"To successfully navigate the complex landscape between where we are now and the futures we aspire to, we will collectively need new thinking, new ideas, new insights, new models, and new ways of doing things. "
Yet this is the kind of thing "experts" of all types are least qualified to do. Anybody who makes their living doing intellectual work has a built in bias for "realistic and reasonable" ideas, because to journey beyond that sphere is to put the expert's reputation, income and family at risk.
Those outside the expert class can think and speak in any direction, but because they lack cultural authority, nobody listens to them.
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.
100% agree on the need for broad and diverse inclusion here -- and way beyond the limits of what's usually done! I think that public universities have an obligation to be conveners here ... but this doesn't necessarily mean they are good at it!
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?
I actually think there's room for the theorists and weird thinkers as well as the doers and the pragmatists -- but with balance and focus, and networks and communities.
I'd love to see more work done on effective engagement and decision making that includes far more people and communities than we see at present -- I'm still not sure we know how to do this well.
And the one thing I'm increasingly appreciating with universities is that they give you access to young people -- maybe more so in the US than the UK, but it's important to me the breadth of students we have here at ASU (we take our charter very seriously about valuing who we include rather than exclude) and the opportunities this provides to engage with them in meaningful ways.
* Don't necessarily think of citizens as just pragmatists, some of the weird thinking which I agree is needed comes from wildly different perspectives and skillsets, and citizens can be weirder than academics quite often, as I know you know!
* Yes, that's interesting, and agree about young people, you will know better than me about US/UK. Though back to the perennial gripe that most research is done on students, and so has some limitations. As you know, I am keener on academics having to do more stakeholder involvement, particularly on those most impacted by their research topics as a matter of course. Interesting then that futurists would have to do that too.
Thanks for answering Andrew, I do read your posts with interest. I don't do much on LinkedIn cos we got a social media specialist in and she told me I must stay in my Addiction Economy lane in LinkedIn and not really post more than once a day - so with my Addiction Economy Thought For Today that's it! So glad it seems to be doing so well for you with such interesting stuff!
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 Matt -- I'm obviously biased here as I have my own initiative that is building to fill part of the gap here (although I made the strategic decision not to include this in he piece), and ASU is primed for doing something bigger here. However, to be successful this really does need to be a much larger and more collaborative effort with a network of diverse partners and members!
There is so much wonderful work being done in this area, particularly in universities across the world. ASU being one of them with the Future of Being Human Initiative, Global Futures Lab and the global futures conference some standouts. Ultimately what I am most keen to see emerge are the conditions for the open and collaborative facets which should be transdisciplinary, multi-scale, across sectors and intergenerational. We proposed something like this in Australia as part of a consultation submission to the National Science and Research Priorities which can be read here https://tethix.co/air/rising-to-the-biggest-challenge-of-our-time/
I think we really need the socio-technical infrastructure, protocols/platforms and incentives to bring together diverse communities of interest, practice and action. But we have to think big and build tiny together.
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.
Couldn't agree more -- I see spreading knowledge and being catalysts for discussion and user-centric understanding as part of the core of what public universities should b about!
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.
The world`s council has the final result, let google translate WeltratDerWeisen dot de
Maynard writes...
"To successfully navigate the complex landscape between where we are now and the futures we aspire to, we will collectively need new thinking, new ideas, new insights, new models, and new ways of doing things. "
Yet this is the kind of thing "experts" of all types are least qualified to do. Anybody who makes their living doing intellectual work has a built in bias for "realistic and reasonable" ideas, because to journey beyond that sphere is to put the expert's reputation, income and family at risk.
Those outside the expert class can think and speak in any direction, but because they lack cultural authority, nobody listens to them.
1) The experts can't talk outside the box.
2) The non-experts can't be heard.
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.
100% agree on the need for broad and diverse inclusion here -- and way beyond the limits of what's usually done! I think that public universities have an obligation to be conveners here ... but this doesn't necessarily mean they are good at it!
Thank you for your feedback, Andrew, really appreciate it. Are you planning to initiate something yourself?
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?
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?
Speaking as a pointy head ... :)
I actually think there's room for the theorists and weird thinkers as well as the doers and the pragmatists -- but with balance and focus, and networks and communities.
I'd love to see more work done on effective engagement and decision making that includes far more people and communities than we see at present -- I'm still not sure we know how to do this well.
And the one thing I'm increasingly appreciating with universities is that they give you access to young people -- maybe more so in the US than the UK, but it's important to me the breadth of students we have here at ASU (we take our charter very seriously about valuing who we include rather than exclude) and the opportunities this provides to engage with them in meaningful ways.
Yes, good points, agree.
* Don't necessarily think of citizens as just pragmatists, some of the weird thinking which I agree is needed comes from wildly different perspectives and skillsets, and citizens can be weirder than academics quite often, as I know you know!
* Yes, that's interesting, and agree about young people, you will know better than me about US/UK. Though back to the perennial gripe that most research is done on students, and so has some limitations. As you know, I am keener on academics having to do more stakeholder involvement, particularly on those most impacted by their research topics as a matter of course. Interesting then that futurists would have to do that too.
* Just en passant, I am getting keener on youth led orgs who are angry and visionary and practical, like Bite Back https://www.biteback2030.com/lets-bite-back/actions/biting-back-at-junk-food/ and Alvin at School of Social Justice in the UK.https://schoolofsocialjustice.com/about/, there are loads about. I am interested to see how those sorts of movements influence foresight too.
Thanks for answering Andrew, I do read your posts with interest. I don't do much on LinkedIn cos we got a social media specialist in and she told me I must stay in my Addiction Economy lane in LinkedIn and not really post more than once a day - so with my Addiction Economy Thought For Today that's it! So glad it seems to be doing so well for you with such interesting stuff!
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 Matt -- I'm obviously biased here as I have my own initiative that is building to fill part of the gap here (although I made the strategic decision not to include this in he piece), and ASU is primed for doing something bigger here. However, to be successful this really does need to be a much larger and more collaborative effort with a network of diverse partners and members!
There is so much wonderful work being done in this area, particularly in universities across the world. ASU being one of them with the Future of Being Human Initiative, Global Futures Lab and the global futures conference some standouts. Ultimately what I am most keen to see emerge are the conditions for the open and collaborative facets which should be transdisciplinary, multi-scale, across sectors and intergenerational. We proposed something like this in Australia as part of a consultation submission to the National Science and Research Priorities which can be read here https://tethix.co/air/rising-to-the-biggest-challenge-of-our-time/
I think we really need the socio-technical infrastructure, protocols/platforms and incentives to bring together diverse communities of interest, practice and action. But we have to think big and build tiny together.
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.
Couldn't agree more -- I see spreading knowledge and being catalysts for discussion and user-centric understanding as part of the core of what public universities should b about!
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.
yep -- also not helped by the pressures and expectations of short-term wins with grants, outputs and impact!