DOCSLIB.ORG

The American Futures Studies Movement (1965-1975); Its Roots, Motivations, and Influences Kaya Tolon Iowa State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The American Futures Studies Movement (1965-1975); Its Roots, Motivations, and Influences Kaya Tolon Iowa State University Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2011 The American futures studies movement (1965-1975); its roots, motivations, and influences Kaya Tolon Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Tolon, Kaya, "The American futures studies movement (1965-1975); its roots, motivations, and influences" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 12029. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/12029 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The American futures studies movement (1965-1975); its roots, motivations, and influences by Kaya Tolon A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: History of Technology and Science Program of Study Committee: Amy Bix, Major Professor David B. Wilson James T. Andrews Hamilton Cravens John W. Monroe Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2011 Copyright © Kaya Tolon, 2011. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iv Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Post-World War Two Beginnings and Cold War Pressures 19 a. Overall Context & Start of the Cold War 21 b. Emergence of Project RAND and its Theoretical Division 28 c. Emergence of Project DELPHI 33 d. Game Theory, Gaming, and Other Futurist Threads from Cold War Strategic Thinking 40 e. Importance of Delphi within a Context of 1950s Conformity 46 f. Early Cold War Futurism and Chapter Conclusion 52 Chapter 2. Imagining and Implementing the Future – Deterministic Visions 54 a. Designs of the Future 57 b. Worries of the Future 62 c. Return of the Cold War Philosopher-mathematicians 66 d. Future Technologies Impacting Future Societies 69 e. Methodologists and Philosophical Foundations of Futures Methods 76 f. Beginnings of a New Field? – Chapter Conclusion 78 Chapter 3. The Many Motivations of the Futures Studies Movement 80 a. Counter Culture, Détente, and the Military-industrial-academic Complex 84 b. A Transition from Military to Civilian Patronage and Outlooks 88 c. Diverse Participation in the New Forum of Futures Studies 92 d. The Science of Studying the Future 99 e. Explosion of Futures Methodologies 101 f. Futures Studies in Policy-making 105 g. Futures Studies in Industry 113 h. U.S. Science Policy and the Emergence of Social Indicators 116 iii i. Connection Between the Futurists and the Movement – Chapter Conclusion 120 Chapter 4. Futures Studies Organizations – Formalization and Maturation of the Field 122 a. Futures Societies, Organizations, Think Tanks, and Conferences 124 b. Journals, Newsletters, and Other Publications 132 c. Decline in Popularity of the Delphi Method 140 d. Maturation of Futures Studies – The Post-Movement Era 145 e. The Identity Issue – Futuristics, Futurology, Futury, or any of Dozens of Alternatives 147 f. The University Issue – Subordinate to Political Science, Sociology, Economics 149 Chapter 5. Global Inceptions of Futures Studies – Cases from Outside the United States 154 a. Internationalization of Futures Studies 157 b. Ideology & Futurology – Soviet Futurists 164 c. An “Iron Curtain” Study – Hungarian Futures Studies 175 Conclusions 184 Bibliography 186 Appendix 1: Oral History Interview with Olaf Helmer 190 Appendix 2: Oral History Interview with Fabienne Goux-Baudiment 211 Acknowledgements 238 iv Abstract In the 1960s and 1970s many Americans of widely dissimilar motivations used the study of possible futures as an open forum to express their desires, fears, and visions. Their efforts led to new organizations, publications, conferences, and university programs, which constituted an intellectual movement with far-reaching influences. The emergence of post-WWII futurism is a multi-stranded history involving people with diverse motivations and backgrounds who aspired to revolutionize policymaking at all levels. Their efforts crossed national borders and often transcended Cold War divisions. Many futurists hailed from governmental, business, or scientific backgrounds and advocated for issues ranging from national economic planning boards, or “future-consciousness” at corporate levels of decision-making, to sustainable ecological practices. One of their many historical strands went back to the early Cold War years and the philosopher-mathematicians employed by the RAND Corporation. Given the sensitive forecasting challenges brought by Cold War unknowns, these architects of futurist methodologies believed they needed to devise better – more scientific – opinion technologies. Their search for improving the tools, such as the Delphi method, of future-minded decision- making continued into the 1960s and 1970s. While qualitative assessments still reigned supreme in the social sciences, quantitative analysis became increasingly important during the 1960s. Futurists used social, political, and economic indicators to study alternative futures and comment on their presents. These futures researchers prized the quantification of past and present values both for physical and social concepts. From these numbers, they aspired to clarify the future: how to predict and understand it, and ultimately how to change it for the better. v Futurists cared about many things, not only about perfecting their methodologies or epistemic foundations, but also about addressing current, pragmatic, and popular issues. The desire to disseminate their ideas more widely and have their methodology gain greater influence compelled futurists to organize and formalize their field. The field‟s momentum slowed down by the 1980s as many critics disapproved of futurist methods and the deterministic, wishful, or simplistic outlooks that some futurists imagined. Although the movement in the United States was unique, other international case-studies developed in distinct yet comparable ways. Although futures researchers around the globe for centuries had enjoyed speculating about the future, this twentieth-century movement promised better predictions that were more systematic, detailed, controlled, quantitative, and expert. 1 Introduction “Leaving utopians and science-fiction writers far behind,” stated a 1966 Time magazine article, “a growing number of professionals have made prophecy a serious and highly organized enterprise.”1 This news piece titled, THE FUTURISTS: Looking Toward A.D. 2000, surveyed a variety of forecasting studies and organizations dedicated to studying the future and argued for an increasing trend of interest in the future. This essay sampled several futures studies and drew attention to newly emerging professionals called “futurists.” This was one of many contemporary commentaries about the inception of futures studies as a new political forum. Over the decade spanning roughly from 1965 to 1975, futurists published, organized, and debated in unprecedented numbers. One of their defining rallying calls was to deal with the rapid technological advancement that Alvin Toffler, among many others, popularized with his 1970 book Future Shock. Fear of Cold War tensions, but also disgust of the existence of a Cold War right after the Second World War, also motivated futurists to rally. The Cold War paradigm defined the outlooks of many futurists, which centered on predictions for the nuclear arms and space exploration races. Other observers shifted their focus of analysis beyond military and international political tensions, to concentrate on assessing the futures of more broadly-defined ecological, industrial, or technological issues. The arguments and writings of these 1960s and 1970s futurists built on work conducted in America‟s post-World War Two military-affiliated think-tanks, which played a nurturing role for the research and development of many futures studies methodologies. In particular, the RAND Corporation exemplified the government‟s commitment to expertise, based on the principle of bringing together scientists and putting them in a government-funded facility with 1 “THE FUTURISTS: Looking Toward A.D. 2000” Time, Friday, Feb. 25, 1966) 2 the assignment to think about “what‟s important.” 2 It was RAND‟s researchers who created and developed specific methodologies for quantifying unknown variables that set the foundation for futures studies. Their approach quickly won converts in the military arena, where secret forecasts had influenced policy recommendations for some time.3 The Cold War era created an especially intense focus on the future. By the late 1960s, the newly emerging field of social and technological inquiry seemed to promise a novel response to post-industrial growing pains. This professional interest in scientific forecasts of complex multi- dimensional questions had expanded beyond RAND and federal agencies to reach public notice. What changed during the late 1960s was the focus of forecasts and the sheer quantity of them. This emerging “enterprise” of studying the future, as the Time article described it, inaugurated a distinctly future-minded social commentary. Following principles such as the acting in light of desirable future images or scenarios, and a belief in the multiplicity of futures, reflected the field‟s self-definition. The plural name of “futures studies,”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SPACE and DEFENSE
    SPACE and DEFENSE Volume Three Number One Summer 2009 Space Deterrence: The Delicate Balance of Risk by Ambassador Roger G. Harrison, Collins G. Shackelford and Deron R. Jackson with commentaries by Dean Cheng Pete Hays John Sheldon Mike Manor and Kurt Neuman Dwight Rauhala and Jonty Kasku-Jackson EISENHOWER CENTER FOR SPACE AND DEFENSE STUDIES Space and Defense Scholarly Journal of the United States Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Editor-in-Chief: Ambassador Roger Harrison, [email protected] Director, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Academic Editor: Dr. Eligar Sadeh, [email protected] Associate Academic Editors: Dr. Damon Coletta U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Michael Gleason U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Peter Hays National Security Space Office, USA Major Deron Jackson U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Collins Shackelford U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Colonel Michael Smith U.S. Air Force, USA Reviewers: Andrew Aldrin John Logsdon United Launch Alliance, USA George Washington University, USA James Armor Agnieszka Lukaszczyk ATK, USA Space Generation Advisory Council, Austria William Barry Molly Macauley NASA, France Resources for the Future, USA Frans von der Dunk Scott Pace University of Nebraska, USA George Washington University, USA Paul Eckart Xavier Pasco Boeing, USA Foundation for Strategic Research, France Andrew Erickson Wolfgang Rathbeger Naval War College, USA European Space Policy Institute, Austria Joanne Gabrynowicz Scott Trimboli University of Mississippi, USA University
    [Show full text]
  • Politics of Designing Visions of the Future
    DOI:10.6531/JFS.201903_23(3).0003 ARTICLE .23 Politics of Designing Visions of the Future Ramia Mazé Aalto University Finland Abstract Scenarios for policy and the public are increasingly given form by designers. For design, this means ideas about the future – futurity – is at stake, particularly in genres of ‘concept’, ‘critical’ and ‘persuasive’ design. While critical approaches are present in futures studies and political philosophy, design assumptions and preferences are typically not explicit, including gender norms, socio-ecological practices and power structures. Calling for further studies of the politics of design visions, I outline possible approaches and elaborate through the example ‘Switch! Energy Futures’. I reflect upon how competing visions and politics of sustainability become explicit through our process, aesthetics and stakeholders. Keywords: Futures Studies, Design, Design Theory, Visualization, Scenarios, Political Philosophy. Introduction The future – indeed, temporality – has only entered substantially into design discourse relatively recently. Design and other disciplines such as architecture, geography and geology have long been preoccupied with space rather than with time (Grosz, 1999; Mazé, 2007). Today, however, ideas about the future – or, in philosopher Elizabeth Grosz’ terms, futurity – is stake in many design arguments and practices. Assumptions about time, progress and futurity underlie popular rhetoric concerning ‘change’, ‘progress’, ‘transformation’ and ‘transition’, and design, along with many disciplines, is affected by the increasing hegemony of values framed as ‘newness’ and ‘innovation’ (e.g. Wakeford, 2014). Beyond mere rhetoric, design research and practice must further develop its approaches to futurity. Indeed, the future is itself might be conceived as a design problem (Reeves, Goulden, & Dingwall, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Kahn Used the Metaphor of an 'Escalation Ladder'
    Preventing Nuclear Use: Internationally-Controlled Theater Missile Defenses Among Non- Super-Arsenal States1 Carolyn C. James, PhD University of Missouri, Columbia INTRODUCTION The current debates over missile defenses in the United States all have a common aspect - the systems are meant to provide a defense for US territory, allies, or troops abroad.2 This article proposes a different view with significant security potential. Specifically, theater missile defenses (TMD) should be considered as an international tool to prevent nuclear weapons use among proliferated states.3 Internationally-controlled TMD placed at potential flash points could prevent conflicts and crises from escalating to nuclear levels. These areas include borders with so-called “rogue” states, such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all of whom have seemingly aggressive ballistic missile programs and are embroiled in protracted conflicts with their neighbors.4 Similar to the goal of peacekeeping, reducing and limiting conflict in regions such as the Middle East clearly is in the US national interest. How, then, can nuclear use be prevented? Currently, there are seven declared nuclear weapon states (US, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Pakistan, India), one non-declared “opaque” nuclear weapon state (Israel), and several states with known or suspected nuclear aspirations (including Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Taiwan). Two of these, the US and Russia, have established a legacy of Cold War deterrence policies. Nuclear deterrence, in particular, has been credited with maintaining crisis stability during those years.5 Today, a major debate in the field of security studies surrounds the question: Does nuclear deterrence really work? A common failure in most of these discussions about successful deterrence and avoiding nuclear use is the lack of distinction among nuclear force levels.6 The debate tends to be clarified by asking whether it was nuclear weapons, or mutual assured destruction (MAD), that kept the Cold War cold.
    [Show full text]
  • Seari Short Course Series
    SEAri Short Course Series Course: PI.26s Epoch-based Thinking: Anticipating System and Enterprise Strategies for Dynamic Futures Lecture: Lecture 3: Related Methods for Considering Context and Time Author: Adam Ross and Donna Rhodes Lecture Number: SC-2010-PI26s-3-1 Revision Date: July 24, 2010 This course was taught at PI.26s as a part of the MIT Professional Education Short Programs in July 2010 in Cambridge, MA. The lectures are provided to satisfy demand for learning more about Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration, Epoch-Era Analysis, and related SEAri-generated methods. The course is intended for self-study only. The materials are provided without instructor support, exercises or “course notebook” contents. Do not separate this cover sheet from the accompanying lecture pages. The copyright of the short course is retained by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reproduction, reuse, and distribution of the course materials are not permitted without permission. seari.mit.edu [PI.26s] Epoch-Based Thinking: Anticipating System and Enterprise Strategies for Dynamic Futures Lecture 3 Related Methods for Considering Context and Time Dr. Donna H. Rhodes Dr. Adam M. Ross [email protected] [email protected] Massachusetts Institute of Technology Outline • Context and time as aspects of complex systems and enterprises • Context aspect • Temporal aspect • Legacy and emerging approaches • Unique focus of epoch-based thinking seari.mit.edu © 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 Five Aspects Taxonomy related to form of system components and STRUCTURAL their interrelationships related to function/performance, operations, BEHAVIORAL and reactions to stimuli related to circumstances in which the CONTEXTUAL system or enterprise exists related to the dimensions and properties of TEMPORAL systems over time related to stakeholder preferences, PERCEPTUAL perceptions and cognitive biases Rhodes, D.
    [Show full text]
  • 31 Nuclear Weapons—Use, Probabilities and History
    1 ROTARY DISTRICT 5440 PEACEBUILDER NEWSLETTER MARCH 2020 NUMBER 31 NUCLEAR WEAPONS—USE, PROBABILITIES AND HISTORY William M. Timpson, Robert Meroney, Lloyd Thomas, Sharyn Selman and Del Benson Fort Collins Rotary Club Lindsey Pointer, 2017 Rotary Global Grant Scholarship Recipient In these newsletters of the Rotary District Peacebuilders, we want to invite readers for contributions and ideas, suggestions and possibilities for our efforts to promote the foundational skills for promoting peace, i.e., nonviolent conflict resolution, improved communication and cooperation, successful negotiation and mediation as well as the critical and creative thinking that can help communities move through obstacles and difficulties. HOW THE MOST VIOLENT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY, A NCLEAR WWIII, HAS BEEN AVOIDED, SO FAR Robert Lawrence, Ph.D. is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Colorado State University who has written extensively on this issue of nuclear weapons Let’s play a mind game. Think back in time and pick an actual war, any war. Now imagine you are the leader who began the war. Would you have ordered the attack if you knew for certain that 30 minutes later you, your family, and your people would all be killed. Probably not. Your logic led Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev to jointly declare “a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.” This is the sine qua non of American and Russian nuclear deterrence policy. Always before wars made sense to some because they could be won, and there were many winners. How then has this no-win war situation---the first in history-- happened? Because the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnicide “Here Is What We Now Know: the United States and Russia Each Have an Actual Doomsday Machine.”
    Omnicide “Here is what we now know: the United States and Russia each have an actual Doomsday Machine.” By Daniel Ellsberg From The Doomsday Machine, published by Bloomsbury. The book is an account of America’s nuclear program in the 1960s drawn from Ellsberg’s experience as a consultant to the Department of Defense and the White House, drafting Secretary Robert McNamara’s plans for nuclear war. Ellsberg is the author of Secrets, a book about his experiences leaking the Pentagon Papers. At the conclusion of his 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick introduced the concept of a “Doomsday Machine”—designed by the Soviet Union to deter nuclear attack against the country by automating the destruction of all human life as a response to such an attack. The movie’s Russian leader had installed the system before revealing it to the world, however, and it was now being triggered by a single nuclear explosion from an American B-52 sent off by a rogue commander without presidential authorization. Kubrick had borrowed the name and the concept of the Doomsday machine from my former colleague Herman Kahn, a Rand physicist with whom he had discussed it. In his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War, Kahn wrote that he would be able to design such a device. It could be produced within ten years and would be relatively cheap— since it could be placed in one’s own country or in the ocean. It would not depend on sending warheads halfway around the world. But, he said, the machine was obviously undesirable. It would be too difficult to control— too inflexible and automatic—and its failure “kills too many people”— everyone, in fact, an outcome that the philosopher John Somerville later termed “omnicide.” Kahn was sure in 1961 that no such system had been built, nor would it be, by either the United States or the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications from the Foreword by Olaf Helmer
    The Delphi Method Techniques and Applications Edited by Harold A. Linstone Portland State University Murray Turoff New Jersey Institute of Technology With a Foreword by Olaf Helmer University of Southern California ©2002 Murray Turoff and Harold A. Linstone I. Introduction I. Introduction HAROLD A. LINSTONE and MURRAY TUROFF General Remarks It is common, in a book of this kind, to begin with a detailed and explicit definition of the subject- the Delphi technique. However, if we were to attempt this, the reader would no doubt encounter at least one contribution to this collection which would violate our definition. There is in addition a philosophical perspective that when something has attained a point at which it is explicitly definable, then progress has stopped; such is the view we hold with respect to Delphi. In 1969 the number of Delphi studies that had been done could be counted in three digits; today, in 1974, the figure may have already reached four digits. The technique and its application are in a period of evolution, both with respect to how it is applied and to what it is applied. It is the objective of this book to expose the richness of what may be viewed as an evolving field of human endeavor. The reader will encounter in these pages many different perspectives on the Delphi method and an exceedingly diverse range of applications. For a technique that can be considered to be in its infancy, it would be presumptuous of us to present Delphi in the cloak of a neatly wrapped package, sitting on the shelf and ready to use, Rather, we have adopted the approach, through our selection of contributions, of exhibiting a number of different objects having the Delphi label and inviting you to sculpt from these examples your own view and assessment of the technique.
    [Show full text]
  • Implication of Two New Paradigms for Futures Studies1 Éva HIDEG
    Implication of Two New Paradigms for Futures Studies 1 Éva HIDEG Abstract The paper considers the emergence of two recent perspectives in futures work. One is evolutionary futures studies. The other is critical futures studies. After describing aspects of each, the paper considers them as alternative rival paradigms in relation to criteria that include: the role of the human being as a subject, the role of interpretation and differences in methodological premises. It concludes that both have contributed to the development of futures methods but that a number of theoretical and methodological problems still remain unsolved. 1. Antecedents and main theoretical-methodological problems What has most characterised the road covered by studies of futures up to the 1980s was its emergence as an independent and structured field of science and as an independent sphere of social activity. Despite the fact that the theory and methodology of futures research had crystallised and solidified, the studies of futures had by no means become united. The paradigmatic differences interpreted according to Kuhn remained palpable 2. This was most detectable in the cultivation of two differing systems of approaches, namely in futures research, which adopts the criteria of classical science, and in futures studi es , which is more culture-based. Futures research, which moulds the particular criteria of science it wishes to adhere to more and more, worked on developing and adapting new methods and on uniformly solidifying the process of forecasting in different areas. Futures studies, however, interpreted the determination of the future, the future-shaping role of culture and the methodology of futures studies through the filter of research into culture.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Train Your Oracle: the Delphi Method and Its Turbulent Youth in Operations Research and the Policy Sciences
    SSS0010.1177/0306312718798497Social Studies of ScienceDayé 798497research-article2018 Article Social Studies of Science 1 –23 How to train your oracle: © The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: The Delphi method and its sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718798497DOI: 10.1177/0306312718798497 turbulent youth in operations journals.sagepub.com/home/sss research and the policy sciences Christian Dayé Department of Sociology, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria Abstract Delphi is a procedure that produces forecasts on technological and social developments. This article traces the history of Delphi’s development to the early 1950s, where a group of logicians and mathematicians working at the RAND Corporation carried out experiments to assess the predictive capacities of groups of experts. While Delphi now has a rather stable methodological shape, this was not so in its early years. The vision that Delphi’s creators had for their brainchild changed considerably. While they had initially seen it as a technique, a few years later they reconfigured it as a scientific method. After some more years, however, they conceived of Delphi as a tool. This turbulent youth of Delphi can be explained by parallel changes in the fields that were deemed relevant audiences for the technique, operations research and the policy sciences. While changing the shape of Delphi led to some success, it had severe, yet unrecognized methodological consequences. The core assumption of Delphi that the convergence of expert opinions observed over the iterative stages of the procedure can be interpreted as consensus, appears not to be justified for the third shape of Delphi as a tool that continues to be the most prominent one.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads of Technical Information
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2018 Nuclear Spaces: Simulations of Nuclear Warfare in Film, by the Numbers, and on the Atomic Battlefield Donald J. Kinney Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES NUCLEAR SPACES: SIMULATIONS OF NUCLEAR WARFARE IN FILM, BY THE NUMBERS, AND ON THE ATOMIC BATTLEFIELD By DONALD J KINNEY A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2018 Donald J. Kinney defended this dissertation on October 15, 2018. The members of the supervisory committee were: Ronald E. Doel Professor Directing Dissertation Joseph R. Hellweg University Representative Jonathan A. Grant Committee Member Kristine C. Harper Committee Member Guenter Kurt Piehler Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii For Morgan, Nala, Sebastian, Eliza, John, James, and Annette, who all took their turns on watch as I worked. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, Kris Harper, Jonathan Grant, Kurt Piehler, and Joseph Hellweg. I would especially like to thank Ron Doel, without whom none of this would have been possible. It has been a very long road since that afternoon in Powell's City of Books, but Ron made certain that I did not despair. Thank you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract..............................................................................................................................................................vii 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Futures Studies
    DEPARTMENT OF FUTURES STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF KERALA M.Phil PROGRAMME IN FUTURES STUDIES SYLLABUS (Under Credit and Semester System w.e.f. 2016 Admissions) UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF FUTURES STUDIES M.Phil Programme in Futures Studies Aim: The M.Phil Programme in Futures Studies aims to make the students to conceive and constitute objects for research that belong to interdisciplinary areas with special emphasis on science, technology and its relationship with society with a futuristic outlook. It also intends to equip the students with forecasting and futuristic problem solving methods in their basic areas of specialization. Objectives To introduce the students to advanced areas of research in their basic domain with a futuristic outlook. To make the students competent in literature collection pertaining to his/her study area. To make the students to do independent field work and data collection. To prepare the students for undertaking analysis with the help of computational tools and softwares. To prepare the students to undertake serious research and train the students in better scientific communication. Structure of the Programme Semester Course Code Name of the Course Number of No. Credits FUS-711 Interdisciplinary Research & Research 4 Methodology FUS-712 Scientific Computing and Forecasting 4 FUS-713(i) Technological Futures, Forecasting and 4 Assessment FUS-713(ii) Computational Chemistry 4 FUS-713(iii) Molecular Modeling and Molecular Dynamics 4 I FUS-713(iv) Optimization Techniques 4 FUS-713(v) Nonlinear Dynamics and
    [Show full text]
  • Futures-Thinking Skills to Students and Educators Around the World and to Inspire Them to Influence Their Futures
    Teaching about the Future Peter Bishop Sacramento CA 30 October 2030 We teach the future as we do the past. Our ASPIRATION is that every student is prepared to navigate an uncertain world and has the agency to imagine and create their preferred future. Our MISSION is to teach futures-thinking skills to students and educators around the world and to inspire them to influence their futures. We teach the future as we do the past. Today’s Purpose Enroll you in the campaign to accomplish something of significance “My name is Harvey Milk... And I am here to recruit you.” -- Milk, the movie, 2008 We teach the future as we do the past. The Invention of “the Future” • Ancient techniques, Delphic Oracle • Eschatology, End times • Enlightenment (Industrial revolution) – Sebastien Mercier, L’Ann 2440 (1770) – Marquis de Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind (1778) – Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) • Science fiction – Jules Verne (1865), H.G. Wells (1898) • Trends – William Ogburn (1933), H.G. Wells (1901) • Theory (1950s) – Herman Kahn, RAND Corp – Fred Polak, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Gaston Berger We teach the future as well as the past. The Professionalization of the Future • Forecasting – from the Delphic Oracle to… – Trend extrapolation: William Ogburn, Recent Social Trends, 1933 – Econometrics: Lawrence Klein, Wharton Econometric Model, 1969 • Planning – from L’Enfant, Wash DC to… – Budget planning: Programming, Planning, Budgeting Systems (PPBS), 1961 – Urban planning: American Planning Assoc, 1978 – Strategic planning: Michael Porter, Competitive Strategy, 1980 We teach the future as well as the past.
    [Show full text]