Longtermism
Dated sources are over 18 months old; other dates are unknown.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 3
Newest dated source: 2022-08-15
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.
Some publication dates are unknown; the newest dated source may not be the newest source overall.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Open in the glossary Reading notes · Structured record
In plain language
The view that protecting future generations deserves much more attention. Critics dispute predictions about distant effects and how far possible future benefits should outweigh present needs. [1] [2] [3]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
Limits & distinctions
Concern for future generations does not require agreement with every longtermist priority. MacAskill argues that preventing extinction can have predictable lasting benefits. Kieran Setiya challenges the ethical weight given to possible future populations over present suffering. Cremer and Kemp question how some existential-risk frameworks handle uncertainty and competing values. None of these arguments fixes one AI timeline or policy. [1] [2] [3]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
A fuller explanation
A view that gives substantial moral importance to future people and to the lasting effects of today’s choices. William MacAskill argues that future people matter, could be numerous and can be helped or harmed by what we do now. How strongly those considerations should determine present priorities is disputed. [1] [2]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
How it relates to the map
Can motivate catastrophic-risk work, but does not fix a development speed or a particular AI forecast. [1]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
Share this page
https://theaiatlas.org/ideas/longtermism/
Download a share image · Vector image
Image previews are summaries. Keep the page link so readers can check the evidence.
Sources and what we read
1. Longtermism
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Publication dates are unavailable.
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.
Some publication dates are unknown; the newest dated source may not be the newest source overall.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
An advocate's account of the moral importance of future people. The page is undated; the book's publication date is not used as the page date.
2. The New Moral Mathematics
Source is over 18 months old.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2022-08-15
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Read Setiya’s review sections on population ethics and the priority given to future survival over present suffering. The entry attributes his ethical criticism and does not adopt the article’s empirical forecasts.
3. Democratising Risk: In Search of a Methodology to Study Existential Risk
Source is over 18 months old.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2021-12-27
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Read the abstract and submission history. The authors argue for clearer definitions, plural values and better risk methods. Their criticism of one influential framework is not a finding that all catastrophe research is invalid.
Edition and machine-readable evidence
Content version 0.20.0. Evidence cutoff 2026-09-15; this does not mean every source was read on that day.
Pinned complete dataset · Complete evidence page · Agent consumption guide