Ice Cream, Corruption, and the Price of Our Future

Does our future cost more than ice cream? While most readers will instinctively agree, philosopher Toby Ord provides novel perspectives in his book The Precipice, eloquently detailing how spending on the reduction of future risk comes short of global ice cream sales. Modern society’s apparent disregard for the long-term future brings into focus one of the strongest opposing ideas to effective altruism, “Why should we care about later generations?” While this question may seem cold and jarring, it holds ample merit, especially in today’s context where issues regarding events decades or centuries in the future become “neglected concerns,” far eclipsed by real-time crises contemporary society has deemed more important. The human race currently holds more power over its own future than at any point in history. The resources at our disposal strike a teetering balance between salvation and annihilation. Nuclear power holds a key to near-limitless energy, yet harbours the potential for instant world destruction. Artificial intelligence could usher in a new era of work efficiency at the risk of humankind’s potential replacement. We possess such advanced technology, so why is preserving our future not a priority? Humanity’s collective attention span towards “far-off issues” is abysmally low, with tangible action muddled by lethargy. Consider the Paris Agreement. Although a step in the right direction, the treaty does very little in the way of enforcement. Countries simply make a carbon reduction pledge with little to no repercussions should they fail to follow through.

Having a foundational aspect of mutual care —reciprocity— amiss, any current sacrifice for the distant future seemingly depicts, as Yale professor Wendel Bell says, “a one-way-street.” The future’s hazy and uncertain nature distances us from action. Our detachment leads us to adopt an indifferent mindset, aligning with what Bell describes as “Let[ting] posterity take care of itself when—or if— the future comes.” Nevertheless, the human species has existed for some 200,000 years, and our survival didn’t occur through complete negligence of long-term planning. In fact, nearly all individuals and organisations partake in some degree of long-term preparation. Students planning study routines for academic success, governments planning policies for national growth, new parents planning for their first child, seniors planning for retirement; the list goes on and on. A closer examination of trends within these lists provides at least one answer to why we as a civilization should care about and actively strive to better the future, no matter how detached or one-sided some find longtermism —the philosophy of improving the potential for all future generations— to be. Our actions are injected with meaning by the prospect of a future, without which daily living lacks permanence and purpose. Therefore, planning for the well-being of future generations directly provides reason for those living in the present. Without a future, we have no hope. Without hope, we lack what makes us human. Is this idea at least worth a couple of ice cream cones?

Having established the narrative that the future is worth present investment, what approach should conscientious governing bodies adopt? One of the great ethical dilemmas effective altruism posits is whether it would be more beneficial to prevent human extinction or to better our world in the case that humanity survives for a long time. This paper asserts the most effective method to safeguard our future is through improving the present we live in and enhancing the future of our descendants in the case that they survive.

When constructing a house, the first step is laying a robust foundation, without which any house, no matter how grand, is bound to fall. Does the same principle not apply to this discussion? If we as a species are unable to resolve our present-day crises and meet the needs of individuals present and future, what right do we have in dictating mankind’s future? We simply construct a house with foundations of sand. To examine the thesis further, readers must understand that humans are largely irrational. Our very nature is not solely grounded within logical reasoning, but influenced by a myriad of factors encompassing everything from personal preference to emotional connections. This irrationality is what separates humanity from our animal relatives and is a main driving force behind individuality, without which we would be reduced to identical husks existing simply for the sake of existing. From a biological standpoint, the highest order of needs is survival, therefore any action unrelated directly to survival —any form of pleasure or entertainment— would be deemed as irrational. Yet as of 2023, the entertainment sector has grown to over 2 trillion U.S. dollars within the past few years; our irrational choices and biases do have a real-world impact.

Supporters of mitigating existential risk, that is, perils with the capacity of permanently ending humanity’s prospects of desirable existence, have a valid point. They claim that “Human extinction erases all meaning to our society and present actions.” Should a disaster wipe out all of humankind, our past and present will be void of purpose. No one will reflect on the past, commit the present to memory, or gain hope from the future. The essence of humanity is lost forever. This perspective is indeed compelling, and from an empirical standpoint is completely rational. That is their argument’s flaw: it is too rational, and rationality has never been humanity’s strong suit.

Thomas Hobbes famously argues in his book Leviathan that in a state of nature, life would have “no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society... the life of man [would be], solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Our modern society is an ailing one plagued with abominable actions. Too many individuals are ruthless, cruel, greedy, malicious, and mean. They embody the worst elements of our species’ irrational nature. They kill, they maim, they violate, they cheat and they hate due to selfish instincts. This grim outlook is regrettably grounded in reality. Following COVID-19, murder rates —kills per 100,000— in the U.S. increased by 30. U.K. crime rates rose more than 8% compared to 2021. Sadly, there are too many examples.

After these lamentable statistics, one might go as far as to say the human race deserves to end. There is so much ugliness in the world that bringing new people into it would be immoral. Hence it is critical that society betters the present, not only for material benefit but to prove that humans are worthy of living —that we can rise above our Hobbesian natures. If that cannot be done now, what evidence is there to suggest prolonging humanity’s existence will grant the ability to create a desirable future later on? Focusing on solely reducing existential risk without bettering our world would be akin to extending the lifespan of an intensive care patient without treating any of their conditions: we extend a less-than-desirable future.

As stated in the opening, humans naturally care about their individual futures, but the motivation to protect a world decades or centuries after our death can be attributed —in part— to blood connection. Parents will care about their children and grandchildren through love. Likewise, those children and grandchildren will carry on this love should they in turn have kids. This chain of obligation is capable of indefinite extension and galvanised almost duty-bound care for the far future, as it could be inhabited by the parent generation’s loved one’s loved ones. If, however, the present future is deemed unfit for offspring by the parent generation, this chain of obligation is broken, and with it goes one of longtermism’s strongest lifelines. The bleak outcome of a population taper should serve as a warning of the dangers we risk by prioritising mitigation of existential risk before addressing the present and future needs of citizens. While that approach could indeed preserve our future, the cost is a future not worth living.

Sceptics of present betterment often posit the argument that “Our civilization lacks the technology, resources, and ability to solve these current issues.” This claim is persuasive in that it plays into our innate sense of doubt. As philosopher Reneé Descartes established in his famed Discourse on Method, we search for truth through a natural process of doubt. It would only make sense for large portions of the global community to hold doubts. Issues like climate change, poverty, and world hunger are, after all, some of the greatest issues of our time. In reality, what is lacking is not capability, but rather resolve. Statistics from the World Food Program USA state it would take an estimated $40 billion each year to eradicate world hunger by 2030. For reference, the 2022 global defence budget was 2.24 trillion U.S. dollars. According to World Bank statistics, “Investing an average of 1.4% of GDP annually could reduce carbon emissions in developing countries by as much as 70% by 2050 and boost resilience.” The capacity for positive change is well within society’s grasp. To cynics who believe world governments will “never be on the same page”, the Montreal Protocol should instil a baseline of confidence. Adopted in 1978 after scientists discovered a hole in our planet’s ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol is the only environmental agreement ratified by every country in the world. The imminent threat of a future riddled with skin cancer, cataracts, and mass crop destruction, prompted something unprecedented. global community took a unified stance. As of 2019, the ozone hole is the smallest on record, with 98% of ozone-depleting substances phased out globally. Our civilization’s collective capacity to problem-solve is a remarkable strength; through multilateral decision-making, seemingly insurmountable challenges can be overcome.

The importance —and feasibility— of improving the lives of current and future individuals should now be evident, yet readers must understand this thesis does not seek to discount or deny the importance of reducing existential risk but merely sets an order of precedence. Some positive news for humanity is these two points are not as opposing as some might think. As a matter of fact, one key argument for why bettering our civilization’s future takes priority is because doing so directly contributes towards reducing extinction risk. Creating a universal vaccine would benefit the present and later generations as well as mitigate human extinction via pandemics. Reaching net zero carbon emissions would create better current and future living conditions, as well as reduce extinction-level threats via drastic climate change. The two approaches of present-future betterment and reducing existential risk are to a certain degree intrinsically linked. It is this very reason why improving the lives of present and future society is the best approach for humanity’s long-term future: it combines moral duty with government obligations and balances present benefits with long-term gains, without neglecting the importance of mitigating our species’ extermination.

Choosing between focusing on reducing existential risk and improving our world for present and future generations forces us to define the very essence of what it means to be human. By prioritising the improvement of current and future society, we do not neglect the necessity of addressing extinction risks. These two endeavours, often seen as contradictory, are, in truth, harmoniously entwined. In the pursuit of present well-being, we build a base of resilience and foresight. Through striving for a more desirable future, we simultaneously develop the tools to mitigate extinction risks threatening our species. It is our duty as the current generation to synthesise the wisdom of the past and improve the present as we strive to ensure that the future, like a well-constructed house on a strong foundation, offers a sanctuary for generations yet unborn.

Works Cited

135, and 9559. “Myths and Realities: Understanding Recent Trends in Violent Crime.” Brennan Center for Justice, 4 Oct. 2022, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime?gclid=CjwKCAjw-KipBhBtEiwAWjgwrIDNr28w8jwEghKMtL8pGqZ_HfvDXzJP2JGKHFUPlnWXZCAXNX3uuBoC1-kQAvD_BwE&ms=gad_crime+statistics_617000456634_8626214133_143843260761.

“Climate and Development: An Agenda for Action.” World Bank, World Bank Group, 21 Nov. 2022, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/11/03/countries-could-cut-emissions-by-70-by-2050-and-boost-resilience-with-annual-investments-of-1-4-of-gdp.

“Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority - Wiley Online Library.” Wiley Online Library, 27 Mar. 2013, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12002.

Fenwick, Cody. “Longtermism: A Call to Protect Future Generations.” 80,000 Hours, 9 Oct. 2023, 80000hours.org/articles/future-generations/.

Guttmann, A. “Global Entertainment and Media Market Size 2027.” Statista, 29 Aug. 2023, www.statista.com/statistics/237749/value-of-the-global-entertainment-and-media-market/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20value%20of,by%20the%20end%20of%202027.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, Mint Editions, Portland, 2021, pp. 78–78.

“How Are Countries Held Accountable under the Paris Agreement?” MIT Climate Portal, 8 Mar. 2021, climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-are-countries-held-accountable-under-paris-agreement#:~:text=The%20short%20answer%20is%20that,to%20step%20up%20its%20commitments.

“How Much Would It Cost to End World Hunger?” World Food Program USA, 10 Aug. 2022, www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/#:~:text=We%20need%20%247%20billion%20dollars,end%20global%20hunger%20by%202030.

Howell, Elizabeth. “How Long Have Humans Been on Earth?” Universe Today, 23 Dec. 2015, www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/.

“Methodic Doubt.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 20 July 1998, www.britannica.com/topic/methodic-doubt.

Ord, Toby. The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021, pp. 313–313.

Practical Psychology. “The Human Condition (Definition + Explanation).” Practical Psychology, 15 Sept. 2023, practicalpie.com/the-human-condition/.

Published by Statista Research Department, and Aug 29. “Military Spending by Country Worldwide 2022.” Statista, 29 Aug. 2023, www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/#:~:text=Global%20military%20spending,in%20the%20South%20China%20Sea.

“Rebuilding the Ozone Layer: How the World Came Together for the Ultimate Repair Job.” UNEP, 15 Sept. 2021, www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job.

“Thirty Years on, What Is the Montreal Protocol Doing to Protect the Ozone?” UNEP, 15 Nov. 2019, www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/thirty-years-what-montreal-protocol-doing-protect-ozone.

“UK Crime and Safety Statistics | Crimerate.” CrimeRate, crimerate.co.uk/. Accessed 15 Oct. 2023.

“What Are the Most Important Moral Problems of Our Time?” YouTube, YouTube, 3 Oct. 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyprXhvGVYk&ab_channel=TED. Accessed 14 Oct. 2023.

“Why Should We Care about Future Generations?” Sociology, 1 Apr. 1993, sociology.yale.edu/publications/why-should-we-care-about-future-generations.