Non-longtermists, what would you like to be called. It's a category that is going to get used so we might as well have a name for it. And now is the time to select one you like.
Non-longtermists, what would you like to be called. It's a category that is going to get used so we might as well have a name for it. And now is the time to select one you like.
Stop saying longtermist. It doesn't map well into people's understanding.
Say catastrophic risk, animal welfare and global health.
Evidence-based Effective Altruists
I reject the ideas that this needs a name. Bundling everything that is not longtermism under one category is not very sensical.
It's just not a good category. Like using "nant" as a word to describe everything that isn't a plant.
I prefer the term "non-longtermism" / "non-longtermist" if you must use a term for this concept.
"Not longtermist"
Non-longtermists
Fine but sounds a bit like a pirate.
Global Health and Wellbeing'ers = Glohwelbs :)
Doesn't capture all neartermists, but for me, person-affecting EA
How well does this represent your views to people unfamiliar with it as a term in population ethics?
It might sound as if you're an EA only concerned about affecting persons (as in humans, or animals with personhood).
EA Classic.
Realists
Neartermists
Non prophets
Current Welfarists
Centurians/Centurist/Centurion
Only aim to impact the next hundred years/lifetime. Which is already optimistic. Limited to no more than 2-3 lifetimes. Maybe due to cluelessness/put your own oxygen mask before helping others for kinda thing
Longdistancers (emphasizing neutrality wrt spatial distance from beneficiaries, vs temporal distance for longtermism)
Immediates
Presentists
Nowists
I'm not a neartermist myself, but I suggest the term "interpretable altruist". Interpretability is really important to how many people in this group carry out effective altruism, and it's important to me as well.
Global Wellbeing-ers
Discounters
A general issue I see with the answers here is they assume opposition to longtermism necessarily need be philosophical. The case for actually doing anything different on longtermist grounds relies on a long chain of quasi-empirical speculation, and it seems perfectly coherent to me to just object to some induction along the way, and fall onto the side of (say) global health or economic development while still believing in something like aggregative utilitarianism.
So I feel like a term would need to be more general and/or more focused on actions. 'Pragmatist' comes to mind, though it would need some distinction from the existing philosophical school. 'Altruistic pragmatist'? Maybe 'pragmatermist' if you don't mind neologisms (and if it doesn't turn out to etymologically imply something like 'end of facts' )
I think another part of the problem is that, for the same reasons, 'longtermism' has substantial mission creep/motte-and-bailey-itis. Like if I say I'm not a longtermist in EA circles, supporters will probably hit me with an argument for a totalising population ethic . But if I say I am one it feels like I'm supporting a bunch of academic research projects about which I might be quite sceptical. So maybe 'longtermism' is the concept that should be under the microscope, rather than its negation.
I like evidence-based EA, but I’d also like to see some suggestions based on “feedback cycles.” I think the key thing that “neartermists” have that longtermists lack are informative feedback cycles.
Do current person-affecting ethicists become longtermist if we achieve negligible senescence? Will virtue-ethicists too if we can predict how their virtue will develop over time? Do development economists become longtermists if we develop Foundation-style Psychohistory? We don't have a singular term for "not a virtue ethicist" other than "non-virtue ethicist" and there's no commonality amongst nonlongtermists other than being the out-group to longtermists.
Neartermist = explicitly sets a high effective discount rate (either due to uncertainty or a pure rate of time preference) should not include non-consequentialists or people with types of person-affecting views resulting in a low concern for future generations.
I love this. Just talk about the specific area you are into, rather than using generalisations. I would never use words like "neartermist" or "longtermist" outside EA circles anyway, as they lack any real meaning at all.