Talk:Futures studies/Archive 1

Shouldn't a reference to John_Brunner declared insipiration ("Stand on Zanzibar" and following works) from Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" be added to contrast the bit about LeGuin ?

RE: External links
To Weyes, or anyone else concerned-

You are correct that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and certainly some of the removals from external links were warranted. However I think that edit went a bit over the top and removed some genuinely interesting "further reading" resources, so I have put a few of the sites back in. Most pages this size have a decent sized collection of external links, and I personally believe that IF we can keep them relevant it can only add to the relevancy and authority of the Wiki. :-) If you think I'm out of order please say so!


 * Ok, let's go over them individually (read External links if you haven't already):


 * photonswarm
 * This is all content we already have on wikipedia (much of it even comes from wikipedia) supported by google text ads. It doesn't add anything. Also, you shouldn't add links to your own site.


 * Welcome to the World Future Society
 * This site has very little content, it's mainly some meta information about a futurology society and lots of "please join"s and "please subscribe"s. No added value, we're looking for content here.


 * Articles by BT's Futurologist
 * This is the least inappropriate one I think, but it's not about futurology, it's someone doing futurology (what's more, like most futurology, it basicly amounts to an op-ed piece).


 * A Futurist's Toolbox is a good example of a good external link for this article: It gives information about futurology that isn't present in the article (yet).


 * What does everybody else think? (I'll leave the last one in pending discussion here, but my preference still lies with removing it). --W(t) 10:50, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Post by 218.145.25.16
(posted in July 2004):

the recording society is coming soon

reconciliation and disciplinary reconciliation (understanding of different environments, varying according to reconciliation)* (Editor&#8217;s note: What do you mean?)
 * The difference between human beings&#8217; spontaneous

A feasibility plan for a new community (assignment of responsibility, followed by preservation of evidence) Create a free environment, based on liberal democracy, regulation, and security, and try to understand this environment from various perspectives. In particular, look into the reasons why human beings who are not spontaneous are mass-produced, and why social insecurity prevails. (Editor&#8217;s note: Is this what you mean?)

Can these be attributed to individual issues, social issues, or legal issues? If they cannot be attributed to any of these, then consider them environmental issues, and endeavor to come up with an alternative environment.

1. Are freedom and regulation related to each other, or mutually supplementary? (disciplinary regulation vs. spontaneous regulation) (A perspective issue is dependent on the understanding of given regulations.) (Editor&#8217;s note: What do you mean?) 2. May an environment be manipulated for the sake of either freedom or regulation? (anarchic state vs. totalitarian state) (fallacy caused by deficiency) 3. Is it possible for human beings to endow freedom or to impose regulations? (indirect democracy vs. direct democracy) (limitations of regulation by human beings) 4. Do human beings have to be bound by regulations, or can they be allowed freedom? If they would not be bound by regulations, what are the possible alternatives? 5. Does freedom not exist in a situation where security is not guaranteed? (What, then, is freedom?) 6. How does civilization influence people&#8217;s social environments? (changes and advancement of laws) 7. How is the structure of the future society going to be built? (Why is credibility an issue for people? How much credibility do people find in themselves and in others?) A paradoxical proposition: Absolute spontaneous or personal regulation, as opposed to the regulation of a person by another, provides the most stable and liberal environment to people in the society. The spontaneous control of oneself paves the way for freedom to exist in the society (based on the difference between the positive appreciation of the existence of laws in a constitutional state and the observation of the laws). The Model of the Experiment (Hypothetical structure: How would the Ubiquitous influence the social structure and the thoughts of people?) If all the activities taking place within a defined space were being recorded, how would people regard freedom and regulations? 1.	The individuals concerned should manage all records (free will), but antisocial behavior (crime) may be publicized if so stipulated by the law (protection of privacy; freedom and ensuing responsibilities). 2.	All facts are being recorded (supplementation of the limited realities of the law; proof for supplementation of the limited realities of the law; a proof for every activity is left behind.) 3.	Each individual may check his/her own records at any time (for the individual&#8217;s education). (This provides materials as references to the fallacy caused by an individual&#8217;s memory lapse or misunderstanding, as seen from his/her own perspective.) 4.	With all the material information available, an even more credible society would be built (transparency of correlation between a cause and an outcome). (This has an educational significance to future children.) Explain why the law should be respected and observed. Methods and Objects of the Experiment: Record the changes that take place in people&#8217;s ways of thinking that stem from living in a defined space where everything that they do is recorded. (Editor&#8217;s note: Is this what you mean?) With the assumption that no other person will voluntarily participate in such an experiment, I volunteer to stay in that defined space for the remaining part of my life, as I was the one who proposed the experiment. Expected Effects of the Experiment: It will provide plenty of food for thought, raising questions on the anxiety elements of the present society, their causes, the impact of these elements, their alternatives, and what can be done to build better environments. It will bring these issues to the attention of the public. Finally, it will enable people to cope with inevitable changes in the society. In accordance with the proposition that all environmental changes affecting people take place alongside changes in the way people think (e.g., changes in the law), prompted by new findings, I believe that future changes will be accommodated (accommodation of the law). If these changes are rejected, I believe that humankind will not develop further (striving for the best). (A human being is a rational animal that encounters environmental changes and that adjusts itself to the changing environment in the most rational manner.) I am aware that the proposed experiment is drastic and extreme, and that from a different perspective, many people may already know what the experiment will yet strive to prove. Nevertheless, I believe that the experiment will provide at least a fraction of assistance to others and to me. Therefore, I appreciate your understanding that my proposal is a product of diverse points of view, an abundance of experience, and a lengthy time spent on research, although it may seem simple and impertinent. In addition, I appreciate your consideration in keeping my name and profile from being published.

Again, I appreciate your kind understanding, and I look forward to your help in this ambitious undertaking.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I wish you all the best.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards, Jeon, Yong Deok (Korean) 1961.12.04 E-mail: jdy1204@yahoo.co.kr  Fax: (031) 938-2091 Cell Phone: 011-661-0347, Phone: 031-938-2090 Address: Apt. 904, 1303-dong, Okpit-maeul, Hwajung 2-dong, Deokyang-ku, Koyang-shi, Kyungki-do,south korea

'Futurology', 'future studies', 'futures studies', or 'futurism?'
In a quick google test comparing the terms, I tried to lessen the influence from other usages, such as 'future studies' being used in the sense of "studies conducted in the future," and 'futurism' being used as the futurism (art) movement. To do this I added the phrase "the future" to the searches (putting words in quotes makes them be searched for as a phrase, instead of including results in which the words occur separately on the page):


 * 209,000 for "future studies" "the future"
 * 67,100 for futurism "the future"
 * 27,200 for "futures studies" "the future"
 * 24,200 for futurology "the future"

Browsing through the results, there didn't appear to be to many false yields, and 'Future studies' and 'futures studies' seem like their usage may be in more scholarly contexts, whereas  'futurism' and 'futurology' may be used in more popular-intellectual contexts.

Based on these results, I think we should maybe move this article to "future studies." However, the points discussed in this article seem to be many of the points discussed in the popular-intellectual context. Based on that, I might suggest we move the article to 'futurism,' since it appears to substantially outrank 'futurology' in internet usage. Can anyone describe more their understanding of international usage of these terms? If there is in fact varied usage, maybe 'future studies' would be the best choice. --Nectarflowed 10:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think in the past futurology was the word. Futurism is a movement in art, so it's often mentioned outside of the scientific futurological context, which would explain it's relatively high occurrence. Today it seems that scientists abandoned the word "futurology" (though in non-English countries they might have not), so moving to "future studies" is probably correct. Paranoid 10:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

google test or not almost everyone in the english speaking world refers to the field now as futures studies, not future studies. the emerging word is 'strategic foresight'. The differences are quite imporatant. In non english parts of the world I have added the other words that this field goes by. whoever put up the references to Houston, BYU and Hawaii did poor research. This list I compiled for the World Futures Studies Federation in 2003 spells it out. http://www.wfsf.org/resources.shtml

Thanks

Jose Ramos