Content uploaded by Riel Miller
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Riel Miller on Jan 28, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
FUTURES LITERACY
IN TRANSFORMATIVE
INNOVATION POLICY
REPORT OF THE FUTURES
LITERACY LABORATORY
2021
TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY CONSORTIUM
NORDIC MEMBERS
BUSINESS FINLAND THE RESEARCH COUNCIL OF NORWAY VINNOVA
Lisa Scordato, Per Koch and Riel Miller
1
Content
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2
Why Futures literacy? ....................................................................................................... 2
Structure ............................................................................................................................... 3
The reframing scenario ..................................................................................................... 4
Discussions from the breakout groups ................................................................................ 5
Conclusions ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Annex 1. Agenda .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Annex 2. Summary of discussions in breakout groups ...................................................... 13
Group 1 ........................................................................................................................... 13
Group 2 ........................................................................................................................... 16
Group 3 ........................................................................................................................... 19
Group 4 ........................................................................................................................... 21
Group 5 ........................................................................................................................... 24
Takeaways .......................................................................................................................... 10
2
Introduction
This brief summarises the main reflections and images which emerged from a Futures
Literacy Laboratory (FLL) on “Futures Literacy and Transformative Innovation Policy”,
held online during 1-2 November 2021.
The aim for the Lab was to mobilise the collective intelligence of a diverse group of
experts, researchers and practitioners with an interest in Transformative Innovation Policy
and to explore their different stories about the future of innovation. In the Lab the
participants made use of these stories to reflect on their preconceptions, social,
economic, environmental and technological drivers, paying attention to innovation
priorities in society in 2050.
The Lab was organised as Part II of the TIPC Nordic Learning event and with support of
the UNESCO Futures Literacy Unit, the Research Council of Norway and the Nordic
Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU). The Lab brought
together around 30 persons from across the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom and
Spain.
Why Futures Literacy?
The coronavirus pandemic, along with the reorientation of research and innovation policy
towards societal challenges, has prompted a need for anticipatory thinking and practices
in policy development. Policymakers are struggling to find ways to meet this reorientation
with appropriate measures and instruments. Prognoses and forecasting are useful tools,
but they are not good at predicting the unpredictable, and do not necessarily give rise to
the creativity and innovation required to find new ways of addressing the future.
The Futures Literacy philosophy and methodology can enrich this third-generation
reorientation of innovation policy learning, leadership and development by encouraging
us to question our implicit ideas about what the future will look like and should look like.
Policy is about transforming society in a more sustainable and just way, and increasing
future quality of life for all citizens. Futures Literacy helps us reflect on what that means,
by reframing our ideas about what this future might look like and identifying threats and
opportunities that stand in the way.
We start to experience ourselves as part of the problem, implicated in (re)producing
unsustainable sociotechnical systems and the belief systems that support them. In this
way, Futures Literacy encourages deep learning (or Second-Order Learning), helping us
to question our underlying assumptions, critically assess our own preferences and
experiment with alternatives.
All of this means that Futures Literacy is about predicting the future. It is rather about
imagining different futures in order to analyse and understand the preconceptions and
prejudices underpinning our
present
understanding of the past, present and future. By
freeing us from at least some limiting preconceptions, theories and narratives we open up
new venues, possibilities and roads to take.
About Futures Literacy Labs
Futures Literacy Laboratories (FLL) are innovative learning-by-doing processes, with a
proven track record from around the world, for achieving three outcomes:
3
First, participants start a learning voyage, becoming acquainted with the different reasons
and methods for imagining the future. As such, they become more futures literate.
Second, by exposing the assumptions that shape images of the future, participants in a
Lab are able to ask new questions about an important topic, like the future of wellbeing.
Such new questions - rethinking the nature of the problems and discovering the
boundaries that define inside-the-box thinking from outside-the-box - have direct
implications for policy, strategy and decision-makers.
Third, running FLLs provides detailed insights into the sources of what people imagine
and why, thereby enabling a better understanding of the origins of people’s fears and
hopes. Designing, facilitating and implementing FLLs also provides the organizers – called
designers - facilitators, and participants with an experience of designing and engaging in
a collective intelligence process that uses the future in different ways.
In practical terms, FLLs invite people to share what they know. Since no one knows the
future, everyone is equally ignorant. We all depend on our imaginations to invent images
of tomorrow. The lab involves plenary sessions and working together in smaller breakout
groups with peer facilitators who guide participants through the collective intelligence
knowledge creation process. Breakout sessions provide the opportunity to fully make use
of our ability to negotiate shared meaning. Building awareness of the sources of the
futures we imagine and the power of what we imagine for what we see and do. There are
no right or wrong answers. There is no one future, or one reason for imagining the future.
FLLs are action-learning experiences that invite participants to play with their images of
the future. By inventing, expressing, and testing their imaginations participants become
better able to use the future.
Structure
In this Lab the organisers used an adapted version of the UNESCO approach, arranging
a six-hours exercise spread over two days, as opposed to a 10-hours or more Lab
stretching over two or three days. Given the time limitations of a six-hour workshop (as
opposed to longer once) it was not possible to create coherent, unified scenarios from
the workshop. Nevertheless, the time spent was enough to bring forward several ideas,
observations and narratives about social, economic, environmental and cultural
processes, and to identify unexpected challenges and opportunities.
The 30 participants were invited based on their connection to the TIPC network. They
were researchers, experts, practitioners and Research Fellows from a large variety of
organisations: the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, the Centre for Digital Life Norway,
NIFU, the Research Council of Norway, SPRU, Vinnova, Lund University, the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Ingenio, UGlobe, Expo 2020, Business Finland, the
University of Stavanger and UNESCO.
In the workshop participants talked openly and anonymously about possible futures
within the framework of innovation priorities in 2050, in small breakout groups. In keeping
with the general design principles of FLL, the Lab was carried out in three main sessions,
proceeding with an introduction to the FLL approach followed by a plenary debate. Each
session lasted for approximately one hour each.
4
•
Session 1
: desirable scenarios: the participants were asked to think about and
present the future they desire/dream about, freeing themselves from the
boundaries set by realism. The aim was to reveal their visions for the future, their
dreams and ideals.
•
Session 2
: probable scenario. The participants were asked to describe what they
realistically believed would be the situation in the future. The aim was to map the
participants’ preconceptions and mental barriers.
•
Session 3
: Reframing scenario. The facilitators present an unexpected “counter-
scenario” that forced the participants to imagine an unexpected future. The aim
was to make the participants develop unexpected narratives which could help
them identify possibilities and challenges that are not normally seen in current
debates. The reframing was also to help them critically approach their given
understanding of the current social, political and cultural systems.
In each session, participants were divided into smaller groups of 5-6 people (including the
facilitator) and asked to describe the future in 2050 on Post-its (in Miro boards). The
participants were asked to bring out their own, personal reflections and not those
representing their respective organisations. The descriptions were given in the form of
citations, newspaper headlines, quotes, short stories, etc. The facilitator asked each of
the participants to present their reflections to the other group participants. which led to
discussions and reflections within the groups.
The peer-facilitators and selected rapporteurs from the groups brought up some critical
points for debate in the final plenary session.
The reframing scenario
The reframing scenario presented by Riel Miller contained the following main elements:
We wake up in 2050 or further and imagine a world that is thick with innovation but no
nation state, no universities, very few firms, no UN type multilateral organization, no
nation state of Earth bureaucracy, very little mass production, ideas are global,
production is local, monumentalism is over, lightness is legacy.
Unique creation – beyond supply and demand – assume that there has been a highly
transformative change in accounting systems to include human capital and NC – with a
massive change in power relationships. We have been moving from material and physical
capital to intangible capital and learning as value creation. There has been a change in
the ownership of the means of production.
Also worth noting that this means inheritance takes on a very different character – since if
human capital is the primary asset, it dies when you die, since it is your personal capacity
as a relational/social element of the community able to generate value. This alters the
conditions for entry, exit, birth, death – fluidity that can be impeded by fixed assets that
are so critical to the reproduction of power structures in current monumentalist,
immortality-fixated social orders.
Now – let’s push the virtual. This is not new but it is NOT about the tech – think of what
you were able to imagine about telepresence prior to the pandemic and now – think
about the difference between social orders where people bowed to nobles and today’s
5
follow on Twitter or Linkedin as a ‘nod’/handshake… it isn’t the tools, it is the
expectations, norms and rituals that create the relationships.
Pre-defined hierarchical social status is marginal – we see heterarchical equality.
Conflict isn’t gone but the manner in which values/ethics are operational changes – with
a shift to an experiential, learning-by-doing, wisdom society – this is one of the
components of the murmuration – which requires some major common/underlying
conditions to work… like the eyes and wings and reflexes of swallows in a murmuration.
The past is not used to justify the reproduction of the past. The future is not used to
justify the reproduction or continuity of the past. Difference and novelty fuel constant
transitional and diversification type perceptions/choices.
Change in the conditions of change alter the relationship between perception and
choice, between the capacity to seek, articulate and experiment with preferences
enabling difference to be something we take advantage of.
(In the following video Riel Miller presents the context of this part of the exercise as well
as the scenario itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WgvTfR7TLI )
Discussions from the breakout groups
Session 1: Desirable futures
Session 1 aims at revealing the participant’s exisiting dreams and values. This makes it
easier for them to relate possible future events and strategies up against what they really
want. Moreover, it also makes it easier to discuss possible changes in dreams and
objectives.
The discussions taking place in the groups did, as should be expected, reflect
contemporary issues, ideas, and challenges. Since much of the current discussions are
about societal and environmental challenges, the participants often presented futures
where these problems had been addressed and solved. Moreover, the solutions were
often presented as technical in nature, not social or cultural. This is also quite common
given that contemporary innovation policy discussions remain dominated by “technology
fix” approaches.
Many of the future snapshots presented were about nature and the environment.
Participants imagined worlds where the ocean health has been restored and is
sustainable. Unsustainable agriculture has been replaced by renewable agriculture. The
air is clean. Oceans are free of plastic.
“The Global North has shared sustainable solutions with the Global South rather than
building empires on top of them,” one participant added. The Nordics has become “one
county of innovators, diverse and united.”
These images from the future were enriched by developments that are relevant to both
nature and social settings. One envisaged a future where “Meal replacement products
6
reach $800 billion annual sales”. Others saw the end of the privately owned automobile.
Moreover, we have been able to transform whole systems, as in having a sustainable
food system. As one put it: “circularity as mandatory/dominating principle in society”.
The environmental perspectives were often connected to the problems associated with a
carbon-based economy and the use of fossil fuels. So renewable energy is the
“dominating source of energy, for heat and power”.
This also means that many imagined a world where the related governance challenge has
been solved. So, “Major political powers in the world are cooperating for the common
good/global challenges”. “We now know how to handle climate change; the world has
embarked on a global plan for action”.
The participants did not always discuss how this political change had taken place, but –
then again – they had not been asked to.
Some did address social, cultural and political challenges beyond the environmental
crises.
Some saw a world where democracy had been strengthened in the face of new
technological realities, and where inequality had been addressed. People were
encouraged to think about what kind of life they wanted to live. Humans have, for
instance, changed their preferences in production and consumption. Indeed, the 25th
annual Living with Less Award winner has been announced. Some went even further:
“There is a revolution of the self. Open minds, open hearts, open will have synchronised
to generate just futures.”
Others put innovation into a social system’s context, as in involving users and citizens. As
one put it: “Research shows that the transition towards demand-led innovation is the
reality.” Another imagined a world where pensioners are actively engaged in “social
solutions”. Some envisaged a decentralized future with an "amoeba" or “agile
development”. Not all measures have to be organized as traditional projects. Vouchers
can be given to citizens based on certain criteria. Crowdsourcing and participatory
innovation may play an important role.
The new approach to innovation is captured nicely on this Post-it note: “Human focused
innovation is now the dominant idea: meaning that innovation is focused first on human
skills, second on social relations and third on artifacts. We build new selves and new
communities as a priority!”
The new kind of innovation allows us to recognize diversity in ways of living, making it
more evident, one noted. Innovations are valued in relation to three dimensions:
economy, nature, society. Indeed, one argued that quality of life had replaced economic
growth as the main policy objective. Another dreamed about a world where innovation
takes into account both nature and humans.
One described the existence of a collaborative innovation program: “if you are doing
things collaboratively, trying to think of mechanisms that can follow over time, scaling up
things, how can you do it transparently, reporting on the development of the story,
development of the investment and transformation journeys.”
7
“Innovation captures the societal changes and future needs, rather than capturing
present problems,” one suggested. The concept of futures literacy is integrated in basic
as well as advanced education/training, said one. “Research(ers) are to a great extent
integrated in societal innovation,” the third suggested.
This broader, holistic, approach to innovation and the economy can also be reflected in
new ways of measuring innovation, one noted: “GDP includes, besides euros, also the
welfare of people and nature. This means that the measures of innovation are also
sustainable.”
It was interesting to note how the different groups ended up on different trajectories.
One group was dominated by ideas regarding how to fix environmental problems.
Another was more oriented towards ways of changing policies.
Session 2: Probable futures
When asked about what future they expected, the suggestions often became darker, but
not all of them. There is also a lot of optimism in this space of “realistic expectations”.
Some point to the role of social mobilisation for change.
Some believe transnational organisations have advanced on reconfiguring global
priorities, even if a stronger commitment from the leading nations is needed. “NGOs
collaborate on innovations that address all UN SDG goals 2070”.
Others even see a future where the nation state no longer plays the leading role, or where
political changes make action difficult (as in the loss of democracy in the US).
Indeed, some find salvation in technologies and the market: “Steady improvements of
clean energy production leads to fall in petroleum prices, which finally moves investors
out of that sector.” So clean energy is nearly free.
More people are becoming entrepreneurs, creating start-ups based on sustainable
business models.
Yet, there is also pessimism. One sees “Panic efforts to reduce GHGs including geo-
engineering”.
There are also tales about new ways of approaching the world. The circular economy
rules, one says. More than half of the world’s citizens adopt vegetarianism, another
explains. “Mass surveillance is broadly acceptable worldwide, democracy has a new
meaning (accepting ruling group rather than participating)”.
That being said, some notes also speak of a world where we have not managed to stop
the destruction of the existing ecosystems: “20th century simulators so everyone can
experience earth as it used to be.” Extinction is advancing at a mass scale harming the
most vulnerable, some argue.
Others report that “big capital is still fostering an unfair economic system”, and that the
largest tech companies grow even bigger. Indeed, according to some participants tech
companies have replaced universities as main actors in research and in knowledge
8
production and distribution. As one put it: “Corporations will make their role so important
to support innovation, becoming untouchable because so much depends on them. Very
strong corporations that will work to secure that advantage, no one can go against
them.” There are even those who think tech companies have replaced universities as
main actors in research and in knowledge production and distribution.
Still, there is always going to be a need for a national innovation funder/agency, one
adds, pointing to the need for regional actors. Another one adds that a “new role for
local governments is to facilitate and give the citizen a place in innovation.”
Agencies will present broader portfolios of smaller, experimental investments – “leading
into larger-scale investments more the norm”.
Policymaking is also governed by old power structures, as in the “hegemony of
neoclassical economists” stopping the implementation of a coordinated and future
oriented global innovation policy.
As for expected technological innovations, we find, for instance, “wwTN (worldwide
Television News in 3D) brought to you via holographic media.” Others are targeting
global challenges, as innovations that combat food and water scarcity, personalized
medicine and genomics, replacements for plastics, renewable and safe energy sources,
micro housing, safe synthetic food, human-enhancing medical centers. “Marginal cost of
sustainable energy is close to zero.”
Some innovations have had unintended consequences, as in driverless cars leading to an
increase in private car use.
Others look at the interaction between technology innovation and social change. “If
negative transformations happen, people will become more worried, especially in
countries that have experienced wellbeing in the past,” one participant writes. This will
change public opinion in wealthier countries.
“Universities and knowledge generation institutions are critical for the advance of the
2080 global agenda,” pointing to the role of science and technology when addressing
global challenges. “Innovation priorities are based on current needs and opportunities of
those who can afford them.” But this is not an uncomplicated process. Ethics is included
as a mandatory field to address in all R&I&D, another says.
Session 3: Reframed futures
Having listened to Riel Miller present his vision of a different world, called the knowledge
intensive society, the participants tried to imagine living in a world like he described.
This is a world for 'smart' people since they are the ones that can do more than brute
force solutions, one noted. The ability to play out and simulate possible consequences of
actions leads to a more calm and serene society (including a 'gap year', one added).
People are attuned to other people and nature in this world. Social exclusion is no longer
an issue, said some, as all are seen and valued. Gender equality is ensured. There is
colearning across generations. Empathy-training has become a key part of learning for
life. Everyone carries a responsibility of leadership and change making agency.
9
Indeed, some argued that there are no global challenges anymore, as they have all been
solved.
Some argued that we will now choose our families. We do not inherit them, as we will
choose communities that mirror our values and our way of living.
Development has moved into the cloud, in cyber form, and all experiment with 'digital
twins' and avatars. This will lead to parallel forms of leadership - those that emerge/are
selected in cyber groups and those that emerge/are selected in the physical world. Your
passport displays the name of your cyber guild or tribes, not the name of a nation state.
Some see automatic translations as a solution to the language barriers, others the global
adoption of Esperanto.
Food production is now sustainable. Everyone has started to grow their own food in
shared gardens, suggested one, and there is no industrialized food production. The only
weapons left are used for hunting.
Education is now a personal de-institutional journey framed around innovation. The open
source metaverse is the global university, publishing house and the main research hub.
Kids learn through online video games. Shared knowledge facilities are spread and
funded internationally. Open science is mainstream. Some imagine a world where
knowledge is uploaded into our brains.
Health is so integrated into everything we do that we do not even think about healthcare
anymore: “Few people/cyborgs even remember how the world was back in 2021 since it
has changed so much,” one explained.
Aesthetic is more important than ethics, one suggested. “We want to create ever more
beautiful things and activities.” Dance becomes an important metaphor for improvisation
and openness.
Intellectual property rights have been abolished. Everything is owned by the crowd.
Others pointed out, though, that those who were not able to adapt to a fluid and flexible
learning society might feel excluded. We need some direction, one pointed out, we ned
some process of collective agreement. If everything “becomes a flash mob”, where do
we stand?
Some argued that social dominance will not go away, and that self-defence remains an
important community function.
With the power of the state waning, companies might fill the vacuum, and that might lead
to some kind of oligarchy, one suggested. It was clear they did not see this as a positive
development.
In other words: Some felt that there are certain aspects of human nature that will not go
away and which may make even this kind of society oppressive in some ways. The key
would be to ensure that people feel safe, so that they could embrace such an open
society without fear. However, given this kind of openness, colearning and cocreation,
this kind of “benevolent anarchy” might lead to a creative and compassionate society.
Reflections
10
Takeaways
“Thinking from a position of the future helps us to interrogate the underlying assumptions
driving what we do in the present”.
“Innovation is about inclusive processes and mindsets - enabling as many as possible
making a difference - not products”.
“Issues of who has agency to shape the future are central and darker imaginations about
the future reflect current scepticism about coherence of international cooperation”
“If the world is going to be more equal, who/whom will give up something they have
today, like physical possessions, mindsets, earnings, power etc. What might be the value
or fear that would really drive this transition worldwide?”
“As for explaining the immediate practical needs. I find that many find that the practical
need for Futures Literacy becomes more obvious in a time of crisis, where the very crisis
proves that the existing paradigm and practices are not able to solve the problems we
are facing. So it is easier to explain the need for FL in innovation policy now, when we are
facing existential threats like climate change and fascism”
“This is a challenge, and we are trying to address some of this through developing a new
master’s degree looking at strategic design and leadership, where FL and FLL will play an
essential part.”
“It has been two valuable days in terms of understanding the complexity researchers and
innovators face in terms of creating a good future. Eye-opening for me”.
“I also noticed that focusing on anticipation pushes through a block that I normally
employ (without realising)”
“I liked to think about the future, not departing from the past, but from a generative
thinking that can lead to action to move forward in desired directions. In a sense that
mobilises energy at an individual level (you have to engage to move towards that
desirable future) and a feeling of community that is also seeking that direction (and
therefore decreases fear and anxiety)”
Comment: “That kind of cooperation and sense of community are key, I agree. But that
sense of community is also often the biggest barrier towards transformation and change,
because people identify with the past and seek comfort in the seeming predictability of
the past. So how do we give them that sense of comfort, while at the same time
encouraging them to think about a future where that community has changed
dramatically.”
Answer: “I see where you are coming from. It is tricky, indeed. A first thought would be
for me, that there are many ways to move towards desirable futures, but if we have
general agreements on direction and underlying values, we can converge as a
community...not in comfortable and smooth way, after all we are navigating uncertainty
and we will be changed through the process, and we humans don't really like that, but
history has shown that we can move towards desired directions, just like the starling
swarm...”
11
“I think also the feeling of’ vulnerability’ in imagining the future was made clear when we
were first assigned new, unfamiliar groups earlier today. To me, it showed the need for
safe spaces for these kind of mental exercises - but also how fast such a safe space can
be formed ”
“Agree, we need more of this. It is a very good session, I have learnt a lot”
12
Annex 1. Agenda
Time
Where
Activity
Comments
Day 1
10.00
CEST
Plenary
Warm-up
Warm-up exercise, introduction to the Lab context and aims, and to
the FL work at UNESCO
10.20
CEST
Breakout
groups
Introductions
Round table introduction with breakout group participants and
discussion of rapporteur roles
10.30
CEST
Breakout
groups
Session 1
Hope/
Preferable
Imagining we are in 2050! We invite participants to imagine hopes and
dreams for the future
. What are the
desirable innovation priorities
in
2050 - for us, for our close community, for society?
11.30
CEST
Lunch
break
12.00
CEST
Breakout
groups
Session 2
Probable
Back in 2050, we invite participants to reflect on probable innovation
priorities
in 2050. What do we think will be the most probable and
likely innovation priorities in 2050?
13.00
CEST
Plenary
Returning to 2021, we will wrap up Day 1 and introduce the
programme for Day 2.
Day 2
10.00 CEST
Plenary
Reporting
from the
breakout
groups
Welcome back to the future! Rapporteurs will present from the group
discussions in Sessions 1 and 2 on Day 1.
10.20
CEST
Plenary
Session 3
Scenario
intro
Returning to 2050, we will introduce the reframing scenario. Not
probable nor desirable, it is a scenario intended to challenge our
anticipatory assumptions. For the next phase of the Lab, we will stay
in this scenario and imagine societies, lives, traditions, based in this
new reality.
10.40
CEST
Breakout
groups
Session 3
We will recap the reframing and discuss ideas around how innovation
is organised within this scenario, addressing questions such as: What
strikes us most about this scenario? What surprises us?
11.30
CEST
Lunch
break
11.50
CEST
Plenary
Sessions 4
Plenary dedicated to reporting back from the groups on the reframing
scenario, with responses to the group discussions.
We will also reflect on the event, considering the step-by-step
methodology of the Futures Literacy Lab, and how it has impacted on
our own way of understanding the future.
13
Annex 2. Points made in the discussions in breakout
groups
Here are some of the ideas presented by the participants of this workshop. They are from
the notes they made in Miro. Think of these as virtual post it notes presenting snapshots
from the year 2050.
Group 1
A.
Desirable futures:
• Ocean health is restored and sustainable
• 23% of arable land certified as 'renewable agriculture'
• We are beathing clean air
• Breakthrough in carbon capture
• Breakthrough in understanding role of soil biology allowing big improvements in
carbon sequestration
• Meal replacement products reach $800 billion annual sales
• Carbon coin redistributes $1 trillion annually to global South
• We celebrate the 20th anniversary of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) extinction
• We have transformed our agricultural practices to become sustainable
• End of privately owned automobiles
• Children are growing up safely and without anxiety about the future
• Renewable energy is the dominating source of energy, for heat and power
• Rethinking value creation (alternatives to patents etc.)
• 40% of new clothing market made from recycled fibers
• Major political powers in the world are cooperating for the common good/global
challenges
• Strengthening democracy in the face of new technological realities + addressing
inequality
• Technology and science governance approaches use more careful implementation
of new tech to secure beneficial effects and avoid catastrophe
• Securing sustainability, resiliency and stability in our global economy
• We now know how to handle climate change; the world has embarked on a global
plan for action
• Massive innovation required to the solve the equation: quality of life for earth
inhabitants vs. planetary boundaries
B.
Probable futures:
• Panic efforts to reduce GHGs including geo-engineering
• Climate change adaptation (sometimes dire)
• Securing basics in Maslow hierarchy becomes national priorities in West (food,
water, safety)
We will end with the way ahead, considering the role of Futures
Literacy in Transformative Innovation Policy and addressing system
change.
14
• More equality/shared resources. How: A revolutionary demand for sharing and
a common conception of what is "enough"
• Saving/restoring what is left of biodiversity on the planet. How: Genome editing
and biotechnology
• Exploration of possibilities to live in very different environments (even planets).
How: New transport technologies, lab-grown food
• Dealing with millions of displaced persons humanely
• Spread of commons and cooperative based arrangements
• Geopolitical tensions running high, democratic institutions failing or failed
• Adaptation and mitigation to warmer planet. Micro-managing and engineering our
way out of failing earth systems
• Oil and gas companies still fight for maintaining production while receiving hard
opposition from society
• Ec inequalities reflected in boom of personal tech (genome ed, smartwear).
• Multi-polar or regional power world with limited cooperation
• World in serious and continuing crisis
• 50% renewables in the European energy mix
• Cybersecurity as a priority, ML/AI weaponized in arms race
• It's (almost) all DARPA. Defence and military R&D rises in a destabilized world
• Is there a "universal intelligence" or not? Without, we might experience chaos
• Big companies continue their unsustainable practices and do not think about the
negative effects of their products/innovation
• Ageing population and lifestyle diseases put a strain on public spending/collapse
in public spending
C.
Reframed futures:
• This is a world for 'smart' people since they are the ones that can do more than
brute force solutions
• Social exclusion ('utenforskap') is no longer an issue - all feel seen and valued
• The idea of time has changed
• The ability to play out and simulate possible consequences of actions leads to
a more calm and serene society (including a 'gap year')
• It may be, however, that very practical knowledge skills become more important--
if so the material standard has fallen
• Empathy and the capacity to listen are core abilities
• No more gender inequalities hindering collaboration
• Those who are different will be excluded (constituted authority defends rights)
• Dominance does not go away and self-defence is an important community
function
• as this is a society that works, there are no grand challenges to be "fixed"
• The digital space is the new monument -- the only means for collective memory
• Invention for the sake of the individual or the local community or clan
• Experiences across generations and ages are used as a source of inspiration and
valued
• Science has undergone a shift away from institutional structures, long gone are
tenure tracks, grant applications, journals and publishing scores
• Source for R&D funding for large scale projects? Peer funding?
• Education is now a personal de-institutionalized journey framed around innovation
from day one
15
• New platforms for cocreating knowledge have emerged, the promise of open
science have fully materialized
• The open source metaverse is the global university, publishing house and the main
research hub
16
Group 2
A.
Desirable futures:
• Users are finally leading the innovation process: Research shows that the
transition towards demand-led innovation is the reality
• Pensioners are actively engaged in 'social' solutions (it takes a village...)
• the idea of risk is not applicable. People just think this is the way. We think this is
the good of innovation
• Combination of actors taking risks together, in forms of cash and form of time
• What is the risk of not changing? Wasting resources?
• Decentralised way, a common practice
• "Amoeba" or agile development
• It is more inclusive, more democratic, it is something that we have to do
• No need of always being project-centered - other forms of being organised,
vouchers given to citizens based on certain criteria
• Crowdsourcing, participatory innovation (Kickstarters)
• "When I look back, I cannot believe how much the approach to innovation has
changed during my lifetime: it is a true revolution! Now everything starts with
thinking about the good life and what is needed to realise different visions of it"
• There are forums for community interaction/ engagement and 'sluss' toward
action
• Human focused innovation is now the dominant idea: meaning that innovation is
focused first on human skills, second on social relations and third on artifacts. We
build new selves and new communities as a priority!
• It has to have some direction, not only bottom up
• A globe, ecology, environment, we have all the seeds for innovation
• GDP includes besides euros also the welfare of people and nature. This means
that the measures of innovation are also sustainable.
• Collaborative innovation program, showing that they are putting skin in the game.
Track record - if you are doing things collaboratively, trying to think of
mechanisms that can follow over time, scaling up things, how can you do it
transparently, reporting on the development of the story, development of the
investment and transformation journeys
• Innovation based on concrete needs of community, there will be more trust "more
skin in the game". Innovation towards human development, people will have
different expectations and will have critical development, people's own
development, skills and capacities and social networks
• Some principles that show us how the BAU lead us to an undesirable future, so we
can show what is good innovation
• Innovation allows us to recognize diversity in ways of living, making it more evident
• Innovations are valued in relation with these three dimensions (economy, nature,
society).
• Media showing this way of living and way of acting
• Different understanding of innovation is mainstreamed and has the capacity to
influence political decisions
• Every citizen to put in community service time, which is deducted from your tax
return. Motivate by getting engaged, someone is recognizing the value that gives.
How the government values their citizens time, active asset
17
• Educate people to think about the kind of life they want to live, what they want to
achieve with this life. Understand what they need, and what they need to support,
and to realize the life they want to support
• Inspirational stories, examples of citizens and doing things differently
• System around innovation is not only anymore about research and companies, but
it is also citizens. More bottom up
• Innovation is showing and promoting way of life which is more inclusive and
sustainable on a big scale
• Artificial intelligence can be used to crowdsource, and scale up yourself to
participate in different process, AI will disrupt
• Innovation is influencing political decisions to make them more democratic in a
deeper sense
• Innovation is helping people to better understand each other despite the
differences
B.
Probable futures:
• A few larger corporate actors are leading spearhead innovation initiatives
• Tech companies have replaced universities as main actors in research and in
knowledge production and distribution.
• Early warning systems for climate events, security issues
• Medical and welfare technologies are now being surpassed by security
technology as the main driver of innovation
• Agricultural innovation cannot keep the pace with climatic challenges
• Capital for innovation becomes more and more scarce
• Financial crisis, people’s mentality, priorities, ways of thinking of the future. If
negative transformations happen, people will become more worried, especially in
countries that have experienced wellbeing in the past. Public opinion in wealthier
countries, healthy switch in global relations, younger countries will become more
prominent
• Climate change: big change will happen, it will be decided whether innovation will
go more towards mega projects or whether the success will be of local and
regional projects. Where the successes will be, will they shape the innovation
landscape?
• Corporations will make their role so important to support innovation, becoming
untouchable because so much depends on them. Very strong corporations that
will work to secure that advantage, so no one can go against them
• Big political change - on big corporate players, shaping where innovation is driving
towards.
• Public sector funders are reliant on private sector investments; new legal
arrangements and forms of partnering are in place
• Transnational regulation of large corporations, ensuring that they play a role that is
in sync, that there is not just a group control the rest
• Power of the local and regional rather than the national level
• Local and regional players not replacing the national level but becoming more
prominent, certain places and new actors - new change agents to emerge, at a
lower geographical level
• Change agents will be different in different localities, one cannot decide which
role each actor plays
18
• Corporations can be part of this change, show how private investors can be part
of the change "skin in the game"
• BUT there is always going to be a need to have a national funder/agency. There
will be quality assurance of the regional agencies
• Things like COVID and Climate Change pushes governments to think in a different
way
• A large variety of community-based/bottom-up initiatives at play, but not yet 'in
synch' with the large players
• Public action, the ability to change in response to these changes
• Role of national/transnational institutions, would become more facilitators than
those that dictate the agenda
• New role for local governments is to facilitate and give the citizen a place in the
innovation
• Media are still paying more attention to mainstreamed innovation but networks of
citizens have been able to articulate a different narrative about innovation which is
gaining attention at the local and global scale
• Some countries and regional and local gov are using different metrics to measure
"development/progress" which include welfare of people and nature
• Bottom-up/decentralized innovations are not yet mainstreamed but have gained
more acknowledgment and are receiving more economic and political support
• Broader portfolios of smaller, experimental investments - leading into larger-scale
investments more the norm
• More attention to leadership/ teams leading these portfolios
• Public sector thinking /acting more like an investor?
• Educational programs have introduced decentralized/bottom-up innovations
C.
Reframed futures:
• Communication, self-expression and creativity are going together. People take
pleasure and find fulfilment in understanding how they can best contribute to
emerging realities.
• Realisation through participation
• People have developed a wholly new ability for attunement with other people and
nature. Attention for needs and the pleasure of collective creation are driving
innovation
• Acknowledging services such as raising a child
• Directionality? We need some direction, we need some process of collective
agreement
• Everything will be a flash mob.
• No more fear of missing out, but pleasure of contributing most creatively
• Service: instead of buying a car, we get a service of transportation
• Leadership selection based on service references (what contributions most
recently)
• Development happens in cyber form - all experimentation with 'digital twins' and
avatars
• Aesthetic is more important than ethics. We want to create ever more beautiful
things and activities
• Dance, improvisation theatre, "yes and", constant openness to reattune ourselves
- ability to listen
• Punishment: not being able to fit in
19
• Parallel forms of leadership - those that emerge/are selected in cyber groupings
and those that emerge/are selected in the physical world
• Individuals have their own personal 'life accounting' - all contributions/ services
provided and services received (blockchain)
• there are natural process of learning conducive to an awareness of being
respectful with diversity/sustainability etc.
• Even if everything is fluid and experiential, people is able to consider the relevance
of wellbeing of people and planet and some agreements are made in this
experiential places
Group 3
A) Desirable futures:
• The Children’s Panel on Climate Change is ranked top three world’s most
important societal actor
• UN reports there is no more plastic left in the world oceans
• "We have finally ended world hunger"
• We have reached the SDGs
• We have reversed global warming, stopped mass extinction and saved and
deepened democracy
• People are no longer eating meat
• "The ocean is plastic free"
• Young people have a lot of hope and aspirations for the future
• Transformed whole systems "We have a sustainable food system, mobility system
etc.
• The Nordics is one county of innovators, diverse and united
• The concept of Futures Literacy is integrated in basic as well as
advanced education/training
• The Global North has shared sustainable solutions with the Global South rather
than building empires on top of them
• Public transport more popular than cars worldwide
• The Nordics serves as a role model in systemic innovation with societal needs in
focus. EU, Americas, Asia and Africa has copied and developed the Scandinavian
model for systems innovation
• Petro age has ended
• Biomass as resource has taken over for fossil fuels based products and solutions
• Circularity as mandatory/dominating principle in society
• Research indicates that people are happier than ever before
• Arts & sports become main innovation policies
• The concept of less is more has great support
• Policy is driven by transparent, high quality real time data
• People all over the world work less and have more leisure time
• Over optimism in technology in history, innovation is multilayered
• Research(ers) are to a great extent integrated in societal innovation
• Quality of of life is main objective
• Technology is used to educate people all over the world!
B) Probable futures:
20
• Productive cross-sectoral efforts exist, but so do strong sectoral interests
• Driverless cars have led to an increase in private car use
• Mass surveillance is broadly acceptable worldwide, democracy has a new
meaning (accepting ruling group rather than participating)
• More than half of world’s citizens now adopt vegetarianism
• There will be a larger gap between North/South in terms of living standard and
technological development
• There will be several "internets"
• Largest tech companies grow even bigger
• Legal voting age lowered to 16 in Europe
• Hegemony of neoclassical economists stops the implementation of a coordinated
and future oriented global innovation policy
• Steady improvements of clean energy production leads to fall in petroleum prices,
which finally moves investors out of that sector
• Large proportion of unemployed people based on a knowledge gap
• Innovative sustainable solutions hindered by polarization
• Increased political extremism causes many influential countries to leave the UN
and other international organizations
• Protectionism is on the rise
• New political alliances based on energy use will be formed (ex solar tech/oil &
gas)
• Renewable energy is now bigger than fossil energy
• Marginal cost of sustainable energy is close to zero
• Sustainable and non-sustainable solutions still present
• most work places in the Nordic countries has now introduced 6 hour working days
• Revised version of the SDGs is changing the direction
• More people are becoming entrepreneurs, creating start-ups based on sustainable
business models
• Loss of democracy in the US makes international efforts hard
• Priority given to unknown shocks
• Though international competition in the work market. Workplaces have
an international culture.
• EU program for desalination of water in the Mediterranean
• Some people will have performance enhancing chips in brain
• Political regulations and incentives to reduce emissions and damaging activities
• Oldest person on earth just turned 130 years
• In order to survive, many companies have transformed to a sustainable, and
circular business model
• Technological solutions are been innovated and upscaled in a huge scale
• The earth is 1.5C degrees warmer than in 2021 (2.7C degrees warmer than pre-
industrialized times)
• In the Global North people will live for 150 years due to personalized medicine
• There is still plastic in the ocean
• New global soil erosion programme aims at solving the problems cause by rain
and floods
• Ageing population has shock effect on society
• Micro housing gaining even more popularity
C)
Reframed futures:
21
• Innovation is an ongoing, shared process where contributors add to a process or
product as improvement ideas come up
• Innovation
• No one owns what is being innovated, everything is owned by the crowd
• Rules
• If you destroy something or create lock-in effects on purpose you lose your right
to contribute for a while
• Is this reality not really based on technology optimism? That technology will solve
everything...
• There are very few rules, the only ones protecting the common good (e.g build
don’t destroy)
• Innovation is based on playing with the future
• No IPR
• Innovation is primarily for local consumption, and mainly for wellbeing and
happiness. We will need new ways of relaxing, spending time
• Innovation platforms are used to connect people, collect a complex understanding
of needs and drive innovation
• Status depends on the quality and quantity of your contributions
• Questions
• Is flexibility and not directionality going to solve our problems? I do not think so.
• Ethics
• All life is valued: no hierarchies between species
• I wonder what there will be shortage of in 2050.
• Do we work? based on voluntary, non-paid "work"/play?
• Everyone has started to grow their own food in shared gardens (no industrialised
food production)
• Action is based on the mindset that we´re all equal, and that every life should be
protected
• Learning
• Kids learn via online videogames
• Empathy-training is a key part of learning for life
• Learning is an ongoing process throughout life, it’s easy to change profession,
and create the life you would want for yourself regardless of beginnings and
background
• An individual is called a contributor, belonging is based on participation in positive
development that helps the earth, humankind and other species
• A common world language is needed for all to collaborate (Esperanto?)
• Your life is online- some have never met their best friends, spouse etc
• Learning is organised through simulation
• Your passport displays the name of your cyber guid or tribes, not the name of
a nation state
• Automatic translations online opens up for collaboration
• Much work is done in open online communities
• As learning and a practical approach is learned for you where as for a child,
everyone is innovators
• School is based on peer-learning (no teacher)
Group 4
A.
Desirable futures:
• No innovations made are discriminative, that being age, gender or where you live
22
• Innovation captures the societal changes and future needs, rather than capturing
present problems
• Focus on enabling behaviour: Strategic design and leadership (as the collective
pursuit towards delivering on purpose) is shaping education, enabling new ways
of defining problems and solutions.
• Mars explorers demand innovation to bring them back
• Climate change mitigation
• Doing better for many rather than for the few
• Ecosystem-based solutions
• Humans have changed their preferences in production and consumption
• Governmental policy and corporate strategy enable and reward initiatives aimed at
long-term equality and well-being for the many.
• 25th annual Living with Less Award winner announced
• A global governance system based on radical collaboration
• The world has shifted the economic growth paradigm to human development
• Atom represents the world, and the particles represent the R&I crossing various
disciplines. The more heat you expose to the atom, the more energy you produce
and particles
• Changing mindsets in support of the UN's SDGs - this includes what 'success'
looks like in school and at work.
• The word 'innovation' is no longer used (we all 'own' it)
• Ensuring that UN SDGs continue to be a success
• Focus on common good/internal goods
• The economic system has shifted towards just transitions
• Focus on process rather than 'product'
• Everyone, from Researchers to customers, all understand that they too are
responsible for ethical perspectives any innovation brings to the table
• Innovation takes into account both nature and humans
• There is a revolution of the self. Open minds, open hearts, open will have
synchronised to generate just futures
• 'See direction as a result of process' IFF
• Innovation of the self as important as innovation of outside world
• Human replaces the last Artificial General Intelligence
B. Probable futures:
• wwTN (worldwide Television News in 3D) brought to you via holographic media
• Communication innovation across and within borders
• Transnational organisations have advanced on reconfiguring global priorities, but
a stronger commitment from the leading nations is needed
• Innovation to correct what went wrong?
• Innovation for changing world order?
• Substitutional innovation to combat food scarcity, water scarcity
• Innovation to solve side-effects of synthetic foods
• Personalized medicine and genomics
• Replacement of nation states
• We made it! Plastics have viable replacements
• Human-enhancing medical centers
• Circular economy rules!
• Bottom up innovation for resilience?
• Grassroots and social innovation are the rulling scheme for self-preservation of
vulnerable communities
23
• NGOs collaborate on innovations that address all UN SDG goals 2070
• Renewable, safe and clean energy sources using biobased materials
• Carbon sequestration technologies have contributed towards carbon net zero
• Social mobilisation keeps putting pressure on governments to life preservation
• Sustainable Development Goals: Agenda 2100
• 20th century simulators so everyone can experience earth as it used to be
• Big capitals are still fostering an unfair economic system
• Universities and knowledge generation institutions are critical for the advance of
the 2080 global agenda
• Do you remember the time when we did not talk about planetary boundaries?
• Ethics is included as mandatory field to address in all R&I&D
• Extinction is advancing at a mass scale harming the most vulnerable
• Self-sustainable local communities have been successful in shielding themselves
from the scarcity of resources
• Innovation priorities are based on current needs and opportunities of those who
can afford them
C. Reframed futures:
• Local people come together to decide on important issues
• Addressing murmuration - through individual 'effective perceptive range'
• Development: Community success is measured in terms of well-being. The best
communities are those with the highest level of health, education, environmentally-
friendly practices
• Smart sustainable communities: Healthy, affordable food is grown locally.
Communities consume what they produce, opening trading networks within
distances that keep food sustainable
• There are no weapons, only hunting equipment
• Those with knowledge on practical solutions lead and teach those who don't
• Governance: Global values lived differently locally
• Everyone carries a responsibility of leadership and change making agency.
• Quarrelling among communities over scarce resources continue
• Children are taught through practice and theory about health issues, eco-friendly
production, self-sustainable innovation
• The seed bank at Svalbard was not destroyed
• What stands out?
• Trade is based on goods, favours, and knowledge
• What surprises you?
• Education: Preschool, primary and secondary education is context-based but with
shared cutting-edge knowledge. Education is the sector with highest investment
• Self-selected groups of avatars using open-source platforms which again is
identifying other groups with similar interests. Also introduces other avatars with
skills/experiences/interests aligned/required.
• Education: Shared knowledge facilities are spread and funded internationally.
Open science is mainstream
• Physical and virtual campfire/ community centre events catalysing processes of
defining problems/challenges/opportunities.
• A focus on design thinking (including agility) enabling the process of defining
problems and solutions; enabling learning.
• The instincts to survive drives cooperation and knowledge-sharing
• Education: Capabilities-based shared centres are distributed locally and globally
24
• Everything we do adds value to the greater community.
• There is no such thing as individual success.
• Creative failing which we learn from is a success factor.
• Focus on mindsets, purpose, core values, movement...
• Tool innovation is what local society needs
• Innovation starts with what you need
Group 5
A.
Desirable futures:
• We eat less food since we eat condensed nutrietns geared towards our DNA -
keeping us healthy. Most of our former diseases are gone.
• Clean environment - clean air to breath, where children will stop dying from
pollution
• I live in self-sufficient community(food and energy) where we all contribute one
way or another. We have small apt on our own but most areas are shared to keep
the land to grow crops and wildlife.
• Equality - more equal societies
• Impossible to imagine child labour in 2021
• Inclusion: that goes beyond the current definitions of "exclusion" in terms
disability, gender or race; but to ensure inclusion of the environment, biodiversity,
and species
• Food is homegrown and we eat less:)
• No more production of new clothes
• Crazy that people were thinking of innovation as something seperate in 2021
• Today it is 10 years anniversary of the global tech hybrid school system
• Innovation systems that are part: food, health, transport,
• Innovation (and R&D) means the goal is for peace and prosperity, not war and
oppression
• I am so grateful that innovation helped us make the world a more inclusive, equal
and better place
• Inclusion - beyond the usual
B.
Probable futures:
• Net-zero is not realised; CO2, sea levels, plastics, etc continue to rise
• Innovation leads to progress but is not able to deliver on the SDGs, as expected
• The need for environment innovation is bigger than ever. Humans have made more
progress than expected but new threats has been added. For example the
antibiotic resistant bacterias is a fact. The world did not prepare for this threat
even though scientists had been warning about it for decades
• Innovation is an integrated part of society (economy, politics, social). The actors
that did not embrace innovation management are no longer relevant
• Environment (e.g. plastics) remain a major global challenge
• The dominant role for innovation remains as economic growth and competition;
rather than inclusion, fairer societies or addressing the SDGs
• Marginal progress made on improving equality and reducing inequality; but the
world is still most unequally, polarised and still grappling with SDGs-type issues
25
• Nations are more of a geographical object than ruling its citizens. (Big) companies
and communitites have taken over some of the functions of states/nations.
Everything goes borderless in the way we know it.
• Innovations in the health field has solved a lot of problems but there is still a big
inequality to its usage
• Algorithms and virtual worlds still enforce a gap between the ones being exploited
and the ones earning/taking control
• Green tech is making huge progress solving the energy crisis
• Techs (4IR, AI...) becomes more embedded in societies but also in humans as
wearables
• There are more investments in Green Tech
C.
Reframed futures:
• People are living in physical communities that mirrors their values and way of
living. Families are therefore not by inheritance but by choice. This makes
communities sort of physical, filter-bubbles. On the other hand you can engage in
a lot of virtual worlds with totally different values, experiences. There are several
ways to make a living, either you live totally self sufficiently and only work to
produce what you need in your community, or you work and barter with others.
The community takes care of its inhibitants so no social insurance or wellfare is
organised. You learn what you need to know, the only organised learning is for
highly speciliazed professions. The only thing that is organised is healthcare.
• School: we upload information to our brains by BMI so the humans have more
equal qualifications (prerequisites) than we had back in 2021
• There are areas where those who do not want to live with technology don't have
to do that. Everyone is accepted to be in the way they want without judgement.
• Less government/state, companies are now quasi-governments and make laws,
regulations and policies – back to some form of oligarchy?
• Since we stopped consumption and capitalism we have other values in life which
guides policy
• This also goes for healthcare since health is so integrated that we do not even
think about it anymore. Few people/cyborgs even remember how the world was
back in 2021 since it has changed so much
• Less environmental impacts – the world is greener, wildlife will overgrow?
• Innovation system is not known of since things needed are taken care of by self-
organisation.
• Humans are now – part human and part cyborgs (intelligent beings) – requiring
less food, more healthy and travel less (due to tech that include teleporting...) but
some things will remain: learning and growing, food and eating, entertainment