Hi David: I think you’re referencing Dator’s Second Law of the Future here—“Any useful idea about the futures should appear to be ridiculous.” (Although he does also emphasis that this is not a syllogism—there are plenty of ridiculous ideas about the future that are not useful.)
But when I saw Ester Duflo’s remarks this week, I was also reminded that scanning involves three questions:
- Does this confirm something we know?
- Does this change something we know?
- Is this new to us?
Futurists sometimes make the mistake of thinking that the third question is the most significant, although in practice it takes years, or decades, for a new thing to reach even the edge of the mainstream. When you see something that changes something we know, that is always a more powerful index to change. And in Duflo’s case, an (in memory of Alfred Nobel) Prize winning economist telling the G20 and the Financial Times that it was time increase corporate taxes and introduce a super-wealth tax is definitely changing what we know, if only because of who is saying it to whom.
Yes. That what was what I was trying to get across at the end: the content is familiar but the messenger is different, and that tells us something new. (In addition, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has a new book out on freedom and capitalism. I've not read any reviews but we will see if he also calls for higher corporation and wealth taxes.)
Hi David: I think you’re referencing Dator’s Second Law of the Future here—“Any useful idea about the futures should appear to be ridiculous.” (Although he does also emphasis that this is not a syllogism—there are plenty of ridiculous ideas about the future that are not useful.)
More here: https://medium.com/@oriol_GG/https-medium-com-oriol-gg-why-you-need-to-learn-the-basic-principles-of-future-studies-806d7fead80e
Yes, that is what I was thinking of. Thanks.
But when I saw Ester Duflo’s remarks this week, I was also reminded that scanning involves three questions:
- Does this confirm something we know?
- Does this change something we know?
- Is this new to us?
Futurists sometimes make the mistake of thinking that the third question is the most significant, although in practice it takes years, or decades, for a new thing to reach even the edge of the mainstream. When you see something that changes something we know, that is always a more powerful index to change. And in Duflo’s case, an (in memory of Alfred Nobel) Prize winning economist telling the G20 and the Financial Times that it was time increase corporate taxes and introduce a super-wealth tax is definitely changing what we know, if only because of who is saying it to whom.
Yes. That what was what I was trying to get across at the end: the content is familiar but the messenger is different, and that tells us something new. (In addition, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has a new book out on freedom and capitalism. I've not read any reviews but we will see if he also calls for higher corporation and wealth taxes.)
Thanks -- D