7 korrents from this piece
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsOn this view, it’s not enough to avoid near-term catastrophe, because the future could still fall far short of what’s possible.
Their wordsThis essay series will argue that work on Flourishing is in the same ballpark of priority as work on Surviving.
Their wordsBut the difference in value between the world today and that common-sense utopia might be very small compared to the difference between that common-sense utopia and the best futures we could feasibly achieve.
Their wordsI see this as the strongest argument against the better futures perspective, and the reason why I don’t feel confident that work on Flourishing is higher-priority than work on Surviving, rather than merely in the same ballpark.
Their wordsBut I don’t claim you should always maximize the good, no matter the self-sacrifice, and no matter what means are involved.
Their wordsGiven how much moral progress we should hope to make in the future, and how much we’ll learn about what’s even empirically possible, we should act on the assumption that we have almost no idea what the best feasible futures would look like. Committing today to some particular vision would be a great mistake.
Their wordsFrom my point of view, the key priority in the world today is to get us closer to viatopia, not to some particular narrow end-state.