I meant the article. I said it “feels dumb”, with emphasis on “feels” because I did read it, but that’s all. I didn’t put a lot of research into it.

However, the article from my recollection just says why “longtermism” doesn’t work which is because it doesn’t give any concrete advice on what to do now. Again, this is not my final word on it, however I think it’s a bit of a lazy critique. I can come up with some ideas and moral categories for such a “longtermism” pretty much on the spot. Furthermore, it’s the critique of a philosophical direction, that seems rather academically encapsulated. I haven’t seen a person or politician be a follower of longtermism. To be honest, from what I understand it very much sounds more like a component than a moral framework. I could only understand the critique in the article if it was advocated as a complete and exclusive moral framework, but then it seems like someone is arguing against some idea that most likely will die off soon anyway.

I guess I found the article to be quite extensive for the goal it tried to reach. I also was afraid of it for being some Jordan Peterson style shit where it’s like “hey, don’t worry about the future. Future generations will figure out how to sort out the mess we leave now. Cause you know, it’s so hard to care about the future, like we’d actually have to put effort into it. Let’s not do it.” But I looked into the person behind this article a bit and it doesn’t seem like that on the surface.

No. But we can do research for recycling technology and make sure energy for those smart phones is produced sustainably.

Also it’s on a scale. You can do it more or less environmentally friendly. So even if we just lived less unsustainably, it’d already be better than just being like “there’s no phone fairy so it’s just a moral quandary, oh well”.

Yup. But just because something is, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.

Well you habe no answer because you are begging the question. Your premise is that life is unsustainable. Which it isn’t inherently.

However currently most people - and I don’t exclude myself here - live unsustainably. And when you admit defeat before you try, that will never change.

This just feels dumb. I don’t know anyone who advocates for longtermism. It sounds like a strawman or some debate in a niche philosophical circle which gets spiralled out by talking about it.

The fact is, future humans are a problem in ethics we currently face. What about climate change and non-renewable energy sources? What about the ever growing distance between the richest and the poorest on earth? What about education? The list goes on.

We need to find answers to these things. As I understand it: Either this article is about a completely irrelevant niche of philosophy or - and this is why I’m so cautious here - it’s from someone who doesn’t like giving up the comforts of an unsustainable lifestyle.