Science & Environment · Real arguments from SuperDebate members below
Future people cannot vote, negotiate, or protect themselves from our decisions today. The asymmetry of power — we choose, they inherit — is the most compelling argument for a binding present obligation. We would not accept a contract that authorized us to harm people without their consent simply...
Posted by jconnor
The 1.5°C window is closing. Every year of delay locks in decades of additional warming; what looks like economic cost today is the price of avoiding catastrophic, irreversible harm that no future wealth can undo. Tipping points — ice sheet collapse, permafrost feedback, Amazon dieback — are not...
Posted by jconnor
Intergenerational obligation is not new: we borrow from the future constantly through debt and resource extraction. Climate action simply asks us to stop treating the atmosphere as a dump we never pay to clean. We already accept this logic for nuclear waste storage and sovereign debt management;...
Posted by jconnor
Future people will be richer than us. Economic growth compounds over decades; a world 5x wealthier in 2100 can adapt to climate change far more effectively than today's world can prevent it at great cost. Prioritizing present development over future climate costs is not callous — it is rational,...
Posted by jconnor
The discount rate problem is real: a dollar of climate benefit in 2150 is not worth the same as a dollar of poverty reduction today. Prioritizing present development over future climate costs, when those costs fall on people who will be far wealthier, is not callous — it is rational. The Stern...
Posted by jconnor
The developing world has the most to lose from both climate change and from climate policy that restricts their growth path. Demanding sacrifice from the global poor to protect the already-wealthy future is a form of climate imperialism dressed in the language of intergenerational ethics.
Posted by jconnor
Debate this exact resolution against the AI coach and get scored feedback.
Practice with the coachFuture people cannot vote, negotiate, or protect themselves from our decisions today. The asymmetry of power — we choose, they inherit — is the most compelling argument for a binding present obligation. We would not accept a contract that authorized us to harm people without their consent simply... (Argued by jconnor on SuperDebate.)
Future people will be richer than us. Economic growth compounds over decades; a world 5x wealthier in 2100 can adapt to climate change far more effectively than today's world can prevent it at great cost. Prioritizing present development over future climate costs is not callous — it is rational,... (Argued by jconnor on SuperDebate.)
A live debate on this topic is on the SuperDebate schedule. Anyone can watch, and members can put themselves forward to argue a side.
On SuperDebate. Post a written argument on the topic page, rehearse the resolution against the AI debate coach, or take it to a live debate night at a club near you. Joining is free.
