Card 16

👶 ➡️ 🌍

Do we owe anything to people who don't exist yet? Can we wrong future generations?

💭 How to Think About This

Climate change, national debt, nuclear waste, resource depletion—many of today's decisions harm people who aren't born yet. But those people don't exist! How can we have obligations to non-existent people? How can we wrong someone who might never be born? Yet it seems clearly wrong to ruin the planet for future generations.

Do we owe obligations to future generations?

You believe we have full obligations to future generations. Strong arguments support this: They WILL exist (highly likely). Their suffering is as real as ours. TIME shouldn't make suffering matter less. We benefit from past generations' care—we owe it forward. The chain of moral concern extends through time.

A philosophical puzzle: If we change policies, different people will be born (different meetings, conceptions). Future people who exist will OWE THEIR EXISTENCE to our choices—even harmful ones. They can't say "you harmed ME" because without those choices, THEY wouldn't exist. Does this affect your view?

Challenge: People suffer NOW. Resources spent on distant futures could help present suffering. If you believe future obligations are EQUAL to present, should we sacrifice present people's welfare for future generations? How do you balance immediate needs against long-term stewardship?

Full obligation implies: No discounting future suffering. Strong sustainability requirements. The precautionary principle for uncertain harms. Institutions representing future interests. Long-term thinking built into all major decisions. Are you willing to accept these demanding implications?

Full obligations to future generations is a demanding but powerful position—future suffering is as real as present suffering.

Why this view holds:

• Future people will exist and suffer really

• Time shouldn't discount moral concern

• We benefit from past care; we owe it forward

• Distance in time isn't different from distance in space

Challenges to consider:

• The non-identity problem (our choices affect who exists)

• Balancing present needs against future obligations

• The demanding practical implications

The wisdom:

We're stewards, not owners. Future generations can't vote or speak for themselves. Strong obligations mean acting as if their suffering matters as much as ours—because it will.

You see some obligation to future generations, but not unlimited. This is reasonable: Future suffering matters, but present people exist NOW. Some discounting of distant futures may be justified. The key is avoiding CLEAR harms (ruining the planet) while not sacrificing all present welfare for speculative futures.

If SOME obligation, where's the line? Avoid catastrophic harms (climate disaster, nuclear waste)? Maintain basic opportunities? Leave resources? Consider: what would past generations have owed US, and did they provide it? That might guide what we owe forward—basic stewardship without unlimited sacrifice.

NON-IDENTITY: Different choices create different people. Future people can't claim "you harmed ME"—they exist BECAUSE of our choices. This is philosophically strange, but perhaps our obligation is to leave a good world for WHOEVER exists, not to specific individuals. We're obligated to quality of life, not to particular people.

A middle path might be: Avoid catastrophic, irreversible harms. Maintain sustainability of basic resources. Apply precaution to major risks. But don't sacrifice ALL present welfare for distant futures. Be good stewards without being slaves to an infinite future. How would you balance these?

We have real but limited obligations to future generations—stewardship without unlimited sacrifice.

What we owe:

• Avoid catastrophic, irreversible harms

• Maintain sustainable basic resources

• Apply precaution to major risks

• Leave reasonable opportunities

What we don't owe:

• Unlimited sacrifice of present welfare

• Equal weight to speculative distant futures

• Control over everything that might happen

The balanced view:

We're stewards, not slaves to the future. Good stewardship means avoiding clear harms and maintaining sustainability—but also recognizing that present people's needs are real and immediate. The future matters, but not infinitely more than the present.

You prioritize present people. Arguments for this: Future people don't exist YET—how can we owe duties to non-existent beings? Present suffering is REAL and CERTAIN. The future is unknown—we might make wrong sacrifices. Resources spent on speculative futures could help actual people NOW.

Challenge: Future people WILL exist (highly likely). Their suffering will be as real as ours. Would you feel NO obligation if you knew your specific grandchildren would suffer from your choices? The non-existence is temporary—they'll exist and experience what we leave them.

Consider: YOU were once a "future person" who didn't exist. Past generations planted trees, built institutions, preserved resources—for YOU. They cared about someone who didn't exist yet. If they had said "present first, future never," would your life be worse? Does this create any obligation to pay it forward?

Final challenge: Does NOTHING we do to the future matter morally? Is ruining the planet for future generations truly acceptable? Depleting all resources? Creating nuclear waste lasting millennia? If any of these seem wrong, you have SOME future-oriented obligations—even if limited.

Prioritizing present people is understandable, but "no obligation" is hard to maintain consistently when facing clear future harms.

Arguments for present focus:

• Present suffering is real and certain

• Future is unknown and speculative

• Resources spent on futures could help people now

Challenges to address:

• Future people WILL exist and suffer really

• We benefit from past generations' care

• Ruining the planet seems clearly wrong

• Time shouldn't erase moral concern entirely

The honest position:

Most people who say "present first" still recognize SOME future obligations—at least avoiding catastrophic harms. The question becomes not IF we owe the future, but HOW MUCH. "Nothing" is hard to defend.

🤔 Which thinking lens(es) did you use?

Select all the lenses you used:

Learn more about the 7 Thinking Lenses →

👨‍👩‍👧 For Parents & Teachers

🌱 A Small Everyday Story

"Why should I care about people who aren't even born?"
"Did your grandparents care about you?"
"I guess... they planted trees I enjoy."
"And you weren't born when they did it."
"So... I should plant trees for people not born yet?"
"The future was once as unreal as it is now.
But here you are, benefiting from their care."

See more guidance →

🧠 Thinking habits this builds:

Thinking beyond immediate consequences
Recognizing obligations across time
Connecting past care received to future care owed
Considering long-term impacts of decisions

🌿 Behaviors you may notice (and reinforce):

Considering future impacts in decisions
Expressing concern about long-term issues
Acknowledging benefits from past generations
Thinking about sustainability

How to reinforce: When making decisions with long-term consequences, ask: "How will this affect people 50 years from now?" Make the connection to benefits received from past generations' planning.

🔄 When ideas are still forming:

Some learners may struggle with obligations to "people who don't exist" or may become overwhelmed by responsibility for the future. Help them see that the obligation is to act thoughtfully, not to control everything.

Helpful response: "We can't control everything about the future. But we CAN avoid knowingly creating problems. Obligations to future people are about thoughtful stewardship, not omniscience."

🔬 If you want to go deeper:

Study Derek Parfit's non-identity problem
Explore longtermism and existential risk
Discuss how democracy fails at representing future interests

Key concepts (for adults): Intergenerational ethics, non-identity problem, discounting the future, sustainability, precautionary principle, longtermism.

Do we owe anything to people who don't exist yet? Can we wrong future generations?

🔍 All Three Perspectives

🌍 "Yes, Full Obligation"

⚖️ "Some Obligation"

👤 "No, Present First"

🤔 Which thinking lens(es) did you use?