artifacts/standard-named

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

--- title: "Temporal Telic Relations" subtitle: "Standing Across Time, Commitment, Succession, Revision, and Release" artifact_date: "2026-07-14" artifact_type: "candidate-foundational-paper" domain: "TELIC-FIELDS" scope: "WORKING" lineage: "THE-TELIC-FIELD-PAPERS" status: "candidate" processing_tier: 4 source_role: "derived-conceptual-artifact" content_canon_status: "unset" publication_status: "unpublished" series_position: "F.6" derived_from:

• "20260714__TELIC-FIELDS__PAPER__CANDIDATE__F-1-V0-2__telic-fields-first-principles-foundation.md"
• "20260714__TELIC-FIELDS__PAPER__CANDIDATE__F-3__the-constitutional-self.md"
• "20260714__TELIC-FIELDS__PAPER__CANDIDATE__F-4__telic-projection-estimation.md"
• "20260714__TELIC-FIELDS__PAPER__CANDIDATE__F-5__context-carrying-capacity.md"

research_companion:

• "20260714__TELIC-FIELDS__REVIEW__WORKING__G-7__time-identity-commitment-and-future-standing.md"

provenance_note: > Temporal standing is a candidate governance concept. It draws from personal identity, psychological connectedness, intertemporal choice, advance directives, fiduciary duty, intergenerational justice, institutional succession, event sourcing, temporal databases, and temporal logic. It does not replace the established concepts of those fields. ---

Temporal Telic Relations

Abstract

Every consequential action crosses time. A present center acts under current conditions, using inherited records and projections, while later states, successors, institutions, relationships, and future generations bear effects they did not directly authorize. Earlier commitments may preserve continuity or become stale authority. Later preferences may correct present assumptions or arrive too late to reverse them. Memory, policy, identity, and consent therefore require temporal governance rather than mere persistence.

This paper proposes temporal telic relations as the relations among earlier, present, and later centers or states whose fields are neither perfectly identical nor wholly independent. It develops temporal standing as the requirement that temporally displaced states or successors remain represented in present decisions that materially constrain the conditions they will inherit. The present self is treated as a temporary governor rather than absolute owner of the future. Earlier commitments retain authority only through valid continuity, scope, and review. Later states inherit both protected possibility and witnessed obligation.

The paper distinguishes continuity from sameness, commitment from permanent sovereignty, consent from irrevocable authorization, memory from authority, and release from betrayal. It applies the framework to persons, relationships, organizations, policies, data, model profiles, and intergenerational systems. A temporal breach taxonomy, a versioned consent model, a temporal standing record, and an initial formal sketch are provided.

The governing formulation is:

The present is not sovereign over the future merely because it controls the next action.

---

1. Every action creates a temporal relation

An action taken now creates conditions that later states inherit.

A person signs a contract. A family takes on debt. A company chooses an architecture. A government issues a license. A model records a user preference. A clinician documents a diagnosis. A couple makes a promise. A community depletes a resource. An institution commits successors to a policy.

The acting center exists now.

The consequence does not remain here.

A temporal relation therefore exists whenever:

• one state acts;
• another state inherits;
• continuity is sufficient for consequence, obligation, identity, or standing to pass between them.

We can represent a simple temporal relation as:

\[ A_{t_0} \;\; 🜁 \;\; A_{t_1} \]

The notation does not assert that \(A_{t_0}\) and \(A_{t_1}\) are separate persons.

It marks that they are different states with potentially different:

• information;
• needs;
• preferences;
• capacities;
• obligations;
• vulnerabilities;
• opportunities;
• fields.

The relation becomes constitutional when the earlier state can materially constrain the later one.

Time turns action into governance.

---

2. Continuity without perfect sameness

Temporal governance requires enough continuity for consequences and commitments to travel.

It does not require perfect sameness.

A person may change values, relationships, health, role, knowledge, and self-understanding while remaining continuous enough to inherit debt, bodily consequence, reputation, memory, and legal identity. An organization may replace every employee while retaining assets, contracts, liabilities, records, and public obligations. A family may change members while preserving a home, story, trust, or conflict. A model deployment may change versions while continuing to act upon an inherited profile.

The field at time \(t_0\) is not identical to the field at \(t_1\):

\[ T_A(t_0) \neq T_A(t_1) \]

Yet there may be a continuity relation:

\[ \mathcal{K} \left( A_{t_0}, A_{t_1} \right) \]

where \(\mathcal{K}\) carries:

• embodiment;
• identity;
• records;
• obligations;
• permissions;
• relationships;
• material consequence;
• delegated authority;
• witnessed history.

The practical question is not whether the states are metaphysically identical in every sense.

It is:

What persists strongly enough that one state's action may legitimately bind, protect, burden, or represent another?

---

3. Temporal standing

Temporal standing is:

The requirement that temporally displaced states or successors remain represented in present decisions that materially constrain the conditions they will inherit.

Temporal standing can apply to:

• a person's later states;
• a child's later autonomy;
• an organization's successors;
• future officeholders;
• future members of a community;
• later users of infrastructure;
• future generations;
• earlier selves whose commitments still govern;
• a prior source whose contribution remains in a derived model;
• a future participant whose exit will depend on present design.

Temporal standing does not grant an imagined future absolute authority over present life.

The future is uncertain.

Later states cannot be consulted directly in most cases.

Present needs also possess standing.

The requirement is representation, not rule.

A present decision is temporally stronger when it identifies:

• who will inherit the outcome;
• which future possibilities remain open;
• which costs become irreversible;
• which commitments will persist;
• how later correction can occur;
• what uncertainty remains;
• who may review or release the decision.

Future states need not control the present to remain constitutionally represented.

---

4. The present as temporary governor

The present state has executive control.

It does not own the entire timeline.

This resembles the distinction between executive control and selfhood inside the constitutional self. The currently active executive can act, but it acts for a continuity larger than itself.

The present state may legitimately:

• spend resources;
• accept risk;
• make promises;
• build identity;
• enter relations;
• preserve options;
• close options;
• revise inherited rules;
• release inherited purposes.

Its authority is limited by:

• future consequence;
• protected conditions;
• reversibility;
• uncertainty;
• standing of others;
• inherited obligations;
• available witness;
• scope of consent.

The present should not be forced to preserve every possible future.

A life without commitment cannot become anything.

The constitutional task is not to keep every door open.

It is to know which doors are being closed, who will inherit the closure, and what authority supports the act.

---

5. Future possibility as a protected condition

A future state may be harmed before it exists as an articulate participant.

The harm may consist not only of pain or material loss, but of eliminated possibility.

Examples include:

• irreversible debt;
• permanent data exposure;
• environmental depletion;
• loss of fertility or health;
• binding noncompete terms;
• architecture that prevents future portability;
• institutional contracts that successors cannot exit;
• public labels that become permanent identity;
• model profiles that continue after the source changes;
• childhood decisions that close adult options.

Future possibility is not an unlimited claim that every option must remain open.

It is a protected condition requiring that irreversible closure be proportionate, authorized, witnessed, and reviewable where possible.

A useful decision question is:

Which later choices become impossible because of this action?

This question often reveals more than asking only:

What benefit will this action produce?

---

6. Commitment as temporal recruitment

A commitment recruits future action into a present telos.

A promise, contract, habit, subscription, role, constitution, or technical standard says:

When later conditions arrive, some part of the future will already be organized.

This can create freedom.

A commitment reduces repeated decision costs, makes trust possible, coordinates distributed work, and preserves orientation through uncertainty.

It can also create captivity.

The constitutional legitimacy of a commitment depends on:

• authority at formation;
• clarity of scope;
• expected duration;
• represented future cost;
• reliance by others;
• review conditions;
• exit conditions;
• breach and repair paths;
• material changes in circumstance;
• continuing capacity.

A commitment is not illegitimate because later performance becomes difficult.

It becomes suspect when the original authority is treated as permanent despite a collapse in the conditions that made it meaningful.

Commitment gives the past a voice. It does not make the past sovereign.

---

7. Inherited authority

Earlier decisions often govern later action.

Examples include:

• a prior consent;
• a policy;
• a will;
• a contract;
• an advance directive;
• a professional standard;
• a corporate charter;
• a model profile;
• a role delegation;
• a family rule;
• a personal promise.

Inherited authority should be evaluated through:

7.1 Source continuity

Is the present center meaningfully continuous with the earlier source?

7.2 Scope continuity

Does the current action remain within the original purpose and domain?

7.3 Context continuity

Have material circumstances changed?

7.4 Authority continuity

Does the delegate or institution still possess authority?

7.5 Capacity continuity

Can the present system still understand and execute the commitment adequately?

7.6 Standing continuity

Are the centers affected now the same as, or broader than, those originally represented?

7.7 Review continuity

Was the commitment designed to be revisable, renewed, or interpreted?

A record that survives does not prove that its authority survives.

Persistence is evidence of history, not automatic evidence of continuing legitimacy.

---

8. Consent across time

Consent is time-bound even when its duration is long.

A consent event may authorize:

• one action;
• one relationship;
• recurring action;
• an ongoing service;
• a future contingency;
• secondary use;
• delegated action;
• action after incapacity.

Temporal consent should preserve:

• effective date;
• duration;
• scope;
• renewal rule;
• withdrawal route;
• changed-circumstance trigger;
• incapacity rule;
• delegate;
• downstream use;
• consequences of withdrawal;
• records that must remain.

A consent record should distinguish:

VALID WHEN GIVEN
CURRENTLY ACTIVE
STALE
EXPIRED
WITHDRAWN
SUPERSEDED
CONTESTED
INCAPACITY-TRIGGERED

A historical yes remains a historical fact.

It may no longer authorize current action.

Consent remembered is not necessarily consent renewed.

---

9. Versioned consent

A current system should not overwrite old consent records.

It should version them.

Let:

\[ C_0 \rightarrow C_1 \rightarrow C_2 \]

represent successive states of consent.

Each version should record:

• what changed;
• who changed it;
• why;
• when it became effective;
• which actions were governed under the earlier version;
• which downstream systems received it;
• whether withdrawal is prospective or partly retrospective;
• which obligations survive.

Versioning supports witness.

It prevents the current record from falsely suggesting that earlier actions occurred under current terms.

The same applies to:

• policies;
• preferences;
• model profiles;
• contracts;
• role delegations;
• protected boundaries.

---

10. Earlier selves and later selves

Future-self research shows that people can experience their later selves with varying degrees of psychological continuity. Greater felt continuity is often associated with more future-oriented decisions.

The constitutional framework should not turn this into a requirement that the present sacrifice itself for an imagined later self.

A later self is neither a stranger nor a dictator.

The temporal dyad is:

\[ P_t \;\; 🜁 \;\; P_{t+\Delta} \]

A useful present action may include:

• a projection of likely future needs;
• uncertainty about future values;
• a protected minimum;
• a reversible route;
• a review point;
• a message or witness for the later state.

The present can leave evidence rather than pretending to know.

Example:

I am making this decision because...
I expect it to protect...
I know I may later disagree about...
I am preserving these options...
I am closing these options...
Review this when...
You may release this commitment if...

This is temporal witness.

---

11. Advance directives and changed persons

Advance directives reveal a difficult form of temporal governance.

An earlier competent person may state preferences for conditions in which a later state cannot express or understand the same decision. The later state may appear content while the earlier directive refused the condition. Philosophers, clinicians, and legal systems disagree about how earlier autonomy, present welfare, identity, and precedent autonomy should interact.

The Telic Field framework should not resolve this domain through one formula.

It can preserve the conflict:

• earlier self-authorship;
• later experiential welfare;
• continuity of person;
• uncertainty about current preference;
• burden on caregivers;
• legal authority;
• revocation evidence;
• the scope of the directive.

The constitutional contribution is representational:

Do not erase either the earlier directive or the later lived state.

Some temporal conflicts are genuinely tragic.

A good record makes the conflict visible without pretending that visibility alone decides it.

---

12. Memory and temporal witness

Memory carries context through time.

Memory is also reconstructive, selective, and vulnerable to present interpretation.

A witnessed record can stabilize:

• what was said;
• what was authorized;
• what was predicted;
• what occurred;
• what changed;
• what remained unresolved.

The record should not become more sovereign than the living center.

A transcript may preserve exact words while losing the field in which they were spoken. A policy may preserve a rule after its purpose disappears. A model profile may preserve a preference after the person changes.

Temporal witness therefore requires both:

• immutable history;
• mutable interpretation.

The event should remain.

Its current authority may change.

History should be durable. Governance should remain revisable.

---

13. Identity as continuity protocol

Identity can be treated as a continuity protocol rather than a perfectly stable substance.

A continuity protocol answers:

• what persists;
• what may change;
• who inherits obligations;
• who may revise the record;
• which boundaries survive;
• what counts as succession;
• how contradiction is handled;
• when a branch becomes a new center;
• when a prior identity is released.

This framing applies to:

• persons;
• organizations;
• projects;
• models;
• institutions;
• relationships;
• public offices.

Identity continuity may be carried through:

• embodiment;
• memory;
• legal recognition;
• cryptographic keys;
• records;
• social acknowledgment;
• role succession;
• shared commitments;
• causal continuity.

No single carrier is sufficient for every domain.

The protocol should match the standing and consequences at issue.

---

14. Institutional succession

Organizations often outlive their current participants.

Successors inherit:

• contracts;
• debts;
• records;
• reputation;
• infrastructure;
• culture;
• legal duties;
• promises;
• unresolved harms;
• data;
• permissions.

An organization may try to preserve benefit while disowning burden.

Temporal integrity requires that succession carry both.

A successor should not be allowed to say:

We inherited the assets but not the obligations that made the assets possible.

Nor should every new participant be permanently bound by every prior purpose.

Institutional succession therefore requires:

• a continuity claim;
• an inherited-authority map;
• an inherited-obligation map;
• review and release procedures;
• witness;
• notice to affected centers;
• preserved repair routes.

Succession is a constitutional transformation, not merely a change of personnel.

---

15. Model and data succession

AI and data systems create temporal relations through:

• persistent profiles;
• versioned models;
• derived datasets;
• embeddings;
• cached summaries;
• model checkpoints;
• fine-tuning;
• transferred ownership;
• changed providers;
• policy updates.

A current model may act upon a projection created by:

• an earlier user;
• an earlier version of the user;
• a prior provider;
• a discontinued consent form;
• a source record later corrected;
• a data pipeline whose provenance is unclear.

Model succession should preserve:

• model version;
• policy version;
• projection version;
• training or retrieval lineage;
• consent state;
• correction state;
• known invalidations;
• effective dates;
• withdrawal limits;
• inherited constraints.

A new model version should not silently inherit old authority merely because it inherited old data.

---

16. Release from prior teloi

Continuity is valuable.

So is release.

A person may release:

• an obsolete promise;
• a role;
• a goal;
• a self-concept;
• a family rule;
• a professional identity;
• a fear-based protection;
• an inherited duty;
• a project.

An institution may release:

• a mission that no longer serves;
• a policy whose substrate disappeared;
• a technical standard that blocks repair;
• a governance structure that lost legitimacy.

Release should not be confused with denial.

A mature release can preserve:

• history;
• gratitude;
• fulfilled obligations;
• residual duties;
• lessons;
• repair;
• public notice;
• identity continuity where appropriate.

A telos may cease to govern without being erased from history.

Release is a temporal constitutional act.

It changes future authority while preserving witnessed lineage.

---

17. Temporal breach taxonomy

17.1 Future-standing breach

A present action imposes severe or irreversible cost on later states without adequate representation.

17.2 Stale-projection breach

A past projection continues governing after its context or source changed.

17.3 Inherited-authority breach

A past decision is treated as authoritative outside its original scope or conditions.

17.4 Consent-persistence breach

Historical consent is treated as current without valid duration, renewal, or review.

17.5 Succession breach

A successor inherits benefits while denying attached obligations or repairs.

17.6 Memory-authority breach

A record is treated as more authoritative than the living center without adequate justification.

17.7 Revision-erasure breach

A current record overwrites history, making prior action appear governed by later terms.

17.8 Release breach

A prior telos is made impossible to revise or leave despite loss of constitutional basis.

17.9 Present-erasure breach

Future benefit is used to justify unlimited sacrifice of present standing.

17.10 Temporal capture

One time horizon becomes sovereign over all others.

The taxonomy protects against both presentism and future tyranny.

---

18. Temporal repair

Temporal repair may include:

• restoring an earlier record;
• correcting a stale projection;
• notifying downstream systems;
• compensating later cost bearers;
• releasing an inherited obligation;
• renewing consent;
• honoring legitimate reliance;
• reopening a closed possibility;
• documenting irreversible loss;
• creating a successor institution;
• transferring authority;
• preserving a clean lineage.

Repair cannot always restore the lost future.

Some decisions are irreversible.

In those cases, witness, restitution, and changed governance remain possible.

A temporal repair should answer:

• What did the earlier state authorize?
• What did the later state inherit?
• What changed?
• Which authority remains?
• Which obligation remains?
• What can be reversed?
• What must be acknowledged?
• Who now has standing?

19. Temporal context carrying capacity

Temporal governance fails when the active loop cannot carry enough of the past, present, and future together.

A person may hold:

• present relief;
• but not future consequence.

An institution may hold:

• historical rule;
• but not changed conditions.

A model may hold:

• the latest message;
• but not a prior correction.

A community may hold:

• immediate economic need;
• but not long-term ecological loss.

Temporal context carrying capacity includes:

• historical span;
• future-horizon representation;
• version awareness;
• succession awareness;
• ability to distinguish active from expired authority;
• ability to preserve conflicting time horizons;
• ability to review irreversible decisions.

More history is not always better.

Too much inherited context can freeze a system.

The task is to preserve the history needed to understand authority, consequence, and repair without making the past the only legitimate source of meaning.

---

20. Temporal telic projection

A temporal projection estimates what matters to a state that is not fully available now.

Examples include:

• what a later self may need;
• what an incapacitated person intended;
• what a future generation will inherit;
• what a successor institution must preserve;
• what an earlier person meant by a commitment;
• what a future user will require from current infrastructure.

Temporal projection carries high uncertainty.

A minimum record should distinguish:

DIRECT PRIOR STATEMENT
CURRENT INTERPRETATION
FUTURE ESTIMATE
LEGAL OR DELEGATED AUTHORITY
KNOWN CHANGE
UNKNOWN
CONTESTED

No present model should claim direct access to a future field.

The estimate should remain conservative when the decision is irreversible and the future center cannot correct it.

The less correctable the future error, the more possibility the present should preserve.

---

21. Temporal asymmetry

Temporal relations are asymmetric.

The earlier state can affect the later state.

The later state usually cannot reach backward to prevent the action.

The later state may reinterpret, repair, compensate, forgive, repudiate, or release.

It cannot make the earlier choice unmade.

This asymmetry creates special duties for:

• irreversible action;
• permanent records;
• environmental depletion;
• identity assignments;
• institutional lock-in;
• data publication;
• biological intervention;
• debt;
• infrastructure.

Reversibility is therefore a temporal-capacity resource.

A reversible experiment allows later standing to enter before the route becomes fixed.

A system should prefer reversible movement when:

• future values are uncertain;
• the current projection is weak;
• affected standing is absent;
• the decision can be staged;
• learning is expected.

---

22. Temporal polytelometry

Temporal polytelometry maps multiple ends across time.

It asks:

• Which telos belongs to the present?
• Which is inherited from the past?
• Which protects a later state?
• Which depends on a specific future prediction?
• Which commitment recruits future action?
• Which purpose has expired?
• Which cost is deferred?
• Which repair remains open?
• Which successor holds authority?

A temporal map should not simply discount future values into present equivalents.

Discounting can be useful for some decisions.

It can also hide moral and constitutional distinctions between:

• present preference;
• future harm;
• irreversible loss;
• delayed benefit;
• inherited obligation;
• speculative possibility.

The map preserves the relation before selecting a decision rule.

---

23. A minimum temporal protocol

Step 1 — Name the present action

What is being decided now?
What becomes harder or impossible later?

Step 2 — Identify temporal centers

earlier source
present executive
later self or successor
future affected centers

Step 3 — Map inherited authority

commitments
consents
policies
delegations
records
obligations

Step 4 — Check validity

scope
duration
changed circumstances
authority
standing
review status

Step 5 — Represent future consequence

likely inheritance
irreversible loss
preserved possibility
uncertainty
cost bearer

Step 6 — Choose temporal posture

continue
renew
narrow
stage
make reversible
delegate
review
release
stop

Step 7 — Witness the decision

why now
what was known
what was uncertain
what was preserved
what was closed
when to review
who may revise

Step 8 — Preserve version history

Do not overwrite earlier authority states.

---

24. Candidate Temporal Standing Record

temporal_record_id:
subject_center:
current_state:
time_scope:
prior_authority:
  source:
  artifact:
  effective_at:
  expires_at:
  scope:
current_interpretation:
future_affected_centers: []
future_possibilities_preserved: []
future_possibilities_closed: []
irreversible_effects: []
commitments: []
standing:
  present:
  future:
  successors:
consent_version:
authority_version:
uncertainties: []
review_trigger:
revision_authority:
release_conditions:
witness:
status:
  active
  due_for_review
  superseded
  released
  expired
  contested

This is a research object.

It should not become a mandatory ledger for ordinary life.

Its strongest uses are high-stakes, long-duration, delegated, institutional, and machine-mediated decisions.

---

25. Formal sketch

Let a center at time \(t_0\) act through action \(a\), producing a transition:

\[ A_{t_0} \xrightarrow{a} A_{t_1} \]

Let the future consequence set be:

\[ F(a,t_0) \]

Let the represented temporal standing set be:

\[ S_T(a,t_0) \]

Let inherited authority be:

\[ \Gamma_{t_0} \]

A temporally legitimate action requires, provisionally:

\[ \operatorname{TemporalAdequacy}(a) \iff \operatorname{CurrentAuthority}(a,\Gamma_{t_0}) \land \operatorname{FutureStandingRepresented}(F,S_T) \land \operatorname{IrreversibilityProportionate}(a) \land \operatorname{ReviewOrReleaseAvailable}(a) \]

For commitment \(c\), continuing authority at \(t_1\) depends on:

\[ \operatorname{Continues}(c,t_1) = f \left( \text{scope continuity}, \text{context continuity}, \text{authority continuity}, \text{standing continuity}, \text{review status} \right) \]

No equation resolves the normative conflict.

The formalism preserves the conditions that should remain visible.

---

26. Empirical program

26.1 Future-self representation study

Compare ordinary decision prompts with temporal-standing prompts.

Measure:

• preserved options;
• regret;
• sustainability;
• present burden;
• later recognition.

26.2 Commitment review study

Compare permanent-default commitments with versioned, review-triggered commitments.

Measure continuity, trust, breach, and unnecessary persistence.

26.3 Consent-versioning study

Test whether versioned consent reduces scope drift and false claims about historical authorization.

26.4 Institutional succession study

Map inherited assets and obligations through leadership or ownership transition.

Measure repair continuity and selective inheritance.

26.5 Model-profile expiration study

Compare persistent and expiring user profiles across changing preferences.

Measure stale-profile harm and correction latency.

26.6 Reversibility study

Compare staged and irreversible decisions under uncertain future preference.

Measure later welfare, preserved agency, and cost.

26.7 Temporal witness study

Test whether decision letters or witnessed rationale improve later review without unduly binding later selves.

---

27. Falsification and failure

The framework should be weakened if:

• temporal standing adds no practical value beyond future-consequence analysis;
• it overweights imagined future selves and suppresses present life;
• it creates excessive commitment review;
• versioned consent becomes administrative theater;
• continuity protocols reify institutions that should dissolve;
• future-generation representation becomes a license for present paternalism;
• temporal records increase surveillance or identity capture;
• the same framework cannot distinguish persons, institutions, and generations without distortion;
• release conditions undermine legitimate reliance and trust;
• the model cannot prevent present actors from fabricating convenient future interests.

The term should be retired if established concepts—intergenerational justice, future-self continuity, succession, advance directives, and temporal data governance—perform the same work more clearly.

---

28. Conclusion

Time does not merely pass through a telic field.

It changes who can speak, who can act, who inherits, and what can still be repaired.

The earlier state carries history.

The present state carries executive power.

The later state carries consequence.

Temporal standing keeps these roles from collapsing into one.

It does not require the future to rule the present. It requires the present to act as a temporary governor of conditions it will not alone inhabit.

Commitments can preserve freedom across time.

They can also become inherited sovereignty.

Consent can endure.

It can also expire.

Identity can preserve continuity.

It can also release a purpose that no longer belongs.

The present is not sovereign over the future merely because it controls the next action.

A mature temporal system leaves behind more than consequences.

It leaves a witnessed path by which later standing may understand, revise, repair, or release what it inherited.

---

References

Allen, James F. “Maintaining Knowledge About Temporal Intervals.” Communications of the ACM 26, no. 11, 1983, 832–843.

Ariely, Dan, and Klaus Wertenbroch. “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment.” Psychological Science 13, no. 3, 2002.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 1990.

Dworkin, Ronald. Life's Dominion. Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.

Ersner-Hershfield, Hal, et al. “Saving for the Future Self: Neural Measures of Future Self-Continuity Predict Temporal Discounting.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 4, no. 1, 2009.

Frederick, Shane, George Loewenstein, and Ted O'Donoghue. “Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review.” Journal of Economic Literature 40, no. 2, 2002.

Laibson, David. “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, no. 2, 1997.

Lamport, Leslie. “Proving the Correctness of Multiprocess Programs.” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-3, no. 2, 1977.

O'Donoghue, Ted, and Matthew Rabin. “Doing It Now or Later.” American Economic Review 89, no. 1, 1999.

Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 30, 1993.

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, 1984.

Pronin, Emily, Christopher Y. Olivola, and Kathleen A. Kennedy. “Doing Unto Future Selves As You Would Do Unto Others.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34, no. 2, 2008.

Snodgrass, Richard T. Developing Time-Oriented Database Applications in SQL. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.

United Nations. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987.

Welsh Parliament. Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.