IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v77y2024ics0160791x24000538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In search of better methods for the longitudinal assessment of tech-derived X-risks: How five leading scenario planning efforts can help

Author

Listed:
  • Undheim, Trond Arne

Abstract

This mixed methods article discusses the role of scenario analysis as a tool to assess the broadest possible specter of positive and negative effects of technologies and social processes within current existential risk assessment and research. To do so, it compares and contrasts case studies of five ongoing, longitudinal scenario planning efforts of global nature– the Shell scenarios, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the CSIS Seven Revolutions Scenarios, The Millennium Project's State of The Future, and the NIC's Global Trends 2040, to derive lessons for whether and how the adjacent existential risk (X-risk) and tech assessment communities can better deploy scenario planning methodology. Observations are derived from interviews with practitioners involved in these efforts as well as an assessment of the publicly available material issued by each project, including the scenarios produced. The emphasis is on the methodologies used, the timelines considered, the forces each identifies as important scenario drivers, and the process of engagement once scenarios are created. Three practices identified include (1) constructing narratives based on strong data, (2) sticking to plausible scenarios (not wild cards), and (3) designing a process of engagement, which each of these does well albeit in different ways. The article concludes with a few brief recommendations for future scenario planning efforts, particularly relevant for x-risk studies that aim to be relevant for tech assessment and governance. Overall, this review shows global scenario efforts aimed at influencing governance would benefit from (a) a more uniformly shared vocabulary, (b) an underlying theory of cascading systemic change, (c) deeper methodological transparency, (d) increased transdisciplinary perspectives, yet (e) maintaining scientific rigor. These improvements would particularly benefit emerging tech-risk derived X-risk scenario efforts where the stakes are the highest they could be, safeguarding humanity's future.

Suggested Citation

  • Undheim, Trond Arne, 2024. "In search of better methods for the longitudinal assessment of tech-derived X-risks: How five leading scenario planning efforts can help," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:77:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24000538
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X24000538
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102505?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:77:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24000538. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.