An Obligation to Future Generations?

[iconoclast]

An Obligation to Future Generations?

We might consider the question, ‘Do we have an obligation to future generations?’ in terms of the liberalism/communitarianism debate – and in doing so contrast the interests of the individual rights holder with those of a community extended to include future generations. In such a debate the latter is clearly the weaker position – for the concept of community is contingent upon the concept of the individual; in that communities are necessarily made up of individuals, whereas the reverse is not necessary. Further, community is a somewhat ephemeral concept at the best of times, and it’s questionable what obligations individuals owe common definitions of the idea, let alone one stretched to include the presently absent.

Thus, if we argue for an obligation to future generations in these terms we find ourselves on the wrong side of such concepts as freedom and choice, pleading with the individual to honor the concept of community on ethical grounds, against the interests of the individual rights holder. This makes it a very difficult argument – even while our conscience screams at us from the sidelines, but there is a basis of analysis that considerably strengthens the case for an obligation to future generations – though some re-conceptualization of the question is necessary.

A scientifically valid conception of reality, and therefore an evolutionary conception of the human being recommends itself as a basis of analysis in that it is supported by vast amounts of corroborating evidence; which in terms of truth claims is slightly weaker than empirical proof – but then 4 billion years is a long time to wait for the result of an experiment. An evolutionary conception of the human being is more than philosophical conjecture or political ideology however, and describes in scientifically valid terms the relationship between the individual organism and the species.

Both liberalism and communitarianism cast the presently existing generation as the sole locus of meaning, and rightful judge of what matters and why – but an evolutionary understanding of the human being refutes this. Previous generations struggled to survive and breed, accumulating the capacities necessary to form societies and develop systems of communicating and recording information. Thus, what we are and what we know is not our doing – but the product of the evolutionary struggle of previous generations.

Personally, I do not feel in the slightest diminished by acknowledging that evolutionary disposition massively outranks personal development on any fair list of my virtues, just as an argument I make is not diminished by correctly referencing the ideas of great philosophers and scientists of previous generations whose wisdom and knowledge is employed.

That so, it is only by denying a scientifically valid conception of the human being we can assert the rights of the individual, laying sole claim to what we are and what we know, as if by sending an e-mail one were taking credit for the invention of the computer. By rights, we don’t even own the language in which the e-mail is written, but merely the form of words used and the meaning they convey – or to decipher the analogy, we own nothing but the responsibility for our actions.

An understanding of ourselves as an evolved and evolving species includes past, present and future generations in our concept of self – philosophically prior to concepts of individual and community. As an evolved and evolving species, it’s difficult to argue that any generation has the right to squander the product of 4 billion years of evolutionary struggle in a self-serving hedonistic splurge – breaking the chain of life and drawing a halt to evolutionary development. Therefore our obligation is not to future generations per se, but to the true nature of our being encompassing past, present and future generations of the species to which we belong.

Whilst these conjectures are directly critical of liberalism, and come down on the communitarian side of this debate, communitarianism – insofar as the term might be employed, is equally undermined. As an ethical and political ideology communitarianism is only slightly less ephemeral than the concept of community itself – but the common thread running through the works of McIntyre, Taylor, Sandel and Waltzer is an emphasis on the psycho-social and ethical importance of community.

A scientific conception of reality, and therefore an evolutionary conception of human beings denies the fundamental significance of definitions of community following from race, religion or nationhood. Scientifically conceived, humankind is a single species occupying a single planet, and true to our true nature, with a common interest in the continued existence and development of the species. Definitions of community following from race, religion and nationhood are scientifically unfounded and divisive, and employed as a basis for political deliberations stand in the way of scientifically possible solutions to extinction threats from the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation.

Therefore, despite the communitarian critique of liberalism – it’s unlikely that communitarianism could make good on the obligation to future generations it argues that liberalism, for it’s emphasis on individual rights is unable to honor. Communitarian ideas uphold concepts that are psycho-socially destructive, in that they divide the human species at a deep and unreasonable level that does not allow for recognition of the true nature of our being, and ethically defunct in that this does not allow for the continued existence of the species. Only by wholly accepting a scientific conception of ourselves and the reality we inhabit can we make good on an obligation to future generations, past generations, our present selves and above all, encompassing all these – the human species.

[Scattered]

Wow. Quite a mouthful. I'm glad my mind is simpler than that.
You take a lot of points of view there. One point that I sometimes have wondered about though is something that seems to be conspicuously missing from science is any reason to live. I didn't see that reason in your sources. If you use the same source as your reason to live comes from (most people anyway), you will find a source for your obligation to the future.

[iconoclast]

Scattered, i've suggested elsewhere that the Church of Rome, by establishing the Inquisition in 1233, introduced a rational/spiritual schizm into European language, thought and culture that's just not warranted.

If you're looking for reasons to live, a scientific investigation will not provide you with one, though psychology can proceed scientifically and encompass the emotional/moral/spiritual aspects of the human psyche.

What i argue for - 'a scientific conception of reality' is non-scientific because science establishes discrete facts. World views, conceptions of reality and so forth are philosophical concepts.

That so, if one were to seek to frame a reason to live in line with a scientific conception of reality, i'd suggest: 'humankind is the achievement of awareness by life on earth.'

It fits with an evolutionary understanding of life, and identifies that which makes us unique among animals, and important - perhaps universally important - our ability to understand, in complex and valid terms the reality we inhabit, to communicate and preserve that knowledge, to apply it and thereby transcend our limits.

it's that potential, i believe we have a duty to honour. what do you think?

[Fido]

We have an obligation to future generations because they think they are so smart, and that is to make them prove it by living with less energy and less food, and less fun, less meaning, and more diseases, more wars, and more waste. Good luck getting fat on those fries guys.

[Scattered]

Iconoclast
I like your answer. Very nice. I don't exactly know what to make of it completely. I agree with it, but I think that the same reason that makes it valid or appealing is the same reason I was fishing for.

[iconoclast]

Fido, As usual you've got it all backwards. It's not necessary that future generations live with 'less energy and less food, and less fun, less meaning, and more diseases, more wars, and more waste' - it's that they'll die from it. As oil runs out and the climate changes the global economy will collapse and it will be an all out war of each against all for what resources remain.
By acting now - that future can be avoided, and science can provide very well for humankind into the indefinite future. With different technologies, we can have more energy and food, more meaning, more fun, less diseases, wars and waste - but it requires us to adopt different social, political and economic ideas.

Scattered,

Glad you liked it, but it kind of sounds like polite condescension. Can you please explain this statement.

'If you use the same source as your reason to live comes from (most people anyway), you will find a source for your obligation to the future.'

I'm not sure i understood it.

iconoclast.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Fido, As usual you've got it all backwards. It's not necessary that future generations live with 'less energy and less food, and less fun, less meaning, and more diseases, more wars, and more waste' - it's that they'll die from it. As oil runs out and the climate changes the global economy will collapse and it will be an all out war of each against all for what resources remain.
By acting now - that future can be avoided, and science can provide very well for humankind into the indefinite future. With different technologies, we can have more energy and food, more meaning, more fun, less diseases, wars and waste - but it requires us to adopt different social, political and economic ideas.

I am sure you will grasp the situation once I explain it to you so: Governments which should be organized to anticipate change, and needs, eventually make a need out of resisting change. They cannot face the problems they do have, let alone problems that have not showed up yet. They tell people it will be okay tomorrow because it was okay yesterday. It was not okay for me yesterday, and I have a different version of the truth. It is that the ship of state might be able to get away with navigating through the rear view mirror. All of the rest of us have to face the future, and a change of government eventually will be part of that future. That day will happen sooner when all people understand that government is no source of truth. And no solution is a solution that only half way accomplishes all that needs completion. We have to face the fact that some people today cannot be content with wealth and power alone, but really must have everyone else living like animals to be happy as kings. That is our future. Join the dogs.

[Scattered]

Iconoclast
I really like your first point.
As for the second question, on another email list, whick I hopefully just got kicked off of, I pointed out that a problem is that survival in the sense of having children is not rationally or logically based. So if you want to examine obligations to the future, you should probably find and use the same basis for it as you would use as a reason to have children.... whatever that is. Actually, that reason is something I would love to work on on this list, but have been a bit busy to do just yet. My main hobby in terms of philosophy, is morality.

[iconoclast]

Fido, You're saying they're saying: 'It is not enough that i suceed - everyone else must fail' Do you really think it's intentional? I think it's the unintended consequence of upholding ideas it serves thier interests to uphold. Karl Marx called it hegemonic ideology. Before i knew that, i'd identified much the same thing and called it a metaphysical hobble - but i was wrong to project the exploitative dynamic of capitalistism, and call it the intent of the wealthy. They no more intend my poverty than i do thier wealth. Neither do i think that anyone is so rich and powerful they can control these things - it requires consensus, and is therefore attributable to the ideas we agree upon. Illegitimate power and injustice follow from bad ideas, and that's what we should be angry about.

[iconoclast]

Scattered, This is a very astute argument...

'survival in the sense of having children is not rationally or logically based. So if you want to examine obligations to the future, you should probably find and use the same basis for it as you would use as a reason to have children.... whatever that is.'


but arguably, i argue that - scientifically concieved, we (individuals) are members of the human species, a developmental phenomenon with a past, present and future all integral to a valid understanding of ourselves.

Thus, it doesn't matter that having children is/or is not a rationally based decision. Science can encompass the instinctual/emotional aspects and motivations of human beings and thier behaviours with a scientific approach to biology, ethnology and psychology.

Does that make sense?