2 ms·
I'm definitely sympathetic to this argument, however, considered in the limit, it does become pretty absurd. How long do you want to maintain the character of t
by BreakfastB0b 5y ago
I'm definitely sympathetic to this argument, however, considered in the limit, it does become pretty absurd. How long do you want to maintain the character of the neighbourhood for? 10 years? 20? 50? 100? 500? 1000? 10,000? Such a 'character' may be a grotesque luxury that future generations simply cannot afford to keep around.
- atweiden 5y agoThen we’re essentially debating what the value is of preserving our ability to experience beauty. And what’s life without beauty?
- quantified 5y agoWhy the downvotes? This is a very useful viewpoint IMHO. The generations alive have clearly prioritized growth over many other factors. It’s hypocrisy to want to “keep the character of the neighborhood” and have more than the bare replacement number of children, since you’re creating a change in the demands on the neighborhood. Most writeups of population growth rates and the economy focus on the economic benefits of more children, not the quality of life for the future generations. Future generations will not miss a Monarch butterfly or any species of tortoise or rhino just like we don’t miss the passenger pigeon or herds of a million bison, or being able to see a Milky Way we’ve only heard about. They might, however, be a bit put off by the water quality we’ve left behind, and let’s face it, we’re not all going to see an unspoiled wilderness because there’s relatively little left. Night sky is already abuzz with satellites.