Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#2Interestingly Will MacAskill was interviewed on the last People I (Mostly) Admire podcast: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/a-million-year-view-on-mora...
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#3> Longtermism is a quasi-religious worldview, influenced by transhumanism and utilitarian ethics, which asserts that there could be so many digital people living in vast computer simulations millions or billions of years in the future that one of our most important moral obligations today is to take actions that ensure as many of these digital people come into existence as possible.
Is this an accurate description of longtermism, or just Salon playing the internet media outrage game?
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#4> Longtermism is a quasi-religious worldview, influenced by transhumanism and utilitarian ethics, which asserts that there could be so many digital people living in vast computer simulations millions or billions of years in the future that one of our most important moral obligations today is to take actions that ensure as many of these digital people come into existence as possible. Is this an accurate description of…
I think this is pretty close to the common understanding of it. See Definitions in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#5It seems Musk is trying to have 10^58 children from a similar number of women.
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#6> Longtermism is a quasi-religious worldview, influenced by transhumanism and utilitarian ethics, which asserts that there could be so many digital people living in vast computer simulations millions or billions of years in the future that one of our most important moral obligations today is to take actions that ensure as many of these digital people come into existence as possible. Is this an accurate description of…
I don't think many people describe their own ethical beliefs as a "quasi-religious worldview." The only reason you'd do so is to make them seem illegitimate.
The reason Salon doesn't write "universal human rights are a quasi-religious worldview, influenced by the bloodstained French revolution and the early 20th century communist movement" is because Salon actually likes human rights.
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#7> Longtermism is a quasi-religious worldview, influenced by transhumanism and utilitarian ethics, which asserts that there could be so many digital people living in vast computer simulations millions or billions of years in the future that one of our most important moral obligations today is to take actions that ensure as many of these digital people come into existence as possible. Is this an accurate description of…
I think this is pretty close to the common understanding of it. See Definitions in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism
But the definition there doesn't say anything remotely like the Salon quote. Someone could argue that it's implied, but there's no reason to automatically accept that argument as compelling. It's much more likely that it's a highly contested implication.
Presenting a contested implication of X as a fact about X is basically lying. For example, suppose I observe you advocating for solar panels in a city meeting. I know that solar panels are often manufactured by slaves in Xinjiang. Is it appropriate for me to describe you as an advocate for slavery in Xinjiang? Obviously not - that would be a lie.
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#8Invest in the millennium. Plant sequoias.
Say that your main crop is the forest
that you did not plant,
that you will not live to harvest.
Say that the leaves are harvested
when they have rotted into the mold.
Call that profit. Prophesy such returns.
Put your faith in the two inches of humus
that will build under the trees every thousand years.
somehow i think wendell berry’s long-term thinking isn’t what’s being described here …
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#9"For longtermists, there is nothing worse than succumbing to an existential risk: "
I mean, this should be a concern for any human, surely? Though perhaps not for the universe itself.
The article is just dripping with derision, at least some of it unwarranted, and most of it apparently un-researched, or just cherry-picked.
Re: Understanding “longtermism”: Why this suddenly influential philosophy is toxic
#10> Longtermism is a quasi-religious worldview, influenced by transhumanism and utilitarian ethics, which asserts that there could be so many digital people living in vast computer simulations millions or billions of years in the future that one of our most important moral obligations today is to take actions that ensure as many of these digital people come into existence as possible. Is this an accurate description of…
It’s played up. The simplest summary is “looking after future people is an overriding moral good”. The bit about digital people is just one extrapolation.