Reading Journal #7: Honan, Toffler, Bell, Gordon & Helmer, Staley

For the week of “Planning for Tomorrow” there were five readings each focused differently on discussions about the future. William H. Honan focused on three specific futurists: Frederik Pohl, Harvey S. Perloff, and Daniel Bell. Alvin Toffler argued for the preparation of society for future shock. Daniel Bell recorded notes from the first conference of a Commission for the Future. T.J. Gordon and Olaf Helmer discussed their questionnaire report for the RAND Corporation. David J. Staley theorized about the extension of the historian from the past to future studies.

The new phase of future studies for the mid 20^th Century brought the dreamers direct involvement with business. Previous future visions were limited to writers and government thinkers. These new consultations between writers and private companies demonstrated that being a futurist was now a profession, one worthy of being referred to by industry leaders for novel ideas. Pohl’s discussion of the possibilities of the insurance industry and silicone are just two examples where his radical thought proved to be true. Perloff’s discussion of era’s next critical resource being that of the mind proves spot on in the 21^st Century. Bell’s desire to pursue the future led him to create the Commission on the Year 2000, composed of 27 specialists from various sectors. The future transformed from story to a business and government specialty occupation.

Bell’s Commission on the Year 2000 was the prefect solution to Toffler’s fear of future shock. Toffler, believing that future was progressing forward faster than society could catch up, argued that the next greatest danger was future shock. For nations, unprepared for rapid change, underwent turmoil as society struggle to adapt to the new “norms.” The solution was the new profession of futurists and an organized body of high quality thinkers for the “predictive reports.” The 1^st session from the Commission on the Year 2000 appears to be mere philosophical discussion. However, the importance of these discussions is that the serious talks by specialists about the future are now recorded on paper. This paper can now be conveniently found by others in the future to claim that certain individuals of the past had correctly predicted the “present.”

Staley desire to push history past the boundaries of the past is reflected on past efforts of statisticians to document the future. The RAND report on Forecasting was the drive to push statistical quantitative data into the realm of the unknown. By documenting questionnaire responses from specialists, the report avoided being too radical. However, the responses provide insight into current opinion about the possibilities of certain achievements. The present lack of an automatic language translator with correct grammar and the still in development lunar base indicates that futurist were far from effective predictors.