longtermism

Compiled with AI assistance and selectively reviewed. Please consult the cited passages; the books remain the authoritative source. About this companion

Editorial synthesis · provisional

Definition

Longtermism gives moral priority to positively influencing the long-term future; stronger variants make far-future effects decisive across many present choices. The corpus distinguishes this family of arguments from its own future responsibility. It accepts that later lives matter while rejecting speculative aggregation as authority to sacrifice present plurality, rights-like constraints or correction.

Explanation

RB3 identifies the public formulation associated with MacAskill and distinguishes stronger claims about the dominance of far-future consequences. The author’s criticism targets the move from immense possible populations to overriding present priority. It should not be rewritten as a rejection of caring about people who will live later.

Askell and Neth supply a qualification within expected-value reasoning: predictable differences can diminish even while causal effects persist. Their argument retains information and option value. The author explicitly adds a separate normative refusal to make every good substitutable within one aggregate; their work is not presented as a general refutation of longtermism.

The stronger political critique remains attributed and qualified. RB3 warns against elite authority and exclusion while declining to endorse every element of the critics’ genealogy. AB’s alternative asks which regimes preserve viable, plural and revisable futures, rather than maximizing an imagined population ledger.

Scope and attribution

Retain a proposed split between the general priority claim and stronger aggregative versions.

AB — The Actual Book

Future responsibility is separated from strong aggregative optimization.

Occurrence locators: 197; Notes: 249; Appendix: 279.

RB3 — The Real Book, Volume III: Murmurations

Public and strong variants, internal qualifications and authorial critique remain distinct.

Occurrence locators: 190, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267; Notes: 263, 264.

Background used in the editorial explanation

Named theories and mechanisms are distinguished from neighboring background, homonyms and the author’s own synthesis. Reproduced AI passages retain their separate voice.