Organic Consumers Association


Previous Page

Click here to print this page

Make a Donation!


Children Will Pay for "Me First" Corporate & Government Greed

<> WIRED Oct 2004

Our Kids Are in Big Trouble

Government is using technology to burden their future - and it's all ourfault.

by Lawrence Lessig

There's a pesky flaw at the core of our democracy: How do we count those who
can't vote? Not those who don't vote (they can take care of themselves by
voting). But those people who can't vote, because they're either too young
or not yet born. How, in other words, do we reckon the future?

For most of history, this question didn't matter much. Before the atomic
bomb, we couldn't really break the future. And before deficit financing, we
couldn't easily bankrupt it either.

Technology will soon give us more power to erase the future, or so
technologists such as Bill Joy worry. And one body in particular -
government - has become efficient at using technology to burden the future.

Think about our behavior over the past four years. We have cut taxes but
increased spending, benefiting us but burdening our kids. We have relaxed
the control of greenhouse emissions, creating cheaper energy for us but
astronomically higher costs for our kids, if they are to avoid catastrophic
climatic change. We have waged an effectively unilateral war against Iraq,
giving some a feeling of resolve but engendering three generations of angry
souls focused upon a single act of revenge: killing Americans. And we have
suffocated stem cell research through absurdly restrictive policies, giving
the sanctimonious ground upon which to rally, while guaranteeing that kids
with curable diseases will suffer unnecessary deaths. In each case, we have
burdened children - that one group that can't complain - so as to supposedly
benefit those of us who do.

This is the shameful application of a simple political truth: The future
doesn't vote. And when tomorrow's generations get their turn at the polls,
they won't be able to punish those who failed to consider their interests.
The cost of shifting burdens to the future is thus quite small to us, even if it
is quite large to them. And we, or the politicians representing us, happily
follow this calculus.

This isn't the first time a government has imposed costs on others. But when
it comes to other issues, there is often resistance. When a government
burdens its own people, they respond either by defending their interests or, if
disenfranchised, by demanding the vote. When a government imposes costs
internationally, that drives diplomatic negotiations or, failing that, war.

But future generations can't picket. They can't demand a vote. And the only
war on us that they will wage is one of hatred when they recognize what we
have done. If the game of politics is to decide which ox to gore, then our
politicians, both Republican and Democrat, have finally found the perfectly
gorable ox.

It may always have been like this. I don't believe in "golden age"
histories; the past was not always better than the present. But somehow it seems that
we have lost an ethic. When your grandfather spoke of building a better world
for you than he knew himself, you believed him. And when you look into the eyes
of any 1-year-old child, you may understand what he meant.

Which makes it even harder to understand how we've become who we are. The Me
Generation - which elected the first two presidents to have actively avoided
military service (Clinton and Bush) and which will decide this election, too
is in charge, but it has taken its name much too seriously. Gone is the sense
of duty that made so compelling Kennedy's demand "ask what you can do for
your 0country." We don't even ask what we, as a nation, can do for our kids. The
rhetoric of self-interest so deeply pervades politics that an ideal as
fundamental as building a better future has been lost.

As I've framed this issue, my point may seem critical of the Republicans
(the only next-generation-aware policy for them, arguably, is abortion). The
president's policies burden the next generation because it's convenient to
do so. But I don't mean to praise the Democrats. They don't defend the next
generation against these policies because it would be inconvenient.

In his primary bid for his party's presidential nomination, John Edwards
urged audiences, "Think about how much we have lost in just four years." It was a
powerful sentiment, properly stated. But against the rhetoric of both parties
today, a better thought might be this: Think about how much we have taken,
and continue to take. And how has it become so easy?

Email Lawrence Lessig at