Skimming the 5,000: 1,701 - 1,800
From The 5000 Question Survey 2.0 part 35 and part 36:
1765. What is one of your pet peeves?
1771. Should people who are living now be obligated to do things that will make the world better for people who will live 100 years from now?
1778. Would you rather time travel to the future or the past?
1765. The no-capitalisation style of writing. It makes me want to KILL people. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I could just keep writing "I hate it" forever and still not be able to convey to you how much I HATE it.
1771. This is a really interesting question, and I can't work out an answer. First I was thinking, Yes, we ARE obligated. But that means I'd have to think former generations were obligated to us, and no, I don't. They had to live their lives the best way they could then, not be thinking ahead to a world they'd never see and probably couldn't imagine. On the other hand, the world isn't ours (we humans) to destroy, either, and so that has to be a consideration in the things we do. I think we have an obligation to think beyond ourselves - to other species, to landforms, to weather patterns, and to future humans - but if for some reason it came down to a showdown between our obligation to the future, and our obligation to the present, and we could only honour one and not the other, I think I'd have to go with the present. But on the other hand... (I don't know, in other words.)
1778. Maybe the experience of time travel would be so amazing it wouldn't matter which "direction" you went, it'd be enough just that you were moving. And besides that, maybe the concept of direction (forwards or backwards in time, as though time is a straight line) wouldn't be relevant anyway. But answering the question: the future.
1765. What is one of your pet peeves?
1771. Should people who are living now be obligated to do things that will make the world better for people who will live 100 years from now?
1778. Would you rather time travel to the future or the past?
1765. The no-capitalisation style of writing. It makes me want to KILL people. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I could just keep writing "I hate it" forever and still not be able to convey to you how much I HATE it.
1771. This is a really interesting question, and I can't work out an answer. First I was thinking, Yes, we ARE obligated. But that means I'd have to think former generations were obligated to us, and no, I don't. They had to live their lives the best way they could then, not be thinking ahead to a world they'd never see and probably couldn't imagine. On the other hand, the world isn't ours (we humans) to destroy, either, and so that has to be a consideration in the things we do. I think we have an obligation to think beyond ourselves - to other species, to landforms, to weather patterns, and to future humans - but if for some reason it came down to a showdown between our obligation to the future, and our obligation to the present, and we could only honour one and not the other, I think I'd have to go with the present. But on the other hand... (I don't know, in other words.)
1778. Maybe the experience of time travel would be so amazing it wouldn't matter which "direction" you went, it'd be enough just that you were moving. And besides that, maybe the concept of direction (forwards or backwards in time, as though time is a straight line) wouldn't be relevant anyway. But answering the question: the future.
posted by D at 11:41 am
<< Home