History predicting the future

History predicting the future

A has a future history. The good news is that this is one we can learn; the bad news is that we rarely do. That is because the clearest lesson from the history of the future is that the future is not known to be very useful. But that has still stopped people from trying.

Take Peter Turchin's famous prediction for 2022. In 2010 he developed a quantitative study of history, called cliodynamics, which allowed him to predict that the West would experience political chaos a decade later. Unfortunately, no - one was able to execute that prophecy to prevent the destruction of U.S. democracy. And of course, if they had, Turchin's prediction would have been reduced to the levels of failed futures. This situation is not anecdotal.

Rulers from Mesopotamia to Manhattan have sought knowledge of the future in order to gain strategic advantages - but again and again, they have not been able to properly explain it, or have failed to grasp the the political reasons or speculative boundaries of those proposing it. . More often than not, they have also chosen to ignore futures that will force them to face uncomfortable facts. Even the technological inventions of the 21st century have failed to change these fundamental problems - after all, the results of computer programs are only as accurate as their data information.

It is accepted that the more scientific the method of prediction, the more accurate the predictions. But this belief poses more problems than it solves, especially because it often avoids or excludes the living diversity of human experience. Despite the promise of more accurate and intelligent technology, there is little reason to think that the increased use of AI in predicting prognostication will make it more useful than it has been throughout human history.

People have a long time I tried to find out more about the shape of things to come. These efforts, while aimed at the same goal, have varied over time and space in a number of important ways, with the most obvious being an approach - that is, how come a prophecy was made and interpreted. From the earliest civilizations, the most important distinction in this practice has been between people who have the gift or ability to predict the future, and systems that provide rules for measuring futures. The prophecy of oracles, shamans, and prophets, for example, depended on the ability of these people to access other planes of existence and receive divine inspiration. Theological strategies such as astrology, palmistry, numbers, and Tarot, however, rely on the practitioner's mastery of a complex theoretical system based on rule (and sometimes quite mathematical), and the ability to explain and used in certain cases. Interpreting dreams or exercising necromancy may be somewhere between these two versions, depending on some sexual ability, to some extent on acquired experience. And there are plenty of examples, past and present, that incorporate both strategies for predicting the future. An internet study of "dream interpretation" or "horoscope enumeration" throws millions of hits.

READ  IBM will increase its sustainability offering with the construction of Envizi

In the last century, technology legitimized the latter approach, as advances in IT (predicted, at least in part, by Moore's law) provided more powerful tools and systems for pre-emption. -innse. In the 1940s, the MONIAC ​​analog computer had to use colored water tanks and pipes to model the UK economy. In the 1970s, the Rome Club was able to turn to the World3 computer simulation to model the flow of energy through human and natural systems through major variables such as industry, environmental loss, and population growth. His report, Boundaries for growth, it became a best seller, despite the constant criticism it received for the assumptions that were at the heart of the model and the quality of the data submitted to it.

At the same time, instead of relying on technological advances, other forecasters have turned to the prediction slogan strategy for the future. Voting on public and private views, for example, depends on something very simple - asking people what they plan to do or what they think will happen. It then needs careful interpretation, whether based on quantitative (as voter intent polls) or qualitative measurements (as the Rand group's DELPHI method). The latter strategy uses the wisdom of a particular large population. A panel of experts is likely to consider discussing a particular topic, the thought, more precisely than individual prognostication.

Related Posts

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *

Subir

We use cookies to ensure that we give the best user experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you agree. More information