Element 2, examines one emerging technology and one foresight method (e.g. horizon scanning, mapping, expert consultation, speculative fiction etc.) related to material covered in class. In Element 2, the 2,000 word future scenario, students will apply the foresight method to the emerging technology to develop their own forecast of a plausible digital future for that technology. In order to achieve the learning outcomes, students should include 4 sections in their future scenario:
1.Introduction: Contextualize the selected emerging technology.
Chosen technology: algortihms – please use as much of the highlighted citations as possible. You do not need to add these to bibliography as I can do it myself, please just mark the used citations in bold so I know where to add the references. Below the higlighted notes there is some other citations about big data and artificial inteligence – feel free to use as it is somewhat related to algorithms.
2. Foresight method: Introduce and explain your foresight method (e.g. interviews, citizen panel, expert interviews, horizon scanning, mapping, backcasting, speculative fiction, etc.) and apply it to your case. – choose whichever method is easiest for you. You do not have to go in debth as it is a short essay just use the structure and key principles and describe the method. Please use some quotes i put below
Use these two websites to choose the method
3. The future scenario of your case.
Imagined future based on research about algorithms – can be however many years in the future as you see fit
4. Reflection: Review and reflect on the method, the emerging technology, your scenario and futures thinking.
– How does the future affect the present?
“The future does not exist in the present but anticipation does. The form the future takes in the present is anticipation.”
“Taking an anticipatory systems (AS) perspective on the integration of the future into the present is the starting point for the formulation of a framework for connecting the theories and practices of using-the-future.”
– anticipatory assumptions (AA)
“Conscious human AA include choices about what kind of future to anticipate and which methods to use to think about a particular kind of future. AA, as will become clear in later pages, may even be applied to non-conscious anticipation.”
– Futures Literacy (FL)
“A futures literate person has acquired the skills needed to decide why and how to use their imagination to introduce the non-existent future into the present.”
According to (Miller, 2018) there are “Two kinds of future / two different anticipatory systems” OR “At a teleological or purpose level” (Miller, 2018) … “humans can consciously use two basic kinds of future”:
“Being versus beings” distinction (Heidegger, 1962, cited in Miller, 2018) … there are different kinds of “explicit anticipation, specifically the difference between anticipation-for-the-future (AfF) versus anticipation-for-emergence (AfE).
anticipation for-the-future (AfF): “The ‘being’ of AfF is the future as a goal – a planned/desired future that people bet on.”
“AfF is the overwhelmingly prevalent form that the future takes when people use it in their everyday life. … These anticipatory capabilities are the foundation for everyday tasks, like preparing for rain by deciding to wear a raincoat or planning to sell phones by building the relevant kind of factory. ” (Miller, 2018)
“The ‘being’ of AfE is in a sense a non-future, … The future of AfE is one that is not a goal or target meant to structure the making of preparatory and planning bets. The later-than now imagined in AfE is a disposable construct, a throwaway non-goal that need not be constrained by probability or desirability.”
“Diversifying the ways in which the future is used, beyond the AfF’s planning and preparation, calls for the recognition of another kind of future – one that is distinct at an ontological level from AfF. As already noted, this other future is called here, in an initial terminological foray, anticipation-for-emergence (AfE). Although at first this kind of future may seem quite strange, AfE is not about the future as a goal or instrument for getting to some future – any future. Rather AfE is a use of the future to sense and make sense of aspects of the present, particularly novelty, which tends to be obscured by AfF.” (Miller, 2018)
“The key feature that distinguishes these two forms of anticipation … is the extent to which the imaginary futures are constrained or unconstrained by the imperatives of probability and desirability.”(Miller, 2018)
“The ontological side of conscious anticipation (DoA) is divided into three categories for defining what kind of future or the nature of the subject of the AS humans use when they are consciously using-the-future”
“At a system level, there are two distinct categories: closed and semi-closed/semi-open.”
– “Closed system anticipation” – Anticipatory Assumptions limit the variables used to imagine the future. “The world is assumed to be ergodic, or not subject to changes in the conditions of change” (North 1999; Popper, 1990, cited in Miller, 2018). Assumption is that of “all other things being equal – or constant”.
– “Semi-closed/semi-open” – Here the Anticipatory assumptions accept that “the conditions of change may change and that novelty characterises emergent reality.” (Miller, 2018)
“In practice, … humans can only use a semi-open kind of future due to our inherent linguistic and cognitive limitations. … For now, the range from closed to ‘semi-open’ kind of future is all that conscious human anticipation can access.”
However, … non-conscious anticipatory systems, like those found in trees or single-celled organisms, “usethe-future” in a form which is not constrained by the parameters that define humanity’s capacity to imagine. Such non-conscious anticipation cannot distinguish between open and closed …”