Pretorian wrote:well apparently my happiness wasnt the main concern of that action. You know, you cant make everybody happy, much less those who will be born 100s of years from now.
True, your happiness wasn't the main concern of that action, but it will certainly affect your happiness nonetheless.
Pretorian wrote:As I see we are going to talk about rights of invisible men again.Ok, before we start, let me ask you this: what makes you ( or your friends from the future) so special that little green frogs in Brazil have to die so you will be well-fed. What about those little green frogs that could be born 10, 100 years from now. Are you more special then them too?
And you are talking about the rights of invisible green frogs.
Those little green frogs of the future are neither more nor less special than the humans of the future (or humans of the present). So, we are down to 2 options:
#1. Place primary importance on invisible green frogs of the future, or:
#2. Place primary importance on invisible humans of the future.
It is understood that neither is more or less special than the other. It is also understood that the very long-term, cosmic consequences of the extinction of either or both is nill, and that the extinction of both species is inevitable. That is, neither species needs to be saved for any long-term, cosmic need. (Footnote: Actually, a case for the long-term, cosmic-importance of human beings can be made invoking the Strong Anthropic Principle
, but that is still speculative at this point so I will ignore it for this discussion).
Now, if I was one of those little green frogs, I would of course consider #1 to be more important. After all, I would merely be looking out for my own species. But, alas, I am not one of those little green frogs. So, naturally, I am going to place more importance on #2. I'm merely looking out for my own species, after all.
A counter-argument is that humans are special because we have so much power, while little green frogs are powerless. So why should we abuse our power and destroy their habitat for our own needs? My answer to that is, if the roles were reversed and green frogs were more powerful than us, they would do the same to us.
Since the long-term, cosmic implications of destroying the habitat of the little green frogs is inconsequential, and in the meantime, since it is "natural" for one to look out for one's own species, there is nothing "wrong" with sacrificing some of the habitat of the little green frogs. If they were in our shoes, they would do it to us.
Now, I have no problem with setting aside nature preserves and such to save *some* of their habitat out of the goodness of our hearts. As I said before, I like nature and wilderness as much as anyone else. But I do not elevate it to some "sacred" status where it needs to be preserved at any expense. Ultimately it does not matter, so I see no reason why at least some of it cannot be used for our own needs.
Ludi wrote:Why are the imaginary people of the future more special than the people who already live in the cerrado?
38 indigenous groups live in the cerrado, 3 of these groups are facing extinction. Why are these people less special than people who don't exist? Are they in the "etc" category like the Native Americans of the North American prairies?
Believe it or not, I work for an Indian tribe. And I can think of very few who would prefer to live the way of their ancestors 150-200 years ago rather than the way they live today.
In the meantime, the numbers of those indigenous groups facing extinction are very small. But the land they live on could feed many many millions.
Ancient Vulcan saying: "It is logical: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the one."