Parfit leaves readers wanting

Parfit fell short of making any kind of impact on me with his piece. To be perfectly honest, I didn't even want to finish the piece. I would hope that each paragraph or thought would end with some strong thesis or strong opinion from Parfit but it never did. He seemed almost to switch his views throughout the piece, so I had to keep going back to consult earlier paragraphs, searching for clues to understand.

If he didnt seem to switch sides then he made that little sense to me as a reader, which is also a problem. He also seemed to do a lot of "They are equally important", but this is a problem because the whole reason there is a problem is because a choice can't be made on which one is more important, which one is priority and which should be acted on.

He is just reminding us of the issue at hand without ever providing any kind of assitance, or nothing good enough to be called assistance. By not stating his belief strongly enough for me, as a reader, to carry it through to the end of the reading, he is not providing a defense. And without a defense there is no solution.
He spends so much time providing all these scenarios. He breaks them down and discusses them at length. Then he compares them to each other, making it seem like it will come to this grand conclusion of a logical solution, but it does not.

I'm not trying to insult his intelligence, because he poses good points and forces the reader to examine their beliefs in light of the scenarios and questions. He is sturring thought in readers. It just seems dissapointing that he has so much to say but no real conclusion to speak of.

Anyway, I personally think the whole "the people that would die with the Risky policy would not be alive in the future without that policy" thing is a intellectual waste of time. I feel that it is going no where fast and has no possible solution whatsoever. I mean yes, you have to wonder about it, but posing questions like that will not solve our problem at all.

I think it is our duty to save lives and makes lives better now because we are HERE on earth NOW and that is the duty to which we are entrusted. The NOW. But I do not support the Risky policy (killing people later) just to enhance things for the better now. I do not think it is ok to do something that we know will kill people, ever. Fix now without condemning the future. I personally think that efforts now to make things better (conservation) will inevitably save the future. I think sacrifice is necessary, as long as it doesnt compromise a life, and it is sacrifice that will carry conservation forward.