Against longtermism. (aeon essay)

[mvgulik]

Against longtermism
"It started as a fringe philosophical theory about humanity’s future. It’s now richly funded and increasingly dangerous."
(6,100 words .. ie: big read!)

As Bostrom wrote in 2003, ‘priority number one, two, three and four should … be to reduce existential risk.’ He reiterated this several years later in arguing that we mustn’t ‘fritter … away’ our finite resources on ‘feel-good projects of suboptimal efficacy’ such as alleviating global poverty and reducing animal suffering, since neither threatens our longterm potential, and our longterm potential is what really matters.

Good grief. What will the rich right-winged mind think of next to justify its (in)actions!

O well, I guess with plenty of money/power (and a potential army of mindless sheep's to follow) anything is possible.
Its making the inevitable even more logical in my view.

[Austinh15]

I just have to say that after two days no one cared enough to message. I only cared enough because I thought it was funny no one cared and wanted to reassure you that no one is caring still. I felt the need to let you know though since obviously you aren't getting the message.

[mvgulik]

Funny to me is that you think I would care about that.

[Jalpha]

I care only I don't check this forum every day.

I am not going to read the article though. Only because I do not have a hard copy.

The OP does give me enough information to formulate an opinion on what is said within it and to extrapolate.

From what I observe in the machinations of society; little commitment from the wealthy is ever offered on any project (no matter how essential it may seem) unless a direct and obvious economic return is known. This limits progress to almost purely financial standards.

Unless a monetary driver for reducing global poverty or animal suffering can be established then the management of such issues is the work of emotionally driven individuals. These individuals, inherent to their nature, are unlikely to possess sufficient resources to act on their inclinations. Furthermore where such inclinations interfere with the ability of more strictly rational and financially driven groups they will face resistance.

I fall somewhere between both groups. Having a rational yet also romantic view on how we should act collectively as a species. As an example I very strongly believe (romantically) that global warming is an issue that should be acted upon. However I believe equally as strongly that any such action must have an expressible mode of economic return.

This is something I believe to be possible however startup capital requirements are far beyond my meager resources. A result, perhaps, of my romanticism, principles and strange moral code.

There is hope for change though. An example is the increasing lack of availability of cage farmed eggs. In this instance the consumer base, overall, agreed to pay a higher price for eggs. So the economic motivator was established and industry followed the financial reward.

[Austinh15]

[mvgulik]

Please, no selfie postings.


... Who was the best in describing Trump ? ..

... Trump himself of course, when he was talking about his adversaries ...

[Jalpha]

Beat me to it.

You wouldn't argue with Arnie would you?

Arnie on climate change.

Bloke has white hairs and still looks like he could thrash me around the room with his pinkie finger. When I think about that I also imagine him saying, in his old thicker accent "Comeon. Stop trying to hit me and hit me!"