If you could go back in time to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and explain to the framers of the US Constitution how 74 years into the future, the new nation they were founding would fall into a civil war and they almost certainly would be horrified, and would likely take trying to prevent the conditions that would lead to that war into account while shaping the constitution. But tell them that 214 years in the future some people would fly something called “air planes” into something called a “sky scrapers”, leading to more “air planes” dropping lots and lots of bombs on parts of Asia, well not only is that far enough into the future that there isn’t much that they could potentially do about it but also so far in the future as to be so abstract that the knowledge may not have any emotional impact.
So how far into the future should could or should people be concerned? I think most people would be concerned about the conditions of the world that their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren would live in after their own deaths. But is the world of their great-grandchildren’s great-grandchildren’s great-grandchildren too abstract to be meaningful or have any emotional impact? For example, if scientists managed a survey with absolute proof that the Earth had enough accessible petroleum to last another 500 years at the current rate of use, should we relax and appreciate our good fortune, because fuck the people 500 years from now, or should we be worried and trying to conserve oil for our descendants of 20 generations from now? How many generations do your descendants have to be removed from you before you no longer care what will eventually happen to them?
(Before the thread gets derailed, this is not a thread about how much usable petroleum there is or is not in the Earth, that was simply an example of the type of situation where the habits of the present could have an effect on the people of the future.)
I think that the notion of being a good steward of nature transcends the selfish gene.
It also depends on what I have to sacrifice. if you tell me that I have to tolerate ridiculous dudes in man buns driving around in clown cars that operate on electricity, I can do that for the sake of the planet. If you tell me I have to give up bacon for life, fuck the planet.
Again, this isn’t intended to be a thread about alternate energy sources and the petroleum issue was just an example. The topic is how far ahead would any actions have to come into effect before it stops mattering to you.
I understood your question perfectly and I responded wrong. We just don’t know what’s in store for us in the future. For example, we had vacuum tubes and bulky CRTs that if someone say that soon the TV will be hanging on the wall like a picture you’d say you’re nuts.
I’ll go with something like 100 years. I do not believe it is possible to predict the state of the world further in the future than that. Will we have nuked ourselves by then? Will we have started to move into space? Will a particularly ugly version of the flu have wiped us out? Will we have developed practical fusion power and no longer give a sh-t about conserving energy? etc. etc. etc.
Given the inability to predict the consequences (positive or negative) of our actions that far into the future, I simply leave it to the people 75 years from now to worry about what will happen 100 years from now.
The future is unknown. So whatever their concerns are most certainly we do not understand now. Your list are current issues which you are projecting out. Perhaps the future concerns will be much different and 100% opposite than you think now. The thing is we do not know.
So perhaps a concern in 250 years is why did our ancestors totally miss the coming ice age ? Now in 2267 we know the clues were there all along, why did they not see them back in 2017 ? Yes we all know of the climate change controversy from back then but they missed the coming cycle. We could have had another 75 years to prepare, if they were not so blind.
I am not saying that is so or not, only that we do not know the issues of the future and they are often different than what we think they will be.
The founding fathers were perfectly aware that things were changing … thus the inclusion of Article V of the Constitution … they probably anticipated the abolition of slavery, but voting rights for women was inconceivable back then … even I’m old enough to remember wife-beating as a personal property issue … so at this age, I’m only looking at having my estate settled cleanly … and that these proteins I’ve worked so damn hard to make re-enter the food chain in a coyote’s belly …
Nothing they could do. If they wanted to have any sort of country at the time they had to compromise with the slavery issue…otherwise many of the states wouldn’t join. And they DID know that they were kicking the can down the road. Oh, sure, they didn’t know there would be a civil war, but they knew this issue would come to a head after their time.
Should? Well, they SHOULD be concerned at least a generation into the future wrt actions they take today impacting them (such as CO2 emissions and climate change). However…it’s really difficult to get people to do that. And, to be fair, predictions about the future have not had a lot of success. Finally, where we are today it’s even more difficult. I recall a thread on the 'dope not to many months ago asking 'dopers whether the next 100 years will see more technological change than the last 100 years, and I would say most 'dopers were of the opinion that the last 100 years saw more technological change than the next 100 years. That’s absolutely wrong, but it’s easier to understand history in hindsight than to project, especially when you are standing on an upward curve that is shooting up. To most people it LOOKS like tech change has stopped and not really changing, but the reality is quite the opposite.
This, to me, is an example of trying to fix a problem that is already fixing itself. We shouldn’t be worried about petroleum no whether we have 500 years left or 5000, because in the end we will have moved on from this fuel source and there will remain plenty of oil still in the ground after we do. Of course, the other issue with this is that various people have made wildly different predictions about how much oil is left, when it will peak and what that even means, so how would people know that THIS time, the ‘scientists’ were actually coming up with a prediction that would accurately reflect reality 500 years into the future? Answer is…they couldn’t and wouldn’t. I’d be highly skeptical of anyone saying they, based on the current rates of consumption they were able to predict future finds, further technology breakthroughs across the board and know, with some high level of probability, that there was only 500 years of oil left. :dubious:
The “selfish gene” is a metaphor for the gene (practically speaking, the genome) being the fundamental unit of inheritance which acts to maximize effective propagation even at the expense of the carrier organism. It has absolutely nothing to do with deliberate volition and decision making on the part of a conscious organism. The notion of being a “good steward of nature” or even being able to practically affect natural cycles is (in Western culture) a relatively new idea and has only recently entered the public consciousness in terms of climate, hydrology (use of fossil water), and depletion of the natural energy resources we use to power modern civilization, for which we have yet to develop a plan for comprehensive replacement.
Practically speaking, individuals not only don’t act much beyond their immediate future and that of their juvenile progeny, they also are not able to do anything genuinely effective in terms of overall impact. Even if you “[drive] around in clown cars that operation on electricity,” a single individual driving an oversized, gas guzzling SUV negates the sacrifices manifold. This is a situation where “the free market” is simply incapable of addressing future impact by virtue of having a hidden subsidy in the form of not having to bear the future cost of pollution and resource depletion. And even forethinking people and organizations lack knowledge of future technology development and impact to necessarily make optimum decisions.
I think it’s best to concentrate on the foreseeable future. 25 years out maybe the most to consider, everything changes too fast. 250 years ago the world wasn’t changing that rapidly, 200 years ago things were picking up in the Industrial Revolution, 150 years the pace was getting faster, the roots of the technological revolution had been planted, 100 years ago the pace must have seemed dizzying to those born in the 19th century, but they had no idea how fast things would be changing by just 50 years ago. Even if the rate of change begins to slow now we can’t predict what will happen just 25 years ahead much less 50.
Geez guys, I’ll worry about the heat death of the universe as soon as I’ve made my peace with the fact that I and everyone I’ve ever loved will eventually die.
I have no children, nor plans to have any.
Yet if you were to tell me that we’ve found a rogue planet that will certainly collide with the earth in 10,000 years, then yeah, I would care a lot about that event.
Indeed such a fact might play on my mind more than many things that actually directly affect me in my daily life.
I’m not saying time doesn’t make a difference; clearly there’s a huge difference between events during my life and afterwards. But for me it’s meaningless talking about what the cutoff is for caring; it depends what event we’re talking about.
That’s kinda the problem, though. It’s inductive. Even if I do make peace with the fact that all my loved ones will die, then I still have to make peace with the fact that all of their descendants will, too. And that humanity will die. And all sentient life currently in the universe. And all sentient life that will ever be in the universe. And finally, that all evidence of anything at all having ever existed will disappear.
I can mentally bypass all the intermediate steps, at least as a hypothetical. But even if the universe is eternal, you can’t get around the erasure points. So maybe it’s not worth trying to get over any of this stuff.
I try to avoid disagreeing with those far smarter than I , but wouldn’t this be more of an “altruistic gene”–i.e., the exact opposite of what you said?
I understand that a “selfish” gene is just a concept rather than an identified set of DNA sequences which drive the behavior of sentient beings, but it seems to me that this tag should be put on whatever genetic influences drive the behavior favorable to the (individual) carrier organism regardless of the expense to the success of propagating–or otherwise benefiting–the population containing that carrier.
Of course, with highly intelligent sentient creatures (you, and occasionally, me) “selfishness” and “altruism” might be extended to mean some much broader concept than the success of “my” species–ultimately extending to the net welfare of the planet, or perhaps even the Universe if you want to stretch, I guess.
Anyway, to answer the OP: My observation of humans is that even with sentient creatures–and even in cultures with highly educated sentient creatures–the tragedy of the commons is so pervasive I fail to be impressed that an altruistic gene ever outweighs the selfish gene on average. The most ardent supporter for combating climate change will nevertheless choose a private jet over first class commercial over a bus over a bicycle over walking. The most ferocious advocate for income equality will nevertheless want a robust personal 401K. A practical hypocrisy is nearly always present even when hidden underneath a public-facing nobility of position or purpose, net-net.
What this translates to is a concern about the future that extends to one’s own projected lifetime, with perhaps a window beyond that extending to the lifetime of one’s loved ones. Beyond that, altruism for the broader cause of the planet dwindles rapidly, for which reason we (as the sentient and educated species) are busy ignoring any future beyond 50 or 75 years. And in fact, we mostly focus on the next handful of years when weighing benefits for which the immediate cost accrues to us personally.
, but wouldn’t this be more of an “altruistic gene”–i.e., the exact opposite of what you said?