Make big decisions for humanity always weigh their effects on generations not yet born
Steps to make it happen
- People around the world talk together and agree that future people matter as much as people alive today.
- When countries and towns make big rules, they write down how those rules will affect people a hundred years from now.
- For things that cannot be fixed once they are broken, people make rules that require extra slow and careful thinking.
- Decision-making meetings include someone whose job is to speak from the point of view of future people.
- People later check how each decision affected the future and fix it where needed.
- Thinking about future people when deciding becomes normal everywhere in the world.
Water so far 💧 7
The proposal in detail
This proposal asks the world to share one common principle: in the big decisions humanity makes, the effects on generations not yet born should be weighed as heavily as the effects on people alive now. It covers national and regional governments, international bodies, local communities, and also companies and research institutions, whenever the effects of a decision will last for decades or even centuries. Examples include nature such as the climate, water, forests and seas, the introduction of new technologies, financial choices that push debt onto the future, and the passing on of culture such as languages and heritage. The principle has three pillars. The first is to estimate the effects far into the future before a decision is made, and to show the results in a form anyone can read. The second is that, for things that cannot be regained once lost, the careful choice should be taken unless there is a solid reason not to. The third is to give the discussion a role for someone who speaks from the standpoint of future generations. The specific mechanisms are left to each society to design to fit its own institutions and culture, and no single model is forced on anyone. Also, in situations where an immediate response should come first, such as rescuing people in a disaster, exceptions are allowed on the condition that the reasons are recorded and reviewed later. This principle does not put future people ahead of people today. It asks that both be kept fairly in view.
BenefitsFewer irreversible mistakes and fairness between generations
If this principle spreads, decisions will be less likely to be made only for short-term popularity or profit, and long-term problems whose results do not show right away will be easier to notice. It can give good reasons to support efforts that take decades to pay off, such as protecting nature, education, research and building the foundations of society. Being careful about changes that cannot be undone also makes it easier to avoid mistakes that no amount of regret can fix later. It can also prompt a rethink of debts and uses of resources that leave only burdens to future generations, which protects fairness between one generation and the next. In addition, estimating effects over the long term and making them public builds the habit of explaining the reasons for decisions to people, and raises openness in politics and management. This is not only for the sake of future people. For children and young people today, the comfort of knowing that their future is being properly thought about leads to trust in society and the will to take part. If the same principle is shared across borders, even problems that no single country can solve, such as the climate, can have a common starting point for discussion.
DrawbacksPeople suffering now may be put last, locking in unfairness
The strongest worry from those who oppose it is that, in the name of the future, help for people suffering from poverty or illness right now will be put off. In particular, if societies that are already wealthy limit development or the use of resources in societies that are trying to develop, saying it is to protect the future, the wealthy side could keep the gains it got first and push the burden onto the poorer side. Also, predictions a hundred years ahead can miss badly, and some question whether it is right to limit life today based on uncertain estimates. Even if a spokesperson for future generations is appointed, that person was not chosen by future people, so the question of who has the right to represent the future cannot be avoided. Some people see it as a problem for democracy that, depending on how the spokesperson thinks, the judgment of elected officials could be tied down. There are also concerns that estimating effects and holding discussions will cost time and money and delay needed decisions, and that the principle could become an empty form in which only the procedures are carried out and nothing real is behind them.
Learn the background
The effects of human actions now reach further into the future than ever before. Greenhouse gases stay in the air for hundreds of years, species that are lost never come back, and radioactive waste needs management for an almost unimaginably long time. Inventions that could change the shape of future society itself, such as artificial intelligence and technologies that rewrite genes, keep appearing one after another. Meanwhile, the way we decide things tends to be tied to short time frames. Elections come every few years, companies are judged every few months, and results in front of us are what is demanded. And the future generations who will be affected most can neither vote nor protest. In some countries and international settings, people have begun trying out commissioners or officials who represent future generations, but this is not yet an idea shared across the whole world. As global problems grow, the need is rising to confirm together, as a shared foundation for humanity, fairness that reaches across time.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes