about "the future is distant and we can't know anything about it", see e.g. this[2] post on the effective altruism forum.
> Possible misconception: “Trying to influence the far future is pointless because it is impossible to forecast that far.”
> My response: “Considering far future effects doesn’t necessarily require predicting what will happen in the far future.”
> [...]
> Nuclear war could feasibly happen tomorrow. Climate change is an ongoing phenomenon and catastrophic climate change could happen within decades. In The Precipice, Toby Ord places the probability of an existential catastrophe occuring within the next 100 years at 1 in 6, which is concerningly high.
> Ord is not in the business of forecasting events beyond a 100-year time horizon, nor does he have to be. These existential threats affect the far future on account of the persistence of their effects if they occur, but not on account of the fact that they might happen in the far future. Therefore whilst it is true that a claim has to be made about the far future, namely that we are unlikely to ever properly recover from existential catastrophes, this claim seems less strong than a claim that some particular event will happen in the far future.
i recommend op engage with some longer longtermist writings and try to understand the view from the inside. another poster mentioned toby ord's the precipice, but there is also plenty of material online. for example, i recommend this interview with carl shulman about extinction risk.[3]
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/07/yes-we-have-noticed-th...
[2] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ocmEFL2uDSMzvwL8P/...
[3] https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/carl-shulman-common-...