Somewhere between the first page and the last, we are both author and character — unsure whether our story continues, or ends with us.
Much like any philosophical theory, longtermism also has a set of assumptions, reasoning and criticisms. The key idea of longtermism depends on one variable: That the future generation does indeed exist. That is its first and foremost assumption. Its 2nd assumption is that Human Civilisation could live on for an enormous duration. And the 3rd assumption of this philosophical idea is that our actions do indeed influence the future generations that are to come after us. A 1st year PPE student takes on the idea that our present must not be compromised for a still unocured future. The excess should, however, be invested in the possibility of a model future. This is what I have instilled from the particular theory in debate. A strong long-termism would tilt the scales more in favour of the future, advising that the future is of greater importance. We need to realise that long-termism is a necessity, but the present is just as grave. Most of the issues that the future will face start today; small issues of today turn out to be a major or a big crisis tomorrow.
However, on a more personal note, I believe the ethics and morals of today can be shielded and modified to be instilled in the future. And these very morals are what will change tomorrow, and not the resources we pour in today. These ethics, as mentioned in the readings, are influenced by social media trends such as memes and other political and community propaganda. One such moral that I believe is a total game-changer is impartiality towards doing good. This idea revolves around the basic principle of doing good even if the proportion doesn't correspond to the care of the feeling one feels towards the cause. For instance, if a person wants to do good, they should invest their time and resources in the greater issues of today. Our actions will only matter if done collectively. For instance, if a small donation of 5 pounds is put into a charity, it alone will not be of much use and will not show substantial betterment. But let's say that 15% of the world makes that same donation regardless of their views on the issue, the total charitable funds reach 5 billion pounds, which is more than enough to eradicate a disease if that is our focus. The basic idea I'm trying to put forth is that instead of preaching for a better future, solve the current issues and stop the current crisis from becoming a future existential crisis.
The main reason for not gambling in the future, from my perspective, is a few things we cannot speculate on today. For example, the future population in 100 years might be double the 8.5 billion it is today or cut down half. In the case where it multiplies, there will be a risk of a famine, but if it cuts down to half, there will be more than enough resources to go around for everyone. The entire case of the future speculations is made with a simple assumption that the population of the future is somewhat similar in strength to us. We live every day on the verge of collapse, with the majority of the world overpopulated, while some countries struggle to maintain a sustainable population. However, we do need to protect the future at least with a sane foundation for it. The foundation is today's world, the future is abstract, there are a million ways the earth could end, and we, along with it. The solution for that would be not to be too farsighted and tackle only the foreseeable future; the legal term for that is 100 years. The probability of making a calculated estimate about 100 years ahead is moderate, but of making an assumption a millennium ahead is just not feasible or at all probable. Then also comes the part where we cannot ethically make decisions that restrict the future in any way. We cannot force our operations and institutions on them. We have seen great leaders in the past leave the gravest of norms with room for modifications; our constitutions, the United Nations, and the charter that judges the economy all have been left with room for adaptation. For example, if we create an office that is and never will be fit to house computers or any charging ports whatsoever, as was the need then. The building then becomes obsolete in the future, as the 21st century is an era where no task can be completely free of technology. This is the part where longtermism is really constructive, as thinking into the foreseeable future and always leaving room for change. For me, longtermism as a thought should be used to just take into account that the future is not going to be the same; it should be ahead of what we are today, therefore, we must adapt and leave room for adapting.
I don’t think Longtermism is a duty in deed, it is a duty of thought. The future should be subconsciously present in the mind of the individual when making a decision. There can be no actions we commit today that can influence the future to its entirety. We might add a sort of boon to the future through the science of today, but that is just one branch, and only an exceptional discovery, breakthrough will actually influence the works of the future. When hinting at a moral duty, the duty is not only to grant a boon but also to not derail the future through are actions today. Meaning that we mustn’t in all that we do make a deliberate effort or not consider the consequences of our actions on future generations. I also believe it is paramount that the timing of what we do plays a crucial role in the outcome of the action. Some actions might be considered immoral or negative today, but might become positive in the future. Some of the values might seem bad today, but that might change in the future. We shouldn’t act for the future until and unless we are sure there will be no negative consequences for it in the future. This thought can be classified into two parts: urgent and patient longtermism. The latter is more of a moral and ethical standpoint in a way of preserving the values we have today for the future, while urgent longtermism demands some immediate actions to secure the future outcomes of the deed we commit today. To further explain this, the above example with a switch to technology is the perfect reference to understand this. We must include all we think might be of use to us in the future in the investments we make today.
Another important viewpoint regarding the morality of longtermism is that it doesn't revolve around the idea of values we have regarding things like education, civic sense, etc. It must also include aspects like interspecific morality; we must not only limit the future to human prosperity, but a whole earth full of all the living beings in it. We have widespread animal activism in the current world; however, there is a whole horizon as our limit to determine on what pedestal we place the rights of animals. We are polluting the earth to its very core, poisoning its waters, scarring its forests, all for the needs and wants of humans. We can treat ourselves to diseases and devise a way of living in the mediocre earth without its original greenery and purity. The animals, however, who call these waters and forest their home, will perish under human greed. My personal take on this issue is that no being should pay for the acts of some other being, be it human, be it a reptile or any other living organism. In a world full of AI and artificial products, we must learn to leave nature to those who truly need it without exploiting it any further; some may term a long-term approach to this exploitation as sustainable development. However, this approach only sustains us humans; we will, if not today, pay a price for our action, if not directly, then under the outcome of ecological disruption causing famine and diseases. We mustn't strive for optimal utilisation but a preservative utilisation of resources, which again isn’t a sustainable approach. The animal population faces a graver risk of extinction than we humans do, and the only cause for this is the policies and methods we humans use to deprive these beings of their means of survival. The animal population would have a better chance at survival and prosperity if the humans had never existed; the earth would be as rich as it was, and the climate too would be in the state it was meant to be.
The last topic of discussion is the political and practical approach to longtermism. It raises a very subjective metaethical question, transcending to a statement that can future generations’ moral progress deem our actions today morally obsolete. To this part of the debate, I believe there is no proper answer that sounds very convincing. There is one part of me that urges me to think in a direction where I start believing that how can parents impose their ethics on their children? Or how can we impose our morals on generations of future unborn children? On the other hand, I think if no one sets a moral or an ethical standard, the world will turn to chaos, with no care for the future, present or past. I am not fully convinced about both these mechanisms, as I am almost 100% that both of these have their flaws and neither of these works for the future, but only sets a vague illusion of an ethical society. I would say that somewhere between these methods is our answer to a more ‘sustainable’ society that develops over time on the foundation we set and build today. Moving on from a very generic and very vague start to the paragraph. We shall now discuss the might politics behind longtermism.
The essay for this part of the debate will begin with a somewhat favourite of mine, democracy. Say, for instance, we as a majority democratic world have already deemed democracy as the best form of governance to exist. In this sentence, I make a very sincere note of ‘to existence’. We cannot impose anything on the future, and especially not something that is built on free will. A democracy is a style of governance where the people govern themselves. However nice that might sound, it was never and will never be true. Resources rule the pupil, resources that the poor cannot access. No one is free; they might have their freedom and rights protecting that freedom. But no one in this world can ever be completely free. We, in the present, don’t have a better option, therefore we go with democracy. The same was the case a few centuries ago, when people believed monarchs were the best form of governance. You cannot choose something that hasn’t occurred yet. Hence, as far as democracy is considered, I believe that there should be no institutional adjustments in it made for the sole purpose of tightening its grip on a very, very far-sighted future. This idea raises the question of progress in governance and its institutions, to which we counter that the far-sighted future, in my understanding, is a century or more ahead of today and is therefore unpredictable. We must build our democracies around ‘we the people’ and not the people that have not yet emerged. Since we are already in the governance bit of the debate, let's also delve into the creation of Future Councils / Ombudsmen. To which I say, indeed, if we have the resources for it. But definitely not for countries that are not yet resourceful or developed enough. There is no point in planning for a future when the present is not secured.
Let's delve into the true making of a democracy – the Constitution. If I had to take a guess, I would say with some belief that the Constitution might be the oldest and the most determined longtermist document in existence. It is a mechanism of pure brilliance, it trusts no one, yet awakens a sense that everyone. It is brutal and yet lenient. It is a set of documents that are set in stone until we decide that we don’t want the rule that is now a mandate to compromise what we do. It is a document that cares for the people and ensures the rights of future people the moment they are born. It is a cautious document that will ensure that the coming generations will also have rights, thus ensuring the assumption of longtermism that future people do have rights.
What is my precise take on longtermism, and if there are any like-minded individuals, their take should be that the future, as some say, is not real. It won't be real till it has occurred, and with that in mind, I think that there is no point in making plans ahead of time with almost no grounds for the assumptions. We must only act when we can determine that the event we believe to occur in the future is highly probable. The brilliance of the future is its uncertainty; the greatness of the present is its realism. The past, however, is a collection of teachings, and these teachings, if viewed in the right way, give out a chance for true prosperity. The probability of determining the events of the future is not very convincing, yet the struggles of the present. The moral from even the scarest thought of longtermism is that no one individual will be able to make a change; therefore, we must all stick together and work in making the present what we want the future to be.