The God of GW is too busy sucking up water (causing drought) to pay attention to creating hurricanes...Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Printable View
The God of GW is too busy sucking up water (causing drought) to pay attention to creating hurricanes...Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
It's those dang Canadians' fault.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313844,00.html
I haven't looked here in months. Just adjust the terminology. Climate change is happening and the big problem is that so many people don't realize that their lives depend on the climate.
http://carboncapstaskforce.blogspot.com
http://aubreyshepherd.blogspot.com
http://worldpeacewetlandprairie.blogspot.com
http://townbranchneighborhood.blogspot.com
http://www.worldpeacewetlandprairie.com
http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7295307@N02
And your point is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
hypocrisyQuote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Al Gore is such a tool. He flies in a private jet to the thing and then gets out and rides the bus with reporters there. But wait, he's buying carbon offsets. (From a company he owns) I have a serious problem with that person.
That goes for just about the entire GW crowd... want to bitch about global warming, then use the very things your trying to shut down. There are "eviromentally safe" ways of getting around the world, and these people should do that... lead by example isn't just another saying, it really works.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
I think he should have walked there. That would have killed two birds with one stone!
Hasn't he killed enough birds? :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
Of course in my scenario he WAS the bird. :laugh:
How is it hypocrisy if you people think Global Warming isnt happening in the first place? :-P
Anyways, thats just me messing with you. It's not hypocritical at all. How would you expect all these people to get to a conference on global warming? Build a raft and paddle? The key lies in the offsets (which I still think is BS on how lax the offsets are). And, if the meeting itself can get something accomplished, like having automakers reduce emissions by 5%, that's 5% on MILLIONS of cars. Something tells me that will help the environment A LOT MORE than a few flights will hurt it.
But hey, keep living in your black and white, non-contextual world. It's working out so well for you- having drawn us to the brink of WWIII.
Seriously? Someone in the IT industry is asking this question?Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
They should hold a virtual conference in Second Life. :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Who cares? We only have 5 more years anyway. Max out the credit cards and party down! Woo hoo!:laugh:
http://www.december212012.com/
I could not have typed that response faster. Al Gore flies all over the world in a private jet to do speaking engagements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The reductions that they want to make affect us, but not them. That bothers me. Al Gore flies to conferences in his private jet with hopes of restricting my air travel because of carbon emissions. He wants to make us pay for green energy when up until a news story broke, he refused to pay extra for it. Seriously, what an a$$hole.
Right, because getting together 187 countries for 2 weeks of meetings is as easy as opening up a Yahoo Chat room. As someone in the IT industry, do you have any idea about the logistical nightmare it would be to try and set up something for two whole weeks, in 187 countries, and have 100% uptime, along with 0% lag???Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Not to mention that a summit like this is not just straight up one-way presentations, which would be all a webcast would be good for when you have 187 countries attending. Theyre interactive, and will include a lot of smaller group meetings, and face to face delegate meetings.
Not to mention that with a conference of this size, alot of the headway will come from the interpersonal face-to-face discussion that take place outside of the planned presentations. By having a live, in-person event, so much more interaction will be available. And the more interaction, the better it is for our planet.
But hey, I guess some people will grasp for any straws they can to try and discredit something they dont want to believe in.
I guess you've never heard of secondlife?Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Yeah, because all the political delegates for 187 countries want to do is sit on their ass at a laptop screen for 2 straight weeks. And can you imagine how many people wont even be paying attention, and will just be looking at porn? for a meeting of this magnitude, an in-person event is the only way.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Well, I get your point, but it sounds awfully hypocritical that political delegates don't have to change the way they operate, but during the conference they will be claiming that the world MUST change the way it operates.Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
The other side to the story is that it would get EVEN MORE PUB if they were to do it over something like secondlife and find a way to open up parts of the conference to non-politicians (in a controlled manner).
You sound like Al Gore's excuse-maker.Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
so why not hold the conference in germany, where most of the delegates can ride a trane? there are plenty of ways to do it that save money and carbon emissions, but they don't involve an exotic tropical island. of course, preferable to all of this would be to just scrap the whole manbearpig bit and focus on more important environmental/energy issues.
and the other thing is the carbon offset crap. even if the offsets weren't bogus, it's still garbage. if they really cared, they would buy the carbon offsets AND reduce their own emissions, instead of deciding that they can live irresponsibly just because they can afford to be "carbon neutral."
I agree with that 100%. I've always been against carbon credits as doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem and just providing a way for companies to skirt the law without having to do anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
It is not a problem.
Yeah, just because we cant immediately see it happening right now, despite the fact it's a long process that will affect future generations more than us, means it must not be happening, right? And even it will only affect people in 50 years, **** those guys right? Because the only people who matter is us. Because we should never think of the consequences of our actions, only how things immediately benefit us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
This issue became politicized well before the science ever got very well developed on it. I don't understand why the liberals have married themselves to this issue. I guess they cannot control their desire to regulate everything.
There is ZERO credible evidence to link humans to global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Also, as a matter of philosophy, I'd like to point out that we can owe no obligation to future (unconceived) individuals. So I would say that, yes, as a matter of philosophy, the only people that matter are us, because we are the only persons that we can identify. :icon_wink:
Especially since changing the course of conduct in an effort to preserve specific things for "future generations" kills the individuals that would have existed had the course of conduct not be changed. You know...when a butterfly flaps its wings... :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
but the future is going to be brighter because some of the gw believers are sterilizing themselves. That butterfly flaps its wings enough, there are significantly fewer people they can indoctrinate.
^ So much for picking the fight on my terms. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
the only way to fight GW with what the GW community wants is to slow down the world economy and everything associated with it... basically to revert most, but not all, technology, and thought, back to the 1800's and before.
ehh?Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Was hoping to draw in daybreaker, salty, etc. But they tend to stay away unless they are making a "see, global warming is happening" kind of response.Quote:
Originally Posted by atobulldog
Randy is trying to argue that "future generations" (in the abstract) can carry no moral imperative.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
But if we change our course of conduct, the future people that would have existed will not exist at all (in essence, we would kill them) in favor of a completely different set of people that will come into existence. What about THEIR rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Wouldn't those future people (the people that will exist if we do not do anything about CO2) rather have a chance to live?
Well, what I mean is that there is ZERO evidence that establishes an irrefutable link between humans and global warming. The "best" evidence used to unequivocally demonstrate that humans are the cause is the ice core data, which establishes baseline levels of "prehuman" CO2. But, this data is seriously flawed, because it is based on a disproven assumption that the environmental community completely ignores that calls the entire baseline levels into question. In fact, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that we have had atmospheric CO2 levels as high as they are 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, etc. BEFORE humans started consuming fossil fuels.Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Seriously. Who do we owe an obligation to? If we owe an obligation, contractually that implies that there is SOMEONE that we owe the obligation to. It implies a PARTICULAR person. Intellectually, I can buy the argument that there is SOMEONE in the future that we owe an obligation to. I'd challenge it, but I think that at least gets into the discussion. But, there is a HUGE problem, particularly if you believe that changes we might make might affect the environment in the future (I'm assuming that this is your position :)).Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Why? Well, the particular SOMEONEs that we would owe an obligation to would undoubtably be exterminated as a result of our carrying out that obligation. You see, the statistics of procreation (sperm meets egg) are highly sensitive to environmental factors, much moreso than the global warming/CO2 link in fact. This is an ethical conundrum that you can't get around: The ACTIONS that YOU might take IN AN EFFORT TO FULFILL some OBLIGATION to a GENERATION of FUTURE SOMEONES will, in effect, WIPE OUT those someones that you were obligated to.
It is true that it is quite possible that someone else would be born, that would not have been born without your action. But, philosophically, what justification could there possibly be for the creation of new life, which is basically what you'd have to argue. Are you really prepared to take this position?
As a final note, I think you completely misunderstand the link between consumption for selfish ends and the environment. It's pretty funny.
^Major pwnage
What? That was the weakest reply I've ever read. That post is borderline moronic. No. Completely moronic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
My highlights from that post:
"Intellectually, I can buy the argument that there is SOMEONE in the future that we owe an obligation to. I'd challenge it, but"
^mind-numbing
"You see, the statistics of procreation (sperm meets egg) are highly sensitive to environmental factors, much moreso than the global warming/CO2 link in fact... WIPE OUT those someones that you were obligated to."
^moronic given that his proposal is for NOT CHANGING THE ENVIRONMENT ANY MORE
"It is true that it is quite possible that someone else would be born, that would not have been born without your action. But, philosophically, what justification could there possibly be for the creation of new life, which is basically what you'd have to argue."
^idiotic
It's almost like I'm reading something in Mad magazine. But it's funnier because you guys don't realize it.
daybreaker2 wins this round. He only brings attention to your philosophy of self-centeredness... I wouldn't think you guys would argue against that statement.
There is nothing wrong with being self-centered. He didn't show that one bit.
Randy clearly showed the philisophical problem with giving moral weight to future un-conceived generations. If you are too dense to realize that, maybe you should become a democrap.
Here is the logic:
(1) We are doing x
(2) Doing x will result in a group of people to be born (n1x, n2x, n3x...) into a certain environment
(3) Daybreaker says "what about the world these people will inherit"? We should stop doing x and do y for their sake.
(4) However, doing y will result in an entirely different group of people bing born (n1y, n2y, n3y...)
(5) Therefore, doing something to make (n1x, n2x, n3x)s future better (allegedly) killed them off entirely. And we thought we were doing them a favor.
He gave a ridiculously absurd argument based on completely insane logic with a sprinkling of philosophy to refute daybreaker calling the idea that we have no obligation to future individuals self centered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
If you are of the opinion that we can change the environmental warming trend that we created... (which would mean it staying the climate it is now) you are not responsible for the extinction of a future generation by doing so.
Just say you don't give a crap about what happens to future generations and move on. Better to sound self-centered than foolish and self-centered.
Nice argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Wrong, his argument is that we should take actions to preserve for future generations. I'm saying, IF our changes result in even a slightly different environment from what it would have been without our changes, then we have annihilated those that would have been in the absence of our changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
How so? Because I have challenged an unfounded moral position?Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
I have not argued against self-centeredness. I have pointed out that pursuing the morals of "future generations" is deeply flawed. The ONLY way to frame the discussion in a manner that can be clearly evaluated is in terms of one's rational self-interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Absurd. It's like a 12 year-old's thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
So your entire post was based on the same logic that Guislapp pointed out... Wow. :rolleyes4:Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
I see how you are not posting against self centerdness, but you are refuting his claim that you are selfish by saying that your position is not selfish because of that ridiculous moral argument. :bomb:
Insane logic? Where? He can call me self-centered. My argument is that his moral framework has no legitimate basis -- in fact, if he buys his framework, his best action is to be nihilistic, and to do as little as possible to intentionally change the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
My argument, simply, is that in the absence of our taking corrective steps with the intention of preserving some future generation would lead to a different future generation of conceived individuals than what would exist if we actively made changes with the intent of protecting the environment for the future.
To say it is different is one thing, but I can take it a step farther and say that the individuals that would be conceived/born would be effectively exterminated, and those that come to be would be created from our actions. That's just more precise.
Even if the changes to the environment are not major (the impact on the environment is small, because humans don't really do that much to affect it), the science is firmly on my side -- procreation statistics are HIGHLY environmentally sensitive. So even if we can make a miniscule change in temperature, that might be statistically INSIGNIFICANT in warming theory but statistically significant in procreation statistics.
Our best course of action, therefore, is to NOT consider future generations as something that we are obligated to. It is not a morally sound position, because it only leads us to murdering those that we are obligated to. :icon_wink:
Unconventional argument, I know -- what is wrong with that?
So it should be easy to refute, then? Yet the best arguments you are making are "absurd," "idiotic," "selfish," etc. :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
It is definitely an unconventional argument. But it was the argument he was trying to draw people into. I think it is a moral argument worthy of discussion.
I agree that it is an argument worthy of discussion. The departments of philosophy at Oxford, Harvard, NYU, Rutgers (to name a few) agree that this paradox is worthy of discussion as well. But the best response I'm getting is "idiotic". :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You're right. I was being caustic and unconstructive. Here's my reply as I would respond in one of my classes. However, I'm in a hurry so I'm not proofreading for spelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Application of Logic
Let's take an obviously moral decision and apply your logic. Dr. X has developed a cure for MS. It can be injected into teh fetus and guarantees that the person will never have to deal with that horrible disease. He's a lock for a Nobel prize ad will be a national hero.
Unfortunately, your logic doesn't come to that conclusion.
1) We are allowing people to be born witn MS.
2) This creates individuals we'll call Painful1, Painfil2, etc...
3) He releases the cure for MS.
4) This creates individuals healthy1, healthy2, etc...
5) Painfil1, Painful2 are eliminated.
The analogy isn't perfect, but it works well enough for me to think the logic is bogus, so let's move on to what the error is
The Error
The error was made when you assigned existence to both hypothetical groups of individuals and associated death with the elimination of those individuals.
The next error was in your analysis of the logic by only applying it to what I call an "action/inaction" decision. Had you applied this to what I call a "left/right" decision where action is mandated that would affect the lives of future individuals, any choice would lead to "killing" a future individual.
The Real Problem
The real problem is that you creatd logic to justify a decision rather than analyze a situation. That made you reach elementary (12 year old) errors that you spent more time typing on than thinking out.
You could have said:
"Changes we make won't outcome future generations, so it is immoral to impose restrictions"
"My moral compass is self-centered so I don't care"
However, what you said is undeniably wrong.
And that, my objectivist Bulldogs, is pwnage.
Finally, welcome to the debate! I don't pay attention to spelling, so no bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
A few thoughts... First, why is this an obviously moral decision? I would argue that this is a moral decision if the doctor believes that it is in doctor's rational self-interest to do so. Why might it be? Perhaps he wants fame of curing a disease, perhaps he makes money, perhaps he values the happiness of others in his framework. I would not argue unequivocally that a cure for a disease is an obvious moral good, however. That is very loose terminology. That said...Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
I'm not sure that the analogy fits. A better example is this: You decided that you wanted to have a child, but you are poor. In the future (maybe several years from now), you believe that your financial situation will improve, allowing for you to better care for a child. So, in the interests of the child (without consideration for yourself), you choose to hold off in having the child. My argument would be that you are not in fact serving the interests of "the child." In fact, the child that you would have when you were poor is very different from the child that you have several years later. One might be a boy, one might be a girl. The child you are envisioning (as a particular) will never exist as a result of your decision. As such, "in the interests of the child" have no legitimate place in the moral framework that you use to make this decision.
In your example, the person is never eliminated. Once a person comes into a definitive existence, I would argue that even (minor) genetic treatments do not result in a different person. Sure, it represents a change to a person, but that is not at all the same thing.
I'll apply your example slightly differently -- let us say that the cure meant that both would-be parents would undergo treatment PRIOR to conception, which would eliminate the risk of having a baby with MS. In this case, I would argue that application of my reasoning is appropriate. The fact that you are preventing your child from having MS IS NOT a moral argument, if you are making it from the perspective of the would-be child. Why? The child will be DIFFERENT -- you have wiped out a would be person and would create a new one. Now, you might decide to do the treatment with the (moral) justification that YOU would prefer not to have a child with MS if you could do something prior to conception to avoid it. But to be clear, it is most certainly NOT in the interest of the child that you would have otherwise had.
For an obligation like this to be valid, it must be an actionable positive right. That is, an "obligation" would basically mean that the future generation has some sort of claim over the actions of present day individuals, such that suits could be filed, etc. There is no way to get around that an identity is necessary for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
It is an "intent" based decision. You are right -- ANY action that you take with the intent of doing something for a future (unconceived) group will (likely) eliminate that group. "Action/inaction" is not an appropriate way to think about it.. I say that my reasoning means that a specific moral framework is invalid.
Actually, I've thought about this argument for a long time, and I have only recently applied it to the global warming discussion. I was not the originator of the concept, but I think that my application might be (somewhat) unique.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
My argument does not (directly) lead to the conclusion that it is immoral to impose restrictions for the benefit of the future generations. It does lead to the conclusion that it CANNOT be MORAL BECAUSE it is for the benefit of future generations. Again, I am arguing that a specific moral framework is flawed. It does happen to be true that my moral framework is not affected by this flaw, because it is "self-centered." In other words, I do not place an obligation on myself for future generations -- it has no basis in my decision-making.
Again, I would point out that there is a big difference between self-interest and environmental destruction. As pointed out by MANY, for example, environmental stewardship tends to IMPROVE with private ownership -- this should tell you something.
Nice try. :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
if i had any idea what that meant, i'm sure i would agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
randerizer's argument truly is absurd.
his first flaw, in my opinion, is that he uses as the basis for his argument the assumption that we owe some future generation a debt, and then rebuts your argument against it with the classical objectivist "we don't owe them anything" argument.
but the major flaw in his initial argument is the fact that he refers to individuals in the future, that have yet to be, as specific individuals. since we cannot know what individuals will come to be, we cannot have any obligation to any future individual. we can, however, if we do not subscribe to an objectivist philosophy, owe a debt to a future generation that will no doubt come to be, whomever those individuals are that make up said generation.
I can only give knowledge, not wisdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Now you are being openly evasive in moral framework. "Moral obligation" implies a debt, positive right, what have you. There is simply no way around that. A debt does require specificity with regards to the debt-holder.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
These are not flaws -- they are political/philosophical/economic facts. To say that those that do not subscribe to objectivist philosophy can owe a debt to some future generation that will be is not really a valid argument. In fact, my whole point is that YOUR moral framework is not consistent. So, yes, you can claim to owe a debt, but that doesn't change the fact that your claim is not valid. :icon_wink:
so, your argument is as duckbill said. why bother doing all the silly absurd illogical dancing and just say, "i'm an objectivist, so i think you are stupid for thinking you anyone anything." your argument did not support your claim, and was illogical. why does a debt require specificity? because you say so? because that is the only practical way to make a tangible debt collectable?Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
As I have said from my first post on the subject, my point is that it is not morally defensible that present individuals can owe an obligation to future generations. To claim that we owe a duty to some (fuzzily defined) future individuals just glosses over the fact that acting on that duty leads to those precise future individuals being deprived of their would-be existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Now you are getting somewhere. But also because as a decision-making calculus, a fuzzily-defined "future generations" is too ambiguous to allow weighting versus present generation issues in any cohesive moral framework.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
that is exactly what is absurd. one person you cannot owe a debt to is a specific, yet to exist, future individual (as you are implicitly defining individuals). since no specific future individual can be identified, the only future people to whom you can owe a debt have to be more loosely defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
so says you. you can make an argument for an objectivist morality, but you cannot use that morality to argue against a rival philosophy. you have demostrated no support for your argument apart from your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
allow me to demostrate how one could owe a real debt to future individuals.
let us assume that you want to borrow a sum of money from me. we work out the following contract:
i agree to lend you x amount of money. you are to repay the money, plus y amount of interest, in lump sum in ten years' time. but the money is not to be paid to me, but to be split evenly among the residents of town z, however many there may be at the time of the payment.
once you agree to that contract, you owe a debt to future individuals, defined only as residents of town z.
Hey rand & gui: I really am sorry for being so abrasive in my earlier replies. It's been a rough day.
If you explicitly define a contract to be fuzzy with regards to future entities, yes this is true. What is missing then is some specific contract to clearly generalize these future generations with regards to environmental protections. It would still also be a moral paradox if you were to live in town z and defend a position that your future child is owed his cut of x amount of money, particularly if you take actions on that position.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Then you cannot owe a debt to future generations, PERIOD, in a framework without precisely defined terms! To operate with loosely defined terms is not philosophically operable, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Not really -- this is hardly an objectivist theory. In fact, the original proponents of these arguments would NOT support objectivist thought. Nonetheless, the argument stands on its own merits. It does suggest that we must rethink our framework of bioethics that places duties on the present for future generations. Objectivist logic is not necessarily the only answer - it is what I believe to be the obvious answer, but this is a problem that ultimately utilitarians, deontologists, etc., must deal with. You are still glossing over the problem. Frankly, all moral philosophies that discuss future generations have not properly considered the conundrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Yeah, it is no problem for me. I was somewhat pushy to put my argument forth, so I would understand some initial abrasiveness. :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
there is no paradox there. the contract specifically states "residents at the time of payment." therefore, at the time that the debt is due, there is no ambiguity as to the recipients. just admit that your original argument ("the people you are saving the earth for won't exist") was absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
as for the environmental argument, i would say that such a contract is implicit in any coherent philosophy that regards other individuals as being of equal or greater importance than self. if one believes it to be fairly likely that there will be future generations, then one has the obligation not to make life more difficult for them, just as one has the same obligation to one's contemporaries.
i have demonstrated how such a contract can be operable, and "future generations" is specific enough to make it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
then argue it based on commonly accepted premises, rather than those of a specific group of philosophies.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
why are there two different groups? why aren't they the same, just with different things done to them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
I suppose you are right -- any coherent philosophy that defines a group as an entity of inherent, independent value would not have this problem. However, there is no such thing. :icon_wink: Simply, a group is a group of individuals. The future generation is a generation of individuals. To be individual requires specificity. Every philosophical framework (consequentialist or deontological) ultimately reduces to this basis.
Make life more difficult for them? There is no way to do this. You can act to make them not exist (if preserving their life or quality of life is your goal, you have failed miserably), but you cannot make their life better or worse.
Let's say that 10 years from now, if everything continued on its current course, you would have a daughter. Because you take action, a different sperm wins -- this one has a Y chromosome! After your action, you would no longer have a daughter as a result of a specific act of conception, but you would instead have a son. The would-be son and would-have-been daughter are clearly not the same entity, and since groups are collections of individual entities, there cannot be the same group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
how can you not see how absurd this is? you cannot specifically define individuals of the future. if i say "people of the future" it is referring to a specific group of individuals, but we cannot know specifically who those individuals are. just as the prisoner that escapes as a side effect of some other unknown prisoner's jailbreak can say to himself, "i owe that guy." he is speaking of a specific individual, although he does not know who he is yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Yeah, every action has an equal and opposite reaction... still doesn't explain why it's two different groups... Predetermination has to be taken account into all aspects, not just nit-pick here and there, in order to even remotely make it two different groups. Otherwise, no determination beyond that there will be future generations can be made, and whatever we do with anything affects those generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
You are stretching - that is not at all the same thing. You are now closer to duckbill's example of a doctor injecting patients to cure MS.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
You are right - we cannot know specifically who those individuals of the future are. But we know enough about genetics, chaos theory, etc., to argue precisely that those specific individuals that would have been will not be. It is certainly unconventional, but it is most certainly not absurd. All ethical arguments regarding future generations simply gloss over the paradox.
I'm lost, can you be a little more clear? Predetermination into all aspects? I gave one example of a specific genetic change. Even if a different X-chromosome sperm wins, it is a completely different individual that will come to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
If it is different individuals, how is it not different groups? All ethical frameworks ultimately reduce to individual entities.
You were stating something predetermined - that my original actions would have a son by my actions, but because I changed my actions, I would have daughter. How can I change my actions if they haven't been done yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
You undertake a specific action with the (sole) intent of doing it for the benefit of your future child. I don't know that I would say predetermined, but I would argue that the relevant environment at conception would be X in the event that you did not take this action, and it would be Y (meaning different from what it would have been) if you did take this action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
A little pissy... :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Either way, there's a future being... so why are there two groups? Whichever choice, it's going to affect the future being either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Amen Rus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
Here's one for you Rand and Guiss:
Should I drink coke or water?
What if drinking coke will result in one of my sperms reaching the egg at a different time than if I had drank water? Which child deserves to be born? Coke baby or water baby? OH NO! I BETTER DRINK BOTH, OR I MAY KILL ONE OF MY FUTURE-CHILDREN.
Sorry, you guys are just full of lame-ass shit-tastic "reasoning". What will happen in the future is not pre-determined. There is no Group A, or Group B of children who will be born in the future. There are only the children who ARE born when that time arrives.
And they deserve to be born into a world that isnt much, much worse than the one we have today. Because leaving them with the problems we created may be too late for them to do anything about it.
It will cause one future being to not exist, and it will cause another to exist. But the one that would have existed (before we altered the course with an action motivated by duty to the future) is the only one that anyone could POSSIBLY owe anything to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
But it won't really affect the quality of life of any future being, unless your scale of "quality of life" includes "existence" and "never coming into existence"
Do you really consider the ramifications to your future children when you decide between coke and water?Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
You are partially right -- it is not predetermined. However, that does not mean that Group A and Group B are not different. They might deserve whatever you want to say they deserve. The point is, though, that acting on the environment will in no way accomplish giving them what they deserve. It will cause the would-be Group A to never have the world at all. :icon_wink:
I don't do anything of real consequence without properly basing my decision. I am most certainly not "anti-environment," but YOU are the one being lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
How can they NOT be the same being??? Why is it two different beings? Me having a child in the future, regardless of my actions either way, is still me having a child. Me not having a child in the future, regardless of my actions either way, is still me not having a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
And even with the two-being sceneraio, how is it possible to not affect both with your actions?
Quality of life, to me, is giving someone a chance to have a better life than myself.
The child is clearly different. You are introducing your self-interested values into the mix, which is causing the confusion. To YOU, it is a child. It's impossible to distinguish the would-have-been from the will-be-now (other than theoretically). You wanted to have a child, and now you have a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
If you could have carried out both scenarios, you would see that the children would in fact be much different. If you were to ask the child from the inaction scenario if they wanted you to take action, knowing that they would never come to be, they would tell you NO. Likewise, if you were to ask the child that will-be-now if they wanted you to take the action, they would say YES. But it is existence/never coming into existence that is the basis, not some quality of life difference. And my argument is absolutely that there is no moral obligation to CREATE life.
It is not possible to affect the quality of life of either because it is a cut-and-dry existence/never coming into existence issue.
A child turning out differently because of my actions for or against them, doesn't mean it's affecting two different children, beyond their personalities. I don't think it's cut-and-dry like your saying it is because of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
No moral obligation to create, unless your religious, but creating is too much fun to pass up...:D
here, randerizer:
suppose you have been locked in a room with a timed remote detonator. the madman that has locked you in there has strapped one of your arms to your side, and has straped a wii controller to your other hand. you cannot break free of either of those straps. he also tells you that he has placed a bomb on a remote control car that is being controlled by the wii controller, and has dropped the car off in a crowded city. so every move you make changes the direction of that car, thus changing which people will be blown up when the timer goes off. it just so happens that you are skilled at disarming timed detonators. do you have the obligation to disarm the detonator to save the people that will inevitably be blown up by the bomb, even though the act of disarming the bomb changes which people will be saved?
I do not have a moral obligation to disarm the detonator, but I would probably choose to try to do so. (Unless I did something to willfully get involved moreso than what has been told to me).Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
It's not similar at all to what I've been talking about, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
It's chaos theory mixed with the statistics of conception. However different the 2 prospective children would be in behavior, etc., they are nonetheless 2 quite different prospective children.
This argument also goes against all the "I wish my father did this differently way back when..." kind of thinking. No child should EVER think something like this, unless the child would have preferred to not exist.. The makeup of a future generation is causally dependent on the actions of the present! If your father made a change, YOU would have never been born. :)
But doing the opposite will cause Group B to never have the world at all. So youre just being a douchebag for douchebaggery's sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
But how is trying to be environmentally friendly vs. environmentally irresponsible any different from my coke vs water example? Because what if drinking coke vs water *did* make a difference. ANY thing we do causes an outcome which could have been different had we done just one little thing differently. So there's a Group A all the way Group infinity of children who were never born. That's not what matters though. All that matters is leaving the group that IS born with a better situation. because living irresponsibly for our own happiness at THEIR cost is incredibly greedy and selfish.
So while Group A will never have the world, their have been an infinite number of groups that havent either. Unless you believe in parallel universe theory, which means ALL groups ARE born. In which case, why shouldnt I want MY universe to have a good environmental situation for MY Group's kids? Why should I just be like "Oh, in some universe, somewhere, some Group will have a great environment"? I want MY KIDS to have a great planet. I want MY GRANDKIDS to have a great planet. I dont give a shit about the groups that never were, just the groups that ARE. Just like Schrodinger's Cat Theory (which I know applies to something different, but still), the group that is born isnt group A or B, they are just The Group, because while it's possible that Group A or B *could* occur, only one will.
So your whole Group A vs B thing is completely idiotic. The sooner you drop it, the sooner you will stop looking like a giant asshole who has no clue what he's talking about (although almost ALL your posts portray you that way, so I dont think youre going to stop anytime soon).
Sure, but my argument is that there can be no obligation to CREATE a new life. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Nah, this just illustrates why your brand of forward-looking, future generation spinning environmentalism is stupid. Looking towards the future generation with an obligation is like signing up for a promise that you will never be able to fulfill.Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
"All that matters" -- bullshit. Spin. There is NO ethical base to that argument.
As long as we get out of this "obligation" to future generations, you can base your decision on whatever you damn well want. There is a moral flaw in wanting to change something for "your grandkids", which I've highlighted. But ultimately, you are now on an "I WANT" -- that's the way the debate should be properly framed. Using future generations as an argument is morally misleading -- that is my WHOLE point!Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
what he said...Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
give you green if I could (already did recently)
OK, but you are disregarding causality with respect to your actions. Our actions will certainly determine the makeup of the group. Precisely, that means exactly what I have argued.Quote:
Originally Posted by daybreaker2
Doesn't change the fact the Group is still the Group. Nothing else matters beyond what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
OK, the future IS NOT. So it doesn't matter. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
So if there is no future, why worry about global warming? Give me a big Ford - F-350 to drive back and forth 1 mile!Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Well, I argue that there is no moral basis for placing value on the future lives of the nonliving. There might be other reasons not to drive a Ford F-350, but global warming is one of them. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
Actually, nothing to do with global warming for me - too damn big.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
How is there any basis for either argument if there is no future?
Fair enough -- if there is no future period, there probably is no basis for a decision. But I am referring to currently existing entities and future existing entities, a subtle but important difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
Then why split those entities into different groups in of themselves? A future entity is still a future entity. Your impact on that entity is determined by what you do and don't do. But it doesn't change that entity from being if your counting the entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Actually it does change the to-be entity. We can't identify it precisely, but there should be little doubt that it is changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rus-La
Let me recast this because I jumped the gun slightly in the whole discussion. I say that the only thing that can possibly matter is those that are living now. Daybreaker (or other) calls me selfish, and says that we should care about all the good little boys and girls that will not be given a fair shake in the future because of our actions today. -- these basic arguments were presented first, but I'm not sure if anyone caught that. "Groups" are higher level abstractions as a group of INDIVIDUALS, so speaking of a group of future generations is shorthand for "all the little boys and girls," etc.
My argument, then, follows. IF we care about those good little boys and girls, we should not seek to change our actions FOR THEIR SAKE. WHY? Because those good little boys and girls will never come to be. Sure, SOME boys and girls might -- but that is not the same thing, and to think otherwise, simply, is glossing over the issue. In objectivist speak (not to be exlusive), it is a fallacy of a stolen concept -- a higher level abstraction taken without the base of what is below it, leading to a confused moral position. If one is to take a position that the future people have PRESENT value, I see no way, without misidentifying the entity that you give value to, to NOT arrive at this point.
I don't know how to be clearer in pointing out the logical flaw that you guys are making here. It is a flaw caused by misidentification. Frankly, my point is that the whole "future generations" argument is one made to "tug at our hearts" to bring about a change. It's a political/social/normative statement, but it just doesn't have a base.
Here are some works of interest on this subject, btw:
Parfit, Derek (1984), Reasons and Persons.
Schwartz, Thomas (1978), “Obligations to Posterity,” in Sikora, R.I. and Barry, B. (eds.), Obligations to Future Generations.
D'Amato, Tony (1997), "A Foundation for Bioethics," in International Law Studies, Collected Papers, Volume 2.