William MacAskill's popular defense of longtermism — arguing that future people matter morally, that the future could be astronomically large, and that we should therefore prioritize reducing existential risks.
Strong longtermism made accessible: MacAskill presents the mathematical case (future people could vastly outnumber present people; their welfare matters equally) alongside compelling examples. The lock-in problem: some near-term decisions could permanently foreclose better futures (value lock-in by authoritarian AI, extinction). The cautious approach: even if you're uncertain about population ethics, reducing existential risk is prudent. The most high-profile intervention in the longtermism debate — generating significant backlash from those who think it enables neglect of present suffering.
Discussing
Ask anything about What We Owe the Future — their ideas, influences, contradictions, legacy.
Sign in to start a conversation.