Thread by @davekarpf

Okay, now let's talk about the history of futurism in @WIRED. There is a ton here, but I think I've settle on a handful of articles that illustrate the broader trend.
#wiredarchive

90s Wired had futurism baked into its bones. The founding Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor were devoted futurists.

The first volume of WIRED was published before the Web as we know it even existed. The Internet in mass society was still a thing to be imagined/created.

In volume 6, issue 1, the magazine described the "Seven Wired Wonders" of the world. wired.com/1993/06/wired-…
They included: (1) The Net, (2) Micromanufacturing, (3) Digital Astronomy, (4) Senior Citizens, (5) The Human Genome Project, (6) Neuromantic Drugs, and (7) Immersive tech

"Senior Citizens" is the weirdest item on the list.

It is both a commitment to the belief that technology (not social security) is responsible for extending the lifespan of the elderly, and a belief that we are on the verge of a massive life extension tech breakthrough.

Next we have "Interview with the Luddite." This is one of my personal favorites. wired.com/1995/06/salesk…

Kevin Kelly interviews historian Kirkpatrick Sale, a self-described "neo-Luddite." The interview is brash and contentious, filled with snide remarks and outright attacks.

Luddism doesn't sit well with futurists. The focus on negative social consequences of technology is too dour and gloomy.

By the end of the argument/interview, Kelly challenges Sale to a $1,000 bet

""I bet you US$1,000 that in the year 2020, we're not even close to the kind of disaster you describe - a convergence of three disasters: global currency collapse, significant warfare between rich and poor, and environmental disasters of some significant size."

Two notes:
(1) holy hell did that interview go off the rails.
(2) I'm pretty sure Kelly owes Sale some money.

The real point here is that optimism lies at the core of futurism, or at least the variant that was practiced by 90s WIRED and the surrounding tech and business community.

WIRED is openly disdainful of the environmental movement in these years.

(Which always reminds me of an old quote, I think from David Brower: "environmentalists are the only people predicting the future who hope to be wrong.")

This futurist optimism is turned up to 11 in 1997's cover article, "The Long Boom: A History of the Future, 1980-2020." wired.com/1997/07/longbo…

"We are watching the beginnings of a global economic boom on a scale never experienced before. We have entered a period of sustained growth that could eventually double the world's economy every dozen years and bring increasing prosperity for - quite literally - billions..."

Inequality in The Long Boom will inevitably work itself out. There's no discussion of taxation or redistribution (of course there isn't!). Science and technology drive social change, not government policy (which only constrains innovation).

It's easy to look at the Long Boom as a fixture of dotcom boom optimism. (This is the same magazine that predicted in 1999 that we would all soon be millionaires, and Bill Gates would be the world's first trillionaire.)

But.

Fast-forward to the 2008 15th-anniversary issue, and founding editor Louis Rossetto proudly proclaims "We Called the Long Boom." wired.com/2008/05/ff-15t…

(The Wall Street collapse happened three months later...)

The futurist impulse gets quieter in the magazine during the 2000s, particularly during the foggy stretch from 01-04 when we were still reckoning with the dotcom crash.

When fortunes are vanishing, futurism uses an inside voice.

But as the Web 2.0 buzz heats up, Kevin Kelly returns to reckon with the past, present, and future of the Web. "We are the Web" wired.com/2005/08/tech/ is a classic example of how the future looked in the mid-00s.

Here's how 2015 looked from the 2005: "...In the near future, everyone alive will (on average) write a song, author a book, make a video, craft a weblog, and code a program. ...Who will have time to sit back and veg out? Who will be a consumer?
No one. And that’s just fine."

Kelly's prediction of 2015 looks like the Web circa 2005, just accelerated and improved. Wikipedia, MySpace, the blogosphere and YouTube all defined the web of 2005.

Futurism amplifies present trends and speculates on the wonderful possibilities they might create.

What did the Web of 2015 actually look like? Well, 2015 was the year of Gamergate, of Silk Road, and of the gig economy. It also was (another) year of Peak TV.

The exciting peer-production economics of 2005 calcified into platform economics and surveillance capitalism.

By 2010, @WIRED's approach to futurism was changing. The August cover package was devoted to "The Future that Never Happened."
wired.com/2010/08/ff_fut…

By 2010, the Digital Revolution didn't only exist on the horizon. It had a history, a track record. Nanotech and quantum computing? Turns out they're as hard as they sound. The Singularity? Don't hold your breath. Roboservants? Nah, who has money to pay for one of those?...

Of course, a magazine about technology and society is never going to abandon future-forecasting entirely. Thomas Goetz (Executive Editor at the time) writes a piece in 2012 titled "How to Spot the Future" wired.com/2012/04/ff-spo…

But Goetz is mostly outlining a process for identifying exciting trends in the present.

It is much more grounded than futurist (and Long Boom author) Peter Schwartz's "Wired Guide to Personal Scenario Planning." wired.com/2009/07/future…

Now let's fast forward to present-day @Wired. In February 2017, the cover package was "Spoiler Alert: What Lies Ahead." wired.com/magazine/what-…

But this isn't 90s-style futurism! Instead, the magazine is devoted to "49 trends that will shape the very near future."

Forget imagining the Internet and society of 2027! The magazine is instead trying to navigate the uncertainties of the current moment.

The near-term focus strips out the boisterous optimism. It also adds a dose of humility and honesty.

Predictions from 2017 include "Congress will screw up privacy," "devices will always be listening," "No, you won't get your own VR rig," and "this will be the year we confront Facebook and Twitter's influence."

Those are some solid predictions!

They're mostly right! And, where they are wrong, they manage to be wrong in interesting/instructive ways!

(Of course, it's possible that what is ACTUALLY happening is the futurism of the 90s displayed the optimism of the 90s, and the futurism of 2017 displayed the pessimism and uncertainty of today.)

But, as I've been seeing across other trendlines, there's also evidence of some real GROWTH here.

Our approach to and understanding of digital technology has gotten more nuanced over the past 25 years.

It's harder to get away with assuming-away inequality today.

That's evident across the magazine. Starting around 2015, the magazine buckles down and takes the negative social impacts of technology much more seriously.

The Kevin Kelly-Kirkpatrick Sale interview wouldn't be so mean and combative today.

In place of Kirkpatrick Sale, today we have Tristan Harris. wired.com/story/center-f…

And in place of boasting about how great the future is bound to be, the magazine digs into just how complicated the present has become.

That's... nice. It made the final week of #wiredarchive reading a real joy. It's nice seeing how far the magazine has come, even as the world around us has gotten rougher.

(If we're going to live in a dystopia, let's at least admit it and go from there!)

I'll end this thread on that happy note. Sorry for the long one. Can't really do justice to futurism-in-WIRED without going on for a bit, though.

#wiredarchive