Looking Forward to the Future People

    Some say it might be better off to not have future people than to have the future people living a low quality life. Our decisions today directly correlate to these outcomes. Should we feel bad or immoral for making a decision that leads to a lower quality life in the future if it's at the expense of not having a life at all? These hypothetical questions are ideas that need to be thought about now more than ever because of the rapid increase in global warming. Could the increase in global warming make the quality of life so poor that it would have been better off not even being born?

    In Derek Parfit's essay "Energy Policy and the Further Future: The Identity Problem" he walks through several scenarios that impact future generations. Parfit gives a relatively short term example where a 14 year old girl is deciding whether to have a baby or not, the outcome of having a baby would mean that her life would be more difficult and the babies life might not be as good as it could have been if the baby was born 10 or 20 years in the future so she could be a better mother. The problem with this is that in 10 or 20 years it might not be the "same" baby which is where the identity problem comes in. Also, is it better off for the baby to not live at all or to have a potentially lower quality life? Parfit also gives an example of a choice between two energy policies and the outcomes. One of the choices was risky and the outcomes are a higher quality of life and then 200 years down the line a catastrophic event happens that effects thousands of people. The other choice was a slightly lower quality of life but there was no catastrophic event. When you are faced with questions like this you really have to think about who you are impacting and if you are morally able to cope with the decision you make.

    I believe that you should not worry about what something could have been or what it will be like 200 years from now because anything can happen that can impact that choice you made. Say the 14 year old girl chose not to have a baby, some people would say she negatively effected that child by not having it. I disagree with this because that child was never actually a thing. I also believe that every choice you make impacts the future and how life plays out. In my personal life I was faced with the decision of transferring to Siena or staying at my previous college in South Carolina. If I were to stay in South Carolina my future would have been completely different, I probably would have lived down there for the rest of my life and had a completely different wife and kids then I will here. My decision to come to Siena does not make me sad because I never had the "wife and kids" in South Carolina just like the 14 year old girl should not be sad if she chooses not to have a baby because it does not actually effect the baby since it was never a thing. 

    The difference between the 14 year old girl and the energy policy is that the energy policy could have a massive impact on thousands of people. This would be a much more difficult choice to make. We are faced with a similar situation in real life due to climate change. Scientists believe that the world could be on fire fairly soon and change needs to happen now if there is any hope. You have to think about what the goal is when making these decisions; I would think the best decision would be surviving with a high quality of life, but if that is not an option anymore would it be better to survive with a low quality of life or just cease to exist? I think you have to choose life because as long as humans are living I believe there is always a possibility of increasing the quality of life. Humans have always gotten through problems and do not give up so there is no way that it would be better off to not exist. In the long run I believe that anything is possible so the only option is to choose life.