I have for the first time read Holden’s post on “vetocracy” last night which you link to. I thought it was very good.
He basically says that empowerment of any actors will to some degree increase the risk of vetocracy. If you give a voice to a disadvantaged actor it will provide an extra channel for that actor to input and maybe even stop changes in the world. Holden is pretty clear that he thinks this is worth it – that looking over history to date empowering of people who have been left out of decision making is overall a good thing, even given vetocracy etc. I have not personally dug into his historical analysis but this seems plausible to me. He suggests that instead of not empowering people we should instead focus on making sure we “mitigate these challenges via well-designed processes”.
I think this is a nice framing for future generations work. It highlights how any and every action to give a voice to future generations will inevitably create some red tape, some possibility of blocking new projects, some vetocracy. This is unavoidable. But the benefits should outweigh the costs.
So the question should not be does this specific attempt to empower future generations cause some red tape, some vetocracy, etc. It should be have the specific process been designed to minimise those burdens. For this I give this specific draft of the Future Generations bill maybe a 3 ½ star out of 5 (★★★✮☆). It has regular 5 year reviewing of the long term goals and more regular reviewing of medium term objectives, it has optionality over much of the red tape, it allows for guidance to be set and changed as and when needed without legislation, it has at least some focus on ways of working, etc – all of which should help. That said it has perhaps too many and too strong oversight bodies and lacks a requirement for a formal review, etc.
– – –
Ultimately, if this view is correct it means that there is likely some price to pay. And the people who will pay that price are those of us who are campaigning tirelessly against the negative impacts of vetocracy (such as John) and the people they are trying to help (often a nations’ poorest).
My views are still in line with Holden’s that empowerment is good, especially where we try to do so with good processes that minimise the costs. I think in many of these case the costs to society today might be very small (more long-term thinking could help infrastructure even in the medium term, <10years). Given the evidence I have seen as to costs I don’t think EAs should give up on broad longtermist endeavours to push for a focus on future generations, or stop trying to try to shape a world and broadly design systems that work for the long-term. But I do think people working on broad longtermsim (including msyelf) could do more to recognise the costs, that John and others may end up paying. I am also keen to hear more about John’s experiences and am open to more research and more mapping out of the costs and benefits and work looking specifically at the pros and cons for empowerment of future generations.
Where I would slightly disagree is that I don’t agree that every mechanism to give future generations’ interests more of a voice need necessarily result in more costs or red tape for any change. It may be possible to construct mechanisms that give them more of a voice for positive change. (The analogy here would be street votes.) We could see the “three lines of defence” proposals as an example of that. I think it would be good to see if we can find more of those mechanisms.
Good point. To clarify I think when I say “give future generations a voice” I was thinking of empowerment – general mechanisms that would allow someone to speak for the future, some sort or representation or consideration across the board (not just specific polices). I think broad empowerment is valuable and we should not give up on any and all general approaches to empowering future generations (e.g. WoFGB) in order to only focus on sector specific policies. (I get the impression you think otherwise.)
(Also to clarify, given how ridiculously short term our politics is when is, when I say empower future generations I would include within that the future views of current generations.)
I have an open mind on that. I think it’s an empirical question and it depends partly on how it is done. I could envisage many circumstances where a mechanism allowing someone purportedly to speak for future generations could in fact harm those future generations.
Keen to chat and see what we can come up with between us. At this point I think I have thought about it enough that I would be surprised if we could develop ideas better than the core ideas of the bill – but keen to try.
I think it is likely that even if you and I can’t come up with improvements (although I suspect we can), a broader number of people getting involved could improve on the core ideas – looking forward to working on it together!
Hi, me again with another comment.
I have for the first time read Holden’s post on “vetocracy” last night which you link to. I thought it was very good.
He basically says that empowerment of any actors will to some degree increase the risk of vetocracy. If you give a voice to a disadvantaged actor it will provide an extra channel for that actor to input and maybe even stop changes in the world. Holden is pretty clear that he thinks this is worth it – that looking over history to date empowering of people who have been left out of decision making is overall a good thing, even given vetocracy etc. I have not personally dug into his historical analysis but this seems plausible to me. He suggests that instead of not empowering people we should instead focus on making sure we “mitigate these challenges via well-designed processes”.
I think this is a nice framing for future generations work. It highlights how any and every action to give a voice to future generations will inevitably create some red tape, some possibility of blocking new projects, some vetocracy. This is unavoidable. But the benefits should outweigh the costs.
So the question should not be does this specific attempt to empower future generations cause some red tape, some vetocracy, etc. It should be have the specific process been designed to minimise those burdens. For this I give this specific draft of the Future Generations bill maybe a 3 ½ star out of 5 (★★★✮☆). It has regular 5 year reviewing of the long term goals and more regular reviewing of medium term objectives, it has optionality over much of the red tape, it allows for guidance to be set and changed as and when needed without legislation, it has at least some focus on ways of working, etc – all of which should help. That said it has perhaps too many and too strong oversight bodies and lacks a requirement for a formal review, etc.
– – –
Ultimately, if this view is correct it means that there is likely some price to pay. And the people who will pay that price are those of us who are campaigning tirelessly against the negative impacts of vetocracy (such as John) and the people they are trying to help (often a nations’ poorest).
My views are still in line with Holden’s that empowerment is good, especially where we try to do so with good processes that minimise the costs. I think in many of these case the costs to society today might be very small (more long-term thinking could help infrastructure even in the medium term, <10years). Given the evidence I have seen as to costs I don’t think EAs should give up on broad longtermist endeavours to push for a focus on future generations, or stop trying to try to shape a world and broadly design systems that work for the long-term. But I do think people working on broad longtermsim (including msyelf) could do more to recognise the costs, that John and others may end up paying. I am also keen to hear more about John’s experiences and am open to more research and more mapping out of the costs and benefits and work looking specifically at the pros and cons for empowerment of future generations.
Thank you, I think that’s very constructive.
Where I would slightly disagree is that I don’t agree that every mechanism to give future generations’ interests more of a voice need necessarily result in more costs or red tape for any change. It may be possible to construct mechanisms that give them more of a voice for positive change. (The analogy here would be street votes.) We could see the “three lines of defence” proposals as an example of that. I think it would be good to see if we can find more of those mechanisms.
Good point. To clarify I think when I say “give future generations a voice” I was thinking of empowerment – general mechanisms that would allow someone to speak for the future, some sort or representation or consideration across the board (not just specific polices). I think broad empowerment is valuable and we should not give up on any and all general approaches to empowering future generations (e.g. WoFGB) in order to only focus on sector specific policies. (I get the impression you think otherwise.)
(Also to clarify, given how ridiculously short term our politics is when is, when I say empower future generations I would include within that the future views of current generations.)
I have an open mind on that. I think it’s an empirical question and it depends partly on how it is done. I could envisage many circumstances where a mechanism allowing someone purportedly to speak for future generations could in fact harm those future generations.
Keen to chat and see what we can come up with between us. At this point I think I have thought about it enough that I would be surprised if we could develop ideas better than the core ideas of the bill – but keen to try.
I think it is likely that even if you and I can’t come up with improvements (although I suspect we can), a broader number of people getting involved could improve on the core ideas – looking forward to working on it together!