nrc.nl
The Future Is Not Extreme: Reframing Our Narratives
Global interest in the future has nearly doubled since 2020, yet our narratives often focus on extreme scenarios, neglecting the mundane reality of incremental change.
- What is the main issue with how we currently perceive and narrate the future?
- We tend to focus on extreme scenarios (utopian or dystopian), neglecting the gradual, everyday changes that genuinely shape our future. This prevents us from realistically engaging with and adapting to upcoming transformations.
- How does the author propose to address the issue of misrepresenting the future?
- By integrating seemingly mundane aspects (like taco's, tissues, etc.) into our future narratives and focusing on how significant changes affect everyday life (e.g., walking a dog), we can foster a more realistic and accessible understanding of the future.
- What are the potential consequences of continuing to portray the future as extreme?
- Continuing to focus on extreme narratives can create unrealistic expectations and hinder our ability to adapt to the gradual changes that will truly define the future. This can lead to unpreparedness for realistic challenges and missed opportunities for integrating positive changes.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing subtly steers the reader away from extreme future scenarios by emphasizing the gradual integration of change into daily life. The introduction highlights the abundance of extreme future narratives, contrasting them with the author's perspective of incremental change. This framing is evident in the repeated use of phrases like 'doodgewoon' (ordinary) and the examples of everyday technological advancements (smartwatches, laser pointers, robot vacuums). However, the article does initially present a dichotomy between optimistic and dystopian views before shifting its focus. This initial presentation could be perceived as a slight framing bias, though it serves as a springboard for the author's central argument.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, though the author's personal anecdotes and informal tone lend a subjective feel. Words like 'bombartisch zelfvertrouwen' (bombastic self-confidence) and 'gruwel' (horror) carry some emotional weight, but they are used to illustrate the author's point rather than to unfairly influence the reader. The repeated use of 'doodgewoon' (ordinary) emphasizes the author's perspective but could be replaced with a more neutral term like 'commonplace' or 'everyday' for greater objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The article primarily focuses on technological advancements and societal shifts, potentially omitting discussions of other significant future challenges like geopolitical instability or potential economic crises. While acknowledging space constraints, the lack of diverse perspectives might limit the reader's holistic understanding of potential future scenarios. The focus is heavily weighted toward Western experiences.
False Dichotomy
The article initially presents a false dichotomy between overly optimistic and overly pessimistic future narratives. However, it quickly moves past this simplification to offer a nuanced perspective on gradual, everyday change. The initial setup serves a rhetorical purpose but doesn't ultimately dominate the article's argument.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how technological advancements (e.g., laser pens, robot vacuum cleaners) and societal shifts (e.g., same-sex marriage legalization) have become commonplace, suggesting a reduction in inequalities of access to technology and social acceptance. While not directly addressing specific inequality metrics, the narrative implicitly points towards a more inclusive and equitable future by showcasing how significant changes have been integrated into daily life, thereby normalizing progress.