Basically we have no answer, the unluck minority still suffers and no philosophy could make them feel like their suffering is worth it, because honestly its not, this is why we have suicide and people begging for their lives to end.

Maybe we need a philosophy that could accept this unchanging fact of existence and somehow still able to justify the existence of the lucky majority at the expense of the few, statistically speaking. Its the eternal trolley problem of existence, but somehow make it ok to sacrifice some people for the many, even if the victims strongly protest it.

Otherwise we'd end up with Antinatalism, Pro mortalism and Efilism, quite depressing.

Except when it isn't. :(

Yup, this is 100% related to the Hard Problem.

> but as a coder, how could i write something that feels? It’s not possible.

What makes you so certain it's not possible?

We have a proof of concept that some configurations of matter feel--namely our brains. It's only a matter of time before we figure out how to reverse-engineer that system to create feeling machines. IMO, the question isn't if we will do this, but how will we know when we've done it?

[removed]

It all comes down to what is meant by "moral" and "improve". It seems to me the only way to accurately describe any change in the present society as an "improvement" must include considering whether it will (or at least could) likewise improve the future society by that same measure. Any other approach is unreasonable and immoral.

Based on history, if we truly wish not to repeat past errors, there should be a few tried and true things that work and should be maintained. I feel the saying, don't fix what isn't broken can be applied in that sense and then improve on it if it is better than the tested method.

It made me think if too fast an innovation may be the enemy.

Another way to think of the idea is like building blocks. We stand on the shoulder of giants.

Same!

[removed]

Well said!

Burning down rainforest, unsustainable fishing, destruction of soil quality by poor agricultural practices... The list is never ending.

And frankly some of these "long term" problems are going to start impacting us a lot sooner than the more naive expect.

I believe that there are somewhat a false dichotomy here. Taking stock of the future does not rule out the present and vice versa.

Plus, anti-longtermism is not intuitive. If future generations counts for nothing, then we have no real incentive for true sustainability. Also, by the fact that generations progresses continuously we are connected with the long term already.

My interpretation of longtermism is as a attempt to come to terms with the current human condition under the anthropocene, where resources have to be viewed as finite and externalities have nowhere to be pushed.

Further, the article in general misses the mark and the good form of giving one’s philosophical opponent it’s best interpretation: the argument that a person in the 1900:s could not have foresight of the coming century is kind of irrelevant. The point to steel man is that we should think seriously about alternative futures and consequences when implementing technology or making policy. And the AI issue does not rely on AGI - rather on alignment and optimization to what values under who’s control.

Not sure why you got a downvote.

I would be quite interested in understanding how to quantify or otherwise make suffering visible.

We try quite a bit on heuristics to try to avoid suffering but in the end we cannot avoid it. Thus, with animals we are quick to euthanize them when they suffer a lot (again for which scale) but for humans we do not.

I would like to understand if there is something like that.

To the topic of longterminism: cool idea to think about it but completed useless in every day. It is mental gymnastics. Like sudoku. In the end nothing practical comes out of it but you had fun thinking about it.

From a more pessimistic perspective: this is the sociological equivalent of terminal value calculations in Discounted Cashflow (DCF) calculations. It is the sum of all future possibilities, weighted by probability and discounted for time value and risk.. needless to say, it is a perversion of the value of life to apply this to future human beings

Edit: and also quite utilitarian, void of any ethics as the focus is on human beings alive and to be born, not what they do with their lives.

[removed]

I interpreted that to mean “philosophy is most valuable when applied to practical life instead of merely theoreticals.”

Just don't tell people what a comprehensive philosophical teaching about life and death is called. Reddit does not like that word.

This just feels dumb. I don’t know anyone who advocates for longtermism. It sounds like a strawman or some debate in a niche philosophical circle which gets spiralled out by talking about it.

The fact is, future humans are a problem in ethics we currently face. What about climate change and non-renewable energy sources? What about the ever growing distance between the richest and the poorest on earth? What about education? The list goes on.

We need to find answers to these things. As I understand it: Either this article is about a completely irrelevant niche of philosophy or - and this is why I’m so cautious here - it’s from someone who doesn’t like giving up the comforts of an unsustainable lifestyle.

[removed]

[deleted]

How could science "destroy" something unfalsifiable?

If you genuinely improve the society we live in then by default you will be improving the future as well sooo cute thought buuuuut no

Raises an interesting question: What is (a decent model of) the time value of suffering?

[removed]

"I don't really know of anyone explicitly promoting an attempt to live free of suffering either"

As far as I'm aware Nondualism, or Advaita (in Hinduism and Buddhism) does this.

"talking about how to actually get through the suffering instead of the implicit idea of forgoing it entirely."

I suppose that's what it would seem like (getting through the suffering) to those who haven't forgone it entirely. The suffering is just not experienced... But others might think the suffering is being experienced by the person they are observing because they imagine it through empathy.

Eg. If I say I haven't experienced racism.. despite being a middle eastern/south asian ethnic minority in a western country. Others might think I'm still living through racism.. like it's a tangible physical thing, when it's really just a matter of perception.

It's those and a lot more. I don't really know of anyone explicitly promoting an attempt to live free of suffering either. It just seems like an implicit composite built out of background cultural pushes in that direction that make people feel worse for failing and whatnot, which philosophy then uses as a foil in talking about how to actually get through the suffering instead of the implicit idea of forgoing it entirely.

Sure, there are different uses of the word ideal.. but I still haven't heard anyone say philosophy is about focusing on being free of those things.

Maybe it's just my impression.. but philosophy is about discussing/exploring principals about life, meaning and the nature of knowledge.

Eastern EU. Religion is in decline here, but indeed in a slow pace but the countless problems with the hypocrisy of religious people that preach is erroding the trust they have in this institution. It is now just a matter of change of a generation. But nevermind, think about the north EU countries where is a high level of well being and they are all very technologized. If you think about it the industrial revolution was the beginning of the fall of religion,and it is not hard to see that the better they are as a society, the more secular they are.