Could Should Might Don't summary

In 1958, Arthur Radebaugh’s comic strip promised American families that by 1980 they’d commute to work in personal helicopters and receive mail via jetpack. Nearly half a century past that deadline, we’re still waiting – yet somehow still making the same kinds of predictions. 

Could Futurism represents the most visible and dominant form of future-thinking in Western society today. Could Futurism is a dopamine hit of possibility. This is the realm of breathless speculation about what technology might deliver, the territory of TED talks and tech journalism, of podcast hosts who speak excitedly about the coming revolution. 

What’s the difference between could and should? While Could Futurists speculate about technological possibilities, Should Futurists operate with absolute certainty about how tomorrow ought to unfold. Take Elon Musk’s declarations about Mars colonization, or tech executives proclaiming that artificial intelligence will solve poverty – these aren’t tentative predictions but emphatic blueprints for humanity’s future. Should Futurists focus intensely on implementation, believing they possess the power to craft and control what lies ahead. 

Each person has a mental picture of their preferred tomorrow and this functions like a compass, pulling their current choices in specific directions. A climate activist might restructure their entire lifestyle around achieving carbon neutrality by 2030, while a cryptocurrency enthusiast will base investment decisions on visions of decentralized financial systems replacing traditional banking. Should Futurism operates by establishing clear target outcomes and then determining what present actions will lead toward those goals.

If Should Futurists operate with dangerous certainty, Might Futurists embrace the opposite extreme: they systematically map uncertainty itself. Rather than betting on single outcomes, they develop sophisticated methods to explore multiple possible futures simultaneously. It’s perhaps the most intellectually rigorous approach to future-thinking, born from military and corporate strategists who learned that survival depends on preparing for various scenarios, rather than predicting which one will occur.

The mathematical foundations developed via game theory. In 1944, John von Neumann’s work with Oskar Morgenstern established that complex strategic situations could be analyzed systematically by mapping all possible moves and countermoves. This wasn’t about predicting winners but rather understanding the full landscape of possibility. 

Picture the person at every planning meeting who raises their hand to ask about the worst-case scenario – the one who makes everyone else shift anxiously in their chairs. 

In our collective conversation about tomorrow, Don’t Futurism occupies the uncomfortable but necessary role of professional pessimist. While Could Futurists dream of flying cars and Should Futurists proclaim inevitable progress, Don’t Futurists focus on what could go catastrophically wrong. They serve as institutional contrarians, deliberately focusing on troubling possibilities that some more optimistic communities might ignore.