Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe to: Monthly newsletter Daily news feed Blog feeds Twitter IEET Wiki



Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Should we bet on radical enhancement?

Why Asimov’s Three Laws Of Robotics Can’t Protect Us

Implantable Technology - Pros and Cons

Veridical Engagement and Radical Enhancement

How Positive Psychology/Thinking is Concealing some of the Real Causes of our Collective Suffering

The Next Captain America is YOU


ieet books

Between Ape and Artilect: Conversations with Pioneers of AGI and Other Transformative Technologies
Author
by Ben Goertzel ed.


comments

dobermanmac on 'The Next Captain America is YOU' (Apr 15, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'How Positive Psychology/Thinking is Concealing some of the Real Causes of our Collective Suffering' (Apr 15, 2014)

Dan_Werner on 'On parapsychology' (Apr 14, 2014)

dobermanmac on '21st Century: a brief trek through our technology-rich future' (Apr 14, 2014)

instamatic on 'The return to a metanarrative: a comeback to ideology' (Apr 14, 2014)

David Pearce on 'The Hedonistic Imperative vs The Abolitionist Project The Differences' (Apr 14, 2014)

Gear0Mentation on '21st Century: a brief trek through our technology-rich future' (Apr 13, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Technological Growth and Unemployment:  A Global Scenario Analysis

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears
Mar 27, 2014
(14432) Hits
(8) Comments

Future of love and sex: monogamy no longer the default, say experts
Mar 30, 2014
(11824) Hits
(3) Comments

Living for 1,000 years: an ‘out of this world’ future awaits us
Mar 17, 2014
(9152) Hits
(1) Comments

Quest for immortality spurs breakthroughs in human-machine merge
Apr 6, 2014
(5945) Hits
(1) Comments



IEET > Security > Eco-gov > Fellows > Jamais Cascio

Print Email permalink (0) Comments (3879) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Green Tomorrows: the Scenarios


Jamais Cascio
Jamais Cascio
Open the Future

Posted: Nov 25, 2007

Opportunity Green scenarios

The four boxes represent a variety of “response” scenarios, each embracing elements of the prevention, mitigation, and remediation approaches to solving the climate crisis.

Certain approaches may receive greater emphasis in a given scenario, but all three types of responses can be seen in each world. And while individual readers may find some scenarios more appealing than others, none of these stand out for me as indisputably “bad” response models.

The Drivers
The two critical uncertainties used as scenario axes aren’t meant to cover every possible force driving change; rather, they’re what I’ve come to see as issues that are fundamental to how the next few decades play out. It should be noted that the drivers are not particularly “green” in emphasis: this matrix structure can be used to think about different scenarios regarding (e.g.) nanotechnology, military developments, even social networks.

The first driver is

Who Makes the Rules?

, with end-points of Centralized and Distributed. This driver looks at the locus of authority regarding the subject (in this case, climate responses)—are outcomes dependent upon choices made by top-down, centralized leadership, or made by uncoordinated, distributed decision-making? Centralized doesn’t necessarily mean government; a world where a small number of wealthy individuals or corporations play key roles in shaping results would be just as “centralized” as one of state dominance. Similarly, distributed doesn’t necessarily mean collaborative; a world of competing actors with diverse agendas and little ability to exert decisive power is as distributed as one of bottom-up civil society movements.

Although my bias tends towards distributed/collaborative, top-down models are often better-able to respond quickly to rapid developments, and can also offer a more predictable environment for business and organizational planning.

The second driver is

How Do We Use Technology?

, with end-points of Precautionary and Proactionary. This driver looks not at the pace of technological change (something of a canonical scenario driver), but at our political and social approaches to the deployment of new tools and systems. The “precautionary principle” and “proactionary principle” concepts are related, but not identical: this driver is as interested in why we deploy our technology choices as it is in which technologies we choose. Precautionary scenarios can encompass worlds in which governments, academia and/or NGOs fully examine and evaluate new technologies before use, worlds in which customers increasingly demand technologies for prevention or amelioration of possible adverse events, and worlds in which legal liabilities and insurance requirements force slow and careful deployment of new technologies. Similarly, proactionary scenarios can encompass worlds in which developers can test and deploy any new systems meeting limited health and safety requirements, worlds in which customers (whether top-down or bottom-up) strongly favor improved capabilities over limited footprint, and worlds lacking clear mechanisms (legal, political, economic) for stopping deployment.

My bias here is towards a limited precautionary approach, but the need for rapid response may end up pushing towards a proactionary world.

The Scenarios
The combination of these two drivers give us four distinct worlds.

“Power Green”—Centralized and Proactionary

: a world where government and corporate entities tend to exert most authority, and where new technologies, systems and response models tend to be tried first and evaluated afterwards. This world is most conducive to geoengineering, but is also one in which we might see environmental militarization (i.e., the use of military power to enforce global environmental regulations) and aggressive government environmental controls. “Green Fascism” is one form of this scenario; “Geoengineering 101” from my Earth Day Essay is another.

“Functional Green”—Centralized and Precautionary

: a world in which top-down efforts emphasize regulation and mandates, while the deployment of new technologies emphasizes improving our capacities to limit disastrous results. Energy efficiency dominates here, along with economic and social innovations like tradable emissions quotas and re-imagined urban designs. The future as envisioned by Shellenberger and Nordhaus could be one form of this scenario; the future as envisioned by folks like Bill McDonough or Amory Lovins could be another. Arguably, this is the default scenario for Europe and Japan.

“We Green”—Distributed and Precautionary

: a world in which collaboration and bottom-up efforts prove decisive, and technological deployments emphasize strengthening local communities, enhancing communication, and improving transparency. This is a world of micro-models and open source platforms, “Earth Witness” environmental sousveillance and locavorous diets. Rainwater capture, energy networks, and carbon labeling all show up here. This world (along with a few elements from the “Functional Green” scenario) is the baseline “bright green” future.

“Hyper Green”—Distributed and Proactionary

: a world in which things get weird. Distributed decisions and ad-hoc collaboration dominate, largely in the development and deployment of potentially transformative technologies and models. This world embraces experimentation and iterated design, albeit not universally; this scenario is likely to include communities and nations that see themselves as disenfranchised and angry. Micro-models and open source platforms thrive here, too, but are as likely to be micro-ecosystem engineering and open source nanotechnology as micro-finance and open source architecture. States and large corporations aren’t gone, but find it increasingly hard to keep up. One form of this scenario would end with an open source guerilla movement getting its hands on a knowledge-enabled weapon of mass destruction; another form of this scenario is the “Teaching the World to Sing” story from my Earth Day Essay.

The Choice
Which scenario is most likely? It depends a bit on how fast the truly disastrous manifestations of climate change hit. Climate catastrophe happening earlier than currently projected would push towards the more proactionary worlds. It also depends a bit on whether governments and corporate leaders continue to lag community and activist groups in terms of willingness to embrace big changes to fight environmental risks. Centralized responses may end up being too little, too late if wide-spread bottom-up models take root.

Ultimately, which one of these scenarios comes to dominate depends on the choices we make today. We simply can’t go on pretending that we don’t have to deal with this problem for awhile yet, that “the market” or “the government” or “new technologies” will fix everything in time, that we aren’t responsible. The more we abandon our responsibilities, our agency, the more likely it is that the world that emerges will not pay attention to our interests. Acting now is no guarantee that we’ll get the world we want—but not acting is as close as you’ll get to a guarantee that we won’t.


Jamais Cascio is a Senior Fellow of the IEET, and a professional futurist. He writes the popular blog Open the Future.
Print Email permalink (0) Comments (3880) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Letter to Utopia, v1.0

Previous entry: A Menagerie of Longevity

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376