Anticipation, Ambition, and Anxiety

Miller and Bennett (2008, 597) argue that “efforts to grapple with long-term societal implications of technological change must pursue a more balanced approach that stresses the social at least as much as the technical”. In other words, what they are saying is that we need a blend of technology and society in order to get a flavor of so-called socio-technology in anticipating the future of technology. Why do they want us to balance between society and technology? How do we achieve that goal?

Let me answer the first question of why it is necessary for a balanced focus in anticipating technological future. There are two groups of scientists—one needs to abide strictly to the ‘science fact’ while the other needs a balance between ‘science fact’ and ‘science fiction’. For Peterson (2006), she insists that it is necessary to strictly abide to the ‘science fact’ or physical law; whereas Miller and Bennett (2008) more favor a balanced act. They argue that mutual agreement of technology change is necessary for both public and scientists. To achieve mutual agreement, science-fiction approach would be one of the alternative approaches which has a quality of “narrative story-telling” style of communication. And this encourages public engagement and participation. However, I would argue that the narrative story-telling style of communication could be more useful in anticipation technological future if it is combined with effectively managing three elements—anticipation, ambition, and anxiety.

First, I would like to begin with ambition. Here ambition has two kinds—one from scientists and the other from public. Common goals are necessary in the anticipation process. When sharing common goals, they could engage in more discussion. Thus, I would like to encourage the two to clarify what ambitions they may have.

Second, anticipation of future technology needs a model with a set of assumptions. How precisely a model projects depends on how effectively assumptions are formulated and how they could closely reflect the reality of complex and dynamic human world. Liner assumptions and simplification of complexity contribute most of the residuals in the model results. Therefore, acknowledging uncertainty of the future, assumptions made must be agreed by both groups.

Third, Miller and Bennett (2008) referred to the public as “public in question”, but they lack a mention of what question the public may have. It is important, at the outset, to clearly specify the questions of public as well as the questions of the scientists. When they are known, then the story-telling would be a good approach to answer to those questions. This will kill any anxiety that may arise from both parties.

In conclusion, I would argue that technological future could be brighter, if we manage anticipation, ambition, and anxiety in an effective manner. However, saying is much easier than doing, and there are challenges that I anticipate in the anticipation of future technology.

Reference

Miller, C A, and Bennett, I. 2008. Thinking longer term about technology: is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures?. Science and Public Policy, 35, 8; 597-606

Peterson, Christine. 2006. Thinking longer term about technology. Lecture delivered at Arizona State University, 15 September 2006.