Final
Report to the Foundation for the Future, 2001
Preface
The research has focused on the methodological
context of forecasting the long- term future. This is thus not an
analysis of the particular content of Year 3000 forecasts (as for
example, provided in a recent special issue of the journal Futures
titled Humanity 3000) but an analysis of the approaches and
methodologies utilized in long-range forecasting.
It is part one of research into methodology and
the long term future. A subsequent project intends to explore devising
forecasts of the 1000 year future based on the conclusions of this
study.
Executive Summary
Six methodological approaches are offered, with
strengths and weaknesses to each approach discussed.
These are:
(1)
methodology as leading to accurate forecasts by
focusing on current scientific fact;
(2)
methodology as focused on the identification of
critical factors (and not forecasts per se);
(3)
the post-structural approach in which
epistemology constitutes ontology;
(4)
the eclectic methodological approach that factors
in multiple methods;
(5)
the layered methodological concerned not with
multiplicity but with depth; and,
(6)
the historical consciousness approached focused
on understanding the nature of the future by returning to history
Four approaches to forecasting are discussed.
(1)
The future, especially the long-term future,
cannot be predicted.
(2)
The future can be generally predicted, either
because reality is patterned and thus leaves traces or that there are
grand macrohistorical and evolutionary processes.
(3)
The future is epistemic. The future can be
understood by focusing on foundational changes in how we know, on the
boundaries of knowledge.
(4)
A preferred forecasting model would be one that
organically combines the epistemic with the patterned perspective.
The next section provides a review of selected
literature in give categories: general literature; A FFF trajectory
workshop; content of FFF meetings and other forums; historical readings;
and, macrohistorical readings.
The following section reproduces nine research
findings as developed in the mid-term Grant report.
These are:
(1)
As statements about the future move from the
short-term to the long-term futures, values play a far more important
role in the forecast or analysis of the critical factors.
(2)
There exists a tension between continuity
versus discontinuity. That is, certain methodologies are more prone to
forecast novelty while other more prone to conclude, plus ca change,
plus c'est la meme chose
(3)
As important as type of method is
what one does with the methodology.
(4)
The type of future one forecasts or the factors
one chooses to analyze are foundationally determined by how one sees the
nature and shape of space-time-person.
(5)
The type of future one sees is determined by what
values one
ascribes to the present.
(6)
The forecasts one develops and the critical
factors that are explored tend
to be those that
privilege or mirror one's own standing in the world.
(7) Critical factors and forecasts expressed tend
fall into two categories – growth and technology/distribution and
communication with the other.
(8) No single methodology is adequate.
(9) The most rewarding forecasting approach
is likely to be one that is eclectic, interactive, a mix of long term
forecasts and contextualised by macrohistorical factors in the overall
framework of epistemic transformations.
The overall recommendation is that:
Methodologies that forecast the long-term future
are likely to more rewarding – quality, insight, accuracy and validity –
if (1) they are eclectic and layered, (2) go back in time as far as they
go in the future, (3) and that contextualize critical factors and
long-term projection by macrohistory and epistemic transformations. And
the methodology itself should have the seeds of its own transformation,
that is, be able to produce results not intended by it.
Table of Contents
1.0
Methodological Positions
2.0
Approaches to the Long-Term Future
3.0
A Map of Studies of the long-term future reveal
the following
4.0
Summary of Key Findings
5.0
References
There are at least six positions as to the role of
methodology to the knowledge derived.
1.
Methodology as Accurate
Methodology can lead to a valid and accurate
assessment of the current state of science so as to understand the
trajectory of the future. Given that, at question is the future – where
there are no empirical facts. The future remains problematic to predict.
This is the empiricist perspective, wherein a good method is largely
about the value neutrality of the observer. Biases must be factored out.
Most important are accurate statements of current achievements in
science, their likely trajectories and then limited speculation on what
these trajectories mean for the long-term future. Perhaps the best
example of this type of work is Michio Kaku's Visions: How Science
Will Revolutionize the 21st Century and Beyond.
The strength of
this approach is that extrapolations are based on real scientific
discoveries as assessed by scientists and technologists and not by
generalists or by lay persons. In addition, since the forecasts start
out with a fact basis, there is less room for error or meandering.
Writes Kaku:
"Predictions about the future made by professional scientists tend to be
based much more substantially on the realities of scientific knowledge
than those made by social critics [as the former] shape and create it" (Kaku,
1998, 5) This does not mean, however, that disruptions are impossible.
As Kaku confesses,
there
undoubtedly will be some astonishing surprises, twists of fate and
embarrassing gaps … but by focusing on the interrelations between the
three great scientific revolutions [biomolecular, computer and quantum],
and by consulting with the scientists who are actively bringing about
this revolution and examining their discoveries, it is my hope that we
can see the direction of science in the future with considerable insight
and accuracy (Kaku, 1998, 6).
The weakness in
this approach is that since the discourse created is framed in the
paradigm of the time (the epistemic knowledge boundaries that constitute
what is knowable and comprehensible), novel approaches could be lost.
For example, Kaku argues that because of globalization and cultural
intermingling, human evolution will now cease. While this certainly
makes sense within current notions of Darwinian evolution, alternative
perspectives as developed by Elisabet Sahtouris, Rupert Sheldrake or P.R
Sarkar (all to some extent focused on post-Darwinian positions) would
offer us scientific avenues that may lead to new avenues of discovery.
Moreover, by focusing on experts in one area, without interaction with
experts in another area, large packages of knowledge are not delved
into. Other significant revolutions (spiritual, multiculturalism, global
governance, world law) are lost sight of. Rigour thus has its price.
2.
Methodology as Identifying Current Factors
No method has utility in long term forecasting
since the future is evolutionary, our research and insights become
complicit in the future created. The long-term is too distant for either
valid, accurate or precise forecasts (and especially not forecasts that
fit all three criteria). Thus, the crucial task is clarity on the
critical factors necessary for human and environmental survival and,
indeed, thrival. Much of the work by the Foundation for the
Future is toward that direction. The concern then is not forecasting or
visioning but an identification of the key issues necessary to bring
about a rational discussion of the long-term future. See, in particular,
Sesh Velamoor and Paige Heydon, Humanity 3000, Special Issue of
Futures.
The strength of this approach is that it avoids
often fruitless discussion as to what will happen (how can and do we
know, how to judge, under which criteria) and focuses directly on what
issues are most important to leading thinkers. The weakness to this
approach is that the future is discounted. By focusing on current issue,
emerging issues are left out of the discussion. Moreover, the hidden
assumption that the present will proceed onto an unproblematic future is
not contested.
3.
Methodology qua Post-structuralism
Methodology is complicit in creating the data; that
is, reality is constituted by the lenses we use. This position does not
argue that social reality is maya or ontological illusion (as per
the classical Indian Vedic position) but that epistemology is complicit
in ontology. This is the post-structural perspective. One example of
this is in futures studies is developed by Sohail Inayatullah,
Questioning the Future and in Sohail Inayatullah and Paul Wildman,
Futures Studies: Methods, Emerging Issues and Civilizational Visions.
The strength of this approach is that it forces a
foundational examination of the methodology in use. The data delivered
are understood to be partly constituted by the methodology used. Thus
the future offered is seen with more suspicion than in the strict
scientific empiricist perspective. A dialogue of epistemology and
ontology can then ensue leading to clarity about fundamental
assumptions. The future constructed can thus be based on different
assumptions. Authentic probabalistic scenarios can result.
The weakness is that discussion will enter a
virtual stasis with no resolution possible, since each "objective"
position is contextualized by methodology. No future or forecasts per se
is possible is possible since one is always engaged in a process of
deconstruction.
4.
Eclectic Methodology
An eclectic mix of methods – scenarios, emerging
issues, quantitative forecasting, for example – may lead to the best
results. This is so since each method can only capture a part of social
reality. Moreover, by using multiple methods, forecastor bias is
factored out. A mix of methods better explains the variation.
The strength of this methodology is that different
perspectives are brought in and a higher quality forecast is possible.
The weakness is determining the relative efficacy in explaining
variation by each particular methodology. Moreover, it may that
different methodologies are capturing dramatic different dimensions of
reality – that is, the variations explained are at different epistemic
levels.
5.
Layered Methodology
A layered approach leads to the highest quality of
forecast. Layers are important in that there are multiple dimensions to
social reality operating at different epistemological levels. Some of
these levels are shallow, and some are deep. Perhaps the best example
of this is the classical work by Oswald Spengler as well as a
forthcoming issue of the journal Futures on Layered Methodology.
The main strength of the layered methodological
approach is that qualitatively different levels of reality are
addressed. The weakness is in the precision of determining what data
(meaning, worldview, myth) is at which layer or the relative
contribution to explaining reality by each level and metholodology.
6.
Methodology as History
The future itself cannot be accurately known, but
we can gain insight into the future by understanding the past. Thus,
instead of forecasting forward, it is more productive to, if we seek to
understand the year 3000, return to the year 1000. By seeing the future
and the 2000 through the conditions of the year 1000, we can better
appreciate the problematic nature of understanding the very long term.
In the European context, exemplary is: Robert Lacey and
Danny Danziger, The Year 1000: What life was like at the turn
of the first Millennium.
2.0 APPROACHES TO THE LONG
TERM FUTURE
There are generally three current approaches to the
long term future, and a fourth suggested approach based on this
research.
The Year 3000 is unimaginable. It is impossible to predict. Indeed,
a mistake. One need only go back a 1000 years and see how things turned
out so different (for example, the rise of Europe instead of China or
India). The long-term future cannot be anticipated. Indeed, underlying
this perspective is that the future itself cannot be known (patterns
discovered are merely researcher bias, and even using scenarios merely
contours the unknown instead of illuminating the known).
The Year 3000 is generally predictable. One needs courage (as well
as rigorous training) and an understanding that change has a long
shadow, that traces of change follow patterns.
These traces are of two
types.
The first are data
level, for example, that concerns for over- taxation is not recent but
goes back to the Roman days.
Graham Molitor, the long
term forecastor par excellence, in his speech "Millennial Perspectives"
essentially arguing that there is nothing new under the sun, gives us an
extensive list of these,
Taxes that plague us
today, date back to 3000 BC. Codification of written laws that grow
longer and more complex with each passing day. [This can be plotted back
to 21000 BC]. Price regulation to 1300 BC. Illegal parking (chariots,
carts) to 45BC. Free food for the poor to 58BC. Smoke abatement laws to
1273 AD. Air pollution controls to 1280 AD. Asbestos worker "lung
sickness" to 79 AD. State control of education to 500 BC. Teacher
licensing to 362 AD. Systematized civil service to 221 BC. Competitive
written civil service exams to 200 BC. Divorce laws to 1800 BC.
Prostitution controls to 1950 BC. Compensation for bodily injuries to
2100 BC. (Molitor, 1998, 664).
Essentially, this means
that there is a certain timelessness to that which is significant in
that these issues are touching deeper archetypal concerns. This does not
mean that there has not been nor will be dramatic technological change,
but that at foundation issues remains the same. For example,
communication is still about expression to self/other irrespective if
done through language, type, digitally or as Molitor argues, ESP (from
2500-3000). Or, while the Internet is different from traditional modes
of communication, communication still remains defining.
A further example is
offered by Mortan Kaplan in his article, "The emergence of a global
society." In China in 1000 AD, writes Mortan Kaplan (1998):
For the emperor to
communicate effectively with government representatives in the empire's
outlying areas, an elaborate web of roads, bridges and canals had been
developed. An empire wide system of courier stations was set up, each
with fresh horses and relay riders. (Kaplan, 1998, 18)
The second type of trace
is macro, that there are grand historical patterns. This is less
concerned with finding evidence that taxation is universal and more with
finding patterning in history. These are the grand waves. For example,
historian Sarkar argues that history moves through four distinct
patterns. These are based on our psycho-social sensibilities. The first
is the worker, concerned with survival, dominated by the environment.
The second is the warrior, concerned with dominating the environment,
with expansion and conquest. The third is the intellectual, concerned
with using the intellect to dominate the environment. The third develops
from the second and the second from the first. They are evolutionary
developments in terms of types of people as well as phases of human
history. The age of workers gives way to the age of warriors which gives
way to the age of intellectuals. Or simply put in European history, from
the pre-civilization to the era of empires to the feudal era. However,
as intellectuals do not excel at managing the economy, a fourth type
develops, the merchant. They seek power through the other three classes.
However, while they expand the economy, they exploit the other classes.
This leads to a workers' revolt and the cycle starts again. Each
particular era can take a few hundred years. Human evolution generally
is in the last phase of the merchant era.
Thus for Sarkar, what is
likely to emerge is a workers' global revolution followed by a
centralized world government structure. This will likely last a few
hundred years from which a new world intellectual order (a science and
technology revolution or a cultural-spiritual revolution). By the year
3000, we are likely to be where we are today, in the midst of the end of
the merchant era. However, while cyclical each era of course does not go
back to the previous, there are changes in culture, in science and
technology. What does remain the same is the overall framework, the
episteme. Thus, merely using linear forecasts to consider the future
would be simplistic. The type of science and technology, the type of
exploration – and the level and duration of both – change during the
episteme, change depending in which psycho-social sensibility is on top.
These are evolutionary structures and they deeply difficult to change.
However, Sarkar does
believe that the cycle can be speeded up dramatically through proper
moral global leadership. This done, the positives associated with each
new era (capitalism first leading to innovation, new wealth but over
time degenerating with ever higher inequities in wealth) can be
accentuated and the negatives (for example in the intellectuals era, new
theories of the universe leading to inner and outer understanding
quickly degenerating into theories with no practical results). The cycle
can become a progressive spiral.
Again, what is most
important here that trajectories do not go straight up for ever, there
are asymptotes, which then lead to bifurcation, to changes in what is
possible. Thus, linear forecasts or assessing current critical factors
will only accentuate the present. They are unable to point to system
transformations. The nature and type of system transformations can be
understood from the macrohistory in question (in this case Sarkar's).
This differs from Molitor's in that while Molitor focuses on
foundational issues, Sarkar sees these as changing, and yet, similar to
Molitor, there is a cyclical return (perhaps not to taxation in the Year
3000 Merchant Era but some other type of economic redistribution).
Pitirim Sorokin is perhaps most
instructive when thinking of the long-term future. He bases his
macrotheory on the simple question: what is the nature of reality? This
is answered as: (1) Only the body/material world is real. (2) Only the
mind/ideational world is real. (3) Both are real. (4) This question
cannot be answered, as reality is unknowable, and, (5) Irrelevant
question (here I've taken some liberty in reinterpreting Sorokin).
The first response results in the sensate
or materialistic civilization. The second in ideational civilization.
The third in an integrated civilization. The last two responses create
dissent but no culture is possible. He finds historical evidence for all
three types of civilization. But what is most important is that no
system can stay static, since as it expands, it ignores other aspects of
what it means to be human. Thus, very real limits are reached and the
pendulum shifts to another type of civilization.
Writes Sorokin in his
Social and Cultural Dynamics:
When such a system of
truth and reality ascends, grows, and becomes more and more
monopolistically dominant, its false part tends to grow, while its valid
part tends to decrease. Becoming monopolistic or dominant, it tends to
drive out all the other systems of truth and reality, and with them the
valid parts they contain. At the same time, like dictatorial human
beings, becoming dominant, the system is likely to lose increasingly its
validities and develop its falsities. The net result of such a trend is
that as the domination of the system increases, it becomes more and more
inadequate. As such, it becomes less and less capable of serving as an
instrument of adaptation, as an experience for real satisfaction of the
needs of its bearers; and as a foundation for the social and cultural
life (Sorokin, 1957, 681).
Over time, as the
falsity grows, the new system comes into play, until it too, corsi
and recorsi, follows the same pattern.
As we are currently in
the last days of the sensate civilization, we can well imagine the next
500 years being either an integrated civilization (technology focused
not just on manipulating genes and computers but as well as on
technologies of consciousness) focused on developing a global ethics.
But this - and this is crucial – is not likely to remain as well. The
integrated mind-body/science-ethics civilization is likely to move as
well to an extreme, most likely an ideational era (the intellectual's
system – according to Sarkar). From this, perhaps early in the third
millennium, there will be return to the sensate system.
Thus, while Molitor
(2000, 507-513) boldly forecasts developments in energy, life sciences,
communication, what is missing, from the macrohistorical view is a
sensitivity to epistemic changes in which the nature of
nature-truth-reality-sovereignty change.
These may be patterned
as per the arguments of Sarkar and Sorokin, or a dramatic new episteme
could emerge, perhaps through foundational changes in evolution brought
about by the very technologies Molitor and Kaku forecast. That is, as
McLuhan theorizes, humans shape technologies and thereafter they shape
us.
The
Year 3000 is Epistemic. Understanding the trajectory of the future is
based on understanding the epistemic context, that is, the lense in
which the future is based, may differ from the present. Technology or
social revolution creates a new episteme that then shapes the nature of
scientific and social enterprise.
Two positions results
from this. The first is similar to the earlier position that the
long-term future is unimaginable since we cannot apriori know
what the new episteme will be like.
The second is that one
can through an epistemologically sensitive macrohistory forecast the
future of epistemes. Based on these alternative forecasts, one can
understand the contours of the long-term future.
Epistemic Macrohistory
Combining
epistemologically sensitive macrohistory to the trace theory of the
future could yield quite positive results.
This would mean combining
the macrohistorical work of Sarkar and Sorokin, for example, with the
trajectories in computing, life science, space exploration, as provided
by Molitor, Kaku and others. This means patterns reaching asymptotes,
leading to bifurcation, with then a whole new set of concerns (for
example, moving from exploring outer space to civilization focused on
inventing virtual worlds or spiritual worlds).
It would also mean
speculation as to how epistemes might change given current scientific
developments as well as non-scientific developments (that is, epistemes
are not necessarily rational orderings of knowledge).
Given these positions,
how, in fact is the future predicted.
1.
Extrapolation. For example, Overpopulation is
currently a problem. It will remain so. This is the typical litany
approach as evidenced by expert panels.
2.
S-Curve- Traces of history. The Molitor method.
3.
Scientific Experts – Ask those who are creating
the future, ie scientists and technologists. The Kaku method.
4.
Generalists experts – Ask those who know how to
think about the future – futurists. And train individuals to think about
the future. Coates.
5.
Macrohistory – History has patterns. There is, of
course, agency but not full freedom. Sarkar, Sorokin
6.
Epistemological Macrohistory – The futures of
epistemes. Undeveloped.
7.
World History – Going back in the past to
understand the future, if not the patterns, at least the timeless human
concerns. The year 1000. Robert Lacey and Danny Denziger.
4.0 A Brief Map of Studies of the long-term future
This section provides a brief map of how the
long-term future is seen. As it is selective, conclusions should be seen
as indicative.
1.
General Review - There is of course very little
research on the long-term future. Below are three indicative research
efforts.
·
Idiosyncratic, for example, Michael Hart's
The Year 3000. No clear methodology, overly based on personal worldview,
academic training.
·
Long-term Trends. Excellent in terms of
presenting critical pathways into the future. However, trends do not
interact with macrohistorical structures, that is, events and trends, or
deeper structures that might transform the direction of the trend line.
Molitor and special issue of Futures on Humanity 3000, edited by
Velamoor and Heydon.
·
Coates survey on the future of futurists
at a WFS meeting. Again, excellent questions, however, just because one
is a futurist does not necessarily lead to quality insights. As one
reviewer from Future Survey put it: great questions, banal
answers (Michael Marien, 2000, 23)
2.
Visions Workshops (Based on Trajectory workshops
conducted at Leavenworth, Washington, September 25-29th,
1999, as organized by the Foundation for the Future).
·
Participants saw stages and dialects. That
is, over-reliance on one factor, technology, could result in social
revolts elsewhere. Social revolts lead to anti-technology movements that
then give way to localism. The future was thus not linear but one where
there were abrupt changes. For example, global warming leading to a
world crisis, leading to the formation of strong world government
structures.
·
The most important factor was a clear
division between what was considered the most important factors. On one
side was the scientific/technological (germ line intervention, nano-technology,
space travel) and on the other side were social, cultural and spiritual
factors (technologies of consciousness, new ways of knowing, learning
from the other).
These divisions again reflect certain assumptions
about reality. (1) What is most important. (2) Methodological
perspective.
3.
Content Analysis from Visions Workshops and other
forums.
Generally when experts at Foundation for the Future
meetings have been asked about critical factors shaping the future,
respondents tend to focus on futures based on the present, such as
overpopulation (See appendix). Thus, if we were to pattern the future as
an S-Curve, with problems being at the top, trends at the middle, and
emerging issues at the bottom, generally individuals focus on the top
most level of the future. However, trends are unlikely to continue
forward forever, and, indeed, research tends to show that new emerging
issues might cause foundational change in the character of society and
future. For example, population growth might dramatically reverse
itself, leading to the main issue hundred years hence to be
underpopulation, as argued by Paul Wallace in his book Agequake.
Thus, the critical factors tell us a great deal
about the present and far less about future issues (which are likely to
be far more important in determining the future).
Writes Gregory Stock in his Metaman: The Merging
of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism:
The future is likely to be far stranger than
generally imagined. When science-fiction writers look at the future they
frequently conjecture fantastic, often improbable, new technologies and
superimpose them on social frameworks not very different from those of
today. Star Trek Episodes are filled with "transporter beams," "warp
speeds," "intergalatic starships,: and "phasar" weapons, but the human
relationships, motivations of the crew are familiar. (Stock, 1993,
30)
He goes on to argue that the basic anchors of human
experience – aging, the senses, the body, childbirth – are about to be
dramatically altered to due revolutions in genetics and computing.
Machines likely will be intelligence
participants in a closely knit global environment in which people's
mental and physical capacities are enhanced by bio-machines, fetuses are
nurtured in hospital incubation tanks, and humans are enjoying greatly
extended life spans. (Stock, 1993, 30)
But the key issue for this methodological study
(along with the nature of forecasts) is that: "Such possibilities … are
almost inevitable extrapolation of the scientific and technological
advances of recent decades." (Stock, 1993, 30)
Writes Coates on his workshop at the World Future
Society Conference.
Scenario building was simultaneously
disappointing and revealing. It was disappointing in that there was
relatively little richness to the micro scenarios. They tended to
reflect a future world in which the voguish or contemporary issues of
the end of the second millennium are effectively dealt with and
eliminated (Coates, 1999,48).
He argues that this is supported by other studies
as well. For example, David Kristof and Todd W. Nickerson's
Predictions for the Next Millennium as well respond to the urgent
issues of today – population, war, peace, prejudice, and so on.
Coates concludes that we tend to focus on the short
term and do not appreciate how long a thousand years is (and thus it is
crucial to go back a 1000 years) nor are we able to find language and
imagery to forecast/speculate on a thousand years.
4.
Historical Readings
Historical readings, by going back a thousand
years, hope to give us insight into our present and the long-term
future.
Write Morton A Kaplan and Robert Selle,
If an educated person of any culture in the year
1000 had received a miraculous vision of the world in the year 2000, he
might as well have said: You cannot get there from here. So much of
what we take for granted would have been beyond his wildest imagination,
let alone his comprehension.
This does not mean looking back in the past has no
utility. Precisely the opposite, as it gives us a context to appreciate
the fantastic nature of human evolution, past and future.
Two issues are relevant here. (1) The future is
unimaginable because of the compounded rate of change. (2) The
categories in which we use to make sense of the world will have changed
so much that the future is incomprehensible.
As well, looking back at thousand years, it would
have been at one level impossible to have predicted the rise of Europe.
As Kaplan and Selle write: At the start of the millennium, there was
nothing to suggest that Europe would play this role. It was backward in
relation to Chinese and Arabic Culture, and its future was in no way
preordained. (Kaplan and Selle, 1998, 18)
And:
Based on the current data, all bets would have
been on China and India, or the Arabic Islamic world. While the life
expectancy in England was in the 30s, many youths in China could expect
to live until 60. (18) A civil service, education, paper money, gun
powder and numerous other inventions placed China ahead of other
civilizations.
However, while this is true at the superficial
level, at a macrohistorical level, we need not be surprised at the rise
of Europe. For example, using Galtung's perspective of seeing the West
as a civilization that undergoes expansion/contraction cycles
(ego/alter-ego), then the year 1000 merely represented the contraction
period. It was only natural that 500 years later, the rise of the West
and capitalism would usher in a new era. Chinese civilization has been
far more internal and Indian, concerned, primarily about the nature of
the self. The battle then was between Islam and Christendom, with the
Christian Crusades setting the tone for the Millennium.
There are thus two levels of analysis. At one
level, it was inconceivable at year 1000 that by the year 2000, the West
would be in supreme ascendancy and others following. At another level,
if one can uncover general keys to how and why civilizations rise and
fall, expand and contract, then the long-term future is no longer
impossible to forecast. Of course, precision is impossible but general
patterns and frameworks are possible.
5.
Macrohistorical Readings
This perhaps is the most useful in that the data of
history are used to develop long term historical patterns, and as been
developed above. As mentioned earlier, thus, from Pitirim Sorokin, we
understand that the current sensate era with its focus on materialistic
technology and empirical science is only one way to organize the world.
We are likely to endure a pendulum shift to either an integrated society
(mind and body are real) or an ideational (religious, mind is real)
society. These shifts, while difficult to ascribe time to, could take
500 or so years. Thus, strangely enough, the year 3000 could look very
much like the present in that we are likely to move to an integrated
society.
From Ibn Khaldun, we note that innovation is not
perpetual but declines over generations as the new generation only seeks
to implement what the older generation has accomplished. In addition, he
argues that it is those on the periphery who are more likely than those
in the center to transform the future. Not the elite as they can only
see what they have created but the those outside of power, who scheme,
vision, and work hard to create a different future. Thus, Khaldun is
quite in reversal to Kaku's approach of assuming the best forecasts will
come from elite scientists.
But the most important question from Khaldun would
be: who then are the new carriers of the future once the current system
winds down? In his language, who are the bedouins who will challenge
authority and seek a new future?
From Riane Eisler, the key feature of the year 3000
would be gender partnership since she argues that history is phase like,
moving from matriarchy to patriarchy and finally to a balanced
civilization. Thus, gender cannot be factored out, as with traditional
scientific perspectives. Rather, gender reveals and creates a new
future. Thus, not only should forecasts of the future be gender based
(that is, to say we need only holistic human forecasts, ignores real
crucial differences that actually are useful in better understanding the
future).
5.0 Summary of Key Findings
This section is based on the earlier mid-term
report submitted to the Foundation is reproduced with minor changes.
1. Research Finding/Issue One
As statements
about the future move from the short-term to the long-term futures,
values play a far more important role in the forecast or analysis of the
critical factors.
This is more complex than the obvious statement
that as we move to the distant past and distant future our data becomes
murkier. That is, data is less available. What is relevant is the
corollary of lack of data is that the data available is far more open
to interpretation. With no or little knowledge base for the long-term
future developed, individual (explicit and implicit) values toward
science, philosophy, religion plays a far more important role.
Thus, as we move to the long-term future, the
probable (or possible and plausible) tend to give way to the preferred.
However, insofar as those considering the long-term
future use the language of science, that is, objectivity, these values
are covered up. They are done so in a variety of ways.
1.
The future is so far away, nothing meaningful can
be said
2.
The future is so far away; all statements are
best guesses.
3.
The future is so far away, we need to use as the
basis of our forecasts leading edge or emerging technologies, theories
of change, images of the future and marginal perspectives – generally
seeds of change that are currently available or intelligible.
However, with no solid empirical or knowledge base
to rely on, behind these statements is the issue of values or paradigms.
This does not mean that methodological inquiry into
the future is impossible. Rather, methodological inquiry into the
long-term future is best served by: (1) Acknowledging the implicit or
unconscious roles of values in considering the long-term future
(probable scenarios, likely trajectories, and critical factors);
(2) Research or conferencing or seminars that focus
first on the preferred future. In this way, values are explicitly teased
out. They are acknowledged. This done, a more scientific (that is,
replicable by others, rigorous, logical and based on an explicit
epistemological framework) view of the long-term future can emerge.
Thus, we should not abandon research into the long term; rather, by
acknowledging the role of values, paradoxically, research can become
more scientific. The result can be a range of scenarios and factors that
honestly and authentically are derived from a range of explicit value
positions about the nature of inquiry and the totality of reality.
2. Research Finding/Issue Two
The second methodological issue that emerges is
tension between continuity versus discontinuity. That is, are certain
methodologies more prone to forecast novelty while other more prone to
conclude, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Thus for
example Jib Fowles in "The Future of the Internet: Forecasting by
Analogy," as well as Peter Hartcher, "Internet is another 'boom and
bust' speculative" argue that new technologies tend to follow old
patterns such that a time-travelling Victorian arriving in the late
twentieth century would no doubt be unimpressed by the Internet … they
had one of their own" (in the telegraph) (Fowles, 9). In this sense,
the year 3000 will not be any different at a depth level. There might be
new technologies but as Hartcher argues, the human psyche, will remain
the same. For Fowles as well, patterns of invention, development,
diffusion and then eventually normalcy form a possible pattern for the
Internet. Might then genetic engineering, nano-technology, space travel
and other inventions as well follow similar patterns?
There are two issues here. First, that forecasting
the development of new technologies is possible. Second, the impacts of
new technologies are in themselves not novel. Thus, for example,
futurist, Graham Molitor can conclude that dysjunctive theories of the
future are merely erroneous research. As he says: "Discontinuities
simply indicate that people haven't done their homework." (www.
Closertotruth.com – Can we imagine the far future – year 3000,
transcript. Site accessed August 30, 2000)
We can thus divide methodologies into those that
engender novel forecasts and those that search for patterns, and thus,
see the novel as the old.
However, such a division is not so simple. While we
would expect quantitative forecasts to generally be the least sensitive
toward foundational transformation, this is not necessarily the case.
For example, quantitative forecasts of population generally show
increasing population with low-middle forecast that of 9-10 billion mark
in the next fifty years or so. High-end forecasts, such as those in the
1970s by Herman Kahn, veer closer to the 20 billion. However, while the
main assumption of ceteris paribus is not at first blush
challenged, what can result from such forecasts is not merely continued
growth, but rather asymptotes leading to foundational transformation.
For example, world population declining rapidly because of environmental
crisis or a world leading to a return to 13th century
feudalism (Thousands of nations with some minor regional groupings).
Quantitative forecasts while initially starting off from a point of
continuity can show dramatic discontinuities.
3. Research Finding/Issue Three
In this sense, of more importance is not so much
the methodology but what one does with the methodology. That is, is one
searching for discontinuities or continuities? If one chooses to take UN
data which, for example, suggests that it would take another 900 or so
years before there was gender equality globally, one could take this
trend at face value or explore how lack of equality could lead to
heightened movements to change this structural condition. One could
take as well developments in genetics and create scenarios where gender
is no longer given but human-made, again from continuity to
discontinuity.
Thus, again,
not the forecast per se but what meanings what gives to it and the
possibilities one explores with the methodology. Thus: not the
methodology per se, but how it is used, and the lenses one uses to
explore the future. This relates to the next issue.
4. Research Finding/Issue Four
The type of future one forecasts or the factors one
chooses to analyze are foundationally determined by how one sees the
shape of space-time-person. Historical methodologies that focus on
epistemes – that knowledge and reality is influenced through the ideas
of the time which define reality – focus on transformations in basic
assumptions of reality, since reality is considered to be socially and
politically constructed. Thus linear forecasts of the future, for
example, that the most critical factors are successive waves of genetic,
nano and space technology are typical of a methodological framework that
posits that foundational assumptions of the present will not change
(except insofar as technology changes them).
Alternatively, a macrohistorical epistemic approach
that seeks waves or cycles would forecast as probable futures the
development of technologies based on levels or layers of consciousness.
Thus an epistemic or macrohistorical approach would focus not on the
technology per se but that we may be moving from a sensate era to an
ideational or integrated era where body-mind and matter-consciousness is
the basis for scientific and knowledge development. Thus, with a phase
change in the nature of civilization, the questions asked, the
technologies developed change. Thus, merely forecasting patterns in
technological development without noting transformations in episteme is
severely misleading since the entire way the human project is
constructed can dramatically change.
Tony Judge refers to this when he writes that:
"what is considered factual now will not necessarily be considered
factual in the future. And the future … is liable to judge the levels of
intelligence and stupidity within humanity quite differently from way in
which facts are interpreted today." (sentence clarified for grammar –
email, 29 August 2000, fff-h3000@bridgemeida.net)
Alternatively, there is the linear perspective. In
this, science is progressive, moving closer to truth and that ideational
eras are part of the past and not the future. The present then is the
fulfillment of history, with science and technology providing the
vehicle for transformation.
Thus, a
methodological approach in which space-time is seen as linear leads to
one type of forecasts. A methodological approach which considers
space-time as episteme based (and thus possibly cyclical or pendulum
based) yields an entirely different range of critical factors.
Finally, a perspective in which the person (in
terms of values) is to be factored out leads to futures far more
concerned about objective reality (again, issues of science and
technology and institutional change) while one that presupposes that the
person needs to be increasingly factored in leads to issues of
ethics, personal transformation and evolutionary consciousness change as
far more critical.
Again, the methodological point is that: what one
starts out with, one ends up. Said in other words: How and where one
stands determines what and how one sees. However, even this point must
be seen in cautionary terms. One methodological perspective is that this
point is a problem and to be rooted out of good science, another is that
this is a positive insight and to be used and embedded in forecasts of
the future.
5. Research Finding/Issue Five.
The type of
future one sees is determined by what values one ascribes to the
present.
This finding follows from the above. If one
believes the present, however, defined is fair and positive, than the
future one sees tends to continue that thrust. One looks for evidence in
the future to reaffirm that. Negative scenarios are articulated only to
highlight the reverse, that unless we are careful, all that is good will
end.
Alternatively, if one believes the present is bad, unjust, intolerable,
then futures tend to focus on the transformation of the present and the
creation of a new society in which injustice is undone. Or, linear
forecasts are developed such that there is no foundational change, thus,
highlighting the opposite, that change is needed.
6. Research Finding/Issue Six
The forecasts one develops and the critical factors
that are explored tend to be those that privilege or mirror one's own
standing in the world. Thus, if one comes from a particular ethnic,
gender, wealth background then genetic or hard work are the types of
attributes one believes will be crucial in the future. Genetics thus
becomes a structural force for explaining how to increase more of one's
own.
Alternatively, if one comes from a less privileged
background then issues of social structure, politics, alternative value
systems become far important. Genetic or other factors that do not allow
change (such as karma even) become factors that are either
considered less important or as factors to be resisted.
7.Research Finding/Issue Seven
Critical factors expressed tend fall into two
foundational categories. The first is concerned with growth, either,
economic or technological, with finding ways to enhance excellence. This
is either through new genetic or artificial technologies or even through
space travel. It is essentially extensive evolution to use Laszlo's
terminology. The second is concerned with distribution, issues of
access to genetic enhancement, technology, with justice and fairness.
This may be explained by the modern struggle between capitalism and
socialism or it may be more foundational, part of our evolutionary
struggle.
Related to this is the issue of which is the most
critical factor. Again, the variable appears to be dichotomous, favoring
either technology or human contact (encounters with the other). The
classic division between the sciences and the humanities may explain
this, or it may be more foundational, again as part of our evolutionary
nature.
Transforming the present to a preferred future
again takes two directions. The first is institutional change, that is,
rewriting the rules that govern society, either through new and better
laws, or through consciousness change, that is, a change of heart, of
values, of perception, of paradigm.
If we create
a map, then clearly growth, technology and institutional express one
side of the critical factors affecting the future of humanity and
distribution, communication with the other and change in consciousness
express the other.
7.Research
Finding/Issue Seven.
Perspectives
on the future are overwhelmingly influenced by current events, trends,
paradigms and epistemes that organize or support them.
While with
some effort one can know one's framework of knowing, generally, the
episteme operates outside of our knowing borders. That is, the tongue
cannot taste itself. In long-range forecasting this becomes especially
perilous as initial errors are compounded. Thus, either the forecasts or
factors entertained are banal or they will be totally off the mark.
Scenario development is one way of contouring the unknown. For example,
see Jerry Glenn's Report, "Scenarios on the Year 3000." However,
scenarios, as Glenn's scenarios show, can as always be entirely
misleading (that is, they are generally single driver-led, focused on
genetic and nano-technology, missing other crucial variables, including
consciousness technologies, and futures from the non-west). By
appearing to engage in alternatives, diversity is lost, authentic
alternatives are not explored. The hidden and not-so-hidden assumptions
behind each probable future need to be unearthed.
8. Research Finding/Issue Eight
Given the issues raised above, it is clear that
determining critical factors and projecting trajectories must be done in
the context of a range of methodologies. No single methodology is
adequate. By using limited methods, one risks not being able move
research or dialogue beyond official superficial positions. Thus,
forecasts will remain based on the present, as parochial. They will not
contest the paradigm the expert/participant enters the discourse in.
However, a multi-methodological framework risks
being fragmented, especially in as arduous a task as forecasting the
nature of humanity in the year 3000. Methodologies that are not complex
or layered will tend to miss these opposites, or see them as
irreconcilable, instead of two sides of the same coin or piece of
paper.
In this sense, a methodological approach needs to
be (1) historical so that patterns of continuity and
discontinuity are apparent (2) layered, so that assumptions and
values can be teased out. At the same time, as suggested earlier,
methodologies such as quantitative analysis remain useful in that they
have the seeds for unexpected results. Thus, of great utility are
methodologies that have seeds for their own transformation within them.
In this sense we can make a preliminary divide of
hard and soft methodologies. Soft methodologies, such as epistemic/macrohistorical
analysis, may paradoxically be less useful since by allowing layers of
analysis, they do not result in specific forecasts. By being open to
many perspectives, they may not necessarily lead to novel results. By
being closed, hard methodologies may lead to unexpected findings.
Michel Foucault, The Order of Things. New
York, Vintage Books, 1971.
Sohail Inayatullah, Questioning the Future.
Taipei, Tamkang University Press, 2001.
Sohail Inayatullah, Guest Editor, Layered
Methodology. Futures (August, 2001).
Sohail Inayatullah, Situating Sarkar:Tantra,
Macrohistory and Alternative Futures. Maleny and Ananda Nagar,
India, Gurukul, 1999.
Sohail Inayatullah and Paul Wildman, Futures
Studies: Methods, Emerging Issues and Civilizational Visions
(CD-ROM). Brisbane, Prosperity Press, 1998.
Michio Kaku, Visions: How Science Will
Revolutionize the 21st Century and Beyond. Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Morton Kaplan, "The Emergence of a Global Society,"
World and I (Vol. 13, No. 9, 1998), 18.
Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to
History . Trans. Franz Rosenthal. Princeton, Princeton University
Press, 1967.
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1962
Robert Lacy and Danny Danziger, The Year 1000:
What Life was like at the turn of the first Millennium. London,
Little Brown and Company, 1999.
Michael Marien, Future Survey (Vol. 22, No. 9,
September 2000, items 401-450).
Graham Molitor, Millennial Perspectives: Strengths
and Limitations of Long-Term Forecasts," Vital Speeches of the Day
(August 15, 1998), 661-665.
Graham Molitor, "Emerging economic sectors in the
third millennium: introduction and overview of the 'big five'.
Foresight (Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2000), 323-330.
Graham Molitor, "Emerging economic sectors in the
third millennium: life sciences to dominated US economy in 2100,"
Foresight (Vol. 2, No. 5, October, 2000), 507-514.
Peter Peterson, "Gray Dawn: The Global Aging
Crisis," Foreign Affairs, (January/February 1999), 42-55.
Elisabet,
Sahtouris. EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution. New York:
iuniverse.com, 2000.
P.R. Sarkar, PROUT in a Nutshell, Vols.
1-25. Calcutta, Ananda Marga Publications, 1988-1994.
Rupert Sheldrake, A New Science of Life.
London, Blong and Briggs, 1981.
Pitirim Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics.
Boston, Porter Sargant, 1957.
Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West.
Translated by Charles Atkinson. New York, Alfred Knopf, 1962.
Gregory Stock, Metaman: The Merging of Humans
and Machines into a Global Superorganism. New York, Simon and
Schuster, 1993.
Jay Tolson, "Of Kings and Commoners," Special
Report on the Year 1000. US News (August 16, 1999). Accessed at:
www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990816/tolson.htm
Sesh Velamoor and Paige Heydon, Guest Editors,
Special Issue, Humanity 3000. Futures. (Vol. 32, No. 6, August
2000).
Paul Wallace, Agequake: Riding the Demographic
Rollercoaster Shaking Business, Finance and Our World. London,
Nicholas Brealey, 1999
