On longtermism and effective altruism
The social movement called longtermism continues to grow. A movement that focusses on two types of actions: on how to avoid the long-term risks of humanity, and as well on short-term actions to help other human beings in the best way.
The movement counts prominent personalities among the Silicon Valley elites, some of whom participated as founders and continue to contribute funds. Conceptually, the movement is fundamentally driven by philosophers such William MacAskill, Toby Ord, Nick Bostrom and is inspired by the ideas of Peter Singer.
I believe that the movement is basically correct and well-intentioned, but it suffers from the problem of not making its main objective and the deep reason why it should be pursued as a priority. And this lack of clarity leads to doubts and eventual inefficiencies. More, it may produce some damages instead of the expected benefits.
For our purposes I will briefly outline the foundational ideas of the philosophers to support the actions that humanity should carry out. Namely:
Idea number one: the goal of longtermism is the survival of humanity and the welfare of future generations. To this end, they agree that the future can be improved by avoiding or mitigating possible catastrophes caused by existential risks. And at the same time, they try to change society values to achieve a trajectory change that will improve the quality of our future life.
Idea number two: existential risks are caused both by natural risks and human beings. Among them: climate collapse, natural or provoked pandemics, nuclear war, misuse of Artificial Intelligence or misuse of Nanotechnology.
Idea number three: about trajectory changes, they recognize moral uncertainty and of practical decisions of long-termism ideas, and therefore they recommend actions that are both good in the short and long term, such as promoting clean energy, or choosing courses of action that affect diverse groups and cultures.
Difficulties in implementing the ideas of longtermism have led them to promote Effective Altruism, which, in addition to promote actions for long-term goals, dedicates its efforts to improving specific current problems such as reducing poverty, improving health, and promoting moral trade. But also in these Effective Altruism activities, they recognize the problem of moral uncertainty and how to decide when we are not sure which moral theory is correct.
However, there is a difference between strong longtermism versus weak longtermism represented respectively by MacAskill and Ord.
According to William MacAskill strong longtermism is the idea that exerting a long-term positive influence on the future is the fundamental moral priority of our time. Whereas according to Toby Ord longtermism is animated by a moral reorientation toward the immense future that existential risks threaten to destroy.
The difference might seem to be one of nuance, but whereas in Ord's case it amounts to a convenient course of action, for MacAskill longtermism is a moral priority with all that implies. In my opinion longtermism, understood as survival of the species, is a moral priority but not a debatable one. It is an inevitable biological law. Which, although it might seem the same thing, is not, and from it derive important consequences that are essential to overcome moral uncertainty as I will explain below.
The Law of Survival and Broad Altruism
My ideas, in brief, are as follows:
A first biological law that says: “Like all other species of living beings, the primary purpose of Homo sapiens is its own survival”. This objective and the vital imperative it entails are implicit as foundation of the genetic programing of all human beings of all times. And possibly it is part of the global objective of preserving life as a vital process.
This idea is empirically demonstrated by historical causation since all known species have acted and act with this objective in mind. On a previous note, from 1985, I discovered and enunciated this idea in the year 2000 and I was surprised that, being so important, it had not been seen or said yet. I devoted fifteen years to research and in that time, I saw that everyone implicitly counted on it without realizing its importance as the basis of the behavior of living beings, possibly because of its own obviousness.
(Jacques Monod)
Recently I have seen the express confirmation in Jacques Monod's book Chance and Necessity, which in its first chapter says:
All the functional adaptations of living beings, as well as all the artifacts configured by them, fulfill projects that can be considered as aspects or fragments of a single primitive project, which is the conservation and multiplication of the species.
Also, the Spanish biologist, Natalia López-Moratalla, professor specialized in biochemistry and molecular biology says in Cuestiones sobre la evolución humana
The life principle that unites each of the living beings provokes an efficient organism that in the case of animals is intrinsically destined to live and transmit life so that the species is maintained.
And in Inteligencia artificial, ¿conciencia artificial? she explains:
The animal knows its "what for" in the sense that its biology tells it what is convenient or not to live and reproduce and thus achieve its own end: the survival of its species.
When I asked my good friend Dr. Lopez-Moratalla what she was basing these statements on, she answered me immediately: “Everyone knows it”.
Naturally she was referring to the entire scientific world. Because it seems that many philosophers do not accept finality in nature. I believe that these different positions are what have prevented us from discovering and making laws explicit: scientists do not deal with ethics and philosophers do not accept biological laws as the basis of our ethical behavior.
The second idea, which I consider indispensable and complementary to the previous one, is that broad altruism is the most effective and efficient means that our species has increasingly used and assumed try to achieve the priority vital objective, together with competition and struggle. This secondary law is also incorporated in the programming of all human beings in different forms and at different levels according to different times and cultures.
Broad altruism in any of its forms is practiced by all social species. In our case we inherited at least instinctive and reciprocal altruism from our predecessors. And we added a specifically human altruism that has allowed us to coexist in large groups and achieve unprecedented success over time.
In the last decade, I have developed these ideas in several books and publications. The main ones: Surviving. Ideas for a Universal Ethics in 2015 and later in 2016 Surviving by Loving. A Universal Principle of Ethics, edited in English in 2017 as Survival and Altruism. A Universal Principle of Ethics.
At the same time, I have contrasted them with numerous experts, biologists, and philosophers. Some answered me and raised doubts and objections on peripheral issues such as the concept of species or on the priority of the goal of survival over that of reproduction.
However, and to my surprise, none of them objected about the basic idea that I have called the first biological law. Although apparently, they did not see its scope either. The main doubts and objections raised, as well as my answers, can be consulted here.
Broad Altruism as the Framework and Foundation of Effective Altruism
Longtermism and effective altruism philosophers get a lot right, but they lack to solve two things that they recognize in several of their writings and that create theoretical and application problems for their ideas. They lack answers to two serious questions:
First, despite they are aware of the need for an ethical change to generate a change of trajectory, they do not know how to motivate people to adopt a new moral attitude better inclined to longtermism and to the survival of humanity and its present and future welfare.
The answer can only be telling them the truth. Seeing, assuming and spreading that we are living beings like the rest of the living beings that have existed and exist, and that, like all of them, we have implicit in the base of our genetic programming the vital priority imperative to try the survival of our species since that is our purpose and the meaning of our life.
And we can believe we are smarter and better looking, and believe that we have enormous capacities to speak, to think, etc... But we are alive, here, and now, because our ancestors tried to obey the vital imperative they had, as we are still trying to obey and have implicit and operational. Even if they did not know it and we do not know it explicitly, as it happened to Molière's gentlemanly bourgeois who spoke in prose without knowing it.
Therefore, it seems that it is high time that we learn what is our first duty as living human beings. And let us assume it, spread it and act accordingly: so that people know it and act accordingly. At least let see it and know it to the wise men and leaders who guide, or should guide, those who do not think or command.
This is a universal ethical principle about which there is no room for uncertainty. Although its practical application in the different ethical problems remains pending according to the different problems and collectives. This biological law is the basis on which longtermism can be based. This biological law is the foundation for strong longtermism as it prioritizes the objective of the survival of the species.
Second: once we know and assume our priority duty, what do we have to do to try to ensure that our humanity survives and that those who compose it now and in the future are happier and have the greatest possible well-being?
In addition to the above, it is a matter of seeing and assuming that our humanity, like other social species, has developed and maintains increasing forms of selfishness/altruism, which are also in the genetic programming of all human beings. With different degrees and forms of values and virtues according to their time and circumstance.
Collaboration in hunting was a very important virtue for Paleolithic humans, as it still is for lions and Amazonian tribes. And being a doctor, a street sweeper, or a university professor, or a mother/housewife/cleaner, are still altruistic behaviors, perhaps valued differently, that contribute to the survival of the current species.
From these ideas we can deduce the convenience of reviewing the main problems and pending actions havinghumanity as its subject. To this end, the creation of a World Ethical Council, guided by the Universal Ethical Principle, seems essential to orient a Minimum Global Ethic and to promote and advise on the actions and partial ethics of the different collectives and cultures. And naturally to serve as a reference to those who want to perform all kinds of altruism. I have developed in more detail these problems and the possible actions to solve them in my article on Present and Future of Humanity
The summary formula that can serve as a guide for what to do is clear:
It is good/better what, done selfishly/altruistically, is good/better for the survival and welfare of our species/humanity.
Now and in the future, until the end of our species caused either by extinction or by evolution to another or other species that would also have the same mandate and purpose as long The Life continues to exist. Even if we do not know the final purpose of so much effort, and we do not know if there is a "what for" for such effort, nor what is our role on it. But we seem important because of how different we are from other living beings and because of what we seem to be able to become if we manage to live another thousand or ten thousand years. Let´s do it!
References
Corral Lope, J. Supervivir Amando. (Letras de autor, 2016).
Corral Lope, J. Supervivir: ideas para una ética universal. (Letras de autor, 2015).
Ord, T. The precipice: existential risk and the future of humanity. (Hachette Books, 2020).
Ord, T., MacKaskill, W. & Bikbist, K. Moral Uncertainty. (Charlotte & Peter Fiel, 2020).
Monod, J. El azar y la necesidad. (Tusquet, 2016. 1ª ed. 1970).
López-Moratalla, N. Inteligencia artificial, ¿conciencia artificial? (Razón Digital, 2017).
López-Moratalla, N. Cuestiones sobre la evolución humana. (Eunsa, 2008).