Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sergei Zhukovsky's avatar

The main fallacy here, one that destroys the entire premise, is that we cannot realistically assume the position of "beings at the end of time".

Everyone who has ever worked with data and modeling knows that extrapolations are inaccurate and unreliable; the further outside the domain of the actual data, the more unreliable.

Longtermism is basing your views (or worse, decisions) on decidedly unreliable assumptions of "what it is I think will be good in the hypothetical long term".

Theoretically this is flawed. Practically this is worse than flawed: very often it means pushing one's own dubious (or hideous) agenda by wrapping it in fancy paper. Had we heeded "longtermists" who predicted our ecological doom in, when? 1990? 2000? 2020? we would have been much worse off than we are now.

I agree that always thinking immediate gratification is flawed, too. We need a balance. But flawed as it is, immediate gratification is at least grounded in reality. Assuming you're at the end of time is not.

Ian Slalander's avatar

In response to the other comments citing lack of consensus / tractability / difficulty of predicting how trends will continue - I feel like these are easily incorporated into a Strong Longtermist view by understanding the same is true for many presentist concerns and perspectives.

Isolating to a hypothetical where we are deciding who should be on a colony ship - all else equal it’s much better to have people who do not wish to propagate factory farming on their new colony world, thereby predictably influencing the future. Tractability and lack of consensus concerns can be folded into probabilities before deciding what action to take, much the same way they are in any other rationalist framework.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?