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

[Ken Fabian]

On 2/5/2023 at 11:24 PM, dimreepr said:

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.

Well, we extrapolate and anticipate, apply foresight, have expectations and intentions. We make plans. All in the present of course. We are paralyzed without our sense of future. Predicting the future is done a lot, imperfectly but with some success. It is useful and highly valued. Climate science is expected to do so - "what will happen if?" is a profoundly important question.

20 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

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. 

That is true. I do think our civil society and many of the best aspects of humanity become more essential rather than less; if we fail to cooperate, educate, lend aid to others and instead see it as a zero sum game where being winners means grabbing greedily and denying opportunities to others we will do worse.

Equipping your children to campaign for strong climate action, as consumers and shareholders and future business managers, as future voters, as political activists and future leaders seems appropriate in order to sustain efforts to achieve a preferred trajectory. I don't think we or they can afford to give up on as much emissions reductions as we can manage.

I think in this case prevention being better than cure is, if anything, short of the mark; the cumulative nature of the problem means we effectively can't achieve a cure - there is no going back to how it was - but we/they may still slow and arrest the further progression and regain something like the stability of climate the Holocene had previously enjoyed.

Clean energy is our most effective action - cost effective in the present - and if scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs had not made solar and wind cost competitive with fossil fuels I think we would be in a lot worse position. With a clear cost disadvantage compared to fossil fuels nuclear would not have thrived - in an alt-world where solar and wind never worked climate activism may have split with anti-nuclear activism and thrown greater (Greta?) support behind nuclear but climate science denial and opposition to clean energy ambitions in support of fossil fuels exists for it's own sake and would probably just been more openly anti-nuclear instead of (conveniently) anti-green, anti-renewables.

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Well, we extrapolate and anticipate, apply foresight, have expectations and intentions. We make plans. All in the present of course. We are paralyzed without our sense of future.  Predicting the future is done a lot, imperfectly but with some success. It is useful and highly valued.

More often than not, we are paralyzed because of our fear of it; in this case, we fear that any unilateral actions will make that guy more comfortable than us, or a future that is less comfortable than now, for us. 

18 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

"what will happen if?" is a profoundly important question.

Indeed, but it's also profoundly difficult to answer; our bias always gets in the way. A scientist can reduce, sometimes to zero, the effect of bias in themselves, but never in other's. 

The parable of the fisherman, explains the problem (for me at least).

[Genady]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The parable of the fisherman, explains the problem

A bigger problem that this parable does not mention is that soon a businessman will come with a big fleet and will kick the fisherman out of business. Then the fisherman will have to work for the businessman and will not have time to sleep late, etc.

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Genady said:

A bigger problem that this parable does not mention is that soon a businessman will come with a big fleet and will kick the fisherman out of business. Then the fisherman will have to work for the businessman and will not have time to sleep late, etc.

In this context, this argument is akin to a plane full of people arguing about how fast to hit the mountain they can't avoid, rather than finding a way to divi out the limited number of parachutes, in the fairest way; the question of fairly is the burden of democracy.

The question of our freedom, fundamentally, can not come at the cost of freedom for others. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In this context, this argument is akin to a plane full of people arguing about how fast to hit the mountain they can't avoid, rather than finding a way to divi out the limited number of parachutes

And if they find such a way, then some people will hit the mountain and others will land with the parachutes and will be eaten by bears.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

And if they find such a way, then some people will hit the mountain and others will land with the parachutes and will be eaten by bears.

Wow, you're quite the optimist...

I'm an oldish man, so I'd be happy to swap my claim on a parachute for a bottle of whisky and a quiet seat to watch the in-flight film, until my oblivion; in the hope that (my) someone will avoid becoming tomorrow's bear shit. 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm an oldish man

I'm too, and my attitude is similar to yours in spirit (no pun intended), except I'm allergic to alcohol and generally don't watch movies, so I'd find something else to do in the meantime. 

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, Genady said:

I'm too, and my attitude is similar to yours in spirit (no pun intended), except I'm allergic to alcohol and generally don't watch movies, so I'd find something else to do in the meantime. 

Well, you could sit on a bus like Rosa.

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, you could sit on a bus like Rosa.

Thank you. I have many choices.

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, Genady said:

Thank you. I have many choices.

Not as many as you think you have...

[Genady]

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not as many as you think you have...

But close...

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Genady said:

But close...

How many choices do you think you have?

Can you be who you are, or are you who you have to be?

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How many choices do you think you have?

About half a dozen.

 

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Can you be who you are, or are you who you have to be?

I am who I can be.

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Genady said:

I am who I can be.

That's the question, not an answer.

It's a much more profound question, that most people aren't willing too ask or answer.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's the question, not an answer.

It's a much more profound question, that most people aren't willing too ask or answer.

 

Excuse my limitations, but I don't know what you mean in these statements.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Genady said:

Excuse my limitations, but I don't know what you mean in these statements.

Would you put your deepest, darkest and most shameful secrets on Facebook? For fun perhaps, because you're drunk or likes etc.

Now ask the same question, if it was illegal or if it would break the heart of a loved one.

We all have a price for turning a blind eye; as pointed out by George Orwell in "1984".

 

[Genady]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Would you put your deepest, darkest and most shameful secrets on Facebook? For fun perhaps, because you're drunk or likes etc.

Now ask the same question, if it was illegal or if it would break the heart of a loved one.

We all have a price for turning a blind eye; as pointed out by George Orwell in "1984".

 

I don't know how it relates to the previous exchange, or to the OP for that matter, but I'm ready to answer the questions:

No, for a simple reason: I don't have a fb or any other social media account. The only online socializing I have is SFn.

 

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Genady said:

I don't know how it relates to the previous exchange, or to the OP for that matter, but I'm ready to answer the questions:

No, for a simple reason: I don't have a fb or any other social media account. The only online socializing I have is SFn.

 

"We all have a price for turning a blind eye" I thought it's relevance is obvious, we care about the future in terms of that price.

The wealthy don't really have a concept of price, if societies bin men doesn't take away their shit they go private, it's just a higher cost; but at least it's not a tax.

 

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"We all have a price for turning a blind eye" I thought it's relevance is obvious, we care about the future in terms of that price.

OK, got it. However, if we all means every person, then I don't think this ("We all have a price for turning a blind eye") is correct.

 

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The wealthy don't really have a concept of price

I don't know about this.

 

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

societies bin men doesn't take away their shit they go private

I don't understand the grammar of this sentence. Sorry.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Genady

[dimreepr]

47 minutes ago, Genady said:

OK, got it. However, if we all means every person, then I don't think this ("We all have a price for turning a blind eye") is correct.

We are all human shaped, much like every snowflake is snowflake shaped; each is unique within that shape but ultimately the same.

When/if we get it, then we can shape the future of both.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The wealthy don't really have a concept of price

I don't know about this.

Indeed, https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm

Religion is not about God/s, it's about us...

[Genady]

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We are all human shaped, much like every snowflake is snowflake shaped; each is unique within that shape but ultimately the same.

DISAGREE!!! Not 'ultimately the same'. Rather, somewhat similar. Mostly, similar in shape, like the snowflakes. Unlike the snowflakes, we are very different inside.

 

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Religion is not about God/s, it's about us...

I trust what it says about us as much as I trust what it says about the origins of Earth, the origins of life, historical events, etc.

 

*I don't open links without good reason.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

DISAGREE!!! Not 'ultimately the same'. Rather, somewhat similar. Mostly, similar in shape, like the snowflakes. Unlike the snowflakes, we are very different inside.

 

I trust what it says about us as much as I trust what it says about the origins of Earth, the origins of life, historical events, etc.

 

*I don't open links without good reason.

 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

You see what I mean? I am

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

very different

from these people. In spite of the similarities in shape. There are also other categories that I am very different from.

[Genady]

Several comments in this thread related the duty of care to the future of their children, grandchildren, etc. 

What about people who don't have children to care about? Do they just ignore the issues?

[Ken Fabian]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Several comments in this thread related the duty of care to the future of their children, grandchildren, etc. 

What about people who don't have children to care about? Do they just ignore the issues?

I think that in some respects acting to avoid harming other people applies irrespective of age or genetic or community closeness does extend our duty of care into the future, including the future beyond our lifetimes and to people we aren't closely related to.

Around here adults are expected to act to protect children - everyone's children - from harm, at least from obvious and immediate risks. It looks like a hierarchy of priority with our own children at the top, neighbors' and the local community next, children of our nation, children outside our nation. Somewhere down that line the duty of care becomes a bit nebulous as does our capacity to have an effect, except through our society's institutions. We use our institutions to do the things we are incapable of affecting by our individual actions.

And then there are those who hold positions of responsibility within our society's institutions, who can have fiduciary duties of care within those roles, sometimes with legal accountability attached. ie can be held to be negligent under the law for dereliction of those duties.