I care whether you care. But I don’t care whether the OP cares.
Because your next incarnation has to live in this world.
I don’t mean in some “transmigration of souls” sense. I mean the stuff that makes you up returns to the Earth and is used by other living things. All the matter and energy that constitutes you will still be here, recycled. That’s the one afterlife we know is real.
So why would you want you to live in a miserable world?
Why should you care about how you can extend your life?
If you are going to be dead what’s the point of having extended your life?
Another Republican joins the board.
And are you aware that a lack of procreating is actually the best thing one can do to save the planet?
I won’t be responsible for creating generations and generations of resource-consuming humans. I’m doing far less damage to the planet in the long run compared to environmentally conscious people with children.
So actually I am being very responsible to future humans, even though I don’t care about them.
It sounds like you would care about the future of humanity if you had descendants; if so, then really consider what else that implies.
[QUOTE=Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]
Your son is in a burning house. Nobody can hold you back. You may burn up, but what do you think of that? You are ready to bequeath the rags of your body to any man who will take them. You discover that what you set so much store by is trash. You would sell your hand, if need be, to give a hand to a friend. It is in your act that you exist, not in your body. Your act is yourself, and there is no other you. Your body belongs to you: it is not you.
Are you about to strike an enemy? No threat of bodily harm can hold you back. You? It is the death of your enemy that is you. You? It is the rescue of your child that is you. In that moment you exchange yourself against something else; and you have no feeling that you lost by the exchange. Your members? Tools. A tool snaps in your hand: how important is that tool? You exchange yourself against the death of your enemy, the rescue of your child, the recovery of your patient, the perfection of your theorem.
Here is a pilot of my Group, wounded and dying. A true citation in general orders would read: “Called out to his observer, ‘They’ve got me! Beat it! And for God’s sake, don’t lose those notes!’” What matters is the notes, the child, the patient, the theorem. Your true significance becomes dazzlingly evident. Your true name is duty, hatred, love, child, theorem. There is no other you than this.
[/QUOTE]
Because I don’t believe in an afterlife. So I want to keep living as long as possible since this is all there is. I eat right and exercise to increase my longevity. If immortality becomes a possibility then I’ll start recycling.
No, he seems to be an extreme egotist who doesn’t care about anything other than himself.
Every human being on this planet is related to each other, so all of those people will be your relatives to some extent. Every species on the planet is related to one another also (though there have been some claims of life independantly spontaneously generating more than once on a bacterial level for example, all vertibrates are obviously related).
Personally, I think it would be better if all humans were wiped out, that way our more distant relatives would at least stand SOME chance of surviving in the future. We could hope that some of our relatives would survive, rather than this genetic soup that is nothing like ours that is likely to survive in the future with the way things are going. And that’s if the entire world isn’t already blown apart by humans. Humans already have the potential of blowing it apart and the technology is only “advancing”. A man in Sweden made serious attempts to split an atom in his kitchen recently, give it 100 years and where will we be?
In his own way, the OP has a point. if he doesn’t plan on having children, he may have done more for the ecology than those who watch their carbon emissions and recycle newspaper.
No Qinny, this man is a nihilist. There’s nothing to be afraid of.
Not believing in an afterlife isn’t any reason to want to keep living as long as possible. I could answer the same thing to your question, because I don’t believe in the afterlife therefore only others will continue to live.
Why do you want to be alive tomorrow? Why do you want to be alive in five years? These questions are the same as the question you ask in your title… why should you care about future people on this planet. Because it’s just instinctive to care about other people just like it is to care about yourself.
The idea of the instinctively selfish individual is a medieval one propagated by the catholic church and other people in power. It’s true that given a really harsh environment people look after themselves first, but it’s not true that they don’t care about others at all.
Instead of chastizing OP or getting too annoyed with him, maybe we should consider that a lot of the people in Washington and other places think along these lines, whether consciously or subconsciously. Mortgages have to be paid, god forbid they would lose one of their holiday homes, god forbid they wouldn’t be able to afford to show off to a hot lady with their cash, they can get under extreme pressure. What happens after they die can seem vague, they tend to gloss over it, to push it under the carpet. We aren’t very well equipped to deal with such issues since they never formed a part of our evolutionary past.
“Being green” can, under some circumstances, save money. So there’s that.
I don’t think nihilists are required to lack empathy. But that’s just like, my opinion, man.
Why care about the planet though? If everyone stopped procreating human suffering could be wiped out forever. But you wouldn’t care about that either.
I take it, then Nonentity, that you are not going to address any of the arguments set before you?
Or, in other words, a Republican 
That is what I said.
You may wish to do some reading on the stages of moral development. Perhaps it can shed some light on why you care a lot about some things, and little about other things; while most people would not see the world in the same way you do.
Link. Basically, as people’s understanding of the world grows, they view moral questions through different lenses. The most primitive levels of reasoning tend to focus on “whatever is best for me is best for the world.” The higher, more astute levels of moral reasoning involve principles, an understanding of the importance of society, and the consequences of one’s actions.
If one understands the nature of principles such as the importance of society, the value of life, the value of doing good, and the importance of justice, the need to help make a better world becomes obvious (whether it is contributing value to society, raising children well, or slowing environmental destruction).
Unfortunately, if one cannot grasp the importance of society, justice, and being good, I’m not sure anyone can force you to understand these principles, even as they apply to rather straightforward matters of ending the dumping of toxic chemicals into rivers. You just might want to embark on some philosophical exploration to help realize that you aren’t the only thing of value in the universe.
None of the arguments makes sense to me. How can I be a bad person for not caring about humans that don’t exist?
Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it’s an ethos.