The Epistemism Framework - Short Version
Epistemism – An Occam’s Razor for Longtermism
The world is growing more unpredictable, both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, on some accounts, if we look at indices measuring change, we are in fact seeing greater change than in past periods. And additionally, subjectively, we are also now both aware of greater change since we have a more globalized and connected world, and we are aware of the potential risks of events to a greater extent than we were in the past. Longtermism, introduced and defined by Bostrom, Beckstead, Greaves, Ord and MacAskill, is therefore not only a significant new philosophy, it is arguably the most important philosophy of today.
This is especially true since we are living in a special time, what Ord calls the Precipice and Karnofsky calls the Most Important Century. I think this is true. One could think it is hubristic to assume one lives in the most important of times, but I think it is in this case justified due to the very recent introduction and discovery of existential risks. In the last decades, humanity has created a number of technologies, such as nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence and biotechnology that are different in kind to earlier technologies, in that they have a non-zero probability of leading to human extinction. Even if that risk is in the single digits per century for each of these risks, we find ourselves in a situation that mathematically just cannot last for a very long time. Either one of these risks will trigger an extinction event, or a technology we haven’t yet developed, building on these and other technologies, will be the trigger. It is therefore essential that we train our minds on long term resilience.
However, it can be difficult to apply longtermist thinking in day-to-day decisions. We barely know what tomorrow’s consequences will be for our actions today, let alone which butterfly effects they will lead to in 100 years and beyond. MacAskill outlines a framework in What We Owe the Future based on Significance, Persistence and Contingency. However, these are parameters we often are not able to ascertain.
I’m therefore proposing Epistemism as an alternative solution. Epistemism optimizes for one single variable, knowledge, and can therefore be used as an Occam’s Razor in many decisions, big and small.
For the full detail on the Epistemism framework, see here. A brief summary is that Epistemism leans on three first principles. The first is the goal. Epistemism holds that the ultimate goal must be sentience. The universe is full of marvel, and it has meaning due to sentient beings contemplating it. A universe without sentience, like Tegmark says in Life 3.0, would be devoid of meaning. The goal must therefore be to always strive for the continuation of sentient beings. That includes humans, of course, but also any animal species that we believe or will come to find can also be sentient about its sentience, i.e. aware of its own existence. It also includes future artificial intelligences and digital minds, as well as any alien intelligences that may exist. In the short-term, given the trajectory of Earth, the most important goal is for humanity to colonize space.
Second, the means. Epistemism holds that the one good that is unquestionably valuable for the continuation of sentience in the universe is knowledge. In a universe of entropy, knowledge is one of the few things that are negentropic. The currency of Epistemism therefore is knowledge and the creation of new knowledge and/or the preservation of existing knowledge serves as the basis for all decision-making.
Third, a modification of the means given the context. Everything is constantly changing. This was true for Heraclitus, and it is equally true now. This means that our decision making is always under uncertainty. Therefore, we cannot and should not try to always know what is valuable for knowledge creation and preservation. We must therefore focus on optionality, having and creating options for future knowledge creation and knowledge preservation.
Those three points give us our decision model. We should in all decisions choose the option that maximizes the potential for knowledge to be created or preserved in order for sentience to persevere in the long term. This can be used in a wide variety of cases. These range from individual life and career choices to government policy. Other important ones include philanthropic decisions of causes to donate to and corporate decisions of where to invest. Of course, one cannot in every decision always know which of the options creates the most optionality for knowledge, but for a large number of decisions, Epistemism can serve as very useful Occam’s Razor that boils decisions down to their essence.
In this century, we face the paradox of receiving increasing amounts of minute pieces of information while the necessity of looking at the bigger picture only grows. In order for us to look out to the year 100,000 and beyond, properly considering the big picture with the risks contained within it, it is essential that we narrow down our scope and focus on humanity as a whole and what knowledge it possesses as a way to safeguard the future long-term future of sentience.