Original Piece
The human race surpasses every limitation in order to protect it’s future. It is this underlying principle that has given way to the rise on a new intellectual field known as future studies. Future studies employs a nonfictional approach though the scientific method in an attempt to
"maintain and improve the freedom and welfare of the human kind [as well as’ the live beings, plants and the Earth’s biosphere" (Thomas, 2006). It encompasses a broad range in its predictions, namely societal economic, political and organizational issues in respect to how they will aid or diminish human progress. To achieve this goal, the scientists and technologists of future study, who have been most prominently attracted to this upcoming field, use their most promising medium: the distinctive Delphi method. This is the combination of polling, comparing and contrasting expert opinions on a range of futuristic subjects. From this data, futuristic writers construct the three categories of possible, probable and preferable futures. Preferable future in particular is the “ideal” or “desirable” future depicted by the experts and because of its nature, it has taken future study a step further. The result is the concept of normative forecasting in which future experts work toward inventing or creating the ideal futures that they concoct. They attempt to implement programs that will alter our present methods to create the idyllic tomorrow. Nevertheless, it is because of this ability of future study to force people to evaluate their present and consider their future that it is considered a major progress as a field of study.
Two eminent writers who were essential in developing depictions of the future are Michio Kaku and Eugene Linden. Both widely credited and respected, these two writers voiced their perceptions of what the tomorrows holds for in the late 90s. However, Kaku and Linden had vastly different ideas of the same future.
In his book, Visions, Kaku claimed that by 2010, ubiquitous computing and telematics would be an ordinary part of life. He expected computers to have the same value as a pack of Duracell batteries, easily bought at the convenience stores and not having much value. He also expected smart cars to roam the highways. Furthermore, Kaku believed that the biomedical field would have exponential progress because robots would automate the process of DNA sequencing. As a result, anyone could store his or her own DNA code on a hard drive by 2020. In these ideas, Kaku focuses mainly on the technology and scientific aspects of our society, and does not concentrate on the social aspects. He presents a very optimistic view, painting a appeasing picture of how easy and accessible our world will become in a short period of time.
Linden, on the other hand, provided a much more pessimistic view. In The Future in Plain Sight, he focused his predictions on how vastly different the world would be in 2050 because of radical disasters which engulf the planet in the early decades of the 21st century. In his world, society would have regressed so that it would resemble much of England during the Victorian Era. Family would again become the nucleus of social life, and culture and traditions would lead the day. Individualism would again be forgotten. Yet, there would also be some differentiating factors between the future and Victorian England. There would be not power and wealth hierarchy or overt sexuality. Instead, in order to avoid any such problem, everyone would wear long, flowy robes. Furthermore, there would be a major increase in the health precautions taken; even the smallest of microbes would be detected and disposed off.
Hence, because of the nature of future study, it can be argued that it consequently plays the role of a comfort tool for its followers. Future study provides the valid groundwork for a tomorrow by including the facts and statistics demanded by the more scientifically inclined population. More importantly, it provides a forewarning of how awful our tomorrow can become. The two extremes of future writing provide an outline that many people abide by in deciding how to live their todays’.
Yet, perhaps people should not blindly believe in every futuristic prediction by a credited writer. Michio Kaku and Eugene Kinden, two of the most recognized futuristic experts have some blaring holes in their writing. In Kaku’s case, when he wrote his books in the 90s, he expected the world to change a lot in the next twenty years, by 2010. However, it is now 2012, two years after 20102 and computers are not sold in packs at the nearby ninety-nine cent store. The creation of smart cars is not even in the realm of possibility. Furthermore, biomedicine is still progressing at in snaillike pace; robots are still being created to have a broader range of actions and DNA sequencing has not been attained yet. In Linden’s case, the first decade of the twenty-first century has passed by and there have been any major disasters that would force humans to change their perspective on society and the way it is structured. Instead, society is still continuing rapidly along the same path towards individualism and overt sexuality that it was on in the nineties when Linden wrote his piece.
Kaku and Linden are not at fault for their misguided conceptions about the future. It is the basic dynamics of future study that is to be blamed. Even though future study attempts to be scientific, the Delphi method by definition relies on opinions, which is an unreliable source. Hence, any information procured from this method is unsound. Furthermore, any statistics or facts that could possibly be used to back up a prediction are also unreliable. A statistic or fact would be by default based upon three pillars: the human species, the environment we inhabit and the society that we have created. Yet, even labeling them as pillars would be unstable because these three aspects are unstable; the human species, the environment and the society are changing individually and in the ways in which they interact.
The human species is not a definite term. We as a race are the result of thousands of years of natural selection. As the strongest moved on, the gene pool evolved into what it currently is. Even though we are now civilized and there is no longer a daily fight of survival and food, evolutionary psychologists claim that the human species have not finished evolving. Instead, the gene pool is slowly altering. This is not hard to imagine. Humans are now living longer then ever because of medicine and technology. Consider a patient who has heart failure but is able to survive because of a heart transplant. Historically, such an individual would not have survived, and his ‘weak’ genes, which predisposed him to heart disease, would not have been passed on. Yet, because of this procedure, the man is able to live on and have children, passing on these genes. This on a large scale over time could alter the gene pool, causing our descendants to be weaklings. They might need to depend heavily on artificial medicine. This is just one of the many ways that the human species could change. There is no way for us to look forward in time and predict the exact changes that will occur. Thus, predicting what will work for our descendant based what works for us now becomes an impossibility when we don’t even know what characteristics our descendants will entail.
The task of predicting complicates itself further because of the changing environment that we currently, and our descendants in the future will inhabit. This planet and its characteristics are not stationary. Instead they are changing constantly, especially faster at this age in time. Global warming is a threat that constantly looms over every environmental scientist’s mind. As the overall temperature continues do increase, it is going to cause drastic changes in the weather and water cycles. Seasons as we know them might cease to exist as winters get harsher or spring becomes as warm as summer. Furthermore, as the population and consequently the cities continue to grow, the forests and ecosystems of the planet are sacrificed. As more animals then ever are becoming extinct, the delicate balance that maintained the ecosystems is being disrupted. These ecosystems are no longer able to sustain themselves. These changes of course do not account for the direct human changes to the environment. Humans are constantly trying to benefit themselves. This means that animals are constantly being killed for their body parts. Livestock and vegetables are being genetically altered to be aesthetically pleasing and more filling, to support the growing population. At every point, other species of the planet are suffering so that humans can prosper. Hence the changes caused directly and indirectly by human activity leave the question of how the dynamics will be tomorrow unanswered. Furthermore, future descendants will also have to deal with the facts that resources are unlimited. These undefined aspects of how the world will be tomorrow make it difficult to judge how our descendants will interact with their surroundings.
Perhaps the most flimsy and vulnerable to change is the aspect of our lives that isn’t rooted in nature: the society. As times change and people’s mindset along with it, the society changes rapidly. The economy aspect is already unpredictable. Very few people foresaw the current economic downfall and now no one can tell for sure when it will change for the better. International boundaries are also complex. As countries grow stronger in their own views, their relationships with other nations deteriorate. Yet, as more people travel and have an open mindset, cultures are fusing together. Interracial marriage is changing the way families bond as mixes in traditions build new ones. Gay marriage is helping erase the traditional family dynamics. Even today, these lifestyles differ greatly from the lifestyle sixty years ago. There is no longer a family nucleus with a stay at home mom who cooks fresh food. Instead, fast food and take out is on the rise. Families are loosing importance as a work priority society emerges. So much has changed in a short time but no one could have ever predicted it.
The people are changing. The place they are living in is changing. The rules and norms they abide by are changing. What is true today may not be true tomorrow. So how can we predict how the three will interact based on our lives and experience? We can’t. At least not accurately. Future predictions attained by scientific method is not only a difficult, but an impossible goal to achieve.
Citations
Thomas, L. (2006). Contemporary futurist thought. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
Revised Piece
The human race surpasses every limitation in order to protect it’s future. This underlying principle has given way to the rise a new intellectual field known as future studies. Future studies employs a nonfictional approach though the scientific method in an attempt to “maintain and improve the freedom and welfare of the human kind [as well as’ the live beings, plants and the Earth’s biosphere.” (Thomas, 2006). This field encompasses societal, economic, political and organizational issues in respect to how they will aid or diminish human progress. It provides the valid groundwork for a tomorrow by including the facts and statistics demanded by the more scientifically inclined population. This validity is attained through the Delphi Method, which is the combination of polling, comparing and contrasting expert opinions on a range of futuristic subjects. The leaders of this field, known as future writers, then use this data to concoct their own scenarios of the future we are currently head towards, or even versions of a ‘idyllic future. Overall, these works force people to evaluate their present and attempts to alter our current ways by making us consider our future.
Yet, perhaps people should not blindly believe every futuristic prediction. Michio Kaku and Eugene Kinden, two of the most recognized futuristic experts, have some blaring holes in their writing. The future predictions that they are so renowned for have been overwhelmingly inaccurate. That being said, it is important to recognize that Kaku and Linden are not at fault for their misguided conceptions about the future. It is the basic dynamics of future study that is to be blamed. Even though future study attempts to be scientific, the Delphi method by definition relies on opinions, which is an unreliable source. Furthermore, any statistics or facts that could possibly be used to back up a prediction are also unreliable. A statistic or fact would be by default based upon three pillars: the human species, the environment we inhabit and the society that we have created. Yet, labeling them as pillars is still inaccurate because these three aspects are unstable. The human species, the environment and the society are changing in both, the ways in which they interact as well as individually. Future Studies has failed to take into account these three dynamic factors and that in turn has rendered this field incapable of achieving its purpose.
Before we can understand the specific aspects in which future studies falls short, let us first learn what prominent future writers are saying. Michio Kaku and Eugene Linden voiced their perceptions of what tomorrow holds for us during the late 1990s. Both authors are widely credited and respected by they had vastly different ideas of the same future. In his book, Visions, Kaku claimed that by 2010, ubiquitous computing and telematics would be an ordinary part of life. He expected computers to have the same value as a pack of Duracell batteries, easily bought at the convenience stores and not having much value. He also expected smart cars to roam the highways. Furthermore, Kaku believed that the biomedical field would have exponential progress because robots would automate the process of DNA sequencing. As a result, anyone could store his or her own DNA code on a hard drive by 2020. In these ideas, Kaku focuses mainly on the technology and scientific aspects of our society, and does not concentrate on the social aspects. He presents a very optimistic view, painting a appeasing picture of how easy and accessible our world will become in a short period of time.
Linden, on the other hand, provided a much more pessimistic view. In The Future in Plain Sight, he focused his predictions on how vastly different the world would be in 2050 because of radical disasters which engulf the planet in the early decades of the 21st century. In his world, society would have regressed so that it would resemble much of England during the Victorian Era. Family would again become the nucleus of social life, and culture and traditions would lead the day. Individualism would again be forgotten. Yet, there would also be some differentiating factors between the future and Victorian England. There would be not power and wealth hierarchy or overt sexuality. Instead, in order to avoid any such problem, everyone would wear long, flowy robes. Furthermore, there would be a major increase in the health precautions taken; even the smallest of microbes would be detected and disposed off.
Now lets take a look at the first and probably most important aspect of predicting our future: ourselves. The human species is not a definite term. We as a race are the result of thousands of years of natural selection. As the strongest moved on, the gene pool evolved into what it currently is. Even though we are now civilized and there is no longer a daily fight of survival and food, evolutionary psychologists claim that the human species have not finished evolving. Instead, the gene pool is slowly altering. This is not hard to imagine. Humans are now living longer then ever because of medicine and technology. In Visions, Kaku claimed, “Our molecular knowledge of cell development will be so advanced that we will be able to grow entire organs in the laboratory, including livers and kidneys” (Kaku, 15). A grand statement to say the least, such a prediction sounds like the solution to every health problem. It is even within the realm of possibility because organ donors and transplants are relatively common in the medical field. Nevertheless, the time line for this prediction was by 2020. That is only eight years away and science is nowhere close to achieving such a task. This is because Kaku did not account for how humans would change as science was trying to understand them. The twenty-first century has seen a rise in obesity, heart disease, depression, all of which are impacted by genetic alterations that were not as common before. The medical field became preoccupied with more pressing problems. As they sought to understand these issues, they continued to discover flaws in creating their own organs. This of course is not Kaku’s fault. He does not claim to be psychic and could not have foreseen such a sudden change in human medical problems. All the same, this prediction of future studies failed because human evolution was not taken into account.
The task of predicting complicates itself further because of the changing environment that we currently, and our descendants in the future, inhabit. This planet and its components are not stationary. They are changing constantly, especially faster at this age in time. Global warming is one threat. The increasing population and city lifestyle at the expense of forests and entire ecosystems is another. We can grant Eugene Linden some credibility in having the foresight to see this particular predicament and even suggesting a solution for it. In his future society, Linden creates a booming city, much like today’s New York or London, in which every flat roof has a small garden growing on it. Such a city would be ideal because it would account for the deforestation and provide for clean air in an otherwise smog-ridden area. There are, however, reasons why this prediction failed and why such a city does not already exist. However, New York in 2012 is far different from New York in the 1990s. The buildings are taller and the population is denser to name a few changes. The current city simply does not have the infrastructure to hold up such a garden. Accounting for such an addition would involve drastically altering the structures of almost all buildings because it would have to account for the run off water from the soil. Such a task is impossible. Furthermore, such a dynamic would not thrive because any nature would attract wildlife. This would put residents are risk and hence immediately be shut down. When Linden concocted this future city, some wildlife such as birds and owl were still common around the city. Shorter buildings would also have made such gardening feasible. Linden did not know how much the New York skyline would change in twenty years. However, it changed more then enough to make his prediction just that- too impossible to become reality.
Perhaps the most flimsy and vulnerable to change is the aspect of our lives that isn’t rooted in nature: the society. As times change and people’s mindset along with it, the society changes rapidly. Interracial marriage is changing the way families bond as mixes in traditions build new ones. Gay marriage is helping erase the traditional family dynamics. Even today, these lifestyles differ greatly from the lifestyle sixty years ago. There is no longer a family nucleus with a stay at home mom who cooks fresh food. Yet, Linden predicted exactly the opposite. When Linden wrote his book in the 1990s, gay marriage was taboo, and society was desperately attempting to oppose the rise of individualism. These attitudes are reflected in Linden’s predictions because he creates a future society where people revert back to traditional family roles. Elders are reflect, individualism is suppressed, and gay relationships are long abandoned. Linden did not want to recognize the changes that were occurring. Over the past two decades, cultures around the world and the United States in particular have encouraged individualistic attitudes. Moreover, as people became more liberal, they accepted gay relationships and several states including New York have legally recognized gay marriages. Linden focused on the Delphi Method, and on experts whose opinions would inevitably coincide with attitudes of those times. However, he did not acknowledge the changing society and hence created a prediction that was the exact opposite of the actual future.
The people are changing. The place they are living in is changing. The rules and norms they abide by are changing. What is true today may not be true tomorrow. So how can we predict how the three will interact based on our lives and experience? We can’t. At least not accurately. Future predictions attained by scientific method are not only a difficult, but also an impossible goal to achieve.
Citations
- Thomas, L. (2006). Contemporary futurist thought. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
- Kaku, Michio. Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century. New York City: Random House Inc., 1997. 1-21. Print.
Behind the Scenes
Future: A Nobel but Impossible Venture began on very ambiguous terms. I knew I had to analyze the field of future studies but I did not have the basis on which to do so. As I began to gain a sense of the three components (the human species, environment and society) that I wanted to focus on, my original Midterm Piece began to develop. I was able to talk about prominent writers Kaku and Linden and discuss why their predictions have failed. I was able to analyze the future studies as a whole and identify holes in its approach. Yet, while I was able to clearly establish and raise some interesting points, the piece did not come together. It was too fragmented and the ideas were all over the place. In my revision piece, I worked to fix that problem. I focused on the suggestions you made in your Midterm Review Video. Watching the video and following your thought process actually brought my piece together for me. As a result, the greatest difference between the original and revision pieces are in their structure. While the original piece is hard to follow and the purpose is not clear, the revised piece has a very clearly defined introduction. Future studies, the flaws in it as well as the purpose of my analysis are clearly listed. Furthermore, the aspect that really brought the revision piece together which was lacking before was in the examples I used to back up my arguments. Instead of creating extraneous arguments, I used arguments that correlated directly with those in Kaku’s and Linden’s works. This gave my work validity as well as a more defined structure. This, quiet literally put life into my arguments and completed the revision of my midterm piece. What was once so abstract is now clearly, and methodically construed.
Back to Final Portfolio
