Cancel
Advanced Search
KEYWORDS
CATEGORY
AUTHOR
MONTH

Please click here to take a brief survey

Earth Day Voices: Jamais Cascio

Four Futures for the Earth
by Jamais Cascio

Never trust a futurist who only offers one vision of tomorrow.

We don't know what the future will hold, but we can try to tease out what it might. Scenarios, which combine a variety of important and uncertain drivers into a mix of different -- but plausible -- futures, offer a useful methodology for coming up with a diverse set of plausible tomorrows. Scenarios are not predictions, but examples, giving us a wind-tunnel to test out different strategies for managing large, complex problems.

And there really isn't a bigger or more complicated problem right now than the incipient climate disaster. Today, there seems to be two schools of thought regarding the best way to deal with global warming: the "act now" approach, demanding (in essence) that we change our behavior and the ways that our societies are structured, and do it as quickly as possible, or else we're boned; and the "techno-fix" approach, which says (in essence) don't worry, the nano/info/bio revolution that's just around the corner will save us. Generally, the Worldchanging approach is to emphasize the first, with a sprinkle of the second for flavor (and as backup).

The thing is, these are not mutually-exclusive propositions, and success or failure in one doesn't determine the chance of success or failure in the other. It's entirely possible that we will change our behavior/society/world (ahem), and also come up with fantastic new technologies; it's also possible that we'll stumble on both paths, neither fixing things in time nor getting our hands on the tools we could use to repair the worst damage.

To a futurist, a pair of distinct, largely independent variables just begs to be turned into a scenario matrix. So let's give in, and take a brief look a the four scenarios the combinations of these two paths create:

Dodging a Bullet

2037: It's amazing how fast we went from "is this real?" to "what can we do?" to "let's do it now." There was no silver bullet, no green leap forward, just a billion quiet decisions to act. People made better, smarter choices, and the headlong rush to disaster slowed; encouraged by this, we started to focus our investments and social energy into solving this problem, and eventually (but much faster than we'd dared hope!) the growth of atmospheric carbon stopped. There's still too much CO2 in the air, and we know we're going to be dealing with a warming climate for awhile still, but the human species actually managed to choose to avoid killing itself off.

This is a world in which civil society begins to focus on averting climate disaster as its primary, immediate task, even at the cost of some economic growth and general technological acceleration. Most governments and institutions curtail research and development without direct climate benefits, leading to a world of 2037 that's nowhere near as advanced as futurists and technology enthusiasts had expected. A succession of environmental disasters linked (in the public mind, at the very least) to global warming -- killing hundreds of thousands, and leaving tens of millions as refugees -- gave added impetus to a world-wide effort; by 2017, a clear majority of the world's population was willing to do anything necessary to avoid the environmental collapse that many scientists saw as nearly inevitable. One popular slogan for the climate campaign was "we could be the best, or we could be the last."

Teaching the World to Sing

02037: I stumbled across a memory archive from twenty years ago, before the emergence of the Chorus, and was shocked to see the Earth as it was. Oceans near death, climate system lurching towards collapse, overall energy flux just horribly out-of-balance. I can't believe the Earth actually survived that. I had assumed that the Chorus was responsible for repairing the planet, but no -- We told me that, even by 02017, the Earth's human populace was making the kind of substantive changes to how it lived necessary to avoid real disaster, and that 02017 was actually one of the first years of improvement! What the Chorus made possible was the planetary repair, although We says that this project still has many years left, in part because We had to fix some of We's own mistakes from the first few repair attempts. The Chorus actually seemed embarrassed when We told me that!

This is a world in which immediate efforts to make the social and behavioral changes necessary to avoid climate disaster make possible longer-term projects to apply powerful, transformative technologies (such as molecular manufacturing and cognitive augmentation) to the problem of stabilizing and, eventually, repairing the broken environment. It's not quite a Singularity, but is perhaps something nearly as strange: a world that has come to see few differences between human systems and natural/geophysical systems. "We are Gaia, too," the aging (but quite healthy) James Lovelock reminded us in 2023. And Gaia is us: billions of molecular-scale eco-sensors and intelligent simulations give the Earth itself an important voice in the global Chorus.

Geoengineering 101: Pass/Fail

2037: The Hephaestus 2 mission reported last week that it had managed to stabilize the wobble on the Mirror, but JustinNN.tv blurbed me a minute ago that New Tyndall Center is still showing temperature instabilities. According to Tyndall, that clinches it: we have another rogue at work. NATO ended the last one with extreme prejudice (as dramatized in last Summer's blockbuster, "Shutdown" -- I loved that Bruce Willis came out of retirement to play Gates), but this one's more subtle. My eyecrawl has some bluster from the SecGen now, saying that "this will not stand," blah blah blah. I just wish that these boy geniuses (and they're all guys, you ever notice that?) would put half as much time and effort into figuring out the Atlantic Seawall problem as they do these crazy-ass plans to fix the sky.

This is a world in which attempts to make the broad social and behavioral changes necessary to avoid climate disaster are generally too late and too limited, and the global environment starts to show early signs of collapse. The 2010s to early 2020s are characterized by millions of dead from extreme weather events, hundreds of millions of refugees, and a thousand or more coastal cities lost all over the globe. The continued trend of general technological acceleration gets diverted by 2020 into haphazard, massive projects to avert disaster. Few of these succeed -- serious climate problems hit too fast for the more responsible advocates of geoengineering to get beyond the "what if..." stage -- and the many that fail often do so in a spectacular (and legally actionable) fashion. Those that do work serve mainly to keep the Earth poised on the brink: bioengineered plants that consume enough extra CO2 and methane to keep the atmosphere stable; a very slow project to reduce the acidity of the oceans; and the Mirror, a thousands of miles in diameter solar shield at the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun, reducing incoming sunlight by 2% -- enough to start a gradual cooling trend.

Say Goodnight

2030-something. Late in the decade, I think. Living day-to-day makes it hard to keep track of the years. The new seasons don't help -- Stormy, Still Stormy, Hellaciously Stormy, and Blast Furnace -- and neither does the constant travel, north to the Nunavut Protectorate, if it's still around. I hear things are even worse in Europe, if you can believe that. I don't hear much about Asia anymore, but I suppose nobody does now. The Greenland icepack went sometime in the last few years, and I hear a rumor that Antarctica is starting to go now. Who knows? I still see occasional aircraft high overhead, but they mostly look like military planes, so don't get your hopes up: they're probably from somebody who thinks it's still worth it to fight over the remaining oil.

This is a world in which we don't adopt the changes we need, and technology-based fixes end up being too hard to implement in sufficient quantity and scale to make a real difference. Competition for the last bit of advantage (in economics, in security, in resources) accelerates the general collapse. Things fall apart; the center does not hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

Pick your future.

Jamais Cascio co-founded Worldchanging, and wrote over 1,900 articles for the site during his tenure. He now works as a foresight and futures specialist, serving as the Global Futures Strategist for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and a Research Affiliate for the Institute for the Future. His current online home is Open the Future.

Bookmark and Share


Comments

At the Dynamic Cities Project we've developed a similar scenario matrix to account for the range of futures that might unfold in reaction to climate change and peak oil.

In our framework the first axis is Early/Late Peak Oil, the second axis is 'proactive/reactive'. The futures that arise are:

Late Peak / Reactive: "Burnout"
Late Peak / Proactive: "Techno-Markets"
Early Peak / Reactive: "Collapse"
Early Peak / Proactive: "Lean Economy"

Anyone interested in this approach should download the "Our Future(s)" slideshow from the DCP website.


Posted by: Bryn Davidson on 22 Apr 07

"Never trust a futurist who only offers one vision of tomorrow."

Or two, for that matter. That's a sure sign they're trying to sell a cure-all.


Posted by: Stefan Jones on 22 Apr 07

My guess is that by 2500 we are going to have to have polar cities and towns in place in both polar regions for the survivors of humakind to live in for several thousands of years, to wait out the global winter of 2500 - 10,500 and then to later repopulate the Earth. If there is an earth to repopulate. see me blog here;
http://climatechange3000.blogspot.com


Posted by: danny bloom on 22 Apr 07

These are good alternatives and thought experiments, as are Dynamic Cities' but I wonder what time is the future?

Increasingly, the next decade timeframe is mentioned as the make or break. Given the usual time from cup to lip in our current industrial society, we can't change the installed basis of production and life (which is what we are talking about) in that short a period of time. The current vehicles on the street turn over in a decade or more. Replacing the majority of housing stock, is - what? - a multidecade process. Business as usual ain't gonna do it.

Especially if Peak Oil happened in December 2005 and the disappearance of the bees is a true indicator of current ecological stress. Perhaps the most useful tool now is backcasting all the way to today, this moment. Maybe there's no time for the future because now is all we have. What's the immediate possible small fix today that can fit in with the widest number of options for tomorrow?


Posted by: gmoke on 22 Apr 07

We need to act now AND use techno fixes. Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet so even the techno fixes require changing how we live. The issue really is whether we can act now to change how we live and apply the techno fixes in time.

One simple application of info technology to help change how we live that we have started is SocialWay http://www.socialway.com.

SocialWay is a website that enables sharing stuff for free. It allows lending, borrowing and giveaway. Use it to reduce global warming by turning your carbon footprint into your SocialWay Rootprint™. It is similar to the Product Service System idea proposed on WorldChanging a while ago.


Posted by: Nita Goyal on 22 Apr 07

It is already too late for make or break time. We passed the break time 40 years ago. We are in catch up mode now, too late to save CO2 spigot from overflow and eventual impact of Global Warming, (''Glo War'', some have dubbed it)...but it is not too late to start planning for the inevitable. What is it about humans that make us unable to see the real future coming our way. James got it right in the last part. We are done for. But polar cities might save some remnants of humankind, breeding pairs, as Lovelock calls them, and maybe we need to start really looking into polar cities NOW, while supplies and fuel are available to build them. We won't be here to enjoy them or live in them, but our descendants in the human genepool will be, or some of them at least. Why is NOBODY talking about this?


Posted by: Danny Bee on 23 Apr 07

Excellent post Jamais.

@Danny - Why is NOBODY talking about this?

There are whole tribes of energy and climate doomers out there talking about this sort of stuff (try any of the "Running On Empty" peak oil discussion groups for starters) - or Google "lifeboats peak oil" or similar.

(Personally I think its not too late and we could both fix the climate and replace oil and coal without any real suffering - it would require a fairly rapid turnover of our political leaderships though).


Posted by: Big Gav on 23 Apr 07

You pays your money and you takes your chances.
This little rabbit is putting his money on dodging the big mac truck, and hoping that the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) will have some useful spinoffs.(Like Space craft). Either that or powerball. Same chances. Gaia's last hope, the Cetations, did not pay off. This brand of inteligence looks like a looser too. So many planets have failed due to their sun's inevitable increase in output. They too developed inteligences in the vain hope that they might be able to save themselves by this method. Well, so long and thanks for all the fish.
Arthur


Posted by: Arthur Robey on 23 Apr 07

Arthur, gotta love ya for yr sense of humour! So long and thanks for all the fish, yes yes yes!


Posted by: danny bloom on 23 Apr 07

Big Gav, thanks for your notes. I will google now. Btw, do you know how to reach Tim Flannery there by email?

You wrote: "(Personally I think its not too late and we could both fix the climate and replace oil and coal without any real suffering - it would require a fairly rapid turnover of our political leaderships though)."

I HOPE it's not too late and that we can FIX everything, but it really looks like we missed the boat 40 years ago, and in all honesty, do you think the rich countries are gonna turn off their car engines to go to work, their SUVs for fun, the entire CO2 spigot, their air conditioners? I think the problem is that very few people are willing to give up their modern lifetstyles. But I think we must go back to almost the dark ages of technology and get by on foot and stay in local neighborhoods. I have not driven a car in 15 years, not flown in airplanes for 15 years. Never again. i use a bicycle to get around town. don't even own a computer. use email cafe.

but i share your optimism nevertheeless!



Posted by: danny bloom on 23 Apr 07

Excellent post! Nice to see Jamais back at WC. I hope we see a lot more articles from Jamais here...


Posted by: Just a Dude on 23 Apr 07

@Dan "do you know how to reach Tim Flannery there by email?"

Sorry - you might be able to get a letter through to him if you address it care of Macquarie University in Sydney though..


Posted by: Big Gav on 24 Apr 07

What about the possibility that climate / peak energy shifts will actually be net positive changes, since they will lead to the massive acceptance new forms of international governance with heavy social guarantees and public investments in research and infrastructure? (The end of "right wing politics" to be vulgar about it.)


Posted by: Christian Blood on 24 Apr 07



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO:

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:


MESSAGE (optional):


Search Worldchanging

Worldchanging Newsletter Get good news for a change —
Click here to sign up!


Worldchanging2.0


Website Design by Eben Design | Logo Design by Egg Hosting | Hosted by Amazon AWS | Problems with the site? Send email to tech /at/ worldchanging.com
©2012
Architecture for Humanity - all rights reserved except where otherwise indicated.

Find_us_on_facebook_badge.gif twitter-logo.jpg