How far into the future do we care? And why?

[Genady]

I think that almost everyone cares about what happens to humanity in the next several months. OTOH, almost nobody cares what happens to humanity in several million years. Many people care about several decades. What is a reasonable time horizon that we do or should care about? And why?

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

What is a reasonable time horizon that we do or should care about?

Why "should" ? It depends on your own personal preferences and goals, that's all. 

Adolf Hitler didn't care much about anybody or anything. Ghandi did a lot of caring. They are now both just as dead as each other, and will be for the next infinity of years. All that's left is data. They had an effect on peoples' lives, but those people too will soon be nothing but a teeny bit of data. 

In the long run, caring about the long-term future gets you nowhere, unless you are fanatical about genes and their survival. Will someone be carrying a few of my genes, in the year 3,000? I don't really give a toss. 

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think that almost everyone cares about what happens to humanity in the next several months. OTOH, almost nobody cares what happens to humanity in several million years. Many people care about several decades. What is a reasonable time horizon that we do or should care about? And why?

Today, because if I don't live until tomorrow, how can I be of any use then; other than what I do today.

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In the long run, caring about the long-term future gets you nowhere, unless you are fanatical about genes and their survival. Will someone be carrying a few of my genes, in the year 3,000? I don't really give a toss.

I'm guessing you don't have children, well, at least, not one's you 'now' care about.

Edited February 2, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Today, because if I don't live until tomorrow, how can I be of any use then; other than what I do today.

I guess it means, every 'today' of your life. IOW, your horizon is your life time. Then why do you care about the climate change?

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, Genady said:

Then why do you care about the climate change?

Because I can live today without affecting the climate and what I do today can effect, the other's; I can't know that it will, but I care that it might...

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

I care that it might

OK. That care I'm interested in. You do care beyond your lifetime. How far beyond?

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

OK. That care I'm interested in. You do care beyond your lifetime. How far beyond?

I'm a rare case, a tramp with an internet connection; I've had a lot of time to think and sharpen my thoughts with other's...

"How far beyond?"

Is a question for other's...

[Genady]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

caring about the long-term future gets you nowhere

I understand that 1000 years is a long-term in this description. How about 100? Is there a reason to care about the next 100 years?

[TheVat]

All depends on the level of concern a person has for their larger community.  A long time frame requires an imaginative leap and thinking about many trends that are fairly abstract.  Reincarnation believers, thinking they might appear in a womb in a distant future, might be more concerned in that regard.  Or someone very invested in a longterm legacy, like an environmental activist or a social reformer, who spends time thinking about future generations and what lives they will have.  Others, as they get old, are very family oriented and care about the world of their grandchildren, so maybe will think ahead a century at most.  For many, the century is a reasonable time frame in which to look at policies that make a livable world and good quality of life.  (there is also the short-term problem: where we should be thinking about right now because something terrible is happening, and we ignore it because we feel we're in one of the "safe" places or because we believe nothing can be done so why bother)  I would be thrilled to see more politicians who see more than 5-10 years ahead.  

[sethoflagos]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

I think that almost everyone cares about what happens to humanity in the next several months. OTOH, almost nobody cares what happens to humanity in several million years. Many people care about several decades. What is a reasonable time horizon that we do or should care about? And why?

I think that 'Do as you would be Done by' is a pretty fair principle.

If you would prefer not to be wilfully harmed by any deed of act or omission by others then it seems a contradiction not to reciprocate and it's not unreasonable to extend that duty of care to future generations.

Without putting a moralistic value on it, one might accept the validity of one who was indifferent to the suffering of others more remote than his immediate neighbourhood so long as they made no complaint if say an electrician couldn't be bothered to make their domestic wiring safe and they got electrocuted. Swings and roundabouts.

But in my experience, such people are usually the first to express their outrage at any perceived violation of their rights. I wouldn't be the one who threw stones at such self-centred wretches, but I might turn a blind eye to any who did. 

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

I understand that 1000 years is a long-term in this description. How about 100? Is there a reason to care about the next 100 years?

There is, 100 years is only about three generations. If you care about your own descendants, I guess even great great grandchildren are relevant. Even though they only have one-sixteenth of your genetic material. In other words, they are fifteen sixteenths descended from unrelated humans. 

From a purely academic point of view of course, we nearly all hope things go well in the future. But personally, I'm not that fixated on human life, at the expense of other species. Once you get to one 32nd fraction of my genes, then I'm just as concerned for the wellfare of snow leopards, as I am about humans. Moreso, as we number billions, and they are just hundreds or a few thousand.

[Genady]

23 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

it's not unreasonable to extend that duty of care to future generations.

AFAIK, Native Americans extended it to the seventh generation. I don't know, why seven. Maybe because nobody lives long enough to see these great-great-great-...-children. Is it too long? Too short?

x-posted with the same point by @mistermack

[sethoflagos]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

AFAIK, Native Americans extended it to the seventh generation. I don't know, why seven. Maybe because nobody lives long enough to see these great-great-great-...-children. Is it too long? Too short?

If you work on the principle of not leaving your environment in worse condition than what you inherited, then it carries on indefinitely. Our generation has clearly failed massively in this regard despite those in power from the mid-20th century on knowing unambiguously the unsustainable nature of a hydrocarbon fuelled economy (not to mention nuclear proliferation).

I wouldn't be the one to line up the energy sector major shareholders in front of a firing squad, but I might turn a blind eye ....  

[iNow]

I suspect the answer here aligns quite well with the idea of Maslows hierarchy of needs. 

If me and my kids are starving, the only future we care about or have the mental capacity to consider is our next meal, as well as where and how we will find it. If we’re dying of thirst, then the entirety of our future thoughts become contained within a glass of water. 

Thinking beyond today is, put simply, a luxury.

Thinking beyond the winter about the pure potential of and plans for a coming spring is a luxury.

Thinking beyond the current year or about the possibilities life might introduce to us a decade from now is a luxury.

Thinking beyond my current life is an escape, a distraction that takes conscious effort and transports us into a fictional land safe from the very nonfiction problems of today. 

Thinking beyond my great grandkids and their lives? That’s also an escape, and it‘s the type of escape which requires a manner of forecasting that itself requires practice and training and reflection.

Generally, we think about the things which will bring us calm and comfort. We chew on cognitive puzzles in our minds and sort their pieces into stable buckets and compartments. Put simply, we think the themes which squeeze our dopamine machines. 

If you find yourself having the time and energy to think about a future world left to your great great grandkids, though? Well, then I hope you’re also finding time to feel grateful for experiencing such a convenient life of luxury without scarcity in the today. 

With all that said, IMO the very best of people are those that plant trees whose shade they’ll never sit in, so let’s do more of that. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by iNow

[StringJunky]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

I suspect the answer here aligns quite well with the idea of Maslows hierarchy of needs. 

If me and my kids are starving, the only future we care about or have the mental capacity to consider is our next meal, as well as where and how we will find it. If we’re dying of thirst, then the entirety of our future thoughts become contained within a glass of water. 

Thinking beyond today is, put simply, a luxury.

Thinking beyond the winter about the pure potential of and plans for a coming spring is a luxury.

Thinking beyond the current year or about the possibilities life might introduce to us a decade from now is a luxury.

Thinking beyond my current life is an escape, a distraction that takes conscious effort and transports us into a fictional land safe from the very nonfiction problems of today. 

Thinking beyond my great grandkids and their lives? That’s also an escape, and it‘s the type of escape which requires a manner of forecasting that itself requires practice and training and reflection.

Generally, we think about the things which will bring us calm and comfort. We chew on cognitive puzzles in our minds and sort their pieces into stable buckets and compartments. Put simply, we think the themes which squeeze our dopamine machines. 

If you find yourself having the time and energy to think about a future world left to your great great grandkids, though? Well, then I hope you’re also finding time to feel grateful for experiencing such a convenient life of luxury without scarcity in the today. 

With all that said, IMO the very best of people are those that plant trees whose shade they’ll never sit in, so let’s do more of that. 

Yes, one is lucky when one doesn't have to travel for half a day to get the family's water.  The contrast is gross.

Edited February 3, 2023 by StringJunky

[Ken Fabian]

I think we have a duty of care to people now living that lasts at least as long as their lifetimes - >100 years. That is long enough to include caring about climate change impacts well beyond my own lifetime.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think we have a duty of care to people now living that lasts at least as long as their lifetimes

My duty of care is my lifetime first, which, at some point becomes their lifetime first, but that point can only be today; where-ever we find ourselves in Maslows pyramid's. 

16 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

>100 years. That is long enough to include caring about climate change impacts well beyond my own lifetime.

How many year's = tomorrow?

[TheVat]

In the realm of ethics, it would seem that caring is of lesser importance than what actions we take or facilitate others in taking.  I can virtuously broadcast how much I care about ecological and climatic changes over the next couple generations, but if I keep serving beef or pork at every  meal and driving an Escalade everywhere I go and sitting with my wife in a 2500 square foot propane-heated house with a heavily irrigated quarter acre of bluegrass lawn, then my caring has minimal ethical component.  The duty of care is to implement those worthy concerns I have in remedial actions.

This action would also mean that passing on wealth to the next generation is more likely to succeed, since ecological and climatic catastrophes seem likely to destroy wealth.  Ergo, joining in on a beneficial approach at the societal level can also yield benefit at the familial level.  For some, the latter motivates the former.  

 

[Genady]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

caring is of lesser importance than what actions we take or facilitate others in taking

I like this shift of a viewpoint, +1. The range of times into the future seems large, but the range of actions available today is limited. 

Perhaps, that is what @iNow and @dimreepr have alluded to in their responses earlier.

[Ken Fabian]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My duty of care is my lifetime first, which, at some point becomes their lifetime first, but that point can only be today; where-ever we find ourselves in Maslows pyramid's. 

Taking into consideration how our choices and actions will affect people now living during their lifetime requires some understanding longer term consequences of those choices. We need both the understanding and caring about it.

 

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

I can virtuously broadcast how much I care about ecological and climatic changes over the next couple generations, but if I keep serving beef or pork at every  meal and driving an Escalade everywhere I go and sitting with my wife in a 2500 square foot propane-heated house with a heavily irrigated quarter acre of bluegrass lawn, then my caring has minimal ethical component.  The duty of care is to implement those worthy concerns I have in remedial actions.

The long term influence of our individual choices varies a lot; if I choose to go stone age vegan because I care about the impacts of global warming beyond my own lifetime that would not be effective. People would be much more likely to mock me than see me as highly principled and therefore worthy of respect and listening to - speaking of hypocrisy. It could also be harmful to deny minors in my care the economic and social opportunities my withdrawing from the greater economy and society might cause - we do have social responsibilities and societal expectations. However, if the CEO of a large manufacturing conglomerate chooses to care (or not care) about the emissions his/her business make and makes choices with respect to transition to low emissions it will have much greater impact than any personal lifestyle choices I might make.

People in positions of high trust and responsibility in government with a duty of care to the well-being of their constituencies, make choices with great significance. Their choices can influence the CEO's and cause business choices to change in turn and make low emissions choices much more widely available at the consumer level.

I see the climate problem as one that requires economy and society wide change, with a shift of the primary energy our economy relies on from high emissions fossil fuels to zero emissions alternatives as the single most significant action. I have solar on my roof and batteries too but I am a long way short of zero emissions; the whole energy supply needs to be low emissions for me to achieve that. Until companies began manufacturing these technologies my choices for low emissions were reduced to going without stuff - which is never going to be popular, let alone so popular that everyone will do it, even if they can be induced to care. Going without is something I do to some extent but it is not enough and not a choice everyone can make.

I can vote. I can make my views known to elected leaders. I can contribute to campaigns to raise awareness and influence political representatives and parties, but broadcasting my virtuousness when anything less than going stone age is way short of what is required only invites accusations of hypocrisy. If the solutions rely on everyone being virtuous we are screwed.

When primary energy is clean energy and used by industries as well as households, when EV's are widely manufactured and they are commonplace within the used vehicle market as well as new, until every product, whether essential or indulgent, is made with clean energy then the lifestyle choices we make will be low emissions.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

The long term influence of our individual choices varies a lot; if I choose to go stone age vegan because I care about the impacts of global warming beyond my own lifetime that would not be effective. People would be much more likely to mock me than see me as highly principled and therefore worthy of respect and listening to - speaking of hypocrisy. It could also be harmful to deny minors in my care the economic and social opportunities my withdrawing from the greater economy and society might cause - we do have social responsibilities and societal expectations. However, if the CEO of a large manufacturing conglomerate chooses to care (or not care) about the emissions his/her business make and makes choices with respect to transition to low emissions it will have much greater impact than any personal lifestyle choices I might make.

This is an important point.

My career (chem eng) gave the opportunity to make a some difference to the environmental performance of the projects I was involved with by working 'on the inside'. But there is only so much rocking the boat you can get away with before it starts to work against you. No problems in the early days when there was quite the fashion for being seen to be environmentally progressive. But fashions change. Nowadays telling the project accountant to go fiddle with his calculator would probably lead to instant dismissal.  

The CEOs currently feel no pressure to pay attention to environmental matters around most of the globe because their shareholders most certainly don't care, and there is precious little political pressure being put on them.

Could I green the Sahara? Yes. Lot's of sand there to make a shed load of dirty glass and a couple of billion solar panels. But no. No one will stump up the money. So I guess we're back to petty, ineffectual virtue signalling. It's the only option available to us. Short of starting a revolution.

  

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The CEOs currently feel no pressure to pay attention to environmental matters around most of the globe because their shareholders most certainly don't care

There’s been a massive cultural shift away from this these last decades, and that momentum is only increasing each day. 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Taking into consideration how our choices and actions will affect people now living during their lifetime requires some understanding longer term consequences of those choices. We need both the understanding and caring about it.

To paraphrase Greta 'how dare we procrastinate with our children's future'.

While we can't predict our future, we can at least mediate potential harm; but we can only do that today, tomorrow is always too late.

15 hours ago, Genady said:

The range of times into the future seems large, but the range of actions available today is limited. 

Perhaps, that is what @iNow and @dimreepr have alluded to in their responses earlier.

Sort of...

Nothing ever really happens today, well, at least it seems like that; but whatever nothing that does happen, will build tomorrow.

[Ken Fabian]

39 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The CEOs currently feel no pressure to pay attention to environmental matters around most of the globe because their shareholders most certainly don't care, and there is precious little political pressure being put on them.

Like iNow says, this is changing. Shareholders aren't all apathetic and pressure on Boards and executives from them is growing. In Australia's case Superannuation Funds (pension funds) have huge investment share portfolios and increasingly demand climate responsible management as institutional shareholders. Mobilising smaller shareholders to vote together for a common cause is becoming more common too. And from another direction there is more awareness of potential for climate liability from their legal advisors and for increasing regulation from their business associations and other lobbyist. Of course this is less of an influence where corruption flourishes.

57 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

So I guess we're back to petty, ineffectual virtue signalling. It's the only option available to us. Short of starting a revolution.

I oscillate between deep pessimism and cautious optimism but I am a long way from despair. We have a lot of options, without revolutions - which would only make things worse. Revolutions aren't the prerequisite to adequate responses, they'll more likely be a consequence of inadequate responses and the conflicts and blameshifting in the face of back to back climate fueled weather disasters.

That - all along - there have always been enough people in positions of power and influence that the climate issue cannot be made to go away - is a good sign. An IPCC, international agreements, support for clean energy development are all good signs. The independent rule of law, that already has corporate responsibility for harms caused as a long running principle, can be the friend of climate policy - where courts are independent. Even the recent fossil fuel price surges and brazen profiteering has worked against ongoing dependence on them - a carbon price they imposed on themselves. Admittedly one where they get to keep the proceeds and divert some of it to FUD - but claiming their failure to deliver low cost reliable energy is because of green politics and failures of renewable energy hasn't worked.

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Like iNow says, this is changing. Shareholders aren't all apathetic and pressure on Boards and executives from them is growing. In Australia's case Superannuation Funds (pension funds) have huge investment share portfolios and increasingly demand climate responsible management as institutional shareholders. Mobilising smaller shareholders to vote together for a common cause is becoming more common too. And from another direction there is more awareness of potential for climate liability from their legal advisors and for increasing regulation from their business associations and other lobbyist. Of course this is less of an influence where corruption flourishes.

Of course, there is cause for more optimism in some parts of the world, Ken.

But when I see oil companies deliberately throttling back their domestic gas production, forcing power stations off the grid so that they can sell their premium priced imported gasoline to a population now dependent on their small inefficient generators, I think I'm just seeing callous exploitation. By US and EU companies with US and EU shareholders. Yes, the indigenous companies do the same but they're following practices long established by their 'former colonial masters'.

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

I oscillate between deep pessimism and cautious optimism but I am a long way from despair. We have a lot of options, without revolutions - which would only make things worse.

I tend to plan for the worst likely outcome which sounds pessimistic but isn't really. Things often work out not as badly as that and I think that helps maintain a positive frame of mind. A certain situation may have a certain limited number of potential outcomes. You can acknowledge them and estimate their relative likelihoods without assigning an emotional value to each. Helps keep confirmation bias at bay.

Applying this to the OP, we know that the climate is going to follow some trajectory within the spectrum of the various predictions of the climate models. Whatever our intellects and emotions tell us about the preferred trajectory and whether or not it can be achieved, it is clear that there are likely to be significant changes coming. My duty of care therefore became an issue of how well I'd equipped my children with the ability to adapt to a changing environment. And theirs in turn is to do the same as they raise our grandchildren. 

And I agree with you on revolutions. I wasn't making a serious case for it. I'd just been wondering what the possible outcomes might be if a former imperial power tried to transform itself back into the 'Golden Age' of the 1920s.