The world after
On the axis: Future generations · the people of the future
Our choices impoverish the distant world, but also decide who will be born into it: those people would not exist under a different policy. Can we harm them, if none of them is worse off than they would otherwise have been, having never existed otherwise?
This problem is brought out by the thought experiment The world after:
Two policies lie open to us. One spares resources; the other uses them up for immediate comfort and will leave, three centuries hence, an impoverished world. But there is a subtlety: depending on the policy chosen, daily life, jobs and migrations will differ, so that different couples will meet and different children will be born. The people who will inhabit the impoverished world thus owe it their very existence: under the other policy they would never have been born, and others would live in their place. Their lives, though harder, are worth living. Can we then say we have harmed them, since none of them is worse off than they would otherwise have been?
Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (1984)
Our choices impoverish the future world, but also decide who will be born into it. Those people would not exist without us: are we wronging them?
Your choice above is recorded in your profile. See my profile →
Anchors: Parfit