The 1999 Report of the Commission on Global Governance lists ‘the atmosphere, the outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life as commons. However, in this blog, I explore the futures as commons. For futures, I refer to the encompassing idea of the many possible futures, as well as the discipline and methodologies of foresight.
Commons, on the other hand, is defined as ‘shared resources in which each stakeholder has an equal interest’. The futures are indeed a resource in which all humans share an interest. It is a resource that can transform the present, not just for humanity, but also for nature. It can create a vision for the future and change the trajectory of planetary and maybe even cosmic circumstances.
In recent years, the definition of commons has gone beyond the physical commons. It started to include intangibles, shared legacies such as culture, science, the arts, and information, and even digital commons such as the internet. However, whether tangible or not, I believe there are three issues that need to be addressed. First, the commons are being claimed and privatized by the privileged few, and those that are considered public domain are mismanaged or squandered.
Second, framing the function of commons, solely for the support of human life, to sustain human civilization, seems limited. Third, anything that could be used to control or transform civilizational, planetary, and even cosmic conditions must be governed as a commons. As I explore these three, I will relate them to my view of the futures as commons.
First, let us look at the usurpation of the commons by a few. Although the foresight field has been around for decades, it is still not yet mainstream. The pandemic has opened the portal for the need for foresight. One might think there would be much demand. But could the sore lack of supply be the cause that it hasn’t fully caught up? Has anybody noticed that foresight books, conferences, journals, and workshops, are mostly led by male futurists of a certain age, often white? In this context, usurpation is a strong word to use.
In fact, we should be grateful to the pioneers of foresight for leading the way. But keeping foresight in the halls of privilege, expensive and inaccessible, is almost tantamount to a crime. With this great need for foresight comes great, albeit collective, irresponsibility. A futurist may be well-meaning in the practice of their profession, but as long as they have not jumped out of the elitist wagon and recognized their transformative role for the wider society and even the future of the planet, they are still part of the perpetuation of the current hegemony. There has to be a better way to make futures reach those who need it most, the most vulnerable, the less privileged, and the marginalized.
Much like other commons such as land, air, and water, the futures can be monopolized by a small segment of people in spaces of privilege, education, and political and economic power. The people who are able to access the experts, the tools and the resources of foresight are placed at an unfair advantage over those who are not. It might well in the future, if not already happening in the present, perpetuate exploitation, inequities, and dominance of certain people, organizations, and nations. I see the futures as a tool for justice. But justice cannot exist if its tools are left to the hands of the few. Futures then need to be decolonized and democratized.
While Paul Hartzog explores the definition of a global commons, I suggest that we consider the idea of an even broader definition for futures as a commons. I suggest the definition of futures as deep commons, maybe even ‘cosmic’ commons.
For lack of a better term, I choose the term cosmic because it goes beyond the realms of the tangible and intangible commons currently being recognized. The futures as a commons embraces both the tangible and intangible and should include the futures knowledge base, the tools and methodologies of practice, and most importantly, the opportunities to shape the possibilities of future time.
As Garett Hardin mentioned in his seminal essay, The Tragedy of the Commons, ‘the population problem has no technical solution’. I liken the colonized and exclusive futures to the great challenge that Hardin dealt with in his essay and would also say as he did that ‘it requires a fundamental extension in morality’.
This point brings us to the second issue of the current limited view on the function of the commons. In terms of what the futures as a commons serve or support, it must extend beyond humans. Traditional commons are viewed as the support of humans in the present and the future. This view of commons is too narrow. It is a great disservice to the function and purpose of defining commons in the first place. Limiting the commons to its functions only for humans could, in fact, result in the opposite. It could be detrimental to humans in the long run.
I view commons more for itself, serving itself to maintain itself, commons for commons, and nature for nature, as opposed to the idea of nature serving only man. Here, I recognize the intrinsic value of nature as it exists to serve itself as a whole, and not one aspect of it for another. It is important to point this out and the same applies to intangible commons such as the futures. In the same vein, the futures have a function for itself, and not just for a single species. Futures for futures. We envision and shape the future to have a future for humans, the animals, nature, the planet as a whole, and the cosmos, not just for ourselves nor the future generations of humans only.
Third, let’s look at the governance of the tools of change as commons. An important aspect of the futures and other commons such as the information commons is the element of time. Indeed, the element of time is present in all commons in the way that they presuppose incessant governance and sustainability. Time could be shared or traded, but must never be amassed and controlled by a few. In the movie In Time, time is the currency with which people buy everything, including their life.
People own and work for a time, however, time value diminishes, meaning more time is needed to buy necessities through life minutes, which eventually resulted in the control and monopoly of time by those who are able to accumulate more of it. The movie is a great metaphor for what could become of commons. The commons, including futures, must be maintained and utilized for the benefit of all and not only a few.
This brings me to the right to and ownership of the commons. We are aware of our common stake in the physical and some non-physical commons. The futures are not viewed as commons, which diminishes claims and rights to them.
However, there are some bright spots. Some practitioners in the field are starting to work for the democratization and decolonization of the discipline. Some organizations are focused on the creation of intergenerationally just futures. Many participatory tools are emerging, but more democratized deployment is key. The futures are a powerful means to shape our cosmic destiny. It is time to claim the futures as commons, and in doing share it with everyone who could make use of it for planetary and cosmic advantage. It’s an idea whose time has come. #