Do the interests of trillions of future humans outweigh the immediate suffering of living humans today?
Evaluates the philosophy of Longtermism: should global philanthropy and policy prioritize reducing astronomical existential risks over helping living people in poverty today?
Pick a Side
Choose a position to defend, or let fate assign your stance.
Arguments FOR
1. Sheer moral mathematics of potential future human lives
If humanity survives for millions of years across the galaxy, 10^16 or more future humans will exist; safeguarding their existence outweighs any single generation.
2. Future people have zero political voice or lobbying power
Democracies discount the future, dumping radioactive waste, debt, and climate destruction onto unborn generations who cannot vote or sue.
3. Existential risk reduction is the highest moral priority
Preventing human extinction from bioweapons or runaway AI preserves the entire vast future of human consciousness, poetry, discovery, and joy.
4. Temporal distance is as morally irrelevant as spatial distance
Just as caring about a starving child in Africa is as important as a child next door, caring about a human born in 2200 is as important as one born today.
Arguments AGAINST
1. Abandons real, breathing human beings suffering in acute poverty today
Diverting billions from clean water, bed nets, and malnutrition clinics to speculative AI alignment think tanks is grotesque intellectual indulgence.
2. Radical uncertainty makes predicting centuries ahead impossible
We cannot accurately forecast technology 20 years out; shaping the trajectory of 10,000 years in the future is arrogant speculative science fiction.
3. Can justify dystopian utilitarian totalitarianism
If hypothetical future trillions outweigh current people, any oppression, surveillance, or sacrifice of living citizens can be justified to secure that future.
4. Non-identity problem: future people do not yet exist
Hypothetical future people cannot be harmed or deprived of rights because different current policies will cause entirely different individuals to be born.
Counter Questions
Questions to challenge claims and probe deeper into trade-offs.
- Can a philosophy justify letting children starve today in order to fund research into speculative AI risks 500 years from now?
- Why did philosopher Nick Bostrom argue that a 1% reduction in existential risk is worth more than saving billions of living lives?
- How does Derek Parfit's 'non-identity problem' complicate our moral duties to people who will be born centuries from now?
- If we spend all our resources solving immediate crises and allow an existential catastrophe to extinguish humanity, did we fail the future?
- How far into the future should democratic governments be required to plan when passing laws?
Ready to debate this topic?
Prepare your arguments and test your speech against the clock.