“Not longtermist” doesn’t seem great to me. It implies being longtermist is the default EA position. I’d say I’m a longtermist, but I don’t think we should normalise longtermism as the default EA position. This could be harmful for growth of the movement.
Maybe as Berger says “Global Health and Wellbeing” is the best term.
FWIW my intuition is that if you have a name for a thing, it means the opposite of that is the default. If there’s a special term for “longtermist”, that means people are not longtermists by default (which I think is basically true—most people are not longtermists, and longtermism is kind of a weird position (although I do happen to agree with it)). Sort of like how EAs are called EAs, but there’s no word for people who aren’t EAs, because being not-EA is the default.
As a soft counterpoint, I usually find “definition by exclusion” in other areas to be weirder when the more “natural” position is presented as a standalone in an implicit binary, as opposed to adding a “non” in front of it.
Sorry if that’s confusing. Here are some examples:
“academia vs industry” vs “academia vs non-academia” ″Jews vs Gentiles” vs “Jews vs non-Jews”
“Christians vs pagans” vs “Christians vs non-Christians”
“nerds vs Muggles” vs “nerds vs non-nerds” ″military vs civilians” vs “military vs non-military”
I don’t see how it necessarily implies that. Maybe “long-termist-EA” and “non-long-termist-EA”?
Global Health and Wellbeing is not too bad (even considering my quibbles with this). The “wellbeing” part could encompass animal welfare
… and even encompass avoiding global disasters ‘for the sake of the people who would suffer’, rather than ‘for the sake of extinction and potential future large civilizations’ etc.
(Added): But I guess GH&W may be too broad in the other direction. Don’t LT-ists also prioritize global well-being?
“Not longtermist” doesn’t seem great to me. It implies being longtermist is the default EA position. I’d say I’m a longtermist, but I don’t think we should normalise longtermism as the default EA position. This could be harmful for growth of the movement.
Maybe as Berger says “Global Health and Wellbeing” is the best term.
FWIW my intuition is that if you have a name for a thing, it means the opposite of that is the default. If there’s a special term for “longtermist”, that means people are not longtermists by default (which I think is basically true—most people are not longtermists, and longtermism is kind of a weird position (although I do happen to agree with it)). Sort of like how EAs are called EAs, but there’s no word for people who aren’t EAs, because being not-EA is the default.
Yeah I think that’s true if you only have the term “longtermist”. If you have both “longtermist” and “non-longtermist” I’m not so sure.
maybe we just say “not longermist” rather than trying to make “non-longermist” a label?
Either way, I think we can agree to get rid of ‘neartermist’.
As a soft counterpoint, I usually find “definition by exclusion” in other areas to be weirder when the more “natural” position is presented as a standalone in an implicit binary, as opposed to adding a “non” in front of it.
Sorry if that’s confusing. Here are some examples:
But I’m not sure which way this is going.
By ‘the more natural position’ do you mean the majority?
“Christians vs pagans” vs “Christians vs non-Christians”
Here are we assuming a society where Christians are the majority? But in any case “non-Christians” obviously need not be pagans.
I don’t see how it necessarily implies that. Maybe “long-termist-EA” and “non-long-termist-EA”?
Global Health and Wellbeing is not too bad (even considering my quibbles with this). The “wellbeing” part could encompass animal welfare … and even encompass avoiding global disasters ‘for the sake of the people who would suffer’, rather than ‘for the sake of extinction and potential future large civilizations’ etc.
(Added): But I guess GH&W may be too broad in the other direction. Don’t LT-ists also prioritize global well-being?