Glen Hiemstra is a futurist whose writing I often enjoy. In his latest blog post he writes about a cognitive dissonance which I recognise myself.

In futurist terms, hell in political and life terms, climate-change is the biggest show in town. When respected scientists and the evidence of your own eyes starts to suggest we’re in for some huge Malthusian checks, poor people first, and that the systems supporting life on earth are under dire and immediate threat, it’s time for all to pay attention.

The conundrum which Hiemstra describes emerges from the following conflict:

On one side are those who believe that a technological breakthrough related to energy is needed, and that massive investment in said technologies along with life-style changes are vital to the survival of modern civilization. On the other side are those who believe that such a technology breakthrough is unlikely, or that it is too late for such a massive investment in a world where money is scarce and fossil fuels are expensive. Moving beyond that mental frame are those who believe that it is in fact so late that a significant breakdown in industrial civilization is coming and that even a massive die-off of humans is inevitable. Beyond such a wrenching change survivors will emerge into a new-old society that is both fugal and agrarian.

Cognitive Dissonance 

The evidence suggests that all of these paths are valid.

‘Good’ science speaks with one voice on the issue of imminent climate chaos, and it’s certainly true that society needs a transformation in how it values and uses energy. We must develop a low-carbon lifestyle in extremely short order or face societal doom. The shift requires a reimaging of most elements of life in the developed world: Where, how and how often we travel; the food we eat and its source; the dominance of meat in our diet; our sourcing of material goods from the East; moving from a consumer society to, well, something else. Business as usual is not an option. In many respects we’re past the point of no return and societies must simultaneously develop responses which manage the more painful expressions of climate chaos.

I share this view.

And yet. The world’s sharpest minds are working on fixing our energy problems, tapping into the abundance of renewable energy which is ours for the harvesting. Today it’s offshore wind-farming, geo-thermal, nuclear and wind power. Tomorrow we may see solar arrays in space or simply crack nuclear fusion and all put our feet up.

I also share this view.

So there’s the dissonance. At the risk of sounding trite, it may actually be that the dissonance arrives from a simplistic view of the world. Perhaps it’s more likely that the developed, rich world will discover the sustainable energy techno-utopia, then build walls around it. In this way they needn’t cast their eyes on the rest of the world, which will have been forcibly shoved back into an agrarian, or at least pre-industrial, society. Certainly such a scenario would be a continuation of our current model of globalization, which performs the next trick of lifting millions out of a centrally defined notion of poverty, while more noticeably increasing the gulf between rich and poor.

So that’s the conundrum, with apologies to Glen Hiemstra for the liberal helping of my own views which I have ladled on to his.

My Own Conundrum

Futurism as a discipline is relatively united in describing the major trends shaping the world. Climate change, the energy crisis, globalization, exponential technology development and so on. These are the things I write-about. In that sense, I’m a good futurist.

But futurism is horribly locked in a world of bland statements which hide the full horror of what they imply. I recently read ‘Futuring: The Exploration of the Future’ by Edward Cornish. It’s a great read with much to commend it, but it’s pronouncements on the likelihood of environmental devastation, mass extinction events and other catastrophes left me cold. To my mind, such possibilities demand change and a campaigning response. I do recognise that science and politics are not one, and that all super-trends need some form of dispassionate analysis, but I find it very tough to be a part of that.

Futurism can describe Malthusian checks. Human beings hear “human misery and death on a massive scale”. I can only really empathise with the latter. I regularly step over the line into politics, for example when I wrote an open letter to the G20 arguing for:

A new capitalism, resting on the twin pillars of social justice in the developing world (and elsewhere where it’s lacking) and climate responsibility in the developed world.

In this sense, I’m certainly a bad futurist.

I’m still learning. I spent several years writing about the future for a think-tank based in London, but have only been a full-time, independent futurist for around 18 months. Companies continue to employ me, but my future employability probably rests on my resolving this futurism versus campaigning conundrum I’ve fallen into.