Somewhat relatedly, Ajeya seems to sort-of imply that “the animal-inclusive worldview” is necessarily neartermist, and that “the longtermist worldview” is necessarily human-centric. For example, the above quote about longtermism focuses on “people”, which I think would typically be interpreted as just meaning humans, and as very likely excluding at least some beings that might be moral patients (e.g., insects). And later she says:
And then within the near-termism camp, there’s a very analogous question of, are we inclusive of animals or not?
But I think the questions of neartermism vs longtermism and animal-inclusivity vs human-centrism are actually fairly distinct. Indeed, I consider myself an animal-inclusive longtermist.
I do think it’s reasonable to be a human-centric longtermist. And I do tentatively think that even animal-inclusive longtermism should still prioritise existential risks, and still with extinction risks as a/the main focus within that.
But I think animal-inclusivity makes at least some difference(e.g., pushing a bit in favour of prioritising reducing risks of unrecoverable dystopias). And it might make a larger difference. And in any case, it seems worth avoiding implying that all longtermists must be focused only or primarily on benefitting humans, since that isn’t accurate.
(But as with my above comment, I expect that Ajeya knows these things, and that the fact she was speaking rather than producing edited written content is relevant here.)
Somewhat relatedly, Ajeya seems to sort-of imply that “the animal-inclusive worldview” is necessarily neartermist, and that “the longtermist worldview” is necessarily human-centric. For example, the above quote about longtermism focuses on “people”, which I think would typically be interpreted as just meaning humans, and as very likely excluding at least some beings that might be moral patients (e.g., insects). And later she says:
But I think the questions of neartermism vs longtermism and animal-inclusivity vs human-centrism are actually fairly distinct. Indeed, I consider myself an animal-inclusive longtermist.
I do think it’s reasonable to be a human-centric longtermist. And I do tentatively think that even animal-inclusive longtermism should still prioritise existential risks, and still with extinction risks as a/the main focus within that.
But I think animal-inclusivity makes at least some difference (e.g., pushing a bit in favour of prioritising reducing risks of unrecoverable dystopias). And it might make a larger difference. And in any case, it seems worth avoiding implying that all longtermists must be focused only or primarily on benefitting humans, since that isn’t accurate.
(But as with my above comment, I expect that Ajeya knows these things, and that the fact she was speaking rather than producing edited written content is relevant here.)