Jane Davidson is a conviction politician. That tends to sit awkwardly with the futures community because conviction politicians tend to create a single point future and focus upon that to the exclusion of all other possible futures. There is little nuance about alternative futures. There is little account of uncertainty in an evolving situation. There is only a focus on the conviction that they are right. Of course, the futurist would ask what if they are wrong? And this is where conviction comes into play. They can only conceive of a single future in which they are right.
Jane Davidson's fixed point future is one of climate collapse. Based on the supposition that it is a correct view of the future, how should one act in the present? The author is very much convinced by the cause of environmentalism, reducing species loss, and living within the planetary boundary. So are others, some of whom endorse the book. However, whilst they might be content with the distribution of wealth as it currently stands, the author isn't. In addition to planetary justice, the author seeks a form of social justice as well. In particular, the relief of poverty and a more equal society. This is where the book unravels a little.
Achieving planetary balance will necessarily involve far less economic activity than we currently undertake. A redistribution from the haves to the have-nots on a global scale will also skew this process towards less economic activity as well. The question of how we do this, whilst maintaining decent jobs and livelihoods is one the author grapples with, but in a fairly unconvincing way. The book needs far more thought about the transition from where we are to where the author wants us to be. I remain sceptical. The Gilets Jaunes in France give us an idea of what happens when over-excited conviction politicians get too far ahead of public opinion. Their cause collapses.
I can see the same thing here. The author assumes that she is absolutely right about her single point future and does not consider any alternatives. As a result of her conviction, she is certain that all right minded people agree with her and that anyone who doesn't is simply being obstructive or represents entrenched vested interests. However, we boil things down to two core questions. Is the author's view of the future right? And if it is right, are her recommendations for action the best thing to do?
I am not convinced about the first question. There is an argument that future generations will be better informed than the present, that they will have better technologies than the present, and they will have greater resources than the present. If you accept that argument, then there is a case to say that by restricting ourselves in the present, we are blighting the prospects of future generations. In this case, the best policy would be to do nothing and just muddle through. In my mind, the author is too convinced about only her view being the correct one to be blinded to the possibility of an alternative future. Myself, I quite like the idea of muddling through because, in my experience that is what most people do.
This book is a political Apologia Sua Vita. For me, the politics are too certain and can easily transition into a form of technocratic authoritarianism. If we can believe the book, we are already seeing this in Wales. I am unconvinced by the author's recommendations for action because they feel too prescriptive for a liberal democracy. There is too much compulsion for my taste.
In many ways, the test will come in twenty years or so. If young Welsh people move to England because their prospects have been blighted by this legislation, then we will know that it has failed. If the direction of travel is the other way around, then this legislation will have been absolutely the right thing to do. The great thing about the future is that you won't know until you get there.
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
© The European Futures Observatory 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment