Alternatives Futures of Europe:
Visions from Young People at the University of Trier, Germany
What will Europe look like in the next 50
years? What are the plausible scenarios? Which are the preferred? A seminar held on June 23, 1999 at the University
of Trier at the Centre for European Studies explored these and other
questions. Facilitated by political
scientist and Unesco Chair, Sohail Inayatullah, the seminar intended to help
participants gain a sense of power over their own personal and collective futures.
Participants were students at the
university finalizing their thesis and had undertaken the seminar, titled
"Europe in an International Perspective", to enlarge their
perspective of Europe, particularly by seeing Europe through the eyes of other
civilizations.
Participants
spent three weeks discussing trends impacting the future of Europe. These
trends included the aging of Europe, and long term population decline (unless
immigration dramatically increased) as well as other trends such as the development
of the knowledge economy, genetics and artificial intelligence and the
possibility of the collapse of capitalism. Following discussions of these
trends – the knowledge base of the future -
participants articulated their own visions for the future of Europe.
Scenarios
Four
scenarios emerged. The first was Community/Organic.
In this scenario, young people moved away from the chemical corporate way of
life and searched for community-oriented alternatives. Local currency networks, organic farming, shared
housing and other values and programs favored by the counter-culture were
favored. The current scare of Dioxin in
Belgium (with similar scares in the future even more likely) argued Eric Rieger
could lead to quite dramatic changes away from artificial, pesticide and
genetic foods, in the longer run, he believed.
They imagined a community household
system where goods and services were shared. However, one participant, Sabina
Frerichs imagined Europe not within the urban/community diachotomy but saw the
entire of Europe as becoming community-oriented. This meant a clear move away
from the view that I shop therefore I am to I
relate therefore I am.
This focus on relationship was also
central for other participants. Indeed, it was the return to a strong family
life that was pivotal in terms of how they saw the future of Europe. Taking
care of children – and ensuring that the state provided funds for this – taking
care of the elderly, and in general living so that familial relationship were
far more important then exchange relations was a foundational value. In
contrast to the community scenario, this future was far more focused on the
nuclear family – the Family Future.
Indeed, efforts to maintain this institution were considered crucial by some
participants especially with the rise of genetic engineering, and the
possibility of test-tube factories in the not so distant future. Indeed, while more formal visioning
workshops with technocratic experts examine scientific variables, these
students asked, "will I have children? How many? How will I spend my time
with them?"
Other participants believed that the new
technologies would be dominant and instead of resisting them we should rejoice.
We should celebrate in artificial intelligence, plastic surgery, gene enhancement,
said Nadine Pepe, creating Plastic Europe.
Anonymity in fact gives freedom from other; it allows the individual to express
herself, while community and family suppress the individual. The new
technologies as well promise great wealth, said Martin Valkenberg. Indeed some
argued that far more important than family life was single life. It gave
choice; it was not steeped in outdated institutions such as marriage. Europe
was flexible and it should remain so when it came to formal relations.
A Bright
Future?
While these visions were explored, the context was
not always of a bright future. One participant, Christina Weiß, argued that oil
reserves would certainly run out, and Europe would quickly decline, while
Africa, with its plentitude of sun, and eventually solar energy, would rise. Mass unemployment in the context
of Castle Europe – keep the barbarians out – was the likely future. AIDS,
Ebola, and many other disasters loomed ahead, said Green activist Jost
Wagner. Eva Michels added that nuclear technology could also lead to serious
problems and new forms of energy were needed.
Unless alternative forms of energy were developed, the future was bleak.
But again it did not need to be, argued
Frerichs. The new technologies create the possibility for a network instead of
national identity. They allow creativity to grow, and along with more spiritual
views of what it means to be human, let humans transcend their narrow
limitations. What Europe could offer,
said Asma Nitardy, was its multilingual focus, its vision of a multicultural
society. It was this gift she wanted to
give her children, to ensure that they could speak German, Swahili, French,
English, and mandarin, for example
The
future can be bright, even if many of the trends do not currently look
positive, was the overall conclusion of the seminar.
Sohail Inayatullah was UNESCO chair at the University of
Trier, June
1999. He is professor and chair of the school of futures studies at the
International Management Centres and Tamkang Chair, Tamkang University, Taiwan,
and visiting academic, Queensland University of Technology. He is the co-editor
of the Journal of Futures Studies and
fellow of the World Futures Studies Federation.