Without a doubt, traditional notions of the
environment are undergoing dramatic changes – from nature to the built
environment to a world where the notion of nature and technology is
blurring. What this means for the environmental manager is that their
workload will increase and become dramatically more complex. This is a
deepening, but also an expansion in the sense that an environmental managers
will need to consider issues not just of the environmental impact of new
urban development but technological issues as well. What this also means is
that there will be new entrants into the market, focused on specific issues
concerned with the new technologies – the likely impacts of germ line
enginneering or, less grand, that of the surveillance mosquito just now
being developed, or of the rights of robots.
First some methodological notes on determining
the nature of possible change.
There are three relevant methods. First is the s-curve. The goal here is to
discern emerging changes (not just trends), to anticipate them before they
become dominant.
Second is the futures triangle. That is, along
with competing images of the future (artificial-spaceship/gaian/realistic)
there are other forces exerting pressure on the future: pushes
(technologies, values shifts and globalization, for example) and the weight
of history – that which is difficult to change. : power, bureaucracies,
politics, the right way of doing things. As my son said, in response to a TV
show on the 14 ways to make a baby, “when I grow up, I want to do it the
proper way”. Unfortunately, for him and other dot.com children, when the
time comes for ‘making’ children,, their kids will be of the double-helix
variety, and there will be no ‘proper way’ at all. Nature will have become
created by man.
Of course, one can get forecasts wrong. : Bill Gates once said, 64k is
enough memory for anyone. And, forecasts can gather dust. For example, the
World Trade Center twice hired security expert Charlie Schnabolk to consider
if terrorism was a threat to their building. Scenarios were developed –
predictable (bomb threats); probable (bombing attempts) and catastrophic
(aerial bombing). Later, in 2000, he argued that the greatest threat was
from “ "someone flying an airplane into a building”."
Futures thinking must be living.
But there is another lesson here. And this is that:
strategies to counter risk can never be only technical – a better firewall,
more security systems, better impact statements – they also must include an
understanding of the system that creates risk as well, and the paradigms
that uphold those systems.
Now, I do not think your work is that different from that of a futurist. You
must consider the implications of current policies, into the immediate,
medium term and long term future. You must assess risk, manage risk and most
importantly, communicate risk. The last part is the key: since we live in
different worlds, we have different perspectives of what futures we desire.
And we are no longer a united.
Challenges to the Future
Multiculturalism challenges the traditional view of
‘we’ as one race in one nation under one god.
Feminism challenges the gendered nature of the ‘we’ –
we as male.
Postmodernism challenges the view that the ‘we’ always was and always will
be.
Virtualism challenges the 'we' seeing communities
not physical, but as intended and virtual – the cyber friends.
Genetics challenges the we at an even deeper level –
we can now become who we want to be. As we learn, in Blade Runner when the
genetic engineer is asked what he does and he replies: I make friends" he
means, ‘manufacture’ friends. Thus, the stable evolutionary nature of us is
being contested.
Of course, perhaps ‘I shop therefore I am’, or god,
nation and family will live on forever. And perhaps not.
Cats are being cloned, and animals created.
Artificial agents are swiftly becoming or will become part of our lives,
creating routines that mimic our tastes, thus reducing the burden of choice.
With eco-bots and health-bots we will have immediate
information about our desires. We will be able to make better choices
knowing the full value chain – who made what profit, where something was
made and its ecological footprint.
Health bots will alert us to the dangers of foods – too much cholesteral,
too much fat. They will also be tailored, learning from us, focused on our
changing needs. Of course, we may prefer to turn off the health-bot, but
will the state let us?. Won’t that be the way to reduce health costs – the
big brother that is always ‘on’, ensuring we stay healthy and reduce public
expenditures. And, there is always the surveillance mosquito in case you try
and take off the bot.
While we may resist, dot.com and double helix kids will jump at this, and
even the current generation prefers to change capitalism buy buying their
desired futures. Witness drops in Shell and Monsonato stocks.
But, over time, these artificial intelligence bots
will gain rights, not because of anything inherent in their essence, but
because they will part of the air we breathe. Indeed, with the advancement
of functional foods and nutraceuticals (smart foods), they will be part of
the food we eat.
It is certainly a new world we are entering. One
may call this ‘the future of artificial societies’, but it is one in which
we will no longer distinguish the artificial from the natural. It is a world
of nano-technologies, super cities, world governance – the main questions
will be not only “Do androids dream of electronic sheep?”, but “What do
humans do?”.
Clearly the impact on the environment will be
enormous. However, the nature of the environment is likely to change,
manifested in a variety of ways. : far more fluid and flexible. In much of
the traditional environment, lost species are likely to be recreated either
genetically or virtually. The zoo will change dramatically, once again
becoming central to the city. Indeed, one can easily imagine three Olympics
– a drug free one, a doped up one, and then the gene enhanced one.
The impact of these new environments on how we think
and, how we know the world will become major issues. As we move to germ line
intervention and create novel new forms of life, again, the issue of how new
life forms impact traditional notions of the environment will be of concern.
However, with the environment in flux, the issue of preserving or protecting
our past will be far less of an issue. The issue will be ensuring that the
new environments we are creating are managed within agreed upon terms.
The terms for this future world are yet to be
created. Certainly, doing no harm is likely to be one of them, that is,
Asimov's laws of robotics – not harming humans. But over time, humans will
be just one of the many thinking beings on this planet.
Gaia
The other competing future is that of sustainability –
a commitment to future generations; policies that are soft on the earth
(taking into account our ecological footprints). This is, essentially the
triple bottom line approach but writ large on the global level. Education in
this future would not be about the environment but for the environment.
Indeed, over time it will be in interaction with the environment – Gaia
becoming alive.
In one survey of preferred city futures, only 1%
preferred the city as suburb image. Sustainable development and the living
city (sensing us and mothering us) was the future preferred by the others.
For environmental managers, this means not only an
increased amount of work, but enhanced work routines and expanded
responsibilities. Environmental management would move to include issues of
social justice-multicultural-gender balance and not just development. The
environmental manager would become the triple bottom line manager.
However, with sustainable development becoming THE paradigm, environmental
management may disappear as a field (becoming so successful that it becomes
routinized) or become flush with entrants that are low on expertise and
experience.
There are two factors. One, : problems with capitalism. That is, it
capitalism can grow wealth but distribution and impact on the earth remain
quandaries. The second is a values shift, the rise of the cultural creatives
– a new demographic group focused on gender partnership, spiritual values,
ecological pluralism and planetary governance and consciousness.
Either the system will transform, moving away from capitalism, in a
dramatic transition, or, most likely, it will move softly away – using the
law, procedures and institutions to regulate a softer society.
Business as Usual
The third possibility is Business as Usual but with
enhanced technology and a bit of sustainability and perhaps some
international agreements in the form of treaties (carbon trading etc.)
thrown in.
This is the Bush-Howard worldview. Images come and go, but at the end of
the day it is power and money, narrow self-interests, and conservative
family values that will rule the day. Nature is fine … but cars are better.
Sustainability is used by businesses as a competitive advantage and
nations claim they are pro-environment but developers still win the day.
Education in this future is about the environment with no recognition of
Gaia. Gaian alternatives stay on the margin. New technologies are merely
used to increase efficiency and not to increase participation of
stakeholders through, for example, cyber-democracy. The Business as Usual
scenario is the one where markets come first, with environmental problems
worsening and no one responsible to fix them.
Conclusion
Thus, there are three scenarios:
1. Continued growth (business as usual) but add a bit of sustainability –
environmental management but no real gain in consciousness. No real change
in the nature of us.
2. A dramatic change in humanity as we, in one generation, redo a few
millions years of evolution. The eighth day of evolution creating new "‘we"’s.
3. A third response is the Gaian – deep foundational spritual change for
sustainable development at a planetary level, creating a united planet
moving inward and outward, softly.
And of course, there is a fourth response – collapse. Asteroids, volcanos,
sea-level rise …
SCENARIOS
Continued
Growth – business as usual and more
Artifical
Transformation - the
eighth day of evolution
Gaian
transformation – sustainability for all
Collapse – end time
Final
Questions
Which future is
likely to come about?. At this stage it is difficult to tell. The weight of
history suggests Business as Usual. However, this assumes a linear pattern
of history. Those who lost millions in the dot. com collapse know that
reality is also cyclical. What goes up, goes down. The more successful you
are, the less you can see the warning signs. Success is the final step on
the ladder of failure. As Cisco learned, having the best real time
forecasting system means nothing if the assumptions in that system are wrong.
So business as usual may continue, but as Jack Welch of GE suggests, you
better face the brutal facts.
Among those brutal facts: , 3 individuals have the same total wealth as
the 48 least developed nations. ; 256 have the same total wealth as half the
world’s population. The amount American and Europe spend on perfume and pet
food could take care of the basic needs of the entire planet.
Dot.com wizards did not face the facts. Will the Business as Usual gang. ¿
If not, perhaps they will achieve the same end as the Chinese ‘gang of four’.
Technological innovation suggests that the Artificial society is likely to
dominate. : a global-tech world. But to do so, issues not only of the
fundamentalism throughout the world but the proper traditional ways of
operating will remains. We are perhaps not ready to push into outer space,
changing our genetic nature many times in one life, designing children to up
their IQ, –the real smart state.
What is likely is that with this resistance, a mix of cyber-gene-green
futures may eventuate.
As much as the Gaian image of sustainable development and the living earth
moves the hearts of many, the feet stay put. As one department of transport
suggested, everyone wants green and public transport, but no one wants to
travel on it.
And, if the collapse does come – asteroids and ice ages, – we will need
the technology to leave this planet – I know we can leave spiritually but
some of us still like our bodies.
Thus, we really don’t know which future will arrive. We do know the future
that does come about will be a result of a mix of the pull, push and weight.
We also know that civilizations prosper when they have a positive vision of
the future and the belief that it can be achieved. But for the vision to
actually move us forward, it will need to be inclusive, gender- friendly,
soft on the earth, concerned for basic needs, but innovative as well – above
all, it will need to be planetary.
All of us.