MODULE 4: Debate 3: Future People

 AGENDA

1. Future ethics
2. Discount View vs. Longtermism
3. Debate/Discussion

_________________________

Future ethics

1. How much should we do for future people?
2. How much should we spend on future people?

There are also future animals, plants, ecosystems, which might raise different issues

Future ethics is relevant to all sorts of environmental questions

1. Climate change, because worst impacts will be in the future
2. Aquifer overusage, ditto
3. Wilderness and wildllife disappearance, ditto

_________________________

Two positions on our obligations to future people

1. Discount View--environmental economists discussed by Broome--Nordhaus, Stern
2. Longtermism--Will MacAskill, What We Owe the Future; Who is he?

_________________________

The discount view (discussed Mar 14)

We should do and spend less on future people, the more future they are

• I should do and spend less on my future self, the more future she is
• We should do and spend less on future climate change problems, the more future they are
• Discounters propose specific discount rates 

Longtermism

• "Future people count. There could be a lot of them. We can make their lives go better." (MacAskill p. 9)
• They are a bit different from present people because they aren't as "near and dear" and can't reciprocate (p. 11)
• But they still "matter significantly" (p. 11) and we should be longtermists

_________________________

Arguments for discounting

1. Prioritarianism
2. Pure temporal distance
3. Investment
4. Other arguments

Arguments against discounting

1. Utilitarianism
2. No temporal discounting

_________________________

Arguments for longtermism

1. The hiker argument
2. The future plague argument
3. The time/distance argument
4. The imagining future people argument
   
5. The sheer number argument
6. Other arguments

Arguments against longtermism

MODULE 4: Future People

 AGENDA

1. No office hours today
2. Duties to future people -- John Broome, William McAskill
3. Later: Peter Singer, how do divide up duty to mitigate among nations

---

John Broome, "Climate Change Ethics" (Scientific American, 2008)

What sacrifices should we make--less plane travel, turning down the heat, eating less meat -- if we are sacrificing for the sake of

• people now
• people in 2050
• people in 2100
• people in 2200

How much should we spend on climate change -- mitigating, adapting, etc. -- if the benefit is received by

• people now
• people in 2050
• people in 2100
• people in 2200

Discounting view--the further out the beneficiaries, the less we have to sacrifice

_________________________

Warm up exercise

• You would pay $100 for a nice sweater.  
• What would you pay now for a sweater that will be delivered in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc?
• if you would pay a discounted price, why?

_________________________

How much should we discount when it comes to climate change spending?

Suppose...

flooding from sea level rise is expected in 100 years...

we want to build a dike protecting Houston...

the dike will prevent $1 trillion in damages...

what should we spend today for the dike?

1. We should spend up to a $1 trillion today for the dike (no discount)
2. We should spend less than $1 trillion (discount).

Broome: economists say we should discount, but disagree about the discount rate

---

Reasons FOR discounting

1. Alternative investment opportunities
2. Future people will be richer than us (everyone assumes)
3. The same goods will be worth less to them (diminishing marginal value)
4. Prioritarianism--we should give priority to the worse off (that's us!) not the better off (future people)
5. Pure temporal distance--events in the future just matter less, period
6. WHAT ELSE?

_________________________

Reasons against discounting, or at least for a lower discount rate

1. Utilitarianism--we should maximize total happiness, whether extra units of wellbeing are given to the worse off or the better off.
2. Temporal impartiality -- future counts just as much

Other reasons against discounting (not discussed by Broome)

1. Our old friend PCBB -- principle of commensurate benefits and burdens -- our consumption causes the future problems, so we should clean it up
2. Mitigation projects --"now or never"

_________________________

Broome's main points: 

• economists need ethics to resolve the issue of the discount rate
• his own view: lower discount rate, based on utilitarianism and temporal impartiality