Endgame Fallacy

Being able to reduce complexity and thereby make facts discussable and, above all, problems solvable is one of the core skills in modernity. There are various tricks for this. One trick that I encounter from time to time is what I call endgame analysis: Sometimes developments are complex, but one can describe relatively well what kind of state there is at their end. So you describe this final state and then derive actions from it without having to discuss every intermediate stage.

But this reduction in complexity is usually accompanied by the loss of temporality. And that is often problematic. For in most cases it does play a role whether the end state is reached very soon or in the distant future—and above all whether its occurrence is brought about earlier or delayed.

An example: “In the long run we're all dead” (Keynes), is undoubtedly correct. But whether one dies sooner or later is not unimportant. “If I'm dead in the endgame anyway, I can actually (today) also stop eating”, is therefore also an obviously stupid suggestion. However, relatively often I encounter endgame considerations, where exactly such a thing is derived.

So be on your guard against this fallacy. Unless you want to cheat—for that, endgame considerations are relatively well suited...