Acting on behalf of our descendants isn’t a new thing. Indigenous groups have long practised “seventh-generation thinking” – making decisions based on how they will affect people far into the future. Europeans began building enormous cathedrals that they would not live to enjoy – because it was the “right thing to do” for their children and grandchildren, said Derek Walker, speaking to Nesta last month. 

What is new is that those running the country are now taking this concept very seriously – at least in Wales, where Walker is Future Generations Commissioner. This role emerged from a ground-breaking piece of legislation from 2015, the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act, which requires public bodies in Wales to think about the long-term impact of all decisions. The Commissioner advises, monitors progress and holds officials to account – a sort of “conscience for the unborn”, as Walker’s predecessor Sophie Howe put it at the recent Next Frontiers conference. 

It’s a massive shift for a system that’s built largely on electoral cycles of just a few years. Walker acknowledged it can be “massively challenging” to get politicians thinking so differently. But solutions don’t always have to be more expensive or more difficult. And there can be options that are good for people today and in the future. An oft-cited example of the Future Generations Commissioner’s impact is when Wales planned to ease congestion by using the government’s entire borrowing capacity to build a short stretch of motorway. The Commissioner doesn’t have the power to force policy change, but can ask officials to account for their decisions, or “show their workings”, as Howe put it. In this case, it became clear that the plan would have been bad for the environment, bad for obesity, and of little use to those without a car. After Howe’s intervention, the plan was scrapped, and the money was invested in public transport infrastructure and “active travel” instead. 

Ideas worth spreading

Wales was the first country in the world to create such legislation. But many other countries now have similar or alternative mechanisms – parliamentary committees, commissions or ombudsmen – with a mandate to advocate for future generations. Howe has been speaking widely about the idea overseas, and, she said, “the usual response is, ‘hang on, why doesn’t every country have that?’” Soon, they might: a “summit of the future” at the UN assembly in September aims to spread the idea further, with momentum also building behind the idea of a UN special envoy for future generations.

The concept is showing up in other sectors. Philosopher Roman Krznaric highlights some of the “‘time rebels’ dedicated to intergenerational justice and long-term thinking” – think tanks, activists, seed labs, artists and more. And some businesses are getting involved. Homewares brand House of Hackney, which recently became only the UK’s second company to have “nature” officially represented on its board, chose to make that role also responsible for future generations. The aim is to help the business make decisions today that “result in a liveable, thriving world for tomorrow”.

It’s not universally popular, though. Many still doubt that future generations can be considered stakeholders of firms. And when it comes to governments, some are not so keen on being watched by a UN envoy, Howe said: “They want to mark their own homework.”

Doing the most good we can – but when?

Some philanthropists are particularly keen on thinking long term. A key principle of effective altruism is that a life on the other side of the world is worth as much as one nearby or in our own community. Many effective altruists extend this belief to time – that is, the lives of future generations are just as valid as those alive now, and it is therefore important or even preferable to do all we can to prevent potential future harm. Often they take that to a pretty extreme level, arguing that we should be thinking thousands or even millions of years ahead. 

That can feel uncomfortable. Is it really better for a donor to give all their money to research into preventing a possible threat to generations of hundreds of years into the future, instead of spending it on something that we know could save or improve the lives of people now? 

And it’s hard to imagine many government departments pursuing the most extreme version of this philosophy – “strong longtermism” argues that positively influencing the long-term future is the key moral priority of our time. As Howe has pointed out in an interview by Vox, “the further you go into the future, the more disconnected people become – and also, the less valid any of your scenarios and assumptions are”. But, as the Welsh example shows, it is possible to shift mindsets towards the just-about-imaginable future. That seems like a solid start.

Photo by Mark Arron Smith