Apple’s headset, Synthetic Optimism and Inconvenient Futures
What are the ethical choices we make as foresight professionals in the context of paradigm shifting tech such as the latest Apple headset and Artificial Intelligence?
This is a longer essay format. The research matrix is at the bottom of this article for those who want to dig deeper into the sources.
What is the essence of our role as foresight professionals and futuring minds?
Here are my beliefs, let me know what you think:
provide solutions and foresight around possible futures
exercise critical thinking and challenge assumptions
The ethical goal (ideally) would be to:
help improve society
point to signals of change that can fuel the above
But it seems we have been swallowed up very willingly into the typical pitfalls of the attention economy. We have also been told to be optimistic. Don’t stir the pot. But there is a fine line between constructive optimism and the blindness of a ‘don’t look up’ approach.
I worry we have now gone too far one way, and entered a dangerous territory.
‘Synthetic Optimism’
I think the field of foresight has been a bit asleep at the wheel, too concerned with hype and the attention economy. We’ve behaved more like online creators chasing likes than thought leaders challenging the status quo. We got caught up in the hive mind and group think.
The inability to raise difficult questions and challenge hype has over time chipped away at the credibility of future foresight as a profession. We may blame the marketing field and the media for co-opting the terms ‘future’ and ‘trend’. But we are willing participants, more concerned with the popular zeitgeist, attractive forecast sound bytes void of deeper meaning and critique. Vying more for brands building attractive campaigns and increasing sales numbers.
We’ve lost the plot in understanding who we are truly working for.
Yes brands, organisations and institutions are our clients. But we, and they, for that matter all work for:
the people, our designated communities made of humans.
the planet, all of its living creatures, organisms and lands.
Another mistake we made is that we have been too slow to question what is presented to us by corporations as key innovations. A good example, the frenzy around the Metaverse in 2022 which was so hyped up that the crash came down hard and Apple never even uttered the word during their latest much talked about update.
Questioning tech innovations as the default mode
Hear me out. When it comes to AR & VR headsets, large language models, immersive digital worlds and AGI, they all have benefits, setbacks and unintended consequences. In the past decade I have consistently discussed these in my forecasts and am an Apple product person all the way. I bathe in and depend on that ecosystem for my work and interactions. Questioning tech innovations is not black and white, not about about becoming a luddite or becoming an anti-AI evangelist.
The question today is:
do we fail to critique Big Tech enough as foresight professionals and futuring creatives? In a year when...
ChatGPT is upending the way we work, acquire and deliver knowledge and OpenAI is creating its own currency to most likely power its Universal Basic Income program, whilst Sam Altman is courting world leaders on his tour
AGI and technological singularity which we do not comprehend fully is around the corner with AI leading experts sounding the alarm and calling for regulations.
Apple has packaged a spatial computing device bringing social media, entertainment, softwares, apps, virtual environments together in an experience never seen before to be worn, on-your-face.
… Will we apply critical thinking and look beyond the veneer. Or will we follow the crowd - destination promised futures.
As a side note, the 3 points above are the culmination of years building up to spatial computing and AI's dominance in our everyday tasks. This should’t come as a shock to anyone. Apple isn’t the only headset, it’s just probably the best one to come yet. We are reaching a tipping point in the adoption of this technology and although the headset’s price tag is out of reach for many, it is only a matter of time before it is the same price as a higher tier phone. When and if this happens, we may witness the same paradigm shift as when the Iphone changed the world. Or we may not, some experts think it will fail.
The key thing is here, if we are to follow the data as our professional guidelines would instruct us to:
16 years after the launch of the Iphone and the explosion of smart phones, are we better off as a society?
Yes and No. The Iphone on its own is not to blame. It’s a broader issue. But here are the facts now that we’ve lived with the internet for 30 years approximately, smart phones for 16 years(the launch of the iPhone was in 2007) and Instagram for 13 years (launched in 2010) let’s look at the facts:
Between 2011 and 2021 the number of teens with clinical depression more than doubled
between 2007 and 2019 the suicide rate for people in their early 20s rose by 41%
The suicide rate for 10 to 14 year olds tripled and quadrupled for girls
in 2021 nearly 25% of girls made a suicide plan
these figures are global and not influenced by the US's rise of mass shootings
This all started well before the pandemic and is largely attributed to social media, smart phones and hyper connectivity. And the trend goes upwards generationally, meaning it does not just affect GenZ.
Today, in the face of these shocking numbers, I encourage you to question tech innovations before in the next weeks and months you are drawn to echoing what everyone will or may say about wearables, AI and algorithmic tools, as well as social media innovations.
Other Cautionary tales:
The Metaverse was the idea we were sold in 2022, especially after Meta’s rebranding. Something we questioned in my 2022 report with Gung Ho Meta Map. Where are we now? People are avoiding this word like the plague. To be fair, it is still full of promise but it just goes to show you how something so hot can go so cold oh so fast.
During the height of the pandemic, future forecasts and the media promoted a touchless future world filled with mask wearing humans and technologies allowing us to shop and interact without the risk of exposure to germs and viruses.
Both examples above had the allure of being weird and 'futuristic'. The media, people, foresight agencies and independent forecasters alike gulped it up, probably because there was an appetite to tag along and benefit from these newly popularised visions instead of:
explaining why these may not be our preferred futures
exploring the possibilities, extrapolating and challenging this appetite for 'weird futures'
Many dove into the hive mind and group think.
Stand Back - Observe - Steer
What I am proposing today when looking at what’s ahead with spatial computing headsets and large language models, is similar to what many mindfulness practices advise:
Stand back:
a chance to separate yourself from the influence of your thoughts, crowd think and the hive mind. Reconnect with your knowledge, facts, research as well as expert intuition.
Observe:
once you are observing, you can decide and decipher what is a preferred or negative future scenario and why. Understand better the implications of what you set forth.
Steer:
steer away from future insights that are blind to their negative consequences on the people and planet. When and if you share them, be transparent about the potential risks. Steer towards preferred futures for your audience to examine.
Standback / Observe / Steer may be seen as biased and unacceptable in a forecasting practice. But in times like today, I personally chose that flaw in a heart beat over future insights that don’t consider deeper consequences on society and are too lured by hype.
The later mindset has been conducive to an environment where many future trend reports are repeating the same trends, something Matt Klein highlights in his yearly Mega Trend reports. There is very little risk taking, for fear of making people uncomfortable for not resonating with the hive. It’s easier to ride the wave than go against it.
But if, consider a minute, enough voices in futures and the media talk about the beauty of serving dinner to your kid whilst wearing a headset whilst scrolling the web whilst being on Facetime whilst accessing text messages, then yes, that is the lifestyle we may live in the future.
The expectation we should embrace a device that further erases the barrier between us, social media, software and rewires our brains is something we should question.
Ignoring to do so would take away futures for ourselves and non-human others in an act of defuturing, referencing Tony Fry and his design philosophy published in 1999. A negation of world futures.
Could Futuring then be seen as the opposite of Defuturing? And therefore asking as part of its approach:
Is this what WE the people actually need for world futures?
In the next months and years, we have opportunities to raise the questions and examine the possible futures ahead more intentionally. Perhaps in the very long term we will see that these technologies were what we needed to improve the human condition.
Coming back to the question: is that what WE the people need for world futures?
Today’s definitions of seamless experiences and hyper productivity should be thoroughly examined by forecasters and futurists for the benefit of society. Not packaged in a vision beneficial to clients.
Safeguarding the matrix of our mind and humanity is worth the examination.
In the field of foresight, we are not systematic enough with carrying out an ethical and deeper critique of handing the functionalities of our entire lives to tech, despite the fact we hold positions of influence.
Cognitive fracture and the mirage of a better economy.
Say we were to adopt a future of hyper productivity and connectedness, let’s look at the data since the birth of the internet. How much faster did our economies grow?
We average about 1/2 of the productivity rate today than in the 1950s and 60s.
There was an increase in productivity numbers from 1995 to 2005 as companies migrated to computer systems. But the embarrassing truth is what has actually happened in the last 20 years:
Stagnating income and economies.
A polarised society and political culture.
Today we spend an average of 47 seconds per single task.
The tools we have today mean our attention span has drastically degraded. As a result, we are losing the ability to contemplate, a core human quality that leads to breakthroughs ranging from inventions (just research how Einstein developed his theories) to authoring philosophical works that permeate popular culture (Yuval Noah Harari).
With mass produced headsets, we outsource how we experience the world, we automate our creativity and knowledge outputs.
You may be able to have a highly immersive meditation or therapeutic session, connect with your loved ones and carry out your work in ways never before imagined. There are benefits to large language models such as the all powerful ChatGPT. Experiencing VR and AR has been a deeply creative experience for me and I am beyond excited about spatial computing.
The internet, social media and smart phones connected us all. But we are not in a deeper sense more philosophically and morally connected today.
As foresight professionals and futuring creatives who focus on long term trends, it is time to:
Stand back
Observe
Steer
And resist the temptation of rushing to forecasts void of deeper implications and riddled with surface engagement and hype.
Or the checks and balances needed will not properly be carried out as part of an effective foresight practice.
Do we actually need everything in a single swipe and hundreds of ideas a minute?
Today's technologies should have made us smarter and more capable, increased the quality of our ideas. We have more access yes. Chat GPT can generate a hundred ideas a minute. Apple's VR set just requires a pinch to surf digital content.
But access and quantity do not equal happiness and quality of ideas.More is not always better. More news articles, links, calls, functionalities do not lead to better realisation and understanding.
Technologies and us having constant access to each other has not improved our lives. Community, oxytocin producing activities, calm, nature and kinship do.
Perhaps headsets, AI companions and seamless experiences will shape the next era of human evolution for the better. As a small business owner, I am looking forward to AI generated excel sheets. And spatial computing would make my work environment, family calls and entertainment more visceral.
However, the promise of hyper connectivity as a priority for efficiency and happiness is a mirage. Somehow we have been sold the idea that our greatness comes with being connected to everything and everyone.
What we know to be real is that task switching is mind numbing. Being connected to all messages, information, calls to action and opinions every minute of the day is causing us to burn out. Feeling like we cannot miss out on the feed has been toxic for our mental health. The cost is not just mental, it’s physical too. It is nearly impossible to focus today, there is constant distraction to own our attention. Even Ezra Klein has taken up his Shabbat practice to regain agency over his focus, happiness and sense of purpose.
We are desperate to reconnect with our deeper selves and time agency.
As mentioned before, the teenage crisis, suicide and burn out rates are alarming. The data does not discriminate, rich or poor. The kids are not alright. They are the future so where are we heading? We are heading to the headset. No pun intended.
Let's hindsight on our entangled relationship with apps, social media and hyper connectivity in 15 or so years. In the span of human history this is a micron, yet so much has changed. Apple has increased its privacy measures. But Big Tech in general has a poor track record of safeguarding our best interests.
Adopting an Inconvenient Futures approach. Radical hope vs Synthetic optimism.
At this stage from speaking with many foresight and design professionals and extensive research, here is a possible reason we fell into the hype trap:
to avoid dealing with our collective societal trauma
In our avoidance strategy, we focused on shiny objects and engineering an optimism first ideology which then compromised our ethical imperatives.
There are key issues weaving themselves into the very fibre of society and if we focus too much on positivity, we perpetuate Synthetic Optimism. In high doses, we become asleep at the wheel.
I wonder? Is Synthetic optimism the most dangerous thing today?
This is a question not a statement.
But if in a bid to appease clients and the public, we avoid pointing out in our future forecasts the connections, risks and opportunities between technology, mental health, climate collapse, the calibers and levers of happiness for society, social disparity, pioneering economic systems, regenerative infrastructures and supply chains... then we do fail.
And these shouldn't be sound bytes, they should be stubborn and central focuses. Not another report on Quiet luxury and enchanting campaign experiences with a smaller mention of deeper issues at stake.
Of course the need for escape and optimism is as real as ancient religions and art are for humanity. Walk in the Louvre and admire renaissance paintings: the Metaverse circa 1350 – 1620 AD. Certainly today’s mixed reality technologies can do wonders for us, from designing new worlds to proven therapeutic qualities for various conditions such as PTSD.
But re-enchanting brand experiences, ChatGPT, AR headsets, the promise of hyper productivity and task automation won’t fix our collective trauma.
A strategy could be found in the Radical Hope approach, quoting the academic paper by professor Jem Bendell. Radical Hope proposes openly grieving the world we once knew, and finding the strength to linger on difficult topics in order to move past them. This approach has been used specifically in the context of climate crisis anxiety.
This honesty, as counterintuitive as it may seem, leads to an awakening. It is akin to exposure therapy. Facing hard truths can be one of the most therapeutic acts.
Could this mean the best brand campaigns will be radical ? Inconvenient and inching away from over-engineered Synthetic Optimism. I do not know and today it is more about serving ourselves. But what is clear in the course of history is that:
When we tell the truth about the world, it reverberates.
When we dare to be inconvenient, a door for needed change and action opens. Resistance fighters and activists throughout history have understood inconvenience is what society needs to move forward.
When Martin Luther King shared he had a dream, he was inconvenient to the leadership of the time and as such changed the course of history.
All of us in the business of futuring and designing, our role is NOT to be part of the hive mind. Not to pretend we are all alright.
Radical hope in the context of future foresight won’t tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to hear. It will dare to be inconvenient.
As such:
Well packaged forecasts of tech that re-enchants us with seamless wondrous experiences is what we want to hear.
The impact of social media and smart devices on our youths, our mind’s matrix, our kinship is what we need to hear.
The latter is mentioned. But is not central and should be. Future foresight falls flat if it does not work for the deeper needs of our societies for:
the people, our designated communities made of humans.
the planet, all of its living creatures, organisms and land.
Cutting edge technology is superficial if it does help solve the biggest problems we are facing today:
millions of people and teens burnt out and depressed due to social media, task switching, constant notifications
a polarised world plagued with fake news, data manipulation and algorithmic echo chambers
a broke middle class due to the cost of living crisis, inflation, the gig economy, mass layoffs and job automations
a climate crisis that continues to deepen with New Yorkers last week choking because of wildfires in Canada
Will you dare to be inconvenient?
As a Futurist, technology is a key part of what I talk about and frankly what I love. But much like hundreds of AI experts today, I am sounding the alarm on the paradigms we are being sold, the possible futures we are drafting and the passivity prevailing.
In the next weeks and months we will continue to talk about the Apple Headset, AI, ChatGPT and the hive mind will be loud. As it always is in today’s world, regardless of the data on adoption rates and consequences.
Today every futuring professional and creative has great responsibilities to question and not get distracted by the hype. Stop the group think.
Stand back. Observe. Steer.
Dare to apply some resistance to what everyone else is saying. Be inconvenient.
It is the first step towards creating a preferable future.
| Geraldine Wharry
