense (https://m.openjurist.org/460/f2d/1372/struck-v-secretary-of-defense?utm_source=chatgpt.com), 460 F.2d 1372, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1972 (https://m.openjurist.org/460/f2d/1372/struck-v-secretary-of-defense?utm_source=chatgpt.com) OpenJurist (https://m.openjurist.org/460/f2d/1372/struck-v-secretary-of-defense?utm_source=chatgpt.com) U.S. Army historical discussion of Susan Struck’s case and its place in the changing relationship between motherhood and military service: U.S. Army, “Serving on Two Fronts—Finding Balance Between Motherhood and Military Service,” March 29, 2023 (https://www.army.mil/article/265272/serving_on_two_fronts_finding_balance_between_motherhood_and_military_service?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Army (https://www.army.mil/article/265272/serving_on_two_fronts_finding_balance_between_motherhood_and_military_service?utm_source=chatgpt.com) The Department of Defense’s 2015 decision opening all military occupations and positions—including direct ground-combat positions—to qualified women beginning in 2016: U.S. Department of Defense, “Carter Opens All Military Occupations, Positions to Women,” December 3, 2015 (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/632536/carter-opens-all-military-occupations-positions-to-women/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Defense.gov (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/632536/carter-opens-all-military-occupations-positions-to-women/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) DoD’s implementation of women’s full integration into previously closed combat positions, including its stated emphasis on maintaining combat effectiveness and standards: U.S. Department of Defense, “Statement from Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook on Secretary Carter’s Approval of Women in Service Review Implementation Plans,” March 10, 2016 (https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/690086/statement-from-pentagon-press-secretary-peter-cook-on-secretary-carters-approva/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Defense.gov (https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/690086/statement-from-pentagon-press-secretary-peter-cook-on-secretary-carters-approva/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) W. D. Ross’s idea of prima facie duties—multiple genuine moral obligations that can conflict, requiring judgment about which obligation carries the greatest weight in a particular situation: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “William David Ross” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/william-david-ross/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/william-david-ross/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) The philosophical concept of universalizability—the idea that a moral judgment should be defensible under the same standard regardless of which person happens to occupy the relevant position: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Impartiality,” section 4.2, “Impartiality and Universalizability” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe (https://joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

3. 

   30 Sept 2026

   The Forethought of Grief

   Everybody seems to be scared of artificial intelligence. Or maybe the press makes it seem like everybody is scared of artificial intelligence. AI is going to take our jobs. AI is going to replace artists. AI is going to manipulate elections. AI is going to become smarter than us. Eventually AI is going to destroy civilization. Why are we always doing this? Why do human beings always think civilization is about to end? In my lifetime, first it was nuclear war. We are all going to die. Then the millennium change. Everything is going to stop working. Computers are going to fail. Civilization is going to fall apart. Then climate change. Now AI is going to destroy us all. Before that, people thought Halley’s Comet was going to poison everybody. In 1910, scientists detected cyanogen gas in the comet’s tail. Earth was going to pass through it. People bought gas masks and supposed remedies. Newspapers ran with it. There was real dread that this thing in the sky might kill everybody. Then Earth passed through the tail. And nothing happened. That does not mean every warning is stupid. Nuclear war was a real danger. It still is. Y2K was a real computer problem. People spent years fixing it. Climate change is real. AI is going to create real problems. But we have this habit of moving really quickly from, this could be bad, to, this could end civilization. And I keep coming back to the same thing. Every day has enough worry of its own. Do not tax your life with the forethought of grief. Enjoy the hard work of staying alive while you can. There is that Wendell Berry poem, The Peace of Wild Things. I am paraphrasing it, but it is something like: when I wake at night and worry about my life or my children’s future, I go lie down by the water, among the wild things who do not tax their lives with the forethought of grief. That phrase is just right. The forethought of grief. We do that all the time. We grieve things that have not happened yet. We suffer tomorrow before tomorrow gets here. What happens to my children? What happens to the climate? What happens if the Russians launch? What happens if the computers stop working? What happens if the machine becomes smarter than us? And some of those are reasonable questions. But at some point, you are just paying today for grief that may never come. That does not mean do nothing. Take climate change. Climate change is not going to kill every person on Earth. Do you know what might kill a lot of people? Doing nothing to prepare for climate change. If we need to shore up buildings, improve infrastructure, strengthen the electrical grid, prepare for drought, fires, flooding, storms, then do those things. That is useful. Sitting around worrying that civilization is going to collapse is not useful. Worry is not preparation. And I think AI is the same way. There are reasonable guardrails we can put around artificial intelligence without acting like the machine itself is evil. Start with personal responsibility. No fake lewd photographs or videos using another person’s likeness. That should be illegal. Not because AI made the image. Because you used somebody else’s face to hurt them. If an AI system hacks another company and causes millions of dollars in damage, somebody is responsible for that. “The AI did it” cannot become some excuse that means nobody is liable. A person deployed it. A company built it. Somebody authorized it to do something. Now, I do not think the AI company should automatically be responsible every time somebody misuses a model. That would be ridiculous. If the company demonstrated reasonable guardrails, reasonable security, reasonable efforts to prevent abuse, then no, they should not automatically be liable because somebody found a way around those protections. But if they knew there was a problem, knew their model was being used to do something harmful, had reasonable ways to stop it, and ignored it, then responsibility starts to move back toward the company. That would make AI companies pay attention really quickly. Not because somebody wrote a vague ethics statement. Because there would be consequences. There would be damages. There would be liability. And in a messed-up twist, I am not against the use of AI for military action. I do not think that is contradictory. The military already uses force that would be illegal in ordinary civilian life. The question is who is responsible. If an autonomous or semi-autonomous system strikes a target, somebody in the chain of command still owns that decision. “The algorithm decided” cannot be an excuse. Somebody authorized that system. Somebody gave it the authority to act. Somebody remains responsible. That gets into the philosophy behind all of this. Sartre comes to mind. Freedom creates responsibility. You are free to choose, so you are also responsible for what you choose. You do not get to hide behind the system. Or the institution. Or the role. Or, eventually, the algorithm. John Stuart Mill fits here too. Mill’s basic idea was that people should be left free to act unless their actions harm somebody else. The state should not interfere just because an action is unusual, risky, unpopular, or offensive. The line is harm. That is pretty close to how I think about AI. Do not regulate it because it frightens people. Do not regulate it because it is new. Do not regulate it because somebody can imagine a terrible future. Regulate conduct when it causes real harm to other people. That is a much cleaner rule. If someone uses AI to commit fraud, punish the fraud. If someone uses AI to create a nonconsensual sexual image, punish that. If a company negligently deploys a system that causes foreseeable damage, hold the company responsible. But do not build a giant apparatus around every hypothetical thing the technology might someday do. You will never keep up anyway. And I think the same principle applies to corporations. Corporations have rights. They can own property. They can enter contracts. They can sue and be sued. They have legal protections. Fine. Then they also have reasonable responsibility. You do not get rights without responsibility. That applies to individuals. It should apply to companies. So maybe the philosophy is something like this: Maximum freedom, with responsibility for foreseeable harm. Let people build things. Let companies innovate. Let people use powerful tools. But when somebody gets hurt, ask the same questions we already know how to ask. Who did it? Who authorized it? Who could reasonably foresee the harm? Who failed to take reasonable precautions? Fraud is still fraud. Theft is still theft. Defamation is still defamation. Negligence is still negligence. Calling it artificial intelligence does not make responsibility disappear. And that brings me back to the larger point. Maybe AI could someday create some civilization-level danger. I do not know. But every generation seems convinced it is standing at the edge of the end. Nuclear war. The millennium. Climate catastrophe. Artificial intelligence. Before that, Halley’s Comet. At some point, you have to live. If there is something useful to do, do it. If the climate is changing and infrastructure needs to be stronger, build stronger infrastructure. If AI can be used to make fake sexual images of people, make that illegal. If AI systems can cause real damage, establish liability. If companies put reasonable guardrails in place, do not punish them automatically because somebody misused the tool anyway. Do the work that needs doing. Fix what can be fixed. Prepare where preparation actually matters. And then live. Because every day already has enough trouble of its own. There are people to love. There are things to build. There are things to repair. There are books to read. There is dinner to make. There is work to do. There is a world that is still here this morning. Do not tax your life with the forethought of grief. Enjoy the hard work of staying alive while you can. Tomorrow has enough worry of its own. Sources Public fear around Halley’s Comet in 1910, including concern that cyanogen gas in the comet’s tail might threaten life on Earth, and contemporary anti-comet remedies and gas masks: Library of Congress, “Halley’s Comet: Topics in Chronicling America” (https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-halleys-comet?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Wendell Berry’s “The Peace of Wild Things,” including the phrase about not taxing one’s life with the forethought of grief: Academy of American Poets, “Life Lines: Wendell Berry” (https://poets.org/life-lines?utm_source=chatgpt.com) “Each day has enough trouble of its own”: Matthew 6:34, New International Version, via Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A34&version=NIV) Finding satisfaction in one’s labor during the brief life God gives us, and receiving the ability to enjoy that labor as a gift: Ecclesiastes 5:18–20, New International Version, via Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+5%3A18-20&version=NIV) Enjoying life, doing the work before you, and doing it with all your strength while you are alive: Ecclesiastes 9:7–10, New International Version, via Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+9%3A7-10&version=NIV) John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, liberty, and the idea that coercive power is justified primarily to prevent harm to others: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “John Stuart Mill” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/?utm_source=chatgpt.com); Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Jean-Paul Sartre on freedom, responsibility, and bad faith: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Jean-Paul Sartre” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/?utm_source=chatgpt.com); Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Authenticity” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Corporations and other legal entities as legal persons capable of owning property, entering contracts, suing and being sued, while also carrying legal responsibilities and liabilities: Cornell Legal Information Institute, “Legal Person” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal_person?utm_source=chatgpt.com); Cornell Legal Information Institute, “Artificial Person” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/artificial_person?utm_source=chatgpt.com); Cornell Legal Information Institute, “Corporation” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corporation?utm_source=chatgpt.com) AI risk management, governance, and reasonable safeguards designed to reduce harms while preserving flexibility and innovation: National Institute of Standards and Technology, “AI Risk Management Framework” (https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework?utm_source=chatgpt.com); NIST, “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile” (https://www.nist.gov/publications/artificial-intelligence-risk-management-framework-generative-artificial-intelligence?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Cybersecurity risks, vulnerabilities, and resilience issues involving artificial intelligence systems: National Institute of Standards and Technology, “AI Research: Security and Resilience” (https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence/ai-research-security-and-resilience?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Autonomous weapon systems, human control, and legal and humanitarian questions surrounding machines that can select and apply force without further human intervention: International Committee of the Red Cross, “ICRC Position on Autonomous Weapon Systems” (https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-position-autonomous-weapon-systems?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe (https://joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

4.4 / 5

14 ratings

Spotify

5.0 / 5

1 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 65 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

96

Social presence

0

YouTube

0

Engagement

84

Contact I Believe

Guest appearances

Books guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.

Shows with a similar audience

• 

  Hidden Brain

• 

  The Ancients

• 

  Up First

• 

  Chasing Life

• 

  THE DAILY BLAST with Greg Sargent

• 

  Prof G Markets