COVER STORY • Future Design – Thinking About Our Legacy to the Next Generation • 2Future Design Research:
the Issues
Author
Keiichiro Kobayashi

By Keiichiro Kobayashi

Future Design Goals
One of the working goals of Future Design (FD) is to bring players
into the current political decision-making process whose job is torepresent the interests of future generations. A typical illustration ofthis approach can be observed in a psychology experiment
presented in “Future Design – Evidence and Insights from
Participatory Deliberations” by Tatsuyoshi Saijo and Keishiro Hara,
Journal of Japan Society on Water Environment, 2017, Vol. 40, Issue4). In 2015, we were asked to compile a long-term FD plan (for thecurrent point in time through 2060) for the town of Yahaba in Iwate
Prefecture. Residents were divided into two groups: one to represent
the current generation and the other to take the position of a future
generation, specifically of the year 2060. Each group held
deliberations to devise long-term future plans.
In brief, we held a role-playing game – a type of psychology
experiment – with a group representing the people of Yahaba in theyear 2060. The group representing the current generation drew up aplan within the context of current limitations and issues, while thegroup representing future generations created a plan designed toconsciously draw on regional advantages to solve difficult issues.
These results highlighted clear differences in approaches andopinions.
Particularly interesting were the deliberations on water andsewage charges. Yahaba waterworks had a fiscal surplus at the timeof the role-playing experiment. The group representing the current
generation agreed that the surplus should be returned to residents inthe form of lower water and sewage costs. In contrast, the grouprepresenting future generations were looking at waterworks in 2015
from the perspective of the year 2060. In their deliberations they
were extremely conscious of the fact that the water pipes and otherwater supply facilities would need to be replaced during the period
from 2015 to 2060. Because a huge capital outlay would be required
to complete the work, they decided that water and sewage charges
should be raised for residents, regardless of the surplus, to coverthese costs. The deliberations had so much of an impact that the
town of Yahaba in fact decided to raise water and sewage charges.
It is worth noting that the researchers involved in this project
believed that this FD experiment engendered a significant
psychological change in the residents assigned the role of the future
generations. In interviews conducted in Yahaba six months after theexperiment, the group representing future generations stated “We
https://www.jef.or.jp/journal/

were able to grasp the big picture and reconcile the interests of thecurrent and future generations” and noted that they were very
pleased with what they viewed as progress. These changes indicate
the possibility that people engaged in the study could change theirthinking processes.
Prof. Tatsuyoshi Saijo, funding director of the Research Institutefor Future Design at Kochi University of Technology, calls these
individuals “imaginary future persons”. The ultimate goal of FD is tocreate political players comprised of these imaginary future persons(such as a “Ministry of the Future” in the central government or a
“Future Planning Section” at government offices) in order to bringthem into the political decision-making process; and also to renderthese organizations capable of impacting current political decisionmaking from the perspective of future generations.

How Does FD Work?
For researchers in the field of FD, there are two issues in particular
to mention. First is the question of whether a governmentalorganization such as a Ministry of the Future run by “imaginary
future generations” would actually be workable. That is, even if wecreate an organization like the Ministry of the Future, would it reallybe a feasible undertaking since it is in fact run by people of thepresent? Would these individuals truly operate in the interests offuture generations?
The results of the social experiment described above, however,showed that the participants were actually able to become imaginary
future persons in their own minds. If the concept of creating
imaginary persons could be generalized and the viewpoint of thepeople representing future generations could truly change, anorganization such as the Ministry of the Future could potentially work
well. Because the staff of the Ministry of the Future would act onbehalf of future generations, they would effectively take on thecharacter of the imaginary future persons.
The hypothesis here is that if people are assigned the
responsibility to make better choices, we can casually compare thisto the ideas emphasized by Adam Smith in his Theory of Moral
Sentiments (1759). The individuals assigned the role ofspokespersons for the people of the future could win the approval of
their colleagues by fulfilling this responsibility.
The satisfaction garnered through the approval of colleagues helps
to solidify the idea that representing future generations is itself aJapan SPOTLIGHT • March / April 20197

COVER STORY 2

form of justice. This belief would then more strongly be supported
and maintained among the staff of a political organization comprisedof imaginary future generations. In another similarity to Smith’s
Theory of Moral Sentiments the individual is transformed into an“impartial spectator”. If this could actually occur, an organization run
by imaginary future persons could truly work on behalf of future
generations, at least subjectively.
To prove our hypothesis, it is necessary to scientifically clarify the
self-formulating mechanism of imaginary future persons describedhere by statistical analysis in the fields of neuroscience andpsychology. Researchers of FD are considering, for example, a future
design social experiment examining the brain using MRI imaging toassess changes in brain activity.

Justification by Political Philosophy
The second issue is whether the establishment of a neworganization run by imaginary future generations (such as a Ministryof the Future) could be justified under a democratic government. If
we can scientifically confirm that we can generate a stable supply of
imaginary future persons, we can say with certainty that new
systems such as the proposed Ministry of the Future will help toimprove circumstances for future generations. However, to create
this kind of new system – and garner broad public support – it needs
to be justified under our current democratic system. For instance, if
we move to create a Ministry of the Future, it will lead to limitations
on the rights and benefits of the current generations of people,
though there will undoubtedly be dissenters.
In another example, the Demeny voting system (in which children
are given voting rights but their parents or guardians vote on theirbehalf) has been suggested as a way of voting that would betterreflect the interests of future generations. Resistance to the idea isdeep-seated, however, amongst legal and political scholars arguingthat the very basis of democracy is “one vote per person”. If the sole
reason for making such changes to our government is to benefit
future generations, the said changes will not necessarily be popularwith a wide swathe of people spanning diverse backgrounds.
To garner broad-based support from the public, politicalphilosophy rationalizing and justifying the installing of imaginary
future generations is key. By invoking the social contract theory ofJohn Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance”, we can argue the point. If people
can agree to a political system comprised of people imagining
8 Japan SPOTLIGHT • March / April 2019

themselves unaware of what their own position would be in a newsociety (physical and mental capacity, wealth, etc.), that is, obscured
by a Veil of Ignorance, then the system will be fair and just.
According to this theory, under the Veil of Ignorance, if people fearthat they might be born in the most unfortunate circumstances, thenthey will agree to a political system where there would be thegreatest positive impact on people in unfortunate circumstances.
This theory holds that where there will be disparity in a newsociety – particularly in regards to income and assets – compared toa set of conditions where there would be no disparity, the people
would make choices for the benefit of the most disadvantaged.
Rawls called this theory the “Difference Principle”. Citing thisprinciple, Rawls argued that extensive social insurance systems indeveloped countries following World War II were justified,rationalizing the welfare state according to political philosophy.
Under the Veil of Ignorance, if people agree to social security
systems maximized for the benefit of the disadvantaged, they agree
to policies in line with the social welfare state. Since social welfare
systems chosen under the Veil of Ignorance are justified, it follows
that social security programs are justified as well. This is Rawls’
logic.

The Imaginary Future Generation
as a Social Contract
The second issue is the justification for establishing imaginary
future generations in the context of political philosophy. I will explain
how it might be chosen as a social contract under Rawls’ Difference
Principle.
When a group of individuals are about to enter into a social
contract – assuming that they are obscured by the Veil of Ignorance
and therefore unaware of what kind of circumstances they will beborn in – they fear that they will be among the most unfortunate (ageneration subjected to damage caused by conditions such as global
warming and financial collapse). Therefore, in order to lessen thesuffering of generations of people who would endure such a fate, therepresentatives of the different generations agree to the “JustSavings Principle”, under which the people of the different
generations save a fair amount of resources for future generations.
This rule states that each of the different generations agrees tocontrol the expansion of public debt and implement fiscal restraint.
The Just-Savings Principle is agreed upon under the Veil ofCOVER STORY 2

Ignorance. There is, however, more to the story.
The fact is that even if the Difference Principle is agreed uponunder the Veil of Ignorance, in our current democracy – where
imaginary future generations do not exist – once the Veil of
Ignorance is removed and the course of history resumes, any said
agreements will inevitability break down. Under the Veil of Ignorance,
people fear that they will be part of the generation plagued by themost disadvantageous circumstances, making decisions accordingly.
In reality, once the veil is removed, people realize that they are not infact the most disadvantaged of the population, at which point theytend to work for their own benefit. Instead of saving a certain amountof resources for disadvantaged future generations, they decide that
consuming said resources during their time is more advantageous.
This means that a significant level of greed will arise because
people will wish to break the promises made under the Just-Savings
Principle. What is still more important here is the fact that even if thepeople of the present break promises made under the Just-Savings
Principle, there is no “penalty” applied to future generations. Even if
the people of current generations break promises to the people of the
future, since these individuals are still children or have yet to beborn, they are unable to “punish” the people of the present. As aresult, there is little reason for the current generations to hesitate tobreak the promises made under the Just-Savings Principle. Any suchpromises are therefore easily broken.
To summarize the above, though agreement may be reachedregarding the Just-Savings Principle under the Veil of Ignorance,
once the veil is removed the promise of Just-Savings is broken.
Further, the issue is time-inconsistent. Agreements may be reachedunder the Just-Savings Principle, only to be subsequently broken.
Compared to the work of Rawls, which states that a social contract
is entered into under the Veil of Ignorance, clearly any agreements
made between generations under the Just-Savings Principle will betime-inconsistent. The social security system justified by Rawls isessentially an issue of redistribution among the same generation.
Let’s take social welfare as an example. Under the Veil of Ignorance,
people agree to the creation of social welfare systems, but once theveil is removed, they then learn whether they will be among thewealthy or poor classes.
Those who join the ranks of the wealthier classes tend to lean
toward the abolition of social welfare systems, yet this is difficult toachieve. This is because the poor classes exist at present, in contrast
to future generations, where they do not. If the wealthy classes wereto recommend that social welfare systems be abolished, the poor
classes would immediately block such a move. Because poor people
greatly outnumber wealthy people, the wealthy are unable to abolishsocial welfare simply because they wish to do so – at least under ademocracy.
Tools to achieve time-inconsistent Just-Savings work to create
imaginary future generations. If, as noted above, an organization ofimaginary future generations is created, it will actually work for the
benefit of future generations, leading the people of the present to apolitical decision-making process that matches the interests of thepeople of the future.
Under the Veil of Ignorance, because the people are aware of theabove, they are in agreement with the idea of creating a system of
imaginary future persons in order to help alleviate the poverty of themost disadvantaged people of the future. Since the installation ofimaginary future generations is agreed upon under the Veil of
Ignorance, we can call it a fair social contract.
In addition, the organization of imaginary future generations will
not be abolished by the people of the present. This is because theperpetuation of such an organization itself enjoys sufficient support
from flagging altruistic behavior across generations of the people ofthe present. If an organization of the people of the future issustained, the work of that organization will impact the decisionmaking process of many people of the present day. The result is that
distribution of resources falls in line with the Just-Savings Principle.
FD is not social science. Harboring the seeds for revolutionary
human development, it works through multiple areas of study
including neuroscience and thought as well as philosophy.
Expectations are high for interdisciplinary, diverse research in thefield.

Dr. Keiichiro Kobayashi has experience in the economic policy-making
process as a former government official at the Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry. His interest in economic research led him to join RIETI and pursue anacademic career. His current interests cover areas such as innovation andincome inequality.

Japan SPOTLIGHT • March / April 20199