Excellent points. You brought up the idea that saving for the benefit of our future selves or our inheritors is silly, since accelerating technology will solve everything ...
I did not mean to imply that at all.
I am in favor of sustaining and preserving the earth (for the most part), I just think we should do it for the practical benefits to humans (such as our grandchildren) rather than for the supposed "benefit" of inanimate matter as the ecocentrists believe. I can see how some of the things I wrote in this post give the impression that I was more opposed to preservation in general. It's more that I don't think preservation should be the default attitude or be considered an intrinsic good... it should only be a goal if it can be shown to be likely to increase the happiness of future generations. And I think people have done a decent job of showing that. The sad thing is that the deep ecologists undermine the whole thing by adding so nuch religious superstition to it.
Re: Long Term View
You brought up the idea that saving for the benefit of our future selves or our inheritors is silly, since accelerating technology will solve everything ...
I did not mean to imply that at all.
I am in favor of sustaining and preserving the earth (for the most part), I just think we should do it for the practical benefits to humans (such as our grandchildren) rather than for the supposed "benefit" of inanimate matter as the ecocentrists believe. I can see how some of the things I wrote in this post give the impression that I was more opposed to preservation in general. It's more that I don't think preservation should be the default attitude or be considered an intrinsic good... it should only be a goal if it can be shown to be likely to increase the happiness of future generations. And I think people have done a decent job of showing that. The sad thing is that the deep ecologists undermine the whole thing by adding so nuch religious superstition to it.