What we do today may shape the lives of animals for billions of years to come. According to longtermism, positively influencing the far future is a key moral priority of our time. In this session, we will examine the implications of longtermism for animal advocacy, including how lock-in scenarios limit future pathways, uncertainty about the outcomes of our actions over increasingly long timescales, backfire risks, and a potential strategic reorientation: towards the welfare of wild animals.
🧩 Central questions
- Why future beings matter: What is the case for prioritizing the needs and interests for future beings?
- Present vs. future: How do we balance today’s urgent suffering against the vast, uncertain needs of the future? Which actions might benefit both present and future beings?
- Lock-in: Certain developments could permanently and irreversibly shape the future of animal welfare for the better – or for the worse. How can we anticipate and navigate lock-in scenarios?
- Negotiating cluelessness: With so much uncertainty, what actions can we take that are robustly positive for animals? How can we preempt and limit backfire risks?
- Shifting priorities: How does adopting a longtermist perspective shift advocacy priorities? What does impact for wild animals look like?
🧭 Learning objectives
- Understand: Clarify the core motivations, claims, and assumptions of longtermism. Define related concepts like lock-in, cluelessness/uncertainty, and backfire risks. Explain the importance of wild animal welfare, identifying major causes of suffering.
- Assess: Critically evaluate arguments for prioritizing the far future. Evaluate wild animal welfare as a longtermist priority.
- Reason: Weigh scale against uncertainty, backfire risks, and other considerations. Explore and develop strategies which are robust across different assumptions.
- Next steps: Identify key organizations, thinkers, and research areas in longtermist animal advocacy.
Use the table of contents on the right to quickly navigate this page.
Resources
Required readings
Additional readings (please complete ≥1 set of readings)
Further readings (optional)
Pre-session exercises
Please spend 20-30 minutes completing these two exercises.
- You can write your responses in bullet point format if that’s easier.
- Submit your responses in the weekly Slack thread created by your facilitator in your channel at least 24 hours before your regularly scheduled meeting.
- Leave at least one comment on somebody else’s response.
The case for and against longtermism
[150 words] Longtermism holds that positively influencing the far future (the next 500, 1,000, or even 10,000+ years) is a, if not the, defining moral priority of our time.
First, review the basic argument for longtermism:
- Moral status: The lives and suffering of future people and animals matter just as much as those alive today.
- Numbers: The number of future people and animals who could exist is vastly larger than the number of beings alive now.
- Unique leverage: Due to our special place in history, our actions could significantly influence their lives for the better or for the worse.
- Priority: If (1-3) are true, then positively influencing the far future should be our moral priority.
∴ Conclusion: Positively influencing the far future should be our moral priority.
Your task is to analyze this argument:
- Which specific premise (i-iv) do you find the most compelling or well-supported?
- Which do you find the most questionable or dubious?
Explain your reasoning, making reference to key concepts (e.g. scope-sensitivity, lock-in, uncertainty/cluelessness, backfire risks, etc.) where relevant.
The case for and against wild animal welfare
[150 words] Predation, disease, starvation, and environmental exposure: it would seem that suffering prevails in the wild. Should the welfare of wild animals be a priority for advocates?
First, review the basic argument for wild animal welfare:
- Moral status: The lives and suffering of wild animals matter.
- Numbers: There are many more wild animals than domestic (including farmed) animals.
- Suffering: The vast majority of lives of wild animals are short and dominated by suffering which is often severe in nature (e.g. due to disease, predation, etc.).
- Tractability: There are some actions we can take to safely and effectively mitigate wild animal suffering.
- Priority: If (1-4) are true, then wild animal welfare should be a critical priority for advocates.
∴ Conclusion: Wild animal welfare should be a critical priority for advocates.
Your task is to analyze this argument:
- Which specific premise (i-v) do you find the most compelling or well-supported?
- Which do you find the most questionable or dubious?
Explain your reasoning, making reference to key concepts (e.g. scope-sensitivity, causes of suffering, uncertainty/cluelessness, backfire risks, etc.) where relevant.
