You’re following the same train of thought that justifies a lot of the rich futurists’ actions. It’s objectively better to help 20 million people down the line even if it costs 1 million lives today, right? I mean, net 19 million. To me, that’s simple.
No, because rich futurists base their actions solely on the belief in a subjective theory. There are many ways to achieve what they’re after, and many of those ways do not require anyone’s hurt.
The subjective theory that there will be a future? Or their subjective theory on what to do about it, which you are pitting against your own subjective theory on what to do about it? What is objective about your claim that there are many ways to help as many people as possible that don’t involve any hardships?
You’re following the same train of thought that justifies a lot of the rich futurists’ actions. It’s objectively better to help 20 million people down the line even if it costs 1 million lives today, right? I mean, net 19 million. To me, that’s simple.
No, because rich futurists base their actions solely on the belief in a subjective theory. There are many ways to achieve what they’re after, and many of those ways do not require anyone’s hurt.
The subjective theory that there will be a future? Or their subjective theory on what to do about it, which you are pitting against your own subjective theory on what to do about it? What is objective about your claim that there are many ways to help as many people as possible that don’t involve any hardships?
Let’s backtrack a bit: what do you mean by “rich futurists”, because - apparently - it’s not what I mean.