It's a new year, so let's start with a new idea: a democratic body to safeguard the basic needs and fundamental interests of future people.
That is the proposal of Rupert Read, a philosopher at the University of East Anglia, in a report called Guardians of the Future for the think tank Green House. The core idea is both radical and straightforward: a council of "Guardians of Future Generations", chosen like a jury from the general public, would sit above the existing law-making bodies and have two core powers. A power to veto legislation that threatened the basic needs and interests of future people and the power to force a review, following suitable public petition, of any existing legislation that threatens the interests of future people.
After the UN climate change summit in Durban in December I wrote, our current glacial progress in tackling global warming is piling costs and hardship onto our descendents in a way that will make the current global debt crisis seem minor by comparison. The changes to our economic, food, energy and water systems needed to adapt to changing climate get more expensive the longer we leave them. So ideas about how to represent the interests of people yet to exist are welcome.
I asked Read why he took on the issue. "It came from the worry that it is clear that the current institutions of government are not working and are not future proof," he said. "It also came from a philosophical direction: seeking for a way take the future seriously and in a democratic way."
"The proposal being made here is that we give future people en masse the nearest possible equivalent to the vote," he says. The need for democratic representation of unborn people led Read to the idea of a "super-jury". "Random selection would emphasise that we all share this responsibility for future people, and that none of us and all of us are ideally placed to do this vital job," he writes in the report.
Read accepts the idea of a powerful legal body protecting future people will be seen as extreme. "It is a very radical idea but many great ideas in history were once seen as outlandish," he says. When the Green Party, of which Read is a member and a former councillor, started promoting recycling in the 1970s and 1980s, he says "people laughed at and ridiculed us - now it is taken for granted."
Read also cites the abolition of slavery as an idea that was seen as ludicrous for centuries and draws a parallel with the rights of future people. "You could say, in effect, that we are at risk of enslaving future people by condemning them to a future far worse than now. They will have to work far harder to live and that is, in effect, slavery."
The idea of Guardians of Future Generations joins a number of radical ideas which are starting to make small but real impacts in the world. Hungary appointed an Ombudsman for Future Generations in 2008. The concept of the crime of ecocide is being considered by the UN. And Bolivia has passed laws giving nature equal rights to those of humans.
Read says he wants to get people talking about the idea of protecting the rights of future generations, rather than set in stone specific structures. "This is an attempt to start a debate, rather than present a definitive proposal," he says.
However, as the report itself notes, the issue is an old one, with Edmund Burke writing in 1790: "[Society is] a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." With the threat of climate change looming ever greater, is it finally time to turn these ideas into action?
The Guardians for Future Generations will be launched at the House of Commons on 10 January 2012, with the meeting hosted by Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, and addressed by Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker MP and Labour's Jon Cruddas MP. The report can be purchased now for £1.80 and will be available for free after 10 January on the Green House website.
Comments
4 January 2012 1:25PM
Fascinating idea...makes me wonder how things like proposals for geoengineering technologies would fare against this kind of jury...would they be seen as securing or compromising the future?
4 January 2012 1:42PM
I think this is a profoundly important idea and thanks to Damian for posting this. In trying to think about a fairer and better system of governance I have played around with similar ideas.
To me the elephant standing in the room that environmentalism has ignored for far too long is human perception.
One of the problems of our thinking is the way in which we can become too focused on one part of the big picture, and lose sight of the overall big picture i.e. not being able to see the wood for the trees. This means that our politicians and administrators become far too pre-occupied by immediate thinking about economics, finances etc. This completely distorts their overall perception. These immediate things become an end in themselves, and this one aspect, becomes the overarching focus.
This results in the long term consequences of actions being ignored. It ignores the wider consequences of these actions. What is more in pinning their colours to the mast, these politicians and administrators make it a matter of ego to get their own way. With the way political reputations work, to acknowledge you hadn't thought about something, is seen as admitting a personal flaw, and it is death to any political career. When actually, admitting you hadn't thought about something, and that you need to re-evalute your views, is essential to sensible thinking, and refusing to acknowedge you had not thought about something, is injurous to good and sensible thinking.
We very much need checks in our system to counteract the tunnel vision that politicians and our administrators tend to get trapped in. There needs to be people outside the loop, who are not pre-occupied with the immediate needs and thinking of politicians, to say "hang on you've not thought this through properly, or you are not taking this into account". Future generations of course being one of the big issues. This is what makes the idea in Damian's article so interesting.
4 January 2012 1:45PM
How about Rupert Read suggests using the existing Democratic systems to bring about change if he doesn't like what the current crop of politicians think? Vote more like Caroline Lucas in if that's what he wants? You could rely on her and her friends to protect the future generations couldn't you?
Is it any wonder that so many sceptics see Climate Change as a cover for Global Governance?
4 January 2012 1:47PM
Good idea, although I'm not sure what the best method of choosing the jury really is.
Quite a lot of folk probably really don't understand the issues rather than being selectively blind to them.
Also,if decisions are to be binding, the jury will have to be paid full time probably at the same level as MPs - it's no good if they haven't enough time to think about their decisions.
4 January 2012 1:48PM
Bolivia has the right idea... sad, however, to see an organisation like the UN still pondering what to do.
4 January 2012 1:48PM
Well of course, it's way past the time when these ideas should have been enshrined in law.
It would have at least reduced the ravages inflicted on the environment and humanity by those who feel they are entitled to a larger slice of the cake than anyone else.
AGW is currently the dominant concern, but this principle should have covered all the externalities that industry routinely ignores, just because they can.
But I can't see an oak growing from this little acorn, can you Damian?
In a society driven by greed, you'll have to make it worth their while to effect such a radical change, and how do you do that?
4 January 2012 1:55PM
This isn't such a new idea. Native Americans have governed themselves this way for millenia... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0trkAY39M5g
4 January 2012 2:18PM
Personally I am not in favour of reinforcing top down control, and prefer a bottom up approach. I am also not in favour of global governance to address things like climate change.
As I said it is all about human perception. Human perception is not a constant thing. It changes and it can be distorted. In particular there is a problem in that people can become far too focused on things from their own personal perspective i.e. egocentricity.
The essential problem with the present political system, or an attempt to elect a new political approach to do things differently through the present political system - is that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". No matter what good intentions someone, or some political party has, inevitably when it gets elected it will start compromising its values, and will become corrupted. The system has evolved to perpetuate itself as it is, and to corrupt all politicians to serve its interests.
Take President Obama as an example. Remember all that fine rhetoric about closing Guantanomo Bay, ending torture, and all those other moral issues. Yet what do we end up with. A President who is in some ways more representative of the established order than any other president. A President who stepped up drone attacks, which are in effect extra-judicial killings, and an attempt to create fear through widescale assassination i.e. it most clearly is terrorism. The idea is to terrify people into not opposing what the US is trying to do.
I can guarantee that if a green government was elected, that it would immediately start compromising what it said it intended to do.
Corruption is a creeping thing. Once you breech the boundary of what you consider wrong, where do you draw up a new boundary? You cannot justify not breeching this boundary on the grounds that is unthinkable, and it becomes increasing easy to justify the unjustifiable. The whole political system is designed so long before any politician reaches high office, that they will have already repeatedly compromised their principles. This means that when they are in office, they are nice and pliable to the powerful vested interests, which pull their strings behind the scenes.
In other words, relying on the moral integrity of a few people is a profound mistake, because this moral integrity is so easily compromised by those who want to preserve the status quo. This is why there must always be checks on those in power. In fact, I think one issue that needs to be urgently addressed, is the whole notion that someone is in power. Unfortunately most democracies actually operate more like temporary quasi-dictatorships, rather than democracies. In essence elections are lotteries where the lucky winner gets to play at being a dictator for the next 4-5 years. The only advantage of this system is that you don't need to have a revolution when the public turns against its leadership. Instead you just have another election, where someone else gets to play at being a dictator for the next period. Whilst not doing what they promised to do.
This is why we need checks. It's nothing to do with global governance. It's also possible to for super juries to become corrupted. I actually believe in the general intelligence of the public as a whole. Yes they make mistakes, get it wrong some time, and are manipulated. However, when the writing is on the wall that there is something seriously wrong, the public are often ahead of their leadership who are reluctant to admit that there are problems for fear of damaging their political reputation. So I am not endorsing Rupert Read's ideas, I am saying this is along the right lines we need to think about to introduce systematic checks. However, we need to think this through very carefully.
4 January 2012 2:19PM
Thanks Gary. You are of course correct - I acknowledge this great precedent for my proposal, in the body of the report. Do read it!
Dave, you are right that there is a big challenge facing us to bring in any kind of change like this. There is a chicken and egg problem, given how weak and semi-corrupt our existing 'democracy' is. BUT: that simply means we have to try all the harder.
I draw an analogy to the genocide conventions, the abolition of slavery, etc.: all these things seemed impossible - until people made them happen...
khall54: yes, it is included in the report that guardians should be paid adequately.
brittononthemitten: you have missed the central point. as adamcorner says, there is no secondguessing WHAT the guardians would decide, ahead of time. They are there to represent people who are at present unrepresented in our 'democratic' system: the huge numbers of future people who will follow us (unless we destroy their very conditions for existence!).
4 January 2012 2:19PM
Better long-term decision making is to be welcomed, but even experts are spectacularly poor at predicting future outcomes from current developments. So the idea that a random jury would magically make good decisions is a little optimistic. Democracy only makes good decisions when the electorate is informed about what they are voting on.
How would such a jury have intervened in the past? How would they have "voted" at the end of the 18th century? Would they vote for the growth of industrialisation, prosperity, consumerism, population growth, and the shift away from exploiting human slave labour to exploiting fossil fuel? Or would they "veto" the industrial revolution?
Even with 20-20 hindsight it is difficult to suggest what the correct path should have been to gain the benefits, but avoid the pitfalls, of where we are.
4 January 2012 2:22PM
How very naive.
Vested interests will come into play resulting in toned down versions of Tony Blair being selected for the jury. They will peach environmental duty from the comfort of conference centers around the globe, and proceed to feather their own nests. Unelected means they cannot be removed by the electorate.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely
4 January 2012 2:23PM
To britononthemitten: The whole point of the article is that existing democratic processes give a voice only to people who have a vote now. Future generations have as much need of the earth's resources as we do, but they have no vote, and so their needs are not given very much consideration.
4 January 2012 2:23PM
Thanks for the link. All my thinking is based on how in the past these societies used to govern themselves without any power structure. I do not see this in romantic terms. My thinking is how to be able to acheive this balanced self-regulating system in our much bigger modern society.
4 January 2012 2:40PM
You make some excellent points. This is what my points are about, the failings of human perception. Because as you point out, even the experts can get it spectacularly wrong. One of the problems of our present system is egoism. So when the experts or our leaders do get it wrong, they unfortunately refuse to admit they got it wrong, and so create a lot of damage trying to prove themselves right. So we need systematic mechanisms that check anyone in power, when it becomes clear they have made a mistake, and they are refusing to acknowledge the failings of their approach.
Precisely, this is why my own personal suggestion of what is needed to produce the necessary change, is the removal of secrecy. Bad political systems and corrupt big business can only do what it does, because it is able to hide behind a wall of secrecy. We must separate people's private personal lives, from the actions they take, which effect the majority. If someone is immensely rich and is using their wealth to corrupt the system, it is sophistry to try and justify the privacy of their financial actions on the grounds of personal privacy. Any part of someone's life where they make decisions which effect lots of people, should be opened up for public scrutiny. This would profoundly alter how everything worked. Politicians, the mega-wealthy, and the super powerful, can only act corruptly if what they do is shielded from public scrutiny. If they thought what they did would be subjected to public scrutiny, they would not behave very differently.
All I've said above should be pretty bleeding obvious. After all most people would only be unfaithful to their partner, if they thought they could keep it secret from them. So the idea that scrutiny or knowledge of what someone does, is the best way to morally regulate their behaviour, is hardly a novel idea. It's just that those in power want you to believe that they are special people, and so they do not need the scrutiny that mere mortals need to keep them on the straight and narrow.
4 January 2012 2:40PM
Unbelievable clap-trap.This would have to be an international body armed with unprecedented powers with the military means to back thier decisions.Pure fantacy
4 January 2012 2:47PM
Never mind that the theory of CAGW aka global warming, climate change or climate disruption is falling apart at the seams outside the left wing/UN political arena
How on earth can you say for sure that any particular action is "piling cost and hardship onto our decedents".
One of the constant aspects of advancing knowledge and in particular implementation of new technologies is that beyond a few years into the future changes always take us by surprise.
That old chestnut prediction that horse sh1t being so deep in London was summarily swept away by new technology, the motor car. Or who would have thought that a few years ago that the US would be self sufficient in natural gas due to new/improved technology to extract gas from shale. Certainly not those who pushed for "renewables" where predictions were of ever increasing costs for fossil fuels to make them an economic alternative. That's never going to happen now.
One thing is for certain the longer we leave applying solutions better technology makes it ever cheaper and easier.
As such it would be much better to just plough on regardless and let the decedents deal with any problems using the much better cheaper tools at hand, especially as it appears that it might never happen.
That from my perspective is a dead certainty, simply because past experience has shown that all these long term predictions of rising temps, falling temps, more hurricanes, more drought , less food have always been dramatically wrong. Not just from the current UN/climate alarmists but way back in history as well.
Why should we expect that behavior change now.
4 January 2012 2:49PM
Sounds frighteningly undemocratic.
Hopefully will not amount to anything.
4 January 2012 2:53PM
ColinG: thanks. Do have a read of the full report. The guardians would have extensive 'training' and would have access to the best expertise. Imagine how keen the best scientists, thinkers etc of our time would be to address the guardians... The public-evidence sessions would actually be INTERESTING - now there's a turn-up!
Zilch: you have missed a central aspect of the proposal. The guardians would be selected by sortition. Blair would have as much and as little chance at being one of them as you.
4 January 2012 2:55PM
VoiceofReason08: You need to ask yourself what 'democracy' means. I say that it means the people governing - that is what etymology says, too. All the people, future as well as present.
Do you really think that you and I voting is enough to make decisions that will drastically affect future people 'democratic'?
My report calls on us to rethink 'democracy' for an age where we have the power to destroy the very lifesupportsystems of future people.
Do you see what I am driving at, now?
4 January 2012 2:58PM
This doesn't seem to be anything more than a somewhat desperate attempt to find a new means of achieving the greens' objectives, given that governments appear to be walking away from the idea of doing anything concrete to back up their words - which words are in the case of government generally only uttered in pursuit of votes. Has it become painfully obvious that the governments that were supposed to be ponying up the cash and making the sacrifices are no longer interested?
4 January 2012 3:16PM
This idea of the hyperbole-leaden term, eco-cide (now accompanied by "enslavement" as well), has repeatedly been given far too much bandwidth here.
Of course, the usual suspects here will support it with their naive and simplistic opinions of how it would make the world a better place (in their minds only).
Fortunately for all of us (including the not-yet-born (scary that these people are now adopting "concerns" that are usually the domain of the intolerant right)), there is a vast gap between finding fans here and getting even an iota of the support necessary for this to come to fruition in the real world.
4 January 2012 3:17PM
Rupert,
This is a welcome move: ignore the worst of the cynics who tend to daily-mailify these discussions.
It is abundantly clear that the way we organise our societies fails, almost without exception (which may be offered to small, local indigenous tribes who actually retain an understanding of how the environment works), to see things beyond the ends of their collective noses. I think it is not unreasonable to infer that the short-term periods of office that governments tend to hold is behind this - though clearly too there is an absolute need to be able to change government if they are failing on even that timescale.
And that's the point: no political party has succeeded in serving the future: all of them have let it down. Our offspring face an increasingly resource-depleted, polluted planet, whilst Left and Right on comment-threads play table-tennis with the problem rather than abandon the points-scoring attempts and ask one another what we are going to do to rise to this colossal challenge. At a grassroots level, the Transition Movement may have some of the answers, but at the same time I fear it does not always ask the right questions.
We are closer to some of these issues than some of my old sparring-partners (and legions of name-changing astroturfer shills) on here realise. The future generations will know full well that you cannot eat money. We need to do everything we can for them, and the first step is to step back and look at the world outside of the box......
Good luck with this - John
4 January 2012 3:17PM
I would gladly be on the jury. Just give me the facts.
4 January 2012 3:18PM
"Guardians of Future Generatons?"
Why not use the common, long-established term:
JUNTA
Anyone remember Churchill's words on these ideas?
"Democracy is the worst political system, except for all other that have been tried."
Then again, we're much smarter than Churchill, aren't we?
4 January 2012 3:19PM
What you are driving at is very plainly changing democratic systems so that they give the results you want.
Suppose the jury decided that the government had it right - would you still support it?
4 January 2012 3:24PM
I said "toned down versions of Tony Blair", by which I mean amoral political animals without a public track record.
4 January 2012 3:24PM
Sounds very Common Purpose.
What is it with the Left's love of dictatorship?
4 January 2012 3:27PM
People who havent been born yet de facto have no rights ..and we cant assume we know what they would want ..its a stupid and delusional ..not to mention authoritarian / big brother style idea ... Democracy exists now ...its tough shit if people dont believe in all this Green Doom nonsense and wont vote for the likes of Rupert read and his sub moronic ideas ...
4 January 2012 3:27PM
Sounds a bit like a "world government". That will be popular with America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dab6DYAVymo
Not.
4 January 2012 3:29PM
" All the people, future as well as present. '
Logic isnt your strong point is it Rupert ? ...But then neither is a love of democracy ...
4 January 2012 3:41PM
I will have a read of your report when I get time and I have bookmarked it. Regardless of whether this particular approach is chosen I would like to thank you for this thought provoking idea. My one concern is that any individual, any group, no matter how well trained etc, are all potentially victim to the same type of groupthink that can distort the decision making of government and other administration. One of the problems with our present system is the absolute denial about the way in which those in powerful positions often coordinate. They close their minds and become far too focused and preoccupied in seeing things from their own particular perspective i.e. they can't see the wood for the trees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
This is not a negative criticism, and is just meant to aid formulating the best solution.
I've already wrote far too much today so I don't want to explaint too much more. However, the primary reason for my different analysis of the situation is that I don't believe that anyone is fully consciously aware of all the motivations that influence their decisions. Without going into detail Benjamin Libet's famous experiments show brain activity before we are consciously aware of making a decision. This has profound implications for the concept of free will, which underpins the notion of governance by wise individuals. It shows that no individual can really be trusted to make decisions for the greater good. They will always be biased and make decisions that are more personally favourable to themselves, and those they are allied to, rather than on the basis of the greatest good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
4 January 2012 3:48PM
Because you know what the basic needs and fundamental interests are going to be in the future? The reason why I am taking the trouble to educate my children is precisely to stop your kind taking control. Believe it or not, North Korean leaders since 1945 have had the best interests of the people at heart. That is what you will end up with with idiotic ideas like this. I know the Guardian is a socialist paper but you can only take a joke so far.
4 January 2012 3:55PM
Democracy does not mean "doing what I want".
If democratically elected governments don't do what you want, all you can do iis try to persuade the government and the voters of your case. If they are not persuaded and still don't do what you want, that's tough and you need to accept it. That is how democracy works.
Unfortunately for the greens, it seems that despite the extensive lobbying, billions of government dollars in research and a media that is about ninety percent on their side, persuasion has failed and they aren't getting their way.
Tough luck, mate. You had your chance, you had the ear of governments, you had a tame media, but you failed to make the case. Instead of trying to pervert democracy so you get what you want, you'll have to go and find another source of fear and alarm to replace AGW - which was only the latest in a series of exercises in hyperbolic fear-mongering.
Here's some free advice for your next try:
Skip the name calling and snide smears (denier, for example). Admit doubt and uncertainty. Bear in mind that scientific consensus doesn't mean "case closed". Understand how the scientific method actually works (hint - Ravetz is wrong). Above all, do remember that we have seen this kind if eco-millennarianism many times before in the shape of Ehrlich's failed prophecies of doom and so when you next posit the same cause and same solution to whatever problem you've identified, many of us will know you have found not a problem but an excuse.
4 January 2012 3:59PM
To all the enthusiastic democrats who want to stop things from getting more democratic, may I ask whether you support the findings of this survey influencing policy -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/dec/14/british-public-support-renewable-energy
Or whether you'd prefer to stick with being governed by the banks and multinational corporations who pay for Cameron's dinners?
4 January 2012 4:08PM
I always find the ongoing romantic notion of the noble savage to be reflective of a poor education in the history of Native people in North America.
While it is correct that much consideration was and is given to future generations, even as much as seven generations forward, how this was practiced prior to European contact is often not understood.
Many Native tribes in North America practiced about zero sutainability. They didn't have to. Their stone aged society required little resources and the small population and massive size of the continent meant that they could hunt local wildlife to local extinction and farm topsoils to dust, then just move to another location and start all over again. They utterly depleted the resources and then simply moved to another location. Of course many brutal and bloody wars were fought over territory, which included horrendous and barbaric practices.
I'm not sure this is the place we should be looking to for inspiration.
As another poster commented, how does this idea mesh with the notion of the rights of the unborn regarding abortion. Usually a right wing idea, here apparently supported by the extreme left. Or do the rights of the unborn not count when it comes to abortion?
4 January 2012 4:09PM
This idea sounds to me like an additional 'check and balance' to the political system. Do political systems that have a lot of checks and balances have a good record when it comes to environmental issues? I suppose you could argue it either way, but one thing is for sure - checks and balances can slow down the political process and can lead to interminable deadlock.
I have to add, it has been very entertaining to witness the knees of certain contributors going into spasm mode at the very idea.
4 January 2012 4:14PM
Thanks, I'll read the report next week when it is free. ;-)
I would have thought that it would be more appropriate to try to ensure that such "training" is given to our elected representatives. That is meant to be the role of the civil service and government advisors. Obviously this is never perfect; but I see no reason why such a system of training for randomly selected "guardians" would be any more effective.
And as regards "how keen the best scientists, thinkers etc of our time would be to address the guardians" I think I would be more inclined to put faith in those scientists who are reluctant to proselytise rather than those who are "keen" to lobby the powers that be. As SteB1 says, any system is susceptible to corruption.
The decision that put us on this path started long ago. As I suggested above, the decisions that led us into the industrial revolution are those same decisions that may lead directly to climate change. They resulted in some benefits and some problems for future generations.
I question your fundamental assertion that we (as "future generations" relative to the 18th cent) should have had the right to be represented in those past decisions.
I certainly don't feel under-represented in the decisions that were made in the past, and I am doubtful that future generations will feel any right of representation in our current decisions.
More to the point: even if I did feel the need to be represented in the decisions of the 18th century (through some impossible retrospective method), I don't think my views would be adequately represented by a randomly selected "jury" of 18th century citizens, no matter how well "trained" they were by the best 18th century experts.
4 January 2012 4:19PM
This is different from the rights of the unborn in the abortion debate as we're talking about people who are fully human by any standard (future adults and children), as opposed to collections of cells which may or may not become fully human.
A particular collection of cells may or may not have the right to become fully human, according to your position n the abortion debate, but we know there will be fully human people in the future, and those are the people Reed is concerned with.
If you decide that anything which has the potential to become fully human should have full human rights, then we need to get most of the world's workforce relocated to fertility labs, as we're currently depriving trillions of little proto-humans of the right to life.
But what Reed is saying is that, although we don't know which proto-humans will become fully human, we know some will, and that they will have rights which we are currently infringing.
4 January 2012 4:23PM
I know exactly what the basic needs and fundamental interests will be in the future.
A planet that has not been shagged-to-death in terms of its economically/EROEI favourable natural resources.
A planet that is not poisoned by industrialisation.
I mean, what sort of fucking shit-heap do you want to bequeath? If you have children then God help you. If you have grandchildren then Heaven help you. And if you have neither, then may God forgive you.....
Cheers - John
4 January 2012 4:28PM
Absofuckinglutely.
A brief lecture on how the media manipulates us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4P2O8UjQeU
For anything like this to work, people would need first to have their greedy gene knocked out. A big fat brown envelop will always get on the way otherwise.
4 January 2012 4:34PM
"would a "super-jury" stop us bequeathing a damaged and dangerous planet to our descendants". Nope, it would just provide another avenue by which the whole debate can be politicised and rendered a matter of opinion rather than science.
4 January 2012 4:34PM
johntherock: thanks. nicely put.
rajpe: You need to stop and think a little more deeply about what 'democracy' MEANS. And look at history. As I discuss in the full-length report: look at Athens, for instance. Sortition there was more important as a democratic mechanism than voting was. And Athens FOUNDED democracy!
TheLittleWaster says: "People who havent been born yet de facto have no rights". ...That is EXACTLY the attitude which has got us into the horrendous mess that we are now in, and that our children and our children's children are going to suffer from quite appallingly (think THE ROAD, or THE AGE OF STUPID), unless we turn this supertanker around, and start to take future people seriously, as our equals. Just because we are alive, and so can arrogate all rights to ourselves if we choose to, is no reason for it being _just_ to do so: no more than being powerful enough to enslave another people makes it just to do so.
4 January 2012 4:35PM
Say their had been a council of "Guardians of Future Generations" before the Industrial Revolution. What would they have decided? Would they have allowed the building of canals and railways to desecrate the land and destroy the future farms? Would they have allowed the development of auto-mobiles and all the infrastructure that goes with them?
It's preposterous that we can second guess the future requirements of society.
4 January 2012 4:36PM
Just as I suspected. The rights of the unborn are different when it comes to abortion, because protecting actual living unborn fetuses is a right wing notion, and controlling the masses with an ever more centralized and isulated government is a left wing idea. I get it. I just wanted to hear you say it.
And by the way, you know nothing of my "position in the abortion debate". I am fully pro-choice. Unlike those on the left and many on the right, I do not think that I should legislate reproduction. It is an individual choice in every aspect. I just find it hilarious that someone could actually try and make the case you did and still keep a straight face.
4 January 2012 4:37PM
steb1: thanks for your thoughtful comments. As a philosopher, I will say that I think that Libet is a distraction: such neurological 'results' are simply irrelevant to you and me and everyone thinking and making decisions about what to do.
You are right about the danger of 'groupthink'. That is one reason why the guardians should (as I propose) have fixed terms of office, not indefinitely long terms. There must be a regular 'turnover'.
4 January 2012 4:39PM
It is not a little ironic that you state the above, and then state this below.
To be perfectly frank this is utter and complete bollocks, and it shows that you are incredibly poorly educated on the matter. Believe me I have no romantic illusions about Native Americans. You won't find any kitsch pictures of them or dreamcatchers in my house. However, I have not only read about them from the anthropolical side, or in their own accounts. I have also read a great deal of scientific and ecological evaluations of their land management practise. What you say indicates that either you have no knowledge of what you talk about, or that you chose to believe in something entirely made up to suit your own viewpoint.
Why don't you cite some evidence for what you claim?
3 fairly accessible works written by academics expert in the field should serve to demonstrate how grossly inaccurate your claims are. That is if you are really interested in understanding the subject.
Natural Woodland - by George Peterken
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p3y43NnvXPYC&lpg=PR1&ots=nOlUywtNY7&dq=george%20peterken%20natural%20woodland&pg=PR6#v=onepage&q=george%20peterken%20natural%20woodland&f=false
The Other Side of Eden - Hugh Brody
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/jan/28/society
Stone Age Economics - Marshall Sahlins
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_qPSLy9564cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
4 January 2012 4:44PM
In response to Smith1867 and others, regarding the relevance of the abortion debate to this report:
Thanks for the query. I address this in the report. One of my central remarks there about this question is this:
"Abortion concerns the specific non-existence (or existence) of a potential life tied to a specific individual. Whereas we are concerned in this report with
future people in general, our descendants, our children and their children WHOSOEVER THEY MAY BE. We are concerned, in other words, with the future inhabitants of Britain (and of the world).
In some important cases, abortion is called for because the life or physical health or psychological health of the mother is directly threatened by the burgeoning foetus within her. There are vanishingly few cases, probably none whatsoever, in which future people in general pose any threat whatsoever to present people.
So: while their basic needs and fundamental interests deeply need to be considered by us, they will never need to be weighed directly in the balance against ours (they do not threaten us)."
The abortion debate is basically orthogonal to the debate here. It would only be deeply relevant if one were talking about (say) the aborting of ALL foetuses. (That, clearly, would be an unimaginably horrendous crime.)
4 January 2012 4:47PM
ColinG, you say
But there is a crucial difference. Politicians are elected on a manifesto, with a pre-existing set of commitments which they have gone to the electorate with, etc. . This gives them the 'right', if you like, not to listen too hard to their advisors etc. . The guardians would not have this 'right'. They would come in with a more open mind, one would hope - just like juries are supposed to have relatively open minds.
4 January 2012 4:49PM
ColinG, you say
Those are interesting thoughts; thank you for them. My initial response would be this: I am not necessarily saying that it would have been a good thing or necessary for the institutional mechanism that I am proposing always (sic.) to have existed. I am saying that we need it or something like it NOW. Because now we KNOW that we have awesome power over the future, and we MUST think more and seek to plan more on how to use it.
Our system is not future-proofed. Decisions that we take will awesomely affect future people. But they have no rights over those decisions, at present. That is what my proposal is an effort to start to see changing.
4 January 2012 4:50PM
Well, you certainly seem to be trying to prove my point. You know do you? Somehow I doubt it. But good sloganeering; you seem to know the lesson.