nemesis wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> I often think about what life will be like for our descendants in the future.
>> Say a thousand years in the future after we've used up all the reserves of
>> petroleum and precious metals and helium and even road salt.  What will life be
like?
> 
> no petroleum and precious metals means less greed, at least. :)

It just means that greed will have to focus on other things.

When the natural mines run out, we'll simply turn to mining landfills.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
>
> > > I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> > > years.
>
> > You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
> > planet?
>
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.

I see you're not a parent, just an inconsequential juvenile.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>> years.
> 
>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
>> planet?
> 
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.
> 
> 

I've signed no contract either. However, while I may not have kids, I
see no reason to ruin the world for my friends, family, and their
descendants either.

Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable for as
long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
as well make sure we have a few more chances.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>> years.
> 
>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a habitable
>> planet?
> 
> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one way
> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I did
> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of one's
> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin - both
> are religious nonsense.
> 

I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to 
behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by 
believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or 
e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity. The 
way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't 
steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also 
that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you 
know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested 
in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
> >>> years.
> >
> >> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a
habitable
> >> planet?
> >
> > No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one
way
> > or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I
did
> > not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of
one's
> > existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin -
both
> > are religious nonsense.

> I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to
> behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by
> believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or
> e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity.

I don't care about humanity without me. It's an extremely absurd notion, if
you think about it.

> The
> way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't
> steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also
> that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you
> know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested
> in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.

First, how would I know *for sure*? Second, a perfect crime requires much
effort. There are probably legitimate (ie less risky, less complicated) ways
to make money. Finally, speaking of legitimate ways to make money, have you
not ever charged for, let's say a contract work you did for somebody, or a
good or second hand product that you sold to somebody more than what you
would think is fair? How is that different from robbery? Do you go to your
local police headquarters and pay a fine each time you drive over the speed
limit whether you get caught or not? We all take what we can get away with,
and mostly, it's habitual, following the path of least resistance. If I were
brought up and lived in a society where people voluntarily paid fines for
infringements they committed, I would probably do that too. If I lived in a
society where stealing was the norm, I too would steal. Right now, deviating
from the norm takes extra thought and effort.

Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least because
there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced. Being
caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer in the sky)
is the only reason we act *ethically*. Of course getting caught death is
highly irrational, but nobody said humans were rational to begin with.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:31:18 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>
>Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable for as
>long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
>as well make sure we have a few more chances.

There is also the chance that we may have to come back.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
>> somebody wrote:
>>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:48:03 -0700, somebody wrote:
>>>>> I don't care. A thousand years is as meaningless to me as 100 billion
>>>>> years.
>>>> You don't think we owe it to future generations to leave them a
> habitable
>>>> planet?
>>> No. I never signed a contractual agreement with future generations one
> way
>>> or the other. But more importantly, I won't exist after I die, much as I
> did
>>> not before I was born. It's superstitious to contemplate outside of
> one's
>>> existence. Future guilt is the modern day equivalent of original sin -
> both
>>> are religious nonsense.
> 
>> I think that is going to get you in serious trouble if you want to
>> behave ethically. For ethics a longterm view is necessary. Either by
>> believing in something that transcends your life in the form of a god or
>> e.g. an obligation to add to the survival and happiness of humanity.
> 
> I don't care about humanity without me. It's an extremely absurd notion, if
> you think about it.
> 
>> The
>> way you put it any ethical consideration is external. As in: "I don't
>> steal or murder because I might get in jail for that". Implying also
>> that it is OK if you don't get caught. So, would you rob someone if you
>> know for sure that you won't get caught? If not, I would be interested
>> in the fundamental reason why you wouldn't.
> 
> First, how would I know *for sure*? Second, a perfect crime requires much
> effort. There are probably legitimate (ie less risky, less complicated) ways
> to make money. Finally, speaking of legitimate ways to make money, have you
> not ever charged for, let's say a contract work you did for somebody,
no
> or a
> good or second hand product that you sold to somebody more than what you
> would think is fair? 
no, besides I tend to give things away.
> How is that different from robbery? Do you go to your
> local police headquarters and pay a fine each time you drive over the speed
> limit whether you get caught or not? 
I did everytime I did it deliberately.
> We all take what we can get away with,
> and mostly, it's habitual, following the path of least resistance. 
No, definitely no.
> If I were
> brought up and lived in a society where people voluntarily paid fines for
> infringements they committed, I would probably do that too. If I lived in a
> society where stealing was the norm, I too would steal. Right now, deviating
> from the norm takes extra thought and effort.
> 
> Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least because
> there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced. 
If you think so, you have met only the wrong people. I know a lot of 
people that act ethically because they want to behave like that. I also 
know that us atheists and the christians, muslims, taoists, buddhists, 
etc. have slighly different ethics, but that does not mean that we don't 
agree on most things.
> Being caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer 
 > in the sky) is the only reason we act *ethically*.
If you want to put it that way, you should add 'being caught by 
oneself'. And even then, you miss an important aspect. Fear of getting 
caught is only a phase of it, later it becomes second nature. For me it 
is out of the question to rob someone of even deliberately drive too 
fast, I am simply incapable of doing so. I even feel stressed and 
slightly physical unwell if my wife drives too fast or parks at a 
prohibited spot. That said, I know that I live in a country where I can 
afford to live this way.
> Of course getting caught death is
> highly irrational, but nobody said humans were rational to begin with.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:47C### [at] hotmailcom...
> somebody wrote:

> > Ethics is way overrated. Nobody would act ethically (not the least
because
> > there's no such thing as universal ethics) if it weren't enforced.

> If you think so, you have met only the wrong people. I know a lot of
> people that act ethically because they want to behave like that.

Did you investigate why? Simply saying they want to behave that way doesn't
explain why they want to behave that way, or why they are conditioned to
behave that way.

>I also
> know that us atheists and the christians, muslims, taoists, buddhists,
> etc. have slighly different ethics, but that does not mean that we don't
> agree on most things.

It's inevitable to agree on some things to be able to live together. There
has been enough disagreement, however, to cause many conflicts and wars.

> > Being caught (whether by the fellow humans or the invisible all-seer
>  > in the sky) is the only reason we act *ethically*.

> If you want to put it that way, you should add 'being caught by
> oneself'.

No, it goes back to outside influences. There's nothing inherently ethical
or unethical about, say, killing and eating pigs or dogs as opposed to
killing and eating cattle and deer, and if born to isolation and brought up
without outside conditioning, one would not necessarily prefer one or the
other on ethical grounds. After tasting the meat, one can prefer cattle meat
to dog meat, but that's not ethics but practicality.

> And even then, you miss an important aspect. Fear of getting
> caught is only a phase of it, later it becomes second nature.

That I agree on. I did use the word "habitual" in that context.

> For me it
> is out of the question to rob someone of even deliberately drive too
> fast, I am simply incapable of doing so. I even feel stressed and
> slightly physical unwell if my wife drives too fast or parks at a
> prohibited spot.

Prime example of conditioning and fear (not about the increased risk, the
increased risk between 55mph and 56mph is negligable, but fear from
authority).

> That said, I know that I live in a country where I can
> afford to live this way.

> > Of course getting caught death is

This should have read "... after death".

Anyway, the point is, for a rational person, there's nothing to be afraid of
after death, so ethics becomes irrelevant. Those who worry about the
environment 1000 years from now do so because they are afraid of the
repercussions they will from their fellow men *now*. An example where mob
mentality is at play - for none of the people alive will actually be able to
feel the effects in such a long term, but irrational behaviour can be
contagious and develop a momentum of its own (as demonstrated in many
studies involving variants of prisoner's dilemma).

> > highly irrational, but nobody said humans were rational to begin with.

Post a reply to this message

"Sabrina Kilian" <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote in message
news:47c20c56$1@news.povray.org...

> I've signed no contract either. However, while I may not have kids, I
> see no reason to ruin the world for my friends, family, and their
> descendants either.

Well, I too see no reason to go out of my way to ruin things. But I see no
reason to go out of my way to "fix" things either. I'd rather spend my short
existance to simply enjoy being as much as I can.

> Guilt? Nah, more like the desire to see the world still usable

You won't be seeing anything after you die, unless I miss the whole point of
death.

>for as
> long as possible. I don't see us getting off of it any time soon, might
> as well make sure we have a few more chances.

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:47c1c52f@news.povray.org...

> Ah, hedonism.  The (dare I say?) logical conclusion of atheism*.

I'd say both are logical conclusions, period. If you want an -ism as the
source, maybe rationalism is better.

Post a reply to this message