Since the author is a Research Affiliate and Former Research Associate at CSER, I thought they might have a reasonable and well-informed critique, and I was excited to read it!
Unfortunately, a couple of claims in the article made me question the entire piece.
For example, here is how the author characterises Ord’s Long Reflection, first in the abstract:
And then later in the body of the article:
And here is the relevant section of Ord’s The Precipice:
Why do you think the quote from Ord shows the characterization to be unfair? (At a glance at the paper, I agree that the argument for saying Will must be some kind of radical minarchist libertarian if consistent simply because he says political experimentation is valuable is pretty weak.)
The critique describes Ord’s proposal as antidemocratic and elitist, but the original quote is more cautious and open-ended. Ord does say that the Long Reflection might take place within intellectual circles, but he also explicitly notes it could involve the wider public. My reading of his position is that he’s deliberately neutral, essentially saying: “It could take many forms—from elite discussions to broad public debates—and I don’t want to commit strongly to any particular form right now”. The only clear stance he takes is that the process should involve humility, care, and efforts to avoid bias.
The critique also states that moral philosophy is at the core of Ord’s proposal, implying Ord is basically saying, “this should be led by moral philosophers” but that’s not quite accurate. Ord suggests that moral philosophy would play a central role, but he equally emphasises the importance of other disciplines. He’s not proposing that philosophers alone decide humanity’s future—he’s advocating careful and serious reflection that draws from many areas of expertise, including moral philosophy.
Basically, I feel like the author is assuming the worst of Ord.
But the critique also mentions that Ord says the long reflection could involve the wider public and that he admits other disciplines will be important too. I think you are just reacting to the fact that he clearly doesn’t like Ord or longtermism, and that he thinks that even Ord’s moderate position is still elitist. That’s different from misrepresentation of a kind that makes him an untrustworthy source.
My Google alert for EA flagged an interesting article: ‘Visionaries and Crackpots, Maniacs and Saints: Existential Risk and the Politics of Longtermism’, recently published in Ratio, a peer-reviewed academic journal of analytic philosophy.
Since the author is a Research Affiliate and Former Research Associate at CSER, I thought they might have a reasonable and well-informed critique, and I was excited to read it!
Unfortunately, a couple of claims in the article made me question the entire piece.
For example, here is how the author characterises Ord’s Long Reflection, first in the abstract:
And then later in the body of the article:
And here is the relevant section of Ord’s The Precipice:
Why do you think the quote from Ord shows the characterization to be unfair? (At a glance at the paper, I agree that the argument for saying Will must be some kind of radical minarchist libertarian if consistent simply because he says political experimentation is valuable is pretty weak.)
The critique describes Ord’s proposal as antidemocratic and elitist, but the original quote is more cautious and open-ended. Ord does say that the Long Reflection might take place within intellectual circles, but he also explicitly notes it could involve the wider public. My reading of his position is that he’s deliberately neutral, essentially saying: “It could take many forms—from elite discussions to broad public debates—and I don’t want to commit strongly to any particular form right now”. The only clear stance he takes is that the process should involve humility, care, and efforts to avoid bias.
The critique also states that moral philosophy is at the core of Ord’s proposal, implying Ord is basically saying, “this should be led by moral philosophers” but that’s not quite accurate. Ord suggests that moral philosophy would play a central role, but he equally emphasises the importance of other disciplines. He’s not proposing that philosophers alone decide humanity’s future—he’s advocating careful and serious reflection that draws from many areas of expertise, including moral philosophy.
Basically, I feel like the author is assuming the worst of Ord.
But the critique also mentions that Ord says the long reflection could involve the wider public and that he admits other disciplines will be important too. I think you are just reacting to the fact that he clearly doesn’t like Ord or longtermism, and that he thinks that even Ord’s moderate position is still elitist. That’s different from misrepresentation of a kind that makes him an untrustworthy source.