THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SILICON VALLEY Day 8
THE BELIEF
Longtermism is the moral philosophy that the far future—trillions of potential humans across millennia—matters more than the present. Because the stakes are so vast, almost any action today is justified if it increases the odds of a flourishing future, even if it causes harm in the short term. The ends (a galaxy-spanning civilization) sanctify the means (sacrificing present lives, liberties, or ecosystems).
THE PERFORMANCE
The term was coined in 2017 by Oxford philosopher William MacAskill in his book What We Owe the Future, but its performative power comes from Silicon Valley’s elite. Tech billionaires like Elon Musk and Sam Bankman-Fried (before his fall) have invoked longtermism to justify everything from colonizing Mars to funding AI research that could, in theory, save future generations—while dismissing present-day suffering as a rounding error in the cosmic ledger.
The performance is one of cold, actuarial certainty. On podcasts (The Lex Fridman Show, The Tim Ferriss Show), in TED Talks, and in investor letters, proponents speak in the language of expected value: if there’s even a 1% chance of preventing human extinction, the math demands we prioritize it over today’s crises. The tone is not fanatical but rational, as if the conclusion is so obvious that only the morally blind would disagree.
The rhetorical trick is to frame opposition as short-sighted, even selfish. Why care about poverty now when a single AI breakthrough could uplift trillions? Why regulate a promising technology when the alternative is stagnation and eventual collapse? The origin story is a 2019 blog post by MacAskill, later amplified by Bankman-Fried, who claimed his crypto empire was a "longtermist" project to accumulate wealth for future altruism. (The SEC later alleged that wealth was stolen from customers.)
THE DOCUMENTED RECORD
Longtermism’s core claim—that present harm is justified by future gains—collapses under scrutiny.
-
The math is speculative, not scientific. Longtermism relies on "astronomical waste" arguments: if humanity goes extinct, we lose trillions of future lives, so even tiny risks of extinction justify extreme measures. But this assumes future humans are as real as present ones—a metaphysical claim, not a fact. As philosopher Émile Torres notes in A Critical Review of Longtermism (2022), "There is no empirical basis for treating potential future people as morally equivalent to actual present people." The future is unknowable; treating it as a certainty is a form of theological speculation, not evidence-based ethics.
-
The harms are real; the benefits are hypothetical. Longtermist projects have already caused measurable damage. Bankman-Fried’s FTX, which he framed as a longtermist charity, collapsed in 2022, wiping out $8 billion in customer funds. Internal messages revealed in the U.S. v. Bankman-Fried indictment (2023) show executives knew the exchange was insolvent but continued trading, justifying it as a "long-term play." Similarly, Musk’s SpaceX has been fined repeatedly for environmental violations (e.g., a 2023 EPA settlement for air pollution at its Texas launch site), justified as necessary for "multiplanetary life." The future benefits are theoretical; the present costs are concrete.
-
Longtermism enables elite impunity. The philosophy provides moral cover for the powerful to ignore present suffering. In a 2021 interview with The New Yorker, MacAskill was asked if longtermism could justify harming people today. He replied, "It’s possible, but I think it’s unlikely." Yet in practice, it already has. OpenAI’s Sam Altman, a longtermist, has pushed for rapid AI development despite warnings from employees (documented in a 2023 New York Times investigation) that the technology could destabilize jobs, elections, and safety. When pressed on present risks, Altman deflects: "The future is so much bigger than the present." The record shows the opposite: the future is a blank check for present elites to cash.
-
The historical precedent is grim. Longtermism’s logic—sacrificing the present for a glorious future—has been used to justify atrocities. The Soviet Union’s forced collectivization, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, and even colonialism were framed as necessary for long-term progress. As historian David Runciman writes in The Confidence Trap (2013), "The belief that the future will vindicate present suffering is the oldest justification for tyranny." Longtermism is not new; it’s a repackaged version of an old, dangerous idea.
THE AUDIENCE
Longtermism appeals to a specific audience: the technocratic elite who feel both omnipotent and powerless. These are the people who built the modern world but see it slipping from their control—climate change, political instability, the rise of populism. Longtermism offers them a way to reclaim agency: if they can’t fix the present, they can at least save the future.
It also speaks to a deeper anxiety: the fear of irrelevance. In a world where billionaires are increasingly seen as parasites, longtermism reframes their wealth as a cosmic trust. They are not hoarding resources; they are stewards of humanity’s destiny. This is why figures like Musk and Bankman-Fried perform longtermism so publicly—it turns their greed into virtue.
The audience is not stupid. They are responding to a real problem: the short-termism of modern capitalism, which prioritizes quarterly profits over long-term survival. Longtermism exploits this legitimate grievance, but it inverts the solution. Instead of demanding systemic change, it tells elites they can outrun the system by thinking bigger. The result is not progress, but a moral escape hatch.
THE CONTRADICTION
Longtermism’s fatal flaw is its circular logic: it justifies present harm by appealing to a future that only exists if the harm is justified. If we sacrifice today’s poor to fund AI research, and the AI never materializes (or worse, enslaves humanity), then the sacrifice was for nothing. The future is not a fixed destination; it’s a series of choices. By treating it as inevitable, longtermism ensures it never arrives.
THE THING THEY GOT RIGHT
The grain of truth in longtermism is that the future does matter. Climate change, nuclear war, and unchecked AI are real threats that require long-term thinking. The mistake is assuming that only elites can solve them—and that the solutions must come at the expense of the present. The alternative is not short-termism, but democratic long-termism: policies that protect both today’s people and tomorrow’s, decided by the many, not imposed by the few.
THE ONE LINE
Longtermism turns the future into a moral credit card, letting the powerful spend today’s lives on tomorrow’s promises.
This newsletter uses direct quotes, public records, court documents, and documented biographical fact. It does not make claims beyond what the record supports. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and reach their own conclusions.