I don't think that's the knock-down argument people think
Spotted in passing on Twitter the other day, that cri de coeur vis-a-vis climate change and Saving The Planet, which was more or less, 'Why do those selfish boomers not think about the world they are leaving for their children and grandchildren and subsequent generations? Surely this must move their hardened hearts?'
(Never mind those Boomers who have been aware of environmental issues anytime this past, oh, half-century at least, and may have considered their contribution to be, e.g. not having future generations...)
I think I have perorated before about the dubious logic of supposing that having a DNA investment in The Future leads people in the present to lines of action aimed at the common good. Rather than, very likely, ensuring that the carriers of their DNA have theirs carefully secured in underground bunkers or seasteadings or on Mars.
I am particularly moved to this thought by contemplating such early radiant lights of concern for the environment as the recently mentioned here Octavia Hill or Edward Carpenter who were more interested in the passing on of ideals than genetic material: I particularly like Octavia's "When I am gone, I hope my friends will not try to carry out any special system, or to follow blindly in the track which I have trodden. New circumstances require various efforts, and it is the spirit, not the dead form, that should be perpetuated. ... We shall leave them a few houses, purified and improved, a few new and better ones built, a certain amount of thoughtful and loving management, a few open spaces..." But, she said, more important would be "the quick eye to see, the true soul to measure, the large hope to grasp the mighty issues of the new and better days to come - greater ideals, greater hope, and patience to realize both.
This entry was originally posted at https://oursin.dreamwidth.org/3290181.html. Please comment there using OpenID. View
comments.