Re:The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
by kazinator on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @07:55PM
(#28055723)
> This means that if you want to do the most good, you should focus on these far-future people rather than on helping those in extreme poverty today.
Lifting people out of poverty means you're just increasing the consumption that produces global warming. Lifting people out of poverty is therefore not an environmental good.
Therefore, it is not a valid argument if you want to discredit an environmentally-linked viewpoint. It is neither here nor there.
If you want to (at least somewhat) discredit longtermism, you have to show that if all human activity around the globe that is geared toward reducing environmental harm were to adopt longtermist values, and made decisions accordingly, then the environmental situation would get worse than otherwise. That would tend to indicate that longtermism is just a smokescreen for living it up and not caring about the environment.
What we have here is just pathetic whataboutism, instead: "never mind the future of civilization in the light of climate change; what about all the poor people here today?"
"You know I'm tired of hearing about people; for a good many of them, it's their own fault. How about all the toddlers with cancer?"
"No way, to heck with your toddlers with cancer, how about $GROUP_I_FEEL_SORRY_FOR?"
Oh my god, someone in the world doesn't care about exactly the same things I care about. Doesn't believe in the same god, or the same politics, use the same apps, like the same music ... outrage in 4, 3, 2, ...
Lifting people out of poverty means you're just increasing the consumption that produces global warming. Lifting people out of poverty is therefore not an environmental good.
Therefore, it is not a valid argument if you want to discredit an environmentally-linked viewpoint. It is neither here nor there.
If you want to (at least somewhat) discredit longtermism, you have to show that if all human activity around the globe that is geared toward reducing environmental harm were to adopt longtermist values, and made decisions accordingly, then the environmental situation would get worse than otherwise. That would tend to indicate that longtermism is just a smokescreen for living it up and not caring about the environment.
What we have here is just pathetic whataboutism, instead: "never mind the future of civilization in the light of climate change; what about all the poor people here today?"
"You know I'm tired of hearing about people; for a good many of them, it's their own fault. How about all the toddlers with cancer?"
"No way, to heck with your toddlers with cancer, how about $GROUP_I_FEEL_SORRY_FOR?"
Oh my god, someone in the world doesn't care about exactly the same things I care about. Doesn't believe in the same god, or the same politics, use the same apps, like the same music ... outrage in 4, 3, 2, ...