Skip to main content
Log in

Coping with the Unpredictable Effects of Future Technologies

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Available methods such as technology assessment and risk analysis have failed to predict the effects of technological choices. We need to give up the futile predictive ambitions of previous approaches and instead base decisions on systematic studies of alternative future developments. It will then be necessary to cope with mere possibility arguments, i.e., arguments in which a conclusion is drawn from a mere possibility that a course of action may have certain consequences. A five-step procedure is proposed for the assessment of such arguments. It includes (1) a search for mere possibility arguments pointing in different directions, (2) a scientific evaluation that may lead to the specification or refutation of some of these arguments, (3) two symmetry tests, (4) evaluation of the seriousness of the arguments in terms of novelty, spatio-temporal unlimitedness and interference with complex systems, and (5) hypothetical retrospection that aims at finding a course of action that will be defensible in retrospect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ball, P. (2008). Of myths and men. Nature News May 2, 2008. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080502/full/news.2008.797.html. Accessed on: 6 October 2010.

  • Berg, B., & Singer, M. F. (1995). The recombinant DNA controversy: Twenty years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92, 9011–9013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K. H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38(7), 723–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, H., Dreborg, K. H., Godman, M., Hansson, S. O., Johansson, L., & Wikman-Svahn, P. (2010). Assessing socially disruptive technological change. Technology in Society, 32, 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, M., & Fleischer, T. (2008). Contacting the brain—aspects of a technology assessment of neural implants. Biotechnology Journal, 3, 1502–1510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J., Giudice, G., Mangano, M., Tkachev, I., & Wiedemann, U. (2008). Review of the safety of LHC collisions. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 35(11), 115004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, M., & Bray, O. (1997). Fundamentals of technology roadmapping. Technical report. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2010). From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 4(2), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (1989). Dimensions of Risk. Risk Analysis 9, 107–112.

  • Hansson, S. O. (1993). The false promises of risk analysis. Ratio 6, 16–26, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (1996). Decision-Making Under Great Uncertainty. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 26, 369–386.

  • Hansson, S. O. (1999). But What Should I Do? Philosophia 27, 433–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2004). Great Uncertainty about Small Things. Techne 8(2), 26–35. Reprinted in: Schummer, J. & Baird, D. (eds.) Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society. World Scientific Publishing pp. 315–325, Singapore, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2007a). Hypothetical retrospection. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10, 145–157.

  • Hansson, S. O. (2007b). Philosophical Problems in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 23, 163–183.

  • Hansson, S. O. (2008). Regulating BFRs – from science to policy. Chemosphere, 73, 144–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2009) Risk and Safety in Technology. In Meijers A. (ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 9: Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences pp. 1069–1102. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Joss, S., & Bellucci, S. (Eds.). (2002). Participatory technology assessment. European perspectives. London: CDS, Centre for the Study of Democracy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. (1967). The year 2000: A framework for speculation on the next thirty-three years. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Johnston, R. (1999). Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system. Experiences in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60, 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, H. D., & Caldeira, K. (2007). Transient climate—carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. PNAS, 104(24), 9949–9954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michal, R. (2000). The nuclear news interview. Apostolakis: On PRA. Nuclear News March, 27–31.

  • Nordmann, A. (2007). If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics, 1, 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A., & Rip, A. (2009). Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 273–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overbye, D. (2008). Gauging a Collider’s odds of creating a black hole. New York Times, April 15 2008, Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15risk.html. Accessed on: 6 October 2010.

  • Pool, I. d. S. (1983). Forecasting the telephone: A retrospective technology assessment. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ

  • Ropohl, G. (1996). Ethik und Technikbewertung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruthen, R. (1993) Strange matters. Scientific American, August, pp. 17-18.

  • Sclove, R. (2010). Reinventing technology assessment. A 21st century model. Washington, DC: Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, April 2010). Available at: http://wilsoncenter.org/techassessment.

  • Shachtman, N. (2008) Top pentagon scientists fear brain-modified foes. Wired Magazine, June 9, 2008, Available at: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/jason-warns-of. Accessed on: 6 October 2010.

  • Taylor, C. (2006). Surfing the Web with nothing but brainwaves. CNNMoney.com, July 24 2006, Available at: http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/21/technology/googlebrain0721.biz2/index.htm. Accessed on: 6 October 2010.

  • Wack, P. (1985a). Scenarios, uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review, 63(5), 73–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wack, P. (1985b). Scenarios, shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Review, 63(6), 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Ove Hansson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hansson, S.O. Coping with the Unpredictable Effects of Future Technologies. Philos. Technol. 24, 137–149 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0014-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0014-y

Keywords

Navigation