By: Alireza Hejazi

It was a good opportunity to test my knowledge and become aware of dark angles of my mind. Normally we cannot “know” the future. If we mean that we can predict what will happen, then the answer is obviously “No”.

Conventional efforts to predict the exact future of human systems are so prone to error that they are futile. However, if by "know" we mean what might or could happen, then the answer is a qualified “Yes”. Futurists hold that we can know the majority of plausible futures, if we relax our assumptions and preconceptions of what is possible.

I found out that the best image of the future is the river delta, according to Dr. Peter Bishop. It has the momentum of the stream carrying us long, but not as fast. It has the uncertainties of being in a small boat in a large river, filled with logs, alligators, storms and other boats, all of which could create a sudden event we wouldn't like.

I also learned that it has the element of choice because we can choose to go down one form or another, provided we are prudent enough to get to the right side of the river in time before the current takes us down a path we would prefer not to go. 

We know that the futurists prefer the long-term (more than 10 years, but business forecasts rarely go beyond 3-5 years. Contrary to what most business people think, the future beyond five years (the standard business planning horizon) can be useful, particularly when long-term investments or decisions are involved.

Short-term outcomes are already determined for the most part. Consistent effort toward a goal over long periods, however, can produce amazing results, even when one's power or influence at any one time is small. Rock holds water in the short-run, but water erodes rock in the long.

People ask futurists how often they are correct--i.e., what their batting average is. The question indicates a misunderstanding of applied futurism. Long-term forecasts are more qualitative than quantitative because the long-term is defined as the period of time in which fundamental change is likely to occur.

Forecasting precise quantities from one side of a fundamental change to another is nearly impossible. The best long-term forecasts are not necessarily accurate or precise, but useful to decision-makers. They point out the most likely future as one possibility in a range of alternative plausible futures. Useful forecasts can even be inaccurate, as when the forecast of impending doom promotes action that averts the doom.

Those people who emphasize Trends believe that the future will be like the present only different in some measurable quantities. Those who select Events see a turbulent future, full of uncertainty and unpredictability. Those who emphasize Choice believe they and others control the future. In fact, each influences the future somewhat, but differently in different domains (trends in demographics, events and choices in politics for instance. The future is a combination of them all. Leaving out any one truncates the range of plausible futures.

We know that the probable Future is what most people believe a forecast should be. The Probable Future is useful-what will happen if nothing really surprising happens. Plausible Futures are useful for indicating the variations around the Probable Future. Listing all possible futures is impossible; sampling, however, is not. Possibilities that represent critical assumptions about the future prepare decision-makers for a wider range of contingencies than the Probable Future alone. The Preferable Future is valuable both for forecasting (things preferred are more likely to occur) and for action (mobilizing action toward a consensus goal). Not articulating and working for our preferred futures is the same as being part of a deterministic future.