Failure of Futurology

The general basis of futurology is to draw a straight line through some points, then extend the line. More sophisticated modellers draw their straight line on log-log paper. This doesn't work, because not all processes are linear. In fact, some processes are chaotic, and hence inherently unpredictable. And the sum of a predictable process and an unpredictable process is an unpredictable process.

A second weakness in futurology is the `closed world' problem: any model of the world will include some features and omit others. How can we tell if the omitted factors will change the result? One example of this comes from ``Megatrends'': although Naisbitt's third megatrend is the replacement of national markets by a global market, the only country outside the US that he mentions is Japan. This allows him to be blindsided by the impact of events elsewhere, such as the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the rise of militant Islam. For a more extreme example, note that the ``Limits to Growth'' model doesn't include the motion of comets in the Oort cloud, beyond Pluto. Yet such a motion might have consequences that would render all the model's conclusions invalid, such as a new comet appearing on a path intersecting the Earth's orbit.

A more down-to-earth example of this problem is given by David Suzuki. Models used for economic forecasting will include the environment as a sector in the economy, covering agriculture, fisheries, and mining. So losses in the `environment' sector could be compensated for by growth in, for example, the high-tech sector. But the reality is that all of human culture, including the economy, is included within the environment.

A third feature of futurology is the self-serving nature of its predictions. This is most evident in Alvin Toffler's `Future Shock', where a constant theme is the need for futurologists to be employed in increasing numbers throughout society. But when looking at the predictions of the Hudson Institute, too, it is useful to ask, ``Who's paying for this?'' The Institute is funded chiefly by large corporations which have a vested interest in establishing the conclusion that growth can proceed forever and that pollution is nothing to worry about.

Similarly, some of the trends Naisbitt describes in ``Megatrends'', such as the replacement of the welfare state by private, and hence profit-making, companies, were items in the political agendas of Reagan and the Bush dynasty in the US and Margaret Thatcher in the UK. However, Naisbitt does not present them as political choices, which would lead to the question, ``Do we want to go this way?'', but as naturally occurring processes, leading to the question, ``How can we profit from this process?''. In Naisbitt's more recent writings, such as ``Megatrends 2000'', he joins with Kahn, Simon and Lomborg to assure us that any concern for the effects of industrial development on the environment is misplaced.

Next: Conclusion

Up: The Future

John Jones 2003-11-25