tal set of resources every person needs access
to. This needs to encompass much more that a
rather narrow definition of ‘income’. This is not
the same as universal basic income (UBI) (31).
Entrepreneurial drive as a key factor for new soci-
etal contracts. This should be social and societal
entrepreneurship that drives initiatives and the
implementation of new ideas; individualism alone
is not the answer.
The new commons. This is the mental and emo-
tional commons of 21st century thought. It is the
future as a shared commons. It is the planetary
commons where climate change and pollution in
the Anthropocene knows no borders.
Universal basic possibilities is yet another new
avenue of approach for the discussion.
Midcentury. 2050 is just 30 years – not even two
generations – away. Quo vadis – where are we
marching to? What kind of world do we want to
leave for our children and grandchildren?
In an open discussion, the balance between the
individual and society, between corporations and
the state, may shift. Individuals may want more
freedom and ability to influence societal develop-
ments, society may want more agile government
providing smarter services to society, or more
corporations taking real societal responsibili-
ty. We believe that with a basic set of universal
assets and possibilities, the individual and col-
lective (network) will be able to use one of our
most underused assets – entrepreneurial drive
– to stimulate innovation. This would lead to new
ways of organizing our key assets for quality ed-
34 HF |
April 2019
ucation, health care, well-being, gender equality,
clean water and energy, and reducing inequalities.
(32) The balance between the individual and the
collective, between centrality and periphery, pow-
er and energy, between Gross National Product
and the Happiness index.
Beyond purely economic perspectives, any new
societal contracts must overcome the fragmenta-
tion of society in order to come to an understand-
ing about a new set of valid public values. As we
well know, many people – and many organiza-
tions, especially in the business of government –
are most at home thinking about the short term.
There is a strong bias for short-term thinking.
As Dennis F. Thompson of Harvard University’s
Department of Government writes, “Democracy
is partial toward the present. Most citizens tend
to discount the future, and to the extent that the
democratic process responds to their demands,
the laws it produces tend to neglect future gen-
erations. The democratic process itself amplifies
this natural human tendency”.(33)
As many voices now say, we have to ‘hack’ the
democratic process.
Beyond this, other questions arise: what about
rights for rivers? In Australia, New Zeeland, India,
Columbia, and Ecuador, rivers have been recog-
nized as legal entities with legal aspects of ‘per-
sonhood’.(34)
What about rights for migrants? What about
animal rights? Rights for AI? These discussions
have already started. Sophia – a 3-year-old hu-
manoid robot – was granted citizenship in Saudi
Arabia.(35) Sophia was named the world’s first
UN Innovation champion by the UN Development
Program (UNDP) and will have an official role in
working with UNDP to promote sustainable devel-
opment and safeguard human rights and equality.
Who speaks for the yet unborn generations? In
North America, the Iroquois Nation famously
recognized the need to consider whether their
decisions would benefit their children seven
generations into the future. (36) Apocryphal or
true, this form of stewardship has seen some
modern contractual forms for government. Fin-
land’s Committee for the Future (37) and the
Well-being of Future Generations Act in Wales
(38) -- which requires public bodies to think about
the long-term impact of their decisions, to work
better with people, communities and each other
to prevent persistent problems such as poverty,
health inequalities and climate change – express
the ambition, permission and legal obligation to
improve our social, cultural, environmental and
economic well-being. Less extreme than the Iro-
quois, perhaps, but the intention is there.
Our unanswered questions
We appreciate ancient monuments, have respect
for buildings that stand for centuries, and tradi-
tions that still serve us well. However, in many
ways, our institutions and our convictions, our
thinking patterns and assumptions, are stuck in
the 20th century.
We have seen in this short article how the origi-
nal ‘brother’s keeper’ question can lead too many
other questions that need individual and collec-
tion reflection. For a conversation about a new
societal contract, a list of Keeper’s Questions is
indispensable. A sample out of so many:
How far do my responsibilities to neighbors
go?
And to strangers? To the community, to society
as a whole?
What will it cost?
What’s in it for me?
What needs to be done? How can I contribute?
the-age-of-oil-by-timothy-mitchell (2019-01-11) and https://sites.uci.edu/technoethno/2014/05/22/review-carbon-democ-
racy-political-power-in-the-age-of-oil-by-timothy-mitchell-2/ (2019-01-11)
30 http://www.iftf.org/uba/ (2018-08-13).
31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income (2018-08-13).
32 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
33 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=2ahUKEwiI0NiB5vffAhX-
IC-wKHSSqCrMQFjAEegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdash.harvard.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F1%2F9464286%-
2FRepresenting%2520Future%2520Generations-Barry%2520final.doc%3Fsequence%3D2&usg=AOvVaw231ExzvuU0rl6M-
RhH2ZPou
34 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rivers-get-human-rights-they-can-sue-to-protect-themselves/; https://e360.
yale.edu/features/should-rivers-have-rights-a-growing-movement-says-its-about-time
35 https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/technology/meet-sophia-the-3-year-old-humanoid-robot-16812416
36 https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/seventh-generation-principle
HF | Human Futures 35