In the long term, we are all dead...

[2ndRateMind]

...Should politics therefore confine itself...

...To the comforts and concerns of the living?

Or do we owe some kind of obligation to our descendants?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

Or do we owe some kind of obligation to our descendants?

My personal opinion is that if a person participates in procreation then they most certainly do have an obligation to their childern's future.

If a person chooses not to procreate then they have no obligation to the future of humanity.

Also, if a person chooses to not procreate they can still contribute to the future of humanity even though they have no obligation to do so.

I chose to not procreate, therefore I have no obligation to the future generations of humanity. None the less I have contributed toward the future of humanity anyway and will continue to do so simply because I feel like being altruistic in that regard.

But am I obligated? No, definitely not.

But if I had created children then I would be obligated.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Interesting. I think I probably don't have any children, either, though I can't be sure of that (misspent youth, etc).

Nevertheless, I kind of like the grand idea of the human family, 'the brotherhood of man', and presumably equally the sisterhood of women, stretching across geography and down the ages. I'd kind of like to think that their impact on future generations was a valid consideration in the decision making process of any voter, however chaste they might be.

As an interesting aside, it seems that the Vatican officials, allegedly as chaste as any selection of saints, pride themselves in planning over centuries and for centuries to come, the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church, for (as they see it) the benefit of humanity. And thus far it seems to have worked; the Christian communion remains, squabbling amongst it's separate factions, maybe, but nevertheless vibrant.

I can't help but think that if this time span perspective were universally adopted amongst our various political leaderships, be they barren or fecund, we might all stand a reasonable chance of bequeathing a legacy worth inheriting.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

As an interesting aside, it seems that the Vatican officials, allegedly as chaste as any selection of saints, pride themselves in planning over centuries and for centuries to come, the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church, for (as they see it) the benefit of humanity. And thus far it seems to have worked; the Christian communion remains, squabbling amongst it's separate factions, maybe, but nevertheless vibrant.

You need to be careful here when talking about what has "benefited" humanity.

Keep in mind that Catholicism (and Christianity in general) believes they are offering something to people that's real. In other words, they believe they are helping to save souls from damnation and bringing people closer to a God.

But what if the God they believe in doesn't exist? That being the case are they actually benefiting anyone? I don't think so. At that point all they would be doing is running a delusional scam that doesn't benefit humanity at all. In fact, it could be holding humanity back by convincing people that some God is going to take care of things instead of us. This would cause many people to think that they don't need to contribute to the betterment of humanity because they can just "Trust in God" to do it.

So you need to be real careful when talking about benefiting humanity.

If there's no true benefit there, then it's a false delusion that could actually be harming humanity in the long haul.

Good intentions don't guarantee any actual benefits to humanity.

Causing people to believe that some imaginary God that doesn't exist "has a plan", can actually cause a lot of people who might otherwise have something worthwhile to contribute to not bother since they have been convinced by the Church that "God Has a plan", when in fact, there is no God and no plan.

Is there any benefit in that? I think not.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Whether the RCC benefits humanity or not is not my substantial point. The important issue in this context, for me, is that it is an entity that has persisted over many generations to provide (what it sees as) a benefit. And that were our politicians as similarly foresighted and farseeing, we might be able to provide a better future for our children, and theirs, to look forward to.

The problem is, of course, the 4 year (typically) election cycle. The ambition of most politicians is simply to get re-elected, which means making maximum short term impact amongst their most sympathetic electorate, and never mind those whose votes don't matter, they not being in swing constituencies, or likely to vote, or committed to another party, or not yet born or come of age.

I am not convinced this is a wise way to run a nation state, for us, or for future generations. That said, I am not persuaded that an appointed patriarchal power structure is altogether better, either. Something midway between the two might serve well, though. Something that combines democratic accountability with a long term, sweeping view of history and our possible futures. But that, of course, would equally demand a wise, patient and far-sighted electorate.

Other suggestions welcome.

Best wishes, 2RM.