There are three fundamental principles for the Prevail scenario:
1. The future is not predictable; uncertainty trumps technological determinism. Prediction is a fool’s errand. That’s why we need multiple scenarios to navigate the future.
2. Connectedness is crucial: “a gradual ramp of increased bridging of the interpersonal gap.” I share with Howard Rheingold the belief that our technologies can serve rather than substitute for fleshier connections. But I agree with Jaron Lanier that eternal vigilance is called for to assure that the design and execution of our social networking technologies not lead us astray toward bogus connectivity.
3. We can achieve social transcendence by expanding the radius of empathy, but not so far as to include all living things.
Let me expand especially on the third: Empathy is essential. And compassion. But Jaron Lanier is also right to hold out for the creativity of innovative individuals—artists, poets, scientists, musicians.
One of the most challenging aspects of the Prevail scenario lies in navigating the narrow pass between too much individualism on the one hand, and too much collectivism on the other. We tend to think in binary terms: A or non-A. But the Prevail scenario calls for a more complex path: Not the One of hyper-individualism, not the All of Communist collectivism, but the less precise Some of limited community.
The radius of empathy cannot extend into the infinite. You can’t “friend” billions. Nor can it contract to the precious self of solipsism and narcissism. Is there an ideal size to the Some of a thickly empathetic community? No. And that’s part of what makes this idea of “Not One, not All, but Some” so intractable and intellectually unsatisfying.
But, hey, that’s life. Some communities will contract too far toward the exclusivity of we precious few. That way lies tribalism. Some communities will seek such broad inclusivity that their specialness will be leveled out and homogenized. We’ll lurch from the too small Some to the too large Some and back again because there is no ideal number.
This is why Joel Garreau has to describe the Prevail scenario as a series of “fits and starts, hiccups and coughs, reverses and loops—not unlike the history we humans always have known.” Its trajectory will not follow a downward deterministic curve toward oblivion. Nor will it carve an ascending arc toward an asymptotic approach to the Singularity. Instead it will look rather more like a pubic hair.
Jay Oglivy is the author of “Creating Better Futures” and is one of the founders of the pioneering scenario-planning firm Global Business Network.
Some of limited community, Sum of limited community. I suppose it comes down to what is manageable for all of us. Recently, I busied myself with editing my “friends” on a well known social network. Somehow, I had managed to rack up close to three hundred; many of these were high school classmates. In looking at the list, what struck me was that some of these people were not especially kind to me when I was younger; why were they now “friends”? I also found that I was spending literally hours perusing what was really too much useless information.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Small talk really is the stuff of everyday life. This, though, was another matter altogether, so I undertook the fateful decision to unfriend many. The scissors of fate were unkind to many. Amazingly, I still have around two hundred and fifty “friends”, but this time, I chose people I truly wanted to hear from, and those with whom I really had something to say. While hearing the opposing views of others may be the right thing to do in some circles, the end result in my social circle was simply detrimental.
Hence, the Sum of limited community.
Great article.
Like:
1