4 ms·
Wild. This was only a weak criticism and still made longtermism look embarrassingly bad. Why do longtermists put any faith in their ability to discern the curr
by sixo 3y ago
Wild. This was only a weak criticism and still made longtermism look embarrassingly bad.
Why do longtermists put any faith in their ability to discern the current state of the world, to discern the consequences of current events, of their own actions, of reactions to their reactions, etc? Tremendous measurement and prediction error in all these even if you give it a couple coats of "rational" paint so you feel smart when you talk about it.
Any reasonable course of action under so much uncertainty would not try to wiggle the entire future, but to accomplish some smaller part of "the work" now, taking responsibility for something you can actually understand (not just delude yourself into imagining you understand). Go work on some constituent component of spaceflight, maybe, at best. AI X-risk is still OK but only to the extent your work accomplishes anything (thus far—zilch, all wasted.) But absolutely anything else done in service of the "species" is the grandiose delusion of children, and can be used to justify anything. If the species will survive anyway, then you're just comparing infinities—so some other criteria is needed. Better pick a good one and now you still have to decide what Good is. The "longtermist" imagines themself above all finite concerns. The only work good enough for their ego is lecturing others about the vastest things possible.
Early 20thc eugenics committed a fallacy constantly that comes up here too. You learn about evolution, you learn that the ultimate "goal" of evolution is to survive and thrive and outcompete, and then you falsely conclude that therefore you should make that your goal. Not so. It does not follow. You just found some reason to justify your desire to glorify yourself.
Same for long-termism. The species ought to survive, but when you make that your personal objective, you reject all the other emotions that have evolved to ensure survival and have done so so far, in particular, caring for the wellbeing of people around you, and the capacity to solve actual problems, at a scope where you can understand the consequences of your actions.
- sixo 3y agoFurthermore, in other words—god this makes me so mad—it's a question of responsibility. The species has loads of people to take responsibility for it, and will have an infinitely more in the future. The people who need help immediately around you? The actual world? Not so much. If you completely dissociate from your physical existence in the world and imagine all people everywhere at all times as equidistant from you, like a god, well great, but I suspect you're doing that because you're too vain and hurt and too much of a coward to engage with the world around you in all its painful reality—painful to you, because it will remind you that you haven't felt like a valid part of it YET, and you never WILL until you accomplish the Work that makes you worthy of existing—fixing everything everywhere for all time, but starting with—nothing, nowhere, ever. You'd do well to notice that you have voluntarily accepted responsibility for this on some trumped-up rational basis because that's actually EASIER than doing something once for anyone that actually exists.