Comment Re:Recycling (Score 0) 861
Different ethics are not necessarily ignorance (or rather based on such). Your post is just an emotional appeal. In the end, the grandparent (aptly named with regards to this post) is only reflecting a view endemic (albeit usually not thought of in such a clear and thus easily derided way; a way that also would increase the difficulty of effective self delusion) to those with less time left to live than the amount of time their actions will take to begin affecting or will continue affecting the world (the full or extra damages after death are not automatically considered a debt for the person, unlike the damages the person will actually oneself experience). Old people have no fundamental reason to care about the future. Ponzi schemes for everyone!!!
Anyway, just saying someone's ignorant (naturally while also not enlightening them, of course) is little different from just saying "You bad". It is not a logical counter in any sense. The GP is actually very correct. You can only care while you live. Once you cease to exist there is no way to care anyway. You having different ethics from for example a disbelief in altruism does not make otherwise truly wrong, as in logically inaccurate. Unfortunately almost everyone thinks like the GP to some extent, especially for people outside of each of their monkeyspheres, and the GP is simply embracing one way to avoid being buried by everyone else's selfishness: Simply be at least as selfish as the rest are (or at the least be very untrusting), or you have quite good odds of being damaged WITHOUT ending up with anything to show (i.e. enjoy) for it. Oh well.