Representation of future generations in United Kingdom policy-making

Jones, Natalie J.; O’Brien, Mark; Ryan, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.01.007

Cited by 27 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the issue of practical, real-life, institutional representation of future generations' voices remains unresolved, answering this question is more urgent than ever. In fact, drawing on case studies of institutions representing future generations in six countries and regions, Jones, O'Brien, and Ryan [17] (p. 158) concluded, "Institutions which are given too much power, too early in their lifespan, tend to face rejection from politicians." These cases clearly show how introducing representatives of the future generation into the contemporary political system induces intra-generational conflict and fails to attain its intended goals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future Design as a Metacognitive Intervention for Presentism

Nakagawa

Saijo

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many serious problems occur due to conflicts between the interests of the present generation and the welfare of future generations, and thus, the actions of the preset generation may be a consequence of presentism. Drawing on the theoretical framework of metacognition, the present study investigates how presentism can be overcome through future design interventions that incorporate an imaginary future generation setting. Four workshop participants were interviewed, and transcripts of the interviews were made. There were two major findings. First, we identified narratives in the responses of participants that suggest that metacognition was active during the workshops concerning the two cognitions governed by present and future selves. Second, the narratives identified above were classified into two categories, and the two corresponding roles of metacognition were identified: the monitoring and controlling function and the harmonizing function. The former is essential for the acquisition of identity as a future person; the latter is essential for reconciling this future identity with the identity of the person in the present. The present study proposes that future design is a tool that can be used to intervene in the metacognition of individuals concerning how one chooses a temporal reference point from which to view the past, present, and future of society rather than a tool to naively motivate individuals to care for future generations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future Design as a Metacognitive Intervention for Presentism

Nakagawa

Saijo

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings have two important practical implications for institutionalizing representation of future generations' voices. First, institutions representing future generations are likely to encounter rejection from politicians if the institutions receive too much power (Jones, O'Brien, and Ryan, 2018). Such failure seems likely because institutionalization does not include the mechanism by which politicians who oppose such institutionalization change their attitudes toward future generations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This inattention leads inevitably to the irreconcilable dilemma that more influential, effective institutionalization is less likely to be sustainable in democratic constitutions. In fact, drawing on case studies of institutions representing future generations in six countries and regions, Jones, O'Brien, and Ryan (2018;p.158) concluded, "Institutions which are given too much power, too early in their lifespan, tend to face rejection from politicians." Thus, unlike earlier studies, this study seeks a form of institutionalization in which politicians elected in a conventional democratic manner are allowed voluntarily to represent future generations' voices (future generations' voluntary representatives).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can individuals caring little about future generations serve as their representatives?

Nakagawa

Saijo

2020

Futures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KUT-SDE working papers are preliminary research documents published by the School of Economics and Management jointly with the Research Center for Social Design Engineering at Kochi University of Technology. To facilitate prompt distribution, they have not been formally reviewed and edited. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment and may be revised. The views and interpretations expressed in these papers are those of the author(s). It is expected that most working papers will be published in some other form.

show abstract

“…Solving the coordination problems at the heart of commons and conflict risks is sometimes possible by fostering national or international cooperation, be it through building dedicated institutions or through establishing beneficial customs . One idea is to give a stronger political voice to future generations (Jones et al, ; Tonn, , ). Lastly, we can prevent malicious risks by combating extremism. Technical (Trask, ) as well as institutional (Lewis, ) innovations may help with governance challenges in this area, a survey of which is beyond the scope of this article. Note that our classification by origin is aimed at identifying policies that would – if successfully implemented – reduce a broad class of risks.…”

Section: Classification By Origin: Types Of Prevention Failuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defence in Depth Against Human Extinction: Prevention, Response, Resilience, and Why They All Matter

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We look at classifying extinction risks in three different ways, which affect how we can intervene to reduce risk. First, how does it start causing damage? Second, how does it reach the scale of a global catastrophe? Third, how does it reach everyone? In all of these three phases there is a defence layer that blocks most risks: First, we can prevent catastrophes from occurring. Second, we can respond to catastrophes before they reach a global scale. Third, humanity is resilient against extinction even in the face of global catastrophes. The largest probability of extinction is posed when all of these defences are weak, that is, by risks we are unlikely to prevent, unlikely to successfully respond to, and unlikely to be resilient against. We find that it's usually best to invest significantly into strengthening all three defence layers. We also suggest ways to do so tailored to the classes of risk we identify. Lastly, we discuss the importance of underlying risk factorsevents or structural conditions that may weaken the defence layers even without posing a risk of immediate extinction themselves. Policy implications• We can usually best reduce extinction risk by splitting our budget between all defence layers.• We should include measures that reduce whole classes of risks, such as research uncovering currently unseen risk. We should also address risk factors that would not cause extinction themselves but weaken our defences, for example, bad global governance.

show abstract

Representation of future generations in United Kingdom policy-making

Cited by 27 publications

References 3 publications

Future Design as a Metacognitive Intervention for Presentism

Future Design as a Metacognitive Intervention for Presentism

Can individuals caring little about future generations serve as their representatives?

Defence in Depth Against Human Extinction: Prevention, Response, Resilience, and Why They All Matter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About