Nice article Andrew, but agree with Mat. As you know I’m less enamoured with academia and even places like Beggruen are all top down with too many theorists. I read something in FT bemoaning the lack of reality of many political ideas which just aren’t doable. I like some of these citizens assembly type things but with multiple stakeholders including, especially young people. Maybe it’s a process thing as much as getting some pointy heads and giving them an office?
We do need the boundary transcending research and praxis. But is it another formal institute situated in a decaying centre of academia or more a coherence in coordinated collaboration of the existing institutes and networks that are already out there? Creating a new vs exaptation of what exists? What are the conditions we need for this coherence?
An intergenerational cocreation and more of an open innovation orientation is also important here. Have we asked our children?
Agree, but with the caveat that universities spread the new knowledge and discussions further. All universities should have a public education program. Something like summer courses but all the year round, and not just for smart young scholarship winners.
Agreed on the need. Futures thinking is still too thin on the ground.
I find many American academics are not in a foresight mood. Instead, they're in a defensive crouch, reacting to a range of challenges: institutional instability, politics, COVID exhaustion, antiintellectualism.
I enjoyed reading this article and your analysis of the FHI shortcomings as well as contributions.
While I am convinced that we need more blueprints for a better future, I do not think that universities can come up with the most interesting and innovative ideas. Dialogue must be fostered with people from all walks of life, from different professional backgrounds, self-education and independent thought must be fostered in society outside of academia. We need to foster communities who come together and do the work. The people who work directly with the land, industry, manufacturing, infrastructure who know the nuts and bolts of how everything works can contribute more effectively to crafting solutions for a better future. Educational programs should focus on skilling up such people.
Also, technology alone will not do anything to better our society. We need a new worldview with a new set of values and aspirations to lead us into the future. Because anything we build will be applied based on our worldviews and aspirations. A predatory mindset will lead to using any new technology for predatory purposes.
Who in academia is writing about topics like this?
When it comes to man made threats to the future of humanity, the threat can be concisely summarized as:
PRIMARY THREAT: The marriage between violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion.
To illustrate, consider this thought experiment. Imagine that by some magic we got rid of all nuclear weapons.
What would happen next is that violent men would immediately turn their attention to obtaining other means of projecting power via mass chaos, which the knowledge explosion will inevitably provide them with.
Seen this way, the threat is not really nuclear weapons in particular, but those who would use them, and the processes which will further empower such actors.
I’ve been trying to engage various forms of “experts” on such topics for years. What almost always happens is that the expert has a great wealth of detailed information, but they never seem capable of making their way to the bottom line.
BOTTOM LINE: If we meet the challenge presented by violent men, the human condition will get better and better. If we fail to meet that challenge, the human condition will get worse and worse.
Violent men. If they aren’t writing about that, they aren’t experts. Imho.
Nice article Andrew, but agree with Mat. As you know I’m less enamoured with academia and even places like Beggruen are all top down with too many theorists. I read something in FT bemoaning the lack of reality of many political ideas which just aren’t doable. I like some of these citizens assembly type things but with multiple stakeholders including, especially young people. Maybe it’s a process thing as much as getting some pointy heads and giving them an office?
We do need the boundary transcending research and praxis. But is it another formal institute situated in a decaying centre of academia or more a coherence in coordinated collaboration of the existing institutes and networks that are already out there? Creating a new vs exaptation of what exists? What are the conditions we need for this coherence?
An intergenerational cocreation and more of an open innovation orientation is also important here. Have we asked our children?
Agree, but with the caveat that universities spread the new knowledge and discussions further. All universities should have a public education program. Something like summer courses but all the year round, and not just for smart young scholarship winners.
Agreed on the need. Futures thinking is still too thin on the ground.
I find many American academics are not in a foresight mood. Instead, they're in a defensive crouch, reacting to a range of challenges: institutional instability, politics, COVID exhaustion, antiintellectualism.
Why yes. They need one for all the most sensitive because the focusing on the average has lead to hell.
I enjoyed reading this article and your analysis of the FHI shortcomings as well as contributions.
While I am convinced that we need more blueprints for a better future, I do not think that universities can come up with the most interesting and innovative ideas. Dialogue must be fostered with people from all walks of life, from different professional backgrounds, self-education and independent thought must be fostered in society outside of academia. We need to foster communities who come together and do the work. The people who work directly with the land, industry, manufacturing, infrastructure who know the nuts and bolts of how everything works can contribute more effectively to crafting solutions for a better future. Educational programs should focus on skilling up such people.
Also, technology alone will not do anything to better our society. We need a new worldview with a new set of values and aspirations to lead us into the future. Because anything we build will be applied based on our worldviews and aspirations. A predatory mindset will lead to using any new technology for predatory purposes.
Please educate me.
Who in academia is writing about topics like this?
When it comes to man made threats to the future of humanity, the threat can be concisely summarized as:
PRIMARY THREAT: The marriage between violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion.
To illustrate, consider this thought experiment. Imagine that by some magic we got rid of all nuclear weapons.
What would happen next is that violent men would immediately turn their attention to obtaining other means of projecting power via mass chaos, which the knowledge explosion will inevitably provide them with.
Seen this way, the threat is not really nuclear weapons in particular, but those who would use them, and the processes which will further empower such actors.
I’ve been trying to engage various forms of “experts” on such topics for years. What almost always happens is that the expert has a great wealth of detailed information, but they never seem capable of making their way to the bottom line.
BOTTOM LINE: If we meet the challenge presented by violent men, the human condition will get better and better. If we fail to meet that challenge, the human condition will get worse and worse.
Violent men. If they aren’t writing about that, they aren’t experts. Imho.
Please prove me wrong! Who is writing about this?