And we’re back again, broadcasting from the seagull laden inner harbor.

This time around we delve back into some futurism, or perhaps meta-futurism, as we discuss my own predictive methods, and how it contrasts those of others. And ultimately, how most of them share the same underlying simple math.

In some ways you could think of this as an appendix to my by-now-infamous future predictions series, which you will find, along with some related items, here.
Apologies if I’m more dazed and meandering than usual. Trying to get back in the swing of things.

podcast page here

Direct download: ME30-exploding_in_all_directions.mp3

Time to shoot the curve all over again…

5 thoughts on “The Mosaic Effect 30: Exploding in all Directions

  1. Podcasts like this one and your “having come to the end, change” episode are up there among my absolute favorites. I cannot imagine more perfect addendums/follow-ups to my personal “I have it all figured out” phase from about 5-6 years ago. Further props on bringing up the finite universe proposition, as that was an argument that always sealed the deal for me. Nice to hear some one kick the stone over and shine much-needed light on the underbelly.

  2. one of the Merry Pranksters runs a similar exercise, but charges as a “consultant” to do it for businesses–he has them pick two phenomenon, e.g., computing and energy, and then set each up as an axis with best-case and worst-case scenarios, then set them up as a graph so you have four quadrants, as an attempt to look into “possible futures”. Alex Burns of Disinfo regularly drives home the need for society to look into Future Studies more regularly–and interestingly enough, most of the formal Future Studies guys generally advocate the need to begin to take a “spiritual” approach to things, though this may just be because one of the earliest professors in the field was a regular meditator.

    The biggest problem all the “exponential functions” have is that they all start with “IF things continue at the current rate”. Arithmetic dude pointed out himself that you tend to get an intervention if you don’t make one yourself. Many social phenomenon tend to generate an opposite reaction. E.g., the relative high crime rate in the US caused by all sorts of reasons pre-1990s followed by the absurd reaction towards “Zero Tolerance”, mandatory minimum sentences, Rudolph Guliani, Nancy Grace and Law and Order on TV, etc., etc.

    On technology, it’s interesting to note that Kondratieff (he’s a nut and his theory only holds traction in more atypical circles; run a google search for that and ‘long wave’) suggested that economic depressions were necessary to consolidate the gains of technologies and make them accessible to the masses.

  3. Good to hear you back in podcast land.

    Good point that it is hard to get an accurate picture of the future when looking at just one variable, that these things like peak oil, population growth, tech development effect each other can’t be taken into account with mere figures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s