In Who Cares for Posterity? by Garret Hardin he posits an interesting examination of human reason in the context of the existence of future generations. His consideration of human nature, namely our faculty of reason, offered a strong base to ground his argument. I specifically want to address his assertion that resources of the future can only be protected by institutional means. He offers two examples of institutional protection of resources in the siege of Leningrad and food shortage scenario in the USSR. In the first example it was a desire to preserve the horticultural identity of Russia that rationalized many deaths at the hands of starvation. In the second example it was a more explicit reverence for the future itself. In both examples reason was replaced by a belief in some greater good that future existence as a whole is more important than the existence of lives in the immediate. Hardin seems to suggest that we must check reason in order to preserve an environment and ability to exist for the future generations. If he doesn’t flat out call for a rejection of reason, he thinks that it is necessary to reject it at times.
I don’t think he made a sufficient connection between the sacrifices of an individual and that of an institution. His example of institutional sacrifice in the case of Leningrad does not seem to translate over to the individual. Yes, in both cases I mention there are circumstances of starvation and consequent restrictions. In the second example in Russia, it seemed that it was a social agreement that led people to respect the future. What about a situation where a nation was not starving but rather had an abundance of food. Would he say in such cases it is not within human nature to learn or adopt a sufficient reverence for the future? I would hope that in such a case, no matter if he thinks humans are capable of adopting a new reverence, that some degree of reason could be employed. I am not all together convinced that reason should be rejected as a viable medium to adopt a sustainable future. What is so unbelievable about our rational faculty acting in a way that preserves the future? What about the free market for example, what if government put such constraints on the free market where it was not so free anymore. What if it was impossible to be profitable unless your business helped the earth more than it hurt it. While I am not sure that should even happen, I just wanted to point out that application of reason could make the future brighter, even if we don’t care about it.