I find much less compelling the idea that “if there is the political will to seriously consider future generations, it’s unnecessary to set up additional institutions to do so,” and “if people do not care about the long-term future,” they would not agree to such measures. The main reason I find this uncompelling is just that it overgenerates in very implausible ways. Why should women have the vote? Why should discrimination be illegal?
Yeah, I agree that there are plenty of reasons why institutional reform could be valuable. I didn’t mean to endorse that objection (at least not in a strong form). I like your point about how longtermist institutions may shift norms and attitudes.
I don’t know if you meant to narrow in on only those reforms I mention which attempt to create literal representation of future generations or if you meant to bring into focus all attempts to ameliorate political short-termism.
I mostly had the former in mind when writing the post, though other attempts to ameliorate short-termism are also plausibly very important.
I’m glad to see CLR take something of an interest in this topic
Might just be a typo but this post is by CRS (Center for Reducing Suffering), not CLR (Center on long-term risk). (It’s easy to mix up because CRS is new, CLR recently re-branded, and both focus on s-risks.)
As a classical utilitarian, I’m also not particularly bothered by the philosophical problems you set out above, but some of these problems are the subject of my dissertation and I hope that I have some solutions for you soon.
Ah, it looks like I read your post to be a bit more committal than you meant it to be! Thanks for your reply! And sorry for the misnomer, I’ll correct that in the top-level comment.
Hi Tyler,
thanks for the detailed and thoughtful comment!
Yeah, I agree that there are plenty of reasons why institutional reform could be valuable. I didn’t mean to endorse that objection (at least not in a strong form). I like your point about how longtermist institutions may shift norms and attitudes.
I mostly had the former in mind when writing the post, though other attempts to ameliorate short-termism are also plausibly very important.
Might just be a typo but this post is by CRS (Center for Reducing Suffering), not CLR (Center on long-term risk). (It’s easy to mix up because CRS is new, CLR recently re-branded, and both focus on s-risks.)
Looking forward to reading it!
Ah, it looks like I read your post to be a bit more committal than you meant it to be! Thanks for your reply! And sorry for the misnomer, I’ll correct that in the top-level comment.