it's hard to take the idea of longtermism seriously when it makes a basic mistake of treating its far future (10^58 people living in a computer simulation) as virtually certain. it has no concept of stochastically discounting this future among infinitely many into the present, let alone today's value of all those potential future beings(?), to arrive at a reasonable weighting on present decisions.

with that said, i do really dislike the focus on "climate change" as mediopolitically-mediated existential risk, as it's too abstract and it's potentially devastating effects also poorly discounted into the present. instead, let's rather focus more on pollution, especially of the air, ground, and water, which are palpable and immediate threats to lives, solutions to which will also intersect with the longer term problems implicated by climate change. pollution is a real risk today and into every far future, which is why it's worth pursuing now, rather than a single strand of future possibility.