Futurology, too, tries to understand and evaluate possible future events. Like Seldon’s psychohistory, science is built into it, somewhat grounded when it comes to details, and is actually vulnerable to random occasions. Unlike psychohistory, futurology is based as much on instinct and art as it is on science.
As anyone who’s been to the track, haunted Tomorrowland, or even checked out an old Popular Mechanics issue can let you know, predicting the future is really tricky. Lacking a time machine or even a working crystal ball, we sketch inferences from current events and past trends, hence all the individual helicopter illustrations.
Furthermore, when we reveal the broad outlines of the technology of the future, we tend to mis-measure the reactions of society. For example, some commentators predicted that cars would open up a new independence of movement, but few predicted the arrival of dormitory communities, dull suburbs, and outlying cities. No one foresaw the eventual urban sprawl of the American Southwest, the interstate criminal sprees of John Dillinger or perhaps Clyde and Bonnie, or perhaps the changes in sexual mores influenced by the semi-private and accessible backseat.
The next technological advances are implicit in the technology of these days, just as the mobile phone arose from the telegraph, which arose, through a crooked route, from the drum and the smoke signal. It is that kink, brought about by the forces of human nature colliding with the laws of physics, that confuses futurology. Researchers show the possible, inventors dream it, engineers develop it, and marketers show us how to buy much more. Human nature, however, in most of its fickle complexity, has the final say in what hits, what sticks … and what falls into the dustbin of the historical past.
Therefore, the best predictions should take into account human, technological, political and economic factors and should do so in a systematic way. Futurologists give their best.
Although the advice of futurology emerged in early science fiction and utopian literature, the area did not solidify until the last days of World War II, once the US military developed the technological forecast. Although which ones were probably the best, the technologies of warfare were changing faster than ever and required new methods? This was uncharted territory, so whatever form officials chose would require a significant investment of money and time. They couldn’t pay to be wrong.
The origins of futurology can also be traced back to RAND Corp., which grew out of a joint venture between the US Air Force and Douglas Aircraft in 1946. Among other contributions, RAND improved consensus building by inventing the Delphi method. and he also created methods of analysis to produce much better scenarios (imagined sequences of events). The numerical processing capabilities of computer systems, as well as the improvement of the principle of the game, raised these 2 techniques to completely new levels.
As the Cold War progressed, nuclear strategists like Herman Kahn of RAND achieved a degree of celebrity. In 1961, after publishing his seminal book, “On Thermonuclear War,” Kahn left RAND to develop the Hudson Institute, exactly where he addressed community foresight and public policy. His work culminated in a 1967 publication, “The Year 2000: A Frame for Speculation on the Next 33 Years,” which sparked much controversy and inspired such important (and controversial) futurologist features as “The Limits of.” humanity and growth “at The Turning Point,” each commissioned by a non-profit global think tank, the Club of Rome.
“Limits to Growth,” published in 1972 by environmental researcher Donella H. Meadows and her colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, catapulted futurology and scenarios into public awareness. Based on computer models describing the interplay of global socio-economic trends, the guide painted an apocalyptic picture of the global collapse brought on by population growth, expanding manufacturing, rising pollution, food production shortages and the depletion of natural resources.
Meanwhile, two of Kahn’s RAND colleagues, Olaf Helmer and TJ Gordon, had established the Institute for the Future. Fueled by the craze for Kahn’s books, they, along with participants from the Stanford Research Institute Futures Group and also the California Institute of Technology, pioneered the use of scenarios in later studies.
Companies, starting with Royal Dutch Shell, quickly discovered the importance of scenarios. I love that, futurology has moved from army think tanks to the market of ideas.
