2011 State of the Future

C2-6: Round 2 - Comments on the Scenarios

Participants' comments are in italic.

While several respondents commented on the quality and inventiveness of the scenarios, others were quite critical:
I appreciate not only the immense efforts to complete such scenarios upon the basis of thousands of special answers from the Round 1, but also their attractive literary form and amusing style, rising not only urgent questions, but providing the reader also with pleasure as a good novel.
Congratulations on producing such a mind-expanding set of scenarios. I am delighted that you and the Foundation For the Future are working together on this important project.
Overall a very interesting and stimulating piece of work. The author(s) should be congratulated for their application and imagination.
…if the objective was to simply stimulate thought and discussion (a very legitimate role for scenario thinking), those outlined certainly achieved that objective for me.
I realize it is just rhetoric, but one has to smile a little at the following.

...scientific breakthroughs impossible to comprehend...

...kinds of life unimaginable to humans...

...life forms unrecognizable to those...
As an exercise, consider rephrasing these as follows:

...scientific breakthroughs impossible for me to comprehend...

...kinds of life unimaginable to me...

...life forms unrecognizable to me...
Why should authors project their own limitations of comprehension, imagination, and recognition on their readers? At best, such rhetoric seems florid and rather soft in content, at worst, impertinent.
There is a fair amount of technobabble and lurid conflict projected in the following scenarios, as if they were written with the idea of creating material for dark military science fiction instead of being sober futurist assessments. I found this flavor extremely disappointing.
Another common thread is a kind of pop-science view of nanotechnology, wormholes, high-tech terrorists, and robotics that felt somewhat out of place in a serious effort. Concerning misuse of advanced technology should realize that the very fact that we can anticipate certain abuses is an indication that efforts, probably successful, will be made to avoid them and if anything overreaction rather than under reaction is the danger.
We would like to see more explicit grounds for the scenarios, instead of simple paths, please write even a bit branchable trees. There are no grounds are given to the scenarios, and (while) making the stories variable in style may give a good effect, it makes reading difficult.
Even though there are possibilities of developing humans artificially, the proof so far is lacking. Improvement, or even any genetic engineering, of the human race should not be assumed in every scenario. If humans do not develop - and mere evolution would here be far too slow - their cognitive capacities put very important limits to many of the scenarios. Or is there a possibility of genuine mental evolution with the physic brain remaining essentially the same?
There were comments also about what had been omitted from the given set. Many of these comments concerned the lack of social perspective and the lack of a spiritual sense. Typical comments of this sort were:
…is there not, perhaps, scope for one scenario that focuses on the possibility that there might be a 'backlash' against technology, combined with the recognition that there are diminishing returns from investment in it? This might (would probably?) result in a greater emphasis on social issues of various kinds. Also, the technology agenda is based primarily on what could happen, not what we might want to happen...
In every scenario technological innovations were considered as virtually lone key factors of historical chance. Other social or physical processes were more or less reactions to these initial chances. Should we rely on this assumption?
Social innovations, progress in psychology and social sciences were considered inferior compared to innovations in nano-, bio-, and information technologies. Science in the 20th century was dominated by great leaps in foundations of logic, physics and biology, which also gave rise to several key innovations. Could it be social sciences that take major leap next?
I miss any mention about the Power (God, Spirit, Nature - names aren't important) in either of six scenarios. Technology won't solve everything. Man (as a life form) isn't perfect. It means none of his creations is perfect. We are the unity of destructive and creative powers. It's impossible to eliminate any kind of them by some genetic or technologic enhancements. There will always be few maniacs trying to destroy whole world and humanity. Yes, I'm one of the "standard humans" from scenario 4, believing that we are biobrain dependent. We must control all our powers e.g. through yoga meditations. In my opinion, this is the only way to eliminate our ego, aggressively etc. So, the future is open, any of these scenarios could happen.
The proposed scenarios are really brilliant, but concentrate on technology change, expansion into universe, possibility of genetic manipulations. I am sure, that there are also the other ways that civilization can evolve and expand. First of all spiritual change - i.e. establishing new global ethics, ethics of individual responsibility and collective solidarity. The human society isn't shaped only by the technology development, but also through mental evolution of human species and inner change of any individual.
Without spirituality it is impossible to think about voluntary simplicity, modest life, elimination of over consumption and more ecological and ethical life, about world, where the human rights are really universal without any exceptions or prejudices. The expression of mystical experience isn’t only hermit communicating with God in desert, but also people as Gandhi, M.L.King or Mother Theresa changing our world very strongly. The more developed spirituality should also bring benefit on "technical" level, i.e. to develop the gift and ability of intuition, telepathy, clairvoyance and other "paranormal phenomena". Why not to dream about it - this is not the topic of obscure shoddy literature only, but also of serious scientific research.
I am scared by visions of the future where alternatives of humankind’s future are described just as technical and technological successes of people. If this kind of development, based only on discoveries of science and new technologies should become reality, I do not regret that I shall not live long enough to see such future.
It is pity that experiments done during many years in Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (and other places) are forgotten here. If we would take these experiments into account, we would be aware how important is our way of thinking about the world. By thinking we co-create the world. To realize this we would feel as individuals as well as human species more responsibility towards other people and nature, which would strengthen solidarity and ethical dimension of people.

The scenarios over emphasize physical explanations, especially genes and related technology. Cultural and social issues as causes, not merely consequences, are lacking -- the scenarios are more on the lines of Francis Fukuyama's `end of history' than Samuel P. Huntington's `clash of civilizations', even though the latter seems a more accurate scenario for the present.
The technology driven themes of virtually all the scenarios could be interpreted as classically reflecting the (macho?) male approach? Were any written by women? Possibly scope for a scenario where the gender roles have been reversed and women where dominate in the key positions in societies round the world? Also were all the authors of the scenarios American, which might account for the technology driven bias?
Still other comments dealt with the omission of a wide variety of topics, from population to virtual reality.
Our basic relationship with nature was not settled thoroughly in any of the six scenarios although it seems to be the key factor in our future.
The current questions about the sufficiency of resources are set aside too lightly. According to a recent UN finding, fresh water might be critically scarce within 30 years. What other things might become so within 1000 years, what are the solutions to these, and what are the social, economic, political, military, and environmental phenomena of the transition periods? The scenarios offer overtly technology-optimistic answers, the transition phenomena are mostly seen as temporary, and - most interestingly - the scenarios give a feeling that new problems of the sort would not be on the agenda in 3000.
None of the scenarios actually dealt with present overpopulation explosion, or the fact that yellow people with yellow thinking are overcoming whites and blacks.
None of the scenarios comment much on the development of the social sciences or of biology. On biology, some ecological issues are briefly considered, but otherwise the new biology is very much chemistry and physics. Will the old positivist dream of all-encompassing physics advance? Alternatives should be embedded on some scenarios.
The scenarios have a lot on means but a little on goals. What did people thrive for 10000, 1000, 500, or 100 years ago? What are the roles of physic, bodily drives on one hand and cultural factors on the other hand in specifying individual or joint goals and values? People setting their own goals might involve circularity.
Low level warfare in the near future is certainly not implausible, but not as a result of technological and scientific advance, but as a result of ancient and still unresolved tribal and religious conflicts. Also, the ability of leading edge cultures to intervene cheaply and effectively in such conflicts will only grow.
Another scenario might focus on religion and the conflicts that religious worldviews might engender. If we look at history, many of the bloodiest wars have occurred around ideology (though of course they also had resource-based components as well). A scenario that explored the future development of religions might be instructive, perhaps leading to one of the ways that the world is split up into separate "civilizations" that live in an uneasy competition with the other civilizations. This one might explore the possibility that an appropriate balance between predator and prey is essential to maintaining healthy and functioning ecosystems.
The scenarios also need to address the issue of population, perhaps taking a stab at identifying the year 3000 population under the various scenarios. What will be required to have a world population of 1 billion, 3 billion, 7 billion, 10 billion, 15 billion, or zero?
Climate change could cause both a radical reduction in certain current activities (with traumatic changes?) -- such as internal combustion driven transport both land and air... plus the need for a very environmentally friendly energy base? Climate changes could easily create major new migration pressures ... A significant proportion of the population living underground in an artificial environment - easier, more attractive, and cheaper than going to other planets - because it is either too hot, or too cold. I have heard recent talk about possible Gulf Stream changes that could occur quite easily and quickly that would result in Southern Europe becoming a desert, and the Sahara again becoming a tropical zone?
Perhaps there is scope for a scenario that recognizes the possibility (and potential importance of?) the abolition of the nation state? (real globalization?) Possibly combined with the resurgence of localization -- which could be divisive unless there was significant equality or strong policing?
Nothing on virtual reality world, that is already with us. Perhaps because they are likely to be widely available in the near future. (A room - or headset - that would enable you to participate directly in a wide variety of current experiences - Mars landing?) What are the social implications of the widespread use of virtual reality technology?
Another dimension that could be explored might be to put 'the use and abuse of power' at the core of the agenda from which three options are explored:

1. 
   Power struggles get more overt, establishing (or returning to?) situations where there is substantial centralization, combined with the use of power being overtly driven by the vested interests of those who have it, and they are not concerned with the interests of those who don't have it, except to the extent that they want to ensure that they don't get it.
   
2. 
   Power struggles continue to be worked out within a more sophisticated and responsibility-driven attitude to power, where greater democracy and more rules/ regulations/laws enable structures to evolve slowly in a more humane direction.
   
3. 
   The power driven culture evolves into a more decentralized personally responsibility driven agenda, possible reflecting a rise in more humane, spiritually driven, anti consumerist, trends. This scenario could be associated with more openness -- i.e. every ones bank account / financial position being publicly available. Secrecy is traditionally associated with possessiveness and power driven agendas. But what role for the widespread use of CCTV type activities? And will this 'openness' mean that the whole concept of privacy will need to be rethought.
   

Some religious revivals could easily fall into the centralist power-driven category. But in practice, it is most unlikely that what happens will fall neatly into one of these groups; it is much more likely that over a period of 1000 years, there will be movement (cyclical?) through them and back again, making it difficult (impossible?) to predict which trend will dominate in which part of the world, at any particular point of time, i.e. 3000.)
There was no mention of the ability to control the aging process (as opposed to just living longer and healthier); here the main cause of death would be either accidents, or self inflicted. In a world where the aging process is controlled you would also need severe control on the birth rate -- would this be natural or voluntary, or by some form of rationing? Before that point is reached there will be major concerns over the impact of the rapidly aging population in many parts of the world, as the birth rate falls (naturally) as a result of the educational and economic emancipation of women. Hence the traditional concept of the family (i.e. where children are involved) will become, increasingly, the exception rather than the rule. For many years (a couple of centuries?) we will see a significant difference in this trend in different parts of the world - some having a declining population, others still increasing. Will this result in even greater pressure for migration from the latter to the former?
Despite the positive comments about health, I believe we should be seriously concerned about the implications of the apparent rapid growth in the number of people in the US - particularly women in California? - who are seriously overweight. There appears to be little sign of this trend reversing and there appears to be almost a conspiracy to avoid discussing it?
Some radical changes in the nature of work are very likely. Very few people will be directly involved in manufacturing anything, like agriculture in the industrialized world today. All the routine activities will be mechanized/automated. The focus will be, increasingly, on creative endeavors and personal services that will produce even more blurred boundaries between work/leisure/retirement. Fewer people will work for money in order to purchase possessions, as most people will recognize that they already have more than enough and that the unfettered pursuit of acquiring more and more possessions does not lead to happiness or satisfaction. Radically different measures of 'success' will have been introduced, leaving far behind outmoded concepts such as GDP. The timeless 'search for meaning' in life will continue through spiritual conviction, mental activity, emotional experience, or physical intensity - or some combination of the above. This could be a useful framework to help us understand what has not changed, and what is not likely to change, and what is -- i.e. changes largely due to technology and the implications / consequences of its use. On the other hand those things that do not change (or change little) are more likely to be the people focused issues.
Perhaps we should be more concerned with why we are developing the scenarios? Is it to help identify those questions that need to be given higher priority today, if we are concerned about a better tomorrow? Or is there some other reason.... The idea of ending each scenario with a major (practical or philosophical?) question - such as in scenario 6 seems to me to be a particularly useful idea that might be developed for all the scenarios?
Extraterrestrial Contact…. You ask what additional scenarios would show a range of thinking.  Well, contact with a super-smart super-knowledgeable (encyclopedic) robot probe from some other civilization is a fairly high probability scenario during the next 1000 years and it will have an “extraordinary” impact.
A Religious Scenario. I recommend trying to formulate one separate "religious scenario". I know it is extremely difficult task, but perhaps it is worth trying, at least to stimulate thinking and discussion.
All of the scenarios seem to give considerable attention to nano-technology, and few of them give sufficient exposure to biotechnology and where that might take us.
The biosphere and humankind’s relations with the natural world (should be included more forcefully). (In this case)…Homo sapiens is understood as a species among other species. … The influences of the natural world on welfare and mental health are taken seriously. …The communication with other species like dolphins, monkeys and domestic animals extends the consciousness so that a new level of eco-consciousness is reached. Because there is no longer exhausting labor, people do have more time and energy to be natural and reunited with the natural world.