Thoughts on longtermism

Abstract

Focusing on the long-term future is often supported by the argument that the vast number of individuals in potential future populations, especially with space colonization, makes the impact on the long-term future dominant in expected value calculations. This reasoning is simplistic, as a larger world also implies a larger number of agents attempting to shape it, thus diluting individual influence. The impact of an intervention may not depend on the size of the population affected. Therefore, the size of the future population is not sufficient to justify focusing on the long-term future, assuming future individuals matter equally. Also, the difficulty of long-term predictions and influence favors short-term interventions. However, the temporal dimension of the future raises the question of generational power dynamics, asking if current generations hold exceptional influence over the long run. The belief that our era is uniquely influential, due to potential AI takeoff or current extinction risks, requires scrutiny. It’s plausible that modern humans have more influence over the future than other generations due to the potential population bottleneck. Substantial long-term impact is contingent upon civilization reaching a steady state with stable values and power structures, which is plausible but unclear if it will occur. The case for longtermism necessitates further arguments for the feasibility of a steady state and the bottleneck hypothesis. – AI-generated abstract.