Projects

Collaborative research on the human capacity to understand, anticipate, prepare for, and embrace the future. ABOUT FUTURES CONSCIOUSNESS The futures consciousness concept and scale has been developed by researchers at the Finland Futures Research Centre (University of Turku) and University of Geneva, with help from other contributors. Teach the Future received a grant from the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF) and the Prince Mohammad bin Fahd University (PMU) to adapt the Scale for use by young people, ages 12-18.  The results of that grant are being submitted for publication by the partners. After that, the Scale will be available for use by schools and other organizations that work with youth. The details will be published on this page shortly. Take the test: https://fctest.utu.fi/ The Five Dimensions of Futures Consciousness are: time perspective; the ability to be aware of the past, present and future, as well as the way events follow each other over time agency beliefs; basic sense of confidence that an individual has in their own ability to influence the external world openness to alternatives; abilities used to critically question commonly accepted ideas and influences an individual’s willingness to consider alternative ways of being and doing systems perception; the ability to recognize human and natural systems around us including groups, societies and ecosystems concern for others; relates to the degree to which an individual pursues favourable futures for a group beyond themselves Full article explaining the concept: The Five Dimensions of Futures Consciousness, Ahvenharju et al (2018) Ahvenharju et al 2018 Five dimensions of futures consciousness Futures vol 104 .pdf OUR PARTNERS Teach the Future collaborates with the University of Turku in Finland, the Finland Futures Research Centre and Digital Futures to research and promote the work in the context of education and (young) students. Sanna Ahvenharju, Matti Minkkinen and Fanny Lalot are the research experts that developed the futures consciousness concept and scale.  OUR ACTIVITIES Teach the Future supports the development of a scale matching the language and level of young people. This project is in collaboration with schools in the Netherlands, Italy, Turkiye, United States, and United Kingdom. And we thank our sponsor the Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd, Center for Futuristic Studies. Next to this we support the testing. Erica Bol has worked with Martin de Wolf of the Master Learning and Innovation at the Fontys University of Applied Sciene. She designed a futures lesson program supporting the Master program and tested if the students futures consciousness improved. The students did a test before and after the lessons program. A paper on the project and results are published in FUTURES issue 12-2022.

Resilience and preparedness relate both to coping with the immediate and gradually developing threats, hence contributing also to the transition towards ecological and resilient deliberative communities and society. For instance, we consider personal and community survival skills (both mental and physical wellbeing), deliberative policy and civic skills to avoid polarization and confrontations and sustainable lifestyles based on self-reliance and autonomy. While the challenges considered are global, policy implications are addressed especially from the European research and innovation policy perspective. This project targets toward 2040 exploring the civic (both individual and community level) resilience and preparedness in Europe. We develop scenarios to consider alternative plausible futures characterized by societal uncertainties caused by major disruptions (wars, upheavals, wildfires, floods, etc.) in different hypothetical contexts of reference (where possible changes induced by trends and weak signals are also considered) and try to imagine how Europeans could be prepared at the individual and community level, especially from the perspective of relying less on the external services provided by the public and private sectors. This deep dive is part of the "European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe" project which aims to help valorise foresight elements from R&I projects of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe by increasing their visibility and the potential uptake of their results in EC R&I policy planning. For more information, see: https://www.futures4europe.eu/about

Democracy across Europe has experienced immense challenge, change and uncertainty in recent years (Canal 2014; European Commission & Merkel; 2019) - from the rise of populism to decreasing levels of public trust in governance institutions and processes, to the war in Ukraine. Set against the backdrop of these issues, EUARENAS has been investigating how cities and urban spaces can strengthen legitimacy, identification and engagement within the democratic public sphere. Specifically, EUARENAS has been exploring how participation and deliberation in democracy and decision-making can be increased, and how voices and communities who are excluded from such arenas can be more actively involved. Foresight is one of the research strands present in EUARENAS. In this project, foresight is both a tool for understanding democratic innovations as they emerge, and for engaging citizens and other actors in such innovations within the participatory and deliberative realms. Mixed method approaches to foresight that incorporate a diversity of activities such as media discourse analysis, lived experience storytelling, social media analysis, three horizons mapping, driver-mapping, scenario and visioning exercises and policy stress- testing have been used in EUARENAS to investigate and hypothesise over future trends and scenarios in participatory democracies. From this work, we propose the following recommendations for Cities wanting to strive towards more equitable local democracies:Address structural barriers to participation Build relationships of trustInvest in formal and civic educationMake decisions for the long-termA more equitable, inclusive local democracy landscape is not too far in the distance for us to conceive it being possible. In fact, the future is now – the seeds to create it are already being planted, they just need nurturing by:Scaling and mainstreaming existing pilot or niche practices that are working locally – whether that beparticipatory budgeting, citizen assemblies or other smaller-scale projects – so that these become thenew ‘status quo’Adopting test and learn approaches to promote experimentation and on-going learning – this will enableongoing innovation and be responsive to society's needsFinding ways to celebrate and connect-up the small changes that are taking place - this will help peoplesee that progress is being made, even when it feels like things are changing too slow

The project explores futures of green skills and jobs and their supply and demand in Europe 2050. We are making a deep dive into developments which are currently underway and will take us to different possible 2030s, according to events largely unpredictable and decisions bound by a number of constraints of diverse nature. The project is one of eight foresight deep dives of the project 'European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe' carried out by the Foresight on Demand consortium.

Science can be better fostered in an open, democratic society than in other types of societies. The norm of civic participation in a ‘democracy’ is a lived ideal for citizens, just as the norm of ‘communalism’ is a lived ideal for the scientific community. Both norms presuppose the values of ‘openness’ and 'mutual responsiveness' among scientist and citizens.This highlights ‘openness’ not as a prescriptive norm but as a value of the institution of science. Simultaneously, ‘openness’ is also an institutional value of a democracy. If we primarily understand the norm of communalism as an institutional value of science, then communalism and openness becomey research virtues for the scientific communityrather than prescriptive norms. Similarly, ‘voting’ and participation in social-political decision making is considered a civic virtue in a democracy, even though the institution of democracy does not oblige individuals to vote or to participate. Therefore, we do not need to codifying these norma, which can be seen as functional for the operation of science and a democracy therefore represent institutional values. In this way, we can understand -governance of the institution of science and democracy through the adoption of appropriate research virtues and civic virtues. However, science and democracy are dependent on the extent to which scientist and citizens engage on the basis of these norms. How can we best encourage and incentivise those?

The contextTechnological breakthroughs empowered by enabling technologies hold a transformation potential that can be funneled to address industrial and societal grand challenges, like greening and digitalisation. To exploit this transformative potential, the innovation journey that leads new emerging technologies to their market-uptake shall embed value-sensitive considerations, such as environmental and societal implications.The FORGING SolutionFORGING proposes a new methodology that breaks linear innovation trajectories to stimulate new technological visions and pathways attentive to the environment and society, and human-centred in alignment with Industry 5.0. technological frameworks. FORGING will create enabling frameworks to accelerate the pick-up of novel and responsible enabling technologies: through the development of 6 Technological Pathways, emerging enabling technologies will be positioned at their maturity levels and their deployment and industry absorption will be promoted for positive societal impact.

Future Forward is a 20-lesson program to support (young) people in their exploration of the future. Futures literacyIn our ever-changing world, parents, caregivers, teachers, and educators are faced with the challenge of preparing children for a future that is difficult to predict. How can we equip ourselves and younger generations with the necessary tools and skills to navigate the unknown? This is where futures literacy comes into play. While no-one can truly predict the future, by integrating future thinking into education, we acquire the tools to anticipate and navigate the complexities of an uncertain world, fostering innovation, adaptability, and resilience, in line with the goals of the European Year of Skills (May 2023 – May 2024). Future Forward, a 20-lesson program offers a unique opportunity for parents, teachers, and anyone curious about the exploration of the future. This crash course into foresight provides insights into future thinking, anticipation and foresight, opening doors to a better informed and imaginative future.The TopicsThe lessons resolve around 5 topics:  • Perception of time; How we perceive time is connected to how we understand the future. Explore your perception of time and the future from multiple perspectives to help develop your futures literacy.  • Futures mindset; Learn to see the world as a futurist! By challenging assumptions, developing a critical gaze, and understanding the interconnectedness of the world, you can imagine possible and preferable futures.  • Multiple futures; There is no single future, but a landscape of constantly emerging and evolving possibilities. Contemplate a plurality of scenarios and visions for some of this century’s most pressing issues.  • Investing in imaginations; How do we begin to imagine more than one viable future? When we open our imaginations, the possibilities become endless. We each have the capacity to explore, shape and imagine alternative futures.  • Taking action; Imagine your ideal world 20 years in the future. What does it look like? How can you achieve it? Learn how you can take an active role in creating a better and more positive tomorrow.  UNESCO champions a capability-based approach to using-the-future. Futures Literacy empowers the innate human capacity to imagine, it is a skill that everyone can develop. In becoming futures literate we enhance our agency, developing our abilities to identify novelty, prepare, adapt and invent as changes occur in the complex world we live in. More reading UNESCO Enjoy your classes at Future Forward! Co-Curation Future Forward is a co-development of the European Commission and TED-Ed and has been designed in co-creation with our co-curators from the foresight field. Theme 1: Perception of Time in co-curation with the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF) by Jennifer GidleyWFSF is a UNESCO and UN consultative partner and global NGO with members in over 60 countries, bringing together academics, researchers, practitioners, students and institutions. WFSF offers a global forum for stimulation, exploration and exchange of ideas, visions, and plans for alternative futures, through long-term, big-picture thinking and radical change. Jennifer Gidley is the Former President of WFSF (2009-2017). She is Adjunct Professor, UTS Sydney, a leading international scholar on human-centred futures, and author of The Future: VSI (Oxford).  Theme 2: Futures Mindset in co-curation with Teach the Future (TTF) by Lourdes Rodríguez The Teach the Future community is dedicated to bring futures thinking to schools, educators, and students around the world. By teaching the future you can equip young people to face uncertainty and help them envision and create their preferred future. Lourdes Rodríguez is global hubs director at Teach the Future. She is a senior foresight consultant, specialized in trends analysis. Recognized as one of the top futurists in Spain by Forbes.  Theme 3: Multiple Futures in co-curation with Next Generation Foresight Practitioners (NGFP) by Ollie Bream McIntosh NGFP’s mission is to identify, accelerate, amplify, and connect a Global South-anchored network of emerging next-generation foresight practitioners to leverage power for transformation. Ollie Bream McIntosh is a researcher and designer specialized in sustainable futures. Formerly a director of several social enterprises, including design studio Social Systems Lab, and an Associate at the University of Nottingham, where he led the design and delivery of an award-winning course in Futures Studies. Ollie now leads the development of new transdisciplinary research ecosystems on the theme of social transformation at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Theme 4: Imagine Futures in co-curation with Association of Professional Futurists (APF) by Stuart CandyAPF’s mission is to advance the practice of professional foresight by fostering a dynamic, global, diverse, and collaborative community of professional futurists and those committed to futures thinking who expand the understanding, use, and impact of foresight in service to their stakeholders and the world. Stuart Candy, PhD is Director of Situation Lab and Associate Professor of Social Foresight at Parsons School of Design in New York, and Advisor to NASA JPL in Los Angeles. His publications include the edited collection Design and Futures, creativity game The Thing From The Future, and public imagination toolkit The Futures Bazaar, winner of the APF’s inaugural award for Inclusive Foresight.  Theme 5: Taking Action in co-curation with UN Global Pulse Finland foresight specialists Tiina Neuvonen, Lucia Soriano Irigaray & Claudia Sáenz Zulueta UN Global Pulse is the Secretary-General’s Innovation Lab. They work at the intersection of innovation and the human sciences to strengthen the ability of the United Nations and those it serves to respond and adapt to challenges, and anticipate them in future. Tiina Neuvonen is the Strategic Foresight Lead at UN Global Pulse Finland. She works at the intersection of social sciences, development and innovation. Formerly, she worked on UNESCO’s innovation portfolio, and has a background in strategy consulting and service design. Lucía Soriano Irigaray is a Strategic Foresight Analyst at UN Global Pulse Finland, and focuses on policy innovation. She has a background working on public affairs, international relations and climate change. Claudia Saénz Zulueta is a Strategic Foresight Senior Analyst at UN Global Pulse Finland, specializing in participatory futures and anticipatory strategy. She is driving social impact and innovation and her goal is to empower individuals to shape inclusive and transformative visions of their futures. Design and development by Erica Bol, Co-editor, Maciej Krzysztofowicz, Tanja Schindler (external). Policy Lab, Joint Research Center, European Commission

Travelling into the [future] (spanish: Viajando al [futuro]) is a long-term project aimed at developing desirable future scenarios for sustainable tourism in Spain together with local stakeholders and experts in the field. The project is funded by the European Climate Foundation and implemented in a collaboration between Futures Probes and Tipi. Process & Methodology The project was structured into three main phases Research Crowdsourcing Storytelling In the research phase, a PESTLE analysis and the elaboration of local stakeholder maps identified environmental key factors and networks. In the crowdsourcing phase, participatory workshops with local stakeholders and a Delphi survey with tourism experts were run in parallel, built upon and at the same time challenging the knowledge gathered in the previous phase. In the Storytelling phase, the results were used as the fundament for building six future scenarios, visualised as a written narrative accompanied by an illustration. Outcome Building up and strengthening local stakeholder networks and generating ideas for future sustainable tourism(s). Gathering of key insights on desirable, possible and likely future developments of tourism in Spain. Identification and discussion of needs, desires, worries and attitudes of tourism stakeholders – in its complexity and diversity. Six future scenarios to inspire can activate communities, organisations and citizens to define measures that accelerate the transformation towards a better, more sustainable tourism. Next steps Developing indicators to measure the performance of (future) touristic activities in terms of their sustainability. Creating a network of change agents within the tourism sector to exchange experiences, needs, knowledge and to collectively identify possible synergies and action steps to be taken. Designing experimental pilot projects focusing on solving some of the concrete challenges identified as common to one or all of the regions observed.

This rapid exploration is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan project. Individual and public health are probably THE most important issues for citizens and governments. In spite of major advances in curing of major diseases over the past century and a half, and a growing recognition of the importance of preventative measures, there are constantly new frontiers emerging in health-related S&T. In a nutshell, the most important threats to individual and public health are: Emergence of new thus far unknown communicable diseases (most recently COVID 19), possibly given rise to global pandemics; The declining effectivity of existing antibiotics, and growing difficulties in discovering new ones or finding other ways of strengthening antimicrobial resistance; Growing incidence of non-communicable diseases (dementia, mental illness, obesity, diabetes, cardio-vascular diseases and the like), often resulting from unhealthy environmental conditions (e.g. air pollution), malnutrition and lack of physical exercise. ​ These growing health threats are counteracted by new biomedical insights and technological means to help maintain and restore health: Insights into how our individual internal and external health “ecosystems” and microbioms influence our state of health; Understanding of the mechanisms and pre-dispositions of various diseases, which opens up new opportunities for identifying new vaccines and more personalised possibilities of medication treatment; New possibilities of repairing or even replacing organs and influencing the process of cellular division, which open up further possibilities of human enhancement (see Deep Dive on Transhumanism). Latest developments in better exploiting inter-connected health data for personalised treatmetns and prevention. About this topic A major challenge consists of preparing public health systems to better handle health risks and make novel medical possibilities widely available at affordable costs to the individual and to society. To be future-proof, health systems need to change in many regards, but opinions are split about the right way forward. They are supposed to absorb innovative approaches for cure and prevention, set incentices right, while at the same time keeping the costs for fair and sustainable health as low as possible. The recent COVID 19 pandemic has also shown that optimising health system capacities may well be cost-efficient under normal circumstances, but it endangers the ability to respond in a resilient manner to high-pressure situations like the one we have been experiencing during the past two COVID years. At the same time, the health systems in most European countries are confronted with shortages of health professional, from medical doctors to care professions. ​ DRIVERS OF CHANGE The interaction between new threats and new promises is influenced by a range of other factors. Closer interaction with thus far untouched natural ecosystems, where humans can get in contact with novel life-threatening diseases, represents a real challenge for public and individual health. The fast spread of dangerous communicable diseases is accelerated by global individual mobility. The prevalence of unhealthy lifestyles represents an issue of major concern, in particular the widespread adoption of “Western” and meat-rich diets. Although there are counter-movements, not least for climate-related reasons, the climate footprint of food supply continues to grow. Environmental degradation and air pollution represent important factors negatively influencing individual health, and well beyond respiratory damages. Climate change can at least reinforce health-threatening incidences, and lead to the spread of diseases and of their carriers to areas where they have not been detected before. Micro and nano-devices can be used for prostetics and implants as well as for carrying drugs to designated places in the body. Digitalisation opens up new opportunities for addressing a range of health challenges: from pacemakers to brain interfaces, and from online medical advice to big data analytics for diagnosis and personalised health services. The promise of pharmacogenomics for personalised health services continues to be held up by industry. It projects a huge potential once genetic information is decoded and understood. Costs of public health systems have been growing, and while digitalisation may well help reduce costs, it is also a factor driving a shift towards a two- or three-tier health system. FUTURES What if healthy life styles were rewarded, and unhealthy ones penalised? What if the most advanced preventative measures and treatments were available to the most well-off citizens? What if digital implants were hacked and manipulated? What if environmental degradation and air pollution continued to rise in major urban agglomerations? What if the costs of the opportunities inherent to new health technologies exceeded 25% of GDP? What if major pandemics arise much more frequently than in the past, demanding high flexibility from the health system and its employees?

This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project. The concept of the global commons refers to resource domains that fall outside national jurisdiction, to which all have access, including high seas, airspace, outer space, and cyberspace. Given the growing significance of these domains and related resources for states and other global and local players across a range of purposes, defining the concept of the global commons has become more complex. The Global Commons Alliance network of concerned organisations refers to two definitions of the concept. The first is based on geopolitics, where the global commons are areas whose potential economic resources lie beyond national jurisdiction: the atmosphere, the high seas, Antarctica, and outer space. The second definition has its roots more in economics and how shared resources can be overused by some at the expense of others, regardless of national jurisdiction. The strategic access and use of resource domains for military/commercial purposes put pressure on their status. Recent geopolitical developments highlight the need for exploring appropriate forms of global governance or stewardship to ensure responsible (sustainable) management to benefit present and future generations. About this topic This deep dive aims to address the following questions: What constitutes a global commons? How do global commons differ? How is the concept of global commons likely to evolve up to 2040? Adapting a taxonomy of global commons for the emerging geopolitical, environmental, and economic context. What are the main emerging disruptors of global commons up to 2040? What could change and upset established global commons regimes? How can laws be introduced and implemented in emerging global commons? The emphasis is on geopolitics and how legal frameworks can survive technological change. How can innovation reinforce the commons? How is the economics of common property evolving (from Hardin's very influential work to the massive critique of Hardin by Elinor Ostrom)? linking to major policy debates such as privatisation. Can Ostrom’s approach be scaled up to the level of states? and extended to the common property of the atmosphere or oceans? What would be necessary for such a large-scale negotiation process? How can we govern the commons as a different type of ownership? The emergence of global commons-orientation in innovation? In particular mission-oriented innovation. Exploring the rights and personality of ecosystems and other entities as right holders. Ecological services as transversal. How can we make the global commons work? - the need for cooperative behaviour if global commons and sustainability are to be achieved. Multilateralism 2.0. and emerging role of science diplomacy up to 2040.  Ukraine war as an epochal war: the dangers of the war (state of permanent cold war) for acting seriously on the global commons. Potential split with China and new hegemonies in Africa (e.g Belt and Road debt). ​ The aim is to identify cross impacts of the global commons areas and key drivers.

Created in 2005, the PROSPER Network is the structure of encounter, dialogue and action for the foresight officers community of the French public research. Working both on technical and managerial levels of foresight, it develops an expertise extending from operating methods to scientific relevance and social impacts of forward looking activities.

Teach the Future is a global non-profit movement that promotes ‘futures literacy’ as a life skill for students and educators. In a rapidly evolving world it is essential to learn how to deal with uncertain and ever-changing futures. Let’s prepare our next generations with these skills in the classroom! ​ Our aspiration is that every student is prepared to navigate an uncertain world and has the agency to imagine and create their preferred future. Our mission is to teach futures-thinking skills to students and educators around the world and to inspire them to influence their futures.

The ultimate objectives are to provide EU institutions with knowledge and tools to enhance their actorness, effectiveness and influence in global governance. TRIGGER specific objectives are: Advance the state of the art in understanding global governance; Evolution of the EU’s interaction with global governance, in particular so-called “actorness” and “effectiveness” of the EU; Understand how global governance and emerging technologies interact, and what role the EU plays in this respect, in particular as “regulatory superpower”; Identify emerging trends that strengthen / loosen deeper global governance and cooperation; Build capacity for strategic foresight and public engagement inside EU institutions.

It would be short-sighted to assume that we, as humanity, have reached such a level of maturity that our descendants will not find some aspects of our – apparently civilised – everyday life repulsive and sad. So we asked 60 futurists from around the world:“What will we disgust our descendants with?”Many of the submitted ideas are already present in public discourse and confirm areas in which we need to change. But we were especially interested in novel barbarisms that humanity is still largely oblivious to.That’s why this infographic shows the futurists’ answers grouped into 93 contemporary barbarisms ranked in a public vote according to how eye-opening they are.

From October 2022 to March 2023, we ran a forecasting tournament with a total of 54questions. Almost all of our forecasting questions were developed in cooperation with 16different public institutions and ministerial departments. Each institution or department definedits most useful forecasting topics, participated in a workshop to define specific questions withus, and was later provided with the results. This was intended as a proof of concept of onepossible approach to incorporating forecasting in public decision-making.Once defined, our forecasting questions were then posted on a private Metaculus sub-domain(in Czech), where an average of 72 forecasters had the opportunity to address them as theywould any other question on Metaculus (median of 18 predictions per user). Throughout thetournament, we produced 16 reports detailing the rationales and forecasts, to be used by thecooperating institutions.A handful of our partners have already reported acting on the information/judgment presented inour reports. This has concerned, for example, the national foreclosure issue (some 6% of thetotal population have debts in arrears) where the debt relief process is being redesigned midststrong lobbying and insufficient personal capacities; or the probabilities of outlier scenarios forEuropean macroeconomic development, which was requested by the Slovak Ministry of Financeto help calibrate their existing judgements.It also seems useful to explore various approaches to grow the number of policymakers withpersonal experience & skills in forecasting. In our case, we found curiosity and willingness to tryforecasting even in unexpected institutional locations (i.e. the Czech R&I funding body). Thismakes us more confident that the “external forecasts” approach (as compared to buildinginternal prediction tournaments or focusing on advancing forecasting skills of public servants) isworth investigating further precisely because it allows us to detect and draw on this interestirrespective of institutional and seniority distinctions and resource constraints.While we hope that any readers with an interest in forecasting may find our experience useful,we expect that both this and any future projects of ours make it easier for other teams to worktowards similar goals. To that effect, the write-up also contains an Annex of “MethodologicalGuidelines,” where we outline in more explicit terms the questions and decisions that we foundwere important to tackle when running the project, and what they may entail.

Large R&D-based companies (Big Tech) have risen as major institutions driving technology, defining networks, shaping markets and influencing the ways we live. These companies are heavily concen-trated in some parts of the world, most of them within the West Coast of the United States, with a few emerging challengers in Mainland China, Taiwan and elsewhere. Other continents, including Europe, participate marginally in the development of the knowledge-bases which, apparently, may well come to dominate the future. Societies have come to rely on Big Tech from how we do business to how we consume and connect with others. And decision-makers, regulators and stakeholders grapple with breakthrough innovations, enhanced connectivity, lopsided competition and a number of ethical and political implications for how societies govern themselves. Organised societies face difficult choices. Should Big Tech be let free to carry on unimpeded? Should government break them up or try to tame them by imposing detailed standards of conduct? Should national and supra-national authorities aim at giving rise to new and alternative undertakings able to develop at far-reaching scale and scope? Or should policy actors give priority to an economic fabric full of smaller-sized enterprises that are alive and adaptive at the local level? As with many times in the past, the configuration of the present seems stiff and self-reinforcing. But a foresight perspective invites an awareness of the possibility of disruptions or genuine novelty in things to come. It is uncertain if current trends will be sustained over time or how they will be accommodated. Probing into the unknown can be inspiring and increase panoramic awareness. It also sets a base for being pro-active about destiny. Thus, studying the future(s) is a deliberation to be already being on the move. That is a productive, non-neutral and liberating attitude. A chance for aligning the possible with the desirable. This policy brief addresses the challenge of anticipating of what “Big Tech” will imply for the future of Europe. In our deep dive we project towards 2040 and explore the implications to Europe empha-sising research and innovation policy.  The scenario work, that comprises the bulk of this report, frames debates about industrial change and international political economy with the overarching vector of high-tech activities and offers a balanc-ing, hopefully also piercing, view. We derive policy options for each scenario but also draw cross-cut-ting implications. Could tech-driven large companies be instruments for the European Union (EU) to respond effectively to the challenges of the future economy? Is this a viable, feasible option? Con-versely, have foreign-owned Big Tech already won and will the EU be hostage to the tentacles of such sprawling giants? Can it adapt through bottom-up economic action? For all this, it was about time to tackle these pressing issues. The project is one of eight foresight deep dives of the project 'European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe' carried out by the Foresight on Demand consortium.

Welcome to "Global Futures of Climate”, the first Course in our series on Global Systems designed for individuals and organisations committed to facing global challenges and finding solutions.This self-paced, online Climate Education Course is scientifically-based, and incredibly well researched to give you a deep understanding of our emerging world, providing a solid basis for you to build your personal, professional, and family futures. The innovative solutions offered align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Course Content includes 12 Lessons across 3 Modules: Climate Change, Energy Systems, and Ecosystem. There are two lessons in each, examining the challenges, and addressing the alternatives. The Course Content incorporates over 100 learning resources, including:12 Lessons over 3 Modules: Climate Change, Energy Systems, Ecosystem.Four lessons per Module, two on the challenges, two addressing the solutions.12 Instructor videos (one per Lesson) to guide you through the Course Content and Resources .Over 40 expert videos (climate and ocean scientists, EC, UN, OECD, European Parliament, Carbon Brief, WWF, World Bank, Universities)Over 50 expert articles/reports (NASA, UN, IPCC, UNFCC, UNSDGs, State of the Planet, Blue Carbon Initiative, Greenpeace, Universities, UNDP, Global Commission for Adaptation, to name a few).36 reflection questions to journal your progress.60 fun quiz Qs to test knowledge gained.Certificate of Completion.

OrganicTargets4EU supports the Farm-to-Fork Strategy in achieving the targets of at least 25% of the EU's agricultural land under organic farming and a significant increase in organic aquaculture by 2030.   Activities OrganicTargets4EU for reaching these targets and identifies key drivers and lock-ins affecting the development of organic agriculture and aquaculture in 29 countries (EU-27+CH+NO).   Production and Market analysis of the identified scenarios to provide a picture of: · Where increases in organic farmland can be achieved · The socio-economic impacts of these increases at the level of primary production, value chains, and markets · The mechanisms that can drive demand for organic food   Knowledge & Innovation actions to: · Identify opportunities to strengthen organic advisory services · Stimulate the exchange of scientific and practical knowledge · Increase and coordinate R&I investments in the organic sector   Policy work facilitating a multi-actor policy dialogue to: · Assess the feasibility of the organic Farm-to-Fork targets · Supports the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), EU Organic Regulation, Organic Action Plan · Provide short-term policy options (policy framework up to 2027) and policy recommendations in the next policy reform (from 2028 onwards).

Welcome to the GovTech Connect Community! The GovTech Connect Community is a space where everyone can share their knowledge and experience to grow together. This Collection conveys the results of GovTech Connect’s studies, events and news, along with the interesting content from other communities related to GovTech in Europe. GovTech Connect will spread the word and share content  about:  GovTech market trends in Europe European GovTech initiatives Design thinking methodology and citizen engagement for GovTech solutions development. As part of these activities, GovTech Connect will see the launch of four European Boot camps to best prepare GovTech start-ups for collaboration with the public sector, as well as co-creative solution design with citizens. Webinars, workshops and other events will be occasions for networking and knowledge sharing. The activities will be carried out by a consortium led by Intellera Consulting, with partners PUBLIC, Lisbon Council and Politecnico di Milano.

The project explores futures of science for policy; practices and processes by which information is exchanged between knowledge actors and policymakers with the intention to produce scientifically-informed policy in Europe. We are making a deep dive into developments which are currently underway and will take us to different possible 2030s, according to events largely unpredictable and decisions bound by a number of constraints of diverse nature. The project is one of eight foresight deep dives of the project 'European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe' carried out by the Foresight on Demand consortium.

The Millennium Project is a global participatory think tank established in 1996 under the American Council for the United Nations University that became independent in 2009 and has grown to 73 Nodes around the world (an MP Node is a group of institutions and individuals that connect local and global perspectives). Purpose: Improve humanity’s prospects for building a better future. Mission: Improve thinking about the future and make that thinking available through a variety of media for feedback to accumulate wisdom about the future for better decisions today. Vision: A global foresight network of Nodes, information, and software, building a global collective intelligence system recognized for its ability to improve prospects for humanity. A think tank on behalf of humanity, not on behalf of a government, or an issue, or an ideology, but on behalf of building a better future for all of us.

This rapid exploration is part of the  As legal order evolves, crime evolves too. Being unbound by the rule of law, crime is a very innovative “sector”, in which innovation is driven by the incentive of high gains as rewards for taking some risks of legal consequences in case the crime is recognised as such and reported to law enforcement agencies. In the case of economic crimes, experts regularly refer to especially low detection and prosecution rates. Among other reasons this is attributable to three particularities being quite special to economic crime: ​ Depending on the modus operandi used for commiting the crime, the victim(s) might not even be aware of the incident. In fear of e.g. losses of reputation and/or customers' trust that may in future cause revenues to decline, companies that have been victims are reluctant to report crimes to law enforcement agencies. Even if crimes are reported, there frequently is a mismatch between the criminal act itself and the offense reported. For example, a business might be aware that a computer has been stolen and reports this incident to the police while the actual target might not be the computer itself but the (sensitive) business information stored on it. About this topic The area of economic crime includes a multitude of quite diverse offenses. Thus, the first relevant question is: What ist the aim or target of the offense? Three main areas of economic crime can be distinguished: ​ Financial crimes, such as blackmailing, embezzlement and tax evasion, often tied to attempts of cutting social security costs Cybercrime, which comprises a wide range of activities from digital scam of sensitive information and spam mails to manipulation of websites and thec onstruction of fake websites or profiles Manipulation of stock exchanges (either for economic gain or for creating geopolitical tensions) A second relevant question relates to who commits economic crime. Next to organised crime groups using criminal proceeds in the legitimate economy (e.g. money laundering, corrupting politicians and government officials, etc.), there are also legitimate businesses facilitating unlawful economic activities (e.g. accountants and lawyers advising criminals) or acting unlawfully (e.g. supporting companies in tax evasion). And there are novel and innovative economic activities that enter new terrain where no clear-cut legal rules exist yet (e.g. in the early days of crypto-currencies). ​ Another question concerns responsibility for prevention as well as for prosecution. Is economic crime a relevant issue to policy-makers, especially for R&I policy-makers? And if not, who should assume responsibility for it (e.g. law enforcement agencies, private security agencies,...). For instance, data can be stolen either by internal perpetrator or external perpetrators. The responsibility for prevention is likely to be different in these cases. A related issue is to identify the causes of non-detection of these crimes, e.g. lack of legal and other experts. There are different types of “illegal earnings”, e.g. (i) criminal acts gaining a large amount of money at once, (ii) digitally receiving small amouts of money from many people over a longer period of time, unnoticed but evnatually amounting to a large sum for the criminals, (iii) a legal enterprises engaged in illegal/ criminal activities (on purpose or without noticing that this is illegal or a grey zone). As the world economy operates more and more through interconnected computerised transactions, new possibilities for intertwining criminal and legal economic activities open up as well as new opportunities for law enforcement.There is a view that the proceeds of crime can be tracked and removed, and thus the interpenetration of criminal markets and legal markets can be controlled. However, there is also a view that establishing the lawful origins of funds used in every transaction is impossible and even undesirable. What level of control is technically feasible and socially desirable? There are at least three types of S&T associated with tracking, managing and fighting crime. One is ICT related, from monitoring, analysing, tracking etc. An interesting issue is whether technological solutions to full tracability can be applied to money (e.g. those applied to products using chemicals)? A second is regulatory techniques for preventing “innovators” from moving outside the sphere of lawful activities, from going too far and entering a grey zone that is unregulated. The third is forensics: techniques of reconstituting what took place and thus attributing responsibility for crimes. DRIVERS AND BARRIERS Major drivers for crime are linked to motivation (high gains because of low perceived low risk, that is, the ‘cost-benefit calculation’ suggests that committing a certain crime is going to be profitable). Technological innovation in digitalisation is an essential precondition for further development of new and already existing crime potential in digital fields, from payment systems to crypto circumvention. We can distinguish roughly several types of motivation for crimes: the intrinsic motivation of engineers to research and innovate can be exploited by criminals; the (felt) marginalised individual or government that is searching for its niche to find extra income, even if it comes illegally; the politically motivated wish to spy on or threaten other countries. The primaeval motivations might be the wish for power, influence, and greed. ​ There are also interesting technological developments emerging that might open up new avenues for criminal activity, often enabled by digitalisation of economic activities. For instance, digitally enabled human enhancement technologies open up possibilities for biohacking, and the ambition to better monitor supply and value chains may open doors to new forms of mis-using this kind of information. Fake profiles and ‘deep fakes” technologies can also be misused to commit digital crimes while staying anonymous on the internet. ​ It seems to be a competition, a kind of race and mutual pushing and pulling between law-makers, police and criminals of who finds a new niche, that is, new opportunities with software, hardware or regulation, to occupy and exploit. On the side of law enforcement agencies, skills and motivation for long search or detection of crime in cyberspace are often missing. It is a matter of resources that are available and time that may be spent on detecting and fighting this kind of crime. ​ One facilitating condition for criminal economic activities is the recent deregulation of financial markets. That opens up windows of opportunity for making money in a grey zone or illegally. In addition, the rate of innovation in digitalisation is so high that regulation can possibly be enacted only with a considerable delay - creativity in crime always leads to new means faster than the introduction of appropriate regulation As the complexity of these issues increases, there is a lack of experts to support law enforcement and we observe a skill mismatch in the technical, social, and legal personnel but also a lack of legal entities to follow up. ​ People are more and more vulnerable to digital fraud and other kinds of crime in the virtual world as new possibilities are constantly emerging. However, if people do not use digital technologies (as a protective measure), they would be excluded from certain economic activities and social life forms. When there is two much security (e.g. with two or more factor authentication), technical hurdles are high and patience is needed. FUTURES What if criminals are ahead of lawful companies, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, regulatory organisations and other decision-makers in digital innovations? What if criminals offer significantly higher “salaries” to experts, e.g. skilled personnel, or personnel for law-enforcement, personnel that is rare or has high specialisation? What if criminals become major R&D funders? What if they invest and their investment proceeds from illegal activities directly in R&I and people are dependent on this research? What if the full traceability of money poses a risk to creativity and innovation? What if the reliance on self-regulation facilitates economic misdemeanour? What if the world/ parts of our societies are threatened by crime and prosecution of crime digitally? What if the criminal elements control a large part of the economy? What if rogue states facilitate illegal activities, e.g. via cryptocurrencies? What if a large number of companies under financial pressure decide to resort to criminal “service providers” in specific fields, e.g. for waste disposal?

This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project. An increasingly volatile global geopolitical context is emerging with growing threats not only to global security and governance but also to the EU and neighbourhood countries. These conflicts, which can escalate and spread quickly across national borders, highlight the fact that the EU is becoming increasingly vulnerable due to its dependence on a volatile transatlantic relationship. No global institution or authority guarantees stable relationships as the United Nations is often in the position of a toothless tiger. Instead, there is a vacuum in global governance. About this topic The EU’s dependence on the transatlantic partnership and NATO is both a source of strength and weakness; the recent legislation period has shown an un-cooperative US President, an ambivalent US-China relationship, and the US in a position to dictate terms to the EU. All this takes place in an environment of major geopolitical upheaval and reconfigurations, with the rise of new regional powers, and the emergence of new actors, creating uncertainty about future coalitions. Growing political instability in the EU’s neighbourhood was made worse by the pandemic, and its economic and social effects represent another challenge to the EU’s global standing and security.

A free platform for everyone to share and find ideas to make our world a better place. You can post your idea or project to find others to co-develop your concept and make a contribution for a more balanced social economy based on human values.

Earth4All started as a vibrant collective of leading economic thinkers, scientists, policy leaders, and advocates, convened by The Club of Rome, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Norwegian Business School.

#OurFutures is a collection of stories, by citizens of Europe, indicating their desirable futures. Share your storyWe love to hear what you think. You can write more than one short story if you feel strongly about more than one issue. Available in all EU languages. You want to share your story as well? Go to bit.ly/our_futures   WhyThe aim of this collection is to support the discussion around visions for Europe, what do you want the future of Europe to look like? Which stories can we imagine together. All current stories can be found at futures4europe.eu/stories. And do you want to understand what these stories tell us, check out the open database behind the stories. The hopes and worries will be shared with (EU) policy makers, to help (re)direct their ideas and policy actions. The #OurFutures project is set up by the European Commission (Policy Lab: foresight, design & behavioral insights of the Joint Research Centre).ResultsCheck out our dashboard to learn about https://ourfutures.dashboard.voicesthatcount.net/  More in-depth analysishttps://policy-lab.ec.europa.eu/news/future-europe-what-do-you-imagine-it-will-look-2023-05-09_enhttps://policy-lab.ec.europa.eu/news/future-europe-futures-imagined-greek-citizens-2023-05-15_en

The chemical industry is a significant contributor to the EU’s economy. It is simultaneously instrumental to the green and digital transition and exposed to its effects. A steady supply of (green) chemicals is required to deploy renewable energy generators, insulate Europe’s building stock and create reusable and recyclable consumer goods. On the other hand, chemical synthesis is an energy-intensive process inherently dependent on carbon-based feedstock (currently derived almost exclusively from fossil fuels). In addition, chemistry is a global industry with international value chains, where the EU both collaborates and competes with other countries for materials, knowledge and skills. Transforming the European chemical industry into a sustainable motor for the green and digital transition will require investments in infrastructure, assets and skills. Focus should be placed on chemicals that are crucial to this Twin Transition, Europe’s resilience, or both. The long lead time required for the deployment of infrastructure and the development of skills means that such investments must be made now to achieve targets set for 2050. In connection with these issues, the report at hand aims to give insights into a number of value chains that are strategic to EU economy. It considers which chemicals and innovations are vital to transforming these value chains as well as rendering them more resilient and future-fit. To this end, a participatory workshop-based foresight approach was implemented to provide a unique set of insights from stakeholders and translate them into actions and policy recommendations.The project was carried out by a consortium involving Steinbeis 2i GmbH, 4CF and TNO.

The aim of this study was to serve as one of the inputs to the update and to initiate a discussion on the possibilities of updating the Czech republic 2030 strategy. In order to ensure that this strategic document reflects the dynamic developments on the global and domestic scene, mechanisms for regular reviews and updates of the objectives and measures have been proposed. Given the events of the last 3 years (especially the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine), it is relevant to review the relevance of the assumptions regarding the long-term development of the Czech Republic, which served as the basis for the original wording of the strategic objectives and targeting of the document.The role of České priority was to provide foresight exercises in order to reach two goals:· Assess the relevance of existing goals: the problems and challenges facing society are changing and so are the definition of objectives for further development. The task of this section is therefore also to determine whether the original ČR 2030 goals are still relevant in the context of change and respond to the major challenges that society is facing and will continue to face in the coming decades.· Identify blind spots: there may be issues or opportunities that the document does not cover - i.e. blind spots. The next task of this part of the update is to identify such gaps to increase the comprehensiveness of the document.The project was implemented in the form of workshops, which were attended by experts and representatives of public institutions and ministries. On the basis of pre-prepared scenarios of development, the participants had to identify the resulting challenges, opportunities and areas that have not yet been covered in the CR 2030. The list of these areas was subsequently consulted with representatives of public institutions. These expert consultations were complemented by input from the general public through a creative competition held in September 2022.

Regenerating the ecosystem of science learning by developing a future-oriented model to enable creative thinking, foresight and active hope as skills needed in formal and informal science education.

The i-Portunus Houses project, implemented on behalf of the European Commission by a consortium of three partners – the European Cultural Foundation (coordinator), MitOst, and Kultura Nova Foundation – was dedicated to testing and analysing diverse transnational mobility schemes for the cultural sector. Apart from granting support for local hosts from all Creative Europe countries for the mobility of artists and cultural professionals, the project also included research on mobility in culture and the design of policy recommendations.  In the research, the mobility of artists and cultural professionals is understood as the temporary, cross-border travel of artists and cultural professionals with the purpose of creating, connecting, exploring and learning. The research was carried out by experts from different disciplines with Dea Vidović being the research leader. As a result of the aforementioned research, in 2022 Kultura Nova Foundation published a 4-volume publication. Each volume represents one of the research sections: (1) conceptual framework of mobility in culture; (2) the study on mobility in culture from the perspectives of artists, cultural professionals, hosts and funders; (3) an evaluation of i-Portunus Houses mobility grant scheme and (4) scenario for the future of mobility in culture.  The research covers a wide range of topics related to mobility in culture, such as its participatory and networking dimension, its digital dimension and virtual mobility, as well as its green dimension. The culmination of the research, alongside extensive recommendations and action points for sustainable mobility, is Scenario for the Future which introduces a new concept of "slow mobility".

Imagine a world where young people are not just the leaders of tomorrow, but the co-creators of today. That's the vision behind the Foresight for Intergenerational Decision-Making initiative, a brainchild of the Big Brainstorm project run by the Unlock the Future coalition, under the umbrella of the UN Foundation. The Big Brainstorm is like a global talent show on ideas. Young innovators from every corner of the world come together to brainstorm, design, and launch initiatives to tackle some of the biggest challenges humanity faces. This year, over 2,000 young minds have joined the Big Brainstorm, with nearly half of them proposing initiatives to speed up action towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Out of these, twenty initiatives were selected, and one of them is the Foresight for Intergenerational Decision-Making. The heart of this initiative is a toolkit designed to run multi-stakeholder Foresight exercises. Think of it as a DIY kit for the future, helping young people to build meaningful spaces where they can engage with adults, particularly decision-makers and the private sector, to co-create their vision for the future. The initiative is based on the belief that young people have innovative ideas and stories that can help shape the future. By using Foresight tools, they can engage in a process of co-creation, sharing their perspectives and visions for the future with decision-makers, and learning to anticipate both the opportunities and threats behind different scenarios. This summer, the toolkit will be put to the test different locations. It's like a world tour for the future, with young leaders from the United Nations Foundation’s Big Brainstorm leading the charge. The toolkit is being designed with the help of Foresight practitioners who have hands-on experience in intergenerational spaces and field experience in the Majority World. Currently, the forward thinkers behind the initiative have launched a global survey and conduct interviews to understand the fears and hopes of young people. Want to get involved ? You can complete the survey here and have the chance to connect with us at the end of the survey ! The Foresight for Intergenerational Decision-Making initiative is a big step towards a future-focused approach. It aims to provide young people with a toolkit for creating meaningful intergenerational spaces, create a platform for adolescents, young people, and Foresight practitioners to brainstorm together, and showcase examples of good practice that can be replicated across the world. The initiative is open to all young people and their allies who are willing to contribute to its goals and offer fresh insights. Any youth networks interested in leading the organization of piloting experiences are encouraged to get in touch with the Action Group. In a nutshell, the Foresight for Intergenerational Decision-Making initiative is all about empowering young people to shape their futures. By giving them the tools and platforms to engage with decision-makers and the private sector, the initiative is nurturing a new generation of changemakers who are ready to tackle the world's most pressing challenges. The future is in our hands, and with the help of this initiative, young people are being given the tools to shape it. So, let's roll up our sleeves and get ready to shape the future together! Contact the coordination team :felibosch3@gmail.com / chalalidaouia@hotmail.fr / salifi.alimou@gmail.com / Claudette.salinas10@gmail.com The future generations movement has been growing for almost thirty years and was given a new lease of life after the 2021 report Our Common Agenda. The UN Secretary General has called for a multilateral system that incorporates long-term thinking. This has sparked a momentum in the United Nations, leading to plans for a Summit of the Future in 2024, a Declaration on Future Generations, and a recommendation to appoint a Special Envoy for Future Generations.

Road-STEAMer attempts to develop a STEAM Roadmap for Science Education in Horizon Europe and in educational policy across the continent in order to:  To produce better knowledge and shared understanding of Europe’s particular educational needs and how STEAM can address them.  To explore the opportunities arising through STEAM for integrated science learning approaches and synergies.  To study those policy deficiencies that hinter the impactful adoption of STEAM approaches in Europe’s science education landscape.

The project focuses geographically on Europe and looks toward 2050, on regimes of stewardship of land and sea and address the role of ownership, access and use rights in rural areas (cities excluded), multiple uses of spaces (both land and sea), biodiversity, food (both aquaculture, fisheries and agriculture), energy (use of renewables), raw materials (mining etc.), carbon removal and storage, adaptation to climate change. While the challenges are global, they are addressed especially from the European research and innovation policy perspective. The immense social and technological evolution of the Anthropocene continues transforming the Earth’s surface and its dynamics through extensive (mis-)use of its resources, both on the land and in the sea. This policy brief develops scenarios on rural and marine areas in Europe in 2050 and subsequent implications to today’s R&I policy in Europe. Each scenario considers i) Economy and technology, ii) Demographics, lifestyles and values, iii) Governance and iv) Environment.In Scenario A, European Civic Ecovillages pursue self-sufficiency and contribute to establishing a cooperative, locally oriented, caring economy restoring the ecosystem carrying capacities in land and sea. In Scenario B on Sustainable High-tech Europe, European businesses enjoy global leadership in regenerative and multi-functional high-tech solutions for energy, aquaculture and agriculture. In Scenario C on the United States of Europe, centrally planned Europe is divided between intensive use of land and sea and large conservation areas. Scenario D on European Permacrisis portrays Europe in a post-growth and politically scattered context that leads to low rates of innovation and fragmented use of land and sea.None of the scenarios features a decisive solution to the global climate and biodiversity crises. Scenario A forcefully targets the resolution of the biodiversity crisis in Europe, by aligning human practices with nature, but provides little support to global climate and biodiversity crises. Scenario B proactively tackles the biodiversity crisis both in Europe and internationally but struggles with the fragmentation of efforts and with scaling up good practices and wider impact to curb the crisis. Scenarios C and D with intensive use of nature reduce biodiversity. Thanks to European-wide coordination Scenario C can protect vast areas with positive impacts to biodiversity, whereas Scenario D also struggles with the major fragmentation of conservation efforts and its detrimental impact on biodiversity. Such challenges illustrate the importance of balanced approaches in developing both local and global solutions to climate and biodiversity crises.All scenarios depict a future of rural and marine areas in the context of extreme weather events and ecological crises, all be it with different intensities. Social developments, instead, range from major social confrontations to more collaborative and inclusive practices. Their policy implications include, among others, the need to address major risks of patchy land use that hamper the sufficient size of ecosystems and diminish resilience. The scenarios also touch upon integrated spatial planning of urban, rural and marine areas, and how the effective use of spaces can benefit from the further extension of user rights. Future research could explore if and how land ownership models in some rural areas could be replaced or complemented with public ownership and user rights. Furthermore, policy implications include a need for balancing sustainability with food affordability and security in different modalities of agriculture and aquaculture. The challenges of climate and biodiversity crises addressed by the scenarios suggest that balanced approaches are needed in developing both local and global solutions.This brief is the result of one of eight Deep Dive Foresight Studies in the project ‘European R&I Foresight and Public Engagement for Horizon Europe’ conducted by the Foresight on Demand’ consortium for the European Commission. During the spring of 2023, an expert team identified factors of change and organised two scenario and one policy implications workshops also engaging experts from academia, business and public administration around Europe. The process was also supported by discussions in the Horizon Europe Foresight Network.

This rapid exploration is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project. How far can we get with Artificial Intelligence (AI) - here, meant as “machine learning”? Computers and supercomputers are extremely good at sequential calculations, calculating correlations and recognising patterns (machine learning, big data) where human capabilities fail. Nonetheless, complex decisions, emotional context and moral aspects are still out of scope for artificial intelligence. There are promises of next-generation, generalised AI (Artificial General Intelligence, AGI), opening up new possibilities for autonomous self-learning systems to be realised. What is the limit of control, and where is the limit of autonomy for these next-generation AI machines? What are the stakes and benefits for society, humanity and the world when including autonomous machines in daily lives (e.g. level 5 self-driving vehicles)? How can the development / AI be governed, and where is the limit if AI is autonomous? How can autonomous machines be trusted to act morally and how do they decide in ethical aspects? DRIVERS AND BARRIERSMassive computing and quantum computers are pushing forward machine learning and the development of general artificial intelligence. In addition, progress is made in systems containing sensors, actuators, and information processing. AI has proven to be useful in many practical applications, but it remains far from “understanding” or consciousness. Huge interest in AI comes from industry, economy, and military as “intelligent” robots could do work, assist humans, and even fight a war without shedding blood. Of course, this form of high tech promises high revenues for companies, and the supranational companies have the resources to finance the advances privately.Nonetheless, there are considerable concerns in society as well. One counter trend could be the “back to nature and frugality” movement, which might lead to the social divide being connected to the urban-rural nexus and the topic of “rising social confrontation”. A central issue is safeguarding security, safety and morality when the driver is the (human) competition? There is already ethical and philosophical discourse: what would be the right value-setting for artificial intelligence? Assuming that there is such a thing as general natural intelligence, what are the relationships between intelligence, morality and wisdom? Do we want general intelligence or general wisdom?What would happen when AI started training itself? This poses the question of control of AI.​FUTURES What if AI makes our lives much easier and people are used to the applications? What if AI is used for dull tasks, and human intelligence focuses on creativity? What if mobility is exclusively run by autonomous machines/vehicles? What if AI changed the way we understood “intelligence”? What if AI changed the way we organise schools/ education? What if AI changes how we think about knowledge and makes us all computer scientists? What if general AI challenges human decisions? What if AI decides? What if AI was used in (most) decision-making processes? What if AI goes further than we want? What if general AI decides that human life can be sacrificed in certain situations for the sake of the community or other species?

This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project. Mass media from around the world is constantly heralding new scientific and technological breakthroughs that bring upon the promise of healthier, longer, more fulfilling lives: partially restoring the sight of blind people with the aid of artificial retinas, restoring partial movement of previously non-responsive limbs by linking a paralyzed person’s brain to a computer chip, artificial bones, skin, blood, along with more controversial endeavours: editing the human genome through gene-splitting techniques, stem cells primed to promote regeneration, cryogenics and many, many others. The transhumanist movement regards breakthroughs like these as springboards not only to healing people but to changing and improving humanity. Thanks to scientific developments in converging technologies such as biotechnology, neurotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology, humanity may be on the cusp of an enhancement revolution. The transhumanist movement considers this revolution - allowing people to control and fundamentally change their bodies and minds towards ‘humanity plus’ - as both inevitable and desirable. Some proponents of the movement go even further into envisioning a (more future distant) stage of civilization freed from bodily and even earthly constraints – a posthumanism marked by, for e.g., linking human intelligence to the AI, whole brain emulation (‘mind uploading’), or a superintelligence (technological singularity). The transhumanist debate is expansive both in regard to the enhancements and the values and beliefs, ethics and the role of the government. An open-minded exploration of this topic would shy away from taking sides, a priori, with either the transhumanist movement (who speak of ‘transcendence’) or the conservative positions (who speak of ‘transgressions’), but explore the spectrum of positions with generosity and curiosity.  Moreover, such exploration should pierce through (and go beyond) the rhetorical strategies of either movement, and try to investigate with an open, critical mind, the substantive points of the debate. About this topic The deep dive on transhumanist revolutions opens an investigation of the human condition, around questions such as the ones listed below. In brief, C. Wright Mills’ questions will be asked of the enhanced: ‘‘In what ways are they selected and formed, liberated and repressed, made sensitive and blunted?’’ Should the right to control one’s body include the right to augment one’s body? What would more radical human-tech ensembles mean for our lived experience? (1) If the ‘trans’ revolutions run their course towards ‘humanity-plus’, will we still be human &humane? How will various enhancements (e.g. bodily or cognitive) affect the embodied selves - our lived bodies - and their engagement with the world? (2) Will we still define ourselves (including) through our limitations and overcoming adversity or we will lose that one constituting factor? Is transhumanism about progressing or blunting the self? (3) To what extent it will affect our ability for inwardness if all the mending of the self is done outwardly (i.e. transforming humans to better fit the external world)? Would it be possible to also enhance morality, kindness, compassion, and other cardinal virtues or ‘pro-social’ feelings? Can a child have true autonomy if parents genetically design his or her capacities and proclivities? The debate also explores new social orders, issues of justice or (in)equity, political and economic power: Will society’s repugnance/resistance to controversial/’suspect’ technologies water down, just as it did in the past with other technologies (e.g., oral contraceptives, IVF)? (4) Who decides what is a “limitation” and what is an “enhancement”? Will enhancements truly be optional? Will enhancements be afforded only by the rich, or some will progressively be considered essential services to be provided by the state in the spirit of social welfare? (negative vs. positive rights). Who is responsible for the enhancements, e.g. who guarantees the “spare parts” or is liable for damages?  (5) What kind of regulation is needed, e.g., limiting the enhancement or surveillance? How can public health systems be redesigned/reconfigured to deliver in this context? Could enhancements displace the sense of common humanity that has undergirded the democratic social contract for centuries? If liberal democracies go down the transhumanist path, will this mean diminishing free will and increased power of exploitation on the part of the government or, on the contrary, regulating, controlling, or banning enhancement technologies amount to a loss of personal autonomy and increased state power? References (1) Sociotechnical ensembles (See Bijker and Pinch, 1984) posit that technologies are social through and through (their design and implementation are affected by social, cultural, economic and political context), just as society is technological through and through (technological artifacts are crucial to social order). Socio-technical ensembles constitute themselves through this interaction. See also Bijker, 1995, Latour on actor-network approach, 1992, Ihde on the role of tech in the interrelation of human beings and world when technological artifacts are involved, 1990. (2) See for e.g. the phenomenology of perception, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, where the body is central to our understanding of our relationships with others (through a space of ‘intercorporeality’) and to the wider ecological context we’re immersed within. (3) Even services now deemed banal, like google, that allows us to access any information at any time, have affected our memory, inclination towards mental effort; or google maps perfectly orienting us while robbing our sense of orientation. (4) Note that IVF’s role extended, from a medical procedure for otherwise infertile couples, to identifying embryos free of devastating genetic diseases. But it also extended to sex selection (5) See Fred Hirsch, 1977 on ‘positional goods’ – goods whose value to those who have them depends on others not having them.

This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project. Climate change impacts are one of the main threats to human society and natural ecosystems. Even though natural dynamics also have a substantial effect on climate, there is no doubt that current alterations of climate with the correlated impacts are manmade. Alongside continuing efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, there may be possibilities to geoengineer climate systems to reduce or mask the impacts of climate change. There are also strong arguments for large-scale changes in social practices for adapting to and mitigating climate change. The big challenge comes with the necessary scale of interventions as those changes need to be large-scale and global, putting new challenges to all levels of governance from local to global. About this topic Many present drivers seem to indicate a gloomy future for the climate. The current individualistic mindsets drive overconsumption and overproduction. The offsetting of carbon emissions is sometimes used to compensate for dirty activities. Intense competition for natural resources is not safeguarding their sustainability. Bio-holistic worldviews confront anthropocentric views, but climate delay has emerged as the new denial and the lack of courage to address climate supremacists, i.e. the global wealthy, shows little change of direction. According to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the wealthiest top 1% were responsible for 15% of global emissions, nearly twice as much as the world’s poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7%. Overly optimistic beliefs in tech or social transformation to solve it prevail, and there is a wide reluctance to consider broad system change. ​ There are also drivers towards desired futures. Improved understanding of climate and global change and the capacity and knowledge to purposefully shape nature and society provide better means to address climate change. Climate anxiety and perception of government inaction have triggered, for instance, the ‘Fridays for future’ movement, which contributes to the emergence of global conscience on the climate and biodiversity crisis and the need for justice. New understandings of human purpose and fairness also encourage the development of a wider range of responses like de-desertification, seaweed permaculture, ocean fertilization, carbon capture and storage, and solar radiation management. We may learn to protect the global commons, including indigenous cultures and atmospheric commons. ​ Economic growth in societies based on individual material gain, here-and-now-thinking, short political cycles, and lack of broad political agreement on alternative paths seem to keep us on the path to the climate crisis. Furthermore, exacerbated social inequalities may lead many to have no willingness or ability to participate in transitions. While we are overconfident with systems’ design, we underestimate natural forces and ecosystems. Emerging options for large-scale ‘geoengineering’ interventions in the climate system promise new opportunities and new risks, including novel geopolitical tensions. There are diverse perceptions on geoengineering and possible social change towards potential acceptance or societal rejection. The planet lacks a fair and appropriate governance structure providing a framework on who might be entitled to carry out geoengineering projects in the name of the planet and what their responsibility is. There is no sufficient dialogue on what it means to be a responsible company, researcher, research organisation, or policy-maker in this context.

Creating a time capsule is a form of time travel. Imagine a future where the world is blooming and blossoming, what does it look like, feel like, smell like, sound like? We invite you to shape the future history of the world with us. This time-capsule project is curated by Lilian de Jong

An updated story of how the European Commission is exploring ways to apply Doughnut Economics in policy processes

Futures Garden: Pioneering Policy Innovation through Speculative DesignAt Futures Garden, we embark on a visionary journey to redefine policy-making for Europe's future. Our unique platform collaborates with leading futurists, innovative designers, and engaged EU citizens to envision a Europe enriched by diverse potential futures, each with its own opportunities and challenges. Our mission? To revolutionize policy creation by intertwining speculative design with creativity, empathy, and analytical insight. Our four-step approach ensures a comprehensive and impactful exploration:Horizon Scanning: We dive into cutting-edge ideas and emerging trends, identifying opportunities that could shape Europe's future.Speculative Design: Our creative process transforms abstract concepts into tangible, thought-provoking scenarios, making future possibilities more accessible and engaging.Citizen Engagement: We delve into the societal implications of these speculative scenarios, gathering diverse perspectives and insights from EU citizens.Policy Reflection: The final step involves analyzing the potential impact of these innovative ideas on policy-making, ensuring that future EU policies are forward-thinking, inclusive, and impactful.Creating fictional artifacts through speculative designFutures Garden aims at creating inspiring alternative future scenarios through the use of fictional future artifacts that invite to reflection and debate. The pilot project addressed two themes: “Dealing with future selves” explores new ways of being, individually and collectively, examines new practices and technologies that enhance self-reflection and sharing of emotions, which help shape our choices in life and nurture a renewed sense of togetherness.“Extending human perception to new scales” explores the richness of non-human intelligences, expanding our attention and appreciation for their unique sensory worlds, their “umwelt” – what they “feel” and how they “think”. In doing so it departs from the human-centric worldview towards a deeper understanding and celebration of life on Earth. Futures Garden initiated by the EU Policy LabCommissioned by the DG for Research & Innovation through the Foresight on Demand framework contractSupported by the European Commission Partners:Austrian Institute of TechnologyFraunhofer ISIFutures2allFuturlabInstitutul de Prospectiva (Lead of pilot project)ModemNormals

We implemented the ForSI (Foresight for Social Innovation) project with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, with the Unit of Social Innovation. The aim of this collaboration was to identify so-called social time bombs - in our definition, problems that will be significant in the future or are already known today, but not yet sufficiently addressed by the state administration. The learning process itself was also a framing goal of this collaboration, where the unit team wanted to learn some foresight methods and implement them into certain processes of the department's work. The project involved desk research, two expert workshops, expert interviews, and also working closely with leading experts on social issues to develop a set of social issue cards. The final list of social time bombs was used by the unit to define calls for grant programs for nonprofits seeking to address diverse problems through social innovation. Foresight was thus used in this case to direct public funds more effectively, thereby addressing the problems that need to be focused on with an eye to the future.

Innovation is changing in several dimensions. First, the initially closed innovation processes are complemented by various forms of open innovation. Second, consequently, innovation is not only performed by companies, but other actors, like users or non-governmental organisations get involved. Third, the dominance of product innovation based on hardware components is not only complemented but also partly substituted by digital components including software. Finally, the initially envisaged impact of innovation on firms and countries; economic success has been significantly widened in its contribution to sustainable development. Consequently, the existing IP regime is challenged by both its processes and its products, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). We explore how these changes in several dimensions of innovation might influence the IP regimes, its processes, and products, including their implementation and impacts in the future. The project is one of eight foresight deep dives of the project 'European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe' carried out by the Foresight on Demand consortium.

Smart Futures Tunisia aims to explore what Tunisia and its digital economy could and should look like in 2035. For this purpose, normative future scenarios were created from which inspiring future job profiles could be derived. In a final step, recommendations identify options for action through which the envisioned future can be approximated.The results are based on a three-stage methodology approach. First, key thematic areas were outlined through baseline research and expert interviews. Second, a foresight workshop was conducted to create a room to elaborate on different future scenarios and job profiles while also developing a digital skills map and initially discuss recommendations. Third, the results were refined through expert validation loops and expert interviews.The future scenarios were created to explore what urban areas, smaller cities and rural areas might look like in 2035. A future is drawn in which Tunisia is characterized by smart and self-powered buildings, increasing e-mobility, and public services delivered digitally. Apart from that, digital progress offers the opportunity to provide more equitable education, to conduct various types of commercial activities via e-commerce, and to improve access to health. Such a future in its variety of facets has been visually depicted in the graphic above.Furthermore, future job profiles are derived on this basis. In a desirable Tunisian development, these will be found primarily in the areas of food production, fintech, e-commerce, health tech, mobility, ed-, gov-, and green tech. Specific job profiles range from farm drone operators, who operate and maintain drones that monitor, measure and analyze crop growth and health, to cybersecurity experts, who protect government data from digital attacks. To be prepared for the changing profiles, digital competencies need to be developed, which can be categorized into the following four pillars: digital literacy and data literacy, technology-specific skills, digital product literacy, and digital transformation literacy.After developing future scenarios and outlining future job profiles, recommendations were finally drawn up that will enable Tunisia to proactively strive for the future outlined. General recommendations manifest themselves, for example, in the promotion of a "digital culture" that includes all strata of the population in order to make appropriate use of the potential of digitization. A specific example of a topic area recommendation is to strive for leadership in green tech solutions. Here, it is recommended to promote green tech culture, for example by including environmental sustainability and green tech solutions in education and public campaigns. In addition to content recommendations, Foresight Journey recommendations aim to improve and deepen the methodological applications of foresight for potential future ventures in this thematic field.Smart Futures Tunisia is part of the Special Initiative “Decent Work for a Just Transition” Invest for Jobs of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and implemented by the Digital Transformation Programme Tunisia of the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Invest for Jobs aims to team up with companies to create good jobs in eight African partner countries and to improve local working conditions.

MUSAE aims to set up a Human-Centred Factory Model, based on the Design Future Art-driven (DFA) method, and integrate it into a (European) Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) network, to support companies in guiding strategic digital technology innovation and address future challenges in the food domain to improve people and planet wellbeing.  MUSAE will establish a deep connection with the S+T+ARTS ecosystem, bringing together expertise in design, art, nutrition and wellbeing, and human-machine interaction. MUSAE will run 20 S+T+ARTS residencies involving 20 artists and 10 tech companies working with 3 main technologies – Artificial Intelligence, Wearables, and Robotics – to envision 10 future scenarios for technologies application and design 10 prototypes, thus opening up new markets and innovations. To validate replicability, MUSAE will set up and activate one Factory within the DIH partner and create the Factory Model Pack and the Label that will allow other DIHs to adopt it.

This project considers the interpenetration of criminal and lawful economic activities, with new technologies and unregulated terrains offering new opportunities for new types of interpenetration. We explore the possibility of differentiating, regulating, and controlling criminal and legal activities and markets, the level of control technically feasible and socially and economically desirable, among other relevant issues.  We analyse the following issues, among others:  Is there a possibility of differentiating and controlling criminal and legal markets and economic activities?  What level of control is technically feasible and (at the same time) socially and economically desirable?   To some extent is it possible to establish the lawful origins of funds used in every transaction?   The project is relevant for several reasons: Crimes have wide-ranging, major impacts on the economy, society and environment, when connected to lawful economic activities. Quite often these connections (“interpenetrations”) are not detected  - or not reported for various reasons. Economic hardship and crises are likely to reinforce the incentives for committing criminal economic activities. New technologies might offer new opportunities for new or “refined” criminal economic activities. Economic criminals are often innovative and enter unregulated terrains (e.g., some commons, metaverse, etc.). Lack of resources and skills to fight economic crime is a major hurdle. The project is one of eight foresight deep dives of the project 'European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe' carried out by the Foresight on Demand consortium.

This deep dive is part of the European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe project. A number of tendencies seem to conspire together to threaten societies with forms of social dysfunction and perhaps breakdown. Social cohesion and social capital have declined very substantially over the last generation or so. So too have levels of trust – not only in how much people feel they can trust others, but also public trust in government and in major institutions.  Many occupations command much less respect than they used to, including politicians, the media, the police, banks and big business.   At the same time democracy is increasingly threatened by factors such as growing political polarisation, caused not only by the increasing numbers of people who believe in conspiracy theories, but also by the growing importance of money in politics, by the growth of inequality and the rise of populism and the far right. To this mix will be added high levels of disruption caused by the development of AI and other new technologies. This expert group on social confrontations is intended to draw attention to issues which may give rise to disruptive social confrontations in the future within the EU – regardless of the parties involved.  Indeed, factors such as the political complexion of governments may change whether a dispute is between social movements and civic authorities, within governments and parliamentary assemblies, or between social groups. We have tried to identify the likely root causes of disruptive confrontations while acknowledging that most forms of confrontation are likely to be multi-causal. Four scenarios depict diverging paths how the development of social confrontations in the EU might shape our future society. From these scenarios we derived policy implications with a link to issues for research and innovation.