Search results for 'Future generations' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Volkert Beekman (2004). Sustainable Development and Future Generations. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (1):3-22.score: 180.0
    This paper argues, mainly on the basis of Rawls''s savings principle, Wissenburg''s restraint principle, Passmore's chains of love, and De-Shalit's transgenerational communities, for a double interpretation of sustainable development as a principle of intergenerational justice and a future-oriented green ideal. This double interpretation (1) embraces the restraint principle and the argument that no individualcan claim an unconditional right to destroy environmental goods as a baseline that could justify directive strategies for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles, and (2) suggests that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. E. Wesley & F. Peterson (1993). Time Preference, the Environment and the Interests of Future Generations. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):107-126.score: 180.0
    The behavior of individuals currently living will generally have long-term consequences that affect the well-being of those who will come to live in the future. Intergenerational interdependencies of this nature raise difficult moral issues because only the current generation is in a position to decide on actions that will determine the nature of the world in which future generations will live. Although most are willing to attach some weight to the interests of future generations, many (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. M. L. J. Wissenburg (2011). Parenting and Intergenerational Justice: Why Collective Obligations Towards Future Generations Take Second Place to Individual Responsibility. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (6):557-573.score: 180.0
    Theories of intergenerational obligations usually take the shape of theories of distributive (social) justice. The complexities involved in intergenerational obligations force theorists to simplify. In this article I unpack two popular simplifications: the inevitability of future generations, and the Hardinesque assumption that future individuals are a burden on society but a benefit to parents. The first assumption obscures the fact that future generations consist of individuals whose existence can be a matter of voluntary choice, implying (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Jan Deckers (2011). Negative “GHIs,” the Right to Health Protection, and Future Generations. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2):165-176.score: 180.0
    The argument has been made that future generations of human beings are being harmed unjustifiably by the actions individuals commit today. This paper addresses what it might mean to harm future generations, whether we might harm them, and what our duties toward future generations might be. After introducing the Global Health Impact (GHI) concept as a unit of measurement that evaluates the effects of human actions on the health of all organisms, an incomplete theory (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Pierre Mallia & Henk ten Have (2003). From What Should We Protect Future Generations: Germ-Line Therapy or Genetic Screening? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (1):17-24.score: 180.0
    This paper discusses the issue of whether we have responsibilities to future generations with respect to genetic screening, including for purposes of selective abortion or discard. Future generations have been discussed at length among scholars. The concept of ‘Guardianfor Future Generations’ is tackled and its main criticisms discussed. Whilst germ-line cures, it is argued, can only affect family trees, genetic screening and testing can have wider implications. If asking how this may affect future (...) is a legitimate question and since we indeed make retrospective moral judgements, it would be wise to consider that future generations will make the same retrospective judgements on us. Moreover such technologies affect present embryos to which we indeed can be considered to have an obligation. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. D. Clayton Hubin (1976). Justice and Future Generations. Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (1):70-83.score: 156.0
    In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to ground intergenerational justice by "virtual representation" through a thickening of the veil of ignorance. Contractors don't know to what generation they belong. This approach is flawed and will not result in the just savings principle Rawls hopes to justify. The project of grounding intergenerational duties on a social contractarian foundation is misconceived. Non-overlapping generations do not stand in relation to one another that is central to the contractarian approach.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Molly Gardner (2013). Our Duties to Future Generations. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madisonscore: 156.0
    In this dissertation, I explicate some of the moral duties we have to future humans. I defend the view that (DV1) we have pro tanto duties of nonmaleficence and beneficence to and regarding at least some future humans; (DV2) in the present circumstances, this duty of nonmaleficence grounds reasons for us to refrain from damaging certain features of the natural environment; and (DV3) in the present circumstances, this duty of beneficence grounds reasons for at least some of us (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Gustaf Arrhenius, The Paradoxes of Future Generations and Normative Theory.score: 120.0
    As the title of this paper indicates, I’m going to discuss what we ought to do in situations where our actions affect future generations. More specifically, I shall focus on the moral problems raised by cases where our actions affect who’s going to live, their number and their well being. I’ll start, however, with population axiology. Most discussion in population ethics has concentrated on how to evaluate populations in regard to their goodness, that is, how to order populations (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Steve Vanderheiden (2006). Conservation, Foresight, and the Future Generations Problem. Inquiry 49 (4):337 – 352.score: 120.0
    The practice of conservation assumes that current persons have some obligations to future generations, but these obligations are complicated by a number of philosophical problems, chief among which is what Derek Parfit calls the Non-Identity Problem. Because our actions now will affect the identities of persons to be born in the distant future, we cannot say that those actions either benefit or harm those persons. Thus, a causal link between our acts and their consequences for particular persons (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. William J. FitzPatrick (2007). Climate Change and the Rights of Future Generations. Environmental Ethics 29 (4):369-388.score: 120.0
    Despite widespread agreement that we have moral responsibilities to future generations, many are reluctant to frame the issues in terms of justice and rights. There are indeed philosophical challenges here, particularly concerning nonoverlapping generations. They can, however, be met. For example, talk of justice and rights for future generations in connection with climate change is both appropriate and important, although it requires revising some common theoretical assumptions about the nature of justice and rights. We can, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. F. M. Kamm (2005). Moral Status and Personal Identity: Clones, Embryos, and Future Generations. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (2):283-307.score: 120.0
    In the first part of this article, I argue that even those entities that in their own right and for their own sake give us reason not to destroy them and to help them are sometimes substitutable for the good of other entities. In so arguing, I consider the idea of being valuable as an end in virtue of intrinsic and extrinsic properties. I also conclude that entities that have claims to things and against others are especially nonsubstitutable. In the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Gustaf Arrhenius, Future Generations.score: 120.0
    For the last thirty years or so, there has been a search underway for a theory that can accommodate our intuitions in regard to moral duties to future generations. The object of this search has proved surprisingly elusive. The classical moral theories in the literature all have perplexing implications in this area. Classical Utilitarianism, for instance, implies that it could be better to expand a population even if everyone in the resulting population would be much worse off than (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Tim Mulgan (2006). Future People: A Moderate Consequentialist Account of Our Obligations to Future Generations. Oxford University Press.score: 120.0
    What do we owe to our descendants? How do we balance their needs against our own? Tim Mulgan develops a new theory of our obligations to future generations, based on a new rule-consequentialist account of the morality of individual reproduction. He also brings together several different contemporary philosophical discussions, including the demands of morality and international justice. His aim is to produce a coherent, intuitively plausible moral theory that is not unreasonably demanding, even when extended to cover (...) people. While the book focuses on developing this new account, there are also substantial discussions of alternative views, especially contract-based accounts of intergenerational justice and competing forms of consequentialism. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Roy W. Perrett (2003). Future Generations and the Metaphysics of the Self: Western and Indian Philosophical Perspectives. Asian Philosophy 13 (1):29 – 37.score: 120.0
    Our present actions can have effects on future generations - affecting not only the environment they will inherit, but even perhaps their very existence. This raises a number of important moral issues, many of which have only recently received serious philosophical attention. I begin by discussing some contemporary Western philosophical perspectives on the problem of our obligations to future generations, and then go on to consider how these approaches might relate to the classical Indian philosophical tradition. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Bryan G. Norton (1982). Environmental Ethics and the Rights of Future Generations. Environmental Ethics 4 (4):319-337.score: 120.0
    Do appeals to rights and/or interests of the members of future generations provide an adequate basis for an environmental ethic? Assuming that rights and interests are, semantically, individualistic concepts, I present an argument following Derek Parfit which shows that a policy of depletion may harm no existing individuals, present or future. Although this argument has, initially, an air of paradox, I showthat the argument has two intuitive analogues-the problem ofgenerating a morally justified and environmentally sound population policy (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Robert Elliot (1986). Future Generations, Locke's Proviso and Libertarian Justice. Journal of Applied Philosophy 3 (2):217-227.score: 120.0
    Libertarian justice arguably permits much that is harsh. It might plausibly be thought to generate only minimal obligations on the part of present people toward future generations. This turns out not to be so, at least on Nozick's version of libertarian justice, which is among the most thoroughly worked-out versions. Nozickian justice generates extensive obligations to future people. This provides an indirect argument for environmentalist policies such as resource conservation and wilderness preservation. The basis for these obligations (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Gillian Brock (1998). Future Generations, Natural Resources, and Property Rights. Ethics and the Environment 3 (2):119 - 130.score: 120.0
    In an important recent article, "Contemporary Property Rights, Lockean Provisos, and the Interests of Future Generations, "Clark Wolf argues that sometimes the interests of future generations should take precedence over the claims of current property rights holders. Wolfs arguments concentrate on the genesis and nature of defensible property rights in various natural resources, and on the conditions under which morally unacceptable harm is caused to others. In this paper I explore two central sets of issues. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Norman S. Care (1982). Future Generations, Public Policy, and the Motivation Problem. Environmental Ethics 4 (3):195-213.score: 120.0
    A motivation problem may arise when morally principled public policy calls for serious sacrifice, relative to ways of life and levels of well-being, on the part of the members of a free society. Apart from legal or other forms of “external” coercion, what will, could, or should move people to make the sacrifices required by morality? I explore the motivation problem in the context of morally principled public policy concerning our legacy for future generations. In this context the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Dennis F. Thompson (2010). Representing Future Generations: Political Presentism and Democratic Trusteeship. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 13 (1):17-37.score: 120.0
    Democracy is prone to what may be called presentism ? a bias in the laws in favor of present over future generations. I identify the characteristics of democracies that lead to presentism, and examine the reasons that make it a serious problem. Then I consider why conventional theories are not adequate to deal with it, and develop a more satisfactory alternative approach, which I call democratic trusteeship. Present generations can represent future generations by acting as (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Ronald Jeurissen & Gerard Keijzers (2004). Future Generations and Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (1):47-69.score: 120.0
    Companies have a share in our common responsibility to future generations. Hitherto, this responsibility has been all butneglected in the business ethics literature. This paper intends to make up for that omission. A strong case for our moral responsibility tofuture generations can be established on the grounds of moral rights theory, utilitarianism and justice theory. The paper analyses two practical cases in environmental policy, in order to come to grips with the complicated ethical issues involved in the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Clark Wolf (1996). Markets, Justice, and the Interests of Future Generations. Ethics and the Environment 1 (2):153 - 175.score: 120.0
    This paper considers the extent to which market institutions respond to the needs and morally significant interests of future generations. Such an analysis of the intertemporal effects of markets provides important ground for evaluation of normative social theories, and represents a crucial step toward the development of an adequate account of intergenerational justice. After presenting a prima facie case that markets cannot provide appropriate protections for future needs and interests, I evaluate and reject two of the most (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Kevin Gary Behrens (2012). Moral Obligations Towards Future Generations in African Thought. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (2-3):179-191.score: 120.0
    Given the importance of being able to account for moral obligations towards future generations, especially in the light of the problem of global climate change, I argue that there are under-appreciated notions in African thought that are able to significantly contribute to the on-going discourse with respect to inter-generational moral obligations. I identify two related African notions, both springing from the prominent belief that ancestors who have died ? but continue to have a presence ? are entitled to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Kristin Shrader-Frechette (1998). Ethical Theory Versus Unethical Practice: Radiation Protection and Future Generations. Ethics and the Environment 3 (2):177 - 195.score: 120.0
    The main international standard-setting agencies for ionizing radiation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) both subscribe to principles which (they claim) lead to equitable protection for all generations exposed to radioactive pollution. Yet, when one examines the practices both groups support, it is clear that these practices discriminate against future generations with respect to radioactive pollution. After showing (I) that the IAEA and ICRP rhetoric of equity does not match (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Laura Westra (1985). Let It Be: Heidegger and Future Generations. Environmental Ethics 7 (4):341-350.score: 120.0
    The concept offreedom in Heidegger’s sense of truth or unconcealedness of beings may be applied to future generations without thereby reducing the status of other elements within the environment to mere means, since Da-sein’s approach as one who is a caring and concernful, anxious and aware of its own death in an authentic manner, does not place man in any sense “above” other things. This care (Sorge), concern, favor can be captured in Heidegger’s remark that man is not (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Michael Mackenzie (1985). A Note on Motivation and Future Generations. Environmental Ethics 7 (1):63-69.score: 120.0
    l examine the motivation issue in our relationship to future generations in light of a specific set of technological practices-those of Chinese hydraulic agriculture. I conclude that these practices appear to embody a “community-bonding” relationship between present and future generations and that such a relationship provides a fruitful perspective on policy.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. R. Muers (2003). Pushing the Limit: Theology and Responsibility to Future Generations. Studies in Christian Ethics 16 (2):36-51.score: 120.0
    The question of responsibility to future generations is a distinctively modern ethical problem, which exposes the limits of many modern ethical frameworks. I argue for the theological importance of this ‘limit’, and of the question of responsibility to future generations, drawing on the ultimate/penultimate conceptuality of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Ethics. Responsibility to future generations calls for detailed attention to a given situation, in the light of its openness to a future not within our control; (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Robin Attfield (2008). Global Warming, Equity and Future Generations. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 23:5-11.score: 120.0
    The phenomenon of global warming, the anthropogenic theory of its genesis and some of the implications of that theory are introduced as a case-study of a global environmental problem involving issues of equity between peoples, generations and species. We should favour the proportioning of emission quotas topopulation, if the charges of anthropocentrism and of discrimination against future generations can be avoided. It is argued that these charges can be replied to satisfactorily, if emissions totals are set low (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Marc D. Davidson (2008). Wrongful Harm to Future Generations: The Case of Climate Change. Environmental Values 17 (4):471 - 488.score: 120.0
    In this article I argue that governments are justified in addressing the potential for human induced climate damages on the basis of future generations' rights to bodily integrity and personal property. First, although future generations' entitlements to property originate in our present entitlements, the principle of self-ownership requires us to take 'reasonable care' of the products of future labour. Second, while Parfit's non-identity problem has as yet no satisfactory solution, the present absence of an equilibrium (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Avner De-Shalit (1995). Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations. Routledge.score: 120.0
    The first comprehensive philosophical examination of our duties to future generations, Dr de-Shalit argues that they are a matter of justice, not charity or supererogation.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Lawrence E. Johnson (2003). Future Generations and Contemporary Ethics. Environmental Values 12 (4):471 - 487.score: 120.0
    Future generations do not exist, and are not determinate in their make-up. The moral significance of future generations cannot be accounted for on the basis of a purely individualistic ethic. Yet future generations are morally significant. The Person-Affecting Principle, that (roughly) only acts which are likely to affect particular individuals are morally significant, must be augmented in such a way as to take into account the moral significance of Homo sapiens, a holistic entity which (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Richard Sikora (1978). Is It Wrong to Prevent the Existence of Future Generations. In Richard I. Sikora & Brian M. Barry (eds.), Obligations to Future Generations. White Horse Press. 112--166.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Richard I. Sikora & Brian M. Barry (eds.) (1978/1996). Obligations to Future Generations. White Horse Press.score: 120.0
    This reprint of a collection of essays on problems concerning future generations examines questions such as whether intrinsic value should be placed on the preservation of mankind, what are our obligations to posterity, and whether potential people have moral rights.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Brian Barry (1978). Circumstances of Justice and Future Generations. In Richard I. Sikora & Brian M. Barry (eds.), Obligations to Future Generations. White Horse Press. 204--48.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Clem Bezold (1999). Governmental Foresight and Future Generations. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 89.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Kjell Dahle (1999). Towards Responsibility for Future Generations: Five Possible Strategies for Transformation. Tae-Chang Kim and James A. Dator. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Martha J. Garrett (1999). Protecting the Options of Future Generations. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 32.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Sohail Inayatullah (1999). Leadership, Evil, and Future Generations: Towards a Global Conversation of Cultures. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 113.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Lars Ingelstam (1999). A Socially Sustainable Economy for Future Generations. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 144.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Tae-Chang Kim (1999). Conclusion: Bricolaging a Public Philosophy for the Well-Being of Future Generations-First Steps From Tetsuro Watsuji. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 258.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Child Labor (1999). Lnvesting for Future Generations. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 173.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Ian Lowe (1999). Governing in the Interests of Future Generations. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 131--143.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Fred W. Riggs (1999). Future Generations and Governmental Processes. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 24.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Takeshi Sasaki (1999). Future Generations: Challenge and Response. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 27.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Wendy Schultz (1999). Lntimate Politics: Face-to-Face with Future Generations. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 181.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Robert Scott Jr (1978). Environmental Ethics and Obligations to Future Generations. In Richard I. Sikora & Brian M. Barry (eds.), Obligations to Future Generations. White Horse Press.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Rich Somerville (1999). Future Generations:" Citizens" or" Consumers"? In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 162.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Alexander Tomov (1999). Future Generations and Government Aimed at the Future. In Tʻae-chʻang Kim & James Allen Dator (eds.), Co-Creating a Public Philosophy for Future Generations. Praeger. 72.score: 120.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Elizabeth Victor & Laura Guidry-Grimes (2014). The Persistence of Agency Through Social Institutions and Caring for Future Generations. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 7 (1):122-141.score: 120.0
    Many of us believe that, at minimum, we have a duty not to shorten or unduly burden the lives of future people. This perceived duty could lead to ethical concerns about leaving the earth in environmental ruin, pursuing certain biotechnologies, or playing with the human genome. It is both tempting and intuitive to understand this duty as a duty not to harm future generations. This line of thought leads to a philosophical puzzle articulated by Derek Parfit. Despite (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Kristian Skagen Ekeli (2005). Giving a Voice to Posterity – Deliberative Democracy and Representation of Future People. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (5):429-450.score: 108.0
    The aim of this paper is to consider whether some seats in a democratically elected legislative assembly ought to be reserved for representatives of future generations. In order to examine this question, I will propose a new democratic model for representing posterity. It is argued that this model has several advantages compared with a model for the democratic representation of future people previously suggested by Andrew Dobson. Nevertheless, the democratic model that I propose confronts at least two (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Peter Wenz (1983). Ethics, Energy Policy, and Future Generations. Environmental Ethics 5 (3):195-209.score: 96.0
    Conflicts can arise between energy policies pursued in the interests of present people and the needs of future people for environmental and social conditions conducive to human well-being. This paper is addressed primarily to those who believe that we have moral obligations toward people of the distant future, and who consider these obligations to affect the range of energy policies which we are morally entitled to pursue. l examine utilitarian, contractarian, and formalist ethical theories to determine which provide (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000