The reading list below is based on a reading list originally used for an internal GPI reading group. These reading groups are used as a way of doing an early-stage exploration of new areas that seem promising from an academic global priorities research perspective.  Each topic is often used as the theme for one or two weekly discussions, and in most cases those attending the discussion will have read or skimmed the suggested materials beforehand. This list was expanded to include several readings that were identified as relevant by the group, though not all were internally discussed.

As I thought that it could be a valuable resource for those interested in academic global priorities research, I’m sharing it here, with permission from the authors. All the credit for the list below goes to them.

Disclaimer: The views presented in the readings suggested below do not necessarily represent views held by me, GPI, or any GPI staff member.

Overview

This list seeks to investigate several questions related to the representation of future generations, including:

(i) Can we represent future generations? 
(ii) Should we represent future generations?
(iii) How would representing future generations work in practice?

1. Can we represent future generations?

• Karnein, Anja. 2016. “Can We Represent Future Generations?” 
• Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 2007. “Future People, the All Affected Principle, and the Limits of the Aggregation Model of Democracy.”

2. The boundary problem

• Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.”
• Brighouse, Harry and Marc Fleurbaey. 2010. “Democracy and Proportionality.”
• Näsström, Sofia. 2011. “The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle.”
• Saunders, Ben. 2011. “Defining the Demos.”
• Song, Sarah. 2012. “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should be Bounded by the State.”
• Goodin, Robert E. 2016. “Enfranchising All Subjected, Worldwide.”
• Arrhenius, Gustaf. 2018. “The Democratic Boundary Problem Reconsidered.”

3. Against Representing Future Generations

• Beckman, Ludvig. 2009. “The Vote of Unborn Generations.”
• Jensen, Karsten. 2015. “Future Generations in Democracy: Representation or Consideration?”

4. Does democracy conflict with a concern for future generations?

• Mitiga, Ross. 2021. “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change.”
• Shahar, Danny. 2015. “Rejecting Eco-Authoritarianism, Again.”
• Kates, Michael. 2015. “Justice, Democracy, and Future Generations.”
• Halstead, John. 2017. “High Stakes Instrumentalism.”

5. Longtermist Institutional Design and Policy

• Caney, Simon. 2016. “Political Institutions for the Future: A Fivefold Package.”
• Krznaric, Roman. 2021. The Good Ancestor: A Radical Prescription for Long-Term Thinking.
  • Chapter 9
• John, Tyler M. and William MacAskill. 2021. “Longtermist Institutional Reform.”
• Tonn, Bruce E. 1991. “The Court of Generations: A Proposed Amendment to the US Constitution.”
• Dennis F. Thompson. 2010. “Representing Future Generations: Political Presentism and Democratic Trusteeship.”
• Ekeli, Kristian Sagen. 2005. “Giving a Voice to Posterity – Deliberative Democracy and Representation of Future Generations.”
• Jones, Natalie, Mark O’Brien, and Thomas Ryan. 2018. “Representation of Future Generations in United Kingdom Policy-making.”
• Ekeli, Kristian. 2009. “Constitutional Experiments: Representing Future Generations Through Submajority Rules.”
• González-Ricoy, Iñigo and Axel Gosseries. 2016. Institutions for Future Generations.