if at every moment, every time i learn more i realise how young, inexperienced and naive i was. if after every experience, i say i have grown and can now see things in a way i couldn't earlier, how can i ever be so sure of decisions/beliefs/intuitions. i should then always be completely unsure and treat every instinct with caution, because as i breathe and live i shall soon be wiser and see the fallacy of my beliefs. Sure, some may be reaffirmed, but so many will change. I can/should thus never be sure of what I feel/think/do.
On the flip-side, if I'm never sure, I can never do, or at least never do with good enough conviction. So pragmatism would have me do imperfectly than not at all. It might even be said it's better to do wrong than to not do at all - and it seems like anything done would be wrong since over time i'll see how incomplete and incoherent my views were.
So the best is what can be done at the moment to the best of our abilities. The best is what can be done right with the right intentions - since every decision will ultimately affect someone in a harmful way and as long as it is being done in oblivion it should be okay. But is it right to then stop seeing further in time, when you can start seeing faults. What do you do when every option has harm written all over it? Should you then choose the one with the least harm? How do you measure that? Should you choose the one with more harm in the present or more in the future?
Do/should we care about our progeny? About future generations. About the world we leave to generations after us. Do we really care? Why is that counter-intuitive to most of us? Probably because it's much harder to sympathise with those we haven't seen and thus we can relate much less to. Speaking for myself, I suppose I empathise much more with past generations that have existed than future generations that haven't yet started. I guess if i think ahead I might find a conveniently scary world out there for them, but my empathy is limited by the reach of my senses - and since empathy is almost like an involuntary reflex, only the sensation matters, not the rationalisation. Thus I'm more biologically suited to empathise with more structural closeness to my senses over time. Thus family more than others, and hence the structural difference of national/religious sympathies in people. We humans are limited. We can imagine and hypothesise global and cosmological events but our empathy is limited by us being a biological tool. A tool that senses the environment and builds connections.
In short we are screwed.
