Announcing: The ‘Essays on Longtermism’ Competition

By Toby Tremlett🔹 @ 2025-09-08T08:27 (+77)

‘Essays on Longtermism: Present Action for the Distant Future’ was recently published by Oxford University Press. It’s open access — you can read individual chapters here^[1], or the full collection here.

The book covers the case for longtermism, ways to forecast and evaluate the future, discussions of our priorities in light of longtermism, and the prospects for longtermism in institutions. David Thorstad goes into more detail on the book's contents here. 

An academic book like this is published in the hope that it will generate more serious discussion of the ideas it contains and the questions it raises. To contribute to that goal, we’re working with the book's editors to host an essay competition here on the Forum. 

To enter: write an essay (of whatever length it needs to be^[2]) in response to an essay (or a theme from across the essays) in this collection. Then, post it on the forum^[3] with the ‘EoL Competition’ tag, on or before the end of October 20th, anywhere on earth. 

Prizes: 

1st: $1000

2nd: $750

3rd: $250

The Judges

The competition will be judged by Will MacAskill, David Thorstad, Hilary Greaves, Jacob Barrett, and Eva Vivalt. 

Will MacAskill: Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, and Senior Research Fellow at Forethought. He is the author of Doing Good Better and What We Owe The Future, and co-author of ‘The case for strong longtermism’ in Essays on Longtermism.

David Thorstad: Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Editor of Essays on Longtermism, author of the book Inquiry under bounds, the blog reflective altruism, and many papers. His research covers ethics, decision theory, and the philosophy of probability, with recent work on longtermism and population ethics.

Hilary Greaves: Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford and former director of the Global Priorities Institute.

Jacob Barrett: Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Editor of Essays on Longtermism, author of the forthcoming book Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory, and much more. He works on moral and political philosophy, with a focus on long-term social reform. He co-wrote a chapter of Essays on Longtermism with Andreas T. Schmidt: ‘Longtermist Political Philosophy: An Agenda for Future Research.’

Eva Vivalt: Assistant Professor in the department of economics at the University of Toronto. Research on cash transfer programs, improving evidence-based decision making, moral values and norms, forecasting, and meta research (more details here). She co-wrote a chapter of Essays on Longtermism with David Rhys Bernard: ‘What Are the Prospects of Forecasting the Far Future?’ 

How we will select the winners

Submissions will be counted as eligible if they are posted between the beginning of the competition (the moment this post is live) and the end of October 20th (anywhere on earth). 

Stage 1:

• I, Toby Tremlett, will select the essays that I’d like to pass on to the judges. These will be the essays I consider as plausible winners. I won’t be too opinionated at this stage, and judges can overrule and add a post into this category if they see something I’ve missed. 

Stage 2: 

• The judges will be randomly assigned posts to review. They will rate them out of 10, with 5 points for ‘originality’ and 5 points for ‘quality of argument’. These scores will be reweighted so that quality accounts for ⅔ of the score. 

Stage 3: 

• The top 10 posts^[4] will be reviewed by a second judge. If there are three clear winners, and if no judge objects, the winners will be announced. If not, we will schedule a call to make a decision. 

We aim to announce the winners on or before November 4th, but reserve the right to take longer if there are unforeseen delays. 

The prize is money, so… legal stuff

To claim payment of a prize, winners may need to provide identification documents and bank account details. Effective Ventures may not be able to make payment if these checks are not completed or if the payments are going to certain jurisdictions. 

For international payments, any conversion costs or taxes that Effective Ventures incurs will be deducted from the prize amount. Winners will also need to consider their own personal tax obligations. We expect to pay out prizes within 2 weeks of selection and completion of any necessary checks.

FAQs

Am I eligible?

Yes! Unless you are a judge of the competition, an employee of the Centre for Effective Altruism, and/or me^[5]. You don’t have to hold a relevant PhD to enter, or to have posted on the EA Forum before. Even those who authored chapters in ‘Essays on Longtermism’ are eligible.

Can I co-author a piece?

Yes! The prize (if you win) will be split evenly between the co-authors. 

Can I treat entries to the competition like regular forum posts?

Yes! Please do. Interact with them, vote on them, disagree with them. If you’re writing one, feel free to use forum features like polls-in-posts. 

Can I submit a piece I’ve already published elsewhere?

Not for this competition. No pieces which have been published (including blog posts) before the date of this announcement post will be considered. This is because we care about incentivising new content, rather than surfacing the best (as we did for the creative writing competition). 

However, you are very welcome to publish your entry to this competition anywhere you please, as long as it is also published on the EA Forum. 

Are there prizes for referring pieces?

Not for this competition. 

Will I get feedback on my entry?

I’m keeping the judging process lean, so we can’t promise feedback on posts. However, if you include a line at the top or bottom of your post asking for feedback, there’s a good chance you’ll get some thoughtful engagement from the EA Forum audience. 

What criteria will submissions be judged on?

First, I’ll judge them on whether they are plausible winners. At this stage, I’ll reject posts which clearly misunderstand the source material, don’t argue for their claims, or don’t plausibly contribute a new perspective. If that’s only a small percentage of posts, I might become more stringent. The judges can overrule me — i.e. they can see a post on the Forum and make sure that it is judged.

Once the desk rejections are done, judges will rate posts out of 10, with 5 points for originality and 5 for argumentative quality. Argumentative quality will be weighted more highly — ⅔ of the final score. 

Does style matter?

You won’t be marked on style, but readability is always a plus (also, I stand by this writing advice). Additionally, though you are very much encouraged to disagree with the arguments in the essay collection, being too polemical is likely to get in the way of a good argument. 

(How) Can I use AI?

There won’t be a hard rule against the use of AI to assist in writing. But be aware that fully AI-generated posts remain obvious, and likely won’t make it to the judging stage (because they likely won’t contain good or original arguments). 

However, in the very unlikely case that an AI-generated post did win the prize based on careful review from several professional philosophers (and an economist), I think it would be deserving of the prize!

Can I enter more than once?

Yes. There isn’t a limit, beyond the fact that no human with other commitments can write more than a couple of plausibly winning essays over the length of the competition (though — prove me wrong, please). If two of your pieces make it into the top 3, well done! But we’ll only give you the highest prize you win. 

For any other questions, message me, or comment below. 

1. ^{^}

   Unfortunately, due to a glitch, the six essays in Part IV are not yet available online at this link. You can read them here. 

2. ^{^}

   Anything from 500 to 5000 words is acceptable — note that I don’t expect the best posts to be the longest. 

3. ^{^}

    For those new to the forum — everything published here must be available under CC BY 4.0. 

4. ^{^}

    I’ll keep track of the average scores judges give, and make sure that the top 10 is representative — i.e. we may need to reweight one judges scores if they are particularly harsh/ kind. 

5. ^{^}

    People described by this sentence are welcome to take part - they just can’t win money.