Loading ...There are travel guides for almost any corner of the planet. None of these can tell us though what the world will be like tomorrow, or at least not until next year. That’s when Rough Guide to the Future by the British science writer Jon Turney will be available in bookstores.
What drove you to write such a book?
There’s not much fiction around capable of really telling us what the future will be like. Hollywood movies don’t seem to be able to provide us with any sort of reliable picture, and it’s generally difficult for the layperson to make much sense of what scientists call scenarios. It often in fact takes an expert to understand these highly formal models. I’ve always thought talking about the future in the form of a travel guide to be an ideal approach for it helps us imagine a place we would sooner or later like to go and visit ourselves.
What issues will you be dealing with?
I find the contrasting visions of catastrophists who predict an Armageddon and of diehard optimists who believe technology will change humankind for the better to the point that it will transcend itself very interesting. Both parties manage to be very persuasive and even enthralling with their accounts. That’s not surprising, seeing as the Apocalypse and the transcendental are two typically mystical themes.
From Blade Runner to 1984, via 2001 A Space Odyssey and Fahrenheit 451, literature and cinema seem to be obsessed with the idea of predicting the future. Let’s face it though, these predications don’t appear to have really guessed very much.
A prediction is never a dead cert and anyone who says so is either a fool or a charlatan. That’s not to say, though, that realistic predictions based on probabilistic calculations cannot be made. Of course, long-term predictions are far less reliable. The alternative that the future is wholly unpredictable is however wholly untenable from a psychological point of view.
Confucius says: “If you want to know the future, study the past”.
Scientifically and not clairvoyantly speaking, the only reliable discussions regarding the future are those based on a knowledge of the past. Climate studies are an example. We’ve managed to discover what sort of climate was prevalent hundreds of thousands of years ago thanks to analyses of Antarctic ice and realise that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far greater now than it ever was before. Such studies have also provided empirical data to fine-tune computer-processed predictive models, making for far more reliable scenarios.
Why is the twenty-first century considered a watershed?
I know one has to be careful in thinking that the times one is living in are always the most important. And yet, to some extent it may indeed be true for us. Constructing a global economy with real concern given for the atmosphere and the environment is an unprecedented challenge.
Today we’re capable of redesigning living organisms and taking evolution a new step forward. In a few years’ time we’ll be able to build new forms of artificial intelligence capable of competing with our own. What’s more, we have far more information today as to the state of the planet – indeed, some say too much – than ever before. All this suggests that we are at a crucial crossroads in history.
In the seventies there was much talk around such issues as over-population, the new ice-age, and the risk of an all-out nuclear confrontation. A lot of the talk was based on scientific analyses, yet these issues seem to have subsided from the media limelight.
There are fads in science just the same as in the media. That’s not to say these fears are all that obsolete, except perhaps for the new-ice-age. Population growth was indeed alarming, but has since luckily settled down. Indeed, many of the other predictions made at the time have not come to pass because of this change in population growth trends. But any serious demographer knows that such trends are subject to change. Nuclear weapons are still very much a threat and deserve far more attention than what they’re getting.
There’s a “friends-of-the-earth” motto that more or less says we haven’t so much inherited the world from our forebears but have it on loan from our descendents.
I also like the variant that raises the question: “Have we been good ancestors?”
But how can we make decisions as “good ancestors” would? Shouldn’t we be more cautious and avoid taking any action?
When taken literally the caution principle leads to absolute freeze mode, because there are simply too many things to be cautious of. We have to rationally consider, though, what sort of risks are reasonably worth taking. I don’t think the people who drilled the first oil-well can be blamed for global warming. It’s rather the responsibility of those who today don’t do their best to find and develop alternative energy sources. Being a good ancestor means working for a world where there are greater opportunities and freedom of choice, and fewer constrictions for those who come after us.
Are you optimistic?
Optimistic as far as our potential goes. Pessimistic, though, as to the consequences of our current recklessness.
Interview by Mauro Scanu
The meaning of colour evolves in parallel with culture.Colour has always been with us and has been, and will always be, one of the great unsolved mysteries.All I do is take away colour to get to the light.Last photo
Visual impact: Rehberger comes together at Galleria illyI experienced firsthand the installation of Galleria illy at KaDeWe in Berlin… an intense few days... More in Photo | AuthorsPeter LorenzPeter Lorenz has two degrees in architecture, one from Innsbruck University (1975) and one from Veni... More in Authors | Headline
Headline & EditorialLast Issue: #29 What's your colour? Red creates energy, blue inspires calm. Yellow evokes or reflec... More in Headline |
