Organized by Aquitaine Europe Communication, directed and curated by myself and Daniel Erasmus, Ci’Num was a global, multicultural, 3-year foresight process (2005-2007) which intended to shed a new light on the future of our digital civilizations, taking into account geopolitical, cultural and economic differences. Our focus was:
- on the specific contribution of, and challenges related to, the emergence of ubiquitous and “intimate” technologies stemming from the convergence between nanotech, biotech, IT and cognitive science;
- on the social appropriation and production of technology;
- and on the ways, tools and methods through which we become empowered to shape our personal and collective futures – i.e., not on figuring out the most likely futures, but in recognizing uncertainties and looking for ways to maximize choices and opportunities in any given future.
At the request of Melbourne’s Deakin University, in 2016, the Canadian writer and journalist Cory Doctorow wrote an interesting story on how the real-world development of self-driving cars could go really, really wrong.
As Doctorow himself puts it: “The story, Car Wars, takes the form of a series of vignettes that illustrate the problem with designing cars to control their drivers, interspersed with survey questions to spur discussion of the wider issues of governments and manufacturers being able to control the operation of devices we own and depend on.” (actually, the survey questions don’t really help “spurring discussions”, as Deakin professor Gleb Beliakov provides his own, unequivocal and somewhat laconic answer to all of them – you can, however, view the survey results here)
In the story, the interaction between highly intelligent self-driving software, rules and exceptions forced into the car systems by all kinds of authorities, and a well-planned act of behavorial hacking, forces most of the city’s car into behaving like a herd of frightened buffaloes driven over the edge of a cliff. All, but one cleverly (although illegally) software-hacked car. But of course, if you had the right to hack your car, and if everyone did it, the situation could get even worse. Or could it?
In 2312, first published in 2012 (French translation to hit the shelves in May 2017), SF writer and ecologist Kim Stanley Robinson (aka KSR) imagines a world where, after having (almost) desperately messed up its planet of origin, humanity expands by colonizing and “terraforming” the whole solar system…
… What, another of those stories? Not quite.
L’Institut pour le futur (IFTF, @iftf) n’en est pas à sa première tentative expérimentale dans le domaine de la prospective. Voilà quelque temps il avait ainsi participé à la création du jeu Superstruct. En 2013, l’Institut a décidé de recourir à la littérature. Dans le cadre de son projet sur l’Age de la matière connectée, afin de mieux explorer ce thème de recherche, il a commandé six nouvelles d’anticipation à des auteurs réputés (Bruce Sterling (Wikipédia, @bruces), Rudy Rucker (Wikipédia, @rudytheelder), Cory Doctorow (Wikipédia, @doctorow), Madeline Ashby(@madelineashby), Warren Ellis (fameux scénariste de comics, Wikipédia, @warrenellis) et Ramez Naam (Wikipédia, @ramez).
>> La suite de cet article de Rémi Sussan (2013) sur Internet Actu
Invité en “Keynote” de l’événement Future@SystemX, organisé le 14 mars 2017 par l’Institut de recherche technologique SystemX, j’ai tenté de formuler quelques pistes de travail mobilisant “l’imaginisation” des chercheurs et technologues.
Je tenterai prochainement d’en écrire le texte. Voici déjà la video et les supports :
Camille de Toledo, Aliocha Imhoff et Kantuta Quiros publient ensemble un ouvrage stimulant, Les potentiels du temps – Art & politique (Manuella éditions, 2016). L’ambition n’est pas mince : face à “la culpabilité décrétée à l’égard de toute tentative de transformer le monde” (le XXe siècle a laissé des traces), “rouvrir l’avenir à des potentialités nouvelles.” Par quel chemin ? Celui de l’art, pensé non comme une échappatoire, mais comme un moyen d’explorer et d’expérimenter une infinité de transformations possibles.
I came up with “Imaginizing” by myself, but Gareth Morgan beat me to it by a large margin: His book Imaginization: New Mindests for Seeing, Organizing and Managing was published in 1993, and his website is called Imaginiz.com.
“As a society, we have become preoccupied with the idea of finding ways of fixing and controlling the world around us. ‘Getting organized’ has meant finding that structure or solution for an organization that’s going to last (…) But, in times of change, organizations that are organized in this way run into trouble because they can’t adjust to the new challenges (…) The challenge now is to imaginize: to infuse the process of organizing with a spirit of imagination that takes us beyond bureaucratic boxes. (…)
Imaginization is a way of thinking. It’s a way or organizing. It’s a key managerial skill. It provides a way of helping people understand and develop their creative potential. It offers a way of finding innovative solutions to difficult problems. And, last but not least, it provides a means of empowering people to trust themselves and find new roles in a world characterized by flux and change.”