On another blog, there is a discussion of what we owe our grandchildren. I don’t comment there any more because any dissenting view is stomped on, chewed up and spat out by the blogger’s acolytes. I tell you, it’s even worse than this place.
But the subject is interesting. I think it takes a kind of arrogance for us to decide what kind of world our grandchildren will want. Mine are both under 5 so they will begin to grapple with the world in, say, 20 years. Look back 20 years: no internet, 5 TV channels in Australia, newspapers were fat and happy, China had prospects but nothing else, the Australian economy was being deregulated rapidly…When they will be reaching the peak of their careers in about 40 years, no one now can predict what things will be like. It’s lots of fun to try, of course, but the results will be nonsense.
Going back, my grandparents had no idea at all what I would be doing or how I would be living or what i would need to live. They – and my parents – had left school at 14 and when I went overseas for postgraduate study my grandmother (both grandfathers had died by then as life expectancy tables predicted) I was the only person my grandmother had ever known who had travelled overseas voluntarily. A few relatives had gone away during the War.
If my grandparents had, when I was 3, tried to make sure the world would be suitable for me when I grew up they would probably have kept some land on the family farm for me. They would probably also have tried to make sure I grew up knowing how to drive a horse and sulky.
It did not occur to them that it would be a good thing to keep Sydney Harbour clean for me. When that became important to us and the industry on the harbour had closed we fairly quickly cleaned up the water. That happened over the past 20 years or so and as a result the water is cleaner than it has been in the past 100 years. When the problem became important to us we fixed it.
And as many have pointed out, my grandparents’ generation did not decide to conserve whales because otherwise we would have no fuel for lighting.
So for me to try to preserve the world for the way I think my grandchildren will want it it foolish and mostly pointless. The world they will live in will be quite different to the one I know and they will be more than capable – and wealthy enough – to change things to suit them.
So for me to try to preserve the world for the way I think my grandchildren will want it it foolish and mostly pointless. The world they will live in will be quite different to the one I know and they will be more than capable – and wealthy enough – to change things to suit them.
Surely this is a bit of a non-sequitur. Naturally, we can’t know for sure what future generations will want (or will have wanted from us) but we can reasonably assume they’d prefer a world where the environment isn’t completely trashed.
THR
29 Mar 10 at 9:32 pm
THR
Given there is not a shred of evidence that we can control the environment to our liking for our grandchildren, we would be doing them a huge disservice by putting all our eggs in that basket while neglecting all the other things they might “prefer.”
Peter Patton
29 Mar 10 at 9:40 pm
Future generations don’t exist. If your grandchildren are not born, you’re literally making decisions on behalf of non-existent people.
Also, every decision you do make ripples into the future, changing who will have sex with who, and therefore what children will actually be born. Clean up the harbour? As a result of that decision, the children who would have been disgusted by that dirty harbour won’t exist now; it will be a different lot who will enjoy a clean harbour.
daddy dave
29 Mar 10 at 9:41 pm
Nonsense. There may be little we can do to alter climate change (certainly by market mechanisms, anyway), but thre’s plenty that’s done to ‘control’ the environment. National parks protect rainforests, for instance. Certain species are protected. Legislated limits are imposed on the type and amount of toxins you can pump into the air or water supply.
So sure, it may be that future generations find an alternative to clean air and fresh water, and don’t care if they’re got rid of, but it’s these propositions which are unsupported by evidence.
THR
29 Mar 10 at 9:43 pm
On current projections they will be getting a large pile of debt and a nanny state.
asf
29 Mar 10 at 9:44 pm
I hope my grand children can have a smoke in a pub with a cold beer if they so choose. It’s a simple dream.
Infidel Tiger
29 Mar 10 at 10:13 pm
but we can reasonably assume they’d prefer a world where the environment isn’t completely trashed.
Luckily, they’re very likely to inherit an environment that is not “completely trashed”.
What’s most interesting about discussions like this is that there seems to be little analogous concern for the aesthetic, intellectual, and moral environments that future generations are likely to inherit.
dover_beach
29 Mar 10 at 10:31 pm
What’s most interesting about discussions like this is that there seems to be little analogous concern for the aesthetic, intellectual, and moral environments that future generations are likely to inherit.
I took the post in question to be alluding to JQ’s post on the same theme, which had the environment in mind. All the same, perhaps this isn’t the blog for talk of deterioration in the aesthetic, intellectual, and moral spheres, since in every case this deterioration can be tied to market processes and crass capitalism, broadly speaking.
THR
29 Mar 10 at 10:37 pm
You know I was thinking the exact opposite the other day as I saw a sad little corner store that was boarded up, and I pined for days of yore when I’d go to the corner store and get bullets and musk sticks and Batman comics. And then I realised that the whole thing was a creation of markets and capital. The corner store itself; the musk sticks; the comics.
Capitalism constructs culture.
daddy dave
29 Mar 10 at 10:42 pm
I took the post in question to be alluding to JQ’s post on the same theme, which had the environment in mind. All the same, perhaps this isn’t the blog for talk of deterioration in the aesthetic, intellectual, and moral spheres, since in every case this deterioration can be tied to market processes and crass capitalism, broadly speaking.
That particular remark of mine wasn’t directed at you, THR. But by the by, you might tie some of this deterioration to ‘crass capitalism’, but the idea that market processes are in every case to blame is a little rich.
dover_beach
29 Mar 10 at 10:54 pm
Ditto to freedom, Tiger. Australia has had too many Labor governments – and too many Barry O’Fraser softcock ‘conservatives’ for too long. They’re slowly Canadaising the joint because that’s what they do – leech off the taxpayers while inventing ever-new ways to save us, ‘help’ us and make us healthier and more nice.
I too dream of a future for my grandchildren where they’re sitting in a pub drinking a full-strength beer (if they choose), smoking a ciggie and maybe getting roped into the antique game of ‘Trivial Pursuit,’ which will feature such questions as:
Q: Which Australian prime minister is considered the last of the ‘Age of Prohibition’?
A: Kevin Rudd.
Q: Which teetotalling Australian Labor Party leader sought to alter the Constitution to make health and safety compulsory?
A: Jonathan Crean IV.
Q: Which Australian rock band had a number one hit called Blow It Out Your Arse after being vainly ordered by the Victorian government of Jemima Cain to wear yellow reflector vests on stage?
A: AC/DC.
C.L.
29 Mar 10 at 10:56 pm
I mean in the broadest sense, dover, and I’d add the caveat that one shouldn’t be too reductionist about it. For instance, Western pop music has definitely been in decline since hitting it’s peak in the 60′s (or maybe the early-70s and despite a few spasms of life since), yet I wouldn’t say this is entirely due to market processes.
Generally speaking, I think my point above is one with which some conservatives might agree. If the merit of everything is to be judged in dollars, this necessarily has a range of consequences. Market individualism has supplanted many forms of communitarianism. And you can see from Ken’s piece above, a kind of ‘presentism’ (which is tied explicitly to market logic) is used to justify negligence of the environment. I would argue that this does signify a decline in the intellectual and moral spheres. It’s really a kind of reduction of man to the ethical status of a two-year old. You ask him to get out of the way of the television, and he, in his egocentricity, seeks a better vantage point for himself.
THR
29 Mar 10 at 11:01 pm
Western pop music has definitely been in decline since hitting it’s peak in the 60’s…
That’s what Al Jolson aficionados said about Glenn Miller’s stuff in the 40s.
C.L.
29 Mar 10 at 11:06 pm
An environment that’s trashed?
We change the environment because that is what is being human is all about. Does anyone think the green and very pretty English countryside is in it’s original state,…. or any part of europe for that matter? Seriously?
This environment is being trashed stuff is total crap.
As for our grandchildren’s future…? Why just our grandchildren?
How about the 600 million people moving out of grinding poverty in the 3rd world that are now giving their own children a chance of middle class existence.
The future of our grand children is fine provided we don’t fuck up the economy with piles of debt and turn ourselves into Argentina which has been on a one way ticket to the bottom of the heap through terrible economic management.
Here’s a bet that I am happy to have with anyone. I’m happy to bet that Australian kids in 30 years will have a higher standard of living than we do. If someone is prepared to argue that trashing the environment will have bad consequences they ought to be offering me decent odds (better than even money) that my prediction won’t happen.
Of course I won’t be betting that outcome for the US as I honestly think there is a risk they are descending into Argentinean economics from which they won’t escape for a very long time. At least at the present time there is broad agreement with the Australian electorate that we should not allow public debt to reach horrific proportions thanks to Howard’s stewardship, so we won’t be getting into trouble, or it won’t be as likely as the US or Europe.
JC1
29 Mar 10 at 11:08 pm
JC, I’m not sure it’s possible for Australia to have a higher standard of living in 30 years if the US doesn’t follow suit. I’m not relying on some Chicom arseholes in Beijing to protect what’s left of our liberties.
Infidel Tiger
29 Mar 10 at 11:21 pm
Agree ASF
We owe future generations the decency of not passing on our debt
Hawker
29 Mar 10 at 11:22 pm
the problem with looking far ahead into the future is we really can’t predict HOW people will be living. if we hit the singularity then it is possible that almost every human-like being will be living inside software instead of the real world. no-one except the super rich who can afford to live in the real world are going to care what the real world looks like.
drscroogemcduck
29 Mar 10 at 11:22 pm
For instance, Western pop music has definitely been in decline since hitting it’s peak in the 60’s (or maybe the early-70s and despite a few spasms of life since), yet I wouldn’t say this is entirely due to market processes.
I think CL’s point hits the mark. I think that there is a lot of very good pop music out there now, if there is a difference between then and now it may be that there is a lot more capital around to invest in trash now compared to then.
If the merit of everything is to be judged in dollars, this necessarily has a range of consequences
Well, yes, but then very few people judge the worth of everything in dollars.
And you can see from Ken’s piece above, a kind of ‘presentism’ (which is tied explicitly to market logic) is used to justify negligence of the environment.
Well, yes, but then so much of what is involved in market transactions looks beyond the merely ‘present’ else no one would ever engage in projects that only look like returning an interest on the capital invested in the long-term.
dover_beach
29 Mar 10 at 11:29 pm
That’s true infidel. The real risk for us is that the US acts like Demolitionist party guided missile heading straight for the ground.
There’s only a couple of things we need to do to secure the future of our grandchildren. Allow markets to flourish, don’t impede capital formation, keep the government out of people’s lives and allow immigration. That’s really the best set of gifts we could give them.. and of course stop piling up government debt as that really is a transfer from future genrations to the present.
JC1
29 Mar 10 at 11:33 pm
Well, yes, but then so much of what is involved in market transactions looks beyond the merely ‘present’ else no one would ever engage in projects that only look like returning an interest on the capital invested in the long-term.
Well, I don’t wish to labour this point, but a certain financial crisis of 2008 was triggered, in part, by investment in shonky financial products, and in speculative bubbles. Is that not an example of people making market transactions, believing magically in a kind of infinite present, even when disaster is just around the corner?
THR
29 Mar 10 at 11:35 pm
without getting to the reasons why it occurred, THR. So what though. The history of the developed world is replete with financial boom and busts.
The crash was nothing new. What is scary are the so-called “solutions”.
THR, read James Grant’s history of economic crashes in the US. The idea this shit is different is really amusing.
It’s two steps forward and one step back. Big deal…. in he context of history.
JC1
29 Mar 10 at 11:40 pm
Then by the same logic, why care about national debt? Why assume that, as a species, we’ll roll with every environmental punch, but be unable to endure a financial hiccup here or there?
THR
29 Mar 10 at 11:44 pm
THR: Market individualism has supplanted many forms of communitarianism
I know that is a standard meme in the average arts faculty, but is it true? I would argue that the fall in communitarian activities might have more to do with the expanding role of the state taking on activities that might have been otherwise been done by self organising communities in the past. You could argue that government is stepping in to fill a gap, but the sad reality is that out of a desperate need to ‘do something’ premiers, ministers and PMs leap in where angels fear to tread. Look St the ever expanding range of natural disaster assistance, often running ahead of expectations in one event, to be found wanting at the next.
To give an anecdote, my brother inlaw’s neighbourhood in Bethesda USA is a hell of a lot more communitarian than the typical brtish or Australian street these days.
Entropy
29 Mar 10 at 11:51 pm
That’s partly true, Entropy. I can think of several State areas in which Government is attempting (usually in a miserably inept fashion) to step in on behalf of communities. But then, States are themselves not exempt from market individualism. They’re built on the same logic in large part.
THR
29 Mar 10 at 11:58 pm
THR:
Because it’s axiomatic that borrowing is a way of moving consumption to the present from the future and if you really believe that the future of our grand children’s living standards are important, you should be more than a little careful in raising debt to pay for present day consumption. You should also be more than a little careful that the level of debt doesn’t overwhelm economic well being.
You’re moving the goal posts on the issue from “trashing the environment to suggesting we’re going to suffer an economic calamity as a result of an environmental disaster.
There are ways with dealing with an potential environmental calamity than raising an ETS.
Lastly you haven’t dealt with the issue of what trashing the environment actually means.
Does it mean that we should be concerned with humans changing the environment? We have been doing that through human history. Change does not mean disaster.
And Change doesn’t mean future well being will be adversely affected.
JC1
30 Mar 10 at 12:06 am
“They’re built on the same logic in large part.”
Which is…?
Greego
30 Mar 10 at 12:07 am
“When they will be reaching the peak of their careers in about 40 years, no one now can predict what things will be like. It’s lots of fun to try, of course, but the results will be nonsense…So for me to try to preserve the world for the way I think my grandchildren will want it it foolish and mostly pointless.”
Some things have short-term volatility, others do not. Some have short-term half-lives, others do not. Your argument by analogy fails on this point.
“and they will be more than capable – and wealthy enough – to change things to suit them.”
An assumption. How does your opinion fare if you modify this assumption? That is, how sensitive is your conclusion to different parameters? I would be interested to know.
Jarrah
30 Mar 10 at 12:12 am
Is that not an example of people making market transactions, believing magically in a kind of infinite present, even when disaster is just around the corner?
Well, yes, but so what, they don’t exhaust all market transactions. Market transactions are no different from any other types of human conduct; they exhibit a range of rationalities and sensibilities.
dover_beach
30 Mar 10 at 1:01 am
Market transactions are no different from any other types of human conduct; they exhibit a range of rationalities and sensibilities.
Sure, but why then attribute magical powers to them? I’m not suggesting that you personally have, but the idea that markets are a solution to every problem isn’t hard to find around here.
Because it’s axiomatic that borrowing is a way of moving consumption to the present from the future and if you really believe that the future of our grand children’s living standards are important, you should be more than a little careful in raising debt to pay for present day consumption
But perhaps we could reconstruct the economic system with as much ease or difficulty as developing alternative energy sources whilst maintaining growth. I mean, a future unharmed by present debt isn’t too difficult to conceive. Who knows – a few countries may even try to inflate there way out.
Lastly you haven’t dealt with the issue of what trashing the environment actually means.
Perhaps I could put it better by defining what isn’t trashing the environment. I mean keeping the air of reasonable quality, unlike some parts of China for instance. Keeping a good supply of fresh water. Call me an incurable sentimentalist, but maybe we could preserve some forests and species of wildlife.
I have to say, I’m not as optimistic about wealth or living standards in the future. There will surely be better technology, but it’s a political and economic problem (rather than scientific) to figure out how to actually make it accessible to people. There’s already some evidence in the West that this generation is the first in a while to live shorter lives than their parents.
THR
30 Mar 10 at 1:17 am
Which is…?
Greego, I mean private property for private profit. Again, there are broad brushstrokes, not fine-grain analyses.
THR
30 Mar 10 at 1:19 am
OK, let me clear up a couple of things.
I agree that it would be wrong for us to leave the world so radioactive that human life is impossible. That is unlikely unless someone decides to start a large scale nuclear war. I agree that would be a bad thing to do.
Jarrah: I agree that if there is a large decline in human intelligence or the ability to innovate, my opinion will turn out wrong. As that has not happened in 50,000 years I think it is a reasonable working assumption that it won’t occur.
Of course, there could be a ceasing of innovation due to government action and I will do whatever I can in my lifetime to prevent that.
THR: My great-grandparents trashed the environment by spreading horseshit all over the roads. My grandparents’ generation solved that problem by developing horseshit free modes of transport.
Ken Nielsen
30 Mar 10 at 6:08 am
And of course THR almost all the innovation I am talking about occurred under what you would call capitalism. I can’t think of many that were the result of government action.
When I was a kid we were told about something the CSIRO invented that kept the crease in wool trousers. I guess for a while that contributed to human happiness and welfare.
Ken Nielsen
30 Mar 10 at 6:11 am
The sort of mind that deludes itself it that it has the power to control not only future environments, but also what will be desired by future generations is, the very essence of a dangerous authoritarian mind.
Peter Patton
30 Mar 10 at 6:20 am
Have a look at what previous generations of leftists and statists have done to a large segment of our aborigines.
Peter Patton
30 Mar 10 at 6:35 am
Ken, your assumption requires a lot more than just the reasonable expectation of humans continuing to be able to think. You are saying that a) the problems your grandchildren will face will be capable of fixing, and b) your grandchildren will have the resources to implement the fixes. These are not givens.
Also, your argument suggests that NO problem we currently have or can foresee should be dealt with or planned for – the richer, different-world-living grandchild (if valid) is a rhetorical counter that can be applied indiscriminately. THR alludes to this problem in his 1:17am comment.
Jarrah
30 Mar 10 at 7:03 am
Jarrah, I cannot forecast what problems my grandchildren will be facing so I can’t think what I can do to help them now. All generations have been able to manage their problems reasonably well so I am prepared to make the assumption that that will continue.
Ken Nielsen
30 Mar 10 at 7:18 am
These are not givens.
True, they are not givens, however to dismiss a reasonable possibility of solving these problems is to deny the main feature of human history which is to shape the environment to serve us, not the other way around.
I would doubt very much we could all now survive as nomads.
It’s interesting how you are more than prepared to extrapolate long term climate models but dismiss the one long term chart that proves my point. How interesting.
JC1
30 Mar 10 at 7:24 am
“There’s already some evidence in the West that this generation is the first in a while to live shorter lives than their parents.”
Jarrah, that in nonsense. That story – which was that there is a possibility that life expectancy might not continue to increase as it almost always has – had its origin in a rather strange article by a sociologist who has had a running argument over many years with the demographers. At one stage he argued that the forecasts of continuing increases in life expectancy took no account of a major pandemic.I don’t believe any demographer agreed with him and the story has become part of folklore in the careless reaches of the media.
Reading your comments again, I think the source of differences of opinion on this and similar issues is whether the writer is an optimist or a pessimist.
I am an optimist.
Ken Nielsen
30 Mar 10 at 7:25 am
Sorry, Jarrah, my last comment was in answer to THR.
Ken Nielsen
30 Mar 10 at 7:26 am
My grandfather’s view of the environment was this – if it moved, shoot it. If it didn’t move, chop it down.
Skills that he would have wanted to pass on would include knowing how to shovel coal into a steam train and the best places to shoot koalas (yes, he shot a lot of them for their fur).
boy on a bike
30 Mar 10 at 7:46 am
the richer, different-world-living grandchild (if valid) is a rhetorical counter that can be applied indiscriminately.
.
Yep, you’re right, it can be used anywhere and everywhere in this discussion, but that doesn’t make it invalid. Incidentally, the idea of the “richer, different-world-living grandchild”, as you put it, comes from the non-identity problem posed by philosopher Derek Parfit. (in other words, the idea that future generations don’t have an identity).
From wiki
daddy dave
30 Mar 10 at 9:26 am
[...] of the comments to my post about our duties to our grandchilden got me thinking about optimism and [...]
Optimism at Catallaxy Files
30 Mar 10 at 1:46 pm
“All generations have been able to manage their problems reasonably well”
Ah, but did they do so without forethought and planning by their forebears? Also, have you considered the possibility that the environmental problems (which is really what this is about) your grandchildren might face are qualitatively different to the ones our grandparents faced?
I’m still interested to know what your opinion would be if you posed some hypotheticals along these lines.
“Yep, you’re right, it can be used anywhere and everywhere in this discussion, but that doesn’t make it invalid.”
That’s not what would make it invalid. Whether the grandchild will be sufficiently different and sufficiently richer is what is up for dispute. Like I said right at the beginning, Ken made an assumption about that sufficiency that underpins his conclusion, so logically, reasonably modifying that assumption changes the conclusion.
Anyway, the richer, different-world-living grandchild is a hypothetical device that is essentially capable of negating every proposal for action on any topic whatsoever. It’s a Doomsday weapon – no-one wins. What’s the point?
“(in other words, the idea that future generations don’t have an identity)”
Dover_beach and others will remember the discussion we had on this topic some time ago. My main point then, and now, is that specific individuals belonging to a future generation have no identity or interests we should concern ourselves with, but future generations will exist that will have identities and interests. Whether we owe them anything is another question, but future generations are, unlike a lot in this discussion, a given.
Jarrah
30 Mar 10 at 2:59 pm
Oh Jesus. Clearly the second year undergraduate Law tutorial has finished for the day.
Peter Patton
30 Mar 10 at 3:01 pm
It’s a Doomsday weapon – no-one wins. What’s the point?
.
It shows that our instinctive desire to protect “future generations” is not entirely rational.
All we need to do is look after the the world for the babies and children of today. That’s enough; that system works fine. And when they’re grown and take charge of the world we’ve left them, they in turn can look after the interests of their children, who will look after the interests of their children, and so on. But Parfit shows that if you skip too many levels, it actually doesn’t make any sense from a deep philosophical point of view.
daddy dave
30 Mar 10 at 3:19 pm
The bizarre thing is that in between the “children of today” and “future generations” are foetuses currently in the womb.
An individuals progression through time goes in these stages:
A. existing in the future
B. currently under consruction
C. running around, existing.
D. dead.
.
Many – especially environmentalists – want to protect the interests of group A and C, but not B. That’s utterly inconsistent. If you believe in abortion, then you can not then argue in favour of protecting “future generations.” The foetus has at least the rights of the unconcieved.
daddy dave
30 Mar 10 at 3:24 pm
OK Jarrah I concede. You are correct.
ken n
30 Mar 10 at 4:07 pm
No DD the two arguments are orthogonal.
We are trying to preserve the environment at some future time.
A is the set of living people at this future time.
Not all of B or C will be living people in the future for whatever reason. So these are not of concern for this question, only A is.
B and C might have rights but the legal methods that might prevent them being in set A (abortion, capital punishment etc) are different questions.
Steve Edney
30 Mar 10 at 4:09 pm
No DD the two arguments are orthogonal.
.
Possibly.
But I’m sure ken didn’t want the thread to get derailed into abortion, so I’ll leave it go.
daddy dave
30 Mar 10 at 4:17 pm
Derail away, dd.
Ken Nielsen
30 Mar 10 at 4:21 pm