Are You Ready for the Future?
As a futurist, I see the world as it could be, not necessarily as it is. I try to keep my goals and visions as free from political motivation and social pressure as I possibly can. There are others like me, similar in nature, in thoughts, in ideals. We are visionaries, innovators, philosophers, and revolutionaries. More than simply dreamers, we are the pioneers of tomorrow. We are futurists, and we will change the world.
Futurists are equal parts scientist and philosopher, hypothesizing and analyzing, questioning and pondering. In a sense, we are Neo-Platonic thought made manifest. While some work toward quantifying the universe, others work to explain our place in it.
Unfortunately, our desire to advance and develop has been hampered many a time, not really so much by governments and laws, but by religious zeal and blind faith. Please understand that I’m not hostile to religion generally. Far from it. For instance, Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, a brilliant physicist and man of faith, was the first to propose the expanding universe theory. How could any red-blooded futurist condemn this innovation?
But here’s the problem. Religious zealotry and progress often collide. They have been constant rivals, as Galileo best illustrates. One man attempted to glorify God’s power by stating (quite boldly) that every star had a planet, and each planet had life. He was branded a heretic, and some wanted him to be burned at the stake. Good grief. Normally, a heretic was killed then burned. This zeal, sadly and unbelievably, still exists today in more benighted political circles, and it is wreaking havoc on America’s intellectual and academic progress.
It bears repeating that religion in and of itself does not have to be an issue, as futurists come from a variety of different theological backgrounds. However, blind obedience to dogmatic ideals can be, well, quite troublesome. According to a Gallup survey, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States believe that God created modern humans in the last 10,000 years. Geologic evidence suggests that the Earth is roughly 4.8 billion years old. Young Earth Creationists, however, dispute that theory. They actually believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, as suggested by Archbishop James Ussher in the 17th Century. Ussher postulated that the world was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.
This has led to a blunting of American scientific acumen. In the early 20th Century, some schools in America banned the teaching of evolution, as it conflicted with certain traditional Christian teachings. This eventually led to the Scopes “Monkey” Trial in 1925, in which a school teacher was accused of violating a law that made it illegal to teach evolution. To this day, some religious schools still teach Young Earth Creationism, suggesting that Adam and Eve co-existed with dinosaurs.
This isn’t the only threat with which futurists must contend. In the early 2000s, the United States was selected as a possible location for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a massive particle accelerator used to detect subatomic particles. Its construction would be the first step in an active search for the Higgs Boson (or simply “Higgs”). The Higgs theoretically gives all matter its mass and is a key to the current model of particle physics. Its discovery would indicate that the model is accurate, helping us further unlock the secrets of the universe.
Some Christians fear that scientists are trying to disprove the existence of God. Thus, efforts were made to block the collider in America. Several “scientists” suggested that micro-black holes could form, sucking the Earth into a singularity of doom. Such notions are ludicrous, and although a micro-black hole could form – at least in theory – it would soon evaporate, ripped apart by Earth’s own relatively massive gravitational well. Unfortunately, the damage was done. Rather than face protests and endless legal battles, the decision was made to build the LHC in France. America’s opportunity for scientific prestige went up in smoke.
Futurists are not just interested in space, matter, and energy. We are also interested in the human condition. Many a novel has been written about cyborgs, entities that are part machine. Recent advances in prosthetics are transforming fantasy into reality. Hugh Herr, an assistant professor at MIT (see “The World as Will and MIT Ingenuity”), developed a new set of prosthetic limbs that enable the user to move normally. Meanwhile DARPA is continuing work on prosthetic arms, improving their complexity with each new design.
Work is even being done to integrate computer systems with the human body. Currently, these technologies are being developed for disabled veterans and civilians. However, as the systems improve, ordinary citizens will be able to replace organic components with cybernetic ones. Japanese author Masamune Shirow referred to this process as “cyberization” in his groundbreaking series Ghost in the Shell. As more and more people opt for cyberization, many philosophical issues will be raised. Futurists, however, are already asking these important questions.
For some, the singularity of man and machine will no doubt be a frightening occurrence. Theologically, where will these cyborgs fit in? Should they be treated as men with souls, or as soul-less machines? Some may think cyberization deprives us of our mortality, and thus our humanity. According to Genesis, God created man in his own image, and therefore, cyberization could be viewed as blasphemous desecration of God’s work. Alas, these questions may never be answered. However, futurists will continue to ask, and continue to work towards the Singularity.
Though cyborgs and androids are exciting, futurists also ponder biology. Genetics offer excellent material for futurists, from Gene Rodenberry to Stan Lee. Already, the human genome has been fully mapped, along with several other species. This has opened the door for even more detailed genetic engineering. Breeders have been doing this for thousands of years, selecting desirable traits and breeding specifically for this trait.
Now, humans can do the same, selecting traits from two parents and creating a child with those traits. For example, a couple might want a daughter with her father’s hair color and mother’s eyes, but without the markers for diabetes. These “designer babies” are a very real possibility, especially with in-vitro fertilization an accepted method of conception. In-vitro fertilization involves injecting a sperm cell into an egg, then re-introducing it into the mother’s uterus.
Stem cell research has also advanced in the last ten years. Earlier this year, a team of researchers in Japan recently created mice from sperm and eggs grown from stem cells (see “Of Mice and . . . More Mice”). Imagine a world where organ donors are no longer needed, as new organs can be grown from a patient’s own cells. Rejection would no longer be an issue, freeing the patient from medications, reducing medical costs.
Even more astounding is the possibility for genetic augmentation – the deliberate alteration of a person’s genes through splicing. Though science fiction today, it could very well be science fact tomorrow. Imagine soldiers who can re-grow limbs like an octopus, or divers who can shunt more oxygen to their brains like a crocodile. Sadly, some view this as blasphemous, accusing researchers of “playing God.” I assure you, we do not have a God complex, but are instead investigating the potential steps human evolution could take.
As futurists, we offer our vision of the future to anyone willing to join us in our studies, but more than that, we work to make the future a manageable reality. Someone must.
Great post as a starting point for discussion!
As a historian, I have often wondered about how my discipline informs, if possible, knowledge of the future. It is a hot topic these days, appearing all over the Internet and other media. Just as sex is a constant act all over the planet. Somewhere, somebody is trying to draw meaning out of the past, and thrust it into the future. Whether from the Right: “Hitler took guns; therefore, an authoritarian state,” or the Left: “The inevitable failure of political economics and the rise of the proletariat.” each in their own degree commit the abomination of historicism. Karl Popper describes historicism as a belief: “that it is the task of the social sciences to lay bare the law of evolution of society in order to foretell its future.” Hell! All that time spent reading accounts of some the most despairing narratives in the human record for this. Are we not doomed to repeat the past, for failing to study it? Expanding on that, the deeper question, “Can we know the future?” still lurks.
Science predicates itself on repeatability. Galileo drops the weighted balls; they fall at the same rate. Do it again. The same thing happens. Great! Physics works. Does that same knowledge apply to the “human condition” as well? I have questions about this. It seems that for the assumptions of predictability to work in the social sciences there would almost certainly have to be a “human nature.” For without it, on what platform could thoughts about the human future rest? I am a skeptic on this whole human nature idea for several reasons, partially because I am big believer in both biological and social evolution. If life started in some chemical cesspool, and humanity eventually arose from this life, a claim of human nature seems rather anthropomorphic. Perhaps, I would be more comfortable with “life nature.” But why create a neologism, when I’m not writing to describe it? The concept of human nature also seems inexorably tied to religion. Both tend to describe some moral-ethical patterns that humans tend to, or ought to, follow. I have no problem with a morality stemming from reason, but divine revelation is for me out of the question.
The historians’ toolbox, without its implements of human nature and scientific repeatability begins to look a little odd. Unraveling a narrative of the past, wound up in these foundational ideas might well appear impossible. Perhaps it is not. History is a question. Creating what is just today’s story from knowledge of the past. There is no permanent “thingness” to it. It is this attribute of “no thingness” history shares with the future.
So how does my discipline inform a futurist? It tells them to ask questions of the nothingness, rely on your sources, but be wary of reading human nature and the reason of the scientific approach into the future.
This is a very interesting look into the mind of a futurist, and one I had not experienced prior to this article. I was honestly shocked to learn that here in the U.S. we once had an opportunity to make major advances in the scientific world with the LHC… and we shot it down. I will admit that I don’t keep many tabs on the scientific community, but that seemed ridiculous. It’s a shame to know that we have not, as a society, moved beyond our zealous and blind religious insecurities enough to embrace and nurture our future.
Not only did we have an opportunity to contribute to the scientific world with a collider in the US, you might be shocked to know that we had an opportunity to have a collider right here in Colorado. One of eight states to make the final cut for consideration, Colorado lost out as the project was awarded to Waxahatchie, Texas. Contractors began construction in 1988, but after spending tens of millions of dollars on the project, congress pulled the plug in 1993. This is a prime example of our government living in the moment rather than looking to the future, acting reactively instead of proactively.
Summa
You make an excellent point. I think my next piece will be on the role historians have in shaping the future. Thanks for the idea.
Jlsticka
I’m glad you enjoyed the article. If you are interested in reading more, please contact me. Also check out “The World as Will and MIT Ingenuity,” another futurist piece that I wrote. It can be found here:
http://www.usrepresented.com/2012/09/17/six-million-dollar-jobs/
I understand your feelings of confusion about the overall hesitation as a nation to accept stem-cell research in all of its variations. America spends millions upon millions each year to research a cure for diabetes, cancer and AIDS. This country perpetually pours money into the development of new medications and treatments in hopes of avoiding or averting entirely life-threatening illnesses and diseases. And the general public is willingly used as guinea pigs to test the endless list of new drugs and treatments, their side-effects, and their positive or negative reactions.
Even though the profits from decades of this behavior have yet to manifest themselves as complete success stories, America is content to continue the process. (The monetary profits seen by the pharmaceutical companies involved, on the other hand, are manifested in the billions. In 2011 the top twenty pharmaceutical companies raked in a combined five billion dollars in profit alone.)
People feel an obvious and overwhelming desire to move past the hurdles and dead ends which such diseases present in life. So why the hesitation to devote time and funds to the countless possibilities which stem cell research brings with it? Why not avoid the acquisition and suffering involved in so many cancers altogether? Why not rest assured in the knowledge that our lives are not so fragile and delicate?
I have mixed feelings about the issue myself, and I am not claiming to be on one side or the other. But, when, looking at the progress America has made in recent centuries, as well as the progress humanity as a whole has made, I find it hard to believe that the science of such things will be halted entirely, never mind the opposition. Postponed perhaps, but not halted. After all, we humans are simply not content unless we are moving forward toward the future as quickly as possible.
As far as pharmaceutical companies go, I think it can be chalked up to a sick mentality (no pun intended). That mentality being profit margins. What happens when a cure for diabetes, cancer, or AIDS is produced? Their profit is going to take a huge dip. Obviously , people work around such obstacles with non-profit organizations such as Race for the Cure and other entities but it would be interesting to know how far pharmaceutical companies are willing to go in preserving their business.
Unfortunately, ignorance triumphs over intellignce far too often. I remember an article from years ago, where grain was dropped off to starving people in Africa. This grain had been genetically modified. A group of people who were against genetic modification told the tribe aout the “dangers” of modification. They scared them badly enough to leave the grain to rot. This group also did not bring any unmodified grain with them. In particular, I remember one of the members saying something along the lines that they put DNA from fish that lived in arctic waters into grain, so that it could survive in colder weather. This meant we as humans ingesting this grain supposedly may get fish features in future generations.
I am a huge supporter of scientific and human evolution. With this being said, cyborgs scare people, and it’s understandable. I like to think that if a person loses a leg, technology can give that person the ability to run and jump with a prostetic that could operate in the same natural way the original limb did. However, it’s when the idea of computer chips in the brain and scannable identification in the arm (much like chips implanted in dogs) that the dream of technologically advanced humans becomes a question of safty, equality, and freedome. Who will be able to receive such improvements? Who will be able to access the information held by someones technology?
There isn’t much difference between the natural and technological ‘improvements.’ There are a host of positive aspects of stem cell research, but people tend to fear the unknown and lack of God that goes along with it. If a religious person is told she is going to have a child with a disability, is it going against God’s will to correct the defect, or is the ability to do so a gift from God? If a child is going to have his father’s nose and the parents decide that the child should have his mother’s nose, how will the child react later on to the predetermined change of his originally probably natural identity?
Personally, I would embrace such advancements in science, but I cant help but feel that the right and wrong with such advancement becomes fuzzy, causing a huge grey area. I honestly can’t say if every advancement is a good thing to follow through with.
i would like to add to your comment that technology becomes one of the biggest issues in the world. We use technology to help others cope with future needs. On the other hand, technology has one part which is used as a weapon to invade and destroy other countries for bad needs. Overall, I support technology as part of our daily life, but not with bad aims. The future means a lot to us, which we work all day for and think of how it will look. When I was a young boy, I was keen on learning about scientists’ articles and comments on how science will allow us to gain benefits and use it in the future to make our lives reliable and comfortable. I wish all would understand that the future is our target for our next generations and for us too, so hatefulness or aggression are not acceptable and won’t help to build our future.
Incredibly interesting article especially since I have not heard of the futurists before. I really like the standpoints you have taken. The article definitely brings up an interesting mechanism in American society as well. On one hand the separation of church and state allows us to have research institutions in the first place while the right to protest allows religious institutions to express their thoughts. The obstacles this places in the way of progress definitely frustrating at best. We can’t prosecute their close mindedness with our close mindedness though. We have to be able to accept the view points of others and let the understanding of those view points to give us a broad sense of the world. Hopefully with this mentality religious zealots will be able to incorporate advancements in technology into their belief systems
Superb. The only topic I would add to this is that of space migration. If we are serious about life extension on a global level (as opposed to l.e. for the rich and powerful only) we simply must get serious about colonizing the solar system. This doesn’t necessarily imply Mars. In fact, it would be cheaper, easier, and more efficient to design self-contained space-stations with greenhouses, centripetal gravity emulation, and the like either in orbit around Earth or at the various Lagrange points near Earth.
Space migration is crucial for several reasons. Primarily, it will help reduce population pressures caused by life-extension, particularly if we extend lifespans by more than one year per year, achieving effective immortality. Secondarily, it will give us a base for resource collection in the solar system, which will also ameliorate conditions on Earth. We need water (which the moons of Jupiter have in abundance) phosphorous and nitrogen for agriculture, and various rare-earth metals and other elements for continued electronics production. Helium is a big deal as well. The solar system should have a similar mix of elements to Earth, though of course in much greater abundance.
I firmly believe space migration is an integral part of the futurist agenda. Making this a multi-planet species will greatly increase our ultimate survival, and colonizing and utilizing the solar-system will set the stage for allowing DNA to survive beyond the eventual destruction of the Sun. My personal favorite acronym, SMIILE, was coined by Timothy Leary, and stands for Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, Life Extension. They all feed into each other, and they all will allow us to transcend vistas beyond our wildest dreams.
Again, excellent paper. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment, and I look forward to it becoming a reality.
I was thinking about FreedomWolf’s essay a bit more yesterday, and last night as I slept something occurred to me as I awoke in fits: In this futurist business, let’s say the predictions come true, that we really do live longer, clone humans, achieve singularity, live on planets near Proxima Centauri, etc. What then? Certainly we should not consider human thought and modes of expression remain the same as today. Humans and meaning themselves must also change. What if, as Philip K. Dick speculates, in a world of cyborgs and androids, the dominant psychological paradigm becomes that of paranoia, or schizophrenia? Also, what of co-movements, counter-movements and reactions to this world of the future? Examining medieval texts are full of religion, alchemy, astrology and all sorts of spiritual voodoo which does not lead me into thinking the Enlightenment and an Age of Reason where not produced by the intellectual study of the period. Yet that, is the intellectual contribution Europe made to the natural philosophy that later developed. Of course, in the late-medieval period there where other, unknowable factors, unpredictable factors: Opening of sea trade to India and the East. Discovery of the New World. Manufacture of the printing press. I suspect each of these seeming profound changes were not really knowable to a medieval proto-futurist based on the then dominant paradigm of intellectual knowledge.
What I’m wondering about are the social effects and affects in this future world that are unknowable to us today. Or at the very least, what else might be co-formed or produced as the future is formed? What if the existence of cyborgs leads to a strong movement against cyborgs, and “unnatural things,” which permeates the future culture, or at the very least dominates the public discourse, which then leads to the destruction, or “revision” of many of our technological advances of the past 500 years. Maybe we evolve sideways, or “backwards?” What if most humans, those remaining half-million or so that are not mutants, or cancerous by age 25, are living in some sort of feudal plantation system under a quasi religious new age authoritarian rule? Who among them will be the neo-futurist?
Worse, what if all that was said to be the product of “reason,” or worse, “intent” and “purpose?”
All this talk of future makes me think too much. That’s for sure.
http://www.spaightwoodgalleries.com/Media/Old_Masters/Goya_Caprichos/Goya_Cap43_D80_cl4.jpg
I agree with you completely! I think way too much about the future as well. I worry that science will take over instead of nature sometimes. Not that science is bad at all. I think it would be wonderful for scientists to be able continue on the path they are on to cure disease and progress in other fields of technology. But I worry sometimes that humanity will become too worried about the vain things, like what was noted about the in-vitro fertilization. I think it’s becoming too easy for people to make designer babies, which is a strange concept for me. Who knows where this will progress in the future?
I do agree that religious zealotry plagues this country’s scientific future. Looking forward and investing in science literacy and the major science institutions of our country will go a great way to paving America’s way into the future. Neil Degrasse Tyson illustrated the economic need for science in his March 2012 testimony to a senate committee. You can cite endless “what ifs,” but that won’t tell us anything. Even if those dystopian conjectures may be inevitable, we’re damned if we do look to the future and certainly damned if we become overwhelmed by fundamentalism. But science has consistently brought new avenues of efficiency, discovery and societal health.
Here’s a link to Dr. Tyson’s testimony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmKlA_UnX8c
Who’s anti-science? I however do wonder if science is a sound methodology for a futurist.
Trying to decide when the earth and man were created is a topic that probably never will be solved. Im not deeply religous, but unless God himself sends his son back for everyone to see, we won’t really know. The idea that the Earth was created on Sunday, 23 Oct 4004 b.c is hard to rationlize. The same goes for any other date. Is the earth 6000 or 4.8 billion years is another question that can’t really be determined.
I see our collective futures as something that will become better as we take advantage of the technology that envelopes specific things we use every day. On the other side, I think with all of the separation of politics, class and religion keep us as a country from workingg to make a better life for our future.