I have some major problems with this article. It jumps right to the point with black and white positioning that society can only prioritize longterm goals or climate change, and the two of them are at odds.

It also mischaracterizes the idea of existential threats as a fringe idea about the happiness of hypothetical simulated in the future. While this has been used to explore ethical questions, much like the trolley problem, the mainstream definition and application of existential threat is events that would cause humanity to go extinct.

The article also fails to engage with the fundamental philosophical and ethical claims it attributes to the longtermists. It doesn't say where and how their logic is faulty, it just ridicules the conclusions as outrageous and plays up the moral outrage.

YES, there are pitfalls in ethical evaluations with massive hypothetical outcomes. What solution do they offer... ignore the questions, don't think analyze or explore them? Don't iterate and improve them?