What is Futurism? What isn’t?
When people hear the word “Futurism”, a number of possible associations may spring to mind. One may be prognostication, which is to say secular oracles telling us what they think will or will not happen in the future. Although some of these people are more rigorous than others in adopting an intelligent, evidence-based approach to their studies, the entire endeavour largely ignores the fact that the human ability to predict the future is disintegrating in the face of accelerating technological change.
Alternatively, by “Futurism” people may think that we are talking about the early 20th Century art movement in Italy, some related phenomenon or other precursor to contemporary concerns. As much as such movements and precursors are often very interesting, they are not what we mean by the term. We also don’t mean anything that is so heavily infused with fantasy elements as to have little bearing on the physical reality we actually live in.
Futurism, as we employ the term here, is a contemporary intellectual, social, and political movement to use technological for positive change. It is a loose and informal nexus of related sub-movements ranging from the philosophical (e.g. Transhumanism, Singularitarianism) to the eminently practical (e.g. Open Source, Cryptocurrency). It is firmly rooted in science and technology at every level, but not limited by the superficial cultural trappings of science
Arts & Culture
Any movement to effect social change will be all the more powerful for employing the latest and most effective technologies, but mass cultural changes also demands messages which will appeal to the culture at large. Art, music, media and social networks of all types naturally trade in the currencies of aesthetics, intuition and habit in lieu of rational decision making, and influence. We Futurists must learn to use these things well, and fast, if we are not to be eclipsed by the various flavours of virulent anti-Enlightenment sentiment that are currently resurgent.
In other words it is all very well and good to prize science and technology over the less rational elements of human culture, but if we can’t turn those elements to our advantage then humanity will miss its one shot at a higher destiny, and we will begin a long, harrowing slide back toward the stone age.
Black Mirrors, Black Celebrations
So… art, music, media and so on sounds obvious enough in the abstract, but what does it look like in practice? If we take a moment to look at the places we most often find futurist themes in modern culture, it is invariably in dark places. That trend most likely started with the cyberpunk literary genre in the 1980s, mirroring the collisions between alternative subculture and electronica in the cases of gothic, electro, and industrial music from then until now.
Online games frequently mirror this dark-futurist aesthetic, which are also increasingly prominent on the screen (from the 1982 movie Blade Runner, through Manga (such as Akira and Ghost in the Shell) and the TechGnostic enthusiasm of 1999-200 beginning with The Matrix, to recent additions such as Mute, Altered Carbon, Blade Runner 2049, and of course the techno-dystopian philosophy of Black Mirror.
In short, there is a huge, readymade audience for the Futurist message, out there. We just have to be ready to go searching for it… in the shadows.
April 1, 2018 at 7:51 pm
Amongst seasoned tranhumanists (Gennady Stolyarov II et al), there is an initiative to refrain from dystopian future depictions in favor of positive future visions. It’s easy to paint a bleak and oppressive future while challenging to portray a believable vision of the future that is an improvement of the human condition. We need to focus on and redouble our efforts toward achieving “positive” outcomes to our efforts for a better world.
April 6, 2018 at 7:41 am
[EDIT: These comments of mine have led to the publication of a new TNET piece, here:
http://transhumanity.net/must-h-always-be-optimistic/ ]
As much as I understand and sympathize with this view, I think it is important to understand it in the broader context. This (Dynamic Optimism) is of course the default Extropian view, which passed from Extropy to Transhumanism as a whole back in the late 80s. I have personally considered myself to be an Extropian since the early 90s, although like most Transhumanists I am averse to anything that smells a little too much like a rigid, doctrinaire view.
The main thing about Extropy that I’ve parted ways with in the intervening ~30 years or so, is the kind of Right-wing Libertarianism which is not only a very American phenomenon, but which was also very du jour in the 80s. The other thing is an undue commitment to an unrealistically, even cartoonishly optimistic view of reality. It is good to be optimistic and pragmatic, but reality is a more complex thing than a story of perfect outcomes and happily-ever-afters. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
Aside from the simple fact that we must be properly cognizant of historical and potential dangers (a hard thing to do when insisting that everything is, and can only be, rainbows and unicorns all the way), we should also note that Transhumanism as a subculture has been woefully inadequate at getting its message out on its own terms. The message gets out, sure, but only when Hollywood and others take that message, strip it of doctrinaire insistence on this or that, and sells the message in whatever way will sell to a broader audience. Dystopianism-with-a-hopeful-message, for example, will reach a hundred times as many people as unalloyed optimism will.
Of course, it is easy to slip into negativity, and we must be optimistic, focused, and pragmatic in our efforts. But at the end of the day; which is more important; To be unremittingly optimistic even when that is not in line with available evidence regarding any given situation, or to allow a broader view of things and thereby reach a much larger audience, much faster?
To conclude – and make my fundamental viewpoint clear: I agree that we must be positive, and that it is easier to slip into negativity than to be positive and constructive in addressing problems. But I also believe that this a view which can be and frequently is taken too far by Transhumanists, to counter-productive ends. The middle-ground I advocate is one in which we depict the world as it is, full of both dangers and positive potentials, and make it clear why we are so committed to realizing those positive potentials. If the world is going to be wonderful no matter what (hint: It isn’t), then why should people make any effort to help us work toward a positive future?
Acknowledging a world full of dark and dangerous things is not the same as celebrating negativity, but is often more like a catharsis, which can also offer a powerful opportunity to reach a large audience with a very positive, pragmatic message.
If we cannot acknowledge the world as it is, why should the world listen to what we have to say?