A Critique of Arguments Against Taking Future Generations Into Account
In doing the readings for this week, I noticed that there were few
arguments in favor of ignoring concern for future generations. A large
percentage of the authors seemed to feel that it is our moral
responsibility to at least take the well being of future generations into
account in our decision-making (Note: these authors also provided us with
powerful arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to future
generations). In trying to figure out why there were so few arguments on
the other side of the issue, I realized that there simply aren't many ways
to argue against our moral responsibility to future peoples. I would like
to briefly address the weaknesses in arguments which suggest that we
should not factor the well-being of future generations into our
decision-making. I would then like to address the issue of whether
providing for future peoples will result in problems for the present
generation. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I will discuss a
weakness which I found in all of the articles, which is: in talking so
much about future concerns,it can be easy to lose track of the immediacy
of environmental concerns for generations who are already alive.
The only real arguments which we read against concern for future
peoples were found in the Heilbroner article. Heilbroner quotes two
different economists, both of whom seem to raise the same question: why
should I care how long the human species lives? One of the economists
states that we cant necessarily say that generations who are yet unborn
are any better off if they are born than if they are not (quoted in Pojman
277). The...
... middle of paper ...
..., I critiqued the two economists
quoted in Heilborns article. To return to them for a minute, both men
seemed to miss the point which I just mentioned -- the environmental
crisis is not simply a matter of whether or not humans survive. Instead,
it is a matter of how we are able to live over the next couple of
centuries (and possibly beyond). Will the world continue to be plagued by
rising cancer rates? Will the air be adequate to breathe without
developing illness or asthma? Will our children have forests to play in?
The answer to these questions lies clearly in our hands and in our
willingness to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
Regardless of whether the consequences will occur in twenty minutes, three
days or a year, we must be willing to face up to reality instead of always
turning to look the other way.
...y Wheeling speech created nationwide hysteria, and with its impeccable timing just days after the conviction of the State Official Alga Hiss for lying under oath about his association with the communist Soviet as a spy, fueled the fight on communism. (citation) McCarthy war on communism during the “Second Red Scare” did not leave any individual safe from accusations. He attacked government agents, entertainment industry workers, educators, union members, and alienated the left-wing Democrats. McCarthy helped to create the atmosphere of suspicion and panic with his growth in media coverage. McCarthy’s words made for big headlines and the media was quick to cover his stories. This exposure helped facilitate American approval of McCarthy and empowered him to make more accusations on those suspected of subversion. In 1953, McCarthy headed the Government Operations Commit
In the beginning of McCarthy’s political career, he was already walking on thin ice. He launched a series of charges against the government. The first charge was against the communist global apparatus. McCarthy said that the organization had made a sustained attempt to penetrate the United States government and attempt to subvert its foreign policy decisions. The second charge was against the United States government itself. McCarthy said that the official defenses against foreign penetration ranged from weak to nonexistent. The third and final charge was against the government of America, ...
McCarthy, J. (1950, February 09). Speech at wheeling, west virginia. Retrieved December 02, 2013 from http://teachamericanhistory.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/mccarthy_wheeling_speech.pdf
Since the 1950s, most Americans have condemned the McCarthyite witch-hunts and show trials. By large majorities, Americans oppose firing communists from their jobs or banning communist speakers or books.[2] But over the past several years, increasing numbers of historians, writers and intellectuals have sought to minimize, explain away and justify McCarthyism. A spate of books and articles touting new historical evidence has tried to demonstrate that communism posed a real danger to American society in the 1940s and 1950s. They argue that even if some innocent people suffered and McCarthy was reckless, he was responding to a real threat.[3] As a result, Joe McCarthy doesn't look so irresponsible in hindsight.
Going an uneventful four years, the major attention came on February 9, 1950 when the Senator gave the Lincoln Day address in Wheeling, Virginia. Through this speech, McCarthy claimed to have the names of over 200 State Department employees who were members of the Communist party. To follow the accusations, the Senator was further...
McCarthy was not exactly the picture-perfect senator. In fact, most considered him “one of the least qualified, most corrupt politicians of his time” McCarthyism was first used by him as a...
...e in the coming years. It is only by this kind of concerted and thoughtful effort that the nation can avoid serious disruptions in the economy, as well as in society as a whole.
"McCarthyism and "The Great Fear" Framing the Climate of Cold War America." Joseph McCarthy as the Epithet of an Era. n. page. Print. Secondary.
The most significant down side to technology is the loss in revenue from album sales. Illegal downloading of music has become prevalent in today’s society, and many artists—major or independent—receive little to no profit from album sales. Many companies, such as Apple, have tried combating the issue with protected file formats, but a loophole has always been found to bypass the protection. Unsigned and independently signed artists hurt the most, as they pay almost everything out-of-pocket to produce their music. The only feasible response to the loss in revenue, artists have found, is to increase tour dates. In today’s age, it is not rare to find artists who tour more than eight months out of each year. Touring has become one of, if not the only, reliable source of income for many
The Indigenous stolen generation in Australia have been adequately recognized and compensated. Do you agree?
In Renee Wilson’s article, “In Defence of the iGeneration” (2013), she explores her belief of the iGeneration being the smartest generation yet. Through the use of many anecdotes, Wilson reflects on her experiences of teaching the iGeneration and their ability to ignore negative criticism and still show their full potential. In her article, Wilson discusses the iGeneration’s reliance on technology and social media; however, she does not engage the disadvantages of technology, in particular laptops in the classroom, which, as I argue here, is in need of more study. In this essay, I argue that the use of laptops by students in a university classroom is distracting not only to the student, but also to surrounding students. Inevitably, multitasking and distractions in the classroom will result in a decline in academic performance.
The music business entered a dramatic change in the 21st century. These changes appear in the way of how people access and consume music. According to Hull, Hutchison and Strasser (2011) the music business has developed throughout three stages. While moving from the agricultural age, where the music business made its revenues through live performances, troubadours and patronage, the industrial age introduced new innovations that were assumed to be associated with long-term economic growth. Commencing the year 1950 sound recordings experienced a drastic raise in sales by an average of 20% a year (Krasilovsky and Shemel, 2007). While the music industry was dominated by six major record lables (Time Warner, Disney, Vivendi Universal, Viacom, Bertelsmann, and News Corp.) (Hull, Hutchison and Strasser, 2011), further growth in the industry has been recorded in the 1970’s, where record sales “rose from less than $2 billion at the beginning of the decade to over $4 billion in 1978”, which took a sharp turn entering the Depression around the middle of the 20th century (Krasilovsky and Shemel, 2007:5).
The hottest topic of conversation between two generations is superiority. The Generation X argues that Generation Y is getting everything in their plate without having to work for it. The millenials counter that by saying that technological know how is the need of the day and nobody survives bereft of that. This is what the older generations lacks and finds it difficult to cope with the times. Hence the millenials consider themselves better. But is this argument really valid? Are the criteria used equally applicable? After the interview with my friend and my uncle, I decided that my friend has a better opinion about the generational differences.
The generation that I was born into can sometimes be easily misunderstood by those in earlier generations. The individuals in my generation get thrown many different labels such as those that Rosie Evans (n.d.) listed in her article, “Millennials, Generation Y, the Lost Generation, boomerang kids, the Peter Pan generation…” and more. This can impact us as a whole because some will begin to live by the labels, in some cases that can be negative but in others it may be beneficial. Many people in this generation believe that they can’t reach their full potential due to labels and prejudgment, while there are others believe nothing can hold them back. When we get labeled all together that is also what may drive some to try to stand out from the
I don't know what the future holds but I know who holds the future. Days go by and how time flies, seasons always changing. When we contemplate the future we envision mind-warping technology and global warming destroying the Earth. Change is inevitable but it's up to our supremacy what we and our planet Earth change into. Will we help or hinder our future survival? One sentence from America's Declaration of Independence has some relevance to this matter. 'But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security'. In other words if something is wrong, those that have the ability to take action, have the responsibility to take action.