[PHIL 101 - 6] Future People

Personally, I think it would be bad if there were no future people. (Read on to see how I convince myself away from this belief.) However, given Parfit's view, the future people I speak of don't exist yet. 

This means that any big and bad changes such as the continuation of using fossil fuels and contributing to climate change will lead to the result of a set of future people that would've been born as an outcome of this. This can also be seen as the scenario (1) where there would be a somewhat higher quality of life for a given time before the quality of life significantly decreases. The 'future people' in consideration is those which are alive when the quality of life has significantly decreases.

However, if we as a community choose to combat climate change, a new timeline of events stirs and a different set of future people are born as an outcome. This is the scenario (2) where the quality of life would stay the same and increase over time. This ultimately results in the 'future people' of this scenario to have a greater quality of life than those of scenario 1. 

While Parfit proposes a true argument that whichever path/scenario we choose, there will be an outcome of different sets of 'future people'. It seems like the question is answered right here- how can it be bad for future people if such people haven't even been conceived? Therefore, it isn't bad that there are no such future people. In fact, such people from scenario 1 would not have it good if we followed the events of scenario 2 because those people from scenario 1 would have not even come into existence at all. Therefore, the future people of scenario 1 will always have it 'bad' and the future people of scenario 2 will always have it 'good'. 

I was going to argue against that statement, but in explaining myself I have convinced myself that I agree with the logic. However, even with that, I also agree with Parfit when he states that he believes the second scenario to be morally bad. Even though these two sets of future people are, in fact, different people, one set of people has a greater quality of life than the other. Disregarding the fact that they aren't the same people, as people nonetheless, the scenario 1 people have it much worse and therefore would conclude, at least in my opinion, that scenario two is the most optimal way to ensure a good quality of life among present and future people.