3 ms·

> it's acceptable to basically ignore the real problems of today in order to address fantasy problems in the distant future. Longtermism came from the "Effecti

• JohnFen 3y ago
  > I don't think that you can argue that donating $58 million to fight Malaria is "basically ignoring real problems" Certainly not. But that's not longtermism. That's, as you say, part of EA. I have a ton of issues with EA as well, but far less than with longtermists.
• Lutger 3y ago
  Yet, there's nothing in longtermism which tells us to donate to fight Malaria now, not really. Even though effective altruists might, a longtermist could argue we stop all malaria aid and donate it to SpaceX instead. Or enslave the poorest 1 billion people to work in Bezos asteroid mines. Or maybe we should execute the 10% most obese people. These are all perfectly defensible positions in longtermism, and if one of these obviously morally dubious positions turn out to benefit 'our potential' the most it would even be immoral not to pursue them.
  • rhn_mk1 3y ago
    > These are all perfectly defensible positions in longtermism What are you basing this on? They are only defensible if you have convincing arguments that they are indeed more beneficial than the alternative. Imagining that they might doesn't make them defensible.