Chapter 4 classified the significant changes on daily lifestyles (food, manufactured goods, mobility,
housing, work, education, leisure, health, and social connections and relationships) identified from
the expert survey.
that the category of things “social” includes and accounts for immediate human experience.
In short, our experience as persons, today or in 2050, is not dealt with at all. The closest the
study comes to persons is to talk of “people.” Of course, they are not the same.
c. The consensus that we face human-caused environmental catastrophe was acknowledged,
The core findings were that:
• People are going to be more isolated and individualised, due to multiple factors (p. 38).
• It appears that the changes of lifestyles domains are interlinked – when one domain changes,
it affects others. This implies that a lifestyle cannot be broken down into independent domains
completely and underscores the need for systemic thinking when transitioning towards more
sustainable living (p. 39).
but ignored for all intents and purposes. It is as if our lifestyles to 2050 are immune to societal
collapse or transformation. I understand that the First Enlightenment science that defines
and dominates our M/I cultures requires “scientific observers” to suppress their subjectivity.
But it is ludicrous to be unable to explore an adjacent future that may end all other futures.
d. The report stated and reinforces the belief that the best answers are given by “experts. This is
done without any hint that there are several good reasons and a growing literature that sets
Chapter 5 analysed sustainability from wellbeing and environmental footprint perspectives based on
a review of sustainable lifestyles literature. The report explained the shift to a literature review in this
way: Due to differing and contesting expert views on future lifestyles, this chapter provides the key
determining factors of wellbeing and environmental footprints - the basic elements of sustainable
lifestyles - and outlines discussion points to be considered (p. 41).
out why we should begin to withdraw our unvarnished trust in experts as defined by and in
our M/I cultures.
e. Yes, the report speaks of the desirability of a societal “transformation.” But there is no
indication that the use of this term is intended in a more profound way than the sense this
concept will be used today in 1,000 seminars, conferences and pep-rallies. On none of these
occasions is there any implication that our future must or will transcend our M/I cultures. As
This shift away from the survey to a literature review, for me, was disconcerting. Up to this point the
report had offered the findings of a survey and then suddenly morphed into a review essay on personal
wellbeing and our ecological footprint. 7 What is more, the changes for stakeholders – the third main
question of the survey – appear not to be reported on. This I found to be puzzling, especially since the
report simply reports on the data collected. It does not engage the data in any interpretive manner.
Therefore, there appears to be no good reason why the data of the third main question could not
be reported out. Differing and contested expert views are apparent in response to the first two main
questions. What was so different in the response to the third question that this shift in focus and style
was deemed to be required? No answer is offered.
My overall assessment of the report is this:
1. Because the report does not engage the data it collected, it adds no value beyond the data.
This is an opportunity missed especially in light of the fact that (a) the sample size is so small,
much of the data is ambiguous at best, and that (b) none of the ideas offered will be new to
any professional who is well-read and reasonably current. In this light, the absence of new
commentary and discussion becomes glaring.
2. As is the case with so much futures and foresight work 8 , the study appears to assume that the
21 st Century will almost certainly play out ways that extend our Modern/ Industrial (M/I) ways of
knowing, imagining, thinking things through and acting on our conclusions and commitments.
Consider that:
a. The authors appeared to be satisfied that the M/I categories with and by which we now
experience our world, ourselves, the other and our shared futures will be adequate to grasp
the realities of 2050 and are adequate to the work of co-creating a sustainable and humane
form of civilization. At least, there is no hint that this is not the case. In 2019, I expect better
from professionals in our field.
b. Even while the authors make an appeal for greater respect for “soft” subjective data, the
actual survey neither acknowledges nor makes space for such data. Only pre-set M/I
categories are offered. There is no invitation to reconceptualise human experience in other
than established M/I categories. There is not even a hint that any such re-imagination is
Moderns we want our cake and to eat it. We want both our Modernity to continue forever
and to be able to escape from its implications.
In short, the study represents a missed opportunity. It could still be redeemed by using its results as the
first step in a longer Delphi study. Or the incoherence of the responses could trigger an exploration of
just where we are in history that such incoherence has become the norm. Or…
I am left wondering just what it is that those who undertook the study learned from it. What did they
see and understand about our society and future lifestyles after the study had been completed that
they did not, or could not, see before?
I shall conclude this review on a positive note. Along the way the report made four interesting assertions
– assertions that, to my mind, appear to be well worth exploring. They speak to ambiguities in our work
as a field that are more often noted than explored and dealt with. None of these asides were defended
or explained in the report.
•
The end purpose of foresight is to enable us to work together to shape the future, even to co-
create it (p. 9, 49).
•
When compared to technology, “it is changes in our values and soft aspects of society… remain
lest understood. Yet it is these soft aspects that would be most consequential (p. 9).”
•
“However, in current futures studies, there is still insufficient understanding of such “soft”
aspects... what is missing are people-centric views focussing on daily living (p. 13).”
•
“The future can be co-created… (p. 11, 49).”
So far, all good.
What was missing in the study is the realization that in 2019 our future is far more precarious than is
officially understood, that we already stand on moving ground and that there is growing evidence that
suggests that almost everything we now think we know now about society and our lifestyles in 2050 is
moot. Think of Germans in 1910 and what they then thought they knew about their future to 1950.
required, desirable or would be welcomed. Finally, as is so common today, the study assumes
7 The reason stated for the choice of these two categories is that they are “the basic elements of sustainable lifestyles.” (p41)
8 I recognize that there is a slowly growing minority of professionals in the futures field whose understanding and
practise moves beyond the fences and limitations of Modern/Industrial ways of knowing and consciousness. I count
myself among them. I also recognize that as of today there is not yet a deep, pervasive and effective agreement
that the future of our field lies on this path. Nor is there a general commitment to make this happen.
52
HUMAN FUTURES
HUMAN FUTURES
53