The_Ten_One_Ten_Perspective_How_a_Futuri

Prévia do material em texto

ACADEMIA Letters
The Ten-One-Ten Perspective: How a Futurist Can
Explain Wrenching Change
Tim Murphy
Introduction
Let me take you on a journey with a dismal beginning and a thoughtful ending. Starting with
Thomas Malthus, building upon the works of Ray Kurzweil, and finishing among professional
futurists, the idea is simple but the significance great.
Thomas Robert Malthus was a British economist and demographer in the late 1700’s who
could be considered an early futurist with his work in studying the relationship between pop-
ulations and food supply. He’s known as the father of what is known as ‘Malthusian Theory’.
Malthus’ theory is defined as:
- … that population tends to increase at a faster rate than its means of subsis-
tence and that unless it is checked by moral restraint or disaster (such as disease,
famine, or war) widespread poverty and degradation inevitably result..
“Malthusian.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Malthusian. Accessed 25 Dec. 2020.
Without going into any in-depth explanations of his work, Malthus was describing his
vision of the future where the human population would grow so large that the food supply
would reach an upper limit. After hitting this ceiling of a dwindling food supply, human
populations would sink into the worst of worlds where he describes the human future as:
Academia Letters, August 2021
Corresponding Author: Tim Murphy, zxmurphy@gmail.com
Citation: Murphy, T. (2021). The Ten-One-Ten Perspective: How a Futurist Can Explain Wrenching Change.
Academia Letters, Article 3306. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3306.
1
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
“Premature death, destruction, epidemics, pestilence, famine, extermination, war,
plague.” https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/ecology/population-growth-
and-regulation/v/thomas-malthus-and-population-growth
Malthus does not sound like the fun guy who would be a hit at a party anytime soon.
However, his work was a serious, significant, and scholarly look at large populations and nat-
ural resources. Malthus was credited by Charles Darwin in helping to explain Darwin’s own
theory of natural selection and survival. Malthus’ work was published before the Industrial
Revolution (1800’s) whose effects raised the doomsday ceiling he mentioned for resources
and human endeavor. Suffice it to say that if you were hanging out with Tommy Malthus, you
were one, glum individual.
Blast forward to our present day and you can see the same frame of thinking in almost all
of our human endeavors. Don’t believe me? Read the headlines:
• Robots are going to take over the world
• Skynet smiles down upon us
• Ethics involving synthetic organs, limbs, food, exoskeletons
• Smart bombs and killer missiles
• Scientists research the possibility of uploading a human consciousness to a computer
• Economic and environmental disaster awaits us in the future
Exponential Thinking
Ray Kurzweil is one of our pre-eminent futurists for the 21st century. He was cited by Bill
Gates as a “visionary thinker and futurist.” Kurzweil, although not the first, presents us with
another idea of futures change as an exponential force in our lives. Rather than a linear,
1,2,3,4… level of change, Kurzweil believes that change is doubling and rates of change are
doubling as well. Change according to Kurzweil is proceeding exponentially, 1,2,4,8,16,…
When we, as futurists try to describe a future of wrenching change under Malthusian
logic, we run the risk of scaring the bejeezus out of our clients, colleagues, and classmates.
The ‘Collapse Scenario’ has been around as long as mankind but we still ended up better than
our ancestors believed. Our safety conscious human brain also sees an exponential risk of
danger and doom. How can we describe significant, transitional, wrenching change without
scaring ourselves or anyone else?
Academia Letters, August 2021
Corresponding Author: Tim Murphy, zxmurphy@gmail.com
Citation: Murphy, T. (2021). The Ten-One-Ten Perspective: How a Futurist Can Explain Wrenching Change.
Academia Letters, Article 3306. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3306.
2
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
If we assume Kurzweil to be at least correct in assuming exponential change, we begin
the point of unease. Instead of considering for example, 10 possible outcomes, we would
now have to consider 100 possible outcomes (10 X 10 = 100). Explaining even 10% of our
outcomes is leading to information overload without even considering the rates of change.
Thomas Malthus was introducing these doomsday theories when the world population was
approximately 814 million. Move ahead 271 years, 814 million is more than double the USA
population alone but is less than ½ of one country – China.
Note: 10-1-10 are arbitrary numbers used to demonstrate scale.
Rather than looking at exponential futures that consist of doom and gloom, suppose we
look at futures as an aggregation of solutions to problems. This pattern of thinking has been
part of our history for centuries from “build-a-better-mousetrap” to “Yankee Ingenuity”. For
the sake of discussion, in our past, we’d have a singular theoretical problem; let us say, finding
a solution to thwart a disease, or design a creative outcome for a mechanical problem, or even
devise a new plan for an environmental issue. From the past forward to the present, we tended
to have multiple problems and a long time to find a singular solution.
For example, the Human Genome Project took 13 years to create the first map of the human
genome, which is said to contain 3.1 billion base pairs. Following Kurzweil’s exponential
thinking model, it would take half that time as we move forward, and then half that time
again. (https://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/index.shtml)
Academia Letters, August 2021
Corresponding Author: Tim Murphy, zxmurphy@gmail.com
Citation: Murphy, T. (2021). The Ten-One-Ten Perspective: How a Futurist Can Explain Wrenching Change.
Academia Letters, Article 3306. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3306.
3
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
Therefore, returning to the 10/1/10 Perspective, we have 10 problems where we discover
only one solution during a given time period; i.e., 10 problems / 1 solution. If we start to
branch out into plausible futures, instead of 1 solution amongst 10 problems, we’ll reach a
point where we have 10 solutions for every problem.
Academia Letters, August 2021
Corresponding Author: Tim Murphy, zxmurphy@gmail.com
Citation: Murphy, T. (2021). The Ten-One-Ten Perspective: How a Futurist Can Explain Wrenching Change.
Academia Letters, Article 3306. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3306.
4
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
If you’re thinking like a Malthusian, you’ll only see the 10 problems becoming 100 prob-
lems with no significant solutions in sight. However, imagine a world in which for every
problem you wish to solve, you will have ten plausible solutions. Imagine a surgeon having
ten techniques to resolve human biological discomfort. Or, a scientist having ten solutions to
desalinate water.
Potentially, we’ll have more solutions than we can manage. As futurists, it’s quite possi-
ble that we’ll spend more time discerning among 10 solutions rather than looking for more
problems. Realistically, our problems would also increase since we could rapidly apply our
solutions which frees up more time to look at more problems. Ergo, solutions.
The 10/1/10 Perspective could imply that some of our time would be diverted to present-
day solution ‘selections’ rather than future-day problems. As futurists and as professionals in
this field, we’ll need to reevaluate our own methods for developing multiple, plausible futures.
Looking at risk, we’ll need to look farther and faster than how we approach problem-
solutions in the present. If we concentrate on a 10/1/10 Perspective, we cancraft our efforts
and selling techniques on the endless possibilities contained in our futures rather than nagging
headaches of problems with no end.
Academia Letters, August 2021
Corresponding Author: Tim Murphy, zxmurphy@gmail.com
Citation: Murphy, T. (2021). The Ten-One-Ten Perspective: How a Futurist Can Explain Wrenching Change.
Academia Letters, Article 3306. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3306.
5
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0