I don’t think the arguments are fallacious if you look at how strong longtermism is defined:
Positively influencing the future is not just a moral priority but the moral priority of our time.
See general discussion hereand in depth discussion here
Perhaps they should have made that distinction since not all EAs take the strong longtermist view—including MacAskill himself who doesn’t seem certain.
I don’t think the arguments are fallacious if you look at how strong longtermism is defined:
Positively influencing the future is not just a moral priority but the moral priority of our time.
See general discussion hereand in depth discussion here
Perhaps they should have made that distinction since not all EAs take the strong longtermist view—including MacAskill himself who doesn’t seem certain.
The article was on MacAskill’s book which doesn’t argue for strong longtermism but longtermism.
However, I think the acknowledgement and critique of strong longtermism is necessary.