# How distant must the future be to not matter to you? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2017, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602 "2017-03-20T11:28:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/21 "2017-03-21T14:00:44Z")
I kind of try to just take things one day at a time. Sure, things like Planet X smashing into the South Pacific or the eventual evaporation of the Universe into X-Rays is disconcerting and all. But that’s all a bit too abstract for me to actually care about. Not that I can do anything about it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/22 "2017-03-21T14:08:07Z")
> [@XT](#): > > 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. They could have addressed two fundamental questions: is banning slavery from the territories an illegal denial of right of property in slaves; and is secession rebellion or does the federal government have to respect a state’s withdrawal from the union? Answering the first question would have either satisfied the slavery faction or at least forced them to shut up; and answering the second would either have prevented a civil war altogether or made it clear that secession wouldn’t happen without a fight. It might have forced a constitutional solution to the dispute rather than extra-constitutional action by both factions. As for how far into the future I care, I theoretically care about a lot of things but practically I’m limited to what I can do anything about. So pretty much by the end of the 21st century, posterity will be on its own. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/23 "2017-03-21T14:23:54Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > “Caring about” does not seem particularly costly. > > Would you, for example, contribute a portion of your current wealth or time to prevent that occurrence 10,000 years into the future? Yes, absolutely. On first draft I was going to mention that. If there’s anything that would make me hesitate, it would be truly convincing myself that that future event _will_ happen. As a human, “seeing is believing”. The ideal example in this context, is that I can see the impending doom, like a Majora’s Mask moon, even though I know it won’t affect me. In this situation, hells yeah I’d give my life to save the world, let alone donate a portion of my wealth. While I’m aware that not everyone thinks like this, I’m surprised that you would be incredulous that some people do. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/24 "2017-03-21T15:45:20Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > 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. The entire notion of the “selfish gene” and the gene-centric approach is that while selective pressures act on the organism, the gene and the phenotypes it develops “act” to propagate itself regardless of benefit to the host organism. Hence altruistic or even self-destructive behavior on the host which may limit its reproductive opportunities can still benefit the gene, even in competition with other genes within a species. > [@msmith537](#): > > I kind of try to just take things one day at a time. > > Sure, things like Planet X smashing into the South Pacific or the eventual evaporation of the Universe into X-Rays is disconcerting and all. But that’s all a bit too abstract for me to actually care about. Not that I can do anything about it anyway. But there are certain things we can do with reasonable effort to avert some catastrophes, and in the long term, to survive major cataclysms. But those are beyond the ability of a single individual or even a focused group; they require a coordinated effort by a major industrial power or even humanity as a whole, and we are not at all good in thinking in those terms, which is unfortunate because we are nowhere as resilient on a species level as bacteria or archaea, even though they haven’t even figured out how to make smartphones that can transmit ‘selfies’ to one another. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/25 "2017-03-21T15:54:16Z")
In all seriousness - around 10 000 years. I’m a geologist by training - anything sooner than that is the same as “right now” as far as me worrying about the effects. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/26 "2017-03-21T16:49:15Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > In all seriousness - around 10 000 years. > > I’m a geologist by training - anything sooner than that is the same as “right now” as far as me worrying about the effects. You have a future in the nuclear waste disposal industry. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/27 "2017-03-21T16:55:16Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m a geologist by training - anything sooner than that is the same as “right now” as far as me worrying about the effects. In contrast, I’m a biologist who studies predator/prey interactions. If it’s not hiding behind the next rock, it’s not on my radar. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/28 "2017-03-21T17:34:18Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > 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. > > Stranger Thanks for the clarification on the selfish gene. So would giving up cheap energy today for the sake of a better tomorrow for the race in general and my descendants in particular be a valid example of the selfish gene concept? I think the notion of being a good steward of nature has been around for a while hasn’t it? Isn’t conservation one of those things where every little bit helps? or are you saying that my efforts are so small and the effects so diffused that I cannot reasonably trace my efforts to any benefit that affect my progeny? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/29 "2017-03-21T17:36:25Z")
I think it would depend on the extent to which we can determine what the consequences of our actions will be as a function of time. The obvious candidate for long term concern is global warming. But even in this case I am depressingly pessimistic in terms of how much our actions today will influence to final outcome (not that we shouldn’t try). Sure we can work hard and cut down emissions by say 1/3, that just means that i takes us 150 years to destroy the environment instead of 100 years. Even if we massively expand alternative energy and drop emissions down to zero, fossil fuels are still going to be waiting for use under the surface and at some point in the next couple of centuries someone is going to change their mind and think its a good idea to dig it up and burn it. Here in the US we can’t keep on the same program for even 8 years before a new administration comes along and reverses everything. How are we going to keep it up for hundreds/thousands of years. This is also why I am skeptical about the so called [“long now” movement](http://longnow.org/about/). Sure it sounds great to build a clock that will tell the time for 10,000 years, but chances are, at year 553, Kanubi Yang, will decide that this location is the perfect place to build a highly profitable pleasure drome and will dismantle the whole thing auctioning off bits to wealthy collectors, or if it survives that, at year 1572 the Zolfanist cult who views artifacts of the “before time” as abominations sublimates the entire area and everything in it for the glory of Zoft. Worrying about things that far in the future makes as much sense as the Mayans worrying about how we would deal with the effects of the Y5126 bug in their calendar. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/30 "2017-03-21T18:10:54Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thanks for the clarification on the selfish gene. So would giving up cheap energy today for the sake of a better tomorrow for the race in general and my descendants in particular be a valid example of the selfish gene concept? No. “Selfish” genes don’t actually have any volition or elect to make altruistic or selfish decisions for future benefit, and in fact the metaphor of “selfishness” is really an expression of statistical benefit of selective pressures working in preference to genes which are able to result in their own propagation in a fashion seemingly contradictory to the organism that carries them. It has nothing to do with cognitive decisions to be selfish or altruistic; it’s just an _post hoc_ explanation for competition at an unconscious, stochastically determined level by units of inheritance even though evolution acts at the level of the whole organism (or its extended phenotypes, if you believe in that sort of thing). And it should be noted that the gene-centric hypothesis for selection is far from universally accepted. There are plenty of competing hypotheses for other mechanisms at the kin, group, and even species level for why individual carriers will act against their own best interests, and of course the now appreciated lateral genetic transfer of material and endosymbiotic theory which, while not contravening Darwin’s basic principle of “descent with modification” by external selective pressures, certainly makes the understanding of evolutionary pressures far more complicated than simple predator-prey and growth vs. resource limit analyses would suggest. “…giving up cheap energy today for the sake of a better tomorrow for the race in general and my descendants…” isn’t really any kind of evolutionary principle; making deliberate and informed choices based upon a projection of future impact is an aspect of cognition or the limitations thereof. Natural selection (and any associated mechanisms, including lateral genetic transfer) aren’t based on any foresight or expectation of the future; they’re just largely random changes in which the best adapted to any future environment happen to proliferate with widest. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/31 "2017-03-30T01:37:55Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > 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.) Okay, first of all, someone else has mentioned it but I’ll reaffirm as an Historian, that the folks who set up our Constitution DID purposely think into the future. They DID try to deal with the impending Civil War, which was clear WOULD happen, in a number of ways in the Constitution. All of them failed. Also, they purposely made the Constitution malleable, so as to allow future generations to make their own minds up on solutions, without having to flush the whole thing. That said, and looking at just the bolded sentence question (which seems to be the crux of this thread)… “could” and “should” are entirely unrelated things, so they ought not to be used together like this. “Could” refers to what is actually possible, while “should” is a religious or moral question unrelated to what is or isn’t possible. Answering each anyway: people CAN concern themselves as far into the future as they like. There’s no limit. But there are far too many variables in the way of human outlooks on life, to bother trying to decide how far anyone should look ahead. Some people are so now-oriented, they will (and have) killed themselves inadvertently while focused on an immediate thrill that they actively understood was potentially lethal. Some become so transfixed by the more dire predictions of the distant future, that they lose the will or desire to live at all right now. And then there are the people who simultaneously look into the future, and purposely decide NOT to do anything themselves to make things better then, on the grounds that preventing the suffering of their offspring, will result in said offspring losing the toughness they think they perceive in themselves. The “should” part of the question is mostly religious. Again, some people will look ahead and work for a better tomorrow because they believe some higher authority will reward them for doing so; at the same time, people who believe in the exact same higher authority, will REFUSE to act to prevent futures they are certain will result, because THEY are of the opinion that life is all about proving their metal to said authority, and therefore the worse the challenges of the future are, the more opportunities to struggle and prove themselves will be offered to their progeny. I suppose if you limited the exact subject under your study, you could probably work out a fairly specific time frame, depending on how well you actually understand the concerns and risks. That’s what insurance companies do, what gamblers do, and what a lot of entrepreneurs in business do most of the time. But unless you DO narrow your focus to a specific area of concern, I would say there is no rational answer to the question. JMO, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/32 "2017-03-30T03:04:23Z")
This question is like the question typically asked in job interview, “What do you plan to be doing in 5 years”. Are you going to answer that you hope to be in a lower middle management position shuffling paperwork between departments managing similar drone like people? Even if you say CEO of Acme corp, we know it is infinitely more likely that you’ll be doing the former rather than the latter. Better you’ll approach your job with enthusiasm, attempting to learn not only your job but also how it fits within the organization and affects others and how you can aid them and then do it. You will evaluate as you work within the company if it recognizes your effort and rewards you appropriately, or if not, then you will move on. Take the approach that you do the best you can today, within reason, and the future will take care of itself. This applies to anything. You know that CO2 causes global warming, so take the bus to work rather than drive your SUV with no passengers, etc. The reasonable approach is to assume that someone will eventually create a soy version of bacon that might actually taste like bacon (unfortunately given the results so far on vegetarian ‘meat’ products, I can assume two things. One, this will take hundreds of years to accomplish and two, vegetarians don’t have taste buds.) ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/33 "2017-03-30T03:45:59Z")
I’m 30 and I would more than 20 years from now does not matter to me right now. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/34 "2017-03-30T12:55:12Z")
If humans “conquer” death and physical/mental decline, that could be such a fundamental change for society and the human psyche, that my concepts of empathy would be probably be obsolete. Disregarding that, like others, I find the heat death of the universe a troubling concept. And based on my reading choices, I seem to have some interest in humans traveling to other solar systems – which might be centuries away. ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602/35 "2017-04-04T15:30:29Z")
Since the thread has kind of tilted towards time travel I would try to refrain from making any change. The seemingly small change i might be tempted to make might have an entirely horrific outcome. Even preventing a single death may unforeseeably alter the path of events, possibly even causing an earlier self made doomsday event. To borrow from the wisdom Gandalf - I would use this ability from a desire to do good… But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-distant-must-the-future-be-to-not-matter-to-you/782602.md?page=1)