Fast forward to recently, when I spotted #WilliamMacAskill's #WhatWeOweTheFuture, which is all about how we owe it to future generations to not screw up the present. It recognises that humanity can now drive itself to extinction, and tries to figure out some strategies for avoiding that.
It seemed like it might press my armageddon fascination buttons but offer some rays of hope, and maybe suggest concrete actions.
Initially, it played out like that:
WWOTF: OMG for the first time in history we can annihilate ourselves in multiple ways!
Me: Yep!
WWOTF: We should try to avoid that!
Me: I don't want my descendants living out Mad Max. How can I be a Good Ancestor?
WWOTF: The nuclear threat hasn't gone away!
Me: I know! Philomena Cunk does too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zabCBnUHLA
WWOTF: Climate Change!
Me: Yeah, I have to scroll quickly past COP27 headlines to preserve my mental health…
WWOTF: Pathogens!
Me: Topical.
I mean, I know philosophers are, and should be, open to considering things that seem ridiculous, and maybe I should charitably assume that there's an intelligent pay-off at the end.
But I'm getting that sinking feeling that's I'm a sucker tricked into reading trash again.
Has anyone out there finished #WhatWeOweTheFuture, and thinks I should forge ahead?
Wow! A timely toot from the amazing @timnitGebru has led me to this confirmation of my suspicions:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/07/the-dangerous-ideas-of-longtermism-and-existential-risk
I think I can stop wasting my time on #WhatWeOweTheFuture
Another thank you to @timnitGebru this time for a retweet of the following Twitter thread with yet more things wrong with #WhatWeOweTheFuture - I sure dodged a bullet
The thread summarises this by Émile P Torres:
https://thebulletin.org/2022/11/what-longtermism-gets-wrong-about-climate-change/#post-heading