Masthead, editorial

From the Editor

First Nations people often refer to any decision made today as having an impact on their descendants seven generations from now. This idea of foresight was also captured in ancient Greece as pronoia “knowing before”—an essential element of prudent decisionmaking and virtuous statesmanship.

In today’s fast-paced, consumer-driven, commuter world, it is difficult to imagine our actions affecting our children’s children more than a century into the future. Our lives are largely shaped around individual and family lifespans, leaving us seemingly oblivious to the long-term consequences of our choices.

This is starkly evident in the way we are dealing with the climate emergency. Our lack of foresight and prudence shapes not only our response to the climate crisis, but also to the overlapping “polycrises” of our era—from nuclear threats to artificial intelligence—that will profoundly affect generations to come.

This duty to our children and to the planet was at the heart of discussions last week marking the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and its Charter. It was a moment for reflection: how foresight guided powerful nations after the Second World War, leading to the creation of international laws that allowed the world to coexist in relative peace and security across four generations.

But historical memory fades. The imperial rivalries of 1914 that sparked nationalism and world war, followed by the arms race of the 1930s and the devastation of the Second World War, remind us that states realigning into hemispheric power blocs has rarely fostered longterm peace.p. Anticipating these risks, many states at the UN General Assembly last week called for the implementation of the Pact for the Future—a long-term framework, adopted in 2024, to reset international cooperation in line with new global dynamics while reaffirming rights and responsibilities under international law.

In contrast to these constructive discussions, President Trump spoke disparagingly of the UN, dismissing the climate crisis as “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”and framing migration in alarmist terms. Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from cash-strapped U.N. agencies, including the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council; rescinded about $1 billion in Congressionally appropriated funding for 2025 dues and peacekeeping operations and slashed overall current and future humanitarian spending. Yet this does not diminish the enduring value of the international legal framework that has guided us for 80 years.

By contrast, the inspiring words of Slovenian President Nataša Pirc Musar pointed to a different path. She proposed a permanent advocacy network to give the wide-ranging Pact for the Future reinforced political support. The UN Global Forum for the Future would be an inclusive movement of states committed to multilateralism, mutual respect and the defense of our shared vision. It would aim to implement the recommendations of the Pact for the Future, grounding her appeal in the very foundations of international law (jus cogens).

On Security Council reform, Pirc Musar argued that if some permanent members themselves violate the UN’s core principles—such as the prohibition of genocide or crimes against humanity—whether then they have the right to use the veto power, and also are able to serve as guardians of those principles (Pirc Musar, September 23rd UN speech).

France and Saudi Arabia took the initiative to jointly host an International Conference on the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, and the Recognition of the State of Palestine, in response to the General Assembly’s support for it, in spite of opposition coming from the US as a permanent member of the Security Council.

These debates are difficult and deeply contested, but without leaders guided by foresight and concern for future generations, the world risks sliding into chaos. It is here that the wisdom of the Seven Generation principle, long practiced by First Nations peoples, becomes indispensable. Their perspective offers a moral compass we would do well to heed.

Masthead, editorial

From the Editor

Democracy is losing. Citizens are handing their rights over to dictators. Even the US Supreme Court and Congress are going along with it. Some of us want to save democracy but, to be logical, we shouldn’t defend a system that yields the very outcome we hate. Then what aspect of democracy should be kept? Today our political system, like Dr. Frankenstein’s creation, has become a monster that’s turning on us. We must change democracy to save it. But how? What about democracy is worth keeping?

Accountability! Power must be wielded to implement political or economic decisions. The crucial thing is to hold the power-holders accountable to us, the people. Democracy must hold them accountable without undermining their capacity to make and effect decisions. That’s the dilemma.

Our solution is “the rule of law.” No judge can be accountable to the criminal whom she is sentencing to prison, but she can be held accountable to the law, so we want reasonable laws that are just when applied.

But: “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” And “the best laid regulations of mice and men often don’t apply.” However sensible a law may be, in particular cases, exceptions may be necessary.

We tweak laws and regulations to improve them, but nevertheless sometimes excellent rules don’t fit. So, while repairing our broken democracy, besides improving the rules, we need ways of reviewing particular cases and making reasonable exceptions. True accountability to “the people” can solve many problems – even with capitalism and AI. (Corporations are unaccountable, but I used to visit real Communist countries and they weren’t either.) So, how can corporations be held accountable to society, but not to any specific billionaire or political party or politician or Internet platform?.

With review panels! Each one must represent the whole population (i.e. be chosen randomly as are juries) to review appeals against the decisions of any government official or corporation or Artificial General Intelligence. The laws and regulation can remain intact, but human beings should bend them in particular cases when necessary for justice. Democracy can never make perfect decisions, but juries render acceptable verdicts – and that is a sufficient goal. See my article in this issue: “Pandemics: AI vs. Editor.”

Masthead, editorial

From the Editor

This is the season for making predictions, and the safest ones are those over which we have some control. So I’ll predict this: You’ll see fewer forums and online meetings in 2026 hosted by the most familiar editor, and more by folks like Neil Arya, Robin Collins, John Feffer, Aria McKenna, Elizabeth Renzetti, Tariq Rauf, Robert Tulip, and especially Doug Saunders and the likely future PSTW president, Jill Carr-Harris. Also, Doug Saunders may join the Board of Directors, replacing our favorite ex-mayor of Toronto, David Miller, who has other challenges.

I predict that our members will play a bigger role in Project Save the World. A one-year membership is offered to people who contribute service to the organization or who become paid Substack subscribers at US $8 per month or $80 per year. (Hint, hint!). I predict that you will join one of our five Study Groups, about war and weapons; global warming; Cyber and AI; global economics; and governance and human rights. And I predict you’ll participate in one of the five-week-long Public Inquiries that these groups will organize.

But what about the geopolitical future? Ouch. That’s harder to predict. Yes, climate change and Artificial Intelligence will certainly get your attention, like it or not. And eventually the weather – floods, heat waves, blizzards, sea rise, hurricanes – will convince even the fossil fuel producers that the climate is really changing and must be managed. But will that happen this year? Don’t bet on it.

And in 2026 will people turn against their chosen fascist leaders? Doubtful. Too many people remain bitter about the real failures of democracy. They’re confused but correct about the need for different forms of democracy. In a real democracy, citizens discuss their problems together and decide what to do. Such institutions can’t be built in in one year, but maybe within five years.

Anyway, Project Save the World is working toward that solution. We host Study Groups and Public Inquiries now, as we practice becoming truly responsible world citizens. Join us. You’ll enjoy hanging out with other idealistic folks and helping to save the world.