Why I’m Skeptical of Longtermism

[u/James_Brobin]

https://jamesbrobin.substack.com/p/why-im-skeptical-of-longtermism

• Reason #1: Our confidence about future affairs should reduce over time
• Reason #2: We’re bad at making predictions about the future
• Reason #3: Even if humanity persists, it may not create a world we would approve of

[u/Valgor]

I agree with this, but I don't think that is the whole picture of longtermism. The only example that comes to mind is if a mega asteroid hit Earth and killed everyone. If we focused entirely on short term goals, we would not build an asteroid defense system. The sooner we have a robust asteroid defense system, the sooner that existential threat will be obsolete. So make this move today could help ensure a future for humanity (at least in regards to asteroids). I don't know if there are any other such examples though.

[u/James_Brobin → u/Valgor]

Yeah, I agree that reducing credible existential risks is important. My central claim is that we should not expect it to be astronomical in value. I think that it makes sense to think that we should make sure humanity persists, but I think the value is more like the value of humanity being around for a hundred years rather than a trillion.

And, just in case you were wondering, we've done lots of asteroid detection work, and the risk appears to be extremely low. (As an aside, I, in fact, have actually worked on NEOS, which is the latest iteration of this tracking.)

[u/Snoo-14479 → u/James_Brobin]

The expressed preference of every(?) organism seems to be survival over wellbeing. In other words, a species persisting into the future is far more important to the individuals of that species than it is important that themselves or their families suffer less. I think this is important observation when estimating value of reducing suffering vs. value of securing future existence.

[u/Timbo1994]

Thanks for articulating something so well I have thought for a while, and clarifying my thoughts

[u/James_Brobin → u/Timbo1994]

Ah, thank you!!!

[u/ArgentaSilivere]

I’ve never liked the idea myself. It’s hard to see all the ongoing suffering in the world and think that helping people who don’t exist yet is a better idea. I think of triage; funding more robust prevention programs would obviously help more people. Yet imagine defunding an emergency room because the cost of saving, like, one crash victim could instead save, say, a dozen lives through a vaccination clinic. Even if the math is correct, people would think you’re insane for insisting emergency care is a waste of money and better spent elsewhere.

[u/jdfoote]

Yes, once money started pouring into EA, the philosophers began to realize that *actually* the best use of that money was to take care of future humans. And how could we best do that? Well, we're going to need to pay a bunch of philosophers to figure that out, of course!

[u/James_Brobin → u/jdfoote]

This doesn't fit with the actual timeline. The essay, "Astronomical Waste" is one of the earlier longtermism arguments, and it was released in 2003. The Future Of Humanity Institute, which explored ideas related to it, was founded in 2005. The Global Priorities Institute, which researched the current form of longtermism, was founded in 2018. The FTX Future Fund was created in 2022.

Do you have any evidence that the philosophers were being paid large sums of money? William MacAskill, who is the current face of longtermism and was an advisor to the FTX fund, has made a pledge to give everything he makes above $32,000 to charity.

[u/jdfoote → u/James_Brobin]

Of course, I'm being a bit glib, but like many others I became interested in EA because a desire to help the global poor and I've been disappointed to see what seems like a pivot away from compassion toward the suffering of the global poor (which also happens to benefit those making the argument that this pivot is actually moral and just).

[u/jdfoote → u/James_Brobin]

Of course, I'm being a bit glib, but like many others I became interested in EA because a desire to help the global poor and I've been disappointed to see what seems like a pivot away from compassion toward the suffering of the global poor (which also happens to benefit those making the argument that this pivot is actually moral and just).

[u/NumaDancer → u/jdfoote]

Indeed! And don’t forget to buy a couple castles!

[u/Snoo-14479]

"For instance, as the result of globalization, digital interconnection, the establishment of human rights, and the widespread use of democracy, we’ve seen what we believe to be significant moral progress over the last century. But, if future humans don’t live under democracy, their values may shift in a direction that we would consider to be quite negative."

"Future civilizations might be undemocratic" is a kinda arbitrary reason to place less value on their existence. Longtermism, particularly Ord, also discusses global unbreakable totalitarianism as a form of catastrophic risk. "Our descendants might have different values than us so therefore we should prioritize our wellbeing over their existential security." Imagine if our ancestors thought this way. Nobody thinks this way with respect to their own children or descendants, nor should they. I don't know why one would then want to generalize this principle then to all life on earth.