Playing Games with the Future

Jamais Cascio, CRN's Global Futures Strategist, has written another excellent article for his Open the Future blog, this one on "Rehearsing the Future" through serious game-playing:

One of the fascinating results of the increasing sophistication of virtual world and game environments is their ability to serve as proxies for the real world, allowing users to practice tasks and ideas in a sufficiently realistic setting that the results provide useful real life lessons. This capability is based upon virtual worlds being interactive systems, where one's actions have consequences; these consequences, in turn, require new choices. The utility of the virtual world as a rehearsal system is dependent upon the plausibility of the underlying model of reality, but even simplified systems can elicit new insights.

The classic example of this is Sim City (which I've written about at length before), but with the so-called "serious games" movement, we're seeing the overlap of gaming and rehearsal become increasingly common.

The latest example is particularly interesting to me. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction group has teamed up with the UK game design studio Playerthree to create the Flash-based "Stop Disasters" game. The goal of the game is to reduce the harmful results of catastrophic natural events -- the disaster that gets stopped isn't the event itself, but its impact on human life.

Jamais goes into some detail about this game works, and then suggests that there might be "an audience for a more complex version" aimed at other challenges:

What would a Stop Disaster global warming scenario look like, for example -- not trying to prevent climate change, but to deal with its consequences?

If we really want to get our hands dirty, we'd need to build up Stop Disasters scenarios for the advent of molecular manufacturing, self-aware artificial intelligence, global pandemic, peak oil and asteroid strikes.

Not because such games would tell us what we should do, but because they'd help us see how our choices could play out -- and, more importantly, they'd remind us that our choices matter.

Of course, this is one of the main reasons for creating future scenarios in the first place, to help us understand the implications of various policy options, and to illustrate the importance of those choices. Jamais himself is one of the lead facilitators for the scenario building project currently being conducted by the CRN Global Task Force.

In related news, a blog titled Futurology: A Global Revue has an interesting recent article on "Apocalypses of the Future" that describes three different sets of perception, or mindsets, through which different kinds of people might imagine what's ahead:

1. Apocalyptic Nihilism: This is the abandonment of belief; decadence rules.
2. Apocalyptic Fundamentalism: This sees a retreat to certain beliefs (whether secular or religious); dogma rules.
3. Apocalyptic Activism: The transformation of belief; hope rules.

The article says:

Our perceptions of the future are becoming more significant to social expectations and actions which are increasingly shaped by images of global or distant threat and disaster to which we are exposed: earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, disease pandemics, terrorist attacks, genocide, famine. While these hazards are not new, previous fears were never so sustained and varied, and so powerfully reinforced by the immediacy and vividness of today’s media images.

Our responses to these apocalyptic suspicions about the century ahead involve subtle and complex interactions between the world ‘out there’ and the world ‘in here’ (in our minds). Evidence suggests that we are being drawn in at least three directions by the prospects of dramatic, even catastrophic, social, economic and environmental changes: towards apocalyptic nihilism, fundamentalism, or activism.

It's not easy to think constructively about the future, but it's vital. In addition to rigorously developed scenarios, sophisticated new game-playing systems might help, and it's also important to evaluate the internal perceptions we each bring to the process.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Jan-Willem Bats]

Another example of a 'serious game' can be found at www.costlife.org.

It is about a third world family.

The player needs to manage the lives of the 5 family members so that they're doing well after 4 years of ingame time.

I have played this game a dozen times and managed to find a way to bring it to a succesful ending. My family was in good health and wealth.

I don't see how it is ever possible to get any of these guys a diploma, though. I can never find the time for education. I'm always putting them to work to be able to afford the cost of life.

[Eric]

>>If we really want to get our hands dirty, we'd need to build up Stop Disasters scenarios for the advent of molecular manufacturing, self-aware artificial intelligence, global pandemic, peak oil and asteroid strikes.<<

I was struck by this sentence, specifically "the advent of molecular manufacturing" as being a DISASTER that needs to be stopped. Hopefully this is simply poor communication of ideas because I don't see this as automatically resulting in disaster. Can disasters result from it? Of course, but the same could be said with there being 10,000's of intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. Yet, that disaster hasn't occured. The invention of the ICBM itself wasn't the disaster, but the use (or mass-use) would be.

I have the same issue with self-aware AI...

I know I'm supposed to assume the resulting disaster, but please don't be lazy in communicating these ideas. I don't want to see technologies that could save (and improve) millions of lives tossed out because we can't differentiate between technology run amok and the actual tech.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Hm, you're right, Eric. The formulation of that sentence is somewhat misleading. I'm quite sure that Jamais meant to say we should explore MM-related scenarios for disasters that might occur. That's not the same thing as saying they definitely will occur, or that beneficial results will not be found. Jamais is on his way to Europe right now, I think, but I'll see if I can get him to respond as well.

[Jamais Cascio]

Mike is quite right: I don't see the advent of MM (or SA-AI, or even peak oil) as inherently disastrous. Each of these has the potential to be disastrous, however; a "Stop Disaster" model would, in these cases likely focus on preventing those types of outcomes as well as dealing with the aftermath.

[Eric]

I also forgot to say that I really enjoyed reading this in the first place. I've always thought that gaming/simulation would eventually spread well beyond the military and their war games.

I'd love to see something that shows how geography and native resources impact things like economics, politics, religion and population and technology. Then take all of those secondaries and see how they intermingle.

Throw in the human element at "critical" junctures.

It's always felt like a quantum computer-type simulation...

[Tom Craver]

From different perspectives:

1) Apocalyptic Nihilism: This is the abandonment of belief; decadence rules.
2) Apocalyptic Fundamentalism: This sees a retreat to certain beliefs (whether secular or religious); dogma rules.
3) Apocalyptic Activism: The transformation of belief; hope rules.

...Might be:

1) Grounded realism: seeing things the way they are; rationality directs
2) Reactionary Luddite-ism: rejection of potential progress; dogma rules
3) Blind Faith: believing things will "just turn out alright"; irrationality misdirects

...Or:

1) Apocalypic Negativism: failure to see the value of humanity; pleasure seeking over-rules common sense
2) Pragmatic convervatism: a cautious outlook driven by understanding of all sides of human nature - positive and negative; balance is maintained or restored
3) Pollyanna-ism: blind optimism; novelty-seeking over-rules common sense