[ad_1]
As a philosopher concerned with climate change, my central concern in recent years was the fear that our species and political-economic systems might be endangered. Dangerously short-termist. In fact, I’m working on a book about this very topic. Why climate collapse is important, I set out the pressing need for humanity to become more “long-termist” in its outlook. By this I simply mean things like: we need to care more about what the world will be like in 1,000 years, after (on our current climate-trajectory) most of the world’s ice will have melted. We need to think long-term and we need it quickly.
But the reason I felt driven to use scare-quotes above is that the term “long-termist” has in effect been captured by a particular interpretation which, ironically, does not take climate breakdown seriously.
I’m thinking of the situation described by the writer and philosopher Phil Torres in a recent essay. He argues compellingly that what’s become called longtermism is a “dangerous secular credo”.
What is this credo about? It’s the notion that what really matters is humanity’s alleged very long-term potential. This is allegedly the future. post-humanColonizing the solar systems, the galaxy, and the entire universe will be one of their goals. If one thinks this way, any sacrifice or crime can be justified to preserve our species. To preserve the part of our species that places all its faith in big tech and space exploration. cryogenesisYou can find out more.
Alones / shutterstock
Torres’s essay exposes how justifiable concern with the existential risks – risks to our very existence – which, increasingly, humanity has come to hang over itself, is morphing into a way of perpetuating the very system that’s created those risks. A big-tech/industrial/academic complex has sprung into existence, which is sucking up money and attention that could be going into thinking about how we could become genuinely long-termist, and is instead focusing that well-paid attention on the idea that the way to prevent ourselves from destroying ourselves is to have much more tech, much more surveillance(allegedly, to protect against existential threats to humanity from non-state terrorists). And much more economic growth.
Here is an example of Torres’ exaggerated claim. Oxford academic and leading “longtermist” Nick Bostrom Proposals that everyone should permanently wear an Orwellianly-named “freedom tag”: a device that would monitor everything that you do, 24/7 for the remainder of your life to guard against the minuscule possibility that you might be part of a plot to destroy humanity.
This may sound like satire. When I first read Bostrom’s piece, I assumed he was proposing the “freedom tag” idea for rhetorical effect only, or something like that. But no – he means it quite seriously.
And here’s the real trouble: these longtermists, in backing to the hilt the idea of a big-tech, industry-heavy future appear to be calling for much more of the very things that have brought us to this desperate ecological situation.
It is not a fully existential danger.
Technotopian long-termism advocates often consider climate change to be a minor issue, as they believe it is not a serious threat to the species. Allegedly, technological innovation sprung from within the rich world will eventually “solve” climate change. Long-termists like billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel or Jaan Tallinn, co-founder of Skype, urge us to do this. Do not be alarmed LessWe know more about the climate than we do..
Contrarily, I want to expressly leave open the possibility of global eco-catastrophe actually being a “white swan” existential threat(Unlike black swan threat, which is unexpected, white Swans are of course to be expected). If this is true, then the best way to plan for the long-term might be to reduce our techno-power.
I believe that we should all work towards a Relocalized futureIn which we have democratic control of the technologies that are developed. This is possible because longtermists tend to be technophiles from rich countries.
The point then is to differentiate between the valid concept of longtermism and the dubious conception of it that’s become almost hegemonic.
After our individual lives, we must be more concerned about the future. In that context, it’s dreadful news that “longtermist” has in effect been appropriated by one particular interpretation.
