Selling "longtermism":
How PR and marketing drive a controversial new movement
For SALON
In a recent podcast interview with Griftonomics about the increasingly influential ideology known as "longtermism," I was asked at the end "So, what's the grift?" The difficulty in answering this is not what to say but where to start.Longtermism emerged from a movement called "Effective Altruism" (EA), a male-dominated community of "super-hardcore do-gooders" (as they once called themselves tongue-in-cheek) based mostly in Oxford and the San Francisco Bay Area.
Their initial focus was on alleviating global poverty, but over time a growing number of the movement's members have shifted their research and activism toward ensuring that humanity, or our posthuman descendants, survive for millions, billions and even trillions of years into the future.
Although the longtermists do not, so far as I know, describe what they're doing this way, we might identify two phases of spreading their ideology:
Phase One involved infiltrating governments, encouraging people to pursue high-paying jobs to donate more for the cause and wooing billionaires like Elon Musk — and this has been wildly successful. Musk himself has described longtermism as "a close match for my philosophy." Sam Bankman-Fried has made billions from cryptocurrencies to fund longtermist efforts. And longtermism is, according to a UN Dispatch article, "increasingly gaining traction around the United Nations and in foreign policy circles.
Phase Two is what we're seeing right now with the recent media blitz promoting longtermism, with articles written by or about William MacAskill, longtermism's poster boy, in outlets like The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Guardian, BBC and TIME.
Having spread their influence behind the scenes over the many years, members and supporters are now working overtime to sell longtermism to the broader public in hopes of building their movement, as "movement building" is one of the central aims of the community...
But buyer beware: The EA community, including its longtermist offshoot, places a huge emphasis on marketing, public relations and "brand-management," and hence one should be very cautious about how MacAskill and his longtermist colleagues present their views to the public.
As MacAskill notes in an article posted on the EA Forum, it was around 2011 that early members of the community began "to realize the importance of good marketing, and therefore [were] willing to put more time into things like choice of name." The name they chose was of course "Effective Altruism," which they picked by vote over alternatives like "Effective Utilitarian Community" and "Big Visions Network." Without a catchy name, "the brand of effective altruism," as MacAskill puts it, could struggle to attract customers and funding.
I do have an opinion about the soup:
I fully support their action.
It reminded me of one of the famous ethical dilemmas: a museum is on fire, inside there is a dog and a unique painting, you can save only one, which one would you choose?
I hope the protesters had that in mind too, as they tried one more time to point out our trivial preoccupations with and fetishization of our artifacts as opposed to life and the biosphere.
Given how many people were offended that they dared attack a unique painting (like any painting it can have zero value or absurd money-laundering level value, but as de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum, I will not select a value), I am afraid those people are choosing the wrong answer with deadly consequences.
I hope the debate started by the two courageous, biophilic and rational young women and their group will go further and question the huge investment in and ecological footprint of all art and other museums, while there are millions of unhoused people, the energy required to operate them could be used by people in need, the land occupied by the museums could have a myriad of truly valuable uses, the list of opportunity costs is long.
Plus our brain capacity could have much better uses, how to solve the climate emergency is a critical one, than obsessing about any piece of art that nobody would care about if it weren’t marketed by the one percenters, the bourgeoisie and the art “experts” who cannot not find a more useful line of work.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/22/just-stop-oil-van-gogh-national-gallery-aileen-getty