thought

[eor]

If we were to truly and honestly include 'future' man in our consideration of what is right, we would soon find ourselves in an untenable position. Our present society and technologies are based on the destruction of irreplaceable resources.

How do we reconcile the Golden Rule with denying countless future generations that which we, in the present, claim as indispensable? The morally lax can say it is impossible to know what future generations will want or need, so it's inappropriate to try to guess what is best for them. That's a lame dodge. A similar logic could be applied to killing the morally lax, since we can't know whether the rest of their lives would be, in balance, a good or a bad experience we should feel free to exterminate them as convenient.

The reason the question is uncomfortable is because we're pitting our short term wants against the interests of innumerable others.

It should be uncomfortable. We don't really have much of a leg to stand on.


"It's just a flesh wound!" -- The Black Knight