PROLOGUE
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Until we are able to travel out and back from Earth at speeds very close to light speed, we won’t be able to visit Earth at a “distant” future date. When we do this, we can’t return or inform others of our (one-way) “time travel” into the future.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Throughout their histories, humans have learned to process data to make approximate trend forecasts. The first forecasts were for the movements of the sun, moon, and fixed stars. The next landmark forecast was for the planets, with their retrograde intervals, giving a massive, premature boost to mathematical science.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Indigenous cultures were ingenious in forecasting when to plant and harvest, and to prepare for storms.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 More recently, we have witnessed the great improvement in forecasting weather; primarily the movement of existing weather systems. The origination of new weather systems (cyclogenesis) is much more difficult, limiting weather forecasting to a few days.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Forecasting climate change has become a controversial, but critical, challenge. Climate scientists use different models, each with different assumptions. The impact of climate change on Earth features is even more difficult, and many Earth Changes are happening quicker than were forecast. Our Earth’s “Surface” (lands, oceans, and atmospheres) is a hyper-complex system-of-systems-of-systems. We should be proud of our ability to forecast as we do. Those who criticize climate change forecasts, denying human causation, are simply ignorant of the process of forecasting.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 The severity and speed of catastrophic climate change is problematic; and very dependent on what humankind does. Catastrophe can come faster or slower, and globally or in regions. Our sun may go into a cooler/darker phase (as some have forecast), giving Earth more time. Given the uncertainty and the cost of failure to act, humankind should be conservative and prepare for the worst. All actions to avert catastrophic climate change will be positive, in of themselves. Significant climate change is happening now, and more is certain – even if we can’t accurately forecast the details.
OUR CHALLENGE
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Our challenge is radically different when we attempt to forecast changes in human systems. Economics is but a pseudo-science, with a long history of many grossly inaccurate forecasts. However, Economists are the Wizards of the Elites, who continually rewrite history to create the impression of the success of their magic.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Forecasting the growth/development of human persons, from birth to senility, is primarily biological (material) and accurate only statistically; and highly dependent on nurture and environments.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Forecasting human cognitive development is even more challenging; although there are a few landmarks, linked to the biological development of brains. However the diversity of cognitive developments is much vaster than the diversity of biological development; dependent on both diversity in nature and nurture, and their interaction.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 I am finally getting to compose on what I started this essay to explore. All before was prologue.
¶ 11
Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0
Today (2018)
we have the tech potentials
to create a new process of
FORECASTING the ALTERNATIVE FUTURE EMERGENCE
of
human Cognitive/Social-Cultural/Societal Systems.
¶ 12
Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0
The objectives of this “forecasting”
is not to “prepare” for these coming futures;
but to take NOW actions
to “select” (influence) the path/route
for our future EMERGENCE.
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Our human futures no longer need to be along deterministic trend lines. WE now have the potentially emergent competencies and knowledge to begin CREATIVE INTERVENTION on those trend lines – even to Up2Met beyond trends.
¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Our historical tales of creative intervention were mostly myths. Although personal insights were probably as creative as today, avenues for implementation were limited to the minor tweaking of trends.
¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 What is nu, and needed, is our ability for taking SYSTEMS of actions, NOW, with the specific intention to ENABLE a CHOICE to be made sometime in the future. It is not so much as what the choices would be, but that the choices could be made at “times in the future”.
¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 This calls for the creative design of future strategies/scenarios, based on different assumptions. Pre-selection of a “chosen” set of assumptions should be discouraged. [ I NOW “sense” that this technique is not new, but actually in partial practice in some narrow domains. ]
¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 This calls for consideration of attempted changes that were viewed as “impossible’ by everyone, in the established episteme.
One impossibility challenged: the majority of humankind can’t be quickly and radically “educated & organized”, “under the radar” of elites who would oppose such “uplift”.
One consequence of this epistemic limit is that the best minds and resources are devoted to changing Material Reality; while naive and resource starved efforts attempt positive changes in Human Reality (except power plays between elites). Also, needed changes in Material Reality (e.g., end climate threat) are impossible without fundamental change in Human Reality (having human systems willing to do what is needed).
¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0
0 Comments