Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by rileyharris
4 min read 1

25

Existential riskGlobal health & developmentGlobal health and wellbeingInstitute for Law and AILongtermismResearch summary
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://www.legalpriorities.org/blog/2023/summary-protecting-future-generations/

This is a summary of the paper "Protecting future generations: A global survey of legal academics" by Eric Martínez and Christoph Winter. The summary was written by Riley Harris.

As longtermists, we believe it is crucial to shape the long-term future for the better. Legal longtermists are particularly interested in how the law can be used to safeguard the interests of future generations and improve the lives of people in the coming centuries and millennia. In “Protecting future generations”, Eric Martínez and Christoph Winter find that legal academics tend to believe that future generations deserve greater legal protections.

Do future generations deserve more protection?

Longtermism is the idea that we should focus on making the future better. This is because the future is incredibly important — and if we can make it better in predictable ways, then we could impact the lives of billions or trillions of people. Legal longtermists focus on how legal systems can protect future generations and improve the long-run future. This survey looks at a few open questions in legal longtermism — for example, can and should the law protect future generations? To answer these questions, Martínez and Winter surveyed 516 legal experts from top English-speaking and common-law universities around the world.[1]

Legal systems tend not to protect future generations.[2] For example, in the United States, cost benefit analysis is used to make regulatory decisions — but the process “discounts” away the interests of future generations[3] in a way seems unjustified to most philosophers.[4]

In the legal system, one of the most important rights is the ability to take legal action. In the United States, this right can be invoked when you are harmed or placed in immediate danger. Harms to future generations don't fit this criteria.[5] However, over two-thirds of surveyed legal experts thought there was some legal basis for people in the next 100 years to sue, in at least some cases. Strikingly, more than half also thought the same was true for those living more than 100 years from now. This may indicate opportunities to assert the rights of future generations with the right cases and arguments.[6]

However, future generations have never been allowed to sue (Bogojević, 2020), and legal experts think that future generations should be protected more than they are today. On average, future generations are only protected a third as much as they should be — according to legal experts. They thought that the current generation should be protected more than they are now, and more than future generations should be. They also found that other groups, like animals and people from other countries, are not protected as much as they should be, but future generations are by far the most neglected by the law.

Protecting future generations

The law sometimes has long-term effects, for example, ancient Roman law still influences many civil law systems (Watson 1991). In other cases, effects may be short or unpredictable.[7] For the legal longtermist, everything hinges on whether the law provides predictable and feasible ways to help future generations. Legal experts think the law can provide protection to future generations, and that it is one of the best ways to predictably help future generations. Martínez and Winter estimate[8] that around 74% of legal academics somewhat agree that the law can help people more than a century from today. While about 73% somewhat agree that legal methods are among the most predictable and feasible ways of doing so. About 41% somewhat agree there are even ways for the law to protect people who are a millennium away![9]

Next, Martínez and Winter explored the most promising areas of law from the perspective of legal longtermism. Many show at least some promise — for each area in the survey at least half of legal academics would somewhat agree that area could be helpful. However, legal academics were most confident in environmental law and constitutional law. The most promising constitutional mechanisms are ensuring that 1% of GDP goes towards safeguarding humanity against existential risks or giving explicit legal standing to future generations.[10] However, the differences here were small.

Finally, they asked about causes that longtermists tend to find important, to identify the most promising ones for legal intervention. Although at least half of the academics thought all the areas might be helped, they had lower confidence in artificial intelligence (56%) than the others — for instance, climate change (84%).

Conclusion

Eric Martínez and Christoph Winter surveyed legal academics and found that they generally believe that future generations deserve more protection. The law provides a promising avenue for providing these protections — in particular environmental and constitutional law. Future research could explore the attitudes of different groups towards legal longtermism, try to compare specific policies rather than broad areas of law, or investigate other legal concepts such as personhood.

Sources

Renan Araújo & Leonie Koessler (2021). The Rise of the Constitutional Protection of Future Generations. Legal Priorities Project Working Paper No. 7-2021.

Sanja Bogojević (2020). Human rights of minors and future generations: global trends and EU law particularities. Review of European comparative & international environmental law 29/2.

John Broome (1994). Discounting the Future. Philosophy & Public Affairs 23/2.

Tyler Cowen & Derek Parfit (1992). Against the Social Discount Rate. Philosophy, Politics, and Society: Volume 6, Justice Between Age Groups and Generations. Yale University Press. Edited by Peter Laslett & James S. Fishkin.

Moritz A. Drupp, Mark C. Freeman, Ben Groom and Frikk Nesje (2018). Discounting Disentangled. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 10/4.

Thomas Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins, and James Melton (2009). The Lifespan of Written Constitutions. The University of Chicago Law School.

Andreas Mogensen (2019). Maximal Cluelessness. Global Priorities Institute Working Paper No. 2-2019.

Office of Management and Budget (2003). Executive Office of the President, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis.

Derek Parfit (1986). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.

Alan Watson (1991). Roman Law and Comparative Law. University of Georgia Press.

 

  1. ^

    Most of the participants were professors (88.6%), and they came from Europe, Oceania, and the Americas, with some from Asia (9.3%) and Africa (5.2%). Most were at least somewhat liberal (80.4%). Some questions were answered by fewer participants, but they were unlikely a result of chance. Results were also mostly consistent across different demographics — but some questions were answered differently by participants living in Asia.

  2. ^

    One exception to this tendency is constitutional law. Around one third of all constitutions mention future generations, usually for environmental protections — but even in countries with strong constitutional protections, these protections are not enforced. See Araújo and Koessler (2021).

  3. ^

    Office of Management and Budget (2003).

  1. ^

    See Parfit (1984), Cowen & Parfit (1992), Broome (1994) and Mogensen (2019). Many economists also agree, see Drupp et al. (2018).

  2. ^

    Other places have different requirements, but nowhere explicitly allows future generations to sue.

  3. ^

    It's also possible that there are similarly strong arguments against the legal basis for future generations to sue, or that judges are applying the law incorrectly.

  4. ^

    For instance, constitutions only last around 17 years on average, and several of the founding fathers were sceptical that the US constitution would last more than a generation. See Elkins et. Al. (2009).

  5. ^

    Here they randomly sample from the responses to correct for certain distribution types — using a bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap to generate confidence intervals.

  6. ^

    Interestingly, 55% thought that environmental law — one of the most promising areas — had a hope of protecting the further future. This perhaps indicates that when these questions were asked in an abstract way experts tended to underestimate how helpful the law could be.

  7. ^

    They also asked about protecting future generations from discrimination, spending 1% of GDP to protect against existential risks, granting explicit standing to future generations, creating a commision to oversea the protection of future generation, and establishing the explicit state goal of protecting the future.

Show all footnotes

25

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
SummaryBot1
0
0

Executive summary: A survey of legal academics finds broad support for granting greater legal protections to future generations.

Key points:

  1. Over two-thirds of legal academics surveyed believe future generations have some basis to sue for harms, even 100+ years in the future.
  2. On average, academics felt future generations should be protected about 3 times more than they currently are.
  3. Environmental law and constitutional law were seen as the most promising avenues for protecting future generations.
  4. Legal interventions were viewed as among the most predictable and feasible ways to help future generations.
  5. Academics were moderately confident the law could help safeguard humanity from long-term existential risks.

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Reply
More from rileyharris
46
Summary: Against the singularity hypothesis
3 authors
· · 5m read
14
14
70
Summary: High risk, low reward: A challenge to the astronomical value of existential risk mitigation
2 authors
· · 6m read
20
20
52
Summary: The scope of longtermism
2 authors
· · 4m read
4
4
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
Relevant opportunities
170
Forethought: A new AI macrostrategy group
5 authors
· · 4m read
6
6
15
Open call: "Existential risk of AI: technical conditions"
miller-max
· · 1m read
0
0
151
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
View more