Introduction

I’ve generally thought of longtermist philosophy as a distinctively modern and Western philosophic development, dependent on relatively recent conceptual innovations: such as welfarist focused value-systems, and scientific understanding of astronomical timeframes extending billions of years into the future. These seemed like prerequisites for taking the far future seriously as a domain of moral concern.

However, while reading about Buddhism, I’ve encountered some striking parallels that challenge this assumption. Several varieties of Buddhism exhibit features that bear surprising resemblance to modern longtermist priorities: concern with extremely long time horizons, institutional efforts to preserve civilizational knowledge, and focus on reducing suffering for beings across vast stretches of time. 

This post examines these parallels and considers where the comparison breaks down, as well as covering why this might matter in the conclusion. (Warning- I do not claim to be an expert on philosophy or Buddhism, so I apologise in advance if I end mischaracterising views here.)

Structural similarities

1. Exceptional temporal scope

Buddhist cosmology operates on timescales that dwarf typical human historical thinking. The concept of kalpas—cosmic cycles lasting billions of years—provides a framework for thinking about the deep future. The prophecy of Maitreya, the future Buddha whose arrival is projected inconceivably far into the future, demonstrates genuine engagement with what happens on civilizational and even cosmic timescales.

This stands in notable contrast to most other religious and philosophical traditions, which tend to focus on timescales of centuries or millennia at most, or alternatively posit an imminent end-times scenario. 

2.  Interventions for longterm civilisational resilience

Perhaps the strongest parallel lies in concrete preservation efforts. Buddhist institutions have undertaken remarkable projects to transmit the Dharma across time:
    ∙    The Chinese Buddhist canon carved onto stone slabs and sealed in mountain caves
    ∙    The Tripiṭaka Koreana, carved on over 80,000 wooden blocks in the 13th century
    ∙    Massive printing projects to ensure text survival and distribution

These efforts weren’t primarily for contemporary practitioners but explicitly for future generations who might otherwise lose access to the teachings. This mirrors modern longtermist interventions like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault or efforts to preserve scientific knowledge against civilizational disruption, but almost a millennium before hand.

The motivation is explicitly about ensuring that beings in the far future potentially after periods of civilizational collapse or dark ages—can still access the path to liberation.

3. Concern with suffering across time

Buddhism’s fundamental concern is with the suffering of all sentient beings. Combined with beliefs in rebirth and the vast scope of time, this creates concern for beings who will exist in the future. The focus on transmitting the Dharma forward reflects an understanding that current actions can affect the welfare of beings not yet born.

While Buddhism lacks the concept of existential risk (since the universe is seen as eternal and cyclical), there is something analogous to s-risk concern—worry about vast amounts of suffering persisting into the far future if the Dharma is lost.

Key dissimilarities:

Despite these parallels, several fundamental distinctions separate Buddhist thinking from modern longtermism:

• No concept of existential risk: The Buddhist cosmological framework assumes eternal cycles without genuine endpoints. The universe will continue; beings will continue being reborn across countless kalpas. This eliminates the category of existential risk entirely—a central concern of contemporary longtermism.
• Spiritual focus over material interventions . Buddhism focuses on transmitting the Dharma—spiritual teachings and practices—rather than developing technological or institutional mechanisms to directly increase future welfare. The theory of change operates through
• Individual liberation over aggregate welfare. In Buddhist metaphysics, each being’s liberation depends primarily on their own practice and karmic inheritance. You can’t “save” future beings in bulk by preventing civilisational catastrophe—each must walk the path themselves. 

Conclusion- okay, so what? 

Some historical manifestations of Buddhism do seem to exhibit a form of proto-longtermist thinking. The temporal scope, concern with future suffering, and concrete knowledge preservation efforts are interesting  similarities.

This suggests that longtermist thinking, in various forms, may arise independently when traditions take seriously both long time horizons and the importance of current choices for the far future. This could suggest that concern for the far future isn’t a peculiar modern invention but can arise organically from certain philosophical commitments—suggesting longtermist intuitions may be more robust and cross-culturally grounded than sometimes assumed.

On a personal level, I find it motivating to think of present day longtermists tapping into millennium-spanning principles. The example of ancient historical analogues (such as Chinese Buddhist monks preserving thousands of documents with the intention of preserving knowledge to reduce the suffering of future generations) makes me somewhat more hopeful about longtermist interventions to influence the far future.