Possible misconceptions about (strong) longtermism - EA Forum

OVERVIEW In this post I provide a brief sketch of The case for strong longtermism as put forward by Greaves and MacAskill, and proceed to raise and address possible misconceptions that people may hav…

RogerAckroyd 5y 20 0 0 It is not obvious that non-extinction is an attractor state. If there is some minimal background risk of extinction that we can not get below (whether due to asteroids, false vacuum decay, nuclear war, everyone becoming a negative utilitarian and stops reproducing, whatever) then it is the nature of exponential discounting that the very long-term future can quickly become essentially unimportant. Reply

related reading

• Why I am not a longtermist – Windows On Theorywindowsontheory.org
• Longtermism Is Surprisingly Obviousbenthams.substack.com
• A Case Against Strong Longtermism | Vaden Masranivmasrani.github.io
• Introduction to Longtermism — EA Forumforum.effectivealtruism.org
• Why I am probably not a longtermist — EA Forumforum.effectivealtruism.org
• Understanding "longtermism": Why this suddenly influential philosophy is so toxic - Salon.comsalon.com
• ⚡️ Towards Ineffective Altruismreboothq.substack.com
• Persistent Path-Dependence: Why Our Actions Matter Long-Termforethought.org
• How much current animal suffering does longtermism let us ignore? — EA Forumforum.effectivealtruism.org
• Effective altruism’s most controversial ideavox.com
• My current impressions on career choice for longtermists — EA Forumforum.effectivealtruism.org
• The expected value of extinction risk reduction is positive — EA Forumforum.effectivealtruism.org