Urgent longtermism is the position that now is an unusually good time to have an outsized impact on the future (i.e., the hinge of history hypothesis). In particular, it claims that the current time is particularly pivotal and that we have some scope to change what happens. Ben Todd creates a distinction between two kinds of urgent longtermism: broad and targeted.
Broad urgent longtermism posits that we are in a pivotal time, and have influence over the future, but may not be sure what the specific influential events in this time are. Toby Ord advocates for this position in The Precipice. A broad longtermist might focus on reducing existential risk factors like great power conflict.
Targeted urgent longtermism presumes that we know what the specific influential moments are. Within targeted urgent longtermism there are two main tracks: reducing specific existential risks and creating other path or trajectory changes.
Further reading
Koehler, Arden & Keiran Harris (2020) Benjamin Todd on varieties of longtermism and things 80,000 Hours might be getting wrong, 80,000 Hours, September 1.
Related entries
broad vs narrow interventions | hinge of history | patient altruism
Thanks for creating this entry!
Since we already have an entry called Patient altruism, I think that both entries should probably use consistent terminology, i.e. either we rename the other one Patient longtermism or rename this one Urgent altruism. I weakly lean towards renaming the other entry, but I’m curious if others have thoughts.
If we decide to rename one of the entries, I also wonder if we should just have a single article called Patient vs. urgent longtermism (or Patient vs urgent altruism), as we do with other contrasting pairs such as Broad vs. narrow interventions, Inside vs. outside view, etc.
Yes, agree with a single article on “Patient vs urgent longtermism”.