Q. who should speak for future generations?
Up till now it's voters: we're in a democracy and generally free market economy. Usually what's good for this generation is also good for the next generation - intergenerational interests are generally aligned. And if there's a mother or grandfather that's worried about the next generation they can cast their vote accordingly.
But if I could interpret my past voting logic under the microscope of generation-centric selfishness it would sound something like this: “I’ll vote for you if you borrow money (federal debt) and give it to me (low taxes, program spending) - leaving a future generation to pay the interest.” and “I’ll vote for you if you allow me to plunder the environment for my own economic gain - leaving a future generation to pay for adaptation.”
If that sounds weird, the case of Greece -and a few others like her- should serve as a wakeup call.
I spent some time in Greece back in the 1990s, and back then there was a culture of tax evaders. No receipts for anything. Underground economy. Oddly, that included value added tax even though it was flow through like the GST.
One fellow I was in daily contact with had tax auditors audit him and assess him more. He said he was honest and declared all his income but the auditors said he must be hiding much, much more because greeks don't normally declare honestly in full. Bottom line: there was no incentive to be honest in a sea of cheaters.
And we see the results today, with Greece needing bailout after their balance sheet was exposed.
We're in relatively good shape here in Canada. But with demographic shifts (aging) and entitlement program spending a function of demographics -health care, retirement, reduced income and taxes per capita - there are dark clouds on the horizon. How we handle these challenges will determine if some future generation ends up like Greece or fares better.
What I'm looking for: sustainable democracy, which I see as an antecendent to sustainable development: both environment and economy.
SUSTAINABLE DEMOCRACY - AN OXYMORON?
I used to think more democracy was the cure to all problems. For example if there was something like a TV channel changer, and all citizens would vote on each issue daily by pressing its buttons, I used to think that would fix some of the 'inefficiencies' in the system and bring us closer to utopia. Or if information was disseminated better so voters could see the whole issue in detail, that would result in better voting and utopia.
But I know myself a bit better as a voter now. I voted for lowering the GST. That cut budgetary surplus, and during the recession we ran up government debt, which -if we don't restore taxes or tax revenue- will mean some future generation will be paying interest on debts I ran up.
And I voted for caution/slowness on the kyoto/carbon-tax/cap&trade issue. Even though I read "Limits to Growth" back in the 1970s, which had a chapter on CO2 and global warming.
If I could interpret my voting logic it would sound something like this: “I’ll vote for you if you borrow money and give it to me - leaving a future generation to pay the interest.” and “I’ll vote for you if you allow me to plunder the environment for my own economic gain - leaving a future generation to pay for adaptation.”
Economists like what Adam Smith had to say about free enterprise: "Two parties, each acting in their own self interest, are better off..." And economists also pointed out the flaws with that - the reason we need laws:
- Externalities - a 3rd party not part of the deal is made worse off
- Tragedy of the Commons - like overfishing - each party is better off by taking more than their fair share and doing it as fast as possible - even especially knowing it's all going to run out
So I see my voting as containing some combination of the problems of 'Generational Externalities' and Tragedy of the Commons. If the Commons will be depleted well within my lifetime - in a few years lets say - then of course I'm all for regulations to preserve it, make it sustainable and stop others from prematurely exhausting it. But when the Commons lifespan spans generations, and only runs out in some future generation, I'm likely to not want sustainable regulation. Because being selfish, I'll want to get as much as I can in my lifetime and I don't care if it runs out in some future generation. Both the environment and government debt are resources or Commons I selfishly want to deplete in my lifetime, and I don't care if some future generation has to pay the tab.
Or at least, that seems to be how I'm voting.
Information isn't the problem. I know about government debt. I know about the GHG and global warming, and its impacts. Selfishness relative to future generations is the problem. So giving me more information won't help future generations, or giving me a more democratic 'direct line' to government decision making won't help future generations. Democracy in it's purest utopian form won't help.
I see democracy as part of the problem for future generations. And I see a need for 'sustainable democracy' as an antecedent to sustainable economics and sustainable environment.
I suspect I'm not alone in my suspicions about democracy.http://dambisamoyo.com/category/blog/ MOYO -an economist- says:
"""
It is pretty clear that, politicians are, for the most part, driven by attaining and retaining political power. The problem is that over time and across the world, there has emerged a myopic political culture where politicians (and the decisions they make) are rewarded for focussing on shorter term (more tactical issues), rather than critical longer-term (more structural issues).
Worse still, the desire to win votes at regular elections provides negative incentives and inducements that encourage policymakers to enact dismal policies. This is not to say that democratic elections are a bad thing. It is to say that economic policy has increasingly become beholden to political machinations, with the most detrimental economic consequences for growth and poverty.
"""
http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/ LOMBORG -also an economist and self-described post-Al-Gorian says (me paraphrasing from his CNN interview) 'forget about mitigation (of CO2), it's much cheaper to spend the same money on adaptation, and on cheap research'. The idea behind cheap research is what I'll call Lomborgian Innovation: to reduce the cost of mitigation so that the current generation doesn't feel like it's sacrificing anything for some future generation. To convert it from a zero-sum game between generations into a non-zero-sum game.
But democracy has been working well for centuries now. What's changed? The size of the impacts on future generations. A hundred years ago if I wanted to screw the planet or bankrupt a country I couldn't have because the technology and mechanisms didn't exist back then. But today bonds can be auctioned in 30 seconds -enough to bankrupt a country- and it's happening in Europe. And -no surprise- we've already screwed the planet.http://sync.sympatico.ca/news/new_study_suggests_climate_change_would_continue_even_without_greenhouse_gases/d7937043
SUSTAINABLE DEMOCRACY
I don't know how to achieve it. But here's how I would measure it: when it's a zero-sum game between the current generation and some future generations, the future generations' needs are weighted in as fairly as you would weight between two parties in the current generation.
Once you have some way to do that, then sustainable economy and sustainable environment are easy to achieve with or without perfect information or perfect voting mechanisms or perfect politicians or perfect parties. So I see sustainable democracy as an antecedent to sustainable development/economy/environment.
Q. how to weight the needs of some future generation?
Sometimes what seems to be a direct zero-sum tradeoff between generations isn't. If we deplete a mineral -mine it out and use it up- some future generation may invent a substitute that's cheaper and better, or may not have the same use for the mineral anyway. So what we value in this generation, some future generation might not value.
If future generations could time travel, and show up at an auction to bid against this generation for resources, who would outbid whom for what? A future generation might say "you can have it at that price, because by the time we need it, we'll have invented some other way to do it."
And let's say I selfishly run up government debt in this generation. What do I do with that money? Maybe I build infrastructure which some future generation will want anyway. In other words, it's not wasted. Perhaps the increased efficiency from that infrastructure in this generation means some future generation will inherit a larger more robust economy. So being selfish in this generation isn't necessarily in conflict with the interests of a future generation - my interests and theirs can be aligned. http://www.nonzero.org/
But that infrastructure may not be needed like I'm assuming. If it was road infrastructure, what if future generations don't use roads, except for hauling food and building materials. Perhaps various forms of virtual travel / telepresence / telerobotics, along with high speed trains, will largely obsolete the use of roads.
I struggle to find an example of a certain clear-cut zero-sum tradeoff between generations. But just because it's very hard to calculate and speak for future generations' needs doesn't mean we should not try.
SOME HALF-BAKED IDEAS FOR MAKING DEMOCRACY MORE SUSTAINABLE
1. give vote to children
2. make vote weighted, and weighted inversely with age
3. give vote to future generations (but how to know what they would vote for)
4. invite other countries/outside interests to vote on behalf of our future generations and vice versa, so interests aren't in direct conflict
5. do a lot of cheap research to invent new things that solve this generation's money and evironmental impacts in ways that don't seem like a sacrifice (so called Lomborgian Innovation)
6. generational philanthropists: keep the future impacts of todays selfishness top of mind during elections with non-partisan media campaigns which do the hard sell so politicians don't have to, and try to calculate -net of shared benefits- what part is a zero-sum game
7. let democracy run its course, ruin itself and the earth if that's its destiny, and see what evolves from the ashes
8. elect children to the Senate
9. adaptation set-aside regulation insofar as current generations will vote for it
The idea about giving more weight to youth in a democracy may not be quite what I'm thinking. As a youth I was often impulsive and short sighted. But the general idea is that youth can internalize more of those generational externalities: they'll be around to feel the impacts.
In the interim, I can try to remind myself of impacts on future generations as I cast my democratic vote. And if there are voices to help me with that so much the better.
