27 Feb 06
3 edits
To what extent do future generations have rights?
None? The same as us? Fewer than us?
Imagine we can produce a form of nuclear energy that can sustain the entire planet but creates a waste product that has the unfortunate side effect of being stable for x years, but then carrying a risk of killing y people by exploding (say a 50 per cent chance of exploding every 10 years). After the waste has exploded, for some technical reason the technology cannot be used again.
Does it make a difference to whether we go ahead and use this technology whether x is 100 or 5,000? Why? Does the value for y we consider acceptable vary according to x?
Is the life of someone who will be born 5,000 years from now intrinsically less valuable than that of someone to be born 100 years from now, and/or someone alive now?
Why?
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellInteresting question.
To what extent do future generations have rights?
None? The same as us? Fewer than us?
Imagine we can produce a form of nuclear energy that can sustain the entire planet but creates a waste product that has the unfortunate side effect of being stable for x years, but then carrying a risk of killing y people by exploding (say a 50 per cent chance of e ...[text shortened]... s valuable than that of someone to be born 100 years from now, and/or someone alive now?
Why?
My suspicion is that if x is greater than some constant c (my guess would be 500) people would find it acceptable because they hope that after c years mankind would have the technology to destroy the waste safely.
Similar to people who chose to be cryogenically frozen.
There is no way to reverse the cell damage caused by thawing, but they believe that there will be a way to do so eventually and hence choose to have the procedure done when they die.
I also reckon that if the scenario was the only way to continue our existence, it will be implemented instead of having to come up with something else.
Let our descendants cope with the mess.
That's just human nature.
02 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellThis is an excellent question.
To what extent do future generations have rights?
None? The same as us? Fewer than us?
Imagine we can produce a form of nuclear energy that can sustain the entire planet but creates a waste product that has the unfortunate side effect of being stable for x years, but then carrying a risk of killing y people by exploding (say a 50 per cent chance of e ...[text shortened]... s valuable than that of someone to be born 100 years from now, and/or someone alive now?
Why?
It depends if you are playing a "zero sum" outcome or a "parabolic" outcome.
By this, let's assume that mankind (humans) never leave the planet and are destined to live only on what's here. There is obviously a limit to how many humans can occupy at any one time as there is obviously some point in time when a shortage or a "usage" and/or "destruction" of a vital resource will limit the population. This is the "happy village" as seen in much of the utopian anarchist's end point.
We will all live fullfilled lives in peace and harmony. With water wheels driving our flour mills, smiling children running in the village square-- attending the one room school with the wise wicken witch teaching the way of herbalism, dancing nude in the spring... sewage flowing away to somewhere to magically disappear -- in clay pipes crafted with love... etc.
If one takes into account the notion that "evil" people actually exist then this "happy village" soon becomes the farm where the food is fattened up for slaughter.
If we stay here on earth without changing human nature, then all bets are off. I don't see us chimps doing very well in ten thousand years.
If we make our domain parabolic and open at the future, then the only limits are technology. This seems quite the better path. And it has the added benefit of allowing us at some point to reclaim our cradle (earth) as a system wide "wild-life refuge" and park.
As an aside, I wondered as I read your post above if the allowance for "abortion" in todays society isn't a subconscious recognition that at some point in our futures... something has to be done?
Not really a germane thought, but one I will ponder today.
Very interesting thread.
Mike