What The F*ck Is Futurism?
I’ll start by making a bold statement: futurism must die.
There. I’ve said it. Move on.
(for this spleen venting, I’ll be using the term ‘futurist’ and ‘futurism’ to describe the practice of futurology, futures study, and foresight strategy. Mainly because the former have become colloquial terms and are more widely recognised and accepted than their more formal cousins. This piece has nothing to do with Italian art movements.)
It’s not a prediction. Well, of sorts, it is. Although, can it be a prediction if it also feels like déjà vu? You see, 13 years ago, I wrote something similar about the business process management industry, which blew up and caused a commotion, and I kind of feel that it’s necessary to repeat this cathartic process of release and exposure.
To begin, I took a stroll through the Association of Professional Futurists website and community, knowing from others’ feedback what I’d find: a lost organisation filled with protectionism, an unwilling community, and a lot of cancelled memberships that no longer find value in paying to just wear the AFP badge.
I then stumbled into the burning ashes of what was once the World Future Society, the OG of the profession, started by Edward Cornish in the 1960s. What was once the birthplace of the community of professional foresight practitioners and much of the formalisation of the field we have today is nothing more than an abandoned forum. Back in the 60s and 70s, Cornish and the organisation were pretty instrumental in helping to formalise the methods and tools practitioners used, bringing the profession to the White House and governments worldwide. Now, even the wfs.org domain is no more, pointing to a shady financial services website, which is no doubt another venture of the WFS’s former chairperson.
The ultimate irony is that the true World Future Society now exists only in the Wayback Machine, consigned to a hidden history that, in a few years, nobody will remember to look up, let alone recall that it ever existed.
I can’t comment on the /futurology subreddit because I’ve been hilariously banned from posting there, and my articles get removed. Again, goes back to what I said 18 months ago, that you just can’t be critical about a field that concerns itself with the study of future possibilities that has none of itself.
I’m not the only one. There is growing dissent in the field.
I could not agree more on your opinion when it comes to futurists right now. I am disillusioned in the ‘sponsored by Dubai’ foresight stuff I’m seeing coming out of well everyone at the moment.
I’m even wondering whether futurists have a future….
In 2003, a scathing op-ed in WIRED popped up claiming that ‘Futurism is Dead’, quoting a few lapsed and recovering futurists about the state of the field.
Futurism is doomed and not just because fools are endemic to the field. It’s doomed because the loosely informed, jack-of-all-trades, trend-watching pontificator (read: professional futurist) is obsolete.
This part is true — what is regarded as a futurist today is nothing but someone who will regurgitate a recent press release and add an AI-generated comment and emoji on LinkedIn for clicks about how cool this will be in 5 years.
Futurists don’t have a crystal ball. They examine trends and play out what-if scenarios. Any hausfrau with gumption and a dialup connection can do it.
Although strategic foresight and future studies have many types of methods available to practitioners, in reality, employing them to improve organisational efficiency, market capitalisation, and corporate profitability is nothing more than just a combination of quantitative research and statistical risk analysis. This is the unfortunate truth of the foresight practice now; it has become a corporate weapon to help business leaders get a leg over their competitors, not as a tool to help society navigate and take agency over the future for themselves.
This might be a sweeping generalisation and a bit of a myopic view. At its core, strategic foresight is not merely about predicting the future with numerical precision; it is about developing a deeper understanding of potential futures to make better decisions in the present using a vast array of methods.
But, if you look at futurists today, their credentials, who they call clients and work with, it’s mostly the private sector. There is no real interest in the future at all, only how to avoid a costly mistake that will hit the bottom line or try to account for some new consumer trend they should be taking full advantage of.
Futurists, as they define themselves now, are celebrity evangelists. It doesn’t matter if what they say is wrong; nobody will remember anyway. They just sound convincing because they claim it with the same confidence of ChatGPT, with the same flourish as a teleevangelist if you give them a stage.
(incidentally, there are swathes of futurists who use large language models to do the work for them, the reality now is just what exactly are you paying a futurist to do that you can’t do yourself with a modicum of critical thinking and a $20 subscription?)
It’s not just that the futurist has no clothes, it’s that the futurist has no shame. And the future of futurism is at a critical juncture; at the core, it has an identity crisis. Something all too evident in a recent survey conducted by Foresight Folk.
Frankly, it needs to grow up and shed some skin.
Should foresight remain a rigorous methodology for long-term corporate planning, or evolve into a socially engaged, activist discipline? You already know my feelings about this, but let’s stop the assassination attempts for now and turn the clock back a bit because there is wisdom and a potential path forward that I consider an absolute imperative to consider when looking to the past for answers about the future.
Cornish’s Pasty
Now for the meat and potatoes of futurism.
It’s strange reading through his 2004 bible again, ‘Futuring: The Exploration of the Future’ because Cornish stated that the whole premise around futurism was not to predict the future but to shape it. It was never meant to be concerned with prophecy; he framed it as a proactive discipline, one that focused on empowering people with agency to shape a more desirable future for generations to come.
Already, so many have strayed from what the field of futurism was meant to be about and turned it into a cheap circus act. This is echoed in the Forsight Folk study, where the vast majority cite a ‘fascination with the future’ as a primary driving force to enter the profession as a mid-career pivot, but have lesser interests in understanding the cultural, societal, and ethical motivations for studying the future. There’s even less emphasis on understanding indigenous futurism, which to me ignores a larger part of the World in favour of Western beliefs and advancement.
From a personal perspective, this tracks; people turn themselves into futurists because they’re attracted to the money and attention it brings, waffling out loud about trendy topics and gathering a flock of followers to put on a pitch deck for influencer work.
It has nothing to do with agency; that’s too much like hard work.
And yet, Cornish underscored that foresight’s value was realised only when it inspired action; knowing was not enough; acting on that knowledge was crucial. Looking around at futurists today and it’s all mouth and no trousers, a constant stream of podcasts, written op-eds, and keynotes with little conviction.
His goal for putting in place a structure around the futurist discipline was to help anticipate risks and opportunities, providing the necessary foresight to develop and achieve long-term goals. He championed the idea that this was a learnable skill, a coherent body of knowledge and techniques for all, not just the privileged few.
The fact that most futurist associations are gatekeepers of knowledge and agency behind a membership fee would, I hope, make Cornish turn in his grave.
Cornish’s structured approaches remain in place today.
Wildcards (low-probability, high-impact events), Scenario Planning (developed by Herman Kahn at the RAND Corporation, and named after a scriptwriting technique), Visioning (creating compelling pictures of preferred futures, to which most futurists spend an inordinate amount of time on primarily because it makes for a good keynote), Delphi (quantitative forecasting can be used when there is enough information and data on the past), even something he and colleagues coined as Benestrophes (the opposite of a catastrophe around a set of optimistic Wildcards).
This isn’t an exhaustive list of methods by any means, but they are the most widely used you’ll encounter.
Cornish went further to define six supertrends that he saw shaping the future. To a large extent, these are still valid, more so than ever.
Technological Progress: The primary engine of cultural change (and arguably the most destructive and manipulative of all)
Economic Growth: Fueled by technology, leading to higher living standards, but also a persistent sense of what he called “relative poverty” as people compare themselves to others (social media…)
Improving Health: Leading to longer lives and an ageing population (with nothing else to do but find more work as the cost of living increases beyond their pensionable means)
Increasing Mobility: The global flow of people, goods, and diseases that can also weaken local community ties (suffering the pandemic taught us some lessons here, and our constant bickering over imaginary borders is going to hit hard once the next bullet point smacks us in the face)
Environmental Decline: The stark counterpoint to progress, driven by population and economic growth (in which technological progress will be touted as a silver bullet but ultimately fail)
Increasing Deculturation: The loss and blending of traditional cultures due to globalisation and mobility (and why the study and inclusion of polyfuturism and how indigenous cultures view the future is even more important than forcing a Western perspective on everyone)
Again, pointing to the recent Foresight Folk survey, the overemphasis on present and technology trends risks neglecting the structural factors essential for deep, long-term systems thinking. While most futurists in the study desired long-term influence and systems change, they rarely cited frustration with short-termism. There was a much stronger desire to develop skills in AI, technology, prototype building, and multimedia content creation, which to me suggested the typical toolkit of the modern-day futurist, I mean TikTok influencer, we see today.
In fact, if you asked people who Cornish was, I doubt many would have heard of him at all and would probably cite Robert Scoble as their favourite futurist.
Like A Lamb To The Slaughter
Now we get to the dissenting voices.
Richard Slaughter is a man after my own heart. Slaughter, in his book, “Futures Thinking for Social Foresight”, champions a layered epistemology, that foresight strategy must move beyond technocratic planning and shallow problem-solving into deeper cultural, philosophical, and ethical inquiry.
These, according to the survey, are the same areas that current futurists show a complete lack of interest in.
His book aimed to help empower people to design their own self-actualising (my wife, a psychotherapist, would be proud of me using this term!) pathways out of the industrial era
Slaughter calls for a shift from what he terms “flatland futures”, uninspired, deterministic projections, to a “wisdom culture” that integrates ethics, purpose, and imagination. His scathing assessment of late industrial culture smacks you in the face, calling it the “most rapacious, self-centered, and humanly destructive system yet seen upon the earth”, linking it to war, exploitation, and environmental destruction.
This domain is true strategic foresight: a disciplined and systematic approach to identify where to play, how to win in the future, and how to ensure organizational resiliency in the face of unforeseen disruption.
This quote from an HBR article on foresight strategy really says it all about the state of futurism and why I believe Slaughter is correct.
He says that futurism cannot be neutral, seeing foresight as a moral imperative, not a consulting toolkit for those same destructive corporate systems.
In other words, futurists must become activists, not corporate shills. It highlights that foresight, while powerful, is ultimately only as useful as the action it inspires. Knowing something could happen is one thing. Acting on that knowledge is another entirely. It’s a huge gap sometimes, but also echoes how Cornish felt himself.
If we knew with certainty what was coming, he argues, why would we bother to act? Where would human agency fit in? It implies that the very uncertainty of the future is what enables our freedom to choose and shape it.
Prediction removes choice.
And yet, all pop culture futurists seem to do these days is try to predict the future as dictated by someone else.
Slaughter took a different approach to futurism than Cornish, creating a set of categories in which to classify them.
Pop Futurism: Naïve, uncritical optimism (this is mainly what we see today from futurists, bullshit rhetoric taken straight out of the pages of whichever venture capitalist techno manifesto they side with. When you hear terms like ‘abundance’, this is where it stems from)
Problem-Focused Foresight: Tackling symptoms without addressing root causes (like identifying climate change or resource depletion, but waffling about superficial solutions without addressing the deeper systemic causes)
Critical Futures Studies: Questioning power structures and cultural paradigms (there’s definitely not enough of the former, primarily because you’ll be blacklisted, but we need so much more of the latter)
Epistemological Futures: Challenging the ways we know and think altogether (see: Polyfuturism, largely ignored in favour of Western forecasts imposed on everyone else, but challenging not just the problem but how we think about it)
He goes on to argue that “futures work that misses the shaping significance of socio-cultural foundations will increasingly be seen as naïve and superficial”. Again, in other words, we’re wasting far too much valuable time enabling the systems that are destroying our world, our freedoms, our rights and far less time giving agency back to everyone to shape better futures for themselves.
Modern futurism has abandoned imaginative audacity in favour of safe, data-driven optimism to appease an already fattened C-suite.
Prediction without empowerment is futile, as Cornish hinted at and Slaughter strongly advocates. Futurism must reorient from “forecasting for clients” to “capacity-building for communities.” He knew that the power to shape the future resides in people, not in any single image of the future.
Slaughter even warned us, years ago, of the relentless focus on compulsive technological dynamism to determine the future, something that venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen violently thrust their opinions towards us about, accusing us of being Luddites and scared of the (their) future if we criticise them.
I wonder what Slaughter would make of their tech fascist manifesto, “The Network State”, and how they see the world and what place there is for the rest of us who don’t meet their image…sound familiar?
It’s concerning how many futurists have yet to openly comment on this overt piece of work that threatens to shape the future for the few and remove agency from the rest, although unsurprising because it would cost them dearly to do so.
And yet, this is exactly the kind of agency the world needs right now, to stand up and fight for possible futures that benefit the many, not the few.
Futurism Must Die
Futurists are in crisis. Futurism has become nothing more than corporate theatre and this cannot be dismissed. If foresight continues to serve primarily elite institutions, it risks losing public legitimacy. It’s already regarded as a field filled with crystal ball gazing charlatans anyway, whether you want to recognise the public perception or not.
Without meaningful, cultural, ethical engagement and critique of systems of power, it may replicate the very futures it seeks to avoid or present alternatives to.
I’ll repeat this till I’m blue in the face: foresight is fundamentally about agency. The field’s potential greatest achievements lie in democratising futures thinking and equipping individuals with the tools and agency to anticipate and shape change, not the corporations. Unfortunately, to realise this potential means the profession must accept and address its blind spots through ethical reflection and integrate diverse worldviews into its core practices.
Cornish’s framework provides the essential, systematic toolkit. Without this methodological rigour, foresight risks becoming mere speculation and science fiction. Slaughter provides the necessary ethical and philosophical grounding, pushing futurists to question underlying assumptions and grapple with what the future should be, not just what it might be. And my stance is that there must be activism, and a blending of the two sides to take charge and be custodians of better futures for everyone and not let an unwanted future happen to us.
The future of the futurist profession, therefore, depends on its willingness to confront its own complicity in handing over the future to the wrong hands. It is about equipping people with the tools to think about the future, while simultaneously challenging the power structures that seek to define it, that the creation of tomorrow is truly collective and equitable, not a dictatorship.
Will futurists remain passive researchers, become activists or something else entirely?
Frankly, the entire profession needs a moral reckoning.
We need to protect the future for everyone, not just the few. This might mean a much bigger focus on participatory foresight, getting diverse communities involved in helping them shape and protect their futures, not just having Western futures dictated to them.
It’s about democratising the whole profession and dumping the corporate consulting focus. Leave that to the McKinsey wannabes or divorce it entirely from futurism and call it for what it is: statistical and risk analysis.
As a result, futurists are a step behind everyone else who is in control and dictating a future that they want to manifest for themselves. Ernest Hemingway wrote, “the world is a fine place and worth fighting for” — wouldn’t it be nice if futurists were the ones who fought for it?
For all the reasons cited and more across this piece and the others I’ve written, futurism must die in order for futurists to have a future at all.
Live with it.