hey guys, this is my first post but i’m not new to this board-- i’ve been lurking around for quite some time now. this question came up in a conversation on the environment over lunch with a friend the other day and it has been bugging me ever since. an assumption in popular environmental discourse is that we should take care of the planet now to ensure the wellbeing of future generations. this attitude seems morally correct — but why? why should we make sacrifices for the wellbeing of posterity, if posterity cannot reciprocate in any way? i’m curious to see what you guys think
taking care of our environment is rational in the sense that we depend upon it for survival. we are really just extensions of our environment anyways, and thus changes in it lead to changes in ourselves. of course, this doesnt address why we should take care of it when it doesnt affect ourselves personally (why we care what earth will be like after we die).
some people would argue that taking care of earth now for our childrens sake is good because we care about our children, and this is morally correct. others would likely argue that taking care of earth is good in and of itself, because earth is valuable intrinsically, regardless of whether you have kids or not.
i would just claim that it doesnt really matter-- or rather, it matters on an individual level. if you are compelled to take care of the earth for your kids sake, go for it. if you feel like earth has intrinsic value, take care of it for that reason. but ultimately, there isnt some god-like maxim from on high, some natural law or moral code which tells us “you should take good care of the earth”: its all relative to what our interests/inclinations are.
i dont really care about taking care of the earth; i understand that its rational to look out for ones environment, but thats really where it ends for me. i dont see “intrinsic” value in rocks or plants or oil or snails or polar bears-- its all just valuable to the extent that it is valuable to us.
value presupposes a valuer, value is RELATIVE to the valuer. so the value of taking care of the earth exists only to the extent that WE personally gain direct value from this action.
environmental theory that states that the earth is “alive” or “valuable” for its own sake is absurd; only a conscious being can value something, and it can only value that which is OF value to its survival or needs/ends. earth is of course valuable to us (we need it to survive) but this doesnt mean there is some universal, objective value inherent in earth itself…
but like i said, if you feel compelled to take care of trees for their own sake, go for it. if they are valuable to you and your life or purposes in life, then they are valuable. value is completely subjective.
[i]It took so long to remember just what happened. I was so young and vestal then, you know it hurt me, but I’m breathing so I guess I’m still alive even if signs seem to tell me otherwise.
I’ve got my hands bound, my head down, my eyes closed, and my throat wide open.
Do unto others what has been done to you.
I’m treading water, I need to sleep a while. My lamb and martyr, you look so precious. Won’t you come a bit closer, close enough so I can smell you. I need you to feel this, I can’t stand to burn too long. Released in this sodomy. For one sweet moment I am whole.
Do unto you now what has been done to me.
You’re breathing so I guess you’re still alive, even if signs seem to tell me otherwise. Won’t you come just a bit closer, close enough so I can smell you. I need you to feel this. I need this to make me whole. There’s release in this sodomy. For I am your witness that blood and flesh can be trusted. And only this one holy medium brings me piece of mind.
Got your hands bound, your head down, your eyes closed. You look so precious now.
I have found some kind of temporary sanity in this shit blood and cum on my hands.
I’ve come round full circle. My lamb and martyr, this will be over soon. You look so precious. [/i]
When trying to think of a response to the question “Why should we care about the environment?”, the lyrics to the song Prison Sex seemed all too relevant.
If that were true, it does not change the fact that it should be done.
Neglect towards the environment seems to be the ultimate procrastination. Not only will you avoid taking care of it in your life time, but you will pin the responsibility unto your descendants.
Do you also think it to be morally acceptable that when an individual dies, his/her debts are automatically transferred to his/her closest relatives, even if that relative were to be distant?
of course you cannot get an ought from an is but if you appeal to the moral authority of something all powerful or all appealing outside yourself like the future, you can force others to behave as puppets on a string…
why even bother to think, the gods of the environmentalist future KNOW how you should live…
You are making too many false assumptions about my personal beliefs, I don’t believe it to be correct that the government dictates our actions for the sake of the environment, but I do believe that it isn’t morally correct to say “Why should I care about the environment? Have I not been burdened with enough?”. It seems more ridiculous (or lazy, perhaps) in my eyes when someone asks for philosophical confirmation that they shouldn’t have to care about the environment.
Yes, in very vague generalizations, there is not some magical force that is obligating you to take care of the environment. However, the only personal explanation for why you should choose not to care for the environment is rooted in laziness and unwillingness to change.
Can you not admit that an “Ugh, I don’t want to HAVE to do that!” attitude is what compelled you to come up with reasons against environmental movements?
No, I am not a leftist, I don’t think the government should have a plan set aside for all of our aches and pains, and I don’t think that society should have to wipe the asses of those who are unable to. But burying your head in the sand at issues such as pollution really seems like nothing other than laziness to me, either that, or an extremely selfish attitude and lack of concern for others.
I should just reply with all 63 pages of “Industrial Society and Its Future”.
You are making assumption after assumption simply to support your own ego-masturbation.
If you believe that a radical outlook (i.e. environmentalists) is indeed our enemy, and if you believe that everything is going jolly as planned then perhaps you have missed the point of Nietzsche’s work entirely (whom you seem to be making constant reference too, as if I am holding him up on a pedestal).
Let me tell you something about my own personal beliefs before you go off on a tangent of environmentalist priests and totiltarians and other associated non-sense.
I, in fact, believe that global warming is a scam for the democratic party to swing towards global governance.
I believe that recycling is extremely over-exaggerated in its effectiveness to protect the environment, and that is also a scam for corporations to reuse materials at a fraction of the price that it would take to re-harvest those materials.
I believe that these “communes” and “environment friendly homes” are a fucking joke, and a giant charade to help people convince themselves that they are somehow making the world a better place or some shit.
You see, simply because I bare SOME LIBERAL VIEWS does not mean I immediately inherit ALL LIBERAL VIEWS. Why don’t you logically wait until I provide evidence supporting your broad generalizations about my personal beliefs before you begin spewing them out of your mouth like vomit.
Should I just resume a nihilistic outlook, or hell, even a fatalistic outlook and believe that nothing really exists anyways so I should say “fuck all” and simply harvest as much pleasure as possible in the time I am living?
when i first came across “Industrial Society and Its Future” about 2 years ago, i sat down and read the entire thing, front to back. took about an hour. its very compelling, although i reserve some differences between his views on human nature and the nature of technology and my own. as a practical argument, however, its nearly bulletproof.
however, i disagree with your assumption that “the only personal explanation for why you should choose not to care for the environment is rooted in laziness and unwillingness to change”. as i stated, i do not care about the environment very much. however, i do not litter, i pick up trash when it is right in front of me and i see a garbage can along my path… being uselessly wasteful is inefficient, and physical waste and laziness has a way of translating into mental waste and laziness. but that aside, like i said, there is no real value inherent in earth or in nature, other than their value and usefulness to us.
when i leave the house, i dont really worry about turning off the lights. i leave my dvd player, ps2 and pc on all the time. its not wasting electricity, because im paying for it. its not harming the environment, because using electricity is not synonymous with environmental harm, nor is there some finite x amount of power that i am “throwing away” by not using it. my consumption creates the supply. and since im paying for my electricity, i will do whatever i wish with it.
the same goes for the environment in general. when it is in my interests or motivation to be “environmentally friendly” and go hug a tree, i will do so. but i will not act in ways which are counter to my own interest or desires. and i consider useless action or action without benefit to be acting counter to my own interests.
Imp is correct that the modern environmental movements are leftist in origin, totalitarian movements that seek to de-industrialize the first world and return us to pre-industrial levels. this is not to save the spotted owl, it is to get control over man, over his freedom and free production which is his power over nature and over oppressive governmental systems. free economic systems are what are under attack by environmentalism, and free economic production is what we are losing, the ability to secure our own survival without the need to become an appendage to the collective totalitarian State. wait for the “milage tax” on the miles you drive in your car, wait for the “carbon credits” that you will need to buy to own a tv, wait for the “life tax” proposed in the UN which will tax the carbon that you exhale. believe me, there is nothing “friendly” about being environmentally friendly.
i dont think Imp was referring to your personal beliefs, although i wont speak for him. certainly, Nietzsche would have been dismissive of anything environmental, including an all-pervasive attitude of “go green” or “hug a tree”… nature is beautiful, it is powerful and awesome and inspirational, but ultimately its value lies in our use for it-- however, this DOES include its aesthetic value, which is why i dont mind picking up trash, and why i dont litter. nature is beautiful, it is artistic, and in that sense, hugging a tree makes sense, if it is the reaction to the immense wonder and awe that nature can inspire in us… but once again, even in this sense, nature is valued because it is valuable to us. theres nothing ‘altruistic’ about it.
and there is no dichotomy between self interest and being rationally environmental. just because i do not turn off my pc when i leave the house, or just because i refuse to recycle doesnt mean that i have no regard for my environment. its not a contradiction. its just about rational self-interest, and the right and the will to determine your own life and your own values/actions. in that sense, NO ONE has the right or capacity to tell you what you should do, in any sense, and particularly with regard to hugging trees or buying florescent lightbulbs.
Its funny you mention carbon taxes, because I’m actually “fuck all” when it comes to global warming. I don’t believe in it, whatsoever.
My reasons for caring about the environment are more to do with the degeneration of the human species. The percentage of the population fading into neurosis and even psychosis is growing at such an outstanding rate, the parabola can almost be perfectly aligned with the parabola of technological advancement.
What happens when we reach the pinnacle, the single x value of that parabola? Annihilation? Degeneration? The sooner we start working backwards, the sooner we don’t have to deal with that shit.
i dont believe that there is anything inherently harmful, neurosis- or psychosis-inducing, or degenerating about technological advancement; on the contrary, technology represents our ability to survive, our power over nature, and not just at its expense. for example, the problem of pollution is only solved BY technology itself, by innovation-- the problem of pollution is just the problem of inefficiency of production, which is solved only by further R&D and further technological progress.
without technology, we are unable to survive as a species-- technology is our birthright as conscious, volitional beings. in its essence technology is liberating, empowering, freeing, and is what allows vast densities of populations to live peacefully together in large cities (without technology the population problem and the hunger problems of the world would be literally PROBLEMS, with a capital ‘P’; technology is what allows us to deal with and overcome these stresses).
however, everything you say is correct as well, just like everything in Industrial Society and its Future is correct. but i think its important to realise that these harmful aspects of technology are not caused by technology itself: they are harmful aspects of human nature. we are still so immature as a species, we are really just a bunch of infants running around. at least that is how an extraterrestrial species would see us.
technology’s power lies in its ability to MAGNIFY and MUTLIPLY human energy and force. now, how we use this force is up to us. technology itself is neutral, just like a gun is neutral: it can be used to protect or to harm, for good or bad ends… technology can be utilized for creative or for destructive ends, with equal success. the harmful, dehumanizing aspects of modern technology are very real and very troubling, but its good to remember that technology did not CREATE or ADD these problems to man, it only magnified what was already there, latent potential for these afflictions of mind and body due to the low awareness and the evolutionarily-young age of men as conscious beings.
that is why the conclusion of Industrial Society and its Future is incorrect, even when its arguments are sound. the answer is not deindustrialiaztion, not a return to the primitive. only technology itself can free us from the harmful side effects and problems associated with technology. and only a renewal and a reemergence of Reason and rational freedom and self-interested and open Enlightenment will give humanity the RIGHT and the WILL to use the awesome and wonderful power of technology to better and beneficial ends, rather than its current use, which is towards our own destruction.
the general belief is that man is a victim of technological progress, for all the reasons you and Kaczynski and plenty of others mention; however, the real truth is that, if you want to be technical about it, technology itself is the “victim” of man. technology is indifferent, ambivolent in how it is used-- it can be used to liberate our world, or it can be used equally well to destroy our world.
blaming technology itself is analogous to blaming a gun for a murderer’s act of murder. human motivation and intention is behind action, and these (or the lack thereof) are the determining factors that are behind the many problems that we associate with technological advancement and the industrial revolution.
If we continue to advance technology, we will eventually create machines to replace vital human organs (this is already being done with pacemakers, mechanical limbs, even for aesthetic purposes such as internal penis pumps). Eventually not much is left of the human body except for a fake plastic exterior which vaguely resembles a human. Celebrities are already getting fake teeth, fake hair, fake eye color, fake fingernails, fake skin color, fake skin, fake noses, fake breasts, fake ears, etc… Usually once Hollywood popularizes one of these things as a trend, it becomes standard and expected for people to follow that trend (all women wear make-up to some extent). Even plastic surgery is now becoming commonplace.
If you keep subtracting parts of the human body, not much is going to be left. Soon we will have just our brains left, and with all these deep-brain stimulation and putting chips in people’s brains that has been in the media lately, I’m assuming we won’t have our brains for much longer either.
The other result is much like the movie Idiocracy, where the human species becomes severely deficient in intellect as machines begin replacing humans for every possible job.
at this point, tech has got us far, but too far is thinking of tech as a savior.
we invent things, then as a sidestep measure, we are required to invent other things to keep the former tech from killing us. Think airbag.
anybody who carries on about fatal statitistics by comparing planes crashes to automobile crashes is crazy, since they do both anyway.
I dont expect them to stop driving or flying, but when their flying car is making a spiral-spinning dead engine drop, they may consider my point, as they carry those stats with them into the unforgiving ground.
Hello reasonable,
This is quite a challenging question. Why should we care? Well can I please make a counterquestion:
Who cares? No-one does. There is no need. People just care to have a hobby.
The narrower our sense of self, the more imprisoned we feel. There are two obvious ways of expanding the sense of self - in space, and in time. Thinking of others, even if it’s just family, as part of one’s sense of self leads towards increased happiness. Considering others who existed in the past or will exist in the future also expands one’s sense of self - it helps overcome fixation and ego-clinging, which cause suffering. This isn’t an objective fact, but it is a hypothesis that can be tested for oneself. Caring, in and of itself, is a cause of happiness. Posterity is just one of the things we can care about. The ability to care can be developed and strengthened through disciplines like meditation and other forms of mind training.