I don't disagree with anything here, however I feel I have to point out a possible issue with the language used. "Short-termism" could easily be seen as having "long-termism" as its counterpart, and at first glance it looks like that's it, the perfect term to explain that we need to take the future impact of our "solutions" into account and stop pursuing behaviours that feel like a short-lasting band aid. Not so.
Many people are still unfamiliar with the term, but longtermism is now an established name for a rather sinister ideology that became almost quasi-religious in its nature; a playground for the most rotten multi billionaires who hide behind so-called "effective altruism" while they're pursuing endless growth and dictate the future of the planet. It's not a worldview that endorses genuine ways of softening the blow of climate change and creating a viable future through decisions that are nature-led, quite the opposite, its ultimate goal is transhumanism. It's a deeply technocratic ideology that promotes human supremacy over nature.
That's why language matters and we always have to be careful not to imply that we pursue "longtermism." In short, the adherents of longtermism are the people who got us and the planet into this mess and are firmly keeping us in it through their dehumanising, extractivist policies. Suffices to say one of the insanely rich people who endorse "longtermism" is Elon Musk, which should ring alarm bells to us all.
This is a good overview of longtermism from Emile P. Torres, "Understanding "longtermism": Why this suddenly influential philosophy is so toxic." He postulates that "...Whatever we may "owe the future," it isn't a bizarre and dangerous ideology fueled by eugenics and capitalism."
I'm glad you've mentioned Roman Krznaric here as he's not an adherent of longtermism. His is a good book and sometimes his chosen language ("long term thinking") is sadly taken to be a part of the longtermism school of thought. That's not the case and Krznaric's stance is far more humane and in the now, I see it more as a set of short-term steps to aid long-term future. I read a book review that compared Krznaric's book to a longtermist book (can't remember the author and title for the life of me!) and said that compared to longtermists who think in terms of thousands, even millions and billions of years, Krznacic is barely a "presentist."
Krznaric's concept of "one planet thriving" which he describes are "the opposite of economic growth" is great, a summary of how nature-led ways of living should work.
I hope I didn't digress too much here. Wishing you a great day
The societies in which most of us are living cause terrible damage in the present to the more-than-human world and even to many humans. So maybe we could focus more on what is wrong now, instead of going into debates about possible future consequences. So maybe our current culture doesn't really care about the present, it's mostly about promising a better tomorrow (if you work hard and long enough, then your life will get better; or: to solve problems in the future we need economic growth). To me this is something similar to the idea that it's a bit misleading to call the consumer culture (or more precisely modern societies with neoclassical economics) "materialistic", as many people is not really attached to certain things - just the opposite: if there is something new, possibly better, people will easily switch and buy the other.
The lesson is by no means that we shouldn't care about the future. But focusing on the present, the actions that can/could be taken now, and the relationship to others (people and other creatures), maybe we can achieve more positive impact. (Oliver Burkeman's approach points to the same direction, see e. g. here https://ckarchive.com/b/4zuvhehpp24m4t6ovveola6g9z777s5). I think both logic (focusing on the next few generations or on the present) has a role in the transformation, but longterism is really something we should avoid.
I'm glad someone understood exactly where I was coming from! Thanks for the links, they’re interesting and I share Watts’ skepticism over how we approach hope. Hope overwhelmingly became false and slipped into vapid “hopium,” as some call it, an abstract feeling divorced from active change, with people surrendering to crisis and waiting for imaginary third parties to deliver salvation and better future. Take paying companies for “carbon offsetting,” for example. Hope is only healthy if we see it and practice it as an action.
I find longtermism is often an uneasy discussion because so many people are still unfamiliar with the term. It allegedly took Peter Singer as its philosophical basis, but if anything, it's a gross perversion of Singer's ideas. The bottom line is this is about millionaires and billionaires, who have no idea whatsoever how most people on this planet live, proclaiming how any risks and any means are acceptable and no sacrifice is too great to ensure an abstract “better future.” That includes the bones of millions of poor people in this very moment sacrificed for the imaginary trillions of people that are to come. It's basically a philosophical scam to funnel all the world's resources into tech companies.
There's an interesting podcast that described longtermism as “the most dangerous philosophy you've never heard off” and they spared no words on MacAskill (one of the main ideologists of longtermism) calling him “puerile professor who helps crypto capitalists justify sociopathy today for a universe of transhuman colonization tomorrow.”
And that's really what it is. No sugarcoating and shielding behind fancy labels like altruism. Calling this “longtermism” was a terribly clever marketing ploy, in line with the proven capitalist tradition of distraction and diversion, when it's possibly the worst misnomer in the history of philosophy.
Thanks for your very thoughtful responses here! I was aware of MacAskill and Effective Altruism, but completely overlooked the terminology of longtermism. So yes, I was very much thinking more along the lines of Roman Krznaric's thinking here, as my examples imply. I'm tempted to rephrase the title to 'short-term thinking' but I think at least the contents of the post make it clear what I mean. Really appreciate your thoughts. I have some more reading to do thanks to your links.
Indeed, wonderful article and I like your “open-mind” thinking. Everything seems very black and white today. Love the question, “Are you being a good ancestor?”, that’s going to resonate with me and I think I’ll start saying it.
mhh you have surfaced and articulated feelings and thoughts I have had for a while. Thank you.
I think by simply asking politicians what the medium and long term benefits are of their decisions and making sure those benefits are always considered in the process of decision making , not just the short term benefits would be a good move.
Difficult though; requires a change in cultural attitude, ie a societal change.
I agree, but wouldn't your stance then support policy incrementalism? We expect our representatives to do loud splashy things that make huge changes quickly. In fact, that is exactly the desire that is being satisfied by Trump's current actions. But the long term view of policy is that that ideas percolate for years, even decades waiting for a policy window. The ideas are researched and taken up by different legislators over time. They are considered and reconsidered and, when a policy window arises, a compromise solution can be enacted that is no one's ideal but takes an incremental step towards longer term goals. Yet, this seems at odds with the urgency of the climate crisis. I don't really have a fully formed opinion on this but wanted to raise the issue because you pointed out that the short political cycle affects the quantity and quality of our policy.
I think this disjunct might be close to why ‘solutions’ are so hard to implement. I’ve seen the detailed process of enviropolicy development… its slow. It gets bogged in the politics and the competing values first, then in the technicalities of enacting the temporary agreements. Then policy must outlive election cycles, partly why its so clunky to enact. Often the original intent is so watered down by this time its unrecognisable.
Loud simply shortcuts this process. Ironically, this need not be a bad thing depending on intent.
Perhaps the problem is not short-ternism or a politically correct alternative. Maybe we have lost sight of what we want from the social contract… and how much we need it.
Goals do change as policy areas evolve, but I also understand what you mean. The compromise process isn't a one time thing. It happens over and over as bills are revived and reshaped by successive politicians looking for support for their bills. I've even seen bills get coopted by opposing interests in that process.
In Australia it often the regulations that matter more than the Act. These are the rubbery, slippery customers that makes or breaks the intent of the Act. So few people know this detail.
Oh, its the same in the US. Public comment exists, but so few know about it and it seldom makes a difference anyway. Litigation tends to be the best defense from perverse regulations.
More great discussion, thanks! I guess the key point, which is separate to the length of the cycle (as long periods with the same leaders in power can be very problematic too by entrenching bad leadership) is the type of approaches used. However, short cycles, which swing the political divide are proving very problematic: year 1 - undo all the previous years of work; year 2 - get some stuff done; year 3 - campaign for the next election. Obviously, longer terms alone aren’t enough. The key point is embedding long-term thinking into decision-making, regardless of cycle length. Things like Citizen's Assemblies are a key example. And there are many more such approaches that could be embedded into existing politics.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments and people's willingness to discuss and explore! One way to bring connection and healing to our troubled times. Short-termism could also be described as our global culture's increasing addiction to instant gratification. Wanting what we want (now or whenever) without thought to consequences. And we want SO much! Changing what we want and when we want it is one way of giving thought to not only consequences but the present and the future simultaneously.
100%. Everything is just so available at all times to us now. We avoid connecting with our local book store in favour of buying books on Amazon. We no longer visit our local fish and chip shop in favour of uber eats delivering in 5 mins. etc.
I hate fashion, so I don't buy it. I've started getting more second hand clothes and I darn my socks, so they'll go on for years until they're more darn than sock. Any new clothes I buy nowadays, which is rare, are from ethical companies using sustainable fibres. They cost more but seem to last longer. I'm not going to have any grandchildren though. I just want my friends' descendents to inherit a world worth inheriting.
Thanks for mentioning New York City's water. The wholistic watershed approach taken by the city works so well they don't need to filter the drinking water, saving the city millions each year. New Yorkers love their tap water so much they call it "city gin".
thanks for your thoughtful comments.i wish that all of us would adopt the native americans’ morality, to consider the needs of the seventh generation when making a decision.
my brother took early retirement because his fellow members of the board of directors for their oil company refused to discuss long-term goals and priorities … they ONLY wanted to talk about the profits for that quarter and that year. i fear that our entire society has that insane priority.
Good article... And I couldn't agree with you more...but you must realize it will take 2 generations of proper education in order to change the behavior of mankind to think long term on a broad enough basis to cause a meaningful change...I don't think we have that much time...
I don't disagree with anything here, however I feel I have to point out a possible issue with the language used. "Short-termism" could easily be seen as having "long-termism" as its counterpart, and at first glance it looks like that's it, the perfect term to explain that we need to take the future impact of our "solutions" into account and stop pursuing behaviours that feel like a short-lasting band aid. Not so.
Many people are still unfamiliar with the term, but longtermism is now an established name for a rather sinister ideology that became almost quasi-religious in its nature; a playground for the most rotten multi billionaires who hide behind so-called "effective altruism" while they're pursuing endless growth and dictate the future of the planet. It's not a worldview that endorses genuine ways of softening the blow of climate change and creating a viable future through decisions that are nature-led, quite the opposite, its ultimate goal is transhumanism. It's a deeply technocratic ideology that promotes human supremacy over nature.
That's why language matters and we always have to be careful not to imply that we pursue "longtermism." In short, the adherents of longtermism are the people who got us and the planet into this mess and are firmly keeping us in it through their dehumanising, extractivist policies. Suffices to say one of the insanely rich people who endorse "longtermism" is Elon Musk, which should ring alarm bells to us all.
This is a good overview of longtermism from Emile P. Torres, "Understanding "longtermism": Why this suddenly influential philosophy is so toxic." He postulates that "...Whatever we may "owe the future," it isn't a bizarre and dangerous ideology fueled by eugenics and capitalism."
https://www.salon.com/2022/08/20/understanding-longtermism-why-this-suddenly-influential-philosophy-is-so/
I'm glad you've mentioned Roman Krznaric here as he's not an adherent of longtermism. His is a good book and sometimes his chosen language ("long term thinking") is sadly taken to be a part of the longtermism school of thought. That's not the case and Krznaric's stance is far more humane and in the now, I see it more as a set of short-term steps to aid long-term future. I read a book review that compared Krznaric's book to a longtermist book (can't remember the author and title for the life of me!) and said that compared to longtermists who think in terms of thousands, even millions and billions of years, Krznacic is barely a "presentist."
Krznaric said of Torres (who wrote extensively against longtermism; I'd recommend browsing his articles and reading his book "Human Extinction"): "I'm in broad agreement with the critiques in Torres's article, especially the downplaying of climate risk. I've made some of same critiques of existential risk/effective altruism/'longtermism' in public talks e.g here (starts 31:30)" and he linked this podcast: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/common-room-philosophy/episodes/How-to-be-a-Good-Ancestor-Thinking-and-Acting-for-the-Future--with-Roman-Krznarik-ej70rn
Krznaric's concept of "one planet thriving" which he describes are "the opposite of economic growth" is great, a summary of how nature-led ways of living should work.
I hope I didn't digress too much here. Wishing you a great day
I had the same thought when I read Jonathan Tonkin's writing. Longtermism is very dangerous (and of course I see that this article is about something else). Nowadays I think a lot about how we often speak about the future, whether it will be collapse or we have reasons for hope, and too rarely about the present. This article gave a lot to think about: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/24/we-need-a-dash-of-hope-but-is-too-much-diverting-our-gaze-from-the-perils-of-the-climate-crisis
The societies in which most of us are living cause terrible damage in the present to the more-than-human world and even to many humans. So maybe we could focus more on what is wrong now, instead of going into debates about possible future consequences. So maybe our current culture doesn't really care about the present, it's mostly about promising a better tomorrow (if you work hard and long enough, then your life will get better; or: to solve problems in the future we need economic growth). To me this is something similar to the idea that it's a bit misleading to call the consumer culture (or more precisely modern societies with neoclassical economics) "materialistic", as many people is not really attached to certain things - just the opposite: if there is something new, possibly better, people will easily switch and buy the other.
The lesson is by no means that we shouldn't care about the future. But focusing on the present, the actions that can/could be taken now, and the relationship to others (people and other creatures), maybe we can achieve more positive impact. (Oliver Burkeman's approach points to the same direction, see e. g. here https://ckarchive.com/b/4zuvhehpp24m4t6ovveola6g9z777s5). I think both logic (focusing on the next few generations or on the present) has a role in the transformation, but longterism is really something we should avoid.
I'm glad someone understood exactly where I was coming from! Thanks for the links, they’re interesting and I share Watts’ skepticism over how we approach hope. Hope overwhelmingly became false and slipped into vapid “hopium,” as some call it, an abstract feeling divorced from active change, with people surrendering to crisis and waiting for imaginary third parties to deliver salvation and better future. Take paying companies for “carbon offsetting,” for example. Hope is only healthy if we see it and practice it as an action.
I find longtermism is often an uneasy discussion because so many people are still unfamiliar with the term. It allegedly took Peter Singer as its philosophical basis, but if anything, it's a gross perversion of Singer's ideas. The bottom line is this is about millionaires and billionaires, who have no idea whatsoever how most people on this planet live, proclaiming how any risks and any means are acceptable and no sacrifice is too great to ensure an abstract “better future.” That includes the bones of millions of poor people in this very moment sacrificed for the imaginary trillions of people that are to come. It's basically a philosophical scam to funnel all the world's resources into tech companies.
There's an interesting podcast that described longtermism as “the most dangerous philosophy you've never heard off” and they spared no words on MacAskill (one of the main ideologists of longtermism) calling him “puerile professor who helps crypto capitalists justify sociopathy today for a universe of transhuman colonization tomorrow.”
https://youtu.be/rrzDSZLC6Jk?si=xWBvnmQQue91W17K
And that's really what it is. No sugarcoating and shielding behind fancy labels like altruism. Calling this “longtermism” was a terribly clever marketing ploy, in line with the proven capitalist tradition of distraction and diversion, when it's possibly the worst misnomer in the history of philosophy.
Thanks for your very thoughtful responses here! I was aware of MacAskill and Effective Altruism, but completely overlooked the terminology of longtermism. So yes, I was very much thinking more along the lines of Roman Krznaric's thinking here, as my examples imply. I'm tempted to rephrase the title to 'short-term thinking' but I think at least the contents of the post make it clear what I mean. Really appreciate your thoughts. I have some more reading to do thanks to your links.
Indeed, wonderful article and I like your “open-mind” thinking. Everything seems very black and white today. Love the question, “Are you being a good ancestor?”, that’s going to resonate with me and I think I’ll start saying it.
Thanks Kate!
mhh you have surfaced and articulated feelings and thoughts I have had for a while. Thank you.
I think by simply asking politicians what the medium and long term benefits are of their decisions and making sure those benefits are always considered in the process of decision making , not just the short term benefits would be a good move.
Difficult though; requires a change in cultural attitude, ie a societal change.
Doable?
Surely a good start! And surely doable.
I agree, but wouldn't your stance then support policy incrementalism? We expect our representatives to do loud splashy things that make huge changes quickly. In fact, that is exactly the desire that is being satisfied by Trump's current actions. But the long term view of policy is that that ideas percolate for years, even decades waiting for a policy window. The ideas are researched and taken up by different legislators over time. They are considered and reconsidered and, when a policy window arises, a compromise solution can be enacted that is no one's ideal but takes an incremental step towards longer term goals. Yet, this seems at odds with the urgency of the climate crisis. I don't really have a fully formed opinion on this but wanted to raise the issue because you pointed out that the short political cycle affects the quantity and quality of our policy.
I think this disjunct might be close to why ‘solutions’ are so hard to implement. I’ve seen the detailed process of enviropolicy development… its slow. It gets bogged in the politics and the competing values first, then in the technicalities of enacting the temporary agreements. Then policy must outlive election cycles, partly why its so clunky to enact. Often the original intent is so watered down by this time its unrecognisable.
Loud simply shortcuts this process. Ironically, this need not be a bad thing depending on intent.
Perhaps the problem is not short-ternism or a politically correct alternative. Maybe we have lost sight of what we want from the social contract… and how much we need it.
Goals do change as policy areas evolve, but I also understand what you mean. The compromise process isn't a one time thing. It happens over and over as bills are revived and reshaped by successive politicians looking for support for their bills. I've even seen bills get coopted by opposing interests in that process.
In Australia it often the regulations that matter more than the Act. These are the rubbery, slippery customers that makes or breaks the intent of the Act. So few people know this detail.
Oh, its the same in the US. Public comment exists, but so few know about it and it seldom makes a difference anyway. Litigation tends to be the best defense from perverse regulations.
More great discussion, thanks! I guess the key point, which is separate to the length of the cycle (as long periods with the same leaders in power can be very problematic too by entrenching bad leadership) is the type of approaches used. However, short cycles, which swing the political divide are proving very problematic: year 1 - undo all the previous years of work; year 2 - get some stuff done; year 3 - campaign for the next election. Obviously, longer terms alone aren’t enough. The key point is embedding long-term thinking into decision-making, regardless of cycle length. Things like Citizen's Assemblies are a key example. And there are many more such approaches that could be embedded into existing politics.
I love the writing👍 I hope I’m a good ancestor because our future generation definitely deserves it💕
Thanks Lisa! :)
Could not agree more.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments and people's willingness to discuss and explore! One way to bring connection and healing to our troubled times. Short-termism could also be described as our global culture's increasing addiction to instant gratification. Wanting what we want (now or whenever) without thought to consequences. And we want SO much! Changing what we want and when we want it is one way of giving thought to not only consequences but the present and the future simultaneously.
100%. Everything is just so available at all times to us now. We avoid connecting with our local book store in favour of buying books on Amazon. We no longer visit our local fish and chip shop in favour of uber eats delivering in 5 mins. etc.
I hate fashion, so I don't buy it. I've started getting more second hand clothes and I darn my socks, so they'll go on for years until they're more darn than sock. Any new clothes I buy nowadays, which is rare, are from ethical companies using sustainable fibres. They cost more but seem to last longer. I'm not going to have any grandchildren though. I just want my friends' descendents to inherit a world worth inheriting.
Awesome! I just darned my first sock the other day too! I did a terrible job, but it's a start! :)
Wonderful article. Thank you...the answers to life's bullshit are there, within your piece and I am so grateful for your writing. Jo
Thanks so much, Jo! :)
Thanks for mentioning New York City's water. The wholistic watershed approach taken by the city works so well they don't need to filter the drinking water, saving the city millions each year. New Yorkers love their tap water so much they call it "city gin".
It's a great and very useful example.
thanks for your thoughtful comments.i wish that all of us would adopt the native americans’ morality, to consider the needs of the seventh generation when making a decision.
my brother took early retirement because his fellow members of the board of directors for their oil company refused to discuss long-term goals and priorities … they ONLY wanted to talk about the profits for that quarter and that year. i fear that our entire society has that insane priority.
Kudos to your brother! It's great to hear of people with morals these days.
Yes, seventh generation thinking is a fantastic example of this in action!
Rsmona,
Good article... And I couldn't agree with you more...but you must realize it will take 2 generations of proper education in order to change the behavior of mankind to think long term on a broad enough basis to cause a meaningful change...I don't think we have that much time...
Fair point, but there are ways to make a difference to people's thinking more rapidly than that.