I believe so. I expect that we can eventually eliminate almost all moral disagreements purely by discovering facts.
The list provided shows a lot of future empirical questions whose answers will influence ethical theories, but there may also be some interesting past examples already. For example, the Theory of Evolution showing how humans and animals are not different in kind likely played a supporting role in animal welfare. Going back even further, many ancient cultures believed that certain diseases were a sign of either divine punishment or something otherwise supernatural, which we now know is not true thanks to our modern medical science.
How well would a Long Reflection work? It would provide more opportunity to discover ethics-relevant facts and to improve our understanding of how to do good philosophy. But it would also give amoral actors more time to seize power.
The linked article on Long Reflection suggests rather large timescales (1000+ years in certain cases), but since you had mentioned what seems like an accelerating rate of philosophical progress (e.g. the fact that >1/2 of the thought experiments on Wikipedia’s list came after 1960), I’m not entirely sure that humanity would actually have to spend that long before either solving ethics, or at least generally agreeing on immediate next steps. If we presume that at least part of this acceleration exists independently of our recent technological advancement—assuming that a Long Reflection involves a pause in at least some respects, namely advanced AI—then it might not be that long for another doubling in thought experiments / general philosophical output to occur. In summary, even if humanity embarks on a Long Reflection with the intention of it lasting a very long time, I find it plausible that 20-50 years down the line, they may have already accumulated enough knowledge to at least make some changes to the world, and then debate next steps from a new starting point. During a reflection of that length, it is still very much possible for amoral actors to gain more power, but I would consider it less of a risk than with the original timescales.
Overall, I generally agree with your implications for the future, and share your concern about whether those in power will care about others, which seems like a more challenging issue to address as it is difficult to imagine ways to improve our chances on an issue of personal motivation.
Yeah I find it pretty plausible that without AGI, humanity would “solve ethics” within the next 50–100 years. Although there may also be a wide gap between philosophers converging on a solution and society “catching up” to philosophers.
(Today, philosophers overwhelmingly reject dualism, and the arguments against dualism have pretty much defeated it, but I believe a majority of people are still dualists.)
The list provided shows a lot of future empirical questions whose answers will influence ethical theories, but there may also be some interesting past examples already. For example, the Theory of Evolution showing how humans and animals are not different in kind likely played a supporting role in animal welfare. Going back even further, many ancient cultures believed that certain diseases were a sign of either divine punishment or something otherwise supernatural, which we now know is not true thanks to our modern medical science.
The linked article on Long Reflection suggests rather large timescales (1000+ years in certain cases), but since you had mentioned what seems like an accelerating rate of philosophical progress (e.g. the fact that >1/2 of the thought experiments on Wikipedia’s list came after 1960), I’m not entirely sure that humanity would actually have to spend that long before either solving ethics, or at least generally agreeing on immediate next steps. If we presume that at least part of this acceleration exists independently of our recent technological advancement—assuming that a Long Reflection involves a pause in at least some respects, namely advanced AI—then it might not be that long for another doubling in thought experiments / general philosophical output to occur. In summary, even if humanity embarks on a Long Reflection with the intention of it lasting a very long time, I find it plausible that 20-50 years down the line, they may have already accumulated enough knowledge to at least make some changes to the world, and then debate next steps from a new starting point. During a reflection of that length, it is still very much possible for amoral actors to gain more power, but I would consider it less of a risk than with the original timescales.
Overall, I generally agree with your implications for the future, and share your concern about whether those in power will care about others, which seems like a more challenging issue to address as it is difficult to imagine ways to improve our chances on an issue of personal motivation.
Yeah I find it pretty plausible that without AGI, humanity would “solve ethics” within the next 50–100 years. Although there may also be a wide gap between philosophers converging on a solution and society “catching up” to philosophers.
(Today, philosophers overwhelmingly reject dualism, and the arguments against dualism have pretty much defeated it, but I believe a majority of people are still dualists.)