One of the concerns I have with #longtermism as it is currently practiced is that it tends to devalue non-human life. It does not seem plausible that the life of fish, for example, is so terrible that extinction would be good for them.
bostonreview.net/articles/the-n…
bostonreview.net/articles/the-n…
I think we need to learn how to share this world equitably with non-human life, if for no other reason than because our life support systems depend on them, and this means that more humans or AGIs aren't automatically a Good Thing. (Neither are fewer humans, though.)
In general, I find the goals of #longtermism commendable, but the blind spots are annoying.
For example, calling people to give what they can - why not just campaign for more equitable taxation?
For example, calling people to give what they can - why not just campaign for more equitable taxation?
There are very good reasons to believe that long-term future of humanity requires setting limits to the use of the Earth's ultimately limited resources, like the ecosystem's capability to act as a sink for metabolic wastes.
And there are very good reasons to believe that such limits cannot be set or respected unless the resources are shared equitably. Historical precedent seems rather clear: the only alternative to equitable sharing and cooperative enforcement of limits seems to be fascism.
These limits - call them limits to life support system performance if you will - are not escapable via space colonization. If anything, such limits are even more apparent in space, where everything needs to be explicitly provided for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
