This section reviews key frameworks and descriptions that influenced the way in which “futures” are currently conceptualised in the Western world. What all of these theories have in common is that they recognise the impossibility of accurate and reliable predictions, and admit the existence of an array of potential alternative futures. Such epistemological position is highly influenced by the theories of complexity and the notion of complex adaptive systems developed in the 1960s (Urry 2016).
In complexity science, complex adaptive systems are systems that are characterized by a large quantity of agents involved in non-linear interactions that generate a large and essentially impossible to predict impact on the structure of the system itself (Lewin 1999). Although originally developed in relation to quantum mechanics, similar patterns of behavior can be identified in a variety of other systems, including organisms, cities, the market, and large scale socio-technical systems (Gell-Mann 1995; Urry 2002, 2016).
The non-linear behaviour of complex systems means that, according to Amara’s three laws of the future, the future is not predetermined and not predictable. It also means that that future outcomes can be influenced by our choices in the present (1981). Almost thirty years later, with a similar focus on the unpredictability of the future, Rescher writes that the “three most salient facts about the future are: that it does not (yet) exist, that it unavoidably will, and that we do–and can– have very incomplete information about its nature, let alone achieve control of it” (Rescher 1998, 3 italics in the text). Dator points out both that the future is always unpredictable and that “the fundamental
unpredictability of the future does not mean that we should therefore not concern ourselves about the future and merely trust in luck, god, or fate” (Dator 2002, 108). Bell defines the future as “what people can shape and design through their purposeful acts. (…) [P]eople try to know not only what is happening, but also what might happen, what could happen, or, under particular conditions what will happen in the future.” (2002, 3 italics in the text).
Bell’s orders of probability of futures (what “might”, “could”, “will” happen), is in line with a way of classifying alternative futures that is originally attributed to Henchley and later on expanded and represented by Hancock and Bezold first, and Voros later. Henchley (1978) identified four classes of futures:
- Possible Futures: all the futures that we can imagine might happen, no matter how unlikely based on current scientific knowledge;
- Plausible Futures: all the futures that could happen according to today’s current knowledge;
- Probable Futures: the futures that we think are more likely to happen, based on our understanding of how current trends could continue;
- Preferable Futures: the futures that one would like to happen (sometimes called prescriptive futures or normative forecasts (Evans 2010a))
In addition, Voros (2003) includes a fifth class of futures:
- Potential Futures: all of the alternative futures, including those that are beyond the power of imagination.
Finally, Voros also includes in the framework the concept of “wildcards”: low probability events with a very high impact and able to produce major change (2003).
Hancock & Bezold (1994) represent Henchley’s futures on a cone showing how the degree of indeterminacy grows through time. Voros adapted the diagram to include all of the five classes of futures (Figure 2).
Figure 2 (A) Hancock & Bezold's cone of futures (1994), and (B) Voros' version, which include potential futures (2003)
Glenn (2003; cited in Evans 2010a) summarises the various frameworks that describe futures into a series of philosophical assumptions that he sees as being shared by most futurists:
1. You cannot know the future, but a range of possible futures can be known; 2. The likelihood of a future event or condition can be changed by policy, and
3. Gradations of foreknowledge and probabilities can be made; we can be more certain about the sunrise than about the rise of the stock market;
4. No single method should be trusted; hence, cross referencing methods improves foresight;
5. Humans will have more influence on the future than they did in the past.
The cone of futures has been commonly adopted in the dissemination of future focussed research work, because it provides a clear and (for most audience in sharing the Western conceptualisation of futures) easy to understand description of the multiple possibilities, their degrees of probability, and consequent the uncertainty in attempts of forecasting. However, when used in a literal sense, this metaphor fails to address some of the key complexities of future thinking.
Various authors have highlighted how futures will not be shared and homogeneous, but discrete and diverse. What the cone doesn’t capture is the fact that the diversity that characterises the present will also be replicated in the future, and that therefore the cone, and the trajectories within the cone will look very different for different people in
different parts of the world (List 2005; van der Heijden 2005; Savransky and Rosengarten 2017). Drawing on the philosophy of Vieira Pinto3, Gonzatto (2013) goes further,
arguing that not only the future, but also the past (and imaginaries of the past) is shaped by what is “at hand” in one’s present. In turn, the “handiness” of the present (objects, ideas, possible actions that are available to someone) is shaped by a “socio-historical construction of reality” (Gonzatto et al. 2013, 37).
3 Specifically: Consciencia e realidade nacional. (1960) and O Conceito de Tecnologia. (2005). English translation of original texts not available
The way in which past experiences and imaginaries influence our perceptions of the present and the future is also captured in McLuhan’s famous quote: “we look at the present with a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future” (McLuhan and Fiore 1967, 74). Sardar (2010, 178), reflecting on the potential and shortcomings of futures in future studies also writes that looking ahead also should involve “being aware of what lies before and beneath the horizon”. Furthermore, just like the future, the past is not a homogeneous entity; both in its actualisation and in the way it is thought of (Law and Urry 2004; Coulton, Burnett, and Gradinar 2016). In section 1.4.3 I will further explain how the uncritical use of the “cone” as a visual metaphor within certain approaches to speculative art and design contributed to the lack of diversity in the way futures are envisioned.
Finally, it must be reminded that if futures are conceptualised not as static moments in time, but as emerging and evolving situations (see earlier in this section), then it is important to specify the time scale when discussing or imagining futures. As concrete actions can only be taken in the present (Gonzatto et al. 2013; Urry 2016), scenarios of far or near futures may have different aims and purposes. For examples, three of the four Design Experiments presented in Part B of this thesis look at possible futures that might happen fifty years from now (DE#0, DE#1, DE#2). These scenarios are developed for the purpose of informing discussions and suggesting less-likely alternatives. On the other hand, one of the Design Experiments in this thesis (DE#3) reflects on the outcomes and methods employed in a workshop in which participants developed sets of scenarios 25 years in the future. These scenarios were used to inform concrete strategies and develop a plan of action (see Chapter 6).
choices and actions. In the following section I will elaborate on two different attitudes towards futures: anticipation and speculation.
1.2 ATTITUDES TOWARDS FUTURES
Based on evidence from multidisciplinary literature, in this section I identify two alternative attitudes for looking at futures that have emerged, namely:
- Anticipation: trying to understand how the future might unfold through the systematic use of methods and for a strategic purpose.
- Speculation: imagining what the future might look like if certain conditions (however unlikely) were met, for the purpose of furthering discussions, challenging existing trends and assumptions, or propose radical ideas.
From a disciplinary point of view, these two attitudes are represented by sets of distinct (and in some case epistemologically incompatible) fields, and are investigated through the use of very different methods and approaches. Future Studies is the field that developed as a systematic approach to anticipation. One of its key aims is to research and develop methods for studying alternative futures (1.3). Speculative futures are instead explored mostly through art, design, architecture, and literary fields (1.4). These include science fiction, speculative design, and speculative architecture.
While the two approaches have mostly developed separate and at times incompatible lines of inquiry, several authors suggested that the two ways of looking into the future might have much to learn from each other (see 1.3.2 and also (Bassett, Steinmueller, and Voss 2013; Urry 2016; Urry et al. 2014).