superstructgame.net: superthreats 2019
Some weeks ago the wellknown “Institute for the Future” (IFTF) started an experiment with the crowdsourcing of future scenarios and solution finding. I was too busy with projects and customers to analyze all these ideas, let alone to write a review. Simple question: Does it work? I do not know. It depends on the initial purpose. In terms of quantity it was a success. User generated future in numbers:
- # 7,061 players
- # 536 superstructures (i.e. concepts to save the world)
- # year 2053 = new survival horizon; thanks to the creative ideas of the players the survival horizon of mankind is now set to 2053 (I will send you the formula, if I found it)
Obviously this is a serious game. But is it more than a game? Can anyone, politicians, CEOs, plain citizens seriously base future decisions on cumulated non-experts opinion? This is an
old question about the core concept of crowdsourcing. My opinion is very context-sensitive concerning types and uses of ”collective intelligence”. There is a lot of confusion around – and there are interesting new approaches like “bioteams“.
Old school, new school? Fresh thinking!
By the way, the IFTF team managed to have people like Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, in the jury. Superstructgame deserves our attention as an example of collective brainstorming. Browse by yourself tp find new impulses for your long term foresight thinking.
I for my part would like to make some fruitful confrontation between old school and new school during the coming holidays. Old school? Did I forget to mention the newly published NIC report “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World”? Really a nice contrast: The output of organized and respected experts and the freshness of the humming crowd.
Links
No comments yet
Comments feed for this article