the new look

Notice anything different? Yes, I have had a haircut. And our website has been redesigned. This new look for the Hawaii Futures website is a result of the miraculous efforts of our friends at bigwidesky, a highly inventive marketing and communications company based in St Louis, Missouri (branch office opening on the moon shortly - check their website for details). The dynamic duo of Matthew Jensen and Eliot Frick have, in consultation with Jake and myself, managed to distil the irreverent Manoa School of Futures sensibility and render it, full colour, in two glorious dimensions for the infotainment of us all. For their next assignment, we'll have them working on a futures fragrance, so you can smell when one of our futurists enters the room (if you can't already). We will also continue to refine and develop this site as time goes on, but in the meantime your comments and feedback on their first stunning efforts are most welcome. Mahalo nui loa, gentlemen.  

why futurists

While almost always exciting, sometimes trolling the 'net and seeing the latest technological or intellectual achievements can be disconcerting for a futurist. With accelerating change, a subterranean panic occasionally manifests itself in my consciousness. This panic comes from the fear that no matter how informed, or tuned in to emerging issues I am, I will never be able to keep up with the pace of change, and thus I will be irrelevant as someone who's job is to look ahead.

Discussing this with Jim Dator, I mentioned the need to be REALLY ridiculous (Dator's 2nd Law) in order to stay ahead of the next wave. But he offered another perspective, one that has assuaged my fears of obsolescence.

Dator:

"While looking over Massive Change I was thinking about your comment about how hard it is to be a futurist now. Dator's 2nd Law might be one response, as you said, but another is that most folks like Mau et al are interested in the fact and artifacts of change. We are more interested in also understanding the causes (or at least processes underlying) change (and nonchange). Mau et al describe THAT. We try to understand WHY (and why NOT)."

This also reflects the idea that futurists are process experts, not necessarily content experts. We give people the tools to look ahead usefully within their own content context. We (hopefully) understand the conditions for change, upon which the manifested specifics and particularities take place.

Even still, it sometimes feels like the conditions and the "why's" of change are accelerating also--but maybe at a different pace than the "whats" of change. It would be interesting to map out "why" and "what" change, as compared to the differing rates of change for biological, cultural, social, and aesthetic dimensions or layers. As an analogical exercise, I'd like to know if "why's" change slower than "what's" for similar reasons that biology changes slower than culture or politics or art/fashion?

It seems there is a similarity, at least so far in the story. Tomorrow things may change, and why not?