And we continue our conversation with techno-culturologist Ivan Karpushkin about the future and the megatrends that will accompany us over the coming decades and shape the development of society. Of course, one of the first questions is: how can we know what these trends are, how to look beyond «today» into «tomorrow»?
— Ivan, tell us, is it possible to foresee the future not through a mathematical method, but, let’s say, an artistic one?
— Just as science fiction writers did – and still do. The artistic method always grasps the new. From this perspective, science fiction is one of the most understandable and proven tools for working with the image of the future. The problem is that we currently have difficulties with science fiction as a genre. Not because there are no science fiction writers or they don’t write, but because, in principle, there are problems with social fiction, as I see it. We have difficulties understanding and working on the image of the future human and society. Currently, technological fiction is more in demand and popular.
It focuses on what gadgets will be used within existing social models and on analyzing the technological component of the dominant social model. That is the problem. In this case, the image of the future is reduced to the development of technological packages. Technology does not determine the future; it reflects it. That is why we currently have such a poor future in terms of images.
— Can you name projects that contribute to the emergence of a new language of dialogue with the future?
— There are many science fiction competitions currently taking place. They are usually low-budget and work like a funnel or filter, identifying strong elements in this environment. We tried to launch accelerators not just to select, but to nurture and develop authors, creating favorable conditions for growth. There are probably initiatives at the Higher School of Economics related to literary creativity. In cinema, there are also IRI projects that direct resources into the science fiction sphere, working with scripts and storylines. So there is movement in this direction. The symposium ‘Creating the Future’ at the Center of Russia also positions itself as science fiction and pays attention to the genre. There are attempts. We, a community of enthusiasts, are trying to take a systematic step, calling it the ‘Russian Science Fiction Project’, studying the experience of Soviet, Chinese, and American science fiction projects.
We aim to systematize various events and projects for the development of science fiction using project logic. In a broad sense, this includes science fiction, cosmism, and everything that works on a systemic level with images or vectors of the future. ‘Vectors’ is perhaps a more precise definition.
— Tell us a bit about the ‘Russian Science Fiction Project’, what is it, for whom, and why?
— This is an initiative we are promoting. There is also a powerful fandom community where, regardless of project logic, many interesting things happen that require study by sociologists and social psychologists. This is necessary to understand how to create new project initiatives and engage at a systemic level in building the image of the future. Individual corporations have also actively participated in this, taking steps at various times.
For example, Rosatom did this last year, and before that AFK Sistema took similar actions. Roscosmos is constantly active, paying attention to the legacy of Russian cosmists and science fiction related to space exploration. Literary publishers also periodically have projects related to science fiction: competitions, awards. It is said that ‘Aelita’ (the oldest Russian literary award in the science fiction genre — editor’s note) may breathe again, as in ancient times. We are trying to rethink and relaunch ‘Vsemirny Sledopyt’ (World Pathfinder). But these are all scattered attempts. The key to success, in my opinion, lies in the systematicity demonstrated by the Soviet and Chinese science fiction projects. These are probably the two most successful projects where clear project logic can be traced. In both cases, everything started with the energy of enthusiasts. In the Soviet project, it was ‘Vsemirny Sledopyt’ and everything that formed around it.
Then, with the state monopolizing science fiction production and work with the image of the future, it turned into the activity of professional writers who appeared in the Union of Writers, and professional publishers through ‘Tekhnika Molodezhi’ (Technology for Youth), ‘Znanie — Sila’ (Knowledge is Power), ‘Yuniy Tekhnik’ (Young Technician), and others. That is, for each age group, as with ‘Vokrug Sveta’ (Around the World), there was its own line of publications working with a specific target audience. We need similar systematic work today for development. It is important to get rid of the illusion that science fiction and images of the future can only be worked with through audiovisual content. This, in my opinion, is the scourge of today.
We mistakenly believe that simplifying content allows us to work with a mass audience at the level of images. Here it is necessary to emphasize separately that working with images is always working with texts. People perceive images only through reading, through the ability to form them in their imagination. You can only orient at the level of images towards people who read. Perhaps this is related to the fact that we cannot do anything with the image of the future now, because the dynamics are catastrophically deteriorating: people stop reading large texts, holding complex images within themselves. They only perceive visual content, but a person does not appropriate images perceived visually. He considers them seen, it is ‘visual familiarity’, not ‘mine’. Only what ‘I have read’ becomes ‘mine’, but people do not read, so they do not form their own images.
— A few days ago, Ivan Chen, a computer game developer from Indonesia, said that in Indonesia the ‘soft power’ strategy is based on textual content. Starting from that, they already produce what Sergei Chekmaev (Russian science fiction writer, screenwriter and literary editor — editor’s note) talked about: a triad — text, film, and games.
— Yes, then the metaverse appears. But if we immediately immerse children in metaverses, it means they will not be able to carry this image within themselves, they will not be able to create images inside themselves. This means they will not be able to pass this image on to the next generations. Thus, the tradition is broken. This is a very painful issue for our future. Belief in audiovisual content, especially for children, and the desire to bring as many cartoons and games into schools, to reach children through simple meanings — all this can stop the development of our civilization, to put it mildly, so as not to provoke anyone into negative conclusions. In any case, when speaking about the future, the future belongs to text.
— Ivan, and probably the last question: what projects do you currently have similar to the ‘Laboratory of the Future’?
— I have now left ASI, so I can only speak about my view of the ‘Laboratory of the Future’ as a format, not as a specific department of an organization. If we talk about the ‘Laboratory of the Future’ as a format, I believe it is necessary for any self-respecting organization. This is the next stage in the development of strategic thinking. What does it involve and why is it becoming relevant? The main problem of development is that, as I said, we borrow images and try to deploy them here. This is our cultural feature. We do not see and do not possess a developed ability to comprehend, decompose, and translate into project logic the weak signals of changes in the external environment that affect us.
We are accustomed to perceiving these changes already at the level of practices. In strategizing methods, we have benchmarking, references, best practices, trends that we list. The classic model of strategizing is essentially to look at what others think, draw conclusions, and see how they got out of the situation, and then try to get out the same way. In this logic, nothing new is born; you can only, with some degree of success or failure, mostly try to repeat the path others have taken. But they have already taken that path, and most likely, the signals they leave are a distorted, simplified assessment of the path traveled. It also falls on our perception in a distorted way, and as a result, we seem to ‘beat the tails’, running along a rut that has long led to a dead end, while the one who made that rut has long since turned in another direction. If strategizing in an organization has turned into searching for the new and opening new spaces for development, a ‘Laboratory of the Future’ is needed that can work with weak signals.
What is a weak signal? We see that the external environment is changing somewhere; we don’t yet understand what these changes are, but through indirect aspects, factors, and manifestations, we can begin to describe it. Here, by the way, artificial intelligence is good because it allows us to see anomalies at the intersection of many factors, implicit patterns. Through the analytics of these strange stories that emerge at the intersection of different points of view, theories, hypotheses, observed phenomena, the ‘Laboratory of the Future’ works.
— Thank you, Ivan! I hope our conversation about the future is not over yet.
Photo from open sources
Comments (0)