This article doesn’t do much but scoff at things and then ask the reader to agree. Longtermism is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, and no one is advocati

This article doesn’t do much but scoff at things and then ask the reader to agree. Longtermism is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, and no one is advocating that today’s problems should actually be dismissed - just that we need to balance those against these existential-type threats. And we do this in our daily lives all the time. We deal with daily crises, but also plan for the future! Just like with a human life, we are encourage each other to live our best lives and reach our potentials, whatever those may be. Why can’t that be applied to a civilization, too? Longtermism is nothing more than the civilization-scale version of saying “no” to drugs, or making the decision to stay in school rather than dropping out, or not getting in the car with a drunk driver. Each of those decisions poses an existential threat to the idea of a person’s future. Deciding not to engage in destructive behavior so that your future remains full of possibilities does not mean that you must neglect immediate problems like where your next meal will come from or an argument you had with your spouse. Basically, it’s my opinion that this article’s author is mostly attacking a strawman, with some not-very-well-thought-through moral grandstanding on top.