Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
A Happier World videos and transcripts
by Jeroen Willems🔸
3 min read 0

5

What We Owe the FutureLongtermismVideo
Frontpage

We just uploaded a video called "Should We Help Future People?" giving a few quick arguments to care about the longterm future, inspired by Will MacAskill's new book What We Owe The Future!

This is just part of a series we're making on the book, we're aiming to publish one video each week. 

Thanks to Sarah Emminghaus for her help with the script.

Transcript

Sources are marked with an asterisk. Text might differ slightly in wording from the final video.

The arguments

This grain of sand represents ten million people – about the population of London.* 140 million children are born each year – fourteen grains of sand.*

These are the 795 grains of sand representing everyone alive today – and these six grains of sand show the 60 million people dying each year. 

This is everyone who has ever lived: 10900 grain of sands for 109 billion people. 

How many people will be alive in the future? We can’t know for sure. The website Our World in Data roughly estimates there could be a hundred trillion people alive over the next 800 000 years.
That would mean ten million grains of sand. Or 12,5 thousand times our current population.*

So should we care about these people thousands of years from now? Should we try to help them today? 

Some argue that there are enough issues in the world that we should focus on first.

To a certain degree this is true. We shouldn’t stop caring about people today. Most of you watching probably agree that a life in a country far away from you isn’t less worthy than the life of a random person in your country. But just like distance in space shouldn’t determine someone’s worth, distance in time shouldn’t either. So everyone is important, whether they live in your country, abroad or in the future. Given the huge amount of people there could be in the future, we should do our best to make life as amazing as possible for them. But since it’s really difficult to estimate our impact on the future, it makes sense to still spend some of our time and resources on issues today that are easier to solve.

Another argument. Imagine you’re on a hike and you drop a broken glass on the ground. At some point in time, someone will step on it and hurt their feet. Does it truly matter whether this happens in a month, or hundreds of years from now? To the person hurting their feet it doesn’t. The pain will be the same, whether it happens now or in the future.

We can also imagine living thousands of years from now and looking back at our actions from today. If we keep on neglecting the future like we’re doing now, do you think we’ll look back with gratitude? We currently don’t look at our history and say people were living very ethically, given the rampant racism and sexism of our past. So this might be a great way to set us apart from our past.

Most of us care about climate change and radioactive waste. We don’t care about these issues for ourselves and our children only. We care about these issues because they affect generations to come. It makes sense to apply this attitude to other issues too.

Conclusion

We just quickly summarised some arguments from Oxford philosopher Will MacAskill’s new book called What We Owe The Future. The book makes the case for caring about our longterm future and explores what we can do. It came out today, and you can use the code WWOTF to get 10% off the book at this link. Check it out! We’re making a video series summarising some of the book’s chapters. We’ll be visiting Chinese history, the islamic golden age, the possible end of humanity and more. So make sure to subscribe and ring that notification bell to get notified when they come out! I’ll try to publish one video every week for the duration of the series. See you next week!

5

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Previous:
Response to Kurzgesagt: How We Can Fight Climate Change
2 comments24 karma
Next:
The Story of Benjamin Lay (video)
No comments22 karma
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
More from Jeroen Willems🔸
142
Why did CEA buy Wytham Abbey?
Q
Jeroen Willems🔸
· · 2m read
340
340
37
The Global Fight Against Lead Poisoning, Explained (A Happier World video)
Jeroen Willems🔸
· · 11m read
0
0
55
EA Creatives and Communicators Slack
Jeroen Willems🔸
· · 1m read
31
31
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Relevant opportunities
48
I'm hiring a Research Assistant for a nonfiction book on AI!
Garrison
· · 1m read
2
2
28
Center on Long-Term Risk: Summer Research Fellowship 2025
Center on Long-Term Risk
· · 1m read
0
0
53
AI Moral Alignment: The Most Important Goal of Our Generation
Ronen Bar
· · 10m read
11
11
View more