Futurology: How Does it Work and What's Wrong with It?

Why did the future turn out differently? Let's read "classic" science fiction and apply it to the modern scale of time. We should now have interstellar travel, colonization of all suitable planets in the Solar System, the eradication of most currently prevalent diseases, and a high-tech paradise on Earth. But, with some exceptions, the predictions of the sci-fi authors were incorrect - most of these things do not exist. At least not on a global scale. Why did the development go slightly off track? Is it because it's just fiction? Yes and no. Some things were successfully predicted in the 19th and early 20th centuries - for example, submarines of the modern type (Jules Verne) or atomic energy (H.G. Wells).

Something similar is happening with futurology - forecasting the future based on scientific principles. And it is not immune to mistakes, despite being a relatively accurate science that utilizes statistics, mathematical modeling, and even artificial intelligence. This is especially true when it comes to predicting technological advancements. Futurologists search for new trends through references in the media, social networks, and other sources and analyze the results obtained. These results can sometimes be unexpected. For example, there was much talk about genetic engineering, but few anticipated the use of viruses with engineered DNA fragments as a tool (CRISPR technology). Futurologists strive to predict where development will go and which technologies will be considered unpromising. Some of them even try to promote these trends as much as possible, such as Ray Kurzweil, who is not only a successful forecaster but also the Technical Director of Google, with the ability to influence innovations.

What are the common mistakes scientists and journalists make when discussing the future?

Some people believe that today's trends will remain unchanged in the future, especially when it comes to technology.

At the end of the 19th century, scientists seriously predicted that the streets of major cities in Europe and America would be filled with horse manure due to the increasing number of horse-drawn carriages. However, steam engines were already in existence, and electricity was starting to be utilized, not to mention the development of the first internal combustion engines. What was once considered impractical and expensive became widely adopted within 20 years, and horses became a thing of the past.

Some believe that today's promising technologies will become affordable and environmentally friendly in the future, and the principle of "faster, higher, stronger" will always be relevant.

In the past, it was assumed that an increasing number of passenger airplanes would be supersonic, allowing for transatlantic flights in 3-4 hours and reaching any point in the world in less than 12 hours. For a while, passenger aviation developed in that direction with the operation of Concorde and Tu-144. However, they were eventually retired because the fuel costs were significantly higher (along with harmful emissions) compared to subsonic airliners, in addition to the high noise levels during takeoff and landing. It turned out that speed was not as crucial as the cost of the flight. Therefore, aircraft with Concorde-like parameters are now only affordable for the military, such as strategic bombers like the American B-1 or the Russian Tu-160. Maintaining supersonic speed remains a challenge until a more fuel-efficient and low-noise supersonic jet engine is developed.

Some consider it normal to describe extreme situations, either a heavenly paradise or total war, catastrophes, and devastation. According to their conclusions, the future holds either utopia or dystopia.

Utopia itself is inherently unrealistic; that's why it's called utopia. Both technologically and socio-politically, it is unlikely. Just like Francis Fukuyama, who began promoting the “end of history” idea in the early 1990s. Supposedly, all countries would soon become democratic with a well-functioning market economy, communist and religious regimes would disappear, wars would cease, and the standard of living in different regions would become equal. However, reality turned out to be gloomier than Fukuyama's predictions, as you can see by looking at Iran, Cuba, and Russia, not to mention Africa or South America as a whole.

But describing an obligatory scenario of a war of all against all or a post-apocalyptic world (like the Fallout game series) is not entirely accurate. When Samuel Huntington talked about the "clash of civilizations," he referred to the conflict between the Christian West and the Muslim East. And when the 9/11 attacks occurred, everyone said, "Here it is, the Third World War between the East and the West." But later, it turned out that even the formation of ISIS 15 years later was insufficient for a Third World War, and the conflict itself turned out to be localized. After all, the "Islamic world" didn't unite around extremists and even helped the coalition fight against them.

Lastly, some tend to overestimate the major players on the world stage, underestimate the smaller players, and generally look at the political situation linearly. Besides the "black swans" (highly improbable events), there are factors that every futurist should consider. These include political psychology, political technologies, and the role of media - they can completely change the situation and refute any forecast.

Utopia itself is inherently unrealistic; that's why it's called utopia.

For example, George Friedman's book "The Next 100 Years," published in 2010, can also be tested, just like Fukuyama's and Huntington's ideas. Let's take one of the key regions for the world—Eastern Europe, where the Ukrainian-Russian war is currently ongoing. So, Friedman predicted Ukraine's slow but accurate gravitational pull towards Russia. In other words, everything would revert to how it was before 2014—pro-Russian forces prevailing in Ukraine amidst a rollback of pro-Western reforms, followed by political and economic integration with Russia. Ukraine would strengthen Russia, which seems to be relatively more progressive and developed through oil and gas exports and better governance, reforms, and so on. And it would attempt to do the same with Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, etc., aiming to revive the USSR without socialism. All this without open wars.

But in reality, we have a completely different scenario - the second Ukrainian revolution occurred, Russia openly violated international law by annexing Crimea, simulated a "civil war" in Donbas, creating unrecognized "republics," and after 8 years, unleashed an open war. And today, it has fallen under China's influence. However, Friedman predicted this to happen around 2030-2040. He also predicted the disintegration of NATO due to it becoming irrelevant with such peaceful coexistence with Russia. Who would have thought that Russia would urgently start "self-destructing" regarding Ukraine, Ukrainians would show unprecedented resistance and determination to win, and NATO would become relevant again as a military alliance and start accepting new members?

And what are some more realistic scenarios for the future that can be considered? In essence, based on the mistakes made even by renowned futurists, it can be said that there is no common future for the entire world. It is as much a utopia or dystopia as universal prosperity or a global war that affects all continents.

Perhaps that's why the world will continue to resemble a mosaic or a patchwork quilt for a long time. In some regions, in about 10 years, there will be AI-controlled personal flying capsules for transportation over tens or hundreds of kilometers, household android robots as assistants, and so on. While in others, in about 40-50 years, there may still be slavery, epidemics, famine, and so forth. That's why futurism is a very "thankless" science. Not only can predictions come true or not, but also the occurrence of a "black swan" - an event that is statistically unlikely or completely unpredictable - can disrupt all the cards. Moreover, even predictions that do come true often unfold in ways entirely different from what was anticipated. But it is precisely in this ever-changing mosaic world that life becomes more interesting.