Slaying ‘evil giants’ and fighting for the common good

By Dr Mike Flood

Mike is Chair of Milton Keynes Humanists and Humanism for the Common Good. He is writing here in a personal capacity and he would very much welcome readers’ thoughts on the various ideas proposed in this piece.

In a ground-breaking 1942 report, William Beveridge, the distinguished politician and social reformer, proposed widespread reforms to the system of social welfare in the UK. He identified five ‘evil giants’ that he saw as impediments to reconstruction: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. The Beveridge Report, entitled Social Insurance & Allied Services, was published in November of that year, when Britain was in the midst of a devastating war with Germany and effectively on its knees, struggling with serious food and resource shortages and trying to rebuild its armed forces after Dunkerque and the Blitz.

Beveridge – who ticks all the boxes as a ‘humanist’ (the label hadn’t yet been formally adopted in the UK) – helped lay the foundations for Britain’s post-war welfare state and pave the way for some of the greatest humanistic achievements, not least in the fields of:

• Healthcare – establishing the UK’s National Health Service (Aneurin Bevan, 1948); spearheading the formation of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Martin Cole et al, 1968);

• Affordable Housing – setting up the Humanist Housing Association for people in need (Mora Burnet, 1955);

• Education & Culture – pioneering the creation of UNESCO (Julian Huxley; 1945); setting up the Open University (Jenny Lee; 1969); and promoting Sex & Relationship Education (Claire Rayner; ~1960-90s).

These accomplishments – which represent ‘humanism for the common good’ – are well-documented on the ‘Humanist Heritage’ website along with the achievements of a host of earlier humanist pioneers.

Beveridge slaying his five giants

Today's threat landscape

Today’s threat landscape is rather different from that which Beveridge faced, and I’ve been reflecting on what if any contribution humanists might make to addressing these challenges – in particular:

• false & misleading information — fake news, deepfakes, AI ‘slop’ and malicious propaganda – which feeds polarisation and undermines public confidence in government/the media and the integrity of our knowledge base;

• artificial intelligence — hallucinating (and ingratiating) chatbots; the implications for job prospects; lethal autonomous weapons systems; and possible impacts on how and what we think, and about what it means to be ‘human’;

• accelerating biodiversity loss coupled with ecological collapse; and

• global warming leading to growing climate instability, loss of land and livelihoods, and major population shifts.

Misinformation is hardly new, but advances in information technology and today’s ‘giant evils’ (see Annex below) have made us considerably more vulnerable, and the threat from the other issues is on a scale not seen before. The level of risk (the likelihood of a threat resulting in harm) has also increased. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s latest Global Risks Report, argues that the world is entering an ‘Age of Competition’ marked by geopolitical rivalry, economic fragmentation, and weakening global cooperation. Of particular concern is how economic, political, technological and environmental risks interact and reinforce each other. The network of interconnected ‘polycrises’ is shown in the graphic below – the ‘risk influence nodes’ are rated by size as ‘high’ (large), ‘medium’ (medium-sized) or ‘low’ (small), while colours represent the ‘risk categories’ — blue (economic risks), green (environmental), orange (geopolitical), red (societal), purple (technological), and the thickness of the connecting lines, ‘the relative influence’.

Global risks landscape: an interconnections map (WEF image linked to source)

The report does not offer predictions. Rather, it provides a range of potential futures with a view to prevention and management. It maintains that the most pressing risks in the short term (2026–2028) are geopolitical and economic, and highlights geo-economic confrontation – the use of trade, technology and finance as strategic tools – alongside state-based armed conflict, misinformation, societal polarisation, and economic instability. The report notes that these risks reflect intensifying tensions between major powers and increasing divisions within society. We can see some of this playing out in the latest Gulf war – and the contribution that ‘evil giants’ have been making!

The report argues that over the medium term, rapid technological change – especially in AI and digital platforms – is likely to amplify misinformation, cyber insecurity and economic inequality while ‘rising debt, protectionism and fragmented supply chains may undermine global growth and stability’. In the longer term (to 2036), environmental threats dominate the risk landscape, with particularly severe impacts predicted on food supply, migration and geopolitical stability. The figure below shows how the seriousness of the risks is ranked in the short term (2 years) and longer term (10 years). Note that a number of these risks have clear tipping points which, if crossed, could lead to massive, irreversible change.

Global risks ranked by severity, short term (2 years) and long term (10 years) - detail from a longer graph by WEF (linked to source)

The Global Risks Report concludes that improving resilience, international cooperation, and the governance of emerging technologies will be critical to managing this increasingly complex risk environment, and that’s quite a challenge! So, what role humanism / humanists?

The role of humanism

I’ve been an active humanist for some time, and today I find it mystifying that organised humanism focuses on fighting for the rights of the non-religious and tackling religious privilege (the so-called ‘little fight‘) – and pays little more than lip service to the four threats identified above (part of the ‘great fight’) – especially as religion hardly features in what we champion in our humanist declarations. It is only mentioned in the modern versions of one of the declarations, and then only in passing, and I don’t think this focus is a good look for humanism in the 21st century. I also suspect that this preoccupation may be contributing to the fact that humanism does not seem to be flourishing in the UK or elsewhere. It’s also why, in 2022, I set up a Future of Humanism Group, to make the case for a major rethink of our priorities and giving humanism a more positive spin.

‘Humanism is about the world, not about humanism.’ Harold Blackham (1903–2009) – a pioneer of the modern humanist movement

Taking on the Great Fight

Our group is small and comprises seasoned grassroots activists. In early 2023, we published a draft ‘Manifesto on the Future of Humanism’, and we have since been exploring the nature of the threat to society and humanist values posed by misinformation, unregulated artificial intelligence, and climate breakdown – and how people of goodwill can aspire to live ‘good, ethical lives’ in today’s conflicted and deeply polarised world.

My colleagues and I are committed to partnering with people and organisations that share our belief in social justice and working for the common good. And in this respect it is reassuring to see just how many patrons and luminaries of humanist organisations are recognised authorities in the issues that we’re concerned about – I identified more than a dozen in a recent article and there are doubtless many more. Last year, we renamed ourselves ‘Humanism for the Common Good’, and we’re currently focusing on the following:

• humanism for the common good

• outing bad information and curbing its reach

• the alignment of AI with humanist values

• our duty of care to the planet

The case for all four aspirations is well laid out in various Humanists International declarations (see notes). What we want to understand is: a) quite what this might mean in practice in the context of life today; and b) what our group and the humanist movement more broadly might have to offer. And please note, we are not calling for humanist organisations to abandon their ‘core concerns’, but we do think the list is looking increasingly parochial when set against the enormity of some of the other moral and ethical challenges we are facing. And as for relevance, our particular concerns now populate the top five perceived risks identified in WEF’s Risk Report for 2036.

Promoting humanism for the Common Good

Our first challenge is about the cultivation of humanist values in society, including reason and social justice, and raising questions about critical thinking and planning long term to improve members’ understanding / involvement in some of the broader ramifications of different options / approaches.

Today, more than ever, we need sound advice and guidance, because many of the issues we face are highly complex and fast-changing (and frequently contentious), and it is not always obvious what is the best approach to follow. What, for example, should one do when confronted by examples of ‘fake news’, half-truths or lies on social media (see ‘Curbing the reach of bad information’ section below); or when we hear about extraordinary advances in AI that are likely to have major social and economic implications for society (see ‘AI and human values’ section below); or when we see shocking examples on television of people’s lives being wrecked by climate breakdown (see ‘Our duty of care to the planet’ section below)? What about our ‘duty of care to all of humanity including future generations’ and our ‘responsibility for the natural world’, let alone aspiring to live ‘good, ethical lives’ or be a ‘good ancestor’ in this increasingly chaotic, polarised and unpredictable world? Should we have children? Own a sports utility vehicle (or any car)? Or fly regularly to visit family/friends living in distant parts?

Our group thinks that fellow humanists would appreciate receiving regular guidance and advice on such issues to clarify just how we are supposed to respond to the repeated call to Think for Yourself, Act for Everyone. Much has been written about living a ‘good life’ (note 2) but the focus invariably seems to be on the theory and not the practice, and it’s the latter that concerns us.

Do we need to take another look at how we make informed decisions? I was interested to see that some are now arguing that ‘critical thinking’ has ‘become a liability’ and that we should be more focused on ‘critical ignoring’, a strategy for managing information overload by consciously filtering out low-quality, distracting or manipulative content, since trying to think critically about everything would simply be paralising!

Then there’s ‘collective foresight’, taking proper account of social, economic and environmental systems when thinking about the interests and wellbeing of future generations: this is a collaborative process that involves a diverse group of stakeholders working together to anticipate future challenges and options. One attraction of this approach is that working with others takes us out of our comfort zone and reduces the risk of subconscious special pleading or confirmation bias (see note 3). Maybe we can learn here from initiatives such as Long Now, which aim to provide a counterpoint to today’s ‘faster/cheaper’ mindset and promote ‘slower/better’ thinking (see note 4).

I’m of the view that humanist organisations could benefit enormously from setting up expert panels to advise on the challenging, fast-evolving issues we are facing, but they don’t appear to see the need. Back in 2018, I lobbied Humanists UK’s Board to set up a panel of advice on ‘Disinformation & AI’, but they said this wasn’t needed. This does make me wonder where humanism might be today if they had made the effort.

Curbing the reach of bad information

Our second aspiration is to champion initiatives designed to put pressure on social media platforms to label or take down ‘fake news’, half-truths, lies and unfounded conspiracy theories, and curb their ‘reach’ online. Disinformation and FIMI (Foreign Information Manipulation & Interference) is designed to polarise opinion, erode trust in authority and the media, and undermine social cohesion. And it is very good at it! Deepfake images and AI-generated content are of particular concern, as they are becoming increasingly difficult to detect, and platform algorithms are facilitating and turbo-charging their reach. As the WEF Report points out, conflict and division is complicating the coordination of global responses to urgent threats such as global warming.

Humanist leaders do occasionally express their concerns, but not as part of a coherent and sustained programme of work. To its credit, Humanists International did run a multilingual initiative to counter misinformation about Covid 19 during lockdown, including calling on OSCE member states to ‘adopt a human rights based approach towards tackling the problem.’ But couldn’t it do more, for example by actively advocating for international cooperation on tackling disinformation where this poses a threat to democracy, human rights, or public health? Something of this nature could also be in Humanists International’s annual ‘Freedom of Thought Report‘. It was good to see in the notes to the Copenhagen Declaration of Democracy that in 2023 the Humanist General Assembly did recognise disinformation as a growing threat to reason, truth and democracy, but the follow-up has, to say the least, been disappointing. 

Humanists UK wrote recently that: ‘In an era increasingly marked by misinformation, division, fake news, and the rise of ‘cancel culture’, the need for clear, rational, and compassionate discourse has never been greater. It has never been easier for people to be drawn into misleading, unscientific, or harmful narratives that claim to answer life’s complex questions – ranging from nationalist ideologies and pseudoscientific New Age beliefs, to disturbing resurgences of white supremacy and conspiracy theories.’ This expression of concern was designed to promote the New Humanist magazine, which it said: ‘remains committed to countering these destructive narratives with intellectual rigour, ethical clarity, and unwavering advocacy for truth.’ But from what I’ve seen of the magazine to date, I can hardly see it rallying many troops.

How about supporting Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s battle for ‘the soul of the web’? Back in 2017, Sir Tim lamented the fact that ‘we’d lost control of our personal data which, even if anonymised, is being sold on to actors we never intended it to reach, who can then target us with content and advertising’ — what Shoshana Zuboff calls ‘surveillance capitalism’. Today, Sir Tim wants people to ‘embrace the power of connectivity’; ‘champion openness and accessibility’; ‘promote digital empowerment and inclusion’; ‘embrace innovation and collaboration’; ‘value ethical use of technology’; and ‘foster digital literacy and education’. I think we should consider embracing a number of these causes and explore how they might be achieved in practice (see note 5). For example, in relation to the last item, this might involve ‘delaying smartphone adoption among younger children, encouraging simpler devices, redesigning compulsive features across all apps, and ensuring that essential services such as banking, education and travel stop assuming everyone is glued to a screen’, as a piece in The Conversation  argued recently.

Another initiative worth a mention is a Wiki project called ‘AI Cleanup‘, which is attempting to combat the increasing problem of unsourced, poorly written AI-generated content on Wikipedia. Its goals include: identifying text written by AI and removing any unsourced or likely inaccurate claims. The project is not aiming to restrict or ban the use of AI in articles, but rather to verify that its output is acceptable and constructive. This takes us to our third aspiration...

AI and human values

Humanism for the Common Good recognises the many benefits of AI, but would like to see much tighter regulation of the technology, including impact assessments being required prior to the launch of any new AI programme or initiative, the watermarking of deepfake images, and a requirement that people be notified when they are communicating online with a bot pretending to be a human.

The recent ‘Luxembourg Declaration’ does call for AI to be aligned with human rights, democratic oversight, and the intrinsic dignity of every person, as well as for ‘urgent action from governments and international bodies to make sure that AI serves as a tool for human flourishing, not harm’. It also calls for its principles to be adopted ‘through concrete policies, practices and international agreements’. I very much welcome this call (which incidentally includes the responsibility of ‘civil society’), but I’m not seeing the follow-up, or help for members looking to better understand the ethical implications of AI systems and how this is challenging our perceptions of what it means to be ‘human’. I wrote an article on this in the last issue of Humanistically Speaking but, sadly, it didn’t provoke comment.

And who’s up for exploring the dangers of AI chatbots telling people what they want to hear? A new study by Stanford University finds that chatbots are so prone to flattering and validating their human users that they are giving advice that can reinforce harmful behaviours and damage relationships. And the problem is not just that AI bots dispense bad or inappropriate advice, but that people trust AI – especially when it is justifying their convictions!(see note 6). And what about the finding that dependency on chatbots is reducing people’s ability to think critically? Perhaps we need a new slogan: ‘Think for Yourself. Don’t be Duped by AI!’

Humanists UK’s Director of Communication & Development, Liam Whitton, did once write that: ‘Humanists need to take an active role in helping publicly articulate the values and principles that will shape that process of stewardship, both in the UK and internationally.’ (My emphasis.) But that was over three years ago and I’m still waiting to see evidence that AI does really have a place on Humanists UK’s agenda to complement ‘legal recognition for humanist marriages’ and ‘repealing blasphemy laws in Northern Ireland’.

With respect to the regulation of AI, it is encouraging to see the first green shoots appearing — new laws in Colorado and Vietnam came into force on 1 February and 1 March respectively. It will be interesting to see how they perform — and who chooses to copy them!

Our duty of care to the planet

Our last aspiration is about establishing legal rights for natural habitats, pressing for ecocide to be recognised under international law, and getting measures to safeguard the wellbeing of future generations written into law.

Legal rights for natural habitats – there is a growing movement calling for the rights of rivers and other natural habitats to be recognised in law, independently of their value to humans. This, it is claimed, ‘would shift the priority from managing pollution to preventing it, and would make environmental protection a legal obligation, not a policy or business choice’ with ‘rights of nature’ being enforced in court by designated human guardians. Isn’t this something that we could also be calling for, while taking the opportunity to explain how it fits into our broader philosophy of life? Ditto, ecocide, recognised as a crime by the International Criminal Court (ICC): such a move would mean holding those responsible accountable, and fining and/or putting them behind bars. Several Pacific island nations, including Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa, are currently calling for ecocide to be recognised as a crime and included in the ICC’s 2002 Rome Statute.

Climate Change – Humanists International's 2019 Reykjavik Declaration talks about heeding the call to highlight ‘the need for urgent action’ on the climate change crisis, but once again, we’re seeing very little done to translate this into practical policies or advice. Humanists UK did set up Humanist Climate Action shortly after the declaration was launched, but like Humanists for a Better World which it replaced, it is essentially volunteer-led. Given ‘the need for urgent action’, shouldn't Humanists UK mainstream HCA’s work (see note 7)? HCA does now get a mention, but under ‘Other work on global challenges’ and after its main campaigns on ‘faith school admissions’, ‘religious courts’ and the like (see note 8). Humanist Society Scotland does say it advocates ‘protecting the environment for future generations and championing the use of science to inform Climate Change policy’ although again it is not clear what this means in practical terms. My hunch is, very little.

The Wellbeing of Future Generations — Wales implemented an Act about this in 2015 — a world first, I believe; it requires public bodies to consider the long-term impacts of policies and decisions, and is intended to ‘improve the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of Wales’. It includes seven well-being goals (shown here) and emphasises collaboration, prevention and sustainable development principles to ensure that current actions do not compromise the needs of future generations. Sadly, attempts to introduce similar legislation in Westminster failed. I’m hoping Humanism for the Common Good will be able to do something to get this initiative back on the political agenda.

Conclusions

William Beveridge believed that social institutions could defeat the 'evil giants’ of ‘want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness’. Today’s equivalents are arguably more cognitive and societal in nature, and sadly (with information technology) better equipped to cause havoc. I’ve listed my ‘nominees’ in the Annex. And as for the broader concerns raised in this article – including the existential threats to civilisation as we know it and to sentient life on Earth – I am hoping that others will join us in whatever way they can to help facilitate a discussion on such issues within the humanist movement, and to help us narrow down our options to something a little more manageable. I recognise that we have more work to do to define more clearly what humanists can bring to ‘the table’ given the wide range of issues raised. If someone were to carry out a gap analysis, for example (a technique used to compare an organisation’s actual performance with its desired performance and identify areas for improvement), what ‘gaps’ might be identified that humanism/humanists could usefully fill? Perhaps something on secular thinking and seeking the truth?

I trust you will find (at least some of) our arguments compelling – and let us know if you don’t. Our group is not expecting to achieve anything comparable to what our distinguished forebears contributed to social progress and the common good, but we’re going to give it a try. Perhaps you’d like to join us.

Notes

1. The ‘Amsterdam Declaration’ (1952 — reworked in 2022 as the ‘Declaration on Modern Humanism’); the ‘Reykjavik Declaration on the Climate Change Crisis’ (2019); the ‘Copenhagen Declaration on Democracy: a humanist value’ (2023); and the ‘Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values’ (2025).

2. Philosophers have for millennia reflected on what it means to live a ‘good life’: A C Grayling’s writings on the topic are well known. In ‘The Good Book’ (2011), he provides a modern version of the ‘Ten Commandments’: 1) Love well; 2) Seek the good in all things; 3) Harm no others; 4) Think for yourself; 5) Take responsibility; 6) Respect nature; 7) Do your utmost; 8) Be informed; 9) Be kind; and 10) Be courageous. And in ‘The God Argument’ (2013), he outlines seven characteristics of a ‘good life’ — a life that is ‘meaningful, enjoyable and fulfilling’; a life with: goals and a connecting narrative; good relationships; activity, endeavour, work; authenticity — being true to yourself; autonomy — being self-directed; a life that feels rich and satisfying to you; and in harmony [with] the different parts of your life. Humanists UK talks about our living “ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity”. Another paper (by Roy Baumeister) asks what is better, a happy life or a meaningful one, and concludes that: “A life will be meaningful if it finds responses to the four questions of purpose, value, efficacy, and self-worth,” and that “it is these questions, not the answers, that endure and unify.” And with respect to ‘being a good ancestor’, Roman Krznaric’s book on the subject offers some excellent advice.

3. In October the UK Government published ‘A brief guide to Futures thinking and foresight’ to help people “monitor emerging trends, issues, possibilities and uncertainties to understand what is changing and explore what this might mean for our futures.” As it says, “Having this information is key to knowing what we need to do now to be resilient to a range of possible futures, and to make the most of opportunities.”

4. The original Long Now Foundation was cofounded by Brian Eno in the States in 01996, and Long Now London, in 02008. Long Now uses 5-digit dates in order to address the ‘Year 10,000 problem’.

5. Sir Tim Berners-Lee gifted us the World Wide Web; it is sad to see that the Web Foundation – which he cofounded with Rosemary Leith in 2009 – was wound up in 2024. He has since gone back to another brainchild of his, Solid, an ‘open-source interoperable standard’ that enables people to own the data they generate about their actions, preferences, decisions and monitoring. His latest book is ‘This Is for Everyone’.

6. A study tested 11 leading AI systems and found that they all showed varying degrees of sycophancy and confirmation bias, and it argued that this tendency is so deeply embedded into chatbots that it might require tech companies to retrain their AI systems to adjust which types of answers are preferred.

7. Humanist Climate Action publishes a regular newsletter and has produced a number of useful papers, including one on misconceptions/disinformation about climate change. Good to see that in 2021 HCA added ‘climate justice’ to its agenda.

8. Humanists UK has been actively updating its website; when I started writing this piece, you could find ‘organ donation and homeopathy’ listed amongst its campaigns, but not climate change.

Annex: today’s ‘Evil Giants’

‘We are not an endangered species ourselves yet, but this is not for lack of trying.’ Douglas Adams (1952 – 2001)

There is no shortage of contenders for modern day evil ‘giants’: these five are among my main concerns:

1. Greed – the pursuit of wealth and power without regard for social or environmental consequences – clearly contributes to extreme inequality in the world. It also damages relationships, increases dishonesty, and for those affected, leads to isolation and reduced personal satisfaction in life.

2. Lying – knowingly spreading falsehoods for personal gain or to protect one’s interests or reputation. St. Augustine noted that: ‘The essence of lying is in deception, not in words; a lie may be told by silence, by equivocation, by the accent on a syllable, by a glance of the eyes, attaching a peculiar significance to a word, and in countless other ways.’ Ultimately, lying damage trust and credibility, and often creates a cycle of evasiveness and suspicion that makes it difficult to maintain honest relationships.

3. Apathy – people overwhelmed, distressed and ‘turned off’ by the tsunami of ‘bad news’ and confusing, inaccurate or deliberately misleading information that today assaults our senses on air and online 24/7, made worse by platform algorithms designed to grab our attention and keep us scrolling.

4. Short-termism – a tendency to prioritise immediate gain over long-term wellbeing: we see this in politicians’ failure to invest adequately in vital infrastructure and defence needs, or in society’s preparedness for pandemics and increasing climatic disruption. (Western political systems are invariably focused on short-term election cycles and routinely discount our responsibility to the wider world – and to future generations.)

5. Tribalism – the instinct to divide humanity into competing groups based on nationality, race, religion, ideology or values – which can lead to ‘othering’, injustice and conflict, and reduce our capacity to solve collective problems or address looming global threats. As one social scientist has pointed out, ‘tribalism has shaped our history, fostered our greatest achievements, and, at times, fuelled our darkest conflicts.’

Taken together, these evils go some way to explaining why all too often society fails to act on perceived dangers, even where the risks and potential consequences are clearly understood. In December 2019, The Commission On Truth Trust and Technology at the London School of Economics published a report which argued that ‘the information crisis is presenting the UK (and other countries) with a similarly trenchant set of problems’ to those faced by Beveridge, and it went on to locate five modern day giant evils among the public which today confront governments, parliaments, the technology companies and the media. It identified these as ‘confusion, cynicism, fragmentation, irresponsibility and apathy'. I’d be interested to hear what others think of my selection and of those proposed by the LSE.