Content uploaded by Aharon Hauptman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aharon Hauptman on Apr 03, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Surprising Scenarios. Imagination as a Dimension of
Foresight
Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
Abstract
This paper explores two ways to integrate more imagination into foresight studies:
through the use of wild cards and through the utilization of science fiction. Both
follow the principle of “What if…” and both are aimed at imagining surprising events
or developments. In both cases, thought experiment starts with an assumption – the
invented wild card or the novum of science fiction (element of difference to our real
world) and searches for possible implications. Foresight needs neither pure
daydreaming, nor incoherent fantasies, but – paradoxically – stringent,
methodologically controlled kinds of imagination. With this background, differences
and commonalities of science fiction and foresight are discussed. Whilst the science
fiction writer often indulges himself in an excess of imagination, futures studies often
lack it.
Two EU projects – IKNOW and FESTOS – are taken as examples for the
methodological integration of collective and individual imagination within foresight
processes. Putting wild cards or science fiction ideas into context implies to fathom
plausible social, political, economical, and cultural consequences, counter-intuitive
findings and surprises included.
Introduction
The future is a time fundamentally different to our age. Most efforts of futurists
are aimed at identifying and describing at least the main differences. Trends are of
some help, but as they follow the principle of “more of the same”, they are a kind
of prolongation of the present and do not enable us to grasp the real great tectonic
shifts that transform the present into the future. Some of these shifts can be
predicted in one way or another, but history tells us that there are always surprises.
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019
R. Peperhove et al., Envisioning Uncertain Futures
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25074-4_4
, Zukunft und Forschung 6,
50 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
One may even say like Herman Kahn that a surprise-free future would be the
biggest surprise of all.
This however poses a fundamental problem. How can we include
surprises into futures studies? It is obvious by definition that we cannot analyse
the real unknown unknowns, the things we do not know that we do not know. As
soon as we identify them and make them available for analysis they are no longer
totally unknown. The best we can do is to work with “proxies”, with invented,
simulated near-unknowns. They are within our reach. They can provide us with
some idea of what the future could be like, the weird “flavour” of things to come.
In an age of deep transformative shifts and high volatility in all spheres
of life, futurists have tried to tackle the problem of surprises and disruptive change
in different ways. Two of them are outlined in the following; the use of wild cards
and the utilization of science fiction. These two approaches have much in
common. They build on a voluntary detachment from the present and from
mainstream thinking: It could happen otherwise. They are both rooted in the
“What if…” principle. And both require a lot of imagination. At best, wild cards
and science fiction provide a good test bed for thought experiments.
It is commonly acknowledged that foresight needs imagination. But
imagination is a broad field, including all forms of wishful or fearful daydreaming
and of incoherent fantasies. It is obvious that not all forms of imagination are
suited to foresight processes. But what kind of imagination can contribute to
foresight? There is no easy approach to delimit the realms of “useful fantasy”. One
can pose only some requirements: Imagination in the service of foresight should
not be too narrow, and not without any focus, any borders. Counter-intuitive ideas
are highly welcome, but they should be sufficiently consistent, logically coherent.
On one hand, the resulting visions should be understandable by others, but on the
other hand one should not fall into the trap of watering the “freakish” visions down
for ease of communication.
Paradoxically, we need stringent fantasies, methodologically controlled
visions, reasoned irrationalities, counter-intuitive intuition.
Surprising Scenarios 51
Imagination in science fiction: “What if…”
Science fiction (SF) is one of the most successful and influential contemporary
genres. Quite generally, it shapes our images of science, technology and – last, but
not least – the future. As an integral part of post-modern culture, science fiction
has penetrated all fields of the media landscape: fiction, comic books, computer
games, movies, even plays and musicals. Science fiction themes and images
surface sometimes quite unexpectedly in everyday life, in TV commercials, video
clips, and technical shoptalk. For the public, technology is science fiction come
true. And for many scientists and engineers science fiction provides the imagery
of (or the inspiration for) their visions.
Despite a multitude of studies, science fiction still defies a simple,
commonly accepted definition. Ever since the term SF came into use during the
1930s there have been attempts to bring all its different currents and subgenres
into one formula.1 For our present aim it may suffice to follow Moskowitz, who
defined science fiction as a “... branch of fantasy identifiable by the fact that it
eases the ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ on the part of its readers by utilizing an
atmosphere of scientific credibility for its imaginative speculations in physical
science, space, time, social science, and philosophy.” (Moskowitz 1974, 11)
As long as the future is highly determined by the progress of science and
technology, science fiction is future fiction. Of course, it is never literature about
the future as it will be, but “futuristic” fiction in the sense that it gives its imagery
an exciting character combined with a touch of amazement. Science fiction in its
most original works (not the repetitive mainstream sci-fi trash) can prompt what
Darko Suvin (1979) calls “cognitive estrangement”; fantastic imagination in the
service of intellectual discovery, not as vehicle for escapism. However, one should
not mix up cognitive value with prediction. “What if...” does not aim at forecasts,
but at implications of a presupposed novum (element of difference to our real
world). SF, from this perspective, comes close to a kind of fictional technology
assessment. Or, as the SF writer Fred Pohl put it: “A good science fiction story
should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam.” (Lambourne et
al. 1990, 27)
1 Compare e.g. the entry on “Definitions of SF” in Clute & Nicholls (1993).
52 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
Figure 1: The Place of Science Fiction (Steinmüller 2010, 20)
The general principle of imaginative speculation in SF has often been described
as the “What if...” approach (comp. Steinmüller 2003). What if interstellar travel
or time travel were feasible? What if machines could be made more intelligent –
or more ethical – than human beings? What if a self-replicating nano-assembler
escapes from a laboratory? What if the internal combustion engine had never been
invented? In some rare cases, writers do not ask for implications but for
prerequisites, for reasons or causes: “How could this happen?” How could a
sustainable economy based mainly on renewable resources work? How could we
inform our distant descendants, perhaps living in a new medieval age, of the
hazards of nuclear waste deposits? Or, seen from a distant future: How was the
collapse of our civilization brought about? In any case, a lot of imagination is
needed to invent starting points full of potential, rich, fascinating settings, plots
with unexpected turns and, primarily, convincing characters.
Following these questions, SF can be understood as a kind of thought
experiment similar to thought experiments in science (Steinmüller 2003). The
experimenter – the writer – begins with a hypothesis and sets up initial conditions.
Following the inherent logics of these conditions (i.e. the plot) they derive some
results, perhaps surprising ones, as in pointed short stories with twisted or double
twisted endings. Use of imagination is as central to the fictional thought
experiment as to the scientific one, with the difference that the imagination of a
writer is not controlled by scientific, methodological constraints, but by aesthetic,
narrative principles. Characteristically, the writer does not look for the most
plausible outcome of the experiment but for the most striking, most dramatic, most
surprising. Perhaps the most profound reason why so many scientists feel attracted
to science fiction, is that – without the methodological restrictions of science – SF
opens up vast opportunities for a playful manipulation of scientific concepts, for
Fiction
Mimetic (“realistic”)
fiction
Non-mimetic
(“fantastic”) fiction
Fantasy, hor ror, weird
fiction Science Fiction
Adventure SF Cognition-related SF
Deviation from reality:
The “novum”
Legitimated by:
Science & technology
Surprising Scenarios 53
speculations on alternative laws of space and time, on more than two genders or
on changed sexual roles, on machine self-reproduction and last but not least on
cunningly devised political and sociological models.
Science fiction and foresight
Science fiction and futures studies anticipate the future in specific ways however
– and they are in some respects even complementary. As literature, science fiction
narrates stories in a pseudo-realistic setting, a detailed, complex world of the
future, with people acting in it, heroes and villains. Everyday human needs and
behaviour patterns along with emotional aspects play a fundamental role, and the
writer uses explicit or tacit value statements. Foresight, on the other hand, stays
mostly at a certain level of abstraction, details have only an illustrative function;
to be too specific makes a forecast less probable (except special cases of
quantitative trend extrapolations or forecasts focused on specific technical
developments), or burdens it with unnecessary additional hypotheses. Value
statements, if given at all, have to be transparent and explicit and not hidden in
attributes or perspectives.
Finally, science fiction writers are not bound by questions of technical (or
social) practicality and thus can be particularly vivid when depicting desires, goals
and concerns in their scenarios. One could even argue that science fiction writers
– because they take into account everyday human behaviour patterns and by way
of example include at least speculatively the options for abusing any given
technology – have a more correct (more complex!) perspective on people and
technology than some futurists. Naturally the great majority of science fiction does
not satisfy this ideal model.
54 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
Table 1: Comparing Science Fiction and Foresight
Science Fiction Foresight
Aim x Entertainment
x Intellectual stimulation
x Provide orientation for
action
Approach x Intuitive, creative (with
artistic methods of
fiction)
x According to scientific /
best practice methodology
(including creativity)
Guiding
questions
x What is imaginable?
x What are the most
striking, amazing,
disastrous implications?
x What is possible?
x What is likely?
x What is desirable?
x What are plausible
implications?
Challenges x Suspension of disbelief
x Inducing a “sense of
wonder”
x New convincing and
useful insights about the
future(s)
Criteria
for quality
x Originality
x Powerful, compelling
visions
x Style, dramatic quality
x Convincing characters
x Plausibility, logical
coherence
x Realism
x Methodological
transparency (e. g. with
respect to value
statements)
Success
criteria
x Readers' pleasure /
satisfaction
x Sales
x Client's satisfaction
x Usefulness in making
better decisions
Both kinds of anticipation – SF as well as foresight – possess certain
disadvantages. SF writers do not intend to describe a future that a futurist would
regard as probable or plausible. They play with ideas. Frequently, SF writers
combine futuristic technology with traditional social models. Sometimes SF
becomes FS (“fictional science”), where imaginary inventions are inconsistent
with physical laws (e.g. faster-than-light travel) and only the atmosphere of
scientific credibility (prescribed in Moskovitz’s definition mentioned above)
prevents the story to be labelled as pure (non-scientific) fantasy. Sometimes the
quest for the spectacular leads to exaggerations that are almost absurd. And which
Surprising Scenarios 55
writer is not inclined to sacrifice scientific plausibility or even consistency for the
sake of a good story?
Foresight, on the other hand, often remains too abstract, shrinks back
from the specific item, the small detail, even in cases where details would be
helpful. Perhaps more importantly, most futurists feel obliged to stay within the
realm of the plausible and realistic. But narrow realism amounts to “presentism”,
to perpetuating present conditions, and plausibility often equals to nothing more
than consistency with shared images of the future, not to mention preconceptions
and prejudices. While the SF writer indulges himself in an excess of imagination,
futures studies often lack it. In these cases, a slight touch of the science fiction
mentality could be helpful to foresight. It could help to overcome some of the
limitations of “presentism”, and it could even make foresight studies more tangible
– and therefore more realistic (in the sense of giving it a touch of literary realism)
by adding concrete details.
Livingston (1969, 1978), Gaßner (1992), Steinmüller (1995) and others
have repeatedly emphasised the value of science fiction, the “epistemological
genre par excellence” (Malmgren 1991, 172), for foresight. SF can be used
heuristically as a “mind opener” and source of inspiration, e.g. in the framework
of specific types of workshops. Short readings from a SF story or a sequence of a
SF movie transport the participants into the unknown land of the future; they can
help to overcome mental barriers, and to sensitise the participants to change and
to boost their imagination.
Sometimes SF is used as an indicator for social or cultural trends,
expression of fears of future catastrophes, possible technological or scientific
breakthroughs, or the impact of these breakthroughs on man and environment.
Seen in this way, SF is not only an inroad to popular expectations about the future,
but also a fragmented early warning system for the big transformations to come.
Cases of a systematic scanning of SF for foresight purposes are rare.
Within the EU project iKNOW (see below), lots of SF books have been screened
for interesting wild cards and weak signals (see below for definitions of these
terms), and SF writers have been invited to share their ideas in workshops. The
quality of items found in SF was not so different to wild cards and weak signals
derived from other sources.
Another example for this kind of utilisation of SF is the study “Innovative
Technologies from Science Fiction for Space Applications” (ESA 2002),
commissioned by the European Space Agency. This stocktaking included many
56 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
technical ideas from novel space suits and propulsion systems to space elevators,
terraforming, and asteroid mining. This study induced much debate between the
participating ESA experts and SF specialists. Even if one has to assume, that no
idea of the study has direct influence on ESA planning, one has to acknowledge
that a broad field for further research has been opened.
Perhaps the great problem, as the SF writer and futurist Arthur C. Clarke
held many years ago, is finding people who combine sound scientific knowledge
with “a really flexible imagination”. Clarke regarded the failure of imagination as
a major “hazard of prophecy”. Based on many examples of scientists who suffered
from such failure, Clarke concluded that “too great a burden of knowledge can
clog the wheels of imagination”. At the same time Clarke was confident that
although only a very small fraction of SF readers would count as “reliable
prophets”, “almost a hundred percent of reliable prophets will be SF readers – or
writers” (Clarke 1974, 14-15, 32). Today, one would of course replace “prophets”
with “futurists” and “technological visionaries”, but nevertheless Clarke hits the
point.
Quite generally, it is no easy task to identify weak signals, or hints to
future developments, in SF.2 SF encompasses a cornucopia of fascinating ideas –
but which ones can be seen as useful “weak signals”, as early indicators of possibly
approaching events? The main difficulty lies in the concept itself: Weak signals
cannot be taken at face value; they have to be interpreted, since they are not factors
of impact by themselves but (only) early indications, hints on an emerging trend
or a possible future wild card. Therefore, an idea taken from a piece of SF becomes
a weak signal only by the interpretation given to it, by making sense of it. Take
e.g. the “Beggar” novels by Nancy Kress.3 In this trilogy, a new kind (or species)
of human being has developed within mankind: the “sleepless”. We could interpret
this idea a) as a near satirical extrapolation of the present trend of shortening of
sleep, b) as the anticipation of the future evolution of man, c) as a criticism of the
increasing phenomenon of cognitive overload…
These examples prove that imagination can produce many compelling
and surprising items, but the value for foresight lies in their interpretation. Making
sense of fantasies however, is a tricky thing. Too easily one can fall into the trap
of an arbitrary attribution of meaning, driven by preconceived ideas, prejudices,
2 For more on the concept of weak signals see below.
3 “Beggars in Spain” (1992), “Beggars and Choosers” (1994), “Beggars Ride” (1996).
Surprising Scenarios 57
ideology. Who seeks inspiring ideas in SF, shall find. The question is: How to
filter out the really relevant portents of the future?
Wild cards: Imagining surprising events
The future is unpredictable. Even many aspects of the physical world governed by
the “exact” laws of physics are not practically predictable, either due to high
complexity or due to inherent fundamental uncertainty – as manifested by
quantum effects. Even more so when human whims and desires are involved.
Foresight must cope with the many potential outcomes of the complex interaction
between human decisions and the physical world, hence with alternative futures
rather than a “deterministic” one that cannot exist. In the past, many typical
foresight studies used a single method, either quantitative (e.g. trend extrapolation)
or qualitative (e.g. Delphi survey). But no single method can cope with the
complex situation of alternative futures with inherent uncertainties, which become
ever more severe and influential with the accelerated pace of interrelated
technological, societal and other changes. Therefore, in contemporary foresight
studies more effort is devoted, whenever possible, to using an appropriate mix of
different and complementary approaches and methods, which synergistically may
better cope with the inherent uncertainties and disruptions. In particular,
experience shows that the reality is very likely to surprise us, time and again, even
when good foresight studies are available on the relevant subject matter. Decision
makers need foresight studies that challenge their conventional thinking and force
them to think “out of the box” (Steinmüller 2007). Therefore, naturally foresight
itself needs systematic “out of the box” thinking, and it is very important to
challenge the “conventional wisdom” and the basic assumptions on which
forecasts or scenarios are based. This is where the idea of wild cards and weak
signals comes in (comp. Mendonça et al. 2004; Hiltunen 2006, 2010).
Wild cards are potential future events with low likelihood of occurrence
(at least as currently perceived by most people) but with high impact if they occur
(Petersen & Steinmüller, 2009).4 Weak signals are slight changes in the current
4 Wild Cards should not be confused with Nassim Taleb’s Black Swans, “unknown unknowns”,
unprecedented events that never have been on any mental map till they occur and that therefore surprise
everybody (Taleb 2007).
58 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
state of affairs or in existing trends that – if observed and correctly interpreted –
may hint at potential wild cards (more on weak signals later).
The concept of wild cards was first introduced in 1992 by BIPE Conseil
(France), the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies (Denmark) and the Institute
for the Future (USA), and at that time it focused mainly on the business arena
(BIPE et al. 1992). Petersen (1997, 2000) later extended the concept to other areas.
Today it is understood that the impact of a certain wild card can be on the society
at large, on some segments of it (e.g. certain country, region or age group) or on a
particular system (e.g. air transportation). Wild cards may result from different
processes or incidents, broadly divided into “planned events” (often with
unplanned consequences) such as technological breakthroughs resulting from
R&D, and “unplanned events” (e.g. natural disasters). Because wild cards have by
definition a low likelihood of occurrence, they are surprising events when they
happen. And because they have high impact, the surprise is a major one. But this
does not necessarily mean that every wild card is a surprise for all people. The
level of surprise can be subjective. Certain events may be surprising for many
people but not for experts who envisioned them (and certainly not for people who
planned them, in the case of “planned events”).
Wild cards are the ultimate challenge to “business as usual” scenarios
(and even to “business as not so usual” scenarios). Many past foresight studies
tended to focus on the most likely possible futures. This is hardly the best way to
anticipate strategic surprises, although experience shows that unexpected events
always happen and surprise decision makers (and all of us). Major surprises are
often caused simply by denial (which in turn may be the cause of neglecting and
missing relevant weak signals). Denial is a powerful psychological self-defense
mechanism that usually protects us against things offending our self-image, but
makes us at the same time more vulnerable by distorting our perception. Schwartz
and Randall (2007) stress the importance of using imaginative “unlikely”
scenarios to counter this effect:
“There is a tendency to deny strategic surprises altogether […] Denial is
a powerful form of cognitive bias found in organizations of all sizes […]. Denial
can stifle creativity and make companies and nations susceptible to strategic
surprise [...] Because denial is such a strong influence, one of the most important
steps in constructing an imaginative and systematic analysis of the future involves
making the analysis believable. […] Well-crafted scenarios can help organizations
that suffer from denial about future change to rehearse it in advance […] Scenarios
encourage management to ‘think the unthinkable’, anticipate surprises and try out
new possibilities…” (Schwartz & Randall, 2007, 103)
Surprising Scenarios 59
We may conclude that in order to enrich the outcomes of foresight studies
and to strengthen their effectiveness, there is a pressing need not only to strive for
consensus amongst experts (as is usually done in Delphi surveys where
controversial opinions, far from the mainstream group response, are often
intentionally disregarded) but on the contrary – to pay attention to non-consensual
views. Such views may themselves be regarded as important weak signals that
may hint at surprises unforeseen by the mainstream expert opinion. In other words,
there is “epistemological need for integrating disruptive ideas – to come away
from the prevalent mode of constructing consensual futures” (Schaper-Rinkel
2011).
Although the likelihood of occurrence of any particular wild card is low,
it can be asserted that in the long run, our future will be largely shaped by wild
cards. Why? Because as we look farther into the future, the number of potential
wild cards rises, with each year new ones are added to the existing ones, and the
probability that some will occur increases and becomes significant (Steinmüller &
Steinmüller, 2004) despite the low probability of any single wild card. So the
elicitation of potential wild cards as part of a foresight study is not just an
interesting intellectual exercise in imaginative thinking, but may prove as an
essential means for preparedness to critical future surprises. As an occurrence of
a wild card has a very high or even critical impact on specific
systems/stakeholders, organisations are usually especially vulnerable to wild
cards. Paying special attention to wild cards in foresight/scenario studies
undertaken by these organisations could alleviate this vulnerability.
At this point one may wonder if from a practical point of view the
“imagining” of wild cards is really useful for decision makers (after all, this is the
ultimate success criterion for any foresight method or study). A creative team (or
an imaginative individual) can “invent” a large number of plausible wild cards,
but given limited resources it will be impossible to be prepared for all of them –
even if it is almost sure that one or more will occur. But by definition we cannot
know which one(s)…
There is no easy definite answer, but there are two directions that may be
followed. One is the appropriate assessment and prioritisation of wild cards, based
on suitable criteria. Petersen suggested a method for assessment and prioritisation
called the ”Arlington Impact Index” (Petersen 1997). This index is composed of
the following seven “impact factors”, which can be given numerical values based
on experts’ judgment: Timing (near, medium or far future); Reach (local, regional,
national, global); Vulnerability level; Certainty of outcome (higher uncertainty
implies greater impact); Opposition (ranging from strong opposition to the
60 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
outcomes to strong support); Rate of resulting change (days, months, years,
decades…) and Power (how close to an individual’s essential being does the
change strike).
The composition of the impact index and the characteristics of its
components, namely the particular impact factors, are not written in stone;
variations of them or other methods of assessment can be adopted or developed
for specific foresight studies. For example, within the EU project RACE2050
several transportation-related wild cards were assessed in an online expert survey,
in terms of likelihood, impact on different industry segments, breadth of the effect,
importance for decision makers, and more. Additional insights were obtained by
linking the wild cards assessment to a classical SWOT analysis (Hauptman, Hoppe
& Raban, 2015).
A second important direction is making use of weak signals. Weak
signals are “precursor events” or “early warnings” that may hint at a growing
likelihood of occurrence of a certain wild card. The weak signals may be unclear
or ambiguous, but they may become clearer in time (if monitored) or stronger,
perhaps in combination with other signals. Searching for weak signals, finding the
relevant ones and interpreting them are challenging tasks and an important subject
of research in the Foresight field in recent years (Hiltunen, 2006, 2010; Ilmola &
Kuusi, 2006; Holopainen & Toivonen, 2012). Advances in this area are still
needed, in order to increase the usefulness of the wild cards concept for decision
makers.
Example: The Project “iKNOW”
The growing international interest in wild cards and weak signals has been
reflected for example by the project “iKNOW” funded by the European
Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technology
Development (FP7)5 during 2008 to 2011. iKNOW was probably the first
publicly-funded international project that entirely focused on wild cards and weak
signals. The rationale behind iKNOW was that many important issues may have
remained “below the radar” of policy makers and so far have received no (or too
little) attention in forward-looking activities, because of perceived low likelihood
(or denial?). Therefore, the research team of iKNOW (with the help of a large
5 Full name: “Interconnecting knowledge for the early identification of issues, events and developments
(e.g. wild cards and associated weak signals) shaping and shaking the future of science, technology
and innovation in the European Research Area”. For details see http://wiwe.iknowfutures.eu/iknow-
description.
Surprising Scenarios 61
number of experts) has elicited and collected a large quantity of wild cards and
weak signals (termed “WI-WE”) potentially shaping the future of science,
technology and innovation (STI) policy in Europe and worldwide. Main thematic
areas under consideration were health, agro-food and biotechnology, information
and communication technologies, nanotechnology and materials, energy,
environment, transport, social sciences and humanities, and space and security.
The iKNOW team developed a conceptual framework on how to identify and
classify WI-WEs and how to assess their potential impacts on STI policy. In order
to implement this framework, iKNOW developed several elements that can be
found on the iKNOW website, such as iScan (for monitoring and searching WI-
WEs) and iDelphi (to assess and prioritize WI-WEs). From a large collection of
more than a thousand WI-WEs (available on the project’s website and still
growing at the time of writing of this chapter), a sample of 60 wild cards and 60
weak signals were selected in the context of EU “Grand Challenges” like Energy
security and vulnerability, Work-life balance and mental health, or Globalisation
and localisation. The selected WI-WEs were described in detail and were assessed
by means of the iDelphi online expert survey incorporated into the iKNOW
website.
It is instructive to elaborate on the assessment approach adopted in
iKNOW. In the assessment phase experts were asked to indicate what priority (on
a scale 1 to 5, from “none” to “critical”) should be given by policy makers to each
wild card in the short term (less than 10 years) and the long term, and what
importance the wild card would have for STI policy. Then, the experts assessed
the potential impact level of each wild card (on a scale 1 to 5) on the following
eight domains, in specific countries and in the European Union as a whole:
Physical infrastructure, virtual infrastructure, social welfare, economy, security,
policy & governance, environment & ecosystems, and STI systems. Furthermore,
the experts also evaluated the current level of preparedness of decision makers to
cope with each wild card. Finally, they selected the most relevant RTD strategies
for improving preparedness (from a given list of several strategies).
We briefly present here a few examples from the iKNOW collection of
wild cards. We chose examples that have some “science fiction flavour” (and were
probably partially inspired by SF, although weak signals possibly pointing to them
may be found in current “embryonic” research or in emerging trends).
“Invisibility spray” available in high street stores. An invisibility
spray is developed and the technology refined until it becomes available in most
retail outlets and is affordable to the general public. Initially, this is seen as fun,
62 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
however there are strong implications for security and the military as applications
for warfare are exploited.
Automatic learning through neuro-data transfer. Automatic neuro-
education is technologically possible but at a price - and therefore available only
to wealthy people (or those singled out by powerful institutions). Techniques are
developed for neuro-implants with cognitive targeting for subliminal learning.
Wealthier schools and colleges build virtual environment ‘learneries’ where ‘in-
house’ pupils and students can be kept in suspended animation, wired up to
intensive edutainment systems. There are benefits for educational attainment
levels, but at the cost of social mobility and segregation in EU society. There are
also growing concerns about the use of such facilities for “brainwashing” and
correcting unwanted behaviours, and about possible negative impacts on creativity
and divergent thinking.
Nano-lab inside your body. Chips and micro-robots are inserted into the
human body at birth, to monitor vital functions and inner conditions, prevent
diseases and heal the body if necessary throughout the person’s entire life. They
can communicate with a health centre and ask for medical intervention and
healing. People no longer need to visit the doctor. Healthcare is individualised and
cheap.
The lottery: the way to a perfect world. Reducing the population to a
sustainable level becomes a major objective in many people’s mind. This leads to
programmes of voluntary sacrifice in the name of saving the world. In the US, the
leading political party creates a lottery, the winners of which have the opportunity
to experience a period in their lives without worries, in which all desires are
satisfied. The price is a sweet death, by the injection of a drug, giving very pleasant
feelings of happiness. This helps to decrease the population and helps other
citizens to maintain greater prosperity. The benefits of the lottery diffuse and other
countries start to adopt similar methods, especially in overpopulated regions.
Nano dreams – more than a reality? Brain-computer interfaces are
created to manipulate dreams. Parts of society become addicted to this quest for
utopia, and false states of euphoria are created. Dream manipulation becomes a
priority for parts of society and reality is neglected. People spend less time
socialising as they are spending more time in the “dream world”. The population
decreases as there is limited opportunity to date, marry or have children.
Revolutionary space propulsion. New space propulsion technology
(not based on chemical rockets) enables a dramatic reduction in the cost per pound
Surprising Scenarios 63
payload to send a satellite into orbit or to propel a spacecraft to its destination in
space. This is achieved because the need to carry fuel with the rocket is eliminated.
Instead, the energy for propulsion is supplied from the ground (e.g. laser beams)
or from space (e.g. solar “wind” or “scooping” hydrogen molecules).
Algae pathogen suddenly destroys the new energy foundation of
humankind. Step by step all human kind becomes dependent on algae biofuel
production. Transportation relies almost entirely on algae biofuel, but heating and
electricity production rely heavily on it as well. Use of oil goes down. Suddenly,
a new type of airborne algae pathogen emerges and starts to spread around the
world. The new energy foundation of humankind is suddenly destroyed.
An important observation stemming from the iKNOW results is the
pronounced gap between the importance of wild cards and the preparedness of
policy makers (according to the judgment of experts). Evidently, in general the
preparedness of decision makers to wild cards is very low (in many cases non-
existent), even in cases where the importance of the wild card and in particular its
impact on STI policy is perceived as very high. This observation accentuates the
importance of raising awareness of the WI-WE approach amongst policy makers.
Example: FESTOS scenarios as an exercise in imagination
Similar to many SF stories, wild card scenarios are constructed according to the
“What if…” principle. The starting point is the wild card as the “novum” in
Suvin’s terminology (Suvin 1979). Like the plot of a story the scenario evolves on
the line of possible implications of the wild card, progressing from the near and
immediate reactions to the wild card all along the chain(s) of causes and effects to
far implications that become more and more hypothetical.
In the case of the FESTOS scenarios, it is more than some (perhaps
superficial) structural similarity. The FESTOS scenarios belong to the special type
of narrative scenarios, told – narrated – like a story, be it SF or not. In difference
to more abstract, descriptive scenarios they are formulated in a literary way, as
very short fiction about some protagonists, people or an organisation.
The starting point for the FESTOS scenarios6 was technology horizon
scanning: What technologies (with relevance for future security issues) are just
now in their first “embryonic“ stage of development? Which visions about their
6 For more about the FESTOS methodology see Peperhove pp. 189-204 in this volume. For more about
writing narrative scenarios see Gaßner & Steinmüller, pp. 37-48 in this volume.
64 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
potential uses and abuses are discussed in the scientific community? What are the
possible implications not yet discussed? Based on this scanning, three broad
categories of potential threats were observed: Disruption of certain applications,
increased accessibility to technologies that once were confined to the military
sector or to unique laboratories, and were prohibitively expensive, and surprising
malicious uses of new technologies that are being developed for benign, beneficial
purposes. For the FESTOS scenarios the project team decided to concentrate on
the third category, as a source of signals to wild cards on which the scenarios
would centre. Selected technologies were assessed by experts in terms of their
likely time of realisation, the easiness of their abuse (by terrorists or criminals),
their likelihood to actually pose a threat (in different future time-frames), the
severity of the threat involved, and which societal spheres would be most
threatened. The results enabled ranking the technologies by their so-called “abuse
potential” and “threat intensity” (Hauptman & Sharan, 2013). The combination of
relatively low likelihood with high severity (i.e. high impact) may signal potential
wild cards.
During a subsequent workshop, technology, security and foresight
experts were invited to share their ideas about specific technology areas. Special
attention was given to potential combinations of technology trends. As a case in
point, the internet of things could in combination with programmable matter and
molecular manufacturing give rise not only to a revolution in manufacturing but
also in the use of “intelligent”, “nano-enabled” everyday objects. Such
sophisticated future objects could be capable of self-healing and self-
reconfiguration or automated recycling; they could receive a remote upgrade etc.
But what if a virus or a malicious remote signal transforms self-healing into self-
destruction?
This wild card “Disassembling of nano-enabled products by remote
signal” was the basic technological idea that finally led to the scenario “At the flea
market” (see Steinmüller, pp. 222-228 in this volume). During the workshop, in a
breakout session called “security café”, one of the participants mentioned that
“nano-enabled” products could be sold on the black market. In the beginning, this
was not much more than a word in a discussion. But after the workshop, when the
FESTOS team reviewed the results, this idea gained momentum. At this stage, the
main question was: How to expose all the technological ideas and security issues
in one plausible and convincing storyline, that allows an integration of all the
content and also provides a plot that everybody may understand and follow? Not
a black market, but a flea market with old “pre-nano” things that did not fall victim
Surprising Scenarios 65
to the virus, turned out to be the right setting. Still the protagonists, their motives
and their interactions within an overarching plot had to be invented…
Science fictions stories of the “idea as hero” type are constructed this
way, around a central idea. According to the “What if…” principle, a broad variety
of possible consequences of central ideas had to be fathomed – in much more depth
than is possible in a workshop. Thus, the creativity of the workshop participants
and their specific knowledge as a precondition to stay within a reasonable frame
is combined with the imagination and the narrative skills of the scenario writer(s).
The fictional style in itself has many advantages. It is not only very well
suited to communication, it forces the scenario writers to be the utmost realistic
with all the small items needed to create an atmosphere of credibility around the
setting, the protagonists – the flea market has to come to life. The writers are forced
to think about the characters they introduce, about their wishes and fears, how they
use (nano-enabled or “old-style”) technology, about everyday life in the assumed
future: What occupations should they follow? How do they earn their living (if
they do)?
Putting the wild card (nano-enabled products go “to dust and ashes”7)
into context implies fathoming plausible social, political, economical, and cultural
consequences, counter-intuitive findings and surprises included. In a way, the
imagination of the futurist who derived the main features of the scenario is
complemented at this point by the artistic imagination of the writer who does not
only fill in the details but brings in the human aspect. And last but not least, the
writer always aims at making the story compelling, with tension and suspense, a
forceful beginning, a dramatic middle part, a surprising, maybe twisted ending. Of
course, futurists are not necessarily born fiction writers, and not all narrative
scenarios are built on a dramatic conflict; some are told in the way of old utopias
and only lead their readers from one station to another, at best ending with a little
smile.
Imagination, however, can go astray. There is always the danger to invent
much more than is needed for the narrative scenario, to embellish it with
arabesques that do not contribute to the subject but distract the reader. Imagination,
moreover, can betray you; it can – in a well-hidden manner – introduce implicit
value statements, not to speak of prejudices. One has to be careful with metaphors,
7 “To Dust and Ashes” was first discussed as a title for the scenario. It seemed too pathetic. Titles
should convey the main idea of the scenario, they should be easy to remember and provoke associations
focused on the topic of the scenario. Finding the right title for a scenario is sometimes very challenging.
66 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
with adjectives, embellishments of any kind. In our case, one should avoid
“denigrating” nano-enabled products…
Therefore, a narrative scenario that is based on a process with many
participants, who contributed their ideas, should go through some review process,
where a small editorial team or experts involved earlier in the process have a look
at the scenario. Such feedback is also needed to create ownership. In our
experience, feedback has to be handled with care. Too much feedback, in
particular with contradicting opinions, can either lead to endless review iterations
or even tear the scenario to pieces. If all ends well, the scenario will still bear the
handwriting of its author(s).
Conclusion
Foresight generates images of the future in a methodologically controlled way,
based on the best available knowledge of the realms of the possible. Creativity and
imagination are needed for several reasons: to overcome the myopia of
“presentism”, to integrate the human aspect into the image of the future and to
bring in some of the wild chances the future is fertile with. The very thinking of
such “unthinkable” wild cards may counter the natural tendency to deny major
disruptions/surprises. Whereas identified and forecasted trends narrow down the
scope of possible futures, wild cards (and weak signals hinting to them) broaden
it up and create new vistas. They are the harbingers of fundamental changes.
Without them foresight is almost blind to the future.
Imagination in foresight is a collective as well as an individual affair. It
springs up in team brainstorming and it is deepened in individual reflection,
perhaps a kind of “thought experiment” of “focused daydreaming” fiction writers
are proficient at. Imagination, seen this way, is an irreducible dimension of
foresight. However: It is quite certain that the future will surprise even the most
visionary futurist and the most imaginative science fiction writer.
Surprising Scenarios 67
References
BIPE Conseil, Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, Institute for the Future (1992). Wild Cards:
A Multinational Perspective. Palo Alto: Institute for the Future.
Clarke, A. C. (1974). Profiles of the Future. An inquiry into the limits of the possible. London:
Gollancz.
Clute, J. & Nicholls, P. (Eds.) (1993).The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. London: Orbit.
ESA (European Space Agency) (2002). Innovative Technologies from Science Fiction for Space
Applications. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division.
Hauptman, A. & Sharan, Y. (2013). Foresight of Evolving Security Threats Posed by Emerging
Technologies. Foresight: the journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy, 15 (5),
375-391.
Hauptman, A., Hoppe, M. and Raban, Y. (2015). Wild Cards in Transport. European Journal of
Futures Research, 3 (7), 1-24.
Hiltunen, E. (2010). Weak Signal in Organizational Futures Learning (Thesis). Aalto University
School of Economics.
Hiltunen, E. (2006). Was It a Wild Card or Just Our Blindness to Gradual Change? Journal of Futures
Studies, 11 (2), 61-74.
Holopainen M. & Toivonen, M. (2012). Weak Signals – Ansoff Today. Futures, 44 (3), 198-205.
Ilmola, L. & Kuusi, O. (2006). Filters of weak signals hinder foresight: monitoring weak signals
efficiently in corporate decision-making. Futures, 38 (8), 908-924.
Lambourne, R., Shallis, M. & Shortland, M. (1990). Close Encounters? Science and Science Fiction.
Bristol/New York: Institute of Physics Publishing.
Livingston, D. (1969). Science Fiction as a Source of Forecast Material. Futures, 1 (3), 232-238.
Livingston, D. (1978). The Utility of Science Fiction. In J. Fowles (Ed.). Handbook of Futures
Research (163 – 178). Westport/Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Malmgren, C. D. (1991). Worlds Apart. Narratology of Science Fiction. Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
68 Aharon Hauptman, Karlheinz Steinmüller
Mendonça, S., Pina e Cunha, M., Kaivo-oja, J. & Ruff, F. (2004). Wild cards, weak signals and
organisational improvisation. Futures, 36 (2), 201-218.
Moskowitz, S. (1974). Explorers of the Infinite. Shapers of Science Fiction. Westport/Conn.: Hyperion
Press.
Petersen, J. L. (1997). Out of the Blue, Wild Cards and Other Big Surprises. Washington: The
Arlington Institute. (Re-edition as Petersen, J. L. (2000). Out of the Blue, How to Anticipate
Big Future Surprises. Lanham: Madison Books.)
Petersen, J. L. & Steinmüller, K. (2009). Wild Cards. In J. C. Glenn (Ed.). Futures research
methodology. Version 3.0. Washington, D.C.: The Millennium Project (CD-Rom).
Schaper-Rinkel, P. (2011). Foresight. Presentation in “Framing Futures Studies: Science, Technology
and Global Challenges”. International Workshop, 19-21 July 2011. Available at:
www.futures-studies.rwth-aachen.de/engl_workshop.html
Schwartz, P. & Randall, D. (2007). Anticipating Strategic Surprises. In F. Fukuyama (Ed.). Blindside
- How to Anticipate Forcing Events and Wild Cards in Global Politics. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press.
Steinmüller, A & Steinmüller, K. (2004). Wild Cards. Wenn das Unwahrscheinliche eintritt. Hamburg:
Murmann.
Steinmüller, K. (2003). The uses and abuses of science fiction. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 28
(3), 175-178.
Steinmüller, K. (2010). Science Fiction: eine Quelle von Leitbildern für Innovationsprozesse und ein
Impulsgeber für Foresight. In K. Hauss, S. Ulrich & S. Hornbostel (Eds.). Foresight –
Between Science and Fiction (19-31). iFQ-Working Paper No. 7. Bonn: Institut für
Forschungsinformation und Qualitätssicherung.
Steinmüller, K. (2007). Thinking Out of the Box. Weak Signals and Wild Cards for European Regions.
Futura, 2/2007, 22-29.
Suvin, D. (1979). Metamorphoses of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre.
London/New Haven: Yale.
Taleb, N. (2008). The black swan. The impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguin.
