Kadak A C
Kadak Associates, Inc., Barrington, RI 02806, USA.
Risk Anal. 2000 Dec;20(6):883-94. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.206081.
There is no such thing as intergenerational decision making, at least not yet. In fact, there is no such thing as intragenerational decision making in the context of maximizing overall social good given resource limitations, there are just decisions being made in an ad hoc fashion. Even if one assumes that there is such a thing as intragenerational decision making, no uniform standard or guidance exists to make societal decisions for the common good. Risks to society are judged unevenly within the same agency and across agencies. Decisions are made in isolation and not weighed in the societal context of what is intra or intergenerationally important. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) has set forth a framework for intergenerational decision making that provides a consistent and fair basis for making tough decisions in order to address difficult issues such as the long-term disposal of nuclear wastes. NAPA recognizes that there is an intergenerational obligation that must encompass broader questions than the narrow issue of waste disposal since resources are finite and needs are great. The fundamental principles are based on sustainability with the overarching objective that "no generation should needlessly, now or in the future, deprive its successors of the opportunity to enjoy a quality of life equivalent to its own." Coupled with this objective are four supporting principles of trusteeship, sustainability, chain of obligation, and precaution. The NAPA process also recognizes that no decision can be final and that a "rolling future" view is better than making decisions for "all time." It attempts to balance the needs of the present with those of the future in an open and transparent process that is aimed at producing a decision, not just endless analysis. The U.S. Congress and president should develop a rational standard by which to judge laws that involve intra and intergenerational issues relative to the overall societal good. Present regulations need to be evaluated relative to a uniform level of risk and benefit to assess where the limited money available can do the most good for both the present and future generations in the context of NAPA sustainability principles. It is hoped that decision makers will take a serious look at this process since it can work to resolve stakeholder stalemate.
不存在代际决策这种事，至少目前还没有。事实上，在资源有限的情况下，为实现社会总体利益最大化而进行的代内决策也不存在，有的只是临时做出的决策。即便有人认为存在代内决策，但也没有统一的标准或指导方针来为了共同利益做出社会决策。在同一机构内部以及不同机构之间，对社会风险的评判并不一致。决策是孤立做出的，没有在关乎代内或代际重要事项的社会背景下进行权衡。美国国家公共行政学院（NAPA）已经提出了一个代际决策框架，该框架为做出艰难决策提供了一个一致且公平的基础，以便解决诸如核废料长期处置等难题。NAPA认识到存在一种代际义务，这种义务必须涵盖比废物处置这一狭隘问题更广泛的问题，因为资源是有限的而需求却很大。基本原则基于可持续性，首要目标是“任何一代人都不应在现在或将来不必要地剥夺其后代享有与其自身相当的生活质量的机会”。与这一目标相伴的是受托责任、可持续性、义务链和预防这四项辅助原则。NAPA的流程还认识到，没有任何决策可以是最终的，“滚动的未来”视角比为“永远”做出决策更好。它试图在一个公开透明的过程中平衡当前与未来的需求，这个过程旨在做出决策，而不仅仅是无休止的分析。美国国会和总统应该制定一个合理的标准，据此评判涉及代内和代际问题且关乎社会总体利益的法律。现行法规需要根据统一的风险和收益水平进行评估，以便在NAPA可持续性原则的背景下，评估有限的资金在哪里能为当代人和后代人带来最大的益处。希望决策者能认真审视这一流程，因为它有助于解决利益相关者的僵局。
