The Future Within the Past
A look at futurism through the lens of Wells’s idea of a world encyclopaedia
The book by Herbert George Wells—whose birthday anniversary was last month—that I read this year was a work that was completely new to me. I came across it whilst doing research for my other article, so I immediately got hold of a copy and began reading it. Reading "World Brain" made me reflect on Wells' idea of a world encyclopaedia. He envisaged a shared knowledge system that would compile and organise all of humanity's knowledge, making it accessible from every corner of the globe. Today, we can describe the internet — and Wikipedia in particular — as a realisation of this concept. Of course, there are differences between Wells' vision and today's systems. However, these differences do not prevent us from recognising the similarity. On the contrary, the example before us makes it easier to grasp the concept from the past. Thus, Wells’s vision appears futuristic to us. So, is he a futurist because he truly foresaw the future, or because we are able to interpret his ideas in this way thanks to our current knowledge? I have given this matter a great deal of thought and would like to share my reflections with you.
When I thought about it, I realised that when we look for a modern-day equivalent of an idea from the past, we may actually end up altering it slightly. We don't expect an idea to be realised in every detail. Instead, we look for something in today's world that most closely resembles it. When we speak of a 'world encyclopaedia', the internet or Wikipedia come to mind. This is because we cannot think of a closer example to which we can liken this idea. Furthermore, the more we discuss this similarity, the easier it becomes to reshape the original idea through its modern-day counterpart. While certain aspects of the original idea come to the fore, others recede into the background. We iron out the differences and integrate the idea into our present-day reality. In a sense, the future is reshaping the past. When evaluating Wells' idea in this context, we need to consider not only his words, but also our current understanding of them. This is because we are now questioning what can be considered futuristic.
This illustrates how time can influence the way we think. Imagine if the internet and Wikipedia did not exist today. Wells' concept of a global encyclopaedia would still intrigue us. We might even discuss just how extraordinary the idea was for its time. However, without the concrete example we have today, we could not say that this idea had been realised. Thirty or forty years ago, when the internet was not as widespread as it is today, Wells' idea might have been considered reasonable or achievable. Nevertheless, proving that it would become a reality in the future would have been more challenging. This shows that the nature of an idea and the evidence available to evaluate it do not necessarily align. An idea may be futuristic even when it is first proposed. It is only when it is realised years later that we can recognise its accuracy. Therefore, the actualisation of an idea should not be a prerequisite for classifying it as futuristic.
However, we are now faced with another problem. Does every fantasy have to be futuristic just because it won't necessarily come true? The idea that flying cars will become commonplace is a prediction about the future. Yet this idea is hardly new. It has long featured in science fiction, films and technological debates. Does simply saying that flying cars will become commonplace in the future make someone a futurist? Frankly, I don’t think so. On the other hand, consider a different example. Imagine we are designing a world in which every living space has its own independent energy centre. This idea is perhaps more controversial and unfamiliar. Does that therefore make it more futuristic than flying cars, simply because it is more unusual? I think we need to be careful here, too. After all, the outlandishness of an idea does not determine its intellectual value in relation to the future on its own.
I believe the real distinction lies not in how strange or elusive an idea is, but in how it is developed. An idea about the future may present a possibility that differs from the world as we know it. However, exploring why such a possibility might arise, the conditions under which it could become feasible, and how our lives might change if it were to materialise, takes the idea to a different level. This gives the idea meaning, elevating it beyond a random assumption. Returning to the example of independent energy centres, we could simply state that such a system might exist. Alternatively, we could examine the matter in greater depth by looking at advances in energy production, limitations of existing infrastructure, advantages of local production, and potential challenges. The second approach offers a more systematic vision of the future. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to say that every futuristic idea must be based on scientific data. Artists and writers can prompt us to consider possibilities that cannot yet be measured. We can find clever examples of this in science fiction stories and extraordinary classical paintings. Therefore, what matters is our ability to articulate what constitutes a futuristic idea. This requires more than just a half-formed assumption.
Bearing this in mind, we also need to reconsider the relationship between science fiction and futurism. Works of science fiction imagine worlds and technologies that do not yet exist. However, simply setting a novel in the future or featuring imaginary technology does not automatically make it a prediction of the future. Sometimes, science fiction explores technological developments; sometimes, it questions where social order might be heading; and sometimes, it constructs a world with no connection to reality in order to understand the present. In short, it is a very broad field. So, are all these works equally futuristic? I do not think it would be correct to make such a generalisation. The possibility presented by a novel as a thought experiment is not the same as a prediction that claims to describe future events. However, a work's weak scientific foundations do not mean it cannot pose valuable questions about the future. Reducing futuristic thought solely to scientific predictions unnecessarily limits the scope of the imagination. After all, the imagination is capable of presenting possibilities that we have not yet even conceived of.
We should also consider the person who proposed the idea. What qualities define a futurist? Is it essential for them to publish their thoughts, share them in the media or base their ideas on scientific research and the interpretation of current data? Can someone who does not do any of these things still be considered a futurist? From the perspective of a single idea, none of these things are mandatory. Someone may have an interesting idea about the future that they have not shared with anyone. However, to define that person as a futurist, we need to consider more than just a single idea. We could examine how they think about the future, how they handle different possibilities, and how they evaluate their assumptions. Just as someone who studies the future does not need to be right about every prediction, someone whose prediction turns out to be correct cannot be considered a futurist for that reason alone. This is because a prediction may sometimes be accurate without any systematic thinking behind it. At other times, a carefully considered possibility may fail to materialise. Knowing how a thought was formed is not the same as knowing the outcome.
From this perspective, I believe it would be an oversimplification to consider Wells solely as a futurist just because he predicted the internet and Wikipedia. The concept of a global encyclopaedia encompasses more than merely providing access to information. Wells considered how sharing humanity’s knowledge might affect the world. Certain elements of this idea have indeed come to fruition today. However, the widespread dissemination of knowledge has not, of its own accord, brought about consensus or world peace. While the internet offers people access to information, it can also pave the way for the spread of misinformation, polarisation, and new inequalities. This does not invalidate Wells’s thinking, of course, but shows that realising certain aspects of an idea is different from fulfilling its fundamental expectations. To understand Wells’s significance, we must examine what he foresaw and aimed for, and consider how his ideas align with—or diverge from—the world today.
As we reach the end, let’s ask: why is all this important? If we only consider ideas about the future that turn out to be correct when evaluating them, we may fall into the retrospective fallacy. Once we know the outcome of a matter, the paths leading to it can seem clearer and more inevitable than they actually were. Conversely, the opposite is also possible. We might dismiss an idea simply because it has not yet come to fruition. However, there is no direct relationship between evaluating an idea and its potential to materialise in the future. Considering both successful and unsuccessful ideas can help us to understand which assumptions are meaningful and how our predictions have been affected by changes in conditions. This is why the past is important.
The aim here is neither to label every human aspiration as 'futuristic' nor to accept every prediction about the future at face value. Instead, we want to explain more clearly why we consider a particular idea to be futuristic.
Taking my cue from Wells' idea of a world encyclopaedia, this is what I have come up with. In short, an idea does not have to become reality to be considered futuristic. However, the fact that it has not yet come to pass does not make it valuable in itself. We need to consider what the idea offers, how it is grounded, and how it contributes to our thinking about the future. Conversely, when evaluating an idea from the past in the present, we must remember that we are adapting it to the present day. Perhaps being a futurist means being able to foresee possibilities that transcend the limits of the present. Nevertheless, to understand these possibilities, we must evaluate them in the context of the era in which they emerged and consider the meanings they have subsequently acquired. The connection between the past and the future is far more complex and intertwined than we initially realise.
Comments