Emily Stewart

Prof. Hans Oberdiek

ES Capstone - Week 8

16 March 1999

Facing Up To Reality:

A Critique of Arguments Against Taking Future Generations Into Account

In doing the readings for this week, I noticed that there were few

arguments in favor of ignoring concern for future generations. A large

percentage of the authors seemed to feel that it is our moral

responsibility to at least take the well being of future generations into

account in our decision-making (Note: these authors also provided us with

powerful arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to future

generations). In trying to figure out why there were so few arguments on

the other side of the issue, I realized that there simply aren't many ways

to argue against our moral responsibility to future peoples. I would like

to briefly address the weaknesses in arguments which suggest that we

should not factor the well-being of future generations into our

decision-making. I would then like to address the issue of whether

providing for future peoples will result in problems for the present

generation. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I will discuss a

weakness which I found in all of the articles, which is: in talking so

much about future concerns,it can be easy to lose track of the immediacy

of environmental concerns for generations who are already alive.

The only real arguments which we read against concern for future

peoples were found in the Heilbroner article. Heilbroner quotes two

different economists, both of whom seem to raise the same question: why

should I care how long the human species lives? One of the economists

states that we cant necessarily say that generations who are yet unborn

are any better off if they are born than if they are not (quoted in Pojman

277). The other economist states that, in thinking about how long humans

survive on earth, "I basically have come to the conclusion that I dont

care" (quoted in Pojman 277). I see a similar flaw in both of these

arguments -- namely that they only address the issue of human survival or

extinction, rather than grappling with the issue of well-being. While it

may be easy to write off the survival of the human species, I think it

requires a much greater level of callousness to condemn future generations

to years of struggle and illness. Perhaps its not too difficult to think

about the extinction of humans and say well, maybe we deserved it.

However, I find it excruciatingly difficult to approve of actions which

could cause the suffering of thousands of generations. Already, the earth

has seen dramatic increases in cancer rates and we have seen the

horrendous consequences of nuclear fall-out. If we continue to ignore the

impact which our actions have on the future, we will also see an increase

in these problems. The question which I am left with is: Can we, in good

conscience, condemn anyone (present or future peoples) to increases in

these sorts of problems? The answer to this question is found in many of

our readings for this week. One of the most powerful answers seems to lie

in Des Jardins book.

In discussing the writings of Richard Sylvan and Val Plumwood, Des

Jardins writes:

The present generation is sending extremely toxic wastes on a train ride

into the future with the worlds future populations, perhaps as many as

40,000 generations, as passengers. The present generation is guilty of a

great injustice by placing innocent future-people in grave risk, all

because we wish to avoid making changes in our comfortable consumer

lifestyle (Des Jardins 83).

Indeed, I dont see how anyone could argue against this philosophy.

Regardless of whether future peoples are part of our moral community (re:

Goldings article) or if they are different people from those who might

have lived (re: Parfits article), it seems to me that we must still take

responsibility for the possible consequences of our actions. In explaining

the need to take this type of responsibility, Parfit writes,"I am to

blame if I leave a man-trap on my land, which ten years later maims a five

year-old child" (quoted in Pojman 290). Regardless of whether or not he

intended to hurt the five-year-old girl (one would hope that he didnt

intend harm), the fact remains that he knew it could harm someone. In most

modern law schemes, that knowledge results in responsibility. In fact,

even without the knowledge of potential harm, it is often considered a

persons responsibility to gain that knowledge before taking action. If we

accept that leaving the man-trap on the land was a wrong action on the

owners part, why then is there any debate about whether leaving toxic

wastes in ones backyard is wrong? The obvious answer to the question is

that we cant always see the consequences (or dont want to see them). It

seems clear from this weeks readings that our avoidance comes not from a

sense that we are morally free of obligation to these peoples; rather, we

are able to effectively ignore the responsibility because it seems so far

off.

Having established that humans have some level of responsibility

for future populations, how then do we weigh this against the

responsibility for the well-being of current peoples? I would like to

suggest that these two responsibilities do not have to weigh against one

another. Perhaps, instead, they might be seen as working hand-in-hand. In

the article Who Cares for Posterity?, Garrett Hardin writes as if modern

peoples must sacrifice their own well-being if they are going to avoid

harming future peoples (see analogy about peasant and priest, Pojman 281).

Although many people seem to think this way, there are arguments which

prove that the opposite is true.

First, it is necessary to establish what is involved in our

responsibility to not harm future generations. One understanding of this

is that we must be more conscientious about hazardous substances and about

consuming excessive resources. Both of these actions could have positive

effects on current populations. For example, humans are already suffering

health problems and birth defects because of uncontrolled hazardous wastes

(Pojman 451). By monitoring these wastes more closely and limiting their

production, we would be helping not only future generations but also

current peoples. Another example is the issue of reducing fossil fuel

consumption. As a result of excessive burning of fossil fuels, modern

populations have suffered and are suffering severe health consequences

(due to decreased air quality). According to researcher Hilary French,"

Air pollution is truly a global public health emergency. United Nations

statistics show that more than one billion people - a fifth of humanity -

live in areas where the air is not fit to breathe" (Pojman 396). She goes

on to explain the numerous health problems which the decreased air quality

is causing. Here we see, once again, that providing for future peoples is

connected with improving the health and well-being of modern populations.

Although there is not always such a clear connection between providing for

the future and providing for oneself, there does seem to be a strong

relationship in the majority of environmental issues. Particularly in

terms of environmental degradation, the negative impacts often occur both

immediately and in the future (unfortunately, humans have been rather slow

to make the connections between environmental degradation and human

health).

This leads to the last issue which I mentioned in the beginning of

this paper: who is really affected by environmental degradation - future

people or current people? As I have demonstrated above, the impact is

often shared by people who are alive today and people who may live in the

future. One of the biggest problems I saw with this weeks readings was the

failure to recognize how quickly environmental issues can affect people.

All of the authors debated why we should care about future populations but

there was little mention of children who are alive today or those

childrens children. Heilbroner writes, "By the year 2075, I shall probably

have been dead for three quarters of a century. My children will also

likely be dead . . ." (Pojman 277). Although this may be the case for

Heilbroner, it is likely that I or my younger siblings may be alive in

2075, and our children may be alive for years after that. As a result of

this, I dont see these issues as being in the distant future. Statistics

have found that known fossil fuel reserves may run out within the next 200

years, at current rates of consumption (Des Jardins 90). There is also

evidence to show the potential for increased health problems, global

warming effects, etc, if we do not change current consumption patterns

(Pojman, Chap.s 11 &13). Furthermore, I have seen extensive wilderness

destruction within my short lifespan of twenty-one years --- how much

more, then, might take place within the next century? The evidence seems

to be clearly pointing to the fact that these are not simply concerns for

the distant future. Although its essential to recognize our moral

obligations to future generations, its also crucial to acknowledge that

the fate of people alive today may also be drastically affected by

environmental degradation.

At the beginning of this essay, I critiqued the two economists

quoted in Heilborns article. To return to them for a minute, both men

seemed to miss the point which I just mentioned -- the environmental

crisis is not simply a matter of whether or not humans survive. Instead,

it is a matter of how we are able to live over the next couple of

centuries (and possibly beyond). Will the world continue to be plagued by

rising cancer rates? Will the air be adequate to breathe without

developing illness or asthma? Will our children have forests to play in?

The answer to these questions lies clearly in our hands and in our

willingness to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

Regardless of whether the consequences will occur in twenty minutes, three

days or a year, we must be willing to face up to reality instead of always

turning to look the other way.