Introduction
Many researchers agree that there is no future as there are many futures. This viewpoint is difficult to refute as the history of humanity has a variety of examples that support this opinion. People’s vision of the future also depends on their present and, vice versa, people’s present is shaped by their forecasts (Burns & McGrail 2012). Analysis of a picture created in the middle of the twentieth century may also be exemplary (Jacques of trades 2011). The picture depicts a city of the future as seen in the middle of the 20th century.
The standpoint of a woman of the 20th century
I asked my mother’s friend, Mary, to comment upon the picture. Mary’s analysis of the picture can be regarded as an illustration of the first Dator’s law of the future, i.e. any “useful statement” concerning the future should seem “ridiculous” (Markley 2012, p. 6). Mary recalls that such a picture could be in a science fiction book in the middle of the twentieth century and it was rather ridiculous to suppose that such a future was possible. Though, now she agrees that that future is possible as she knows that such metros as New York or Tokyo resemble the image depicted in the picture.
Mary has reconsidered her attitude towards the future and she can easily admit that the future that seemed “possible” is rather “plausible” (Voros 2003, p. 16). Mary has also changed her views on governance and possible ways to develop. Dator (2006) notes that prior to the nineteenth-century people could easily use patterns that had been developed earlier as there was little change in the society, but people of the twentieth century witnessed constant change and it was difficult to come up with proper ways for future generations.
The standpoint of a representative of the 21st century
I (being a representative of the 21st century) perceive the picture differently. I can say that for me, it is rather a preferable future which is quite easy to achieve in terms of technology, but quite difficult to have in terms of global trends (Voros 2003, p. 16). Slaughter (2004) claims that people of the 21st century tend to see the future society as dystopian. The picture in question represents a metro of the present day, but it is difficult to foresee what can happen. Alford, Keenihan, and McGrail (2012) also state that people cannot rely on the past as a possible pattern to use to make decisions. I cannot predict the development of the future society and I cannot think of the future of society as I tend to think about probable and possible futures. I also support somewhat dystopian futures suggested by Maavak (2012). I think such futures are possible as the present is full of turmoil and uncertainty.
Conclusion
It is possible to note that different generations see the future differently. For instance, people of the twentieth century saw the future whereas people tend to see futures these days.
Reference List
Alford, K, Keenihan, S & McGrail, S 2012, ‘The complex futures of emerging technologies: challenges and opportunities for science foresight and governance in Australia’, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 16 no. 4, pp. 67-86.
Burns, A & McGrail, S 2012, ‘Australia’s potential Internet futures: incasting alternatives using a new technology images framework’, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 16 no. 4, pp. 33-50.
Dator, JA 2006, Fairness, globalization, and public institutions: East Asia and beyond, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Jacques of all trades, 2011. Web.
Maavak, M 2012, ‘Class warfare, anarchy and the future society’, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 17 no. 2, pp. 15-36.
Markley, O 2012, ‘Imaginal visioning for prophetic foresight’, Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 17 no. 1, pp. 5-24.
Slaughter, R 2004, Futures beyond dystopia: creating social foresight, Routledge, New York.
Voros, J 2003, ‘A generic foresight process framework’, Foresight, vol. 5 no. 3, pp. 10-21.