Should cavemen have worked on reducing their carbon footprint?
For instance, I read a book, which argues that we have a profound obligation to work on reducing existential risk because virtually all of humanity’s potential lies in the future… I decided to pretty much completely adopt the belief as my worldview.
Your question appears to be a non-sequitur since their carbon footprint was not anything close to an existential risk, and would make no contribution to existential risk from climate change today either.
At the time, the largest existential risks to humanity would have been things they were already concerned about and working to reduce: disease and famine.
Would the argument work if we were in the 1950s and decided whether we should reduce the risk of World War III destroying mankind along with the future? I think that we would have an obligation to reduce risks from WWIII. On the other hand, the cavemen had no idea about the carbon footprint and couldn’t decide to reduce it to avoid global warming.
Should cavemen have worked on reducing their carbon footprint?
Your question appears to be a non-sequitur since their carbon footprint was not anything close to an existential risk, and would make no contribution to existential risk from climate change today either.
At the time, the largest existential risks to humanity would have been things they were already concerned about and working to reduce: disease and famine.
Would the argument work if we were in the 1950s and decided whether we should reduce the risk of World War III destroying mankind along with the future? I think that we would have an obligation to reduce risks from WWIII. On the other hand, the cavemen had no idea about the carbon footprint and couldn’t decide to reduce it to avoid global warming.