Uncomfortable thought for the day: what duty of care do we have towards future generations?
By Dr Mike Flood
Mike is Chair of Milton Keynes Humanists and of Humanism for the Common Good.
Mike chairs Milton Keynes Humanists and Humanism for the Common Good, an independent project helping people respond to threats including misinformation, AI and climate breakdown. The project is developing Humanist Response Guides exploring major moral challenges of the 21st century. This article summarises one such guide: examining our responsibilities to future generations.
“The most important question we must ask ourselves is, ‘Are we being good ancestors?’” Jonas Salk, American virologist who developed one of the first successful polio vaccines
“We should try to be the parents of our future rather than the offspring of our past.” Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo, Spanish philosopher and poet
In his acclaimed book The Good Ancestor: How to Think Long Term in a Short-Term World (2020) the British-Australian philosopher and social thinker Roman Krznaric argues that while our technological and economic power has grown enormously in recent years, our ability to think and act for the benefit of future generations has failed to keep pace. He argues that many of today’s greatest problems – including climate change, biodiversity loss, political instability and technological risks – are a direct consequence of decisions made with immediate gains in mind rather than the longer-term wellbeing of humankind. He calls this the "tyranny of the now".
Krznaric’s contention is that our generation has acquired the capacity to fundamentally alter planetary systems through greenhouse gas emissions, species extinction, and emerging technologies such as AI and bioengineering, and that this has created a profound ethical imbalance in which the interests of living people consistently outweigh those of people yet to be born. And he challenges readers to imagine how history will judge today’s generation if we recklessly leave behind serious environmental degradation, depleted resources and unstable institutions. He suggests that overcoming short-termism will require changes in all aspects of modern life, politics, economics, education, culture and personal values – in short, we need to “rediscover traditions and institutions that prioritise the common good across generations”.
This raises profound questions about the extent to which current generations might be expected to make sacrifices for people who don’t yet exist. And there’s a rider: delays in addressing global challenges often make future solutions more difficult and more expensive.
Some uncomfortable thoughts for the day
So how should humanists interpret and act on our “duty of care to all of humanity including future generations” (as spelt out in the Declaration of Modern Humanism)? A good start might be (as Krznaric suggests) to ask yourself:
What legacy do I want to leave for my family, my community, and for the living world?
What small action can I take today that creates benefits long after I'm gone?
What long-term projects might I pursue with others that extend beyond my own lifetime?
And how about reflecting on your current lifestyle and that of your family:
Have you ever stopped to consider whether your use of fossil fuels is appropriate/justified bearing in mind your needs and resources, and the harmful effects of your greenhouse gas emissions?
And what about taking frequent holidays abroad on budget airlines, or insisting on your Sunday Roast?
These are uncomfortable questions for anybody, but as the consequences of a warming planet become ever more evident, social attitudes are going to have to change, especially for those of us living in the Rich World.
Can you envisage a time when excessive fuel consumption is frowned upon and regulated (as has happened with drink driving, wearing seatbelts, and smoking in public places)?
What one thing might make this happen for you? And what would you say constitutes "excessive" fuel consumption and "frequent" holidays abroad?
And if you or your humanist friends like to get more philosophical:
Who should make sacrifices for future generations – affluent Westerners or everyone, including people in developing countries who aspire to significantly higher standards of living?
How much weight should one give to the needs of future generations when there are billions of actual people alive today whose basic needs are still unmet?
What exactly is it that we owe future generations; and what rights (if any) do they have?
On the credit side of the ledger, remember to take account of the fact that future generations inherit not only our debts and environmental impacts but also our science, knowledge, technology, infrastructure, institutions, culture and accumulated prosperity – and that includes the contribution made by benevolent, far-sighted individuals and cultures that have built cathedrals, planted woodlands, preserved ecosystems, rescued endangered species, and created institutions intended to endure for centuries. To help reflect on this, imagine what would be required if a viral pandemic, asteroid strike or nuclear war wiped out much of the above, and survivors had to start rebuilding civilisation from scratch! Lewis Dartnell does this for us in his book The Knowledge.
What might humanists actually do?
In addition to debating these challenges, humanist groups might also like to:
Consider the proposals in the UNESCO Declaration on ‘The Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations’ which read as if they were written by humanists. Ask how far members agree with each in turn and why
Consider championing or supporting groups fighting for a fairer deal for future generations, such as The Intergenerational Foundation and The Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations, and groups promoting passage of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill, which requires the government to protect current and future generations and give them a voice in decision-making
Discuss Stop Ecocide International’s efforts to have ecocide recognised as a crime by the International Criminal Court; and
Promote awareness of ‘Earth Overshoot Day’ which, in 2026, fell on July 30 for the globe as a whole.
Social justice for future generations
Here are some initiatives that open societies might usefully adopt to help address the problem of social justice for future generations. They include: citizens' assemblies charged with thinking long-term and what to do about winners and losers; appointing Commissioners or Ombudsmen for Future Generations, as Wales did over a decade ago; creating legislative committees to scrutinise the impact /long-term consequences of proposed developments; and lowering the voting age (on the grounds that younger citizens have longer futures at stake) — all good topics for local group discussion!
As individuals, you might also like to consider:
Volunteering, participating in local organisations, and helping to build strong communities better prepared for dealing with the challenges that are coming down the line;
Working to leave something that lasts beyond you – this doesn't have to be grand: it could be planting trees, preserving local history, creating art, mentoring someone, or helping empower your community to be more socially active; and
Making the case for every trust, business or meetup (political or otherwise) to have an empty chair reserved for future generations to serve as a reminder that we owe them our consideration and respect.
I suspect former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown would concur with this: in his new book The Future Starts with Us he points out that while “war, mass migration, economic disruption and climate collapse fill our screens”, society is also facing “an epidemic of loneliness, a loss of community spirit and a growing sense that there is nowhere to turn in times of need, no common cause worth fighting for.” He cites the decline in volunteering and religious adherence and the collapse in membership of youth groups, women’s institutes, working men’s clubs and trade unions. In response, he strongly advocates for “renewed civic engagement”, which he sees as “the only real foundation for a more equitable and sustainable future” and, by implication, better prospects for future generations.
In conclusion
So, being a "good ancestor" is about making thoughtful decisions today that expand the options and improve the prospects for our children and their children while reducing avoidable harms to current generations and planet Earth. Readers of Humanistically Speaking no doubt already aspire to being kind, compassionate, and respectful of others, and doing what they can to minimise their environmental footprint. But what are we to make of the new Ottawa Declaration, which speaks of ‘
"Humanism as Resistance" and calls on people of good will to “step up in the public square with courage and confidence” in these fraught and difficult times and “not just to imagine a better future, but to act”? Sadly, the Declaration doesn’t say how, but our group has been reflecting on possible ‘
"hows" since early 2023, when we published our Manifesto on the Future of Humanism: today we are focused on producing ‘Humanist Response Guides’ to provide practical advice on working for the common good. How about you and your group: do you have plans to “step up to the public square”?
Additional notes
Influential thinkers on concern for future generations
Here for the record is a flavour of what some other influential thinkers have said on the tension between democratic politics and concern for future generations: In A Theory of Justice [1971] John Rawls introduces the "just savings principle" — behind a "veil of ignorance", people requiring each generation to preserve sufficient resources and institutions for those who follow. In The Imperative of Responsibility [1979] Hans Jonas argues that modern technology gives humanity unprecedented power to damage the future and suggests that democracies might need institutions capable of taking a much longer view. In Reasons and Persons [1984] Derek Parfitt focuses on why we owe anything to future people and he rejects the theory that our obligations towards future generations are discounted by x% a year. He also compares a policy which favours a future smaller population with a higher standard of living with a larger population with a lesser standard of living. In Safeguarding the Future [2017] Jonathan Boston explores how democratic institutions might be reformed without abandoning democratic principles; and in What We Owe the Future (2022) William MacAskill (one of the originators of the Effective Altruism Movement) argues that “Distance in time is like distance in space. People matter… even if they live thousands of years hence”; and last but not least, Axel Gosseries asks “what does ‘justice’ mean in an intergenerational context? in his 2023 book What is Intergenerational Justice?
Our responsibility for global warming
The fossil fuel industry is often blamed for global warming, but it’s basically feeding the demands that you, I and billions of others are making, and it is this that is driving changes in the climate (along with factory farming/fishing, deforestation and war). This does not excuse or exonerate the fossil fuel lobby, which has for decades sought to deny that climate change was happening or claim that humans weren’t causing it. And in respect of your car, be aware that at best diesel vehicles are 45% efficient and petrol vehicles, perhaps, 30%, but can be as low as 20%.
Do future generations have rights?
Legally, future generations don’t have legal rights – rights are granted to people and legal entities that they create, e.g. states, companies, international organisations and associations. But then aren’t descendants also created by people? Indeed, Jovan Kurbalija argues that by protecting future generations we are “protecting ourselves and our humanity”.
Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill
A Bill with this title was introduced in the House of Lords in 2021. It survived its first, second and third readings, but got stuck during its second reading in the House of Commons. The Bill aimed to establish a Future Generations Commissioner for the UK and require a minister in each government department be mandated to “promote the future” and publish national indicators measuring progress towards wellbeing goals.
About Humanism for the Common Good
This article forms part of a planned series from Humanism for the Common Good, a discussion group exploring the ethical challenges facing humanity in the twenty-first century. As technological change accelerates, biodiversity declines, the climate warms, and international cooperation comes under increasing strain, the group is asking a simple question: what role can humanism play in helping to build a better future? Their Humanist Response Guides, currently underway, are being produced in both short and long versions.
Comments