Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Futures Perfect and Visioneering: a Re-Assessment

  • Critical Discussion Notes
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this essay, I review the concept of visioneering as I developed it and consider the ways in which other scholars have deployed it.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. A sister center was also funded at Arizona State University. The UCSB effort was initially proposed by myself along with Rich Appelbaum (global studies), Bruce Bimber (political science), Fiona Goodchild (science education), Barbara Herr Harthorn (anthropology), Evelyn Hu (engineering), and Chris Newfield (English).

  2. Los Angeles, for example, has “Silicon Beach” and Manhattan proclaims to be fostering “Silicon Alley.” For the value of public sector investment, see [11].

References

  1. Brown N et al. (2000) Contested futures: a sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jasanoff S, Kim S-H (eds) (2015) Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  3. McCray WP (2013) The Visioneers: how a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Dickel S, Schrape J-F (2017) The logic of digital utopianism. NanoEthics 11(1):47–58

  5. Gudowsky N, Sotoudeh M (2017) Into blue skies—a transdisciplinary foresight and co-creation method for adding robustness to visioneering. NanoEthics 11(1):93–106

  6. Engels F, Münch AV, Simon D (2017) One site—multiple visions: visioneering between contrasting actors’ perspectives. NanoEthics 11(1):59–74

  7. Ferrari A, Lösch A (2017) How smart grid meets in vitro meat: on visions as socio-epistemic practices. NanoEthics 11(1):75–91

  8. Pfeiffer S (2017) The vision of “Industrie 4.0” in the making—a case of future told, tamed, and traded. NanoEthics 11(1):107–121

  9. Barbrook R, Cameron A (1996) The Californian ideology. Sci Cult 6(6):44–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lécuyer C (2006) Making Silicon Valley: innovation and the growth of high tech, 1930–1970. The MIT Press, Cambridge/MA

  11. Mazzucato M (2011) The entrepreneurial state: debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Osnos E (2017) The survival of the richest. The New Yorker 30:36–45

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-9410, USA

    William Patrick McCray

Authors
  1. William Patrick McCray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Patrick McCray.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCray, W.P. Futures Perfect and Visioneering: a Re-Assessment. Nanoethics 11, 203–207 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0303-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0303-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation