What Is Long-Termism, and Do We Need It?

What Is Long-Termism?

Elon Musk

Elon Musk. Peter Thiel. Nick Bostrom. These, among many other famous entrepreneurs, innovators and intellectuals, are proponents of the influential and growing philosophy of long-termism. In recent years this controversial philosophy has greatly grown in popularity, mostly as a result of books such as “What We Owe The Future” by William MacAskill as well as endorsements from billionaires such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. At the root of long-termism lies the fundamental idea that the totality of human experiences lie not in the here and now, but in the future. A future that contains hundreds of billions of people, even trillions, deserves the forethought and focus of our mere 8 billion people alive today. This idea clearly brings about many moral considerations, but how does it work?

In a world of ever increasing technological prowess, the power and influence we have, as a species, is tremendous – and can be applied for better or worse. We have the capacity to bring about a thriving world, where civilisation is powered entirely by renewable energy sources, and where we, and our technology, exist harmoniously with nature. Yet we have just as much a capacity to destroy our planet as a result of continual exploitation, and to sicken it with fossil fuels and nuclear war. This, it seems, is the primary motivator of modern long-termism, yet it diverges into many different views, from a forethought of innovation to a moral imperative.

Blue Origin

Jeff Bezos, founder of Blue Origin, is well known for adopting a long-term vision for his company, and as the underlying motivation of space exploration. This is communicated with Blue Origin’s vision “of millions of people living and working in space for the benefit of Earth. Blue Origin envisions a time when people can tap into the limitless resources of space and enable the movement of damaging industries into space to preserve Earth, humanity’s blue origin.” Yet, beyond serving as a forethought and overall vision for entrepreneurial pursuits, intellectuals such as Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford, have proclaimed a different outlook, proclaiming long-termism a moral imperative. In essence, Bostrom’s philosophical considerations have brought him to the conclusion that the sacrifice of people in the present is justified if done to save future lives. In other words, the sacrifice of billions of people is justified if it reduces our odds of existential catastrophe by a minute fraction of a percentage. This seems questionable (how do you know you’re actually saving anyone?), yet the logic is there and shouldn’t be entirely dismissed. Overall, long-termism is a very broad philosophy, in some situations considered common sense while in others controversial, so let us take a step back and investigate its social, technological, and economic implications.

Where Does Long-Termism Come From?

As we have continuously looked into in past articles, we are living in an era of unrivalled technological growth, bringing about new possibilities only recently considered science fiction. In 1901, the airplane was invented – less than 70 years later we stepped foot on the Moon. Since then, we have sent spacecraft to the sun, as well as toward the stars – billions of kilometres away. Recently, we have seen similar, yet faster, levels of technological growth in the digital realm, with innovations such as the Internet and AI, and all their accompanying developments, such as social media and beyond. This will only continue, and our power with it. As we discussed in our last article, we are already pushing the boundaries of what it means to be human. This carries with it a certain need for long-term considerations.

Without forethought, there will be chaos – both economically and socially. Yet excess forethought and planning, especially when centralised in the hands of few, will bring about order to a dangerous extent, like with Stalin and his central planning. The world that we are describing cannot be left unchecked, that is clear, and so arises the need for a greater focus on long-termism. Yet how far should we take this? The market itself solves most problems, but not all, and so there must be some intervention, whether from government or collective agreement (or probably both) to ensure long-term success. For instance, the market (when left alone completely) will leave behind fossil fuels and adopt nuclear (in some form) as it is simply more efficient – it is just a matter of when it becomes feasible. Yet there must be some institution, namely a government, to scale its adoption and to invest in it so that it may become feasible. So where must long-termism be applied? It must be applied in building a collective direction for innovation, and to motivate government investment.

How Is Long-Termism Applied, and When Does It Become Unethical?

Our civilisation is a complex thing with a plethora of components, yet, underneath it all, we can describe it as society. Our technologies are a collection of tools that we have developed to achieve things otherwise unachievable. Our economy is a management system we have developed to represent trade, and the development of technology. Our governments and laws are created by mutual agreement to oversee the social contract, and ensure our safety. Yet at the root of it all is our society. From this first-principles analysis we can understand that it is counterproductive (to say the least) to allow any of these creations of our society to become more influential than they should be. We cannot let technology radicalise our nature, we cannot let our economy and monetary pursuits consume us, we cannot give all power to the ruling government. And, as it follows, we cannot allow long-termism to be wielded by anything other than society. Why? Well, let’s take a look.

What happens if you give technology the sole rights to long-termism? You get sucked into the chaotic (and not so utopian) techno-utopian dream, where all sorts of odd stuff is happening – at the sacrifice of the rest of our lives that exist beside technology. What about the economy? It will quickly become dysfunctional and reminiscent of the twentieth century communist failures (like Stalinist Russia), where no one actually considered the true nature of the economy and its interaction with human nature. What about the government? It will be used as justification for some psychopathic megalomaniacs just as in Nazi Germany, and the Jewish extermination for the “greater good” of the 1000-year Reich. long-termism cannot be the dictator of governance, technology or our economy and, hence, its use lies instead as a general guide for all of our human endeavours

Conclusion

Overall, the genuine use of long-termism goes little beyond our common sense. Why should we go beyond our planet and explore space? In the short-term to fulfill our curiosity and, more and more so, to make money. But in the long-term to move heavy industry off of Earth, to lower our risk of extinction, and the many more future benefits. The moral philosophy of long-termism seems to have overcomplicated itself in speculation and stretched itself too far. It needn't be anything more than an important consideration in how we run our society – yet it is one that may not be considered enough.

How do you see it? Comment your take👇