Introduction

Humanity, self-aware, should divert its attention from self-preservation towards constant improvement, and therefore stray from a path of repeating otiosity to one of potential ideal — if not unguaranteed – circumstance. Despite our recognition and consequent high valuing of humankind’s existence, it is drastically less productive to prioritize the calculation and mitigation of quasi-infinite existential risks rather than to attend to the paramount needs of our population and the amelioration of our world – ourselves included within it – in the far future. While fear and the moral implication of humanity to extend and protect its lifetime [1] may lead us to hold the assurance of a far future (assumed to be at 1000 years post-21st century) above all else, it is through logic that we must instead direct our efforts at maintaining a safer, cleaner, more equal, better-governed, and more plentiful potential environment, by occupying ourselves with the issues of today with stronger implications to the distant future. In other words, building a “castle in the sky” – the promise of paradise without the guarantee of its existence – allows for a bettered present and an increased motivation toward the future, making it (ironically) the more concrete of the two options. Poverty, inequality, desertification, climate change, and the furthering of knowledge – looking towards the distant future as much as the far past – are imperative topics to address so as to prevent their possible disastrous effects from reaching unborn generations, which humankind is arguably ethically bound to consider, and, to the best of its ability, counteract. Attempting to reduce the risk of human extinction over improving the quality of a faraway future — with the chance of humankind existing to see it, is an endeavor that at first glance may seem to intuitively bear more importance than the latter, but upon analysis – and further explanation – can only be characterized as unproductive, unrealistic, and unattainable.

The Ethicality of Prioritizing the Unknown

Nothing, according to Greek philosopher Pyrrho (360 BC – 270 BC), is known – especially not when correlated to the senses. Réné Descartes (1596-1650) similarly argued in Latin – despite being French* – cogito ergo sum; or “I think/doubt, therefore I am” – or, in relevance to his Greek predecessor, Descartes established that the only proof of his existence was his one certainty: that he is not certain of anything, and that it is his doubt that validates him. The unknown has been in play for centuries; despite our attempts at categorizing patterns and predicting trends and creations of algorithms to reach into the future, we cannot anticipate all events before they have occurred – especially those in the far future, where situations spiral out of the bounds of our imaginations. Although people in the 20th century attempted to guess what our present would look like, ideas – such as the broom machine or the mechanical barber – fell short of actual events, as they could not realistically account for inventions and circumstances that had not been a part of their everyday lives but that contributed to the changes of today. In fairness, the 21st century’s advancements have surpassed – in speed, in complexity, in effect – those of past centuries’. Our present is unprecedented and fantastical to the eyes of people only one century away – so how predictable can our far future be, and how realistic can we make our ideas on the risks to humanity in a hundred years, let alone a thousand? Prioritizing what cannot be known over what is concretely counted as crucial (such as the pressing issues of today – hunger, poverty, warfare, environmental danger) is as ethically coherent as, if being faced with a trolley problem, leaving the track to kill a certain and large number of people because of the unknowable off-chance that it’d otherwise kill more that in the far future, under unpredictable circumstances. One fights a certainty – addressing the current issue, and its effects on both the near and far future – and the other an unsolvable variable, which, when placed into the very scale originally proposed by Givewell [2] and revised by Robert Wiblin (research economist and Head of Research at 80,000 Hours) with the purpose of highlighting the importance of focusing on future threats to humanity, in actuality prioritizes the former over the latter, countering its intended purpose (see Comparison: Scalability). Pyrrho, following his logic [3], grew skeptical and avoidant of all dogmas of knowledge and truth-seeking, while Descartes relied strongly and majoritarily on mathematics on which to foot his “proof-like” reasoning; both, when faced with the unknown, turned away from it. 

Escaping the Catch-22: Present vs Future

Similarly, attempting to mitigate constant risks – such as risks of pandemics, asteroids, and nuclear warfare erupting – while knowing that they may resurface or expand despite extensive efforts simply due to outside factors results in continuous prioritization of “ensuring a long-term future now”, is akin to rolling a boulder up a hill, ignoring its height or obstacles that could send the rock crashing down. It highlights an impossible goal – reducing the risk of human extinction in the face of factors unable to be completely controlled, leaving little room to diminish risk and setting aside more immediately pressing altruistic problems until after sufficient security is reached, which cannot be accurately predicted. A Catch-22 [4] is consequently formed, trapping our focus onto the future, and ignoring the present – and by training future generations to focus on preserving their own future generations (8000 hours), risk may be diminished slightly, but at the expense of the potential well being of the people; immediate issues may not be addressed, and the future may shift in quality in order to better focus on the possibility of it occurring. Instead, focusing on the level the future will have encourages our reaching of it; in lieu focusing on reducing infinite risk, it is not unreasonable to preserve our environment and future quality of life with the incentive of motivating generations down the road to reach it . When put into an everyday example: many people prefer to not have a kid at all if it means they will be miserable, while others will have a child if the child can be had; one is prioritizing wellbeing, the other procreation – which child will succeed – or face better circumstances – even when counting the risk of the first not existing at all? This discussion should also be held in the context of the present; should we value our (almost certain) immediate survival or the wellbeing of billions across the globe (highly varying?) In answering the first, we are wasting our resources on an uncontrollable factor, with cannot be described as ethically sound; in answering the second, we must also consider the wellness of those not simply around us, but after us – those at the other side of the globe may be as spatially distanced from us as those temporally far away (assuming that space and time will be, for this essay, discussed in the same vein). 

Comparison: Scalability

Reducing the risk of human extinction entails an emphasis on global priorities research, and the analysis of issues and risks to address using a fair, quantifiable scale, using (as described by Robert Wiblin and Benjamin Todd in two separate articles, both 80000 Hours – see bibliography) three measurable terms: how much good would a problem’s solving be; how many resources and how much effort would be needed to “make a dent” in the issue (measured by the doubling of existing resources and the estimated percent change in the “completion” of the problem); and how many existing resources and attention is already being given to the situation at hand. This scale uses relative measurements – many of which cannot be obtained with precision – and therefore its results and rankings can be varied. However, the scale fails to measure the timeframe in which it would attribute its data – importance varies based upon circumstance, and circumstance frequently varies due to time. A general cap for a relatively consistent prediction is a century, and this brings another issue to attempting to avoid extinction – efforts can only be made with reasonable certainty to affect the next century, not thereafter. Chances of a given risk occurring after this timeframe change, which may impede past efforts to diminish them, rendering prior attempts useless. Constant repetition ensues, and priorities shift. Stephen Hawking predicted humanity to survive for at least another thousand years – ten centuries. With this minimum established, despite the risks of extinction present – and at times largely overestimated and varied in percentage – the overall importance of prioritizing humanity and minimizing extinction odds diminishes. When focusing on the future, with a larger chance of surviving ten centuries than perishing within them (Toby Ord places risks in a century to be 1 in 6, but Benjamin Todd’s calculations round up to 4%), we should instead divert our attention to our success, not our survival.

What We Can Do

Ensuring that the world will “go better” comes with its own actions. We can take measures that will affect humans in 5,000 years, and humans in much longer or shorter periods of time. We can document our lifestyles to provide a clearer history than what may become available. We can address pressing issues of today – poverty, refugee crises, climate change. Focusing on the environment – and therefore problems that we are able to solve today – we can give room for our future generations to have the choice of centering themselves around preservation or prosperity. However unpredictable it may be, the future is often a presence in philosophy and a subject of many philosophers’ strongest beliefs; Aristotle identified the ultimate goal of humankind – not its preservation, but its happiness, and eudaimonia. We can make more of an impact – and reach closer to our perfect world – by attempting to better our environment for our later generations than by attempting to ensure our existence in the far future. We aren’t building a castle in the sky — we’re laying the foundation for, if the time comes, the construction of paradise.

by Lara Sahagun

Notes

[1] Synonymous with longevity, as coined by William MacAskill in his book, What We Owe the Future.

[2] Originally focused on policy for the United States, but applicable due to its amendments.

[3] Pyrrhonian Scepticism, or Pyrrhonism, advocates for the release of all judgement in favor of the truth – in thinking that the senses, despite neither telling the truth nor lying, mislead us, Pyrrho instead chose to avoid them entirely.

[4] see Catch-22: Anti-Hero, Anti-War, Pro-Humanity, by Lara Sahagun, on The Boston Hound for a dive in the novel by Joseph Heller and its applications to the real world.

Bibliography

Gharib, Malaka. “How Can We Help Humans Thrive Trillions of Years from Now? This

     Philosopher Has a Plan.” NPR. Last modified August 6, 2022. Accessed

     October 17, 2023. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/08/16/

     1114353811/how-can-we-help-humans-thrive-trillions-of-years-from-now-this-philosopher-has-a.

Holden. “Narrowing Down U.S. Policy Areas.” GiveWell Blog. Accessed May 22,

2014. https://blog.givewell.org/2014/05/22/

     narrowing-down-u-s-policy-areas/.

Moorhouse, Fin. “Longtermism: An Introduction.” Effective Altruism. Last

     modified January 27, 2021. Accessed October 17, 2023.

     https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/

     longtermism#humanitys-long-term-future-could-be-enormous.

Samuel, Sigal. “What We Owe to Future Generations.” Vox. Last modified June 2,

2021. Accessed October 17, 2023. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/

     22552963/how-to-be-a-good-ancestor-longtermism-climate-change.

Todd, Benjamin. “The Case for Reducing Existencial Risks.” 80000 Hours. Last

     modified October 2017. Accessed October 17, 2023. https://80000hours.org/

     articles/existential-risks.

Wilbin, Robert. “A Framework for Comparing Global Problems in Terms of Expected

     Impact.” 80000 Hours. Last modified October 2019. Accessed October 17,

2023. https://80000hours.org/articles/problem-framework/#top.