Would you consider future generations to have rights equivalent to people living right now and thus we have have an obligation to protect the enviroment and generally live more sustainable?
Most arguments in university seminars we had regarding the ethical justification of measures like us no longer driving cars or eating meat were justified under the assumption future people are just as much deserving of consideration as we are, but even if that's true does that imply an obligation for us to actually restrict our own life to help strangers in the distant future?
How do you even legitimize stuff like that to the people actually most affected by it, i.e. the poor who already live a pretty shit life?
Feels like the usual ivory tower condescending bullshit ethicists love to spout, without ever considering people not agreeing with them