Discussions about the future are dominated by dystopian anxiety, leaving younger generations paralysed by despair. But research scientist and philosopher Samuel McKee argues this pessimism ignores our technological reality. The real barrier to a brighter future is not a failure of science, but of the humanities. Just as the Apollo missions once united society and sparked a wave of innovation, today's breakthroughs must be translated into compelling cultural narratives. Filmmakers, writers and educators must champion visions of a solvable future—and we should all become futurists.

Why we should all be Futurists

Futurism is a position of science optimism, or techno-optimism. A futurist is one who strives toward the vision of the best possible future that STEM can give us, who peers over the horizon and envisions what could be in the greatest possible terms. Futurists dream of life at the end of the twenty-first century being reshaped by artificial intelligence, robotics, genetic engineering, personalized medicine, and spacefaring into a world beyond the wildest dreams of most. Furthermore, futurists advocate for that vision as well as working towards it themselves. They communicate this optimism in the media, in education, and in academic forums.

When asking people what the future may look like, you are inevitably going to find a mixture of optimism and pessimism. However, demographics matter. Generation Z and Generation Alpha are riddled with the highest levels of anxiety and poor mental health of any recorded generation. They struggle to see a future without despair as they look at economic crises, global unrest, a rapidly changing landscape from that their parents faced, and environmental catastrophe. Barack Obama once said that, despite global problems, if you could choose to live at any moment in history, you would choose today. Many are now not so sure and point to the optimism of the 1980s and 1990s as better days.

___

If the public knew what is already possible, then they would have every reason to be optimistic about the future that can be built.

___

If one were to push back from the 1980s a decade or so, the Moon landings of the Apollo program brought a wave of techno-optimism that swept record numbers of young people into STEM education, forming the Silicon Valley generation. Going back further, the interwar physicists uncovered a radically different world in the revolution of the new physics, leading many to believe that the greatest problems of the world could be solved. Biology saw its own revolution in the 1950s with the same perspective generated by discoveries of molecular biology, cloning, gene sequencing, and technologies such as PCR. This led to the ambition of the Human Genome Project and the birth of molecular medicine, which gave us the life sciences revolution we are enjoying at present.

Why did this surge of optimism in the sciences not seep into the humanities? Why has the tide of futurism turned back? There are several reasons. The first is that this is in part a science communication problem. More talented, professional science communicators are needed to convey the great advances currently made in, for example, the life sciences, to excite the public and inspire the next generation. Secondly, the world is rampant with dystopian visions across news media, entertainment and industry. Finally, the pandemic has left a sense of distrust in science and authority in its wake.