Search results

This paper aims to offer real and explicit reasons for viewing the futures of humanity and Earth as positive, fulfilling and meaningful, if humans view it as such and act to make it so. The paper incorporates the results of several recent research projects and activities that were based on the assumptions of an earlier paper titled, “The Unholy Trinity, Plus One.” It argues that the conclusions of the original paper are even more obvious and urgent than they were originally, and that while an “alternative futures” perspective must always be the basis of any statements about or actions toward the futures, the concerns of The Unholy Trinity, Plus One, are now part of a “new normal” that must be incorporated in each of the alternatives. This paper emphasizes that this “new normal” is, and must be prepared for as, a splendid opportunity for humans to start on new adventures; that one episode of human history (based on cheap and abundant energy, a benign environment, effective government and continued economic growth) is over, and a world with different challenges and opportunities for New Beginnings has already opened up. It concludes by offering an example of how the transition might be approached and managed positively and effectively.

Both papers relied heavily on a combination of trend analysis and emerging issues analysis viewed through the lens of four generic alternative futures for understanding continuing trends and anticipating new, emerging issues, and for then formulating appropriate anticipatory responses to them.

The fundamental findings reconfirm and deepen the original findings – that it is far too late to prevent or postpone the transformative effects of The Unholy Trinity, Plus One; that one must and can prepare for and welcome them as providing humans now and in the immediate futures with an opportunity for innovation, identity, meaning and vibrant lives. The research and practical experiences and simulations illuminated ways in which these positive futures might be achieved.

It is urgent that humans now turn their attention from either denying the fact of overwhelming change or trying to prop up old economic, governmental and educational systems, and begin to invent new systems that are appropriate for making the transition from the old environment to new ones.

At the end of the paper, the authors offer one example of a successful transition, based on the research. It is presented as though humans are in Hawaii in the future, after oil has stopped flowing, along with the imported food, products and tourists upon which humans are now entirely dependent, and Hawaii has once again become entirely self-sufficient and prosperous.

The main focus of the paper, in contrast to most that deal with this issue, is to encourage readers not only to consider the inevitability of rapid and extensive social, environmental, resource and institutional change, but also, by viewing the situation as a positive, welcomed opportunity for innovation and improvement, actually to make it so.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the role of American culture in social foresight as practiced by American futurists. It also seeks to describe how American culture has been expropriated by corporate culture, which is global. Finally, the paper seeks to depict various scenarios of the future of the USA and to consider an imperative of the futurist to reform the role of the professional futurist consultant in the capacity of social foresight that sets as its chief aim the transformation of business practice towards a sustainable, restorative economy.

The paper is a critical approach to American and corporate culture by exposing major assumptions behind business ideology and practice. It also applies the same critical approach to the way futures has been practiced within the capitalist paradigm during the past 50 years. It is a civilisational critique that also points towards an integral solution for sustainable, restorative business practice.

It was found that superficial efforts at sustainable solutions will not be enough to manage the impending collapse of industrial civilization. What is required is a wholesale transformation that is indicative of a paradigm shift towards a natural capitalism in which business practice is totally guided by sustainability and restoration of the natural systems rather than mere, narrowly focused “bottom line” ideology. It finds that social foresight can play a positive role in directing this transition and crisis of humanity.

Hopefully, the paper will contribute to the progress of futures towards a more specifically focused matter of social foresight. It should help futurists to recognize their leadership role, which should guide business entrepreneurs and social innovation towards the realization of sustainability and restoration. At the same time, it emphasizes the need to embrace rather than shun activism, to link with other progressives who seek to redefine the relationship of government and business through democratic means. The paper emphasizes the need to protect and restore a future that is being systematically undermined and destroyed.

This paper aims to make the case for continued opportunity for high levels of human well-being under descent conditions characterised by declining economic throughput and socio-political complexity.

Relationships between assumptions about human well-being formed within a modern industrial context, the guiding narratives attending these, and the broader cultural influence of ideas from the evolutionary sciences are examined. Alternative ways of making sense of these relationships are explored. The experiences of societies guided by cultural narratives based on different premises to those most influential in industrial societies are reviewed for their implications for human well-being under descent conditions.

Human experiences of well-being are principally a function of the sources of meaning and associated narratives by which members of a culture make sense of their situation, as these determine the nature of the material and energetic conditions required to live well. Under descent conditions, the narrative of progress that has supported viable societies during the 300-year period of industrial expansion is unlikely to continue serving humanity well. Collective participation in the renewal of guiding cultural narratives is a primary target for efforts to provide continued opportunities for high quality of life to all members of humanity.

The findings point towards specific characteristics of cultural sense-making narratives that may support viable human societies under descent conditions.

By moving beyond the default assumption that descent automatically implies decline in human well-being, a barrier may be lowered to more open and mature society-wide engagement in conversations about the present human predicament and effective ways of responding to it.

New connections are identified between perspectives based on biological evolutionary theory and the continued influence of the idea of progress in establishing default assumptions about prospects for human well-being under descent conditions. Experiences of non-industrial societies are taken as the basis for identifying opportunities for human well-being under far more modest material and energetic conditions than those available to the portion of humanity that presently enjoys benefits of industrial development that outweigh the attendant costs.

This paper aims to re-examine Tainter’s dismissal of the voluntary simplification strategy. Joseph Tainter argues that “sustainability” is about problem-solving and that problem-solving increases social complexity. But he also argues that social complexity requires energy and resources, and this implies that solving problems, including environmental problems, usually demands increases in energy and resource consumption, not reductions. For this reason Tainter argues that voluntary simplification – the strategy of choosing to reduce consumption – is not an available means of solving the problems of civilisation.

This paper briefly outlines Tainter’s theory of diminishing returns on complexity and lays out his arguments against voluntary simplification. The critical sections of the paper examine those arguments and find certain ambiguities in them that open up space of voluntary simplification.

Part of my disagreement with Tainter turns on differing notions of “sustainability.” Whereas Tainter seems to use sustainability to mean sustaining the existing civilisation, the author uses sustainability to mean changing the form of civilisation through voluntary simplification, insofar as that is required for humanity to operate within the carrying capacity of the planet. By exposing the indeterminate, value-laden nature of what constitutes a “problem” and what constitutes an appropriate “solution,” it becomes clear that some societal problems can be dissolved rather than solved, that problems have various solutions and that a society’s available energy supply can be redistributed to achieve voluntary simplification while still solving existing and ongoing problems.

Given that Tainter seems to accept that his own conception of sustainability will eventually lead to collapse, the author feels he is wrong to be so dismissive of voluntary simplification as a strategy for potentially avoiding collapse. It is, the author argues, our only alternative to collapse, and if that is so, voluntary simplification ought to be given our most rigorous attention and commitment, even if the chances of success do not seem high at all. This paper provides a new analysis of the voluntary simplification strategy and shows that it holds more promise than Tainter appreciates.

This research presents uncomfortable questions about the viability of alternative energy technologies, which arise during economic contraction and degrowth but are scarcely addressed within media and academia.

The author identifies and graphically illustrates differences between media expectations for renewable energy production versus energy reduction strategies. The author contrasts green energy expectations with material factors to develop unasked questions about potential: urban myths (e.g. solar cells are made from sand), assumptions (e.g. alternative energy is of comparable quality to fossil fuel energy and can offset its use), strategic ignorance (e.g. solar cost drops reflect Moore’s law), and trained incapacity (e.g. solar and wind energy is low- or zero-carbon).

Compared to energy reduction coverage, journalists cover energy production using 1) more character-driven storytelling, 2) about twice the promising language, and 3) far more references to climate change and energy independence. These observations help loosely illustrate a pervasive energy production ethos, a reflexive network including behaviors, symbols, expectations, and material conditions.

Fascination with alternative energy may serve as a form of techno-denial to avoid facing the uncertain but inevitable end of growth in consumption and population on our finite planet.

This paper offers journalists, policymakers, researchers, and students new, unasked, questions regarding the expectation that alternative energy technologies can replace fossil fuel. For instance, if wind and sunlight are free, why are wind and solar energies so expensive, requiring billions in subsidies? Where do solar cell and wind turbine costs ultimately arise, if not from fossil fuels (via labor, materials, etc.)?

The purpose of this paper is to show that the observed strong link between global economic output and primary energy use will continue in future; and attempts to replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources or implementing CO₂ removal or geoengineering approaches cannot provide the level of clean energy that economic growth needs. Global economic growth, therefore, is unlikely to continue for much longer.

The paper uses historical and recent global data (2012) for energy output from various sources, economic output and CO₂, emissions to make its case.

Alternative energy output is growing too slowly, and faces too many problems, to significantly change the energy mix in the coming decades. Continued use of fossil fuels requires either massive CO₂ removal/sequestration or global solar radiation management (SRM). The first is too expensive and would take decades to be significant, the second carries risks, some already known and possibly also unknown ones.

The paper makes the case that technical fixes such as alternative fuels, energy efficiency improvements, carbon dioxide capture and SRM will not be sufficient to prevent global climate change.

Social change, rather than reliance on technical fixes, is needed for ecologically sustainable economies.

Most research argues that global energy intensity and carbon intensity will continue to fall. In contrast, we argue that the strong link observed between global economic output and primary energy use will most likely continue.