This might be a too loose of a criteria for ‘power-seeking’, or at least the version of power-seeking that has the negative connotations this post alludes to. By this criteria, a movement like Students for Sensible Drug Policy would be power seeking.
they try to seed student groups and provide support for them
They have multiple buttons to donate on their webpage
They have things like a US policy council and explicitly mention policy change in their title.
Maybe it’s just being successful at these things that makes the difference between generic power-seeking and power-seeking that is perceived as alarming?
But if I had to guess (of the top of my head) the negative associations with longtermism’s alleged power seeking come more from 1) longtermism being an ideology that makes pretty sweeping, unintutive moral claims and 2) longtermism reaching for power among people society labels as ‘elites’ (e.g., ivory tower academics, politicians, and tech industry people).
I agree a more nuanced definition is probably required, or at least to distinguish acceptable from (possibly) unacceptable power-seeking.
I think longtermism stands out for the amount of power it has and seeks relative to the number of members of the movement, and that there isn’t much consensus (across wider society) around its aims. I’ve not fully thought this through but I’d frame it around democratic legitemacy.
This might be a too loose of a criteria for ‘power-seeking’, or at least the version of power-seeking that has the negative connotations this post alludes to. By this criteria, a movement like Students for Sensible Drug Policy would be power seeking.
they try to seed student groups and provide support for them
They have multiple buttons to donate on their webpage
They have things like a US policy council and explicitly mention policy change in their title.
Maybe it’s just being successful at these things that makes the difference between generic power-seeking and power-seeking that is perceived as alarming?
But if I had to guess (of the top of my head) the negative associations with longtermism’s alleged power seeking come more from 1) longtermism being an ideology that makes pretty sweeping, unintutive moral claims and 2) longtermism reaching for power among people society labels as ‘elites’ (e.g., ivory tower academics, politicians, and tech industry people).
I agree a more nuanced definition is probably required, or at least to distinguish acceptable from (possibly) unacceptable power-seeking.
I think longtermism stands out for the amount of power it has and seeks relative to the number of members of the movement, and that there isn’t much consensus (across wider society) around its aims. I’ve not fully thought this through but I’d frame it around democratic legitemacy.