bidding time does not look like doing nothing. I think it is useful for advocates to be working on other aligned goals during this time in order to continue to build traction and connections
Yes!
it would be so practically difficult to pull of getting those future commitments to be binding or to happen at all that I am not sure it is that useful a tactic. Also [...] a few years (2-5) years might be the limit here
This mostly makes sense to me. Thinking back on the examples I raised to argue for this tactic, I might have over-estimated their strength as examples for the feasibility of such trades:
Abolition often took decades to be fully implemented, but this was more often through legislation that established gradual change than through legislation that established sharp deadlines in the distant future
Distant (and not-so-distant) climate targets haven’t been extremely successful
I would break down representation of future generations into a few deferent topics [...] Each of these topics could be championed on the world stage by a different nation.
Interesting, this is also an idea that’s new to me and seems right.
---
I’m also curious: how feasible/desirable do you consider one of the other suggestions I made? This one:
Any Future Generations institution should be explicitly mandated to consider long-term prosperity, in addition to existential risks arising from technological development and environmental sustainability [...] advocates of future generations can lastingly diminish the opposition of business interests—or turn it into support—by designing pro-future institutions so that they visibly contribute to areas where future generations and far-sighted businesses have common interests, such as long-term trends in infrastructure, research and development, education, and political/economic stability.
Any Future Generations institution should be explicitly mandated to consider long-term prosperity, in addition to existential risks arising from technological development and environmental sustainability
Yes I fully agree with this.
[...] advocates of future generations can lastingly diminish the opposition of business interests—or turn it into support—by designing pro-future institutions so that they visibly contribute to areas where future generations and far-sighted businesses have common interests, such as long-term trends in infrastructure, research and development, education, and political/economic stability.
I also agree with this – although I would take my agreement with a pinch of salt – I don’t feel I have specific expertise on how farsighted businesses can be in order to take a strong view on this.
(Continuing my other comment)
Yes!
This mostly makes sense to me. Thinking back on the examples I raised to argue for this tactic, I might have over-estimated their strength as examples for the feasibility of such trades:
Abolition often took decades to be fully implemented, but this was more often through legislation that established gradual change than through legislation that established sharp deadlines in the distant future
Distant (and not-so-distant) climate targets haven’t been extremely successful
Interesting, this is also an idea that’s new to me and seems right.
---
I’m also curious: how feasible/desirable do you consider one of the other suggestions I made? This one:
Yes I fully agree with this.
I also agree with this – although I would take my agreement with a pinch of salt – I don’t feel I have specific expertise on how farsighted businesses can be in order to take a strong view on this.