1 week grace period for question to change.
I don't like "neartermist" but there we are. I think this is ~ equivalent to splitting along x-risk/ global health lines.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ47 | |
| 2 | Ṁ44 | |
| 3 | Ṁ32 | |
| 4 | Ṁ19 | |
| 5 | Ṁ15 |
People are also trading
@IsaacKing The word tends to mean things that are a higher priority under longtermism rather than justifiable only under longtermism
@NathanpmYoung Any examples? I could see something like ethics research falling under that description, since most ethical theories agree that poverty and extinction are bad, but they disagree on how to organize a future utopian society. But I haven't seen many EAs advocating for funding ethics research.
@NicoDelon I don't know much about them, but it looks like a lot of their work goes into reducing existential risk, which seems pretty neartermist to me.
@IsaacKing Their mission is quite literally aligned with longtermism.
‘We focus on global challenges that could transform our future for many generations to come, including safely navigating emerging technologies and fostering a society with a more long-term outlook.’
@NicoDelon My point is that this doesn't seem like much of a split. I'm a neartermist, and if longtermists are funding existential risk reduction research, great! Big fan! Why would a neartermist object to that?
@IsaacKing That’s one of MacAskill’s arguments—that longtermism also benefits the near-term. That doesn’t make it a near-termist. Maybe there’s not much of a split now but the question is whether they’ll be. I can conceive of it happening if, for instance, longtermists end up thinking we should prioritize the long term even at the expense of the near term.