果冻影院

By Dr Tuukka Toivonen

Is the future to be celebrated or dreaded? The beauty of Nesta鈥檚 3rd FutureFest conference was that it tried hard to err neither on the side of exuberant techno-optimism nor on that of gloomy doomsday scenarios. Instead, it made a point of showcasing a deeply contested future that cannot be tamed with catchy prefixes such as 鈥榙igital鈥�, 鈥榮mart鈥�, 鈥榬esilient鈥� or even 鈥榮ustainable鈥�. As such, it delivered an event with both strong public appeal and a critical consciousness鈥攁 genuinely rare achievement.

As was to be expected, FutureFest came embellished with some ingenious artistic and technological offerings, from a brain-controlled virtual reality machine called Neurosis to a sensual robot with nimble fingers that gently explore people鈥檚 faces. It was nevertheless clear from the start that the uncertain future of our digital democracies occupied the core of the conference agenda.

The choice of Edward Snowden (who appeared via a video link from Russia) as the headline act of Day 1 underscored Nesta鈥檚 willingness to take the theme of democratic futures quite seriously and to embrace its many controversies. Snowden鈥檚 key message was stark and urgent: Citizens will grow increasingly disempowered vis-脿-vis their governments and large corporations that have developed formidable surveillance abilities. Real digital democracies can arise only if the privacy of online communications can be credibly protected through techniques such as end-to-end encryption.

Arguing with the future

It鈥檚 impossible to provide a balanced overview of all FutureFest highlights here鈥攖here were a total of 35 sessions on the first day alone, organised into four parallel streams鈥攂ut let me highlight a few other voices from Day 1 (I did not attend Day 2).

Geoff Mulgan (Nesta鈥檚 CEO) set the tone for the two-day extravaganza through a fast-paced opening presentation in which he invited participants to 鈥榯ouch, taste and argue with鈥� the future. He hoped FutureFest attendees would leave the event feeling empowered to 鈥榮hape things to come鈥� as active citizens.

Taking to the stage immediately after Mulgan, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC reminded us that democracies, facing an era of rapid change, cannot rely purely on law as their foundation but require 鈥榓 template of values鈥� and the ability to make on-going efforts to share power. Neither Mulgan nor Kennedy thus proposed any easy answers to present dilemmas but instead put forth a view of democracy as a living organism that needs to be continuously re-shaped and re-created to remain viable.

Meanwhile on the ground floor, the 鈥楢fter the Happiness/Wellness Agenda鈥� debate engaged an audience of about 150 people in discussion on whether happiness research should guide policy and whether happiness was a suitable arena for policy intervention to begin with. Many sceptical voices were heard (鈥榳e now have a vast happiness industry selling its own distorted versions of happiness to us鈥�; 鈥榠t鈥檚 offensive to interfere so paternalistically in people鈥檚 behaviours鈥�) while the four panellists highlighted that much of public policy continues to ignore even the most basic lessons from happiness research (e.g. that human interaction is among the single greatest boosters of happiness).

A subsequent debate on whether the future needs elites heated up even further, though with at least the panellists agreeing that it might be hard to entirely do away with elites even in the age of crowd-sourced constitutions. Adrian Wooldridge posited that 鈥樷�減eople鈥� as such can鈥檛 make important decisions as they comprise contesting interest groups鈥攚hat we will need is pluralistic elites鈥�. Owen Jones made the simple yet profound point that governments must proportionally present the lived experience of their citizens. The problem is, according to Jones, that politicians in the UK come predominantly from the affluent professional classes, rendering issues such as (social) housing into blind spots as elites fail to relate to citizens鈥� realities. Helen Kennedy鈥檚 spirited insistence that women鈥檚 lived experiences, in particular, should be better represented by the system, provoked a roaring applause.

Straight talk

After discussions such as these that, while lively, remained within conventional limits, Matthew Herbert鈥檚 talk鈥攖hat began with a description of the political potential of sounds, including those made by 25,000 chicks being born at exactly the same moment on a mechanised farm鈥攆elt refreshingly authentic. Herbert (a musician by background) gave us a vivid sense of just how disturbing the gap between stated sustainability aspirations and actual practices is within today鈥檚 capitalism. In a world of privatisation, financial crime that goes largely unpunished, 鈥榝lattened鈥� language and Apple鈥檚 incredible dominance, we have little power and the best we can do is try to crowdfund alternative worlds (hence Herbert鈥檚 鈥楥ountry X鈥� project).

Interrupted briefly and somewhat awkwardly by Ije Nwokorie鈥檚 optimistic take on how automation could make us all more creative, the activist tone continued with the designer star Vivienne Westwood who called for an end to 鈥榲ulture capitalism鈥�. She started with a slide displaying a largely unliveable planet鈥攖hat with current rates of global warming seems a realistic prospect鈥攁nd spoke bluntly about capitalism as a system controlled by a handful of short-sighted elites and about development as a huge Ponzi scheme.

A spectacular confusion?

After a day full of such contrasting views on the future of democracy, capitalism, the Internet, money, wellbeing and innovation, no FutureFest attendee could have left Vinopolis thinking that the future remains uncontested. For many, it might have all been just a bit too much to take in during a single day. But then again, in order to shape the future of our 鈥榙igital鈥� democracies we may need to have a vivid sense of just how overwhelming the task will be.

Indeed, FutureFest-goers were invited to contemplate an incredible range of complex issues (including, but not limited to, the fact that a huge share of existing occupations may soon disappear; that schools and parents should teach all kids to code; that everyone will need to become competent at technologies of de-centralisation, from blockchains to cryptocurrencies; that economic turmoil will prevail and possibly get worse; and that artificial intelligence will develop so rapidly that it may learn how to perform even 鈥榗reative鈥� jobs on our behalf). It鈥檚 a lot to digest鈥攁 spectacular confusion of trends, possibilities and complications to say the least. And rather ironically, at least if we are to believe Paul Dolan on the main drivers of happiness (essentially, deep immersion in one task at a time and enjoyable human interaction), this confusion will almost certainly make us unhappier as technologies of distraction really take off. Until, that is, we ourselves become extinct through catastrophic events that possibly include the speedy rise of a superintelligence that may turn human happiness into a non-issue in a matter of days.

Living principles, experimental citizens

Assuming for a moment that there is still something to be done about the future, what does FutureFest鈥檚 inventory of dilemmas imply about the broader challenge of bringing about sustainable prosperity in our societies? The following two points represent my own main take-aways:

(1) Any kind of sustainable prosperity will be extremely difficult to achieve amid frenetic socio-technical changes without continuous reflection on core principles and without their continuous updating and active re-sharing (an insight which this year鈥檚 FutureFest organisers appeared to want to communicate clearly through inviting Helen Kennedy and the oracle-like Edward Snowden who stated that 鈥榮ometimes it may be irrational [selfless] commitment to democratic principles that nations need in order to survive鈥�); and

(2) New organisational techniques (new 鈥榦rgware鈥�) are quite probably needed to help societies deal with all the complexity and accelerating change while re-inventing democracy. These might range from mindful listening as a core democratic method (as suggested at FutureFest by both Owen Jones and Matthew Herbert) to innovation hubs, labs, civic hacking collectives, de-centralised online organisations and smarter event formats.

The final point鈥攄evising smarter public events鈥攎ay sound mundane but could be the easiest and cheapest technique to implement. Why not use events like FutureFest and various university-based conferences to ignite self-organising teams of citizens who (serendipitously) find they share an interest in a particular challenge? Why not encourage them to form into 鈥榤obile civic labs鈥� of some sort to produce solutions that can then be presented at the following year鈥檚 (or month鈥檚) event? Notwithstanding experimentation with digital participatory platforms, FutureFest 2015 largely missed this opportunity to actively 鈥榠ncubate鈥� networks and groups of motivated citizens. Perhaps in the next few years we will finally witness the birth of a genuinely participatory large-scale innovation conference, fulfilling Mulgan鈥檚 dream of public empowerment through direct engagement鈥攁nd constructive disagreement鈥攊n the face of contested future.

Later in the year, the 果冻影院 Institute for Global Prosperity will be co-hosting a two-day conference that will implement these kinds of innovative incubation methods. Putting digital participatory platforms to use, the conference will engage citizens across generations and geographies.

to receive updates on the conference and other projects.

Image credit: Dr Tuukka Toivonen