Monday, August 11, 2008

Should we care about future generations?

In The Age on Saturday we got a fairly standard critique of the case for addressing the global warming costs faced by future generations. Instead, it was argued, we should concentrate on the economic needs of current people. According to the author, Mirko Bagaric, future generations are non-existent ‘uncertain’ people whereas current people are ‘certain’ people who deserve greater weight in any moral calculus. More certain too than future generations are the 90,000 potential Australian’s consigned to become a bucket of blood by abortionists. Indeed, the abuses of millions of other sentient beings, such as animals slaughtered for food, deserve greater weight than uncertain future people, according to Bagaric.

These are not foolish or naive arguments at all. There is hypocrisy in much of the claimed altruism that pervades modern environmental debates. While many bleat about the need to account for the needs of future generations there is a measure of stinginess in many citizens when it comes to using tax policy as a redistributive tool or for assisting the disadvantaged.

A celebrated proponent of the view that we should place low weight on the welfare of future generations is the philosopher Derek Parfit in his fascinating Reasons and Persons. Parfit’s view is that the course of history determines who gets born since it affects which potential parents actually meet and have children. In addition the precise timing of conception determines the meeting of specific sperm with specific eggs and hence the precise children who are born. Both history and these timing events depend on the resource use levels of current people. If the current generation are not altruistic towards future generations that will determine a sp[ecific identity for their progeny. Were they conservationist the next generation would have a different identity.

Then future persons have a no right to complain about our resource conservation action since they would not have existed if things had been different. Under these circumstances current people should ‘have a party’ with respect to the earth's resources and use them to maximise their utility without concern for other than the current generation. This will optimize current welfare. Of the future generations we should be concerned with those people who actually exist rather than merely potential people. The people who do actually exist in the future will appreciate the fact that current people enjoyed a feast of resources since they would otherwise not have existed at all. Those potential people who might have existed had we employed a different current usage policy are irrelevant in the Parfit calculus.

Many economists I have spoken to reject Parfit-type arguments on the basis of overlapping generations arguments. Simply put our children do not arrive after we die but while we live our lives. For example if people live to age 80 and reproduce at age 25 then current and subsequent generations will overlap by 55 years. One suggestive strand of thinking that followed the Stern Review determines the implication of this view for the weight we should place on the welfare of future generations in terms of discounting. The claim is that social rates of discount are revealed to be low because of the way we do value our own lives and those of our children. John Quiggin has suggested that setting low discount rates makes sense if we attach plausible values to our own lives and the lives of our children at not too distant periods in the future – discounting at only 3 per cent involves attacking a 50% weighting to lives only 16 years in the future – hence the argument goes we should discount at very low rates in order to prevent such absurd undervaluations. This is a plausible argument and, consistent with the Parfit critique it relies only on observations about actual rather than potential people.

This argument appeals to me and resolves the issue of discounting in an intellectually satisfying way.  Thus one does not need to think vaguely about duties to future anonymous generations as Parfit and Bagaric do. The hypocrisy of displaying foresight toward future lives but disregarding disadvantage among those currently living still surprises me but presumably reflects our selfish genes.  We will incvest huge amounts in ensuring extremely good outcomes for our own children but disregard poverty in our community and around the world. There should be a less selfish balance.


Spiros said...

Harry, I can see the argument for children and grandchildren. These are people we know and care about. It seems more tenuous for future generations. Now you might say that because you care about your children, you care about the people they care about - their grandchildren. But they might never have any.

I think different arguments are required for caring about people who will be alive at the end of this century.

conrad said...

I think there are problems with interpreting monetary values on things when looking across different time frames. For example, the discounting argument makes our generation 5 times as rich as those born in 1950 (or whatever the exact value is ) -- if this is correct, we should be externally greatful to our grandaparents, but we arn't (try asking in one of your lectures -- it should be a good economics question). So there is a lot of other stuff going on in how people value the future not captured by discounting -- it makes a good economics argument, but evidentally not one that is especially convincing or representative of human behavior.

joe said...


Quiggin simply is not consistent with this at all.

Quiggin at times has also applied a high discount rate to achieve what he wants to see. Ask him? And also ask him why he has done that in the past.

We have no responsibility to anyone who isn't alive. the mere suggestion is a crude joke.

hc said...

Joe, My argument for low discounting (& John's) does not rely on altruism towards the unborn at all. It depends only on attaching value to the lives of those currently living. Read again.

jc said...


1. You missed the point I made in that Quiggin has used higher discount rates when forecasting before. He seems to apply a discount rate level depending on the outcome he wants to see. This is why i said he isn't a useful reference.

2. Yes I did see your comment, however it escapes the current debate about AGW. Even if we use Stern the long range forecast is that we're going to see problems develop in 50 years time with the fuller impact in 2100. This means we're discounting for people that remain unborn and my point still holds.

Furthermore if your argument isn't cloaked with altruism what is it then?

If you think we're going to experience climate problems in our own life time then it would be best to quantify it is a GDP context. Do you see world GDP falling in 20 years time or not? The rate of growth is actually accelerating.

Here's is a standing offer. With acceptable odds I bet $100,000 that world GDP on ppp basis will be higher in that time frame. I am willing to scrow.

jc said...

ummm escrow

conrad said...

I don't see what the fuss against altruism is. Ignoring altruism is ignoring an important factor in these decisions -- we're genetically programmed to have at least some altruism -- even studies looking at really young kids show they exhibit it. Since this includes altruism to unknown others, I don't see why that doesn't include unborn generations.

jc said...

Sure Conrad. Donate as much as you want to the poor in 2100, just don't force people to do it in 2008.

conrad said...

Forcing people isn't altruism -- it's the baseline conditions that we give them that matter (and exceptionally hard to evaluate)

Anonymous said...

warhammer gold warhammer money warhammer accounts tibia money tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape money runescape gold runescape gp runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling cheap rs2 powerleveling runescape equipment buy rs equipment runescape runes cheap rs2 runes runescape logs cheap rs2 logs runescape items buy runescape items runescape quest point rs2 quest point cheap runescape questpoint runescape gold runescape items runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape accounts runescape gp runescape accounts runescape money runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling tibia gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas wow power leveling wow powerleveling runescape questpoint rs2 questpoint Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling Hellgate money Hellgate gold buy runescape logs buy rs2 items cheap runescape items Hellgate London gold Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape items rs2 accounts cheap rs2 equipments lotro gold buy lotro gold buy runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape runes lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling eve isk eve online isk buy runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold Scions of Fate Gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium SOF Gold Age Of Conan Gold AOC Gold ArchLord gold tibia money tibia gold runescape accounts runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling buy ArchLord gold DDO Plat Dungeons and Dragons Online Plat