In order to work as a professional futurist, there are a number of orthodoxies about the profession that one must maintain. One such of those orthodoxies is that, when viewed from perspective of the present, there are any number of possible futures that could evolve. We operate in a world of multiple possible futures, all of which could happen. Some of these will be plausible futures, because we like to comb out the implausible future such as green men from Mars landing. A much smaller number of futures will be preferable, those things that we want to happen. In some cases, we may even have probable futures, those things which we think will happen if nothing significant changes. All of this orthodoxy fits nicely into the 'Futures Cone'.
This is how the world appears to a futurist, the producer of the futures work. It often looks quite different from the perspective of a client, a consumer of futures work. From the client perspective, even if they admit the possibility of multiple futures, only one single future is likely to be experienced and that is what they want to know about. The focus here is on the probable future - the thing most likely to happen. The response of many professional futurists to clients taking this position is to tell them they are wrong and to persuade them to commission a more nuanced study.
My own personal heresy is to ask what happens if the clients are right? What happens if the futurists are wrong to insist upon multiple possible futures, even if they are preferable and plausible? How can we reconcile the two positions?
It might be helpful to start with the reasons why professional futurists believe in a multiple future. The core argument is that the future consists of a very large number of complex moving parts. In many cases, there is considerable uncertainty over how those complex moving parts will behave in the future. This complexity and uncertainty are the reasons why foresight is not the same as forecasting. Professional futurists will hold that the future is inherently unknowable, and only the broadest of contours of the future can be seen from the present. As it stands, this argument is valid. It is, however, incomplete.
From the perspective of the client, to be told that the future is inherently uncertain and unknowable doesn't help to answer the question of how they ought to ready themselves for the future. At least some guidance needs to be given about the likelihood of future events. A project that concludes that the future may consist of one thing or another is unhelpful in determining what to do. On this point, it might be more fruitful to work with the grain of the wood than against it.
The one point that both futurists and their clients have in common is the idea of the probable future. It is often called the baseline scenario - what would happen if no parameters were to change. To a certain extent, this provides us with a nice starting point. Any view of the future constructed on these lines will depend upon a large number of quite important assumptions. Once the baseline scenario is in place, it is then possible to look at how the results might change if the various key assumptions are changed. This is a form of sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the conclusions. Of course, professional futurists can quite easily say that this will define a range of alternative futures, which is the point at which we came in.
There is something to be said for single point futures. They focus on the question in hand, they provide a standard against which different versions of the future can be measured, and they fit into the popular perception of the future. They are simplistic, and they do hold themselves hostage to shifts in the underlying conditions that generated those futures. Having said that, we ought not to be too dismissive of the heresy they represent. If they are viewed as a means by which a more general public can engage with futures thinking, then a lot can be said for them.
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
© The European Futures Observatory 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment