长期主义的威胁:生态灾难是存在的风险吗?幻灭的理想,大胆的新未来

IF 0.2 3区 哲学 N/A PHILOSOPHY FILOZOFIA Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.31577/filozofia.2023.78.10.suppl.11
Sarah Frances Hicks, Dominika Janus
{"title":"长期主义的威胁:生态灾难是存在的风险吗?幻灭的理想,大胆的新未来","authors":"Sarah Frances Hicks, Dominika Janus","doi":"10.31577/filozofia.2023.78.10.suppl.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a world of rapidly advancing technological innovation, a case has been made to prioritize potential long-term benefits to future generations over the interests of those currently alive. Proponents of this approach, called longtermists, support investments in technology to avoid existential risks. They claim technology will eventually “solve” climate change, while ignoring technopower reduction as a potential solution to global environmental catastrophe. Democratic control over technology mitigates some of these harms, yet falls short of the authors’ proposed level of oversight. In this paper, we consider the ethical hazards of longtermists’ stance. An ethical dilemma emerges from the devastating effect some technological advancements have on the environment. While we recognize the merits of long-term thinking, we argue longtermists’ prioritization consolidates power among few technocrats. This prioritization exacerbates existing inequalities instead of redistributing economic and political power to communities most affected by climate change. We posit this trade-off to be unethical.","PeriodicalId":44340,"journal":{"name":"FILOZOFIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Threat of Longtermism: Is Ecological Catastrophe an Existential Risk? Disillusioned Ideals for a Bold, New Future\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Frances Hicks, Dominika Janus\",\"doi\":\"10.31577/filozofia.2023.78.10.suppl.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a world of rapidly advancing technological innovation, a case has been made to prioritize potential long-term benefits to future generations over the interests of those currently alive. Proponents of this approach, called longtermists, support investments in technology to avoid existential risks. They claim technology will eventually “solve” climate change, while ignoring technopower reduction as a potential solution to global environmental catastrophe. Democratic control over technology mitigates some of these harms, yet falls short of the authors’ proposed level of oversight. In this paper, we consider the ethical hazards of longtermists’ stance. An ethical dilemma emerges from the devastating effect some technological advancements have on the environment. While we recognize the merits of long-term thinking, we argue longtermists’ prioritization consolidates power among few technocrats. This prioritization exacerbates existing inequalities instead of redistributing economic and political power to communities most affected by climate change. We posit this trade-off to be unethical.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44340,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FILOZOFIA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FILOZOFIA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31577/filozofia.2023.78.10.suppl.11\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FILOZOFIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31577/filozofia.2023.78.10.suppl.11","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个技术创新日新月异的世界里,有一种观点认为,应优先考虑子孙后代的潜在长期利益,而不是在世者的利益。这种方法的支持者被称为 "长期主义者",他们支持通过技术投资来避免生存风险。他们声称技术最终将 "解决 "气候变化问题,却忽视了减少技术力量是解决全球环境灾难的潜在办法。对技术的民主监督可以减轻其中的一些危害,但还达不到作者提出的监督水平。在本文中,我们将考虑长期主义者立场的伦理危害。一些技术进步对环境造成的破坏性影响导致了伦理困境。虽然我们承认长期思维的优点,但我们认为,长期主义者的优先考虑巩固了少数技术官僚的权力。这种优先考虑加剧了现有的不平等,而不是将经济和政治权力重新分配给受气候变化影响最严重的社区。我们认为这种权衡是不道德的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Threat of Longtermism: Is Ecological Catastrophe an Existential Risk? Disillusioned Ideals for a Bold, New Future
In a world of rapidly advancing technological innovation, a case has been made to prioritize potential long-term benefits to future generations over the interests of those currently alive. Proponents of this approach, called longtermists, support investments in technology to avoid existential risks. They claim technology will eventually “solve” climate change, while ignoring technopower reduction as a potential solution to global environmental catastrophe. Democratic control over technology mitigates some of these harms, yet falls short of the authors’ proposed level of oversight. In this paper, we consider the ethical hazards of longtermists’ stance. An ethical dilemma emerges from the devastating effect some technological advancements have on the environment. While we recognize the merits of long-term thinking, we argue longtermists’ prioritization consolidates power among few technocrats. This prioritization exacerbates existing inequalities instead of redistributing economic and political power to communities most affected by climate change. We posit this trade-off to be unethical.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
FILOZOFIA
FILOZOFIA PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
66.70%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Filozofia publishes original articles in a wide range of areas including metaphysics, epistemology, history of philosophy, social and political philosophy, philosophy of mind, ethics, philosophy of religion and related disciplines. The journal is published monthly, with the exception of July and August, i.e. ten issues yearly. The articles are accepted in Slovak, Czech and English languages.
期刊最新文献
Reconsidering Agency in the Age of AI Jana Benická: Staroveká čínska filozofia a myslenie Cesta k inteligencii: Nadmerné zjednodušenie a samokontrola Bridges Without Foundation? Why the Use of AI Tools in Academia Needs to Build on Ethics First AI Text Generators and the Truth Paradigm: Considerations from a Phenomenological Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1