FWIW, I think that all matches my own views, with the minor exception that I think longtermism (as typically defined, e.g. by MacAskill) is consistent with human-centrism as well as with animal-inclusivity. (Just as it’s consistent with either intrinsically valuing only happiness and reductions in suffering or also other things like liberty and art, and consistent with weighting reducing suffering more strongly than increasing happiness or weighting them equally.)
Perhaps you meant that Open Philanthropy’s longtermist worldview is inherently animal-inclusive?
(Personally, I adopt an animal-inclusive longtermist view. I just think one can be a human-centric longtermist.)
Thanks!
FWIW, I think that all matches my own views, with the minor exception that I think longtermism (as typically defined, e.g. by MacAskill) is consistent with human-centrism as well as with animal-inclusivity. (Just as it’s consistent with either intrinsically valuing only happiness and reductions in suffering or also other things like liberty and art, and consistent with weighting reducing suffering more strongly than increasing happiness or weighting them equally.)
Perhaps you meant that Open Philanthropy’s longtermist worldview is inherently animal-inclusive?
(Personally, I adopt an animal-inclusive longtermist view. I just think one can be a human-centric longtermist.)
Yes, I meant that the version of long-termism we think about at Open Phil is animal-inclusive.