Climate crisis and the dangers of tech-obsessed ‘long-termism’

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. Extremely short-termist. In fact, I have a book on this subject coming out soon: in Why climate breakdown 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 long-term thinking and it must be done 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 long-termism 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 future is allegedly post-humanColonizing the galaxy, the solar system and the universe is what it will or should involve. This mindset will allow you to see that any sacrifice, or even crime, is justified in order for our species to survive. To preserve the part of our species that places all its faith in big tech and space exploration. cryogenesisMore.

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(supposedly, to guard against existential dangers to humanity coming from non state terrorists) and much more economic development.

Here is an example to show you that Torres & I are not exaggerating. Oxford academic and leading “long-termist” 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 might 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 long-termists, 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-termists often view climate change as a minor problem, because they don’t believe it poses a threat to the species. Allegedly, technological innovation sprung from within the rich world will eventually “solve” climate change. This is why long-termists like billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel, Jaan Tallinn, and Skype cofounder Jaan Tallinn encourage us to Beware LessWe know more about climate than we do..

However, I am open to the possibility that global ecocatastrophe is real. “white swan” existential threat(Unlike black swan menaces, which are unpredictable, white swans can 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 Future relocalizedIn which we have democratic control of the technologies that are developed. This is perhaps because long-termists are overwhelmingly technophiles hailing from wealthy countries.

The point then is to differentiate between the valid concept of long-termism and the dubious conception of it that’s become almost hegemonic.
We must care more about the future of the world after our lives are over. In that context, it’s dreadful news that “long-termist” has in effect been appropriated by one particular interpretation.