Hi, Lawry,
For success in the international arena of policy change, one does tend
to require a hefty portfolio of tools as a career futurist. We hope for
such dedication in all of our 'futurists', our leaders, yet, most often,
such talents which you list below are found in the CIA, the military, in
politics, in science and education, delivering visions following years
of dedication, which have actually had highly impacting negative
effects. They held, and held out these goals to be worthy, but neither
peer analysts nor the public majority could predict what chaos their
missteps would unleash.
A very simple example would be nuclear energy; that for which years of
prodigious research and preparation brought to the public the consensus
of "the future". I needn't remind anyone here about the fact that
Fukushima's Unit 4 is still leaking, has sunk 65 inches and continues
upon its deadly descent. Obviously, an international effort to undo this
visionary masterpiece of energy efficiency is now so urgent that it
diminishes all other concerns, however worthy. Yet what is patent is up
against monumental resistance.
Are economists and financiers with impressive portfolios "futurists",
even though their work is typically crafted upon engineering and selling
indecipherable derivatives that offer only profitable chaos?
Are Monsanto's brightest visionaries deserving of "futurist" titles as
they continue to design seed that on the surface appears to be feeding
millions more, but down the road of seed monopoly ruins the soil, air
and water, forests, and of course, disinherits the farmer and our
children of their future natural world?
Worthy visions are a matter of perspective. How one arrives at creating
them is only clear for the like-minded. Even if Fukushima's Unit 4
undergoes unrestrained meltdown, and affects a great deal of the planet
in a major way, there will still be a majority of nuclear energy
"believers" who, because of their impressive portfolios, will recommence
successfully peddling their "beliefs". There are enough military
"visionaries" out there who will continue to insist on weaponry and WMD
to necessitate change for the best. Not unlike the Vatican Bank, such
visions are deeply and commonly rooted in profit, and the resultant power
Has ubiquitous change for the better, these days, not also come about by
a single soul, artless perhaps, who can no longer sit by in silence, and
whose simple message resonates with so many that, following media
attention, of course, power and politics cannot suppress its virtuous
contagion? Such passion might team up with experts and their
methodologies to fully realize change, yet systematic approach will
undoubtedly be revised. As a society, we have been conditioned to
believe that we must leave all decisions and important action to the
professionals. This has led to conditioned societal helplessness, and
devolving community initiative. It has resulted in treasury nightmares
over egregious consultation fees which we all must accept as vital to
ensuring only minute noble outcome.
Yet this is how government has managed to grow into the complex beast it
is now. Well intended educated people must navigate chaos to arrive
decades later at red tape that requires new laws in a hostile
corporate-loving legislature just to requisition proper labelling for
food. A visionary architect must do the same, and also survive mafia
contracts on their life. Getting through bureaucracies is only half the
battle, for which expertise is essential, and getting corporate-owned
media on your side to affect change in legislature is still primarily
subject to public fancy or corporate-manipulated endeavours. We see both
common individuals and professionals alike affecting change, but without
co-creation, nothing will move forward. The hope is that the cause is
sound and sustainable.
Natalia Kuzmyn
On 11/11/2012 12:36 PM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:
Hello, Ray,
"Futurists" come in all colors. Some, yes, are dreamers, and fall
into the category, if you will, of science fiction writers --
imaginative visions designed to intrigue and spur thinking.
Your basic question, really, comes down to whether a "futurist" has a
reliable (or at least examinable) methodology. Probably the least
interesting, most pedestrian methodology is simple trend extension:
discern a trend dating from the past to the present, and extend it
into the future. This method was at the basis of the old-time
futurists. Of course, its weakness was that trends do not persist for
ever (think sigmoid curve) and so as a predictive method it had sever
limitations. Another method, favored by some well-known ex-CIA-type
analysts, was to read the public press for trends and consensi on what
the future would hold. The weaknesses here are self-evident.
So then we come to your query as to whether (some) futurists have
fundamental models of how things are and can be, based, I would
suggest, most solidly in a systemic approach to the structures and
dynamics of the real world. There are some wonderful models available
for this. Other kinds of models were those developed by Meadows, /et
al/, EPA/DOE's SEAS, and Leontiev's Input-Output modeling effort.
Behind all these approaches lies a seldom mentioned but, in my view,
dominating relaity: that the prediction (and especially those
predictions that people take seriously) lay the groundwork for people
deciding to do things differently -- and thus create results that seem
to then deny the validity of the prediction.
And this brings me to my favorite theme and the one that has most
dominated my thinking and professional work: the deliberate
intervention in the affairs of the world (whether at the individual
level, or companies, or communities, or that of, say, international
systems). The goal with this approach is not so much the prediction
of what will happen, but the co-creation of desirable futures,
predicted or not. My aphorism on the matter: it is easier to create
the future than to predict it.
To be successful with this co-creative approach and goal, one does
need a largish portfolio of tools -- linguistic, modeling, strategic,
tactical, political tools. It takes time and effort to build this
portfolio, time and effort to maintain it, and time and effort to
introduce others to it. It takes great dedication, patience, and
artistry to employ these tools in the pursuit of worthy, complex
goals. Learning is continuous.
Cheers,
Lawry
On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Ray Harrell wrote:
Are "Futurists" simple dreamers or are they experts in the
Foundations of things that builds the strength for dreams and
separates them from chaos?
REH
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ray Harrell
*Sent:* Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:57 AM
*To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Amanda
Grafton; Ari Isenberg; Christina Parsons; Darcy Dunn; Ethan Goldberg;
Isaac Yager; Jennifer Rolnick; Phil Kaplan; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; Sarah Levine; Stephanie Dream
Listener Weems; Summer Greenwald-Gonella
*Subject:* [Futurework] The Future of Music
This looks very interesting.
REH
http://futureofmusic.org/events/future-music-summit-2012
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
