English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The basic question I am posing here is as to what makes us choose to take any responsibility for a period well beyond our own lifetime.

2007-10-03 21:19:40 · 19 answers · asked by small 7 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

As rightly guessed by Marilyn S, I am not quite satisfied with the 17 answers received so far. My basic question is what makes us take responsibility for future generations.... I am not fully convinced about love for children or morality or humanity..... these are apparent reasons which themselves must be cropping up from some other root factor... what makes us sacrifice today for tomorrow and what makes us sacrifice self for the future of the society...... incidentally, rarely anyone of us seems to be very consistent in such sacrifices either.... most of us do seem to oscillate between selfish to generous and myopic to farsighted.

2007-10-04 17:49:28 · update #1

Extending the question in the hope of some better answers yet to come. I am really looking for the root factor that makes us sacrifice today for a better tomorrow or ignore self for the wellbeing of society or spend valuable time, money and effort for the benefit of future generations. Yes, it is humanity, it is morality of a kind, but what is at the root of this humanity or morality in us. Our instincts would value today more than tomorrow, self more than society etc. etc. What makes us go against our prime instincts?

2007-10-05 22:20:34 · update #2

19 answers

Ahh, altruism. My favorite mystery. :-)

Here’s the thing: It’s NOT humanity. It’s NOT morality.

*Every* species sacrifices the individual for the greater good.

Think of insect hierarchies. Why should the worker ants serve the queen? That behavior is not productive to the passing on of their genetic material. Are they “happy” being slaves? Why should one animal cry out a warning to the others when it spots a predator? Doing so calls attention to that individual; and therefore increases the danger toward that individual. Why should animals help other injured animals? I could go on all day, but you've caught my drift.

Either we must impose humanity and morality on every living thing, or we must accept that the urge is something else. (Parasites in love? Noble vampire bats? Why not? Disney has been doing it for years…)

I realize it’s not romantic or alluring, but the truth is, sacrifice and altruism are at least partially biological. (If I was feeling cynical, I could make a decent argument that all emotions are just self-justification of our programmed responses to biological urges. Some other time…) I say "partially biological" because the individual still makes a choice. We’ve actually identified the area of the brain that predicts altruistic behavior, but (as in all things) it is impossible to explain "the choice". Socialization? The soul? It's anyone's guess.

Phoenix Quill had it right, though: it’s evolution.

However, not exactly in the Darwinian sense. “Every man for himself” is a dubious theory in recent evolutionary thought. Cooperation seems to be the real indicator for survival of a species. Perhaps there’s hope to be found in that thought.

2007-10-08 15:35:58 · answer #1 · answered by Ms Informed 6 · 2 0

Hi!

The "I'm alright Jack" attitude that some individuals have is destructive enough, but the "My generation's alright - so stuff my kids, grand-kids and all those who would have come after us if we hadn't screwed the world up" approach, which is an extension of it, actually doesn't benefit our generation either.

There are far reaching cosmic reasons for benefiting ourselves from preserving a future for others, but that's too deep for here. Why do the British remember the Victorians more than any other generation? Is it because they are the ones who planted avenues of trees they knew they would not live to see mature but which they knew future generations would enjoy immensely? What might that approach teach us?

Good wishes.

2007-10-04 07:52:53 · answer #2 · answered by pilgrimspadre 4 · 1 0

I firmly believe it is human instincts to care for their children. To protect their lives for survival and maintain their pedigrees. The issue here may not be the extinction of races you are driving but the very fact that it is how humans adapt to the environment. If mammals have the habit in protecting their species how much more for humans who has the intelligence. Granting that extinction is unlikely in our own lifetime still this does not prevent humans from doing their natural instincts. Would it not be better that we are concern for the future rather than not? Would it not be morally right to protect and preserve the human species? Definitely humans as intelligent as they are are will do their best for the generations to come. Would you allow your conscience not to think a better future for your children's children? I leave the question to you.

Interesting question! Thanks my good friend.

2007-10-03 23:51:04 · answer #3 · answered by Third P 6 · 1 0

In the past, humans do not roam the earth. Since we have came and developed to such standards today, we wouldn't want to waste man's constant effort to survive on Earth, and to disappear forever. If man vanished, all the cellphones, computers, buildings, delicacies and even fruits will not be here. =P

People have thought about the future with the most convenient technologies, eg roads being replaced by flat moving escalators, all land vehicles being replaced by hovering vehicles, all television sets being replaced by much smaller objects that projects 3D images into the whole room..

We're all trying to improve everything, some for reputation, and some to convenient the people in the future.

2007-10-03 22:43:14 · answer #4 · answered by highlite_me 1 · 0 0

yes very good question. morality is the answer my friend. i know it wont make sense to many people who believe in evolution and self centered individualism. as we go, w have no interests in the working of the world. and to be sure not evn the most ethical person can say he cares so much, but still some of us care than our children or just humans as a specis continue to prosper and especially not suffer because of our selfishness, its the same feeling that makes a bit uneasy seeing the starving child in africa or asia. our minds eye may not be so powerful, but it does make an impact.

2007-10-04 02:55:04 · answer #5 · answered by tony 3 · 0 0

It's honestly a lack of vision given to us by our forfathers. America has been taught to constantly grow no mater what the cost. Live in the self centered "screw my children" kind of mind set. I suppose we are kind of like lemmings in a way. Hopefully as soon as technology can allow people the time to sit down and logically look at the situation we're in humans will smarten up. But ending up as radio active ash is another possability in the future.

2007-10-03 21:26:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Humanity, morality and the desire to reduce the suffering/toil of future generations. In Permaculture our investments are all in our children's and grandchildren's futures.

We plant high yielding homesteads (even in surburban backyards) with trees; a mixed native woodland, and develop an ecosystem that will not fully mature until our grandchildren are adults.

Permaculture seeks to design ways of meeting man's needs by creating permanent high-yielding agricultural ecosystems. It is a solution aimed so that people can live on the smallest amount of land possible. The natural landscape (the rest, the wilderness is then not used by man) it is then left alone to heal and so it functions holistically.

In the meantime the homestead provides fuel from our responsibly managed woodland, the materials for furniture, food including fruit and nuts and we deal with our wastes on site. We plant trees around our home to provide a great wildlife habitat for flora and fauna but it makes a great environment to live in too. However, although we take a yield in our lifetime, we are heavily investing by growing an 'Eden' for our children's children. How's that for future planning and environmental optimism?

2007-10-04 02:42:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I think if you have to pose this question, no answer will work for you; however, in the BIG picture, isn't it a good thing to think of others, even those who will not be born for 100 years? I'd rather leave my little corner of the world clean and orderly than say let others do it.

2007-10-04 10:53:39 · answer #8 · answered by Marilyn S 4 · 0 0

I think of our children and their children, and that motivates me to try and leave a nicer place for them to live in... one with a lot more clean air, the right kind of farming, preservation of species, including different races of man-- the list goes on. It's just my way of saying "I care" to the younger generation, and I think every older generation needs to take the time to do that, and leave our children with hope, always. At least the gift of hope!

2007-10-03 22:09:25 · answer #9 · answered by LK 7 · 0 0

You never know what can really happen, or how are we end up to extinction. One mistake from a nuclear-power invincible country could lead us to it?
So i wouldn't really say extinction is not possible during our lifetime period.
It is our essence as human beings to care for the future of our species, otherwise we as well be robots or machineheads.

2007-10-04 06:36:55 · answer #10 · answered by oscar c 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers