• Baden
    15.6k
    Well deserved. And thanks @Tiff for flying the flag on FB. (Y)
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    @ BC -- (Y)

    As far as I'm concerned, only future intelligence matters.
  • Shevek
    42
    I don't necessarily think that the debate should hinge on the particular ontological status of whatever (if at all) a purportedly fictional or nonfictional proposition refers to. In any case, we tell ourselves stories about people fictional or otherwise in order integrate them meaningfully into a symbolic order, and these stories and what they motivate should be the focus of our line of questioning. Artworks, historical narratives, and expectations of the future all feature in the creation and reproduction of fantasies which have political and social import. They frame our conception of what is possible and order our orientation toward the world and others. It is even conceivable that we should care a great deal more for fictional characters, knowing that they will go on to play in the imagination of future generations more than some solitary individual who 'actually' lived--barring rather postmodernist concerns about the distinction in the first place.

    As far as I'm concerned, only future intelligence matters.180 Proof

    Care to elaborate? Are you insinuating that future non-intelligent life doesn't matter, and by extension intelligent life's existence does not depend on its interaction with non-intelligent life?
  • n1tr0z3n
    16
    I guess, its not even possible to answer it in literary "binary". Well the question certainly judges the empathy and morality of us. A complex answer would refer to be more logical, and a simpler positive answer would refer to be more moral. So I guess it's a amazing question to discover our morality and empathy even more along with our approach to logical thinking. Noice!

    Well, of course I don't want the future generation to go extinct, we have walked a long long path, our ancestors have sacrificed a lot. But it certainly depends on how the people around the world would possibly end up being like in about an hundred years and how society would be in that moment and bla bla bla
    Why does this question even matter much? Is this a psychopath test or something? : | Too much less info for it I guess. We certainly have bigger questions to think about. Our main concern should be "Trying to develop the world into an Utopia in a hundred years!"
  • Christoffer
    1.8k
    I care for the future and I think idiots and morons preventing progressive ideas that will be norms and standards of the future is a futile mockery of humanity. I don't wish for immortality for fear of death, but would like to live long enough to witness what we will become.

    I have hope humanity grows up, but right now, too many morons rule parts of our world. Let them die, by old age or stupidity, then the world of tomorrow belongs to the people who have gone past the ignorance of the past.

    I have no sympathy for the bullshit of the current. It collapses in on itself and then I'll just eat popcorn and wait for the next show.

    No one actually thinks about hundreds and thousands of years into the future. For most people, it's just masturbation to dive into such fantasies. A dream, something unreal. But for those who actually care about the future of humanity, it's hard not to despise the trivial behavior of humanity right now.

    In the perspective of millennia before us, how trivial everyone becomes.
  • Seditious
    17
    I wouldn't classify my interest in humanity's future as "care", so much as a distinct curiosity.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.