Do we have any responsibility towards future generations?

[Grant]

Earlier today on the ever-popular digg.com, I saw someone present this question as a statement.

Given I was slightly bored at the time, I decided to write a little argument for myself, challenging the logic of such a ridiculous statement.

I'm sure someone somewhere along the lines has already presented the same (or a similar) argument as it's a fairly simple one, but none the less, here's what I came up with.

If there are any flaws or loopholes in my argument, I'd appreciate it if someone could point them out. I like to be challenged.

Do we have any responsibility towards future generations?

To proclaim that you somehow have a responsibility towards future generations is to imply that they are of value to you. After all, how can you feel a responsibility towards that which is of no value to you? And if you believe that men who may exist in hundreds of years are of value to you, how can you value that which does not exist? Is it rational for a girl to love the daughter or son she may give birth to one day? Is it rational for a woman to love her unborn child’s children? Is it rational for an artist to love an artwork he has not yet created? No. Love, which is to value, is a tangible emotion that cannot be applied to the intangible.

There are those who would rather sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of the non-existing, because it is their belief that they have an inherent responsibility to ensure a better world for future generations. I suggest they re-evaluate their premises as this is a fatal philosophical flaw. When men live for the sake of the non-existing, they sacrifice that which is of the utmost value – their lives – for a non-value.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Grant

[Capitalism Forever]

Do we have any responsibility towards future generations?

We don't have any responsibility towards our own generation to begin with. The only primary responsibility is towards ourselves, to our own life, and all that our own life requires (including the requirement to respect the rights of other, existing, individuals).

To proclaim that you somehow have a responsibility towards future generations is to imply that they are of value to you.

Not necessarily. The stupid kid playing with a ball next to the road is of no particular value to me, but I still have a responsibility not to run him over. But the reason for that is that he is an existing person right now, not just a potential future person. (And, as I said, the primary reason for my having such a responsibility is that my life requires respecting his rights--even though my life does not require him. The value giving rise to the responsibility is the principle of individual rights, not the stupid kid.)

[Benpercent]

Do we have any responsibility towards future generations?

As CF said, we do have a responsibility, but it is only to our own currently existing generations and it is in the form of respecting rights. But in this case, you cannot respect the rights of someone that has no rights, i.e., someone who doesn't exist. So responsibility, in this little saying, isn't the appropriate word. My edited version is what it really means:

Do we have a duty towards future generations?

[gags]

This sort of drivel comes directly out of the environmental movement and it's just another version of the anti-mind/anti-man agenda of the enviros. The claim is that we need to leave the planet in a better condition (however that is defined) when we die, than it was in when we were born.

There is no way for man to exist without using and/or changing nature's resources. So if the goal is to keep the planet untouched, then this generation will need to become much smaller or end its existence alltogether. That is the ultimate goal of those who claim we have a responsibility to "future generations".

[DavidOdden]

Invocation of "responsibility" is, very often, irresponsible. Every person has a duty, obligation and responsibility to respect the rights of other people -- to not initiate force. When one person voluntarily enters into an agreement with another person, that means that he has accepted some obligation to do something, in exchange for something else -- he has a responsibility. A person has a responsibility to control his property so as to not violate the rights of others, for example, control your dog, remove the dangerout tree threatening the neighbor's house. Finally, a person has a responsibility to himself, to recognize reality and act rationally. Thus my financial responsibility to my wife is an act of self-preservation and self-interest. If someone can show me how a person who is to be born in 100 years is a value to me right here and now, I'll listen, otherwise any invocation of "responsibility" strikes me as a profound moral offense and an insult to the concept of responsibility.

[Grames]

Do we have any responsibility towards future generations?

To proclaim that you somehow have a responsibility towards future generations is to imply that they are of value to you. After all, how can you feel a responsibility towards that which is of no value to you? And if you believe that men who may exist in hundreds of years are of value to you, how can you value that which does not exist? Is it rational for a girl to love the daughter or son she may give birth to one day? Is it rational for a woman to love her unborn child’s children? Is it rational for an artist to love an artwork he has not yet created? No. Love, which is to value, is a tangible emotion that cannot be applied to the intangible.

There are those who would rather sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of the non-existing, because it is their belief that they have an inherent responsibility to ensure a better world for future generations. I suggest they re-evaluate their premises as this is a fatal philosophical flaw. When men live for the sake of the non-existing, they sacrifice that which is of the utmost value – their lives – for a non-value.

It is possible to value abstractions that don't exist. I prove it by pointing out that any and all things that come about by a long and complex process that involves planning and acting over long time scale is valuing an abstraction by acting to to make it a concrete. Examples would include getting an education, completing a project, the course of a career, taking a trip or building a house. Large civil engineering achievements such as bridges (Golden Gate Bridge) don't just take a long time to build, they are expected to stay in service and remain safe to operate for decades and possibly over a century.

It is not possible to for a girl to truly love a potential daughter or son before they exist, but she can certainly value the potential, and act on a plan to have a child. She can even "fall in love with the idea" of having a family, although that equivocates on the precise meaning of the word "love". She can further speculate or assume that her children will have children of their own, and then value and act on that. "To value" and "to love" are not synonomous, but both can be applied to intangibles.

Responsibility doesn't derive from value, it derives from causality. If you value someone you don't incur a responsibility toward them, you incur a responsibility toward yourself to act rationally and consistently, integrating that person into the rest of your values. Accepting responsibility means accepting the need to act, the performance of your actions, and the consequences of your actions are the only means to achieve values.

Their is no "duty" in Objectivism only causality. If you want the effect then enact the cause. The only limit on how remote and abstract your chosen effect can be is your own limit in thinking and acting.

[Greebo]

This one is bugging me.

Let us say for a moment that, hypothetically, we could, with the introduction of a new technology, over a few generations, consume every resource available to us on this planet for massive short term benefit but leaving nothing behind of value when the benefit itself was consumed.

With no responsibility to the future, why would we not do that? Assuming that our own generation will die before all the resources are gone, and assuming that we act rationally to each other, with no duty to the future at all (and yes, I know how bad the concept of duty is - its word that fits here though), why would we not consume at a massively increased rate?

[Grant]

This one is bugging me.

Let us say for a moment that, hypothetically, we could, with the introduction of a new technology, over a few generations, consume every resource available to us on this planet for massive short term benefit but leaving nothing behind of value when the benefit itself was consumed.

With no responsibility to the future, why would we not do that? Assuming that our own generation will die before all the resources are gone, and assuming that we act rationally to each other, with no duty to the future at all (and yes, I know how bad the concept of duty is - its word that fits here though), why would we not consume at a massively increased rate?

Because firstly, you'll find it pretty darn hard to consume all the resources. For instance, if you try consume all the trees, companies who make money off selling wood, paper etc will plant more to increase the supply. Same goes for every other resource. If for instance water becomes scarce, we'll find a way to turn sea water into fresh water.

How will we ever get to the stage where we consume and there's nothing left? If we get to the point where we find there's only maybe 50 years worth left of a certain resource, we'll either find a new way to create more of the resource or find an alternative resource.

If anything, with the introduction of new technology, we'll improve our efficiency when it comes to the use of resources.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Grant

[mrocktor]

Let us say for a moment that, hypothetically, we could, with the introduction of a new technology, over a few generations, consume every resource available to us on this planet for massive short term benefit but leaving nothing behind of value when the benefit itself was consumed.

You managed to use all the planet's resources (side note: how did you manage to destroy matter?) and didn't develop a means to get us off this rock? Somehow that seems unlikely...

If you want to be bugged by fantastic hypotheticals, fear invasion by gnomes. They can't be trusted!

[Greebo]

You managed to use all the planet's resources (side note: how did you manage to destroy matter?) and didn't develop a means to get us off this rock? Somehow that seems unlikely...

If you want to be bugged by fantastic hypotheticals, fear invasion by gnomes. They can't be trusted!

You and Grant are both right - its invalid to use an impossible hypothesis to evaluate a real question.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find those gnomes and get my underpants back!

[mrocktor]

I have to find those gnomes and get my underpants back!

And they do it for PROFIT!

[Greebo]

And they do it for PROFIT!

Great, but they stole my underpants!!!