Hacker News Reader

Comment by CzechTech | Hacker News Reader

Here's a question: What if I don't care about "future generations"?

A species that destroys its habitat will go extinct.

So I guess we’ll see if natural selection removes people like you from the gene pool so the species itself can continue to evolve or if the dynamics are too extreme and this is part of the great filter.

> natural selection removes people like you

natural selection pressure the species whole, what survives next is just those that were somehow more adapt to the new environment, it doesn't carry any punitive or karmatic meaning.

it might very well be that psychopaths will be the one surviving the first aftermath by virtue of their selfishness

That's the problem. Generally there are selective pressures against excessively selfish behavior but since climate change is relatively slow and distributed I'm not sure if that will apply in this case.

Maybe in this case selection pressure applies to entire species or planets and is one of the reasons we haven't detected any signs of intelligent life outside the solar system?

In that case, the chances of your genes, ideology, etc. surviving is pretty slim compared to those who do care.

It's not that not caring is "wrong", it just has a lower chance of beating natural selection.

> It's not that not caring is "wrong"

Er, actually that's just it. It's (to put it mildly) eccentric to think otherwise.

Most people alive have children or descendants, and therefore have an incentive to care. You're in the minority.

Not a problem at all. Just admit it so we can be honest about where your arguments come from.

I notice this quite often - people will be arguing completely logically but from a axiomatic starting point that I (and probably most people) would find abhorrent or misinformed.

They will obscure the axioms they're arguing from so as to not get immediately dismissed, and instead just look rational at a glance and intellectually dishonest when you ask too many questions or read too carefully.

Props to CzechTech for being upfront at least.

Admitting sociopathy (outside of financial & real estate circles) is generally a losing strategy.

I agree with you. I am 50, no children.

I have spent last 10 years travelling, sailing the ocean, hiking in jungles, diving in the reefs that would be extinct soon. I live in a climate where some moderate warming will make more pleasant.

I do not care what will happen beyond 20 years ahead. Maybe even less.

So why would I inconvinience myself? Why worry? People will get exactly what they deserve.

On the other hand somehow it doesn't seem right.

"People will get exactly what they deserve". What have children born today done to "deserve" the devastating consequences that are going to unfold? Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless.

> Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless.

Perhaps but I haven't seen any of my middle class friends taking their children to school on a bike or by public transport. And when I point that it is possible it is always "Meh, it is more convinient in my car and I am above that".

If people with children do not care why should I?

Caring about children isn't about arguing from premises. Indeed if someone claims to need an argument to care about children, it's a pretty good prima facie case for the existence of a psychological disorder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com