Oligarchies, Terrorism, Greed, and Other Obstacles to Forecasting the Future

Townhall 

When Donald Trump, Scott Bessent, or Howard Lutnick make a short-term prediction about, say, our nation’s economic prospects for 2026, I listen. When an economist, technologist, or futurist makes a long-term forecast, I shudder. So much of what is uttered never comes to pass!

At the start of each year, the ‘seers’ among us feel compelled to prognosticate. And why not? Being in the long-term prediction business has its benefits. If you make a pronouncement today about something that might happen in 25 to 30 years or more, it’s far enough away to shield you from most doubters.

Recently, I encountered a National Geographic issue published 11 years ago. It featured a variety of predictions. Three forecasters, whose predictions I review below, are prominent subject matter experts in their chosen fields; otherwise, National Geographic would not have consulted them.

Cars and Phones and Religion

Paul Saffo, a technology forecaster, in 2015 predicted that within five to 10 years, driverless cars would share the roadways with traditional vehicles. Largely wrong on the timing, he said that this development would happen in cities first and then spread to the hinterlands within another decade. Eventually, he will likely be correct.

Saffo asserted that people will no longer own cars. In the long run, they'll have subscriptions to auto services. Cars will show up at their doors. Would this apply, however, to rural residents? He said that we are departing from an economy based on purchases and instead will become subscribers. We won't buy cellphones; we will subscribe to them. We won't purchase software but will subscribe to it (he is relatively safe on this last one). In the long run, we’ll be paying more because a one-time purchase is almost always more economical than a continuing monthly fee stretched out over years.

Saffo also predicted that between, perhaps, 2025 and 2035, a new religion[Green energy?] could take hold based on reverence for the environment. “Technology,” he said, “is the solvent leaching the glue out of our global structure – including shaking our belief systems to the core.”

I am shaken to the core by his disregard for the human capacity to screw up things, regardless of technological capabilities. Clearly, forecasting is fraughtwith dangers. Among them is being enamored with technology while underestimating the impact of human faults and foibles.

Goodbye Disease, Poverty, and Hunger?

Brian Reese is the author of Infinite Progress: How the Internet and Technology Will End Ignorance, Disease, Poverty, Hunger, and War. The book title is already so wrong, we could stop right here!

In 2015, Reese predicted that by 2035, we would witness dramatic improvements in how we live via exponential growth in technology. Okay, that seems reasonable. He pointed out that 4,000 years passed from the time we first used an abacus to an iPad. By 2045, we’ll be further ahead of the iPad than the abacus.

Reese maintained that humanity will be able to resolve all problems that are technical in nature. These include issues such as poverty, hunger, disease, energy, and scarcity of resources. He said that if you live a few more years, you have a decent chance of never dying. I presume that means if you avoid an earthquake, a deadly terrorist attack, freely-roving murderers in sanctuary cities, New York subways in particular, or an oncoming truck.

Mortality, he said, could prove to be a solvable technological problem. A solvable problem? To me, that is scary. Having everybody on the planet today continuing on, for who knows how long? Leave me out! Reese predicted that such advances will “usher in a new golden age, freed from the scourges that have plagued humanity throughout history." What a pleasant, naïve thought.

100 Percent Clean Energy

Looking far ahead, Michael Brune, then executive director of the Sierra Club, and now an energy and climate policy expert, said in 2015 that by 2065, the world might achieve 100 percent clean energy. Within a few decades, each time you turn on a light or a computer, the energy needed to power those devices will be generated from renewable, carbon-free, clean resources.

Brune predicted that eventually solar and wind energy would replace nuclear energy. Humanity would be well on the road to 100 percent electricity via renewable means. Okay, 40 years from now, could someone please check on that?

He stated that by 2030, humanity could cut transportation oil by 50 percent and, by 2040, cut it by 50 percent again. He proclaimed that once we're free of fossil fuels, our climate would stabilize and we could derive all our energy from sources that are “safe, secure, and sustainable."

Starting from the origins of our galaxy and our solar system, and then the early formation of Earth, our planet’s climate has never stabilized. The South Pole, eons ago, was tropical. Apparently, nobody told him.

Can Someone Get it Right?

Of the three forecasters, Brune might be the most accurate. As for our energy sources being safe, secure, and sustainable, he has overlooked disruptions in the supply chain, terrorism, and oligarchies that seek to manipulate prices. So much disruption potentially could occur that ignoring these factors seems foolhardy.

Then again, I can’t tell you what will happen next week.