What We Owe The Future: Difference between revisions

What We Owe The Future (view source)

Revision as of 08:40, 7 December 2022

182 bytes added , 7 December 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,063

edits

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 The idea chimes for a moment and then falls apart. For this is to see our ''present'' existence as no more than the task of cranking the ''right'' handle on the cosmic machine, to vouchsafe a calculable outcome for someone else. We are but set builders, moving quietly about a dark theatre. As long as we do as bidden, on time, all will be well and performers will shine. Our role is barely worth a mention in the final credits.
-But we are not Sisyphus. We have our own [[lived experience]] to think about. It does not follow, ''[[a priori]]'' that we are bound to practise Calvinist forbearance for the sake of unspecified descendants.
+But we are not Sisyphus. We have our own [[lived experience]]s to think about. It does not follow, ''[[a priori]]'' that we are bound to practise forbearance for the sake of generations unimagined.
-Indeed, ''[[a priori]]'', it presents a paradox. For every step we take, the future keeps retreating. Who get to be the players to shine upon our set? As each generation rolls around, won’t the calculus be just the same for them? Won’t every  to have to selflessly crank the cosmic machine for the better life of someone even ''further'' down the line? Who gets to enjoy all this self-restraint?
+Indeed, ''[[a priori]]'', it presents a [[paradox]]: for every step we take, the future keeps retreating. Who get to be the players to shine upon our set? As each generation rolls around, won’t the dismal calculus that applied to us be just the same for them? Who gets to enjoy all this self-restraint? Isn’t each generation just as relatively unimportant as the last?
-But it is nothing of the sort. This is as misconceived as is [[Richard Dawkins]]’ idea that a fielder does, or even ''could'', functionally calculate differential equations to catch a ball.
+This idea of iteration should give a clue. the future is not dependent on a single collective decision a generation makes now, but upon an impossibly complex array of microdecisions made by individuals and groups, every moment throughout space-time. This is as misconceived as is [[Richard Dawkins]]’ idea that a fielder does, or even ''could'', functionally calculate differential equations to catch a ball.
 The thought experiment betrays is an unflinchingly deterministic world-view: the universe is a clockwork machine to be set and configured. Take readings, perform calculations, twiddle dials, progress to the designated place, hold out your hand at the appointed time and the ball will drop into it.