My favorite model of the future is from the book "America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century Why America s Greatest Days Are Yet to Come" by James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus. Full disclosure: My partner in crime, Leif Smith and I, are longtime friends of Jim and Mike, and helped with the book a little. Jim and Mike did the heavy lifting.
Here is why I think predicting the future is difficult, inspired in part by the work of Sir Karl Popper.
Why Many Futurists Can't Predict The Future, And Why You Can
1. They use straight line extrapolation; you assume that trends are not independent of hundreds of known and unknown counterforces. You are willing to leap into the unknown.
2. They test their theories by verification (seeking cases that agree); you test your theories by falsification (seeking cases that disagree).
3. They fall in love with some theory and try to make real life fit the theory by ignoring data that doesn't fit; you consider every theory incomplete, and you refine or discard those that don't match the data.
4. They talk only to people of the same political and philosophical flavors; you have allies to advise you from all camps.
5. They assume the world has stopped changing or changes only in ways that are measurable, known and controllable; you assume the world changes all the time in ways that usually are unexpected.
6. They take their data from secondhand and thirdhand sources; you talk firsthand with the sources and go kick the tires yourself.
7. They think that only credentialed people can come up with ideas that work, and they ignore or belittle what their enemies and other baboons think and say; you think that even your worst enemy can come up with great ideas, and you look forward to testing those ideas and gaining from your enemies' insights.
8. They assume the future is hopeless; you assume that some crazy human somewhere is creating new solutions for the worst problems.
9. They are afraid of change; you know the alternative is worse.
10. They take themselves very seriously; you make your predictions wearing a philosophical clown nose.
11. They pretend they are perfect; you keep track of your mistakes and try to learn from them.
12. They think they live in an aquarium where they can control variables: you know you live in the ocean where you rarely can control what's happening.
Gah, I wrote a long response, then lost it suddenly. In short, I'd say go for it!
Combine the idealism of the techno-utopian, keeping ideology as a north star, but limit the idea of a one-true-liberatory system to bind them all. In other words, always experiment and scale, but keep your ideal firmly in mind as you innovate. :)
See also Pat Wagner's comment, which does a good job of setting out a more empirical path. It's the rationalistic plan that I think we ought to resist, but most classical liberals think in monolithic terms.
In olden days - don't know if they still do - Forbes magazine had a section every issue where investment gurus would try to predict market movements, etc. However, they rarely lasted more than one year or so. They were not emotionally prepared for the scorecard the magazine would publish based on how well they did or didn't do. Most did not do very well.
It seems that our society has bifurcated between people who are guided by traditional notions of justice, achievement, and utility and those who are not. The latter groups focuses more on emotional cues and the subjective experience of certain groups as their generator of truth and meaning.
The interesting thing is that few people REALLY try to operationalize the ideas of the latter group in policymaking (or even in their personal lives), and they're almost all fairly well-off. It's as if millions of people are pretending to believe things politically. However, their antipathy towards tradition and the old hierarchies is genuine, and it is doing a tremendous amount of damage.
Thank you!
My favorite model of the future is from the book "America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century Why America s Greatest Days Are Yet to Come" by James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus. Full disclosure: My partner in crime, Leif Smith and I, are longtime friends of Jim and Mike, and helped with the book a little. Jim and Mike did the heavy lifting.
Here is why I think predicting the future is difficult, inspired in part by the work of Sir Karl Popper.
Why Many Futurists Can't Predict The Future, And Why You Can
1. They use straight line extrapolation; you assume that trends are not independent of hundreds of known and unknown counterforces. You are willing to leap into the unknown.
2. They test their theories by verification (seeking cases that agree); you test your theories by falsification (seeking cases that disagree).
3. They fall in love with some theory and try to make real life fit the theory by ignoring data that doesn't fit; you consider every theory incomplete, and you refine or discard those that don't match the data.
4. They talk only to people of the same political and philosophical flavors; you have allies to advise you from all camps.
5. They assume the world has stopped changing or changes only in ways that are measurable, known and controllable; you assume the world changes all the time in ways that usually are unexpected.
6. They take their data from secondhand and thirdhand sources; you talk firsthand with the sources and go kick the tires yourself.
7. They think that only credentialed people can come up with ideas that work, and they ignore or belittle what their enemies and other baboons think and say; you think that even your worst enemy can come up with great ideas, and you look forward to testing those ideas and gaining from your enemies' insights.
8. They assume the future is hopeless; you assume that some crazy human somewhere is creating new solutions for the worst problems.
9. They are afraid of change; you know the alternative is worse.
10. They take themselves very seriously; you make your predictions wearing a philosophical clown nose.
11. They pretend they are perfect; you keep track of your mistakes and try to learn from them.
12. They think they live in an aquarium where they can control variables: you know you live in the ocean where you rarely can control what's happening.
Rationalistic scientism versus Realistic falsificationism.
Decentralism bears a resemblance to Paul-Emile de Puydt's panarchy.
No doubt. De Puydt's influence is big. He was 200 years ahead of everyone.
How about a synthesis of techno-utopianism and decentralism? Sorry for not writing more, it's just late so I wanted to get your thoughts.
Gah, I wrote a long response, then lost it suddenly. In short, I'd say go for it!
Combine the idealism of the techno-utopian, keeping ideology as a north star, but limit the idea of a one-true-liberatory system to bind them all. In other words, always experiment and scale, but keep your ideal firmly in mind as you innovate. :)
See also Pat Wagner's comment, which does a good job of setting out a more empirical path. It's the rationalistic plan that I think we ought to resist, but most classical liberals think in monolithic terms.
In olden days - don't know if they still do - Forbes magazine had a section every issue where investment gurus would try to predict market movements, etc. However, they rarely lasted more than one year or so. They were not emotionally prepared for the scorecard the magazine would publish based on how well they did or didn't do. Most did not do very well.
Accountability is SO bothersome.
It seems that our society has bifurcated between people who are guided by traditional notions of justice, achievement, and utility and those who are not. The latter groups focuses more on emotional cues and the subjective experience of certain groups as their generator of truth and meaning.
The interesting thing is that few people REALLY try to operationalize the ideas of the latter group in policymaking (or even in their personal lives), and they're almost all fairly well-off. It's as if millions of people are pretending to believe things politically. However, their antipathy towards tradition and the old hierarchies is genuine, and it is doing a tremendous amount of damage.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/2-visions-of-reality