A future worth having

Among the many ways contemporary societies discuss our shared future, one common theme centres on anticipated future developments in technology: let’s call it ‘techno-futurism’. This talk and imagery of a future society shaped by science and technology continues a practice which grew in popularity after World War Two, fueled by science fiction and the expansion of new technologies in fields such as television, computing, medicine, air travel, space flight and nuclear energy or weapons. Both utopian and dystopian predictions of a ‘technological future’ were popularised at the time and have continued since. In one example from early 2000, an episode of 60 Minutes on ‘The Future’ started out with earnest predictions of living twice as long, holidaying in space, and travelling to work in a flying car. Wow, sounds good, doesn’t it?

Is techno-futurism a benign form of speculation of interest only to technophiles or is it something more influential and potentially harmful than that? I want to argue for the latter position. To unpack and critique contemporary techno-futurism, its uses and effects I’ll briefly review some well-known forms of the genre and then consider ways in which they are both naïve and dangerous. I’ll then present a very different view and ambition for the future, based on my work on wellbeing, and explain why I think it is important.

So, what forms of techno-futurism are populating public consciousness today? Here are just some of the more common types, which overlap and intersect with each other in various ways.

Artificial intelligence in general terms refers to the (supposed) ability of computer systems to perform tasks that hitherto have required human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, decision-making or engaging in cogent conversations. ‘Generative’ AI refers to systems that can create ‘new’ content in mediums such as text, images, audio or video. AI chatbot systems provide people with simulated companions. The ‘optimistic’ techno-futurist story about AI, in broad terms, is about ‘intelligent’ systems supplanting human work and activity in multiple areas of our lives.

Precision medicine aims to use people’s genetic profiles, AI tools, and stem-cell therapies (among other things) to design ‘personalised’, individual-specific methods to anticipate and prevent disease, or to treat existing disease or injury. Techno-futurists claim that precision medicine techniques may soon be used to cure cancer and other diseases, restore damaged spinal cords, and alter the biological mechanisms of ageing, to extend lifespans far beyond the current limits.

Transhumanism is an intellectual movement combining several forms of techno-futurist claims to argue that in the future we can and should use AI and other technologies to overcome death and ageing, augment the functioning of our bodies or brains, and even ultimately merge ourselves (whatever that means) with technology as an AI consciousness or a conscious robot.

Space travel for humans is not new of course. Many people have gone into space, beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, and some few as far as the Moon. Vehicles without passengers have gone far further. Techno-futurist predictions have humans travelling in space to establish colonies on other planets, notably the Moon and Mars, or even going beyond the solar system.  

Transport has long been a subject of techno-futurism. Recent interactions predict whole transport systems based on self-driving cars or personal air vehicles.

Robotics is another, now well-established field. Techno-futurism predicts that robotic devices and autonomous, humanoid robots will increasingly ‘take over’ human activities such as farming, manufacturing, domestic duties, caring for children or the elderly, and fighting wars.

The internet of things (IoT) refers to objects or devices with embedded tech enabling them to gather information from their environment and share it on the internet. Techo-futurism predicts the rapid expansion of IoT technologies into areas such as healthcare, manufacturing and retail.

~

It is not my purpose here to judge whether the claims of techno-futurism are technically feasible. Rather I would say that these and other forms of techno-futurism create a language and imagery of what ‘the future’ could look like and imply benefits for human lives.  This language and imagery has a political function because it helps the corporatised global economy hide its many failings behind an illusion of genuine progress. Techno-futurism is also very far from harmless, manifesting several serious weaknesses as a way of thinking about our future, and obscuring urgent needs for more realistic and humanistic alternatives.

The equity problem lies in the high likelihood that, in a global capitalist economy, the supposed benefits of most if not all the technologies featuring in techno-futurist claims will only ever be available to the tiny minority of people who can afford them. The emerging business of space tourism for celebrities and billionaires is a case in point. Proponents of pipe dreams like a colony on Mars conveniently ignore the massive consumption of resources they would require, to the detriment of other needs.

The exaggeration problem is that all forms of techno-futurism describe products to be sold for profit and are therefore liable to marketing hype to attract investors or customers, or exaggerated claims from technophiles presenting quasi-fictional scenarios as imminent reality.

The inevitability problem is that techno-futurist claims often falsely represent the increasing infiltration of tech into our lives as an inevitability, inhibiting public debate about the effects of technologies or the choices individuals and societies can (in fact) make about them.

The wilful ignorance problem is that techno-futurist claims largely ignore a range of uncomfortable facts about the world as it is such as deep socioeconomic inequalities, climate change, rising rates of mental ill-health, social division and political extremism. Instead, they indulge the charming fantasy that the glossy technologized future will just unfold, unaffected by any of these less glamourous realities.

The harm problem is that at least some of the technologies involved in techno-futurism can and do cause harm to people and environments, such as in the impacts of social media on mental health, and the increasingly massive energy demands and climate impacts of data storage for AI systems. Also, it is certainly plausible to argue that predicted reductions in access to meaningful, skilled employment would undermine rather than promote wellbeing.

All these problems provide reasons to challenge techno-futurist assumptions that the realisation of their predictions will somehow be of benefit to our lives. Furthermore, importantly, the language and imagery of techno-futurism implies that this future is a natural and proper extension of our collective development as a species. In fact, for all the reasons noted above, the positive techno-futurist vision is profoundly naïve, and diverts attention away from far more basis issues affecting our future. In short, techno-futurism makes its sales pitch in a world where governments and corporations operate largely in ignorance of basic, well-established knowledge about human wellbeing and the conditions it requires to flourish. This wilful ignorance is played out every day in the unnecessary suffering of billions of people.

One core element of this ‘hidden’ story concerns the universal human vulnerability to stress, the ways social conditions cause chronic stress, and the multiple harmful impacts of this stress demand on psychological distress, mental ill-health, and damaging social behaviours. Seen with this understanding, modern societies are revealed, not as a successful enterprise on the cusp of new technological adventures, but as engines of social conditions causing high and increasing levels of mental ill-health, suicide, burn-out at work, family and domestic violence, and other social problems on an industrial scale.

Rather than enabling billionaires to live to 130 with precision medicine, the most pressing health needs of most human beings are about creating and delivering effective vaccines and new-generation antibiotics, and universal access to comprehensive primary health care. In sub-Saharan Africa, the average life expectancy is still only a little over 60 years.

On the flip side of knowledge of psychosocial stress, its causes, and many harms lies the potential to understand psychological wellbeing and the basic social conditions it needs to be realised. Surely, if government retain any vestige of common sense, it makes sense to understand these essential issues and deliver the highly cost-effective policies required to promote wellbeing for all, before we go chasing the rainbow unicorns of eternal life and colonies on Mars.

 A real future worth having is one where governments and communities work together to create the conditions where we can live healthy, thriving lives, in a sustainable harmony with the biosphere and planet which is our home. The knowledge of how to do this is already available and the methods needed are not complex or difficult. We just need the courage, wit and focus of attention to take up and use the tools we already know will work. If technologies can contribute to this human-centred future – and surely, they can – then that is all to the good.