Three Open Flanks of Longtermism

By ManfredKohler @ 2025-10-06T13:37 (+1)


A. Non-human animals

Longtermism pursues the survival of humanity as its main objective and accords this goal particularly high esteem, since without humanity's continued existence, billions or even trillions of future humans would never come to exist. But who or what can prove that the value of a human life should be assessed as greater than the life of another animal with advanced sensory perception and feelings? What entitles us to categorically rank human life higher, or even entirely dismiss the value of other animals, when nearly every natural, social, and psychological function once considered uniquely human has now been documented in various animal species? Some non-human animals possess language-like communication, call each other by name, introduce themselves by name, show joy, experience sadness, bury group members, meditate together, construct complex social hierarchies and networks, operate communication networks, actively communicate with humans in diverse ways, understand human language and even partially speak it, observe both other conspecifics and humans, comprehend their motives and emotional states, can build and use tools, can count and estimate quantities, show touching care for the injured and for children (even other species’ offspring), sometimes care for members of other species, maintain friendships (even with members of other species), sing, dance, fall in love, enjoy sex and alcohol, commit rape, exercise other violence, enslave, trick and manipulate, and sacrifice themselves for the survival of others, to name just a few examples.

Research is constantly uncovering more similarities between humans and other animals in social behavior, communication, cognition, emotions, and stress responses. Thus, the question arises as to the relative worth of a human life versus the life of another animal. Chapter 25 of the book to be referred to in this contest, "Longtermism and Animals," does indeed touch on the question of comparative valuation, and points to scholarship on cross-species welfare assessment (see Browning 2023, "Welfare Comparisons Within and Across Species", Philosophical Studies 180:529–551, O’Brien 2024, “The Case for Animal-Inclusive Longtermism”, and Horta and Rozas 2024, “Animals and Longtermism”). However, even these moderate concessions do not address the core question: on what basis do we value human life more highly than animal life at all? Thus, we would like to invert the perspective and the burden of proof. Rather than arguing in favour of recognising the value of some non-human animals, as some indeed do, we claim that at least some non-human animals should be given the same value as humans, and this should be the default position.

It is worth recalling that from the 17th to 19th centuries, new theories repeatedly postulated the worthlessness or lower value of non-European humans. These postulates became increasingly untenable the more their cultures were studied, and today—at least in our movement—they are not up for debate. Regarding non-human animals, this history repeats itself. The more we learn about animals and communicate with them, the more we experience them as equals. What animal lovers have always known and experience daily is now trickling—decades or centuries delayed—into science: there is no fundamental, categorical difference between humans and at least a significant portion of non-human animals. I predict that by the end of the century, contemporary livestock practices in industrialized countries will be regarded as even more barbaric than we now think of slavery, since at least slaves were not raised in cramped boxes, fattened by force, and then—sometimes alive—slaughtered.

Even if one does not share this prediction, research ought to be conducted on how fair comparative valuation might be structured. It must be considered that the intensity of sentience, and perhaps even time perception, in non-human animals may exceed that of humans. For instance, many insects, but also some primates, can perceive much smaller units of time and react more quickly, indicating a more intense perception of time and possibly a higher value for each lived second. Thus, the parameter of lifespan should also be questioned: perhaps a second of an insect’s life is worth more than a minute of human life. More research is needed to establish a solid grounding for fair comparative valuation. The trend is clear: with every year of research, differences between humans and non-human animals shrink and disappear along an asymptotic curve. This is an extrapolatable trend from the past. Perhaps the longtermism movement should already account for this extrapolation now—the more so as its own calls for the recognition of the value of non-human animals also increases exponentially—and thus lean toward assuming equality between humans and other animals. If it does not, it will—like society at large—have to face criticism by the century’s end for having implicitly tolerated the barbarity of today’s animal agriculture by catastrophically miscalculating the ethical value of the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants, or counting them only with an ethically indefensible discount factor.

There are certainly many models for determining relative value of non-human animals. Even if one measures worth simply in proportion to similarity with humans—a decidedly anthropocentric metric—one arrives at very different conclusions about the value of humanity’s survival than is commonly assumed by the longtermism movement. Then one must also factor in all negative impacts of humanity’s survival: after all, humankind has been distinguished above all by radically reducing the numbers of other animals, especially those most similar to ourselves, with the exception of farm, dairy, and other livestock, which, however, suffer endless misery through animal husbandry and slaughter. In light of this, would it not be better if humanity did not survive, leaving more (and especially happier) other animals on Earth? I suspect that nearly any half-way fair investigation of this question would conclude that it would be better if humans were not on this planet. Apologies if my conjecture here is shocking—it is only an indication of research that might be needed.

Only two considerations might negate this expectation:

  1. Other animals besides humans do not have technology for the foreseeable future. Therefore, they cannot carry valuable life to other planets or stars.
  2. In the absence of technology, they cannot prevent meteorites from ending life on Earth. One would need to calculate the probability that meteorites destroy life on Earth, then the probability that future humanity would be able to defend against meteorites. Then one could calculate the value of Earthly life with or without humans and decide, with a formula, whether Earthly life should exist better with or without animals.

But even this formula is not yet refined, because even after the most brutal meteorite impact, a new evolution would begin, which with a not insignificant probability would again generate valuable life. A meteorite impact would thus only lead to a dip in the number of animal lives, not to the extinction of animals altogether. Here, the longtermism perspective that includes non-human animals differs fundamentally from the form of longtermism focused only on humans. Consequently, the ethical foundation of longtermism is fundamentally weakened: if non-human animals have equal or only slight lesser value, given their far greater numbers, the risk of human extinction no longer justifies resource allocation to address far-future human risks or existential risks as strongly as it does now. Given the relatively small number of humans, the survival of humanity would be only of marginal importance. We would be far better off focusing on the relatively manageable immediate welfare of all animals here and now, and the long-term survival of animals generally, whether with or without humans.
 

B. Possible extraterrestrial intelligent and sentient beings

Further uncertainties in the meteorite calculation arise if one cannot exclude the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent and sentient life. Various Netflix documentaries

summarize several hundred eyewitness and media reports, suggesting we may be on the verge of a kind of second Copernican revolution. [Four hundred years ago, the Church vigorously denied the discovery that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that it orbits the Sun.] Relatively recent Pentagon revelations, including video footage, suggest the existence technologies not currently accessible to humanity, such as erratic, lightning-fast changes in the positions of flying objects and, in one case, flying object's reassembly and continued flight after typically destructive missile fire. These currently unavailable technologies might be used to protect Earth from meteorites, thus protecting us humans, or theoretically to attack Earth’s inhabitants (humans and other animals). So far, there is no evidence of hostile intent—the most serious report about an alleged encounter includes a human briefly taken aboard a kind of spaceship for physical examination.

Thus we come to another open flank of longtermism: possible extraterrestrial intelligent and sentient life. What do we know to reasonably estimate their potential influence on humanity’s survival scenarios, and the value of their consciousness? We would need to learn more about the knowledge and consciousness or sentient world of these extraterrestrial beings, if they exist. Since public research in this area is still tabooed—though, according to these documentaries, the U.S. and other powers engage in secret research—people do not dare openly report encounters. This taboo prevents knowledge from developing openly in the general public. The accumulation of many individual experiences is thus blocked, leaving an unnecessarily narrow empirical base. The effective altruism movement should help destigmatize reporting and exchanges of experiences on this topic.

Such destigmatization could help us gain better understanding of extraterrestrial technologies, if those beings truly exist, which in turn could increase the survival chances of humanity or, if chosen as a benchmark, all terrestrial life.

Not because of the taboo but due to needed intellectual clarity, the author stresses that he has no proof nor internal certainty about the existence of extraterrestrial beings or technologies, and is not subjectively convinced. Their existence is not asserted—only the non-negligible probability of their existence needs rational consideration. If they existed, they would be a game-changer of the highest order. Since the effective altruism movement already operates with contingencies, why not here? Is it fear of the taboo? This is both pragmatically and scientifically incorrect, repeating the error of the Church and other institutions during the Copernican revolution.
 

C. Consciousness, Time Perception, and Perceptual Intensity

We have touched on consciousness, time perception, and perceptual intensity but not elaborated. These need elaboration because they enrich the flat, superficial metric of external lifetime with something far more important: internal lifetime / time perception, consciousness and perceptual intensity. Research on these questions is sparse (see as entry-point for the sub-item time perception Kent and Wittmann 2021, “Time consciousness: the missing link in theories of consciousness”) and does hardly match with what we experience in the semantic field of these terms. Yet we all know that an intense workday passes in a flash, of which we internally gain little because concentration is on the task. Conversely, a leisurely, work-free day filled with perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and pleasant observations subjectively seems very long, intense and rich.

From this, one can also infer that a life in circumstances allowing more intense life perception should have higher value; that is, besides outer lifetime and life quality (feeling good or bad, e.g., scaled 1-10), the intensity of consciousness and perception, including time perception, must also be accounted for. This applies both to intensification of positive and negative experiences; as life is overall judged worth living and positive, higher intensity on average thus generally yields added value. Simply put: living in leisure, self-determined, without perception-dulling work, must be valued higher not only for better life quality but also for the factor of consciousness or perception intensity. A shorter life with clearly higher consciousness intensity at equal quality may be worth more than a longer life with flat consciousness intensity, which, for the extreme case of coma, hardly anyone disputes. It should also be factored that consciousness techniques can increase time perception, general experience intensity, and ultimately consciousness itself. Such techniques can extend perceived time so that one second feels longer than a minute to normal people. Intensive meditators sometimes describe precise perception of micro-stages of insect or bird movements, and others report a subjective suspension of time. Should meditation instruction therefore not be acknowledged and hyped more, even without spiritual ambitions? Perhaps by the effective altruism movement as well?

[Excursus: For a small but culturally significant portion of humanity in Asia and until the 18th century also in Europe, lifespan, quality, and intensity are secondary. Their goals are religious/spiritual attainment, such as unity with God, being well received by God in heaven, a good rebirth, or exiting reincarnation cycles, and thus unity with a postulated original ground (the attainment of which is called “immortality” in Taoism). This ground is described with terms that form a continuum toward a classical God concept. This ethics oriented towards the beyond has many practical life consequences. For example, Tibetan Buddhist clergy practice healing techniques found in many shamanic cultures that can also harm themselves; they accept self-harm especially as karmic cleansing, favourable to the attainment of buddhahood (equivalent to “immortality” in Taosim and possibly equivalent to the Christian resurrection, see next reference below). They often refuse life-prolonging treatments, especially medications that dull consciousness before death, valuing a consciously experienced and meditation-shaped death process higher than painlessness or longer life. Such persons, and others believing in reincarnation or many Christian mystics, Sufis, and Jain, cannot be well served by quantitative analyses of lifespan, quality, intensity, or societal optimization based on these. What they need is time and space for inner preparation for the dying process or “rebirth in life,” which depending on their faith involves invoking, reactivating or naturally developing and cultivating an inner spiritual-being or dimension unaffected by physical death. Such practices require long quiet or at least calm periods (Tiso (2016), “Rainbow Body and Resurrection”). With this, we bridge to the next paragraph.]

Taking consciousness, time perception, and perceptual intensity seriously requires cultural revaluation. Many traditional, quieter lifeways—especially of often derided simple, traditional peoples—should be valued more than a work-intensive turbo-life in industrial societies, which reduces or flattens time and perception by constant focus on externals like screens. Many political and ethical decisions should be made differently if this additional parameter is taken seriously, including for the effective altruism movement. The goal should not be a life of as many people as possible with long lifespan and high quality, but the number of people times lifespan times quality times intensity of experience, time perception, and consciousness merged into one parameter. Thus, we need not three but four parameters as basis for ethically right decisions and ethical optimization of Earth's design. Optimization tasks will surely become more complex, but it is worth it, as in the end, “more life” results for people.

To avoid misunderstandings: the consciousness referred to here is not conceptual thinking or recognition, but general perception of self and others in the world, also called “awareness”. It is also not about whether a being cognitively recognizes itself in a mirror—a repeatedly (and mistakenly) used “consciousness” test. The consciousness discussed here is thus fundamentally accessible to some—and indeed quite a number—of non-human animal species, though to varying extents. This consciousness could be a factor in determining the relative value of non-human animals, alongside pain perception and other emotional capacities.

Thus far in part C. of this essay, only the open consciousness flank of the effective altruism movement has been discussed, not its effects on longtermism. Hence the question: how might integration of consciousness, time perception, and perceptual intensity as parameters affect longtermism? What causal connections exist? Some hypotheses, requiring further research:

It is very hard to bring people to a different, more ethical attitude. The elegance of the path of consciousness is that one can embark on it for egoistic reasons—for oneself and wellbeing—yet it very likely leads to a more altruistic, less egoistic, less consumerist attitude and lifestyle. It is thus a path of conversion of the individual to the benefit of all. It is no coincidence that so many religious and spiritual schools say, "If you want to change the world, start with yourself."

At the same time, political discourse in many democracies is shifting toward selfishness, "us versus them," "the boat is full," "America first," and similar slogans. The German GiveWell organization Effektiv Spenden has launched a program to preserve democracy because as politics shifts rightward and away from democracy, aid funds are cut more. But how can democracy be defended if the motive of democracy's enemies—selfishness—gains ground more and more? The root of hostility to democracy, like many other undesirable phenomena, is selfishness. Perhaps effective altruism and thus longtermism must address this matter on a more fundamental level. Promoting consciousness could be a promising new channel for impact from this perspective.

 

D. Conclusion

There are thus at least three open flanks of longtermism and surprising interconnections between them. The most surprising is that all three relate to the non-material dimension of consciousness. In this sense, it should be recalled that there is indeed a discussion about whether artificial intelligence can have consciousness and should therefore be ethically considered. Why then are the much clearer indications of consciousness in non-human animals not taken seriously and ethically considered? And why are reports about possible extraterrestrial civilizations not at least hypothetically examined regarding possible consciousness of their inhabitants? Pragmatically and in terms of values, there is no justification for these omissions. We should revisit our stance on which bearers of consciousness we ought to consider, both for the orientation of effective altruism and its variant longtermism.

Perhaps even more surprising to many readers might be the thesis that one additional valuation parameter is necessary for the orientation of effective altruism—in its longtermism variant as well—the parameter "consciousness, time perception, and perceptual intensity." And not only that: this parameter opens a completely new channel of impact. With increased consciousness, selfishness decreases, altruism, compassion, and willingness to cooperate increase, thereby improving the chances for survival of humanity or all animals. The effective altruism movement and its longtermism variant should utilize or at least examine this additional channel of impact.

Perhaps it should do so for the sake of its own survival. With the current trend towards increasingly selfish, nationalist, illiberal and unempathic policies and politics, the effective altruism movement risks being overrun, marginalised and ultimately destroyed, as have many other non-selfish organisations and movements. Guiding people towards good ethics is essential for good policies, humane political discourse and any form of altruism, whether effective or not. This is also true in the very long run.