It's not really a Yes/No question is it? I mean I care a bit about how my actions might affect people in the future, but not very much.

I added another option.

Great, I voted again. What about you?

I care about some human beings...

Do you care about what will happen to human beings in a hundred, thousand, or million years? — jamalrob

I care in the sense that I'm interested, but that's down to curiosity. I don't care much, in terms of empathy, for the subsequent generations of people that might exist in the distant future. Should I?

Sap, how do you quote people like that? Share your wisdom.

I do care about human beings into the future, the farther out, the less I care. I have kids, you see, and I actually do care what happens to them and my grandkids once I have them. It's understandable that Benkei might care less about the future based upon his avatar that shows him to be a scraggly hippy downing a beer with his kid in his lap. It's hard to care about tomorrow when you've given up on today.

Carrots,
G

Hanover, how far into the future does your concern with the fruit of your loins extend?

12 inches.

And you thought I couldn't bring it down a notch.

It's hard to say, definitely my kids and grandkids because they are either in the present or in my lifetime, but I'll admit it gets less as you move out in time. It's the same geographically. I care about what happens to me and my neighbors more than those more distant from me, like, Canada, or somewhere stupid like that.

The 'human race', eh?



I suppose I can when I'm really really bored or lose my patience.

I try not to care too much, as I would then make proclamation of answers and tell 'em all what to do for their own good or else.

As for how my actions effect humans in 1 year or 10 years or 100 years or longer... gee whiz!

How the heck should I know how and if I'd effect them?

I'm just one of a whole host of variables. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I really MATTER.

Oh well...

... I guess others have different hobbies and degrees of taking those hobbies seriously... for themselves and others.

I try not to be that serious.

Meow!

GREG

Sap, how do you quote people like that? Share your wisdom.

I do care about human beings into the future, the farther out, the less I care. I have kids, you see, and I actually do care what happens to them and my grandkids once I have them. It's understandable that Benkei might care less about the future based upon his avatar that shows him to be a scraggly hippy downing a beer with his kid in his lap. It's hard to care about tomorrow when you've given up on today.

Carrots,
G — Hanover

Oh, G, you do make me laugh! To quote, you highlight the text and a 'quote' button should appear. Click it, and it sets up a quoted reply for you.

Aubergine,
S

Seeing as the question presumes these humans will exist, it doesn't seem much different to asking whether or not we care about the fate of present human beings we don't know and whose lives don't intersect with ours in any way. Suppose there is a tribe of humans in a rain forest somewhere we discover by satellite photography but we have no contact with. Do we care what happens to them? Does it matter how out actions affect them? I would say sure, why not? Same goes for future human beings.

And is optimism aligned with such a concern, whereas pessimism is associated with a lack of it—or vice versa? — jamalrob

I don't see this as being relevant unless the pessimism involves presuming we turn into a race of worthless individuals undeserving of pity.

It's a question that accompanies the global warming issue. We don't have any means for planning much beyond a hundred years. We've just never had to do it.

In some cultures an ancestral continuum is perceived. I think it's sort of like: imagine looking into a mirror and grasping that you are looking into the eyes of your ancestors. In your heart, you should know that they bless you. If you can feel that, then you know you bless your own descendants.

Me.. I love future humans. Is there some action I could take to help them? I don't know. There are too many variables. I find I have a certain amount of faith in them, though.

I have an interest in future human beings. I truly hope we go on living as a species for a long time to come, and continue to learn and expand the borders of knowledge.

Will we? I would assume so. Global Warming is going to be a really rough thing to deal with, but I feel like there is just too many of us to go extinct, at least from that dilemma. That does not mean it should be ignored, we should do things in the present to alleviate the problem.

As far as what we can do as individuals to make the lives of future humans more enjoyable, I would say the only thing we can do is live as ethically, and expand the limits of human understanding as much as we can.

Of all the responses so far yours comes closest to my own feelings about this. Whether this is seen as old-fashioned, grandiose, naive, Eurocentric, Hegelian, utopian, golden age sci-fi, or as a quasi-religious Freudian displacement mechanism, I can't help but think of myself as part of a spectacular project, the project of humanity and its quest for freedom and new horizons. This is what motivates my interest in philosophy and politics. The story of human beings as a whole is for me what lies behind the greatest thought, the greatest art and the greatest strides in improving people's lives. This is why I care, because I feel like I'm part of it.

But like @Sapientia above I wouldn't say it's an empathy for future individual human beings. Maybe I'm a bit like this:

Don't we appreciate individuals and loathe groups as a rule? Many studies have been done that 'prove' this effect. It becomes easier disliking (including all negative behaviours) groups because people categorize them.

The mass becomes a faceless blob, whereas, an individual stands out, therefore, we are able to connect or empathize better with them. It's a heavily used technique in journalism and literature. Character building and portrayal. Gets tricky when dealing with a large quantity.

Incidentally, it's also the reason it's easier to drop (cluster) bombs on people from the sky rather than face them in ground combat. Faceless mass + removal of intimate portrayal and contact aka the trolley problem.

The best possible future for humanity, in my view, is one where we collectively agree to cease reproduction and live our lives for as long as we desire to. We would be abstaining from forcing people into existence while pursuing our dreams for as long as we can sustain them.

I voted "not at all".

"Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with.

May not the space between heaven and earth be compared to a bellows?'Tis emptied, yet it loses not its power; 'Tis moved again, and sends forth air the more.
Much speech to swift exhaustion lead we see;
Your inner being guard, and keep it free."
-Laozi, "Daodejing", Legge translation, chapter 5.
http://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing05.php

I voted no, but I guess it depends on how well we tell their story.
Any individuals who exist long into the future are fictions to us. We cannot actually refer to them (as beings), any image I create or story I make up remains just a story. We can care about them in the same way that we can care about the characters in Harry Potter.
So all that's left is the empathy caused by the fictions of my imagination or this idea of humanity. And I don't really have any major dreams for humanity.

Well, they're similar to fiction, and we could treat them as such, but they're not quite the same. All things being equal, Frodo, by virtue of being a fictional character, will never actually exist in our world. Whereas there's a possibility that these distant future generations will actually come to be in our world. It is for this reason that I voted for 'a bit' rather than 'no, not at all'.

That said, we don't care - at the time - about that of which we're not conscious. When I read 'The Lord of The Rings' trilogy, I cared more about Frodo than about the possibility of distant future generations.

Yeh it's a little weird because someone will exist but any individual that we think of won't, they must necessarily be a fiction. I'm kind of riffing off Putnam here:

An ant is crawling on a patch of sand. As it crawls, it traces a line in the sand. By pure chance the line that it traces curves and recrosses itself in such a way that it ends up looking like a recognizable caricature of Winston Churchill. Has the ant traced a picture of Winston Churchill, a picture that depicts Churchill?

Most people would say, on a little reflection, that it has not. The ant, after all, has never seen Churchill, Or even a picture of Churchill, arid it had no intention of depicting Churchill. It simply traced a line (and even that was unintentional), a line that we can 'see as' a picture of Churchill. — Putnam

Even if we imagine someone in a detailed way and build up a view of their lives, then someone who fits the exact description comes into existence 100 years later. Our thoughts can not have been referring to them and any empathy we have felt could not have been directed at them.

But I can both think about and direct my empathy toward fictional characters, can't I? Isn't that one of the very things that makes reading fictional stories so compelling? I think the problem with Putnam's argument is that whether or not the line traced in the sand depicts Churchill is not entirely (or even at all) determined by whether or not the ant intended it to be such a depiction, because it is at least partly dependent on the subjective evaluation of other creatures. Abstract art functions on pretty much exactly this possibility.

In any event, I answered "yes", mostly because I can see how the decisions of my predecessors have both enriched and degraded the world I currently find myself in, and also how those decisions have impacted my own life for both the better and the worse. So in other words, precisely on the basis of my empathy for the denizens of future generations.

@Shmik I wonder about this proposed equivalence of fictional characters and future humans. Though I may care in some sense about fictional characters, I would feel no moral responsibility whatsoever in doing something to damage the prospects of a fictional character. For example, suggesting that a writer kill one off. I do on the other hand feel at least some moral responsibility for actions I take that may affect future generations. In that sense such individuals are more real to me. Or to put it another way, suppose someone said to you that you could do something to prevent some terrible outcome, such as a massive famine, afflicting future generations, would you not feel some moral responsibility to act that is distinct from anything you would feel about being asked to convince an author of fiction not to inflict a similar catastrophe on an imaginary population? In fact, isn't it quite normal and acceptable to wish for such disasters in fiction when they enliven the narrative? Whereas to wish for human disaster whether now or in the future seems perverse.

Do you care about what will happen to human beings in a hundred, thousand, or million years? — jamalrob

I selected "not at all", and although I have some buyer's remorse for that selection, I will nevertheless stand by it. My concern lessens with time and I would say looking beyond my lifetime it would be negligible. I don't hold a special place for humans per se in my deliberations. It would be a shame for life to be extinguished, but particular species are just winners of an evolutionary game of chance.

I think the problem with Putnam's argument is that whether or not the line traced in the sand depicts Churchill is not entirely (or even at all) determined by whether or not the ant intended it to be such a depiction, because it is at least partly dependent on the subjective evaluation of other creatures. Abstract art functions on pretty much exactly this possibility. — Aaron R

Hey AaronR, Putnams point is about reference. He thinks that there needs to be the correct causal connection between the picture and Churchill such that for the picture to refer to Churchill, Churchill's existence itself must have had some influence. A closer example to what we are talking about could be if I write a book with characters that were supposed to exist 100 years from now. In 105 years time Jason finds the book and thinks 'this is an exact description of my mate John'. He may present the book to John as a book about him, but after they check the author, shmik (2015) they'll likely conclude that the book can't be referring to John, because the author never knew (of) John i.e there was no causal connection between John's existence and the words in the book.
I'm sure as with your art examples there are some literary theories which would hold that the book is referring to John but I doubt any of them would hold that I, the author was referring to John when I wrote the book.

But I can both think about and direct my empathy toward fictional characters, can't I? Isn't that one of the very things that makes reading fictional stories so compelling? — Aaron R

The problem is not that these individuals in the future literally are fictional characters rather that we cannot refer to them. So when think we are talking about them (as individuals) we are really just talking about and feeling empathy towards fictional characters, as we fail to refer.

Hey @Baden yeh I agree there is a problem with my view, because I would definitely feel responsibility to prevent a future famine if I was placed in a position of power over the situation. Part of it is that we think we are referring to future individuals but we aren't. And as mentioned above there's some tension because I don't actually think that there will be no real people in future generations rather that we can't feel empathy towards them. Empathy requires stories about individuals but these stories will be fictions. Not sure how to resolve it.

The problem is not that these individuals in the future literally are fictional characters rather that we cannot refer to them. So when think we are talking about them (as individuals) we are really just talking about and feeling empathy towards fictional characters, as we fail to refer. — shmik

In your initial post you had stated in reference to the actual denizens of future generations that "we cannot actually refer to them (as beings)...we can care about them in the same way that we can care about the characters in Harry Potter". I think it is interesting to consider whether, in order for your statements to be true, they must not do the very thing they claim to be impossible, namely, refer to the set of actual individuals that our statements allegedly cannot refer to.

Leaving that quandry aside, I would take issue with the claim that we can care about future individuals only in the way that we can care about Harry Potter. In the spirit of responses already given by both @Baden and @Sapientia, I would argue that the main difference is that I can take actions today that have causal implications for the well-being of the denizens of future generations in a way that is obviously not possible with respect to fictional characters like Harry Potter (and therefore we might also feel responsible for what happens to those individuals in a way we wouldn't with respect to fictional characters).

Consider the case of the billionaire mogul who grew up poor and in the midst of extreme harship. Despite the adversity he managed to graduate high-school with honors, attend a public university on full scholarship and found a company that he sold 25 years later for a sum or $25 billion. Despite his success he feels extreme empathy toward those raised circumstances similar to those in which he was raised, and as a result he sets up a private foundation in his home town on the basis of an initial donation worth $1 billion. Any young person who graduates in good-standing from any public high school within the limits of that town will be eligible to recieve a full-ride scholarship to any public, in-State university of their choice. With proper investment and stuardship, the donation upon which the foundation was established should never become depleted.

We can't do that kind of thing for Harry Potter. I would say there is a legitimate sense in which this man's empathy is directed at the actual denizens of future generations, despite the fact that he will never meet the vast majority of them, will never know any of the details of their particular stories and may even be long-dead by the time most of them recieve their scholarships. That's because the establishment of his foundation is also the establishment of a causal relationship between himself and every actual student that eventually receives money from that grant, and I would argue that this is what both constitutes the difference between our empathy toward fictional and future individuals, and also allows for the possibility that our empathy and our thoughts might, in some sense, legitimately refer to the latter.

Hey , sorry for the late reply I've been spending too much time here procrastinating so cutting down a little until after my exams.
If I knew the language of my initial post would have caused as much discussion I would have been more careful with the wording.

In your initial post you had stated in reference to the actual denizens of future generations that "we cannot actually refer to them (as beings)...we can care about them in the same way that we can care about the characters in Harry Potter". I think it is interesting to consider whether, in order for your statements to be true, they must not do the very thing they claim to be impossible, namely, refer to the set of actual individuals that our statements allegedly cannot refer to. — Aaron R

Yes there is an issue here and I'm not sure how to deal with it. For instance I don't think there is a problem with saying that 'the population of Australia will be under 10 million people in the year 2115'.

I think it's likely that we can care about the situation but not about the people involved in it.

I would argue that the main difference is that I can take actions today that have causal implications for the well-being of the denizens of future generations in a way that is obviously not possible with respect to fictional characters like Harry Potter (and therefore we might also feel responsible for what happens to those individuals in a way we wouldn't with respect to fictional characters). — Aaron R

I agree that we don't care about them in the exact same way that we care about fictional character from Harry Potter. When I wrote that I was anticipating the response 'if they are fictional how can we care about them'. A much closer comparison would be if I told you a news story. I show a picture and tell you about a child that was forced into marriage at the age of 11. The Husband was alcoholic and abusive etc. We can feel empathetic towards this child even if unknown to us the news story is a complete fiction, something I just made up. We think we are feeling empathetic to an actual person but we are not.
This is also something we cannot do for HP even though it is also fictional. I understand that this example is different from yours in that we cannot change the situation but I don't think that's critical. My general hypothesis that I am working with here is that in order to feel empathetic towards people we need to have some contact with them or be told a story about them. I'm not sure if you find that to be the case with yourself. The second part is to say that whatever story we tell ourselves about the individuals existing in 100 years time is fictional.

If you think that we don't need a story in order to feel empathy towards people then my logic fails. And I really don't think your millionaire can care about the person who receives his money.

I think it's an issue of gradation on a double level. There is a spectrum of empathy that traverses the range from subjects we know nothing about to those we hear stories about whether those subjects are fictional or not (and your news story illustrates this well). There is also, however, another spectrum of empathy that runs parallel and that is based on how real the subject of consideration is whether we hear stories about them or not. So, we tend to empathize more with those who are closer to us in terms of physical distance and time than with those who are further away even if we are not told stories about them. When these two levels of consideration intertwine in the cases of potential future humans and emotive news stories about fictional people, you get interesting results, but I think interpreting them only in terms of stories is to miss the other level of explanation. So, I think we don't necessarily need much of a story about a subject to feel empathy, but if we don't have one, we at least need to know they are real in some sense. That is to say, as potential human beings can be considered more real than fictional characters (for reason outlined earlier in the thread) the support of a story is not crucial in empathizing with the former whereas it is indispensable in the case of the latter. .

I care about future generations, even though I haven't done a damn thing to provide my own share of progeny. (Gay boys generally don't.) But still, I feel like a part of the on-going process of human life--our cultures, our aspirations, our nightmares, our tragedies and our totally asinine comedies. It is our duty to deliver a world to future generations. That's really all we can do. Preserve this one and hand it off to the next batch.

There is a great book about this question: Earth Abides by George R. Stewart; 1939. A young man on a hike becomes extremely ill in a cabin and wakes up sometime later (a week or so). He drives back toward Oakland where he and his parents live, but soon notices there is no traffic. No people in small towns. He finds a copy of "the last San Francisco Examiner" (reduced to one page) from which he learns that most of the world's people have died from a plague. He finds a few people who survived, and they form a little community of maybe 10 people.

The young man grows old. He tries to teach the young, but succeeds mostly in teaching the young people how to make and use bows and arrows, more as a game. It's something he can give the future. The community flourishes, but gradually reverts to a more primitive way of life. The young are not interested in learning to read, and eventually they give up on guns too, and find bows and arrows work better (they can make them themselves). It appears that life will go on.

We can't do much for the future beyond not wrecking the present.

A portion of your reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution BitterCrank!