Overcoming Delays in the US Business Approval Process

Life is full of problems. There are plenty of them to take up our entire time. From the approaching global recession and the environment to parenting children and foreign conflicts. We now have another obligation: to consider future generations. Not the near future, which impacts our children and grandchildren, but the far future, hundreds of thousands of years from now.That is the message conveyed by William MacAskill, a promising young ethics professor at Oxford University. Professor MacAskill is already well-known as a researcher; he co-founded the Centre for successful Altruism and has raised more than $200 million for "effective" organizations.1 MacAskill argues for "longertermism," an odd term that exaggerates the meaning of the long term.He feels that the future is extremely important, not just because future people exist, but also because what we do today can have a significant impact on those who will follow. And because we can improve their lives, we must "steer the future onto a better course." If future generations do not have a say in what we do now, MacAskill contends that we should at least consider our distant ancestors and cease undervaluing the future MacAskill encourages us to consider how young our species is. Homo sapiens originated 300,000 years ago. Ten people have come before each one of us. If humans live to the average age of typical mammalian species, which is 100 million years give or take, 80 trillion children will be born over the next 700,000 years. Wrap your head around it. We are the pioneers, the primitives, at the very, very, very start of human history.

What can we do to improve that unthinkable future

given all of the unimaginable paths it could take? First, we must lower our chances of being destroyed by nuclear war, natural disasters, or pandemics. Second, we might endeavor to instill correct "values" in future generations.No one would disagree with the first statement since it is not about saving the future, but about our selfish need to survive. The second option is more fascinating. MacAskill makes an interesting point: the principles we've inherited and cherish, such as individual rights, freedom of expression, and racial and gender equality, aren't guaranteed. He argues for what he calls "moments of plasticity." These moments or occurrences typically occur after periods of societal hardship or war, when people band together to prevent past detrimental behavior.MacAskill provides an example of the United States Constitution. Despite being written in only four months, the Bill of Rights was modified eleven times in its first six years of existence. This is a period of flexibility in which things can alter and improve. Amendments slowed significantly after that, making change more difficult. The last alteration occurred 50 years ago, with the 27th Amendment. MacAskill argues that rules and conventions are easier to modify in the early phases. Wait too long, and our laws and moral systems will solidify like molten glass.Another example was slavery. Slavery was abolished more than 200 years ago, and some say that it would have inevitably faded. Not true, according to MacAskill. Dominantly incorrect values frequently become "locked in," remaining for extended periods of time. The history of the twentieth century is one in which moral development was not only halted but reversed, resulting in Nazism and Stalinism, demonstrating that moral growth is not inevitable. According to MacAskill, it is critical that we "lock in" solid moral beliefs and transmit them down before it is too late. I assume he means putting these ideas into legislation for future generations.

But are these reasons convincing? We are concerned 

about future problems that will affect our children, grandkids, and possibly great-grandchildren, yet our capacity for compassion is limited to only a few generations before it fades completely.I like MacAskill's concern for future generations, and he is accurate that we place too much focus on our present wants while undervaluing the needs of subsequent generations. Small, positive moral improvements made now could have far-reaching consequences in the future. But what does it mean for people now to be concerned about and make sacrifices for homo sapiens hundreds, thousands, or millions of years from now?Philosopher Peter Singer taught, and we accepted, that saving a kid on the other side of the world is just as important as saving a child in our own community. That we understand. Isn't it asking too much of our limited goodwill to place the same worth on lives that are still unimaginably distant? And what makes us believe that current moral standards are what future generations want? Isn't this extending our form of "presentism" beyond its time?Consider the inexplicable twists and turns of fate that could and will one day pervert our concept of morality beyond recognition. Our values are not set in stone. The future really is a strange country.

Professor MacAskill concludes with 

the optimistic concept that if we do things well, our grandchildren's grandchildren will thank us. If human nature is any indication—and most parents are aware of this—gratitude will be the last thing we receive.I'll be the first to tell you that Canadian property prices are excessively high. It is one of the most significant concerns confronting the country. If we fail to significantly increase house building soon, we risk permanently pricing a generation out of the housing market.According to recently released Census data, roommates are Canada's fastest increasing form of household. Get used to it. If you expect the Bank of Canada to slash house prices, I advise you to reconsider. Because if house values fall too far and too quickly, we may face even more serious difficulties.