I didn't find anything that convinced me really, but I guess a more civilized phrasing of what I mean is this
> He also wrote that even from a purely consequentialist perspective, "naive calculations that justify some harmful action because it has good consequences are, in practice, almost never correct"
(Wikipedia quoting William MacAskill, I don't know who that is, I am not a philosopher)
To me all this invokes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". But I question even whether the intentions are good with some arguments.
Arguing about longtermism and pretending to be able to predict how many humans might be alive very far into the future, to justify current actions: this is the type of argument that I consider grandiose.
We are not very successful at fixing global cooperation problems in the present so far, or ensuring the wellbeing of the next 1-2 generations of hunmans. This is why I feel like this whole philosophy/ethics sounds like a con.
But well, politics on HN, again. Should avoid it.