The Wall Street Journal has two types of columnists. One set is crusty, old, and angry that the world has changed not at all to their liking. The other is fresh young whippersnappers sure that they have figured everything out.
One of the latter recently declaimed that what we should all do to live better lives is to consider our “future self.” Hardly new. “Don’t drink to excess, think how you will feel tomorrow.” But since at least the invention of movable type, future self has gotten out of control. Or maybe it goes even further back, to ancient Kings and warriors wanting to be immortal, remembered forever.
But the idea has limits, largely based on time scale. The nearby makes lots of sense as in the example of wine. But the further we move away, the more irrelevant and even counterproductive “future self” becomes.
A literally fatal flaw is that there may be no future self. And any elder will usually admit that life never turned out as planned. Furthermore, very remote (and fully imaginary) future selves tend to lead to a lot of immediate local damage, in religions and social movements. Wars are fought, people are killed, and in real life looking back much of it seems rather silly and trivial. Mostly driven by thinking of “future self.”
Our effect on our future should be kept in a sane range. Yes, I can surely affect my future self tomorrow, next week, maybe even a month from now. After that, it’s a crapshoot run by fate. Anyone saying different is probably trying to sell you something.
And, of course, the very concept of who and what our future may or should be morphs as we age. A guideline, all in all of limited value beyond common sense.
HuntingtonHarborThoughts 