We care as little about future as China?

From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 19:18:00 MDT

  • Next message: Lee Daniel Crocker: "Re: The Simulation Argument again"

    Below is a famous quote from Adam Smith explaining how most people really
    don't care what happens in China, much as they would like to believe
    otherwise. I wonder if people feel the same way about the future; maybe
    its something they like to believe they care about, but in the end really
    don't care very much. They only talk about it to show how witty or smart
    or caring they are, but not because they really care. That might help
    explain why people seem so uninterested in thinking seriously about it.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of
    inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us
    consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connexion
    with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence
    of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very
    strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would
    make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life,
    and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated
    in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter
    into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might
    produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the
    world in general.

    "And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane
    sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or
    his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and
    tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened.

    "The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself would occasion a
    more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he
    would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore
    with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his
    brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an
    object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own.

    "To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of
    humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his
    brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with
    horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and
    corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of
    entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings
    are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active
    principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so
    much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever
    concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all
    occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the
    greater interests of others?"
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
    Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
    MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
    703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 19:32:06 MDT