This is great work, thank you very much everyone. It’s given me a lot to think about, especially the surprisingly poor performance of longtermism. I will be reframing somewhat my own arguments and terminology in future based on this information. I’d like to see more research, however, as to why longtermism performed poorly in comparison with global catastrophic risks, because many of the latter play out on a long-term timescale. So there’s a bit of a contradiction.
I’d like to see more research, however, as to why longtermism performed poorly in comparison with global catastrophic risks, because many of the latter play out on a long-term timescale.
I think there are likely multiple different factors here:
As you note, the effects of global catastrophic risk reduction may play out largely in the long-term future. But they don’t play out exclusively in the long-term figure, and people may care particularly about the near-term effects of averting global catastrophic risks.
Considered as a term, “longtermism” may be less appealing than “global catastrophic risk reduction” for a variety of reasons. For example, it may be less clear what it means, or it may sound like an “ism” (an ideology), which people may not like. We’ll explore this more when we report on the qualitative data.
Considering the descriptions we tested, I also think there are multiple possible reasons for the disparity. For example, the description of global catastrophic risk reduction we tested might have fared more positively due to its focus on specific concrete risks. Conversely, our description of longtermism was more abstract. It was also explicit about effects being potentially “hundreds or thousands of years away”. As noted, I think further testing of different framings would be valuable to disentangle these possible causes.
This is great work, thank you very much everyone. It’s given me a lot to think about, especially the surprisingly poor performance of longtermism. I will be reframing somewhat my own arguments and terminology in future based on this information. I’d like to see more research, however, as to why longtermism performed poorly in comparison with global catastrophic risks, because many of the latter play out on a long-term timescale. So there’s a bit of a contradiction.
Thanks Deborah!
I think there are likely multiple different factors here:
As you note, the effects of global catastrophic risk reduction may play out largely in the long-term future. But they don’t play out exclusively in the long-term figure, and people may care particularly about the near-term effects of averting global catastrophic risks.
Considered as a term, “longtermism” may be less appealing than “global catastrophic risk reduction” for a variety of reasons. For example, it may be less clear what it means, or it may sound like an “ism” (an ideology), which people may not like. We’ll explore this more when we report on the qualitative data.
Considering the descriptions we tested, I also think there are multiple possible reasons for the disparity. For example, the description of global catastrophic risk reduction we tested might have fared more positively due to its focus on specific concrete risks. Conversely, our description of longtermism was more abstract. It was also explicit about effects being potentially “hundreds or thousands of years away”. As noted, I think further testing of different framings would be valuable to disentangle these possible causes.