This article by Theo Priestley raises a fundamental question that should concern anyone interested in how we collectively navigate toward tomorrow: Has the field of futurism been captured by corporate interests at the expense of human-centred futures?
https://medium.com/@theo/there-is-something-very-wrong-with-the-future-isnt-there-cbc3462c2bc1
11 Comments
This article by Theo Priestley raises a fundamental question that should concern anyone interested in how we collectively navigate toward tomorrow: **Has the field of futurism been captured by corporate interests at the expense of human-centred futures?**
Priestley’s piece is a “call to arms,” urging futurists and anyone concerned about tomorrow to shift from being passive observers to active participants and to become activists for a more equitable and human-centric future. This raises several crucial points for discussion**.**
The critique strikes at the heart of what may be the most critical challenge facing future studies today. The profession that once imagined bold, diverse possibilities for humanity, from the optimistic visions of 1950s World’s Fairs to comprehensive social transformation, has seemingly narrowed into either tech evangelism or corporate consulting. The author argues that futurists have become “corporate lackeys” who peddle whatever narrative serves Silicon Valley’s agenda, particularly around AI development.
**Are we witnessing the death of genuinely independent foresight?** When futurists depend on corporate speaking fees and consulting contracts, can they honestly assess the risks and downsides of emerging technologies? Priestley’s admission that he’s “turned down gigs” rather than lie about AI’s impact suggests many practitioners face this ethical dilemma regularly.
**What happens when futures become monopolised?** The concentration of future-shaping power in the hands of a few tech billionaires, what Priestley calls “tech fascists”, means that marginalised voices, indigenous perspectives, and alternative visions are systematically excluded from our collective imagination. This isn’t just about diversity for its own sake; it’s about survival. Different cultures and communities may hold crucial insights for navigating climate change, technological disruption, and social transformation.
**Can futurism reclaim its activist roots?** The article’s call for a “non-profit organisation” of activist futurists suggests the field needs to rediscover its original mission: not just predicting the future, but actively working to create better ones. This means being willing to challenge power structures, even when it’s financially costly.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. As we face unprecedented global challenges, we need futurists who can speak truth to power, not just validate existing power structures. The question isn’t whether we can predict the future, but whether we can build the institutional independence and moral courage needed to fight for futures worth living in.
Priestley says he is angry, and he wants to know if you are too. What are your thoughts on his proposed non-profit for futurist activists, and what does being an “activist for the future” mean to you?
As the saying goes, “The future isn’t what it used to be.”
The future’s being designed **by and for the elite,** not for ordinary people.
They don’t care if automation guts the job market, if AI invades every corner of your life, or if climate collapse hits the poorest first. As long as their portfolios grow and their bunkers are stocked, they’re fine.
People who play along are just polishing the boots of the people stepping on everyone else.
We don’t need more hype men for Silicon Valley. We need people who’ll call this out, loudly, and fight for a future that *isn’t* owned by billionaires.
gosh i havent seen that picture in years, gotta be nearly 10 years old
Spoilers: it’s capitalism. Capitalism is a cancer on our psyche and our planet.
The whole ideology of “Personal Wealth Accumulation” served us fine enough, I guess, in regards to bootstrapping an international informational structure. But we have to grow the fuck up and realize that there’s no more virgin lands to pillage; no more native societies to enslave; and only one planet we’re all stuck together on.
I can’t help feeling that being *positive* about AI and it’s capabilities is the exception, not the norm. This blog-post is the bandwagon.
Pretty much everything has been captured by corporate interests.
And too many people would rather froth at the mouth because of immigrants and trans people than consider that maybe being greedy and selfish isn’t good.
There’s something very wrong with the *now*, to say nothing of the future.
>captured by corporate interests
Is this the perfect time to register a company named Arasaka and go full Cyberpunk 2077?
Its only wrong if you dont like it.
Sentient AI, androids, cybernetics, automated factories etc.
Some people would happily accept living entirely in VR too.
Not everyone wants social, natural, old-school “grass was greener” world.
“**Has the field of futurism been captured by corporate interests at the expense of human-centred futures?**”
since the start of the 1900s