Two more quotes particularly relevant to EA/longtermism:
I believe that if we destroy mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people think. Compare three outcomes:
Peace.
A nuclear war that kills 99 per cent of the world’s existing population.
A nuclear war that kills 100 per cent.
2 would be worse than 1, and 3 would be worse than 2. Which is the greater of these two differences? Most people believe that the greater difference is between 1 and 2. I believe that the difference between 2 and 3 is very much greater. The Earth will remain habitable for at least another billion years.
Suppose that I leave some broken glass in the undergrowth of a wood. A hundred years later this glass wounds a child. My act harms this child. If I had safely buried the glass, this child would have walked through the wood unharmed. Does it make a moral difference that the child whom I harm does not now exist [or that the harm is temporally remote from my act]?
Two more quotes particularly relevant to EA/longtermism: