Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futures studies

Of course feel free to improve the project page in any way you can think of. The Transhumanist 06:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in creating this page. This is a wonderful start! John b cassel (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please weigh in here: Talk:Future_studies#So_what_is_this_beast_called.3F. I propose moving the article Future studies to Futures studies; if people agree then I think this project should also be renamed. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if the article name changes, the WikiProject's name should change to match it. The Transhumanist 09:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(Thread copied from User talk:The Transhumanist).

I notice you added a link to the transhumanism project on the new future studies project page. What is the relationship? Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The technological future. See transhumanism#Technologies of interest. The Transhumanist 07:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but I find the link tenuous at best. Transhumanism is essentially an ideology. Future studies, OTOH, is an academic discipline known for its research methodology. I'm not really seeing the connection in this context. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Transhumanism is also a branch of philosophy interested in (i.e., studies) future possibilities, especially the positive and negative potential of technological advance. (Inorder to achieve the positive and avoid negative outcomes). I am primarily a philosophical transhumanist. See category:Futurology. Transhumanism is listed there. The outcomes that transhumanism seeks are studied by futurists, including the technological singularity. The Transhumanist 08:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. Transhumanism is an ideology. However, future studies is not. They are not related. Please find me a single future studies textbook or relevant academic source that says they are. However, I am not interested in seeing a transhumanist source that says they are related. Future studies could not accurately study the future if it were an ideology or if it embraced transhumanism as "true". Transhumanism is also not the only ideology related to the future. In my mind, there is no difference between linking Transhumanism to the Future studies project page and linking to, let's say for example, Christianity. Please take a look at this list of recent publications from or related to the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies. There's a lot here, and nothing about transhumanism. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Christianity, and its prophecy of armageddon? Comparing transhumanism to that hints of POV. Transhumanism extrapolates future possibilities from current technologies. Though highly speculative (like future studies), it isn't mythological or spiritual. But you totally ignored the philosophical aspect of transhumanism. It's a branch of humanism, which is in turn a branch of philosophy. Philosophy studies things. Transhumanism studies the future. In that pursuit it conducts future studies extensively. Future studies (that is, analyzing future possibilities) is integrated into its approach. See The Singularity is Near – it is a core transhumanist future study. Transhumanist philosophers are futurists. The Transhumanist 09:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am well acquainted with transhumanism and its literature. It is not "POV" to compare transhumanism's vision of the future "singularity" with the vision marketed by Christianity. They are both considered to be religious visions of the future in the relevant literature. In any case, I am not interested in what transhumanists claim, but in what scholars of Futures Studies claim, as I've previously made clear. It is actually considered POV pushing to associate the two as you are doing, which apparently you don't realize. I've requested a source, so please provide it when you have time. Thanks. To remind you, I've provided dozens of sources related to the current Futures Studies literature that says nothing about transhumanism. Please provide sources that do. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a large body of transhumanist future studies. That is, future studies conducted by transhumanists. It appears you are using a very specialized context of the term "related". I suggest we explore the requirements for being called a "related WikiProject". The Transhumanist 09:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Futures studies might examine scenarios involving posthuman futures. But it doesn't argue, like transhumanism does, that such scenarios are necessary or beneficial. It only argues that it is one possible scenario. However this is not the primary focus of futures studies. And it certainly doesn't take the position that the human species is limited and should focus on enhancement, it just observes that this might happen. Transhumanism, on the other hand, argues that it should happen and encourages it. This is like saying WikiProject Ecology is relevant to futures studies because it studies and evaluates sustainability. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Err, guys, feel free to take this discussion to the relevant talkpage, the WikiProject's. Viriditas, please note that we're discussing a WikiProject's work here, not an article's content. Demanding reliable sources is not justified here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is an issue at all, transhumanism and potential futures are very obviously related. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: asking for a reliable source showing that the concept of transhumanism is a scholarly avenue of study and part of the domain of what is called Futures Studies is entirely justified. I suspect that no sources will be provided because a user by the name of "The Transhumanist" is pushing the POV of "transhumanism" when in point of fact, that POV is not part of Futures Studies. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said that transhumanism was part of the domain of what is called futures studies. The section I placed Wikipedia:WikiProject Transhumanism under was "Related projects", which is a pretty vague subheading. You are reading a lot more specificity into that subheading than I am. I don't agree with you that a WikiProject's subject must be a branch of or a subdiscipline of another WikiProject's subject in order to be considered related. The Transhumanist 10:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it even related? Let me give you an example of a true statement in this regard: Futures studies is related to scenario planning. Where does transhumanism come into this? Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that I have my own skepticism about transhumanism, but I think it is valid to include it as a subject of study. To take a previous example (Christianity), the view of various Christian sects about end times is also a valid subject of futures studies, as one can look at how these views changed over time due to demographic, cultural, and technological circumstances and the impact they in turn have had on society. We should give transhumanism at least this much leeway: it is a view of the future, and therefore a subject to which the methods of futures studies can be applied. However, we must be sure to include as much critical scholarship on this subject as we do other views about the future. John b cassel (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the scenario is what is important not the ideology. In other words, futures studies might concern itself with the probability of a posthuman future, but it does not take the political position or advocate for transhumanism as another editor is doing. In the same way, futures studies might look at the scenario of ecological sustainability, but it does not study or take the position of environmentalism. The position that all transhumanists are engaging in futures studies isn't supported. That's like saying all Christians are involved in peace and conflict studies. I also object to the hijacking of futures studies by associating it with a fringe movement that is actively working to create a narrow future that they personally envision. That is not the role of futures studies and it basically contradicts its stated mission. Transhumanists already have a vision of the future. Their mind is closed and it is already made up. They have no use for futures studies. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a "related" WikiProject. That's it. "Related". And just a WikiProject. The point of linking to related WikiProjects is showing projects that some of the current members can reasonably be expected to have some interest and knowledge in. It's purely subjective and wholly up to the WikiProject itself (its members) to decide what they feel is relevant and useful for the project. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it related any more or less than any other WikiProject, like WikiProject Spaceflight, for example? Sorry, I don't see it. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Referring to the project proposal page, I would say that transhumanism would be a subject related to "the history and critique of how futures/the future has been and is considered". Transhumanism is a "way futures are considered." Spaceflight, on the other hand, is not a worldview regarding the future. John b cassel (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, including the proposed missions and technology required to develop and build those missions are implicitly supported by space advocacy which has as its stated aim the exploration of space and the building of space settlements. Ironically, it is these space advocates who are behind the space settlement pictured on the current project page, an image added by The Transhumanist. More to the point, the project page says "We are a group of Wikipedia editors who work on topics related to the utilisation and exploration of outer space by humans and robotic spacecraft", which is most certainly a worldview regarding the future, and one of the most popular, I might add. To further clarify, all aspects of space colonization, including the past, present, and future, are part of the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight. Given this fact, I would say that the nuts and bolts spaceflight project is more relevant to futures studies (and more supported by published academic research) than the Transhumanism project considering the reality of the technology and the proposals at hand. Transhumanism, on the other hand, is little more than wishful thinking complete with religious symbolism involving the eschatological "singularity". To be fair, however, space colonization involving humans is also little more than wishful thinking at this point, so perhaps the Transhumanists will have the last laugh, with the Solar System eventually colonized by machines, not by people. My point, long-winded as it sounds, is that the list of relevant projects is endless. Futures studies should not associate itself with any other "relevant" projects that aren't part the scope of its discipline. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, but there are some circumstances we should take into consideration: Very soon, we will be helping the University of Houston's Futures Studies program with a class project to improve Futures Studies content on Wikipedia. I'm sure that the appropriate scope of "Futures Studies" is something they would be able to bring some scholarly light to. John b cassel (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be greatly appreciated by everyone, I'm sure. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User Viriditas had the following concern: "How is terraforming the subject of futures studies? Terraforming is a science fiction concept that has received a great deal of attention in books and films. However, the technology needed to implement this idea is beyond our current grasp, nor do we have a clue if it would ever work. Because it is not currently possible, it does not appear to be a plausible scenario for futures studies. I say this as someone who has read the terraforming literature (Fogg, Oberg, Zubrin, etc.)"

Being in the scope of a WikiProject doesn't mean that the topic is exclusively a subject of the field. Also, as far as I can tell, "Futures studies" is quite a broad field -- not everything in the scope of this project has to be of interest to all relevant academics nor to all members of this project.

I tagged terraforming because it's categorized in Category:Futurology and Category:Space colonization. What's wrong with that? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, I ask, which futures studies sources discuss terraforming? Martyn J. Fogg wrote about planetary engineering in terms of planetary science, and very little about whether it was likely to happen. The basic problem here is that there seems to be confusion about what futures studies is and what topics it covers. I am unaware of any futures studies publications that cover this topic. Instead of having editors randomly tag articles that they think is covered by the discipline, I will ask once again, that these editors do the research and find the sources. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas may have a point on this one. To quote discussion from the project proposal page: ""Futurology" is seen as a relic of the past (with the possible exception of the UK where "futurology" is still seems used a bit currently, but that's an outlier) - a buzzword from the 1960-70s which is associated with a particular long-gone golden age characterized by a kind of overexcited faddish type of foresight that seems a bit embarrassing and outmoded today. I do think that futurology should be covered as a part of the history but would put off many people in the field if it was the title of the project". John b cassel (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about terraforming, not futurology. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

They are hopelessly interrelated: Terraforming came to be associated with with the field at the time of futurology's vogue and has certain connotations given that history. But, it occurs to me that this history isn't necessarily relevant to the participants of this project. Overall, I'm now agnostic on the subject of scope. John b cassel (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm agonistic about scope too. While planetary terraforming is not part of futures studies or strategic foresight theory or methods, it would perhaps fit into a topic category area such as "Common themes in 20th century futurist visions" or something like that. It's like the difference between the Battle of Agincourt and the theory and practice of history. The Battle of Agincourt is of course a target of historians' attention (and the attention of other specializations e.g. literature) but it is not part of what history is as a discipline or profession or set of methods and theories. Anyway, this is all good as a teaching moment for the upcoming class exercise! Zhanli2012 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you agnostics took a second to think about the rest of Wikipedia that's outside of your own interests. With this sort of insistence to keep the project all serious and academic, you're being very exclusive and denying attention to certain articles. There's plenty of articles that relate to fantastical and unrealistic ideas about the future -- do you suggest there be made a separate project for them?

You don't have to work on or be personally interested in every article that gets tagged wit this project's banner, you know. I'm just asking you to try to be more inclusive, for the sake of the rest of Wikipedia.

I was a member of WikiProject Death, another multidisciplinary project -- I was only interested in a small fraction of their scope and that didn't hinder me from participating. And I haven't seen anyone in there suggest that we should only scope on the reality of death and leave mythologies, beliefs and fictions about it to other projects if any other projects happen to care. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's something very true in what you're saying. The less broadly Culture Studies looks at culture, the less relevant it is to the broader culture. This is likely an appropriate admonition for Futures Studies as well. A broad scope, but suitable organization so that everyone can find what they want and make the distinctions they need. Death is different, because to the best of my knowledge there is no specific academic subject of "Death Studies", but yet maybe it is an appropriate model. The challenge will be to capture the full diversity of views, including the professional and academic ones. John b cassel (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The study of death is a serious academic subject called thanatology and can be found as part of the curriculum in the health sciences, forensic sciences, humanities, and other disciplines. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oopsie! John b cassel (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the project want to move away from older naming conventions currently in use, such as Category:Futurology and Category:Futurologists? Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good question. The tricky part to my mind is how individuals classify themselves. If somebody calls what they do futurology, I'd be hard pressed to question it, but we definitely don't want anyone there who doesn't want that label. One alternative is "List of Major Contributors to Futures Studies", which includes not only futures studies practitioners, futurologists, strategic foresight practitioners, trend analysts, speculators, but also people who have made important contributions indirectly or even through direct criticism, such as Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner, respectively. John b cassel (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it common to have 'Futures' capitalized and 'studies' not? If not, can you change the title of an article (just the capitalization?) RealFuturist (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There is some precedent for the mixed case, compare Culture studies. John b cassel (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless they are proper nouns, Wikipedia titles use "sentence case". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles.

See also: http://toolserver.org/~nikola/grep.php?pattern=+studies&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&ns=0

I hope that answers your questions. The Transhumanist 11:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good reference, but unfortunately it still isn't clear to me, and I think it bolsters RealFuturist`s argument. "I studied in the department of Futures Studies." would be how I would case it in a sentence. John b cassel (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I'm well aware that transhumanism and future studies are not synonymous, given that transhumanism has a low level of traffic, we could merge it into this one and slightly broaden the scope? Deku-shrub (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose - they only overlap. A low level of traffic is imo no reason to merge. Also that could change. (Should actually; people should promote and recruit interested people via WikiProjects such as this one for Wikipedia on relevant websites.) --Fixuture (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Peak oil, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This template is underused compared to {{Censor}}, and used only on a small collection of articles about doomsday scenarios. Is it redundant, or just used too narrowly? I won't go directly to TfD, since the last nomination in June closed as no consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeking help to improve the article on bioartist and futurist Amy Karle and resolve the template warning on the page. I did what I could to clean up the article. I am seeking more support from the editing community to help correct issues listed on the template and edit the article appropriately to meet BLP standards.

It was suggested that I ask for help from additional editors on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects that appear on the article talk page, which is you WikiProject Futures studies!

Would fellow editors please help update the page and remove the template warning on the main article? Or if you feel that it has been sufficiently updated, please remove the template.

If there is a better place to post this request, please advise. Thank you, ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether or not the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) should be mentioned in the article. Given that it is what he is most known for by the general public and media, I feel as though it would be violating both WP:notability and WP:NPOV to not include it, as long as his practices are described neutrally. The other editor feels as though it is too fringe to include and that it cannot be properly contextualized. We would appreciate if others could give their input. Thanks!Vontheri (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Should be renamed to WP Future Studies (i.e. capitalized) as is standard. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Made a proposal at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Millenniumbox#Proposed_Change, if anyone has any comments I welcome them, if not I'll switch over in a few days. Froglegseternal (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Speculative fiction by writers of color#Implementing the split about how to split this page following the AfD discussion where there was agreement to split apart the page. Please share your thoughts for what sections you believe should be split off/merged to other pages. Thanks and have a great rest of your day. Historyday01 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for LME Aluminium to be moved to Aluminium futures on the London Metal Exchange. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.