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.