Longtermism and the futures ecosystem

“What We Owe the Future” lays out a case for longtermism by one of its leading proponents, Oxford philosopher William MacAskill.  There are useful ideas in this philosophy of longtermism for we futurists to consider and they are laid out nicely in MacAskill’s book. First and foremost, I think any work that gets people thinking and talking about the future is generally a good thing. Paying more attention to the very long-term future is a worthy idea. It is true that professional futurists doing client work often don’t have the charge of thinking hundreds of year ahead — this topic invites us to. There are some interesting specific ideas and ethical dilemmas that are raised. The distinction between weak and strong longtermism raises the question of the relative attention to be paid the “shorter” long term vs. the “longer” long term. The formulas derived for thinking through the options on how to invest in the longer long term vs. the present and shorter long term are interesting and worth thinking about.

BUT [you knew that was coming]. Leaving aside the argument of the book, I admit to being disappointed about the failure to acknowledge the existence of our foresight field. Not a single mention. A good portion of the book addressed why we should pay greater attention to the future. Futurists have been addressing this question for the last 75 years. MacAskill’s book, and I suspect longtermism in general, would have benefited greatly from reviewing and drawing upon this scholarship. Most futurists who read the book will find this part to be a rather lengthy and amateurish treatment of well-trodden ground. Perhaps MacAskill somehow missed our field – hard to believe, but possible. Perhaps he chose to ignore it – but it would seem reasonable to simply make that point in the text and say why. But nothing. An admittedly cursory scan of book reviews did not turn up any objections to this oversight (apologies to anyone who did note it).

On the one hand, it is disappointing that futurists are not being involved in these conversations. While we are making slow and steady progress in reaching more and more people, we haven’t reached the point where it would be unthinkable to simply ignore us. Right now, it is not only thinkable, it is happening. On the other hand, when you read some of this stuff, you might be tempted to let them have their play-time and just stay out of it. There is plenty of silliness – again, along with some useful stuff.

My view is let’s see if we can play nicely together. I’m a believer in an ecosystem approach to foresight. Lots of other fields touch upon the future. I say let’s let each find their niche in the futures ecosystem. We futurists have an identity and should happily welcome aboard others who want to join us in that. We can also play nicely with others who prefer to maintain their own identity. I’d love to see a burgeoning and diverse futures ecosystem that honors one another’s contributions.  

It might be fun to invite longtermers to a futures meeting and exchange ideas. Not to fight, but to see if we could find some common ground. The future needs all the help it can get – Andy Hines.