Newstradamus

Mike Keefe/The Denver Post

Arthur C. Clarke died last week at 90. Science fiction fans will recognize him as a giant of that genre, of course. I have been an avid reader of his work ever since I was a youngster, but I gained even more respect for him as a futurist.

Some people know I have political science MA in Alternative Futures from the University of Hawaii, and I've taken some ribbing about that: "How can anything of academic seriousness come out of laid-back Hawaii, especially something as goofy-sounding as 'futurism'?"

Methodological studies of the future are much more than taking wild guesses about what will happen, but are built on analyses of the possible consequences of today's actions (which I consider a worthy role for the news media).

But most people, if they consider the future at all, think of it as being more like today, only faster, shinier or smaller, like flying cars or cell phones the size of sticks of gum. Many of us live our lives looking in the rear-view mirror, and our prevailing thought about the future is "Que sera sera — what will be, will be ... Nobody can change the future."

Futurists take a different view. They believe not only can they make an effort to understand possible alternative tomorrows, but can use that understanding to effect the positive future they desire.

Although his medium was fiction — as in the classic film in collaboration with Stanley Kubrick, "2001: A Space Odyssey" — Clarke was firmly grounded in the world of the possible. That movie was sheer fantasy then, but 40 years later the orbiting space station is so routine that hardly anyone pays attention to what is going on up there anymore.

In 1945, while with the Royal Air Force, Clarke wrote a technical paper, published in the British journal Wireless World, that explained the feasibility of using stationary satellites around the globe as relay stations for earth-based communications. This was 10 years before the first orbital rocket flight, yet today such satellites are the the key pipeline for the digital revolution.

I got into futures studies in mid-life as I tried to understand the implications and consequences to the news industry as a result of this revolution. At Hawaii, I met many others who were on the same quest regarding their own fields, from the sciences to the arts to economics.

It requires some mental refocusing to get away from the rigid world-views we box ourselves into over a lifetime. To do this, I found Clark's Three Laws to be useful:

1. "When a distinguished but elderly scientist [or editor] states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

2. "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

3. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

My mentor at Hawaii, Dr. Jim Dator, has his own take on this mind shift: "Any useful observation about the future will appear on its face to be ridiculous."

Clarke was said to be working on a novel when he died, "The Last Theorem." I hope he finished it, because I'd love to read one more book by Arthur C. Clarke.