Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-26 05:43] – [Four Generic Futures] maja
+++ future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-26 06:04] – maja
@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 Dator discusses in length the process of creating four generic futures (Continue, Collapse, Discipline and Transform) - as four types of stories in which all/most future scenarios can be classified.
+<blockquote>
+) Continue: What are the ways in which the system in which we find ourselves could continue as it is?
+) Collapse: What are the ways in which it could fall apart?
+) Discipline: What are the ways in which it could be directed?
+) Transform: What are the ways in which it could change altogether?
+Phrased this way, each generic image of the future presents a challenge to test the boundaries of one’s expectations and understanding of the system.
+</blockquote>
+From Stuart Candy in his disertation [[http://www.scribd.com/doc/68901075/Candy-2010-The-Futures-of-Everyday-Life#|The Futures of Everyday Life]]
 === Cone of Plausibility ===
@@ Line 106: / Line 116: @@
-Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/resilients/scenario_symphony|The Scenario Symphony]] for the Resilients project, containing a whole range of scenario creation methods and techniques, including the dynamic [[:/resilients/from_pan_to_panarchy|panarchy]] and [[:/resilients/temporal model]].
+Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/resilients/scenario_symphony|The Scenario Symphony]] for the Resilients project, containing a whole range of scenario creation methods and techniques, including the dynamic [[:/resilients/from_pan_to_panarchy|panarchy]] and [[:/resilients/temporal model]]. It's interesting to compare it to the "Four Generic Futures" method above.
 <html><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/8480321093/" title="figure5 by _foam, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8505/8480321093_4d0379e220_c.jpg" width="800" height="354" alt="figure5"></a></html>
@@ Line 265: / Line 275: @@
 Backcasting starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present.
-However with retrocasting/retrotesting or scenario testing (as we also call it sometimes) we don't look at exclusively at a desirable future, but at different possible futures resulting from scenario building, and attempt to identify signals in the present that might point to the future moving in this or that direction.
+However with retrocasting/retrotesting or scenario testing (as we also call it sometimes) we don't look at exclusively at a desirable future, but at different possible futures resulting from scenario building, and attempt to identify signals in the present that might point to the future moving in this or that direction. This is perhaps similar to the work of Dator, Schulz and others related to the "four generic futures" (see above in scenario examples), known as deductive forecasting or [[http://www.infinitefutures.com/tools/inclassic.shtml|incasting]].