Future proof.

 

There is no such thing as future proof anything, of course, so I use the term to refer to evidence that a current idea is becoming more and more probable of something we will see in the future. The evidence I am talking about surfaced in a FastCo article this week about biohacking and the new frontier of digital implants. Biohacking has a loose definition and can reference using genetic material without regard to ethical procedures, to DIY biology, to pseudo-bioluminescent tattoos, to body modification for functional enhancement—see transhumanism. Last year, my students investigated this and determined that a society willing to accept internal implants was not a near-future scenario. Nevertheless, according to FastCo author Steven Melendez,

“a survey released by Visa last year that found that 25% of Australians are ‘at least slightly interested’ in paying for purchases through a chip implanted in their bodies.”

Melendez goes on to describe a wide variety of implants already in use for medical, artistic and personal efficiency and interviews Tim Shank, president of a futurist group called TwinCities+. Shank says,

“[For] people with Android phones, I can just tap their phone with my hand, right over the chip, and it will send that information to their phone..”

implants

Amal Graafstra’s Hands [Photo: courtesy of Amal Graafstra] c/o WIRED

The popularity of body piercings and tattoos— also once considered as invasive procedures—has skyrocketed. Implantable technology, especially as it becomes more functionally relevant could follow a similar curve.

I saw this coming some years ago when writing The Lightstream Chronicles. The story, as many of you know, takes place in the far future where implantable technology is mundane and part of everyday life. People regulate their body chemistry access the Lightstream (the evolved Internet) and make “calls” using their fingertips embedded with Luminous Implants. These future implants talk directly to implants in the brain, and other systemic body centers to make adjustments or provide information.

An ad for Luminous Implants, and the "tap" numbers for local attractions.

An ad for Luminous Implants, and the “tap” numbers for local attractions.

Bookmark and Share

When the stakes are low, mistakes are beneficial. In more weighty pursuits, not so much.

 

I’m from the old school. I suppose, that sentence alone makes me seem like a codger. Let’s call it the eighties. Part of the art of problem solving was to work toward a solution and get it as tight as we possibly could before we committed to implementation. It was called the design process and today it’s called “design thinking.” So it was heresy to me when I found myself, some years ago now, in a high-tech corporation where this was a doctrine ignored. I recall a top-secret, new product meeting in which the owner and chief technology officer said, “We’re going to make some mistakes on this, so let’s hurry up and make them.” He was not speaking about iterative design, which is part and parcel of the design process, he was talking about going to market with the product and letting the users illuminate what we should fix. Of course, the product was safe and met all the legal standards, but it was far from polished. The idea was that mass consumer trial-by-fire would provide us with an exponentially higher data return than if we tested all the possible permutations in a lab at headquarters. He was, apparently, ahead of his time.

In a recent FastCo article on Facebook’s race to be the leader in AI, author Daniel Terdiman cites some of Mark Zuckerberg’s mantras: “‘Move fast and break things,’ or ‘Done is better than perfect.’” We can debate this philosophically or maybe even ethically, but it is clearly today’s standard procedure for new technologies, new science and the incessant race to be first. Here is a quote from that article:

“Artificial intelligence has become a vital part of scaling Facebook. It’s already being used to recognize the faces of your friends in photographs, and curate your newsfeed. DeepText, an engine for reading text that was unveiled last week, can understand “with near-human accuracy” the content in thousands of posts per second, in more than 20 different languages. Soon, the text will be translated into a dozen different languages, automatically. Facebook is working on recognizing your voice and identifying people inside of videos so that you can fast forward to the moment when your friend walks into view.”

The story goes on to say that Facebook, though it is pouring tons of money into AI, is behind the curve, having begun only three or so years ago. Aside from the fact that FB’s accomplishments seem fairly impressive (at least to me), people like Google and Microsoft are apparently way ahead. In the case of Microsoft, the effort began more than twenty years ago.

Today, the hurry up is accelerated by open sourcingWikipedia explains the benefits of open sourcing as:

“The open-source model, or collaborative development from multiple independent sources, generates an increasingly more diverse scope of design perspective than any one company is capable of developing and sustaining long term.”

The idea behind open sourcing is that the mistakes will happen even faster along with the advancements. It is becoming the de facto approach to breakthrough technologies. If fast is the primary, maybe even the only goal, it is a smart strategy. Or is it a touch short sighted? As we know, not everyone who can play with the code that a company has given them has that company’s best interests in mind. As for the best interests of society, I’m not sure those are even on the list.

To examine our motivations and the ripples that emanate from them, of course, is my mission with design fiction and speculative futures. Whether we like it or not, a by-product of technological development—aside from utopia—is human behavior. There are repercussions from the things we make and the systems that evolve from them. When your mantra is “Move fast and break things,” that’s what you’ll get. But there is certainly no time the move-fast loop to consider the repercussions of your actions, or the unexpected consequences. Consequences will appear all by themselves.

The technologists tell us that when we reach the holy grail of AI (whatever that is), we will be better people and solve the world’s most challenging problems. But in reality, it’s not that simple. With the nuances of AI, there are potential problems, or mistakes, that could be difficult to fix; new predicaments that humans might not be able to solve and AI may not be inclined to resolve on our behalf.

In the rush to make mistakes, how grave will they be? And, who is responsible?

Bookmark and Share

“At a certain point…”

 

A few weeks ago Brian Barrett of WIRED magazine reported on an “NEW SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM MAY LET COPS USE ALL OF THE CAMERAS.” According to the article,

“Computer scientists have created a way of letting law enforcement tap any camera that isn’t password protected so they can determine where to send help or how to respond to a crime.”

Barrett suggests that America has 30 million surveillance cameras out there. The above sentence, for me, is loaded. First of all, as with most technological advancements, they are always couched in the most benevolent form. These scientists are going to help law enforcement send help or respond to crimes. This is also the argument that the FBI used to try to force Apple to provide a backdoor to the iPhone. It was for the common good.

If you are like me, you immediately see a giant red flag waving to warn us of the gaping possibility for abuse. However, we can take heart to some extent. The sentence mentioned above also limits law enforcement access to, “any camera that isn’t password protected.” Now the question is: What percentage of the 30 million cameras are password protected? Does it include, for example, more than kennel cams or random weather cams? Does it include the local ATM, traffic, and other security cameras? The system is called CAM2.

“…CAM2 reveals the location and orientation of public network cameras, like the one outside your apartment.”

It can aggregate the cameras in a given area and allow law enforcement to access them. Hmm.

Last week I teased that some of the developments that I reserved for 25, 50 or even further into the future, through my graphic novel The Lightstream Chronicles, are showing signs of life in the next two or three years. A universal “cam” system like this is one of them; the idea of ubiquitous surveillance or the mesh only gets stronger with more cameras. Hence the idea behind my ubiquitous surveillance blog. If there is a system that can identify all of the “public network” cams, how far are we from identifying all of the “private network” cams? How long before these systems are hacked? Or, in the name of national security, how might these systems be appropriated? You may think this is the stuff of sci-fi, but it is also the stuff of design-fi, and design-fi, as I explained last week, is intended to make us think; about how these things play out.

In closing, WIRED’s Barrett raised the issue of the potential for abusing systems such as CAM2 with Gautam Hans, policy counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology. And, of course, we got the standard response:

“It’s not the best use of our time to rail against its existence. At a certain point, we need to figure out how to use it effectively, or at least with extensive oversight.”

Unfortunately, history has shown that that certain point usually arrives after something goes egregiously wrong. Then someone asks, “How could something like this happen?”

Bookmark and Share

It’s all happening too fast.

 

Since design fiction is my area of research and focus, I have covered the difference between it and science fiction in previous blogs. But the two are quite closely related. Let me start with science fiction. There are a plethora of definitions for SF. Here are two of my favorites.

The first is from Isaac Asimov:

“[Social] science fiction is that branch of literature which is concerned with the impact of scientific advance on human beings.” — Isaac Asimov, Science Fiction Writers of America Bulletin, 1951 1

The second is from Robert Heinlein:

“…realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the scientific method.” 2

I especially like the first because it emphasizes people at the heart of the storytelling. The second definition speaks to real-world knowledge, and understanding of the scientific method. Here, there is a clear distinction between science fiction and fantasy. Star Wars is not science fiction. Even George Lucas admits this. In a conversation at the Sundance Film Festival last year he is quoted as saying, “Star Wars really isn’t a science-fiction film, it’s a fantasy film and a space opera.”3 While Star Wars involves space travel (which is technically science based), the story has no connection to the real world; it may as well be Lord of the Rings.

I bring up these distinctions because design fiction is a hybrid of science fiction, but there is a difference. Sterling defines design fiction as, “The deliberate use of diegetic prototypes to suspend disbelief about change.” Though even Sterling agrees that his definition is “heavy-laden” the operative word in his definition is “deliberate.” In other words, a primary operand of design fiction is the designers intent. There is a purpose for design fiction and it is to provoke discussion about the future. While it may entertain, that is not it’s purpose. It needs to be a provocation. For me, the more provocative, the better. The idea that we would go quietly into whatever future unfolds based upon whatever corporate or scientific manifesto is most profitable or most manageable makes me crazy.

The urgency arises in the fact that the future is moving way to fast. In The Lightstream Chronicles, some of the developments that I reserved for 25, 50 or even further into the future are showing signs of life in the next two or three years. Next week I will introduce you to a couple of these technologies.

 

1. http://io9.com/5622186/how-many-defintions-of-science-fiction-are-there
2. Heinlein, R., 1983. The SF book of lists. In: Jakubowski, M., Edwards, M. (Eds.), The SF Book of Lists. Berkley Books, New York, p. 257.
3. http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a32507/george-lucas-sundance-quotes/
Bookmark and Share

The end of code.

 

This week WIRED Magazine released their June issue announcing the end of code. That would mean that the ability to write code, as is so cherished in the job world right now, is on the way out. They attribute this tectonic shift to Artificial Intelligence, machine learning, neural networks and the like. In the future (which is taking place now) we won’t have to write code to tell computers what to do, we will just have to teach them. I have been over this before through a number of previous writings. An example: Facebook uses a form of machine learning by collecting data from millions of pictures that are posted on the social network. When someone loads a group photo and identifies the people in the shot, Facebook’s AI remembers it by logging the prime coordinates on a human face and attributing them to that name (aka facial recognition). If the same coordinates show up again in another post, Facebook identifies it as you. People load the data (on a massive scale), and the machine learns. By naming the person or persons in the photo, you have taught the machine.

The WIRED article makes some interesting connections about the evolution of our thinking concerning the mind, about learning, and how we have taken a circular route in our reasoning. In essence, the mind was once considered a black box; there was no way to figure it out, but you could condition responses, a la Pavlov’s Dog. That logic changes with cognitive science which is the idea that the brain is more like a computer. The computing analogy caught on, and researchers began to see the whole idea of thought, memory, and thinking as stuff you could code, or hack, just like a computer. Indeed, it is this reasoning that has led to the notion that DNA is, in fact, codable, hence splicing through Crispr. If it’s all just code, we can make anything. That was the thinking. Now there is machine learning and neural networks. You still code, but only to set up the structure by which the “thing” learns, but after that, it’s on its own. The result is fractal and not always predictable. You can’t go back in and hack the way it is learning because it has started to generate a private math—and we can’t make sense of it. In other words, it is a black box. We have, in effect, stymied ourselves.

There is an upside. To train a computer you used to have to learn how to code. Now you just teach it by showing or giving it repetitive information, something anyone can do, though, at this point, some do it better than others.

Always the troubleshooter, I wonder what happens when we—mystified at a “conclusion” or decision arrived at by the machine—can’t figure out how to make it stop arriving at that conclusion. You can do the math.

Do we just turn it off?

Bookmark and Share

Adapt or plan? Where do we go from here?

I just returned from Nottingham, UK where I presented a paper for Cumulus 16, In This Place. The paper was entitled Design Fiction: A Countermeasure For Technology Surprise. An Undergraduate Proposal. My argument hinged on the idea that students needed to start thinking about our technosocial future. Design fiction is my area of research, but if you were inclined to do so, you could probably choose a variant methodology to provoke discussion and debate about the future of design, what designers do, and their responsibility as creators of culture. In January, I had the opportunity to take an initial pass at such a class. The experiment was a different twist on a collaborative studio where students from the three traditional design specialties worked together on a defined problem. The emphasis was on collaboration rather than the outcome. Some students embraced this while others pushed back. The push-back came from students fixated on building a portfolio of “things” or “spaces” or “visual communications“ so that they could impress prospective employers. I can’t blame them for that. As educators, we have hammered the old paradigm of getting a job at Apple or Google, or (fill in the blank) as the ultimate goal of undergraduate education. But the paradigm is changing and the model of a designer as the maker of “stuff” is wearing thin.

A great little polemic from Cameron Tonkinwise recently appeared that helped to articulate this issue. He points the finger at interaction design scholars and asks why they are not writing about or critiquing “the current developments in the world of tech.” He wonders whether anyone is paying attention. As designers and computer scientists we are feeding a pipeline of more apps with minimal viability, with seemingly no regard for the consequences on social systems, and (one of my personal favorites) the behaviors we engender through our designs.

I tell my students that it is important to think about the future. The usual response is, “We do!” When I drill deeper, I find that their thoughts revolve around getting a job, making a living, finding a home, and a partner. They rarely include global warming, economic upheavals, feeding the world, natural disasters, etc. Why? These issues they view as beyond their control. We do not choose these things; they happen to us. Nevertheless, these are precisely the predicaments that need designers. I would argue these concerns are far more important than another app to count my calories or select the location for my next sandwich.

There is a host of others like Tonkinwise that see that design needs to refocus, but often it seems like there are are a greater number that blindly plod forward unaware of the futures they are creating. I’m not talking about refocusing designers to be better at business or programming languages; I’m talking about making designers more responsible for what they design. And like Tonkinwise, I agree that it needs to start with design educators.

Bookmark and Share

The nature of the unpredictable.

 

Following up on last week’s post, I confessed some concern about technologies that progress too quickly and combine unpredictably.

Stewart Brand introduced the 1968 Whole Earth Catalog with, “We are as gods and might as well get good at it.”1 Thirty-two years later, he wrote that new technologies such as computers, biotechnology and nanotechnology are self-accelerating, that they differ from older, “stable, predictable and reliable,” technologies such as television and the automobile. Brand states that new technologies “…create conditions that are unstable, unpredictable and unreliable…. We can understand natural biology, subtle as it is because it holds still. But how will we ever be able to understand quantum computing or nanotechnology if its subtlety keeps accelerating away from us?”2. If we combine Brand’s concern with Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns and the current supporting evidence exponentially, as the evidence supports, will it be as Brand suggests unpredictable?

Last week I discussed an article from WIRED Magazine on the VR/MR company Magic Leap. The author writes,

“Even if you’ve never tried virtual reality, you probably possess a vivid expectation of what it will be like. It’s the Matrix, a reality of such convincing verisimilitude that you can’t tell if it’s fake. It will be the Metaverse in Neal Stephenson’s rollicking 1992 novel, Snow Crash, an urban reality so enticing that some people never leave it.”

And it will be. It is, as I said last week, entirely logical to expect it.

We race toward these technologies with visions of mind-blowing experiences or life-changing cures, and usually, we imagine only the upside. We all too often forget the human factor. Let’s look at some other inevitable technological developments.
• Affordable DNA testing will tell you your risk of inheriting a disease or debilitating condition.
• You can ingest a pill that tells your doctor, or you in case you forgot, that you took your medicine.
• Soon we will have life-like robotic companions.
• Virtual reality is affordable, amazingly real and completely user-friendly.

These are simple scenarios because they will likely have aspects that make them even more impressive, more accessible and more profoundly useful. And like most technological developments, they will also become mundane and expected. But along with them come the possibility of a whole host of unintended consequences. Here are a few.
• The government’s universal healthcare requires that citizens have a DNA test before providing you qualify.
• It monitors whether you’ve taken your medication and issues a fine if you don’t, even if you don’t want your medicine.
• A robotic, life-like companion can provide support and encouragement, but it could also be your outlet for violent behavior or abuse.
• The virtual world is so captivating and pleasurable that you don’t want to leave, or it gets to the point where it is addicting.

It seems as though whenever we involve human nature, we set ourselves up for unintended consequences. Perhaps it is not the nature of technology to be unpredictable; it is us.

1. Brand, Stewart. “WE ARE AS GODS.” The Whole Earth Catalog, September 1968, 1-58. Accessed May 04, 2015. http://www.wholeearth.com/issue/1010/article/195/we.are.as.gods.
2. Brand, Stewart. “Is Technology Moving Too Fast? Self-Accelerating Technologies-Computers That Make Faster Computers, For Example – May Have a Destabilizing Effect on .Society.” TIME, 2000
Bookmark and Share

Design fiction. I want to believe.

 

I have blogged in the past about logical succession. When it comes to creating realistic design fiction narrative, there needs to be a sense of believability. Coates1 calls this “plausible reasoning.”, “[…]putting together what you know to create a path leading to one or several new states or conditions, at a distance in time.” In other words, for the audience to suspend their disbelief, there has to be a basic understanding of how we got here. If you depict something that is too fantastic, your audience won’t buy it, especially if you are trying to say that, “This could happen.”

“When design fictions are conceivable and realistically executed they carry a greater potential for making an impact and focusing discussion and debate around these future scenarios.”2

In my design futures collaborative studio, I ask students to do a rigorous investigation of future technologies, the ones that are on the bleeding edge. Then I want them to ask, “What if?” It is easier said than done. Particularly because of technological convergence, the way technologies merge with other technologies to form heretofore unimagined opportunities.

There was an article this week in Wired Magazine concerning a company called Magic Leap. They are in the MR business, mixed reality as opposed to virtual reality. With MR, the virtual imagery happens within the space you’re in—in front of your eyes—rather than in an entirely virtual space. The demo from Wired’s site is pretty convincing. The future of MR and VR, for me, are easy to predict. Will it get more realistic? Yes. Will it get cheaper, smaller, and ubiquitous? Yes. At this point, a prediction like this is entirely logical. Twenty-five years ago it would not have been as easy to imagine.

As the Wired article states,

“[…]the arrival of mass-market VR wasn’t imminent.[…]Twenty-five years later a most unlikely savior emerged—the smartphone! Its runaway global success drove the quality of tiny hi-res screens way up and their cost way down. Gyroscopes and motion sensors embedded in phones could be borrowed by VR displays to track head, hand, and body positions for pennies. And the processing power of a modern phone’s chip was equal to an old supercomputer, streaming movies on the tiny screen with ease.”

To have predicted that VR would be where it is today with billions of dollars pouring into fledgling technologies and realistic, and utterly convincing demonstrations would have been illogical. It would have been like throwing a magnet into a bucket of nails, rolling it around and guessing which nails would end up coming out attached.

What is my point? I think it is important to remind ourselves that things will move blindingly fast particularly when companies like Google and Facebook are throwing money at them. Then, the advancement of one only adds to the possibilities of the next iteration possibly in ways that no one can predict. As VR or MR merges with biotech or artificial reality, or just about anything else you can imagine, the possibilities are endless.

Unpredictable technology makes me uncomfortable. Next week I’ll tell you why.

 

  1. Coates, J.F., 2010. The future of foresight—A US perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77, 1428–1437.
  2. E. Scott Denison. “Timed-release Design Fiction: A Digital Online Methodology to Provoke Reflection on our Socio- Technological Future.”  Edited by Michal Derda Nowakowski. ISBN: 978-1-84888-427-4 Interdisciplinary.net.
Bookmark and Share

Are we ready to be gods? Revisited.

 

I base today’s blog on a 2013 post with a look at the world from the perspective of The Lightstream Chronicles, which takes place in the year 2159. To me, this is a very plausible future. — ESD

 

There was a time when crimes were simpler. Humans committed crimes against other humans — not so simple anymore. In that world, you have the old-fashioned mano a mano, but you also have human against synthetic, and synthetic against the human. There are creative variations as well.

It was bound to happen. No sooner than the first lifelike robots became commercially available in the late 2020’s, there were issues of ethics and misuse. Though scientists and ethicists discussed the topic in the early part of the 21st century, the problems escalated faster than the robotics industry had conceived possible.

According to the 2007 Roboethics Roadmap,

“…problems inherent in the possible emergence of human function in the robot: like consciousness, free will, self-consciousness, sense of dignity, emotions, and so on. Consequently, this is why we have not examined problems — debated in literature — like the need not to consider robot as our slaves, or the need to guarantee them the same respect, rights and dignity we owe to human workers.”1

In the 21st century many of the concerns within the scientific community centered around what we as humans might do to infringe upon the “rights” of the robot. Back in 2007, it occurred to researchers that the discussion of roboethics needed to include more fundamental questions regarding the ethics of the robots’ designers, manufacturers and users. However, once in the role of the creator-god, they did not foresee how “unprepared” for that responsibility we were as a society, and how quickly humans would pervert the robot for formerly “unethical” uses, including but not limited to their modification for crime and perversion.

Nevertheless, more than 100 years later, when synthetic human production is at the highest levels in history, the questions of ethics in both humans and their creations remain a significant point of controversy. As the 2007 Roboethics Roadmap concluded, “It is absolutely clear that without a deep rooting of Roboethics in society, the premises for the implementation of an artificial ethics in the robots’ control systems will be missing.”

After these initial introductions of humanoid robots, now seen as almost comically primitive, the technology, and in turn the reasoning, emotions, personality and realism became progressively more sophisticated. Likewise, their implementations became progressively more like the society that manufactured them. They became images of their creators both benevolent and malevolent.

Schematic1Longm

In our image?

 

 

A series of laws were enacted to prevent the use of humanoid robots for criminal intent, yet at the same time, military interests were fully pursuing dispassionate automated humanoid robots with the express purpose of extermination. It was truly a time of paradoxical technologies. To further complicate the issue were ongoing debates on the nature of what was considered “criminal”. Could a robot become a criminal without human intervention? Is something criminal if it is consensual?

These issues ultimately evolved into complex social, economic, political, and legal entanglement that included heavy government regulation and oversight where such was achievable. As this complexity and infrastructure grew to accommodate the continually expanding technology, the greatest promise and challenges came almost 100 years after those first humanoid robots. With the advent of virtual human brains now being grown in labs, the readily identifiable differences between synthetic humans and real human gradually began to disappear. The similarities were so shocking and so undetectable that new legislation was enacted to restrict the use of virtual humans, and classification system was established to ensure visible distinctions for the vast variety of social synthetics.

The concerns of the very first Roboethics Roadmap are confirmed even 150 years into the future. Synthetics are still abused and used to perpetrate crimes. Their virtual humanness only adds an element of complexity, reality, and in some cases, horror to the creativity of how they are used.

 

 1 Euron Roboethics Roadmap
Bookmark and Share

Nine years from now.

 

Today I’m on my soapbox, again, as an advocate of design thinking, of which design fiction is part of the toolbox.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center published a report on Digital Life in 2025. Therein, “The report covers experts’ views about advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, and their impact on jobs and employment.” Their nutshell conclusion was that:

“Experts envision automation and intelligent digital agents permeating vast areas of our work and personal lives by 2025, (9 years from now), but they are divided on whether these advances will displace more jobs than they create.”

On the upside, some of the “experts” believe that we will, as the brilliant humans that we are, invent new kinds of uniquely human work that we can’t replace with AI—a return to an artisanal society with more time for leisure and our loved ones. Some think we will be freed from the tedium of work and find ways to grow in some other “socially beneficial” pastime. Perhaps we will just be chillin’ with our robo-buddy.

On the downside, there are those who believe that not only blue-collar, robotic, jobs will vanish, but also white-collar, thinking jobs, and that will leave a lot of people out of work since there are only so many jobs as clerks at McDonald’s or greeters at Wal-Mart. They think that some of these are the fault of education for not better preparing us for the future.

A few weeks ago I blogged about people who are thinking about addressing these concerns with something called Universal Basic Income (UBI), a $12,000 gift to everyone in the world since everyone will be out of work. I’m guessing (though it wasn’t explicitly stated) that this money would come from all the corporations that are raking in the bucks by employing the AI’s, the robots and the digital agents, but who don’t have anyone on the payroll anymore. The advocates of this idea did not address whether the executives at these companies, presumably still employed, will make more than $12,000, nor whether the advocates themselves were on the 12K list. I guess not. They also did not specify who would buy the services that these corporations were offering if we are all out of work. But I don’t want to repeat that rant here.

I’m not as optimistic about the unique capabilities of humankind to find new, uniquely human jobs in some new, utopian artisanal society. Music, art, and blogs are already being written by AI, by the way. I do agree, however, that we are not educating our future decision-makers to adjust adequately to whatever comes along. The process of innovative design thinking is a huge hedge against technology surprise, but few schools have ever entertained the notion and some have never even heard of it. In some cases, it has been adopted, but as a bastardized hybrid to serve business-as-usual competitive one-upmanship.

I do believe that design, in its newest and most innovative realizations, is the place for these anticipatory discussions and future. What we need is thinking that encompasses a vast array of cross-disciplinary input, including philosophy and religion, because these issues are more than black and white, they are ethically and morally charged, and they are inseparable from our culture—the scaffolding that we as a society use to answer our most existential questions. There is a lot of work to do to survive ourselves.

 

 

Bookmark and Share
Return top

About the Envisionist

Scott Denison is an accomplished visual, brand, interior, and set designer. He is currently Assistant Professor and Foundations Coordinator for the Department of Design at The Ohio State University. He continues his research in design fiction that examines the design-culture relationship within future narratives and interventions. You can read his online graphic novel in weekly updates at http://thelightstreamchronicles.com. This blog contains commentary on all things future and often includes artist commentary on comic pages. You can find the author's professional portfolio at http://scottdenison(dot)com