Moore's law is an example of futures studies; it is a statistical collection of past and present trends with the goal of accurately extrapolating future trends.

Futures studies (also called futurology) is the study of postulating possible, probable, and preferable futures and the worldviews and myths that underlie them. There is a debate as to whether this discipline is an art or science. In general, it can be considered as a branch of the social sciences and parallel to the field of history. In the same way that history studies the past, futures studies considers the future. Futures studies (colloquially called "futures" by many of the field's practitioners) seeks to understand what is likely to continue and what could plausibly change. Part of the discipline thus seeks a systematic and pattern-based understanding of past and present, and to determine the likelihood of future events and trends.^[1] Unlike the physical sciences where a narrower, more specified system is studied, futures studies concerns a much bigger and more complex world system. The methodology and knowledge are much less proven as compared to natural science or even social science like sociology, economics, and political science.

Overview[link]

Futures studies is an interdisciplinary field, studying yesterday's and today's changes, and aggregating and analyzing both lay and professional strategies and opinions with respect to tomorrow. It includes analyzing the sources, patterns, and causes of change and stability in an attempt to develop foresight and to map possible futures. Around the world the field is variously referred to as futures studies, strategic foresight, futuristics, futures thinking, futuring, futurology, and futurism. Futures studies and strategic foresight are the academic field's most commonly used terms in the English-speaking world.

Foresight may be the oldest term for the field. In a 1932 BBC broadcast the visionary author H.G. Wells called for the establishment of "Departments and Professors of Foresight", foreshadowing the development of modern academic futures studies by approximately 40 years.^[2] "Futurology" is a term common in encyclopedias, though it is used almost exclusively by nonpractitioners today, at least in the English-speaking world. "Futurology" is defined as the "study of the future."^[3] The term was coined by German professor Ossip K. Flechtheim  in the mid-1940s, who proposed it as a new branch of knowledge that would include a new science of probability. This term may have fallen from favor in recent decades because modern practitioners stress the importance of alternative and plural futures, rather than one monolithic future, and the limitations of prediction and probability, versus the creation of possible and preferable futures. 

Three factors usually distinguish futures studies from the research conducted by other disciplines (although all of these disciplines overlap, to differing degrees). First, futures studies often examines not only possible but also probable, preferable, and "wild card" futures. Second, futures studies typically attempts to gain a holistic or systemic view based on insights from a range of different disciplines. Third, futures studies challenges and unpacks the assumptions behind dominant and contending views of the future. The future thus is not empty but fraught with hidden assumptions. For example, many people expect the collapse of the Earth's ecosystem in the near future, while others believe the current ecosystem will survive indefinitely. A foresight approach would seek to analyse and so highlight the assumptions underpinning such views.

Futures studies does not generally focus on short term predictions such as interest rates over the next business cycle, or of managers or investors with short-term time horizons. Most strategic planning, which develops operational plans for preferred futures with time horizons of one to three years, is also not considered futures. Plans and strategies with longer time horizons that specifically attempt to anticipate possible future events are definitely part of the field.

The futures field also excludes those who make future predictions through professed supernatural means. At the same time, it does seek to understand the models such groups use and the interpretations they give to these models.

Probability and predictability[link]

Some aspects of the future, such as celestial mechanics, are highly predictable, and may even be described by relatively simple mathematical models. At present however, science has yielded only a special minority of such "easy to predict" physical processes. Theories such as chaos theory, nonlinear science and standard evolutionary theory have allowed us to understand many complex systems as contingent (sensitively dependent on complex environmental conditions) and stochastic (random within constraints), making the vast majority of future events unpredictable, in any specific case.

Not surprisingly, the tension between predictability and unpredictability is a source of controversy and conflict among futures studies scholars and practitioners. Some argue that the future is essentially unpredictable, and that "the best way to predict the future is to create it." Others believe, as Flechtheim, that advances in science, probability, modeling and statistics will allow us to continue to improve our understanding of probable futures, while this area presently remains less well developed than methods for exploring possible and preferable futures.

As an example, consider the process of electing the president of the United States. At one level we observe that any U.S. citizen over 35 may run for president, so this process may appear too unconstrained for useful prediction. Yet further investigation demonstrates that only certain public individuals (current and former presidents and vice presidents, senators, state governors, popular military commanders, mayors of very large cities, etc.) receive the appropriate "social credentials" that are historical prerequisites for election. Thus with a minimum of effort at formulating the problem for statistical prediction, a much reduced pool of candidates can be described, improving our probabilistic foresight. Applying further statistical intelligence to this problem, we can observe that in certain election prediction markets such as the Iowa Electronic Markets, reliable forecasts have been generated over long spans of time and conditions, with results superior to individual experts or polls. Such markets, which may be operated publicly or as an internal market, are just one of several promising frontiers in predictive futures research.

Such improvements in the predictability of individual events do not though, from a complexity theory viewpoint, address the unpredictability inherent in dealing with entire systems, which emerge from the interaction between multiple individual events.

Methodologies[link]

Futures practitioners use a wide range of models and methods (theory and practice), many of which come from other academic disciplines, including economics, sociology, geography, history, engineering, mathematics, psychology, technology, tourism, physics, biology, astronomy, and aspects of theology (specifically, the range of future beliefs).

One of the fundamental assumptions in futures studies is the future is plural not singular, that it consists of alternative futures of varying likelihood, but that it is impossible in principle to say with certainty which one will occur. The primary effort in Futures studies, therefore, is to identify and describe alternative alternative futures. This effort includes collecting quantitative and qualitative data about the possibility, probability, and desirability of change. The plurality of the term "futures" in futures studies denotes the rich variety of alternative futures, including the subset of preferable futures (normative futures), that can be studied.

Practitioners of the discipline previously concentrated on extrapolating present technological, economic or social trends, or on attempting to predict future trends, but more recently they have started to examine social systems and uncertainties and to build scenarios, question the worldviews behind such scenarios via the causal layered analysis method (and others) create preferred visions of the future, and use backcasting to derive alternative implementation strategies. Apart from extrapolation and scenarios, many dozens of methods and techniques are used in futures research (see below).

Futures studies also includes normative or preferred futures, but a major contribution involves connecting both extrapolated (exploratory) and normative research to help individuals and organisations to build better social futures amid a (presumed) landscape of shifting social changes. Practitioners use varying proportions of inspiration and research. Futures studies only rarely uses the scientific method in the sense of controlled, repeatable and falsifiable experiments with highly standardized methodologies, given that environmental conditions for repeating a predictive scheme are usually quite hard to control. However, many futurists are informed by scientific techniques. Some historians project patterns observed in past civilizations upon present-day society to anticipate what will happen in the future. Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West" argued, for instance, that western society, like imperial Rome, had reached a stage of cultural maturity that would inexorably lead to decline, in measurable ways.

Futures studies is often summarized as being concerned with "three Ps and a W", or possible, probable, and preferable futures, plus wildcards, which are low probability but high impact events (positive or negative), should they occur. Many futurists, however, do not use the wild card approach. Rather, they use a methodology called Emerging Issues Analysis. It searches for the seeds of change, issues that are likely to move from unknown to the known, from low impact to high impact.

Estimates of probability are involved with two of the four central concerns of foresight professionals (discerning and classifying both probable and wildcard events), while considering the range of possible futures, recognizing the plurality of existing alternative futures, characterizing and attempting to resolve normative disagreements on the future, and envisioning and creating preferred futures are other major areas of scholarship. Most estimates of probability in futures studies are normative and qualitative, though significant progress on statistical and quantitative methods (technology and information growth curves, cliometrics, predictive psychology, prediction markets, etc.) has been made in recent decades.

Futures techniques[link]

While forecasting – i.e., attempts to predict future states from current trends – is a common methodology, professional scenarios often rely on "backcasting": asking what changes in the present would be required to arrive at envisioned alternative future states. For example, the Policy Reform and Eco-Communalism scenarios developed by the Global Scenario Group rely on the backcasting method. Practitioners of futures studies classify themselves as futurists (or foresight practitioners).

Futurists use a diverse range of forecasting methods including:

Shaping alternative futures[link]

Futurists use scenarios – alternative possible futures – as an important tool. To some extent, people can determine what they consider probable or desirable using qualitative and quantitative methods. By looking at a variety of possibilities one comes closer to shaping the future, rather than merely predicting it. Shaping alternative futures starts by establishing a number of scenarios. Setting up scenarios takes place as a process with many stages. One of those stages involves the study of trends. A trend persists long-term and long-range; it affects many societal groups, grows slowly and appears to have a profound basis. In contrast, a fad operates in the short term, shows the vagaries of fashion, affects particular societal groups, and spreads quickly but superficially.

Sample predicted futures range from predicted ecological catastrophes, through a utopian future where the poorest human being lives in what present-day observers would regard as wealth and comfort, through the transformation of humanity into a posthuman life-form, to the destruction of all life on Earth in, say, a nanotechnological disaster.

Futurists have a decidedly mixed reputation and a patchy track record at successful prediction. For reasons of convenience, they often extrapolate present technical and societal trends and assume they will develop at the same rate into the future; but technical progress and social upheavals, in reality, take place in fits and starts and in different areas at different rates.

Many 1950s futurists predicted commonplace space tourism by the year 2000, but ignored the possibilities of ubiquitous, cheap computers, while Marxist expectations of utopia have failed to materialise to date. On the other hand, many forecasts have portrayed the future with some degree of accuracy. Current futurists often present multiple scenarios that help their audience envision what "may" occur instead of merely "predicting the future". They claim that understanding potential scenarios helps individuals and organizations prepare with flexibility.

Many corporations use futurists as part of their risk management strategy, for horizon scanning and emerging issues analysis, and to identify wild cards – low probability, potentially high-impact risks.^[4] Every successful and unsuccessful business engages in futuring to some degree – for example in research and development, innovation and market research, anticipating competitor behavior and so on.^[5][6]

Weak signals, the future sign and wild cards[link]

In futures research "weak signals" may be understood as advanced, noisy and socially situated indicators of change in trends and systems that constitute raw informational material for enabling anticipatory action. There is confusion about the definition of weak signal by various researchers and consultants. Sometimes it is referred as future oriented information, sometimes more like emerging issues. Elina Hiltunen (2007), in her new concept the future sign has tried to clarify the confusion about the weak signal definitions, by combining signal, issue and interpretation to the future sign, which more holistically describes the change.^[7]

"Wild cards" refer to low-probability and high-impact events, such as existential risks. This concept may be embedded in standard foresight projects and introduced into anticipatory decision-making activity in order to increase the ability of social groups adapt to surprises arising in turbulent business environments. Such sudden and unique incidents might constitute turning points in the evolution of a certain trend or system. Wild cards may or may not be announced by weak signals, which are incomplete and fragmented data from which relevant foresight information might be inferred. Sometimes, mistakenly, wild cards and weak signals are considered as synonyms, which they are not.^[8]

Near-term predictions[link]

A long-running tradition in various cultures, and especially in the media, involves various spokespersons making predictions for the upcoming year at the beginning of the year. These predictions sometimes base themselves on current trends in culture (music, movies, fashion, politics); sometimes they make hopeful guesses as to what major events might take place over the course of the next year.

Some of these predictions come true as the year unfolds, though many fail. When predicted events fail to take place, the authors of the predictions often state that misinterpretation of the "signs" and portents may explain the failure of the prediction.

Marketers have increasingly started to embrace futures studies, in an effort to benefit from an increasingly competitive marketplace with fast production cycles, using such techniques as trendspotting as popularized by Faith Popcorn.^{[dubious – discuss]}

Trend analysis and forecasting[link]

Mega-trends[link]

Trends come in different sizes. A mega-trend extends over many generations, and in cases of climate, mega-trends can cover periods prior to human existence. They describe complex interactions between many factors. The increase in population from the palaeolithic period to the present provides an example.

Potential trends[link]

Possible new trends grow from innovations, projects, beliefs or actions that have the potential to grow and eventually go mainstream in the future (for example: just a few years ago, alternative medicine remained an outcast from modern medicine. Now it has links with big business and has achieved a degree of respectability in some circles and even in the marketplace).

Branching trends[link]

Very often, trends relate to one another the same way as a tree-trunk relates to branches and twigs. For example, a well-documented movement toward equality between men and women might represent a branch trend. The trend toward reducing differences in the salaries of men and women in the Western world could form a twig on that branch.

Life-cycle of a trend[link]

When does a potential trend gain acceptance as a bona fide trend? When it gets enough confirmation in the various media, surveys or questionnaires to show it has an increasingly accepted value, behavior or technology. Trends can also gain confirmation by the existence of other trends perceived as springing from the same branch. Some commentators claim that when 15% to 25% of a given population integrates an innovation, project, belief or action into their daily life then a trend becomes mainstream.

History[link]

Futures studies emerged as an academic discipline in the mid-1960s, according to first-generation futurists Herman Kahn, Olaf Helmer, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Dennis Gabor, Oliver Markley, Burt Nanus, and Wendell Bell.^[9] However, some intellectual foundations of futures studies appeared in the mid-19th century. In 1997, Wendell Bell suggested that Comte's discussion of the metapatterns of social change presages futures studies as a scholarly dialogue.^[9]

Johan Galtung and Sohail Inayatullah^[10] go further back arguing in Macrohistory and Macrohistorians that the search for grand patterns of social change takes us back to Ssu-Ma Chien (145-90BC) and his theory of the cycles of virtue, though a more intelligible – to modern sociology – would be the work of Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) and his The Muqaddimah^[11] It is here that we gain a coherent theory of social change. One might make a stronger argument that futures studies as a field originated in the early 20th century, intertwined with the birth of systems science in academia, and with the idea of national economic and political planning, most notably in France, the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries.

Differing approaches arose in Western Europe (mostly in France), in Eastern Europe (including the Soviet Union), in the post-colonial developing countries, and in the United States of America.^[9][12] In the 1950s European people and nations continued to rebuild their war-devastated continent. In the process, academics, philosophers, writers, and artists explored what might constitute a long-term positive future for humanity as a whole, and for their own countries in particular. The Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries participated in the European rebuilding, but did so in the context of an established national economic planning process, which also required a long-term, systemic statement of social goals. The newly-independent developing countries of Africa and Asia faced the challenge of constructing industrial infrastructure from a minimal base, as well as constructing national identities with concomitant long-term social goals. By contrast, in the United States of America, futures studies as a discipline emerged from the successful application of the tools and perspectives of systems analysis, especially with regard to quartermastering the war-effort.

There is a perceived schism – though given the globalization of knowledge, generally no longer relevant – between futures studies in America and futures studies in Europe: U.S. practitioners often seem to focus on applied projects, quantitative tools and systems analysis, whereas Europeans seem to investigate the long-range future of humanity and the Earth, what might constitute that future, what symbols and semantics might express it, and who might articulate these.^[13][14]

With regard to futures studies within the former centrally-planned economies, or within the newly-developing countries, differences with U.S. futures practice exist primarily because futures researchers in the United States have no opportunity to engage in national planning, nor do their fellow-citizens call upon them to construct national symbols. This is changing in the early 21st century, as early signs of overshoot and collapse are apparent, and modern applications of futures studies techniques found in the UNESCO Sustainability Education materials.

By the late 1960s, enough scholars, philosophers, writers and artists around the world had begun to question and explore possible long-range futures for humanity to form an international dialogue. Inventors such as Buckminster Fuller also began highlighting the effect technology might have on global trends as time progressed. This discussion on the intersection of population growth, resource availability and use, economic growth, quality of life, and environmental sustainability – referred to as the "global problematique" – came to wide public attention with the publication of Limits to Growth, a study sponsored by the Club of Rome.^[15] This international dialogue became institutionalized in the form of the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), founded in 1967, with the noted sociologist, Johan Galtung, serving as its first president. In the United States, the publisher Edward Cornish, concerned with these issues, started the World Future Society, an organization focused more on interested laypeople.

The field currently faces the great challenge of creating a coherent conceptual framework, codified into a well-documented curriculum (or curricula) featuring widely-accepted and consistent concepts and theoretical paradigms linked to quantitative and qualitative methods, exemplars of those research methods, and guidelines for their ethical and appropriate application within society. As an indication that previously disparate intellectual dialogues have in fact started converging into a recognizable discipline,^[16] at least six solidly-researched and well-accepted first attempts to synthesize a coherent framework for the field have appeared: Eleonora Masini's Why Futures Studies,^[17] James Dator's Advancing Futures Studies,^[18] Ziauddin Sardar's Rescuing all of our Futures,^[19] Sohail Inayatullah's Questioning the future,^[20] Richard A. Slaughter's The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies,^[21] a collection of essays by senior practitioners, and Wendell Bell's two-volume work, The Foundations of Futures Studies.^[22]

Evolving the field – Programs in Futures Studies (by region)[link]

North America[link]

1975 saw the founding of the first graduate program in futures studies in the United States, the M.S. Program in Studies of the Future at the University of Houston–Clear Lake;^[23] there followed a year later the M.A. Program in Public Policy in Alternative Futures at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.^[24] The Hawaii program provides particular interest in the light of the schism in perspective between European and U.S. futurists; it bridges that schism by locating futures studies within a pedagogical space defined by neo-Marxism, critical political economic theory, and literary criticism. In the years following the foundation of these two programs, single courses in Futures Studies at all levels of education have proliferated, but complete programs occur only rarely. As a transdisciplinary field, futures studies attracts generalists. This transdisciplinary nature can also cause problems, owing to it sometimes falling between the cracks of disciplinary boundaries; it also has caused some difficulty in achieving recognition within the traditional curricula of the sciences and the humanities. In contrast to "Futures Studies" at the undergraduate level, some graduate programs in strategic leadership or management offer masters or doctorate programs in "Strategic Foresight" for mid-career professionals, some even online. Nevertheless, comparatively few new PhDs graduate in Futures Studies each year.11

Education[link]

Education in the field of futures studies has taken place for some time. Beginning in the United States of America in the 1960s, it has since developed in many different countries. Futures education can encourage the use of concepts, tools and processes that allow students to think long-term, consequentially, and imaginatively. It generally helps students to:

1. conceptualise more just and sustainable human and planetary futures.
2. develop knowledge and skills in exploring probable and preferred futures.
3. understand the dynamics and influence that human, social and ecological systems have on alternative futures.
4. conscientize responsibility and action on the part of students toward creating better futures.

Thorough documentation of the history of futures education exists, for example in the work of Richard A. Slaughter (2004),^[25] David Hicks, Ivana Milojević^[26] and Jennifer Gidley^[27][28][29] to name a few.

While futures studies remains a relatively new academic tradition, numerous tertiary institutions around the world teach it. These vary from small programs, or universities with just one or two classes, to programs that incorporate futures studies into other degrees, (for example in planning, business, environmental studies, economics, development studies, science and technology studies). Various formal Masters-level programs exist on six continents. Finally, doctoral dissertations around the world have incorporated futures studies. A recent survey documented approximately 50 cases of futures studies at the tertiary level.^[30]

The largest Futures Studies program in the world is at Tamkang University, Taiwan.^{[citation needed]} Futures Studies is a required course at the undergraduate level, with between three to five thousand students taking classes on an annual basis. Housed in the Graduate Institute of Futures Studies is an MA Program. Only ten students are accepted annually in the program. Associated with the program is the Journal of Futures Studies.^[31]

As of 2003, over 40 tertiary education establishments around the world were delivering one or more courses in futures studies. The World Futures Studies Federation^[32] has a comprehensive survey of global futures programs and courses. The Acceleration Studies Foundation maintains an annotated list of primary and secondary graduate futures studies programs.^[33]

Futurists[link]

Several authors have become recognized as futurists. They research trends (particularly in technology) and write accounts of their observations, conclusions, and predictions. In earlier eras, many of the futurists were attached to academic institutions. For example John McHale, author of The Future of the Future, published a 'Futures Directory', and directed a think tank called The Centre For Integrative Studies within the university setting. Recently, futurists have started consulting groups or earn money as speakers. Alvin Toffler, John Naisbitt and Patrick Dixon exemplify this class.

Many business gurus present themselves as pragmatic futurists. One prominent international "business futurist" is Frank Feather.

Some futurists share features in common with the writers of science fiction, and indeed some science-fiction writers, such as Arthur C. Clarke, have acquired a certain reputation as futurists. Others make a stricter separation between fiction and prediction. For example, in the introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin wrote of prediction as the business of prophets, clairvoyants, and futurists, not of writers: "a novelist's business is lying".

A survey of 108 futurists^[34] found the following shared assumptions:

1. We are in the midst of a historical transformation. Current times are not just part of normal history.
2. Multiple perspectives are at the very heart of futures studies. Multiple methods, finding ways out of the box of conventional thinking, internal critique, cross-civilisational conversations, are among the ways they are expressed.
3. Creation of alternatives. Futurists do not see themselves as merely value-free forecasters but as creators of alternative futures.
4. Participatory futures. Futurists generally see their role as liberating the future in each person. Creating enhanced public ownership of the future. This is true worldwide.
5. Long term policy transformation. While some are more policy-oriented than others, almost all believe that the work of the futurist is to shape public policy so it consciously and explicitly takes into account the long term.
6. Part of the process of creating alternative futures and of influencing public (corporate, or international) policy is internal transformation. There was no divide between institutional and inner transformation that one so often notices at international meetings. Futurists saw structural and individual factors as equally important.
7. Complexity. Futurists believe that a simple one-dimensional or single-discipline orientation is not satisfactory. Trans-disciplinary approaches that take complexity seriously are necessary. Systems thinking, particularly in its evolutionary dimension, is also seen as crucial.
8. Futurists in general were motivated by a passion for change. They are not content merely to describe the world, or to accurately forecast it. They desire to play an active role in transforming the world, or playing a part in its transformation.
9. The significance of hope cannot be stressed enough as a pivotal force in creating a better future.
10. However, even with hope as a "strange attractor", pragmatism is not lost sight of. Most believe they are pragmatists, living in this world, even as they imagine and work for another. Futurists understand that they are in a business or mission for the long term. Merely one article, book or vision does not make for transformation. Rather it is consistent effort over a life time that can help create a better world future generations.
11. Sustainability was a recurring theme. Sustainable futures, understood as making decisions that do not reduce the options of future generations, that thus include the long term, the impact of policies on nature, gender and the other, appears to be the accepted paradigm. This is so for the corporate futurist and the NGO. Moreover, sustainability, in its environmentalist sense, is reconciled with the technological, spiritual and post-structural ideal of transformation. Sustainability is not a "back to nature" ideal but rather is inclusive of technological and cultural change.

Application of foresight to specific fields[link]

Fashion and design[link]

Fashion is one area of trend forecasting. The industry typically works 18 months ahead of the current selling season. Large retailers look at the obvious impact of everything from the weather forecast to runway fashion for consumer tastes. Consumer behavior and statistics are also important for a long-range forecast.

Artists and conceptual designers, by contrast, may feel that consumer trends are a barrier to creativity. Many of these ‘Startists’ start micro trends but do not follow trends themselves.

Research centers[link]

Futurists and foresight thought leaders[link]

Books[link]

Periodicals and Monographs[link]

• International Journal of Forecasting
• Journal of Futures Studies
• State of the Future
• Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Organizations[link]

• The Foresight, Education & Research Network "FERN" is a global community of foresight students, alumni, faculty, employers, and advocates of graduate foresight education, employment, and research.
• Global Foresight Org lists communities, degree programs, courses, people, employers, organizations, and educational materials that help advance our global foresight culture. It can be edited by anyone who wants to help.

See also[link]

• Biocultural evolution
• List of emerging technologies
• Outline of future studies

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Bindé, J. (2001). Keys to the 21st century. New York: Berghahn Books.
• Bishop, Peter and Hines, Andy. (2006). Thinking about the Future: Guidelines for Strategic Foresight. Social Technologies, Washington, DC.
• Cornish, Edward (2004). Futuring: The exploration of the future. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society.
• Dixon, Patrick (1998,2003,2007). Futurewise: Six Faces of Global Change. Profile Books.
• Ferkiss, V. C. (1977). Futurology: promise, performance, prospects. A Sage policy paper. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Flechtheim, O. K. (1966). History and futurology. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain.
• Galtung, Johan and Inayatullah, Sohail. (1997). Macrohistory and Macrohistorians. Perspectives on individual, social and civilizational change. Westport, Ct, Praeger.
• Gidley, Jennifer (2007) The Evolution of Consciousness as a Planetary Imperative: An Integration of Integral Views, Integral Review: A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research and Praxis, 2007, Issue 5, p. 4-226.
• Gidley, Jennifer, Bateman, Debra., & Smith, Caroline. (2004). Futures in Education: Principles, Practices and Potential
• Gidley, Jennifer, & Inayatullah, Sohail (2002). Youth Futures: Comparative Research and Transformative Visions
• Godet, Michel (2004). Creating Futures Scenario Planning as a Strategic Management Tool. Economica, 2001.
• Goldsmith, Mike The Knowledge, Fantastic Future
• Gordon, Adam (2009). "Future Savvy," American Management Association Press, New York
• History & Mathematics: Analyzing and Modeling Global Development. Edited by Leonid Grinin, Victor C. de Munck, and Andrey Korotayev. Moscow: KomKniga, 2006. P.10-38. ISBN 978-5-484-01001-1.
• Hostrop, R. W. (1973). Foundations of futurology in education. [Homewood, Ill: ETC Publications].
• Inayatullah, Sohail (2007). Questioning the future: Methods and Tools for Organizational and Societal Transformation. Tamsui, Tamkang University. Third Edition.
• Inayatullah, Sohail, & Gidley, Jennifer. (Eds.). (2000). The University in Transformation: Global Perspectives on the Futures of the University
• de Jouvenel, Bertrand (1967). The Art of Conjecture. (New York: Basic Books, 1967).
• Lindgren, Mats and Bandhold, Hans (2003). Scenario Planning-the link between future and strategy. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire and New York.
• Lindgren, Mats et al. (2005). The MeWe Generation. Bookhouse Publishing, Stockholm, Sweden.
• McGaughey,William (2000). Five Epochs of Civilization: World History as Emerging in Five Civilizations. Minneapolis, Thistlerose.
• Retzbach, Roman (2005). Future-Dictionary – encyclopedia of the future, New York, USA.
• Rescher, Nicholas (1998). Predicting the future. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, ISBN 0-7914-3553-9.
• Rohrbeck, R., S. Mahdjour, S. Knab, T. Frese (2009) Benchmarking Report – Strategic Foresight in Multinational Companies Report of the European Corporate Foresight Group: Berlin, Germany.
• Schwarz, J.-O. (2008) Assessing the future of futures studies in management, Futures, Vol. 40, Iss. 3, 237-246.
• Shakhnazarov, G. K. (1982). Futurology fiasco: a critical study of non-Marxist concepts of how society develops. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
• Slaughter, Richard A. (1995), Futures for the Third Millennium. Prospect Media, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia, ISBN 1-86316-148-1.
• Slaughter, Richard A. (2004), Futures Beyond Dystopia: Creating Social Foresight. RoutledgeFarmer, London, UK, ISBN 978-0-415-30270-8
• Slaughter, Richard A. (2005). The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies Professional Edition CDROM. Foresight International, Indooroopilly, Australia
• Thompson, A. E. (1979). Understanding futurology: an introduction to futures study. Newton Abbot [Eng.]: David & Charles.
• Woodgate, Derek with Pethrick, Wayne R. (2004). Future Frequencies. Fringecore, Austin, Texas, USA

External links[link]

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of Futurology

• Future at the Open Directory Project

v t e Time Major concepts Time Eternity Arguments for eternity Immortality History Past Present Future Futures studies Deep time Time Portal Measurement and standards Chronometry UTC UT TAI Second Minute Hour Sidereal time Solar time Time zone Metric time Decimal time Hexadecimal time Clock Astrarium History of timekeeping devices Horology Marine chronometer Sundial Water clock Calendar Day Week Month Year Tropical year Gregorian Islamic Julian Intercalation Leap second Leap year Chronology Astronomical chronology Calendar era Chronicle Dating methodologies Geochronology Geologic Time Geological history Periodization Regnal year Timeline Religion and mythology Dreamtime Kāla Kalachakra Prophecy Time and fate deities Wheel of time Philosophy A-series and B-series B-Theory of time Causality Endurantism Eternal return Eternalism Event Perdurantism Presentism Temporal finitism Temporal parts The Unreality of Time Physical sciences Time in physics Absolute time and space Arrow of time Chronon Coordinate time Planck epoch Planck time Proper time Spacetime Theory of relativity Time dilation Gravitational time dilation Time domain T-symmetry Biology Chronobiology Circadian rhythms Psychology Mental chronometry Sense of time Specious present Sociology and anthropology Long Now Foundation Time discipline Time use research Economics Time value of money Time-based currency Time Banking Related topics Carpe diem Duration Space System time Tempus fugit Time capsule Time signature Time travel

This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please help rewrite it to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective. (November 2009)

Peter Bishop is a fictional character and the deuteragonist of the Fox television series Fringe. He is portrayed by Joshua Jackson.

Fictional character biography[link]

Peter Bishop was born in the year 1978, in the alternate universe, to parents Walter Bishop, also known as "Walternate", and his wife Elizabeth Bishop.^[1] In 1985, Peter acquired an extremely rare and savage genetic disease. His father, a brilliant scientist (in both universes), worked around-the-clock to save him.^[2]

Revealed in the episode "Peter", the Walter Bishop of the prime-universe watched his own son, the prime-universe version of Peter, die because of the same disease. He would frequently watch the other Peter living in the alternate universe via a "trans-dimensional window", which could allow someone to view the Other Side. Eventually, Walter formulated a compound and opened a doorway into the other universe, with the intentions of saving the other Peter from death. However, the vial containing the compound shattered on his way over to the Other Side, so he was forced to kidnap Peter, bring him over to the prime-universe, cure him, and then return him. But, after curing Peter on our side, he and his wife could not find themselves able to return him, so they raised him as their own.^[2]

Though at first resistant to this,^[3] Peter later grew up oblivious to Walter's deception, apparently forgetting it happened. He repeatedly told Olivia Dunham that he was never fond of his father, and even recalled times when Walter experimented on him. It is implied that Walter did this to see how Peter's body reacted to moving between universes. In 1991, Walter's lab assistant, Dr. Carla Warren, was killed in a fire in his lab, and Walter was locked away inside St. Claire's Mental Institution. Peter later admits to have never visited Walter, and continued to grow up despising his father. His hatred towards Walter grew to the point that Peter took books belonging to Robert Bishop, Walter's father, and sold them for money, an action that affected Walter greatly when he discovered this in 2009.^[4]

Even with his genius I.Q. level of 190,^[1] and fluency in English, Arabic, Persian, Cantonese, and Spanish, Peter became a college drop-out with gambling debts, a jack-of-all-trades, and a master con artist. He falsified a chemistry degree from M.I.T. and managed to publish a few papers before his con was discovered. The only time he spoke to Walter during his initial 17-year stay inside St. Claire's was when Walter phoned to tell him that Elizabeth had died in a car crash, though Peter later discovered that she actually committed suicide because of the guilt she carried from keeping him in this universe ("The Man From The Other Side").^[1][5] Alongside all of his questionable acts, Peter has trouble with the mafia. He owes an undisclosed amount of money to a mafia crime lord known as "Big Eddie", who has been hunting him down for some time.

Season One[link]

Peter was first seen setting up a business deal in Baghdad, Iraq when he was blackmailed by Olivia Dunham to gain access to his father. Peter releases Walter from St. Claire's so he can develop a cure for Olivia's lover, John Scott, though John is discovered to be a traitor^[6] (it is revealed in episode 1x13, "The Transformation", that John was actually an undercover agent working with the National Security Agency, and his love for Olivia was real).^[7]

For the majority of the early episodes, Peter despises working with his father, and in episode 1x04, The Arrival, he prepares to leave Boston for good. But, he comes in contact with The Observer known as "September", who appears to read Peter's mind. Following this incident, Peter realizes that "The Pattern" does actually exist, and vows to remain in Boston until he discovers the truth, becoming a civilian consultant for U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in the area of fringe science.^[8]

By the culmination of season one, Peter and Walter appear to have completely reconciled. Peter even builds his father a device that could repair his water-damaged records, in episode 1x19, "The Road Not Taken".^[9] By the first season finale, "There's More Than One of Everything", Walter reveals to Peter the existence of the alternate universe, without telling him that is where he was born. Peter plays a key role in stopping David Robert Jones from opening a door to Other Side, to kill William Bell, by closing the hole shut while Jones' body is only half-way through, slicing him in half. By this time, Walter begins leaving Peter notes explaining where he has run off to, making Peter remark to Astrid Farnsworth, "our little boy has grown up", solidifying his newfound love for his father.^[10]

Season Two[link]

In the beginning of season two, "A New Day in the Old Town", Olivia returns to the prime-universe after a visit to William Bell in the other dimension. She was gravely wounded on her way back, and was not expected to survive. Before she was taken off life-support, Olivia awoke from her coma and cryptically told Peter, "na eínai kalýtero ánthropo apó ton patéra sou", which is Greek for "be a better man than your father". Olivia did not remember saying this, or her experience on the Other Side, but this phrase appeared to affect Peter in some way.^[11] By episode 2x04, "Momentum Deferred", Olivia remembers meeting Bell in the other dimension, and learning of an impending war between both universes, and that an army of "shape-shifters" from the other side were working undercover in our world.^[12]

Peter and Walter's reconciliation reached it's peak in episode 2x10, "Grey Matters". Thomas Jerome Newton, the leader of the shape-shifters, kidnapped Walter and forced him to reveal how he safely opened an inter-dimensional doorway in 1985. Peter risked everything to rescue Walter, and was horrified at the thought of seeing him die.^[13] In the episode "Jacksonville", Walter reactivates Olivia's Cortexiphan abilities, allowing her to identify objects from the Other Side because of a distinctive "glimmer" they displayed. When she looked at Peter, he projected a "glimmer", making Olivia realize he came from the Other Side,^[14] but she eventually promised Walter that she wouldn't tell him the truth.^[15]

In the episode "The Man from the Other Side", Walter decided he had to let Peter know the truth, but, as he was about to explain, they were called in to investigate a case. They discover that Newton is attempting to bring something—or someone—from the other universe into our world. The sonic vibrations released from Newton's device would inevitably kill anyone from this universe. Peter, when attempting to foil Newton's plan, unexpectedly finds out that he is in fact, not from our universe. He is injured and while in the hospital, confronts Walter ("You said the effects of Newton's vibrations would be devastating. And they were, they...destroyed that FBI agent, they just...disintegrated him like he wasn't even there. But they didn't kill the man from the other side...and they didn't kill me. I'm not from here, am I?") and angrily blames Walter for his mother's (from our universe) suicide ("That's why my mother committed suicide, isn't it? She knew. Didn't she? And when I left, the guilt was too much for her to live with...the lie.") At the end of the episode, Olivia notifies Walter that Peter had checked out of the hospital and is now on the run to resume his isolated and nomadic pre-Fringe life. Despite attempts to track him down, Olivia is unable to locate him.^[5]

Peter travels to Washington state where he works with local police to solve a series of murders. Peter believes that Newton is responsible, but is proved wrong. However, Peter later finds Newton in his motel room, and Newton holds a gun to him. With Peter subdued, Newton calls out to "Mr. Secretary" (the man he pulled over from the Other Side) who comes from behind, revealing to be his real father, Walter (Walternate), from the other universe.^[16]

Peter agrees to accompany his real father to his home universe. He lies comatose for three days to acclimate to his old home and reunites with his real mother after waking up.^[17] Later, Peter reviews schematics of a machine (called the "Wave Sink" Device), which could heal his home universe, that requires his help for operation, but later learns from Olivia (who crossed over with Walter) that his real father intends to use the machine to destroy his adopted world. The Observers anticipated this outcome by warning Walter years ago that Peter should not return home. Additionally, September gives Olivia a drawing of a man, presumably Peter, in the machine and a closeup of Peter's face with energy emanating from his eyes. Olivia confesses her love for Peter, and they share a kiss. With this new information, Peter voluntarily returns to his adopted world with his adopted father and unknowingly with the parallel universe version of Olivia, while the Olivia from our side is held captive in the other world by Walternate.^[18]

Season Three[link]

After returning to his universe, Peter finds it difficult being able to accept Walter's reasons for kidnapping him. In 3x02, "The Box", Peter helps thwart a terrorist attack on a Boston train station; he discovers that the ultrasonic device used for the attack is part of the weapon Walternate showed him, making him realize there are pieces of it in this universe as well.^[19]

Peter also becomes romantically interested in "Fauxlivia" (the alternate Olivia), unaware that she is an impostor sent to manipulate him and Walter.^[19] Later in Season 3 in the episode "Entrada", Peter discovers the truth as prime-Olivia informs him of being trapped in the alternate Universe. After the prime universe Olivia returns, she tells Peter that her hopes of reuniting with him helped her to survive and come back, leaving Peter in a tricky situation regarding his feelings for Olivia.^[20] "Fauxlivia" returns to her home universe and finds herself 6 weeks pregnant, Walternate finds this good news as he thinks it will be able to bring Peter back.^[21] Peter is yet to find out about this but he will then really have to choose between the two Olivias.

In the episode "Marionette", prime-Olivia struggles with the thought that the man she loved could not realize Fauxlivia was an impostor. She angrily declares that she does not want to be with Peter anymore, claiming "she's (Fauxlivia) taken everything.^[22]

In the episode "6B" Peter and Olivia try to fix their relationship, but Olivia is scared because of how she sees him sometimes, "glowing" because he is from the parallel universe. She talks to him about it outside the bar opposite the apartment block but was interrupted by a soft spot glowing, because material from the parallel universe was being transferred. Olivia then talks to Peter and says she wants to know how 'beautiful' she and Peter are together, because Peter had previously said this, and then they end up together at the end of the episode.^[23]

In the episode "The Firefly", September and The Observers resurface, hoping to correct a mistake he made 25 years prior. In the ensuing chase between them, Peter corners September on a rooftop and asks what will happen to him, if the "doomsday machine" will in fact destroy both him and this universe. However, September only cryptically states, "it must be difficult, being a father", before shooting him with his "air gun", knocking him unconscious. At the end of the episode, September and another Observer, December, watch the Bishop house, and reveal the reason why they orchestrated the day's events—to see if Walter is finally able to let Peter die, which he apparently is. "And, now we know", September remarks, "when the time comes, he will be willing to do it again".^[24]

In the episode "Bloodline" Peter's son is born to Fauxlivia, unknown to Peter.^[25]

Much of Peter's story arc throughout the third season revolves around the doomsday device. Peter and the science team discovered that our side had another weapon, with the pieces scattered all over the world, which was originally constructed by "The First People", the first human species on Earth. They realize that Fauxlivia's mission on our side was to locate the pieces of the machine, as Walternate's device on the other side was flawed and missing components. In "Reciprocity", the science team visits a Massive Dynamic bunker, where they have been constructing the machine. When Peter approaches it, the machine is triggered, and his nose begins to bleed. Following this, Peter becomes "weaponized". According to Walter, the machine has begun to change Peter, driving him to extreme lengths to get the truth. As seen in "Reciprocity", Peter begins hunting down and murdering shape-shifters to gain information, and, when Walter confronts him about this, it is implied that he has perhaps accepted what will happen to him, and enjoys being different.^[26]

In "6:02 AM EST", Walternate activates the weapon on his side, using Peter and Fauxlivia's baby, Henry Dunham's, DNA. Through quantum entanglement, the weapon on this side is also actived, and, according to Sam Weiss, becomes "frustrated", after Peter attempts to enter it in an effort to prevent the destruction of this universe. Using Olivia's telekinetic powers, the weapon's protective force field is dropped, and Peter manipulates it, in 3x21, "The Last Sam Weiss". Whilst inside the machine, Peter's consciousness is propelled 15 years through time, arriving in the year 2026, outside the completed One World Trade Center.

In the season three finale, "The Day We Died", set in 2026, the now-47 year old Peter, a leading member of a more militarized Fringe Division, is married to Olivia, who has taken Broyles' place as commanding officer. In this future, after Peter entered the machine, he destroyed the Other Side, before Walternate could return to our side, and beg for mercy, effectively becoming stuck in the prime universe. But, Fringe Division later realized that both universes were eternally linked, and by destroying one, it would only be a matter of time before the side remaining would also cease to exist. Walter was sent to prison, after being judged as the man who caused the inevitable destruction of our side. A rogue terrorist organization, called the "End-of-Dayers", led by a mysterious man called "Moreau", played by Brad Dourif, have built devices which are able to shred open soft spots, creating holes in the fabric of the universe, to hasten the "end of days".

Peter is able to get the now-Senator Broyles to temporarily release Walter from prison, to help stop the End-of-Dayers. In the midst of their investigation, Peter discovers the End-of-Dayers and Moreau are working for Walternate, who has been AWOL for fifteen years, since his side's destruction. He tracks Walternate down to his old beach home on Reiden Lake, where Walternate explains that he plans on destroying this side, using the End-of-Dayers as a means to an end. Peter tries to plea with his birth father to stop this genocide, and tries to peacefully arrest him, but Walternate is in fact only a hologram, put there to lure Peter away from Olivia. The real Walternate then finds Olivia at the wormhole in Central Park, where Moreau activated another device, and shoots her in the head, killing her.

Following the emotional funeral for Olivia, Peter becomes a devastated alcoholic. Walter, who continued to investigate the mysterious wormhole in Central Park, which was in fact a tunnel through time, discovers the mystery behind the First People, and an opportunity to save both sides once and for all. As he explains to Peter, the First People are actually them, who sent the machine's components back in time via the wormhole, to the late Paleozoic era (542 to 251 million years ago), where the Fringe Division of 2011 would eventually unearth them later. Walter concocts the plan to bring Peter's mind from 2011 into his 2026 body, where he would witness the end of days, before returning him, with the hopes that the younger Peter would make a different choice, than destroying the Other Side. After the 2011-Peter experiences life in 2026, he returns to 2011, and uses the machine to create a "bridge" between both worlds, where both Walters, and both Olivias, can hopefully forget their differences to save the multiverse. However, before he can fully explain their mission, Peter mysteriously disappears, and the others forget about him entirely, but remain dedicated to saving their worlds. A conversation between September and December reveals they forgot about Peter because he "never existed", as he "fulfilled his purpose".

Season Four[link]

Because of Peter's "erasure" from existence, a new timeline develops, which while very similar to the original one, contains slight differences. Just as happened in the original timeline, Walter was locked away in St. Claire's Mental Hospital for seventeen years, until Olivia Dunham had him released in order to help her partner and lover John Scott. However, without Peter there, they were unable to save John's life. The Fringe Division of the prime-universe is still formed after this, but the characters all have subtle personality differences. Also, other events which Peter only had a slight hand in are erased entirely, such as the prime-universe version of Lincoln Lee's first meeting with the Fringe Division.

Olivia lives with the constant feeling that something is missing from her life, and joined Fringe Division because she believed it would help her find answers. As a result of this, she has a much colder personality, and maintains an openly hostile relationship with double, Fauxlivia. She also managed to kill her father (whereas in the original timeline she only wounded him), and was adopted by Nina Sharp, who continues to be a maternal figure in her life.

Without Peter's presence, Walter has even less of a grip of reality, becoming agoraphobic, afraid to leave the lab, hypersensitive to germs that may or may not be there, and prone to destructive "episodes". In order to cope with this, he has Astrid examine crime scenes while wearing an ear-mounted microphone and video camera, while he watches. He also sets up a bed in the lab, with an FBI agent stationed outside whenever he sleeps. Olivia appears to have a calming effect on him, and their relationship is more gentle and crutch-like than in the original timeline.

In Neither Here Nor There, September the Observer is instructed by his superior to erase all memories of Peter that still remain despite the timeline's change. While September constructs the necessary device, brief apparitions of Peter begin appearing to his former colleagues. However, they are so brief that most do not notice, with the exception of Walter, who becomes so terrified that he hides in his sensory deprivation tank. His colleagues do not believe him due to his fragile mental state. Once the device is constructed however, September decides not to activate it, and Walter sees a reflection of Peter in the screen of his television, causing him to panic. The "hallucinations" continue, and become auditory, which Peter pleading with Walter to help him. This pushes Walter to the brink, and Olivia finds him about to lobotomize himself as a result. It is at that point revealed that she has dreams of Peter, and the two agree to try and find him, though they don't know who he is or why he is appearing to them.

The situation comes to a head when a strange force appears to Olivia several times. They first think that it's another Cortexiphan child, but at the end of the episode, it is revealed to be Peter. He resurfaces (quite literally) in Raiden Lake, and is taken to the hospital, where, much to the confusion of the Fringe Division, he asks for Olivia and Walter, and reveals knowledge that no citizen should know.

After revealing his knowledge the technology the new breed of shapeshifters are using, he is brought into the Fringe Division under heavy supervision. His presence is emotionally painful to Walter, who reveals that, in this timeline, Peter died when the ice broke after they crossed over from the other universe. While he seems to believe Peter's claims, he doesn't consider himself worthy of having his son returned. Though he briefly expresses joy and wonder at seeing Peter, he quickly states that he doesn't deserve it, and that Peter was never Walter's son, leaving Peter frustrated and heartbroken. His presence also confuses Olivia, who treats him as a stranger. However, time paradoxes have begun to form, apparently as a consequence of his return. After fixing the time paradoxes, Peter concludes that this timeline is not "his", not the one he knows with the people he knows, and he wants to go to the machine again, certain that it will take him back to "his own" timeline.

Lincoln Lee later asks him if he had a relationship in the original timeline with Olivia, as Lee wishes to pursue Olivia romantically, but does not want to insult Peter if he already has a relationship with her. Peter reassures him that "She's not (his) Olivia" and therefore he has no objection to Lee pursuing her. He even purchases Lee a new pair of glasses more stylish than his current one, in order to help him.

After making numerous requests, he is continually denied access to the machine and becomes increasingly desperate to return home. He confronts Walter and demands his help, but Walter emphatically refuses, as the previous time he tried to save a version of Peter, his wife committed suicide, and he lost his career and sanity. Out of options, Peter concludes that his best hope is Walternate. However, he is denied access to the newly created "bridge", but Olivia and Lincoln offer to help him cross over using Walter's portal, which in the new timeline was recovered by Massive Dynamic after it sunk to the bottom of Reiden Lake after Walter originally crossed over. Olivia and Lincoln desire his help to gather intelligence on the alternate universe, especially regarding a new and dangerous form of human-shapeshifters, which they believe are under the direction of Walternate. Peter refuses, as he believes he is neutral in the conflict and helping them would make Walternate less likely to help him.

After crossing over, Lincoln and Peter make a failed attempt to gain access to Walternate and are captured by the alternate Fringe Division. However, en route to being interrogated, their driver receives a mysterious call and kills his fellow officer and attempts to frame them for the crime and execute them. However, they are able to overpower and kill him, with Lee leading the pursuing Fringe Division of a chase as a diversion so Peter can escape. He visits his mother Elizabeth Bishop, and after convincing her of his identity, gains access to Walternate.

Walternate reveals that he has been aware of Peter's reappearance in the timeline as he has been monitoring the intelligence feeds from the Prime Universe. Peter accuses him of creating the new shapeshifters and asks for his help in returning home. Walternate summons his lead scientist Brandon and asks him for confirmation that Walternate created them. Brandon denies it and Walternate unexpectedly shocks him unconscious with a special device, revealing him as a shapeshifter. He explains to Peter that he the shapeshifters have infiltrated his government, and that he has no reliable way of detecting them, as the device he used on Brandon is fatal to humans. He also reveals that he had nothing to do with the Fringe agent who attempted kill Peter and Lincoln. He asks for Peter's help in assuring the Prime Universe that he is not responsible for the new shapeshifters and asking for their help, as he believes that Peter's neutrality in the conflict makes him trustworthy. He promises Peter that he will help him return home in return for his help dealing with the threat. In the latest episode, something is going on with Olivia. She started to remember things from the actual Olivia from seasons prior to this. At the end of the episode, this Olivia kisses Peter, as though they are in a relationship. Peter is freaked out by this, and we are left in a cliff hanger.

Personality[link]

Peter has been described as a "sort of jack of all trades", and also as a "brilliant person" who possesses "a lot of his father's innate intelligence".^[27] He is often the first person to note how insane the proposed experiments sound and tries to find logical explanations often where there are none. When he is first introduced, Peter is callous and cold to Olivia, showing little concern for Agent Scott, but he grows to become more sympathetic as details of his unhappy and often traumatic childhood are revealed. He often maintains a sardonic, cynical demeanor, but has proven time and time again to have a heart of gold. In addition, he has become far more enthusiastic about the work Fringe Division does, and his thought process has realigned itself to suit that.

Relationships[link]

Prior to the pilot, Peter did not have a close relationship with his father, Walter. As a result, Peter grew up turning his back on science, the career field of his father.^[27] While the relationship has had many ups and downs, Peter has grown to trust and admire Walter, and consider him to be his (Peter's) father.

He also begins a relationship with Olivia.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Peter Bishop at the Internet Movie Database

John Smart
John Smart circa 1795 – 1800
Born	circa 1740 Norfolk, England
Died	1811
Nationality	English
Field	Painter of Portrait Miniatures

John Smart (painter) (c. 1740 – 1811), was an English painters of portrait miniatures. He was a contemporary of Richard Cosway, George Engleheart, William Wood and Richard Crosse.

Biography[link]

Smart was born in Norfolk, but not much is known of his early life. It is recorded that in 1755 he was runner up to Richard Cosway in a drawing competition for under-14s held by the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. In the same year he began attending the new drawing school of William Shipley in London, along with Cosway and Richard Crosse.

He exhibited at the Society of Artists, in London, from 1762 onwards; and became its president in 1778. He went to India in 1788 and obtained a number of commissions in that country. He settled down in London in 1797, and died there in 1811.

He was a man of simple habits, and a member of the Society of Sandemanians.

Work[link]

Smart mainly painted watercolour miniatures on ivory, and often clearly signed and dated his work. A number of his preparatory drawings and sketches survive.

His work is entirely different from that of Cosway, quiet and grey in its colouring, with the flesh tints elaborated with much subtlety and modelled in exquisite fashion. He possessed a great knowledge of anatomy, and his portraits are drawn with greater anatomical accuracy and possess more distinction than those of any miniature painter of his time.

Many of his pencil drawings still exist in the possession of the descendants of a great friend of his only sister. Several of his miniatures are in Australia and belong to a cadet branch of the family.

Personal life[link]

Smart married Edith Vere, and is believed to have had only one son, who died in Madras in 1809.

Examples of Smart's work[link]

• John Smart - Portrait of Unknown Man - Dated 1767 - Victoria & Albert Museum.jpg

  John Smart - Portrait of Unknown Man - Dated 1767 - Victoria & Albert Museum

• John Smart - Portrait of the Hon Miss Eliza Booth - Dated 1766 - Victoria & Albert Museum.jpg

  Portrait of the Hon Miss Eliza Booth - Dated 1766 - Victoria & Albert Museum

• John Smart - Portrait of Unknown Woman - Dated 1779 - Victoria & Albert Museum.jpg

  John Smart - Portrait of Unknown Woman - Dated 1779 - Victoria & Albert Museum

• John Smart - Portrait of Unknown Woman - Dated 1780 - Victoria & Albert Museum.jpg

  John Smart - Portrait of Unknown Woman - Dated 1780 - Victoria & Albert Museum

• John Smart - Portrait of a Member of the Tayler Family - Dated 1787 - Victoria & Albert Museum.jpg

  John Smart - Portrait of a Member of the Tayler Family - Dated 1787 - Frame with bracelet fitting - Victoria & Albert Museum

• Sir-robert-brooke-st-helena.jpg

  Sir Robert Brooke probably c.1788, by John Smart

• 

  Watercolor on ivory portrait miniature of a lady by John Smart, 1782, 5.1 x 4.1 cm, Cincinnati Art Museum

References[link]

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. 

Further reading[link]

Wikisource has the text of the 1885–1900 Dictionary of National Biography's article about Smart, John.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: John Smart

• GC Williamson, The History of Portrait Miniatures, vol. ii. (London, 1904).
• Foskett, Daphne (1987). Miniatures: Dictionary and Guide. London: Antique Collectors' Club. ISBN 1-85149-063-9. 

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (February 2012)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)

Duane Elgin (2010)

Duane Elgin is an American author, speaker, educator, consultant, and trans-partisan media activist.

Life and Work[link]

Duane Elgin was born in 1943 and grew up on a family farm a few miles from the small town of Wilder, Idaho. Helping his family grow an apple orchard as well as diverse row crops kept him busy working with the land until he was 23. He attended the Sorbonne in Paris for one semester (1963) and graduated with a liberal arts BA from the College of Idaho in 1966. He then received an MBA from the Wharton School of Business in 1968, and an MA in economic-history from the University of Pennsylvania in 1969.

In the early 1970s, Elgin worked as a senior staff member of a joint “Presidential-Congressional Commission on Population Growth the American Future” in Washington, D.C. The task of the Commission was to look ahead from 1970 to 2000 and explore challenges of urbanization and population growth.

Elgin then moved to California and worked as a senior social scientist with the “futures group” at the major think-tank, the Stanford Research Institute (later to become SRI International). There he co-authored numerous studies of the long-range future for clients ranging from foundations and key government agencies to major corporations; for example, Anticipating Future National and International Problem Areas (for the President’s Science Advisor), Alternative Futures for Environmental Policy Planning (for the Environmental Protection Agency), and Limits to the Management of Large, Complex Systems (for the President’s Science Advisor). (See citations below in writing section.)

Recognizing the challenges to sustainable living in years ahead, and inspired by years of meditation and study of wisdom-traditons, Elgin co-authored the report Voluntary Simplicity with Arnold Mitchell. Published by SRI International and their Business Intelligence Program in June 1976 (No. 1004), the report circulated widely. The report was republished in an expanded version with a survey in the Co-Evolution Quarterly in 1977. In response to the survey, more than a thousand pages of letters were returned. These first-hand accounts became an important part of the book Voluntary Simplicity, published in 1981. Significantly revised editions were published in 1993 and 2010.

Years of institutional work on the challenges facing humanity left Elgin feeling he was perpetuating the status quo. Consequently, Elgin left SRI International in 1977 and, after a half-year of intensive meditation in 1977 - 1978, he has worked independently and collaboratively since then for a more sustainable and promising future.

In the 1980s, Elgin co-founded two non-profit and trans-partisan organizations concerned with media accountability and citizen empowerment. The national organization was called “Choosing Our Future” and the San Francisco Bay Area organization was called “Bay Voice.” Their mission was to give all citizens a larger voice in their community by using the public airwaves for mature, citizen dialogues or interactive ‘Electronic Town Meetings.’ (See below under ‘Media Activism.’) Elgin continues to write, speak, and encourage trans-partisan citizen organizing for using the mass media to support a new level of citizen dialogue about our common future.

Elgin has also pioneered in the field of online learning with more than two-dozen presentations and courses offered to colleges and audiences around the world.

In 2012, Elgin and a small team launched the non-profit organization and integrative website, Great Transition Stories whose mission is: 1) to gather leading-edge scholarship and wisdom that can help us understand our time of great transition and offer beacons of hope for a promising future and, 2) to make that wisdom available widely to educators, the general public, green businesses, storytellers, and more. Great Transition Stories is an open-source collaboration. For an overview, see: “Change the Story to Change the World”.

Writing[link]

Long Range Futures Research[link]

• Elgin began his work in futures research while working for nearly two years on the staff of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Washington, D. C., 1972.

• Co-author, Alternative Futures for Environmental Policy Planning: 1975 – 2000, prepared by SRI International, Menlo Park, California, for the Environmental Protection Agency, 286 pages, 1975, Contract NSF/STP 76-02573.

• Co-author, Assessment of Future National and International Problem Areas, prepared by SRI International, Menlo Park, California, for the National Science Foundation, 1977, 112 pages, NSF/STP76-02573.

• Elgin, Duane, Limits to the Management of Large, Complex Systems, prepared for the National Science Foundation by SRI International, Menlo Park, California, 1977, 77 pages, Contract NSF/STP76-02573.

Sustainable and Thriving Ways of Living[link]

• Elgin, Duane, Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life That Is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich, (published in three editions, 1981, 1993, 2010), 240 pages, Harper, January 5, 2010, ISBN 978-0-06-177926-8.

• Co-author with Arnold Mitchell, Voluntary Simplicity for the Long Range Planning Service and Business Intelligence Program at SRI International, Menlo Park, California, June 1976, 17 pages, Report No. 1004.

• Co-author and project director, City Size and the Quality of Life: An Analysis of the Policy Implications of Continued Population Concentration, prepared by the Stanford Research Institute for the National Science Foundation and United States Senate, Washington, D. C., 142 pages, 1974, NSF Contract GI.138462.

• Contributor (Foreword) to the book Ecovillage at Ithaca: Pioneering a Sustainable Culture, by Liz Walker, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005, 256 pages, ISBN 978-0-86571-524-0.

• Contributor to Less is More, Cecile Andrews and Wanda Urbanska (eds.), “Voluntary Simplicity: Cool Lifestyle for a Hot Planet,” Canada: New Society Publishers, 2009, 288 pages, ISBN 978-0-86571-650-6.

• Elgin has written a number of blogs for Huffington Post on the theme of simplicity and sustainability; including: Simplicity is Not Sacrifice!, 6/7/11, Thriving in a Post-Consumerist Society, 6/12/11, Eight Expressions of Simplicity for Healthy Living, 8/15/11, and Four Misconceptions About the Simple Life, 8/27/11.

The Big Picture of the Human Journey[link]

• Elgin, Duane, Awakening Earth: Exploring the Evolution of Human Culture and Consciousness, published by Wm. Morrow, 1993, 372 pages, ISBN 978-0-688-11621-7.

• Elgin, Duane, Promise Ahead: A Vision of Hope and Action for Humanity’s Future, published by Wm. Morrow (now Harper), 2000, 224 pages, ISBN 0-688-17191-5.

• Co-author: Elgin worked with a small team of scholars, including Joseph Campbell, to co-author the major report, Changing Images of Man, prepared by the Stanford Research Institute for the Kettering Foundation, 1974, and published as a book by the same title by Pergamon Press in 1981, 286 pages, ISBN 978-0-08-024313-9.

• Contributor, Science, Wisdom, and the Future: Humanity's Quest for a Flourishing Earth, Cheryl Genet, et. al., eds. "New Ways of Living," and "A New Story for the Human Journey," plus an extended quote, "Time is Up!" by Duane Elgin for the Collins Foundation Press, 2012, 434 pages, ISBN 978-0-9788441-7-2

• Author, Global Consciousness Change: Indicators of an Emerging Paradigm, prepared by Duane Elgin with Coleen LeDrew for the Fetzer Institute, the State of the World Forum, The Institute of Noetic Sciences, The California Institute of Integral Studies, and the Brande Foundation, 38 pages, 1997.

The Universe as a Living System[link]

• Elgin, Duane, The Living Universe: Where Are We? Who Are We? Where Are We Going?, published by Berrett-Koehler, 2009, 199 pages, ISBN 978-1-57675-969-1.

• In 1988, Elgin published the extended article, Author, “The Living Cosmos: A Theory of Continuous Creation” published in the journal ReVision, Volume 11, No. 1, Washington, D. C., Heldref Publications, 19 pages, Summer 1988.

• Elgin, Duane, "The Paradigm of a Living Universe", published in 2000 in the Journal of World Futures and presents a scholarly summary of his cosmology.

• Contributor to: Cosmic Conversations: Dialogues on the Nature of the Universe and the Search for Reality, Stephan Martin (ed.), “The Universe as a Living System: An Interview with Duane Elgin,” Career Press, 2009, 286 pages, ISBN 978-1-60163-077-3.

• Contributor to Thomas Berry, Dreamer of the Earth, Ervin Laszlo and Allan Combs (eds.), “The Double Life of Thomas Berry: Emergence and Evolution,” Inner Traditions, 2011, 144 pages, ISBN 978-1-59477-395-2.

• Elgin has also written a series of blogs for Huffington Post on themes including science and spirituality, preparing for death, and more. For example: Consciously Recognizing Ourselves Before We Die, 5/16/11, Science and Spirit Converge in the Now, 5/29/11, Humanity's Second Spiritual Age, 6/5/11, and Can Death Become Your Ally?, 7/3/11.

Media Activism[link]

Over the past thirty years, Duane Elgin has co-founded two non-profit and trans-partisan organizations working for media accountability regarding the communication needs of citizens. He has worked to co-create a trans-partisan ‘community voice’ movement using the television airwaves that, in the U.S., the public legally owns in each metropolitan area. In 1981, he co-founded “Choosing Our Future,” a national organization with members in 26 states. COF objected to the renewal of licenses of all the major broadcast TV stations in the San Francisco Bay Area on the grounds they were not serving the communication needs of citizens. After the FCC sided with broadcasters and renewed their licenses, Choosing Our Future then created an inclusive, trans-partisan "community voice" organization called "Bay Voice." In 1987 these organizations put an interactive Electronic Town Meeting on the air in the Bay Area during prime-time, working with the local ABC television station. The “ETM” was seen by over 300,000 persons and six votes were taken from a pre-selected, random sample of Bay Area citizens. By the end of the hour, the sentiments of the Bay Area public were quite clear and the Electronic Town Meeting demonstrated the ability of a major metropolitan community to have a meaningful dialogue. Also, see for example, “Revitalizing Democracy Through Electronic Town Meetings” in the journal of state government, Spectrum. Elgin has written extensively on themes of media and democracy since the 1980s. Recent blogs on Huffington Post include, The Power of a Community Voice Movement, Occupy the Airwaves!, and Can Television Help Awaken a Healthy World?

Videos[link]

• Pete and Duane’s Window is a series of seven, half-hour programs produced in 2009 and 2010 that explores our world in transition and includes topics such as: conscious evolution, global trends, mass media and mass consciousness, and more. Peter Russell (author of The Global Brain) and Duane Elgin co-host.

• The Living Universe: In this short video produced in 2009, Elgin takes us on a journey to explore what kind of universe we live in? Who are we? Where are we?

• Is Humanity Growing Up: In this mini-documentary produced in 2006, Elgin looks at the human species and asks, What is our collective level of maturity?

• Bounce or Crash: Will Humanity Wake up in Time? A mini-documentary produced in 2006 where Elgin explores humanity’s choice to either pull apart in conflict or to pull together in cooperation.

• The Human Journey, A mini-documentary produced in 2006 where Elgin looks at human evolution through the lens of the ‘Hero's Journey.’

• Before War: Elgin produced, directed and edited this half-hour video in 1992 for MPAC (Mid-Penninsula Public Access) TV in Palo Alto, California, interviewing six professionals working in the area of conflict resolution and offering diverse, non-violent ways of responding to the crisis in Iraq and the middle-east.

Honors[link]

• Goi Peace Award: In 2006 Elgin received the annual Goi International Peace Award in Japan in recognition of his contribution to a global “vision, consciousness, and lifestyle” that fosters a “more sustainable and spiritual culture.” (Other awardees include: Bill Gates, Deepak Chopra, and Oscar Arias.)

• Honorary Doctorate: In 2001 Elgin was awarded an honorary PhD for work in “ecological and spiritual transformation” from the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco. He is also a member of the CIIS “Council of Sages.”

• Dalogues with the Dalai Lama: In 1999, a group of roughly 30 'evolutionary leaders' met with the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, India over a period of five days to explore Synthesis Dialogues and themes of the new paradigm and building a sustainable and a spiritual future for humanity.

• Visiting Scholar: Elgin has been a visiting scholar at Denison University in Ohio in May, 2004 (for a 5-day workshop on theme of “Simplicity and Envisioning a Positive Future”). He has also been a 'distinguished scholar' at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida in 2012 where he spoke to both public and student audiences about our time of "great transition."

• Visionary: Duane Elgin was described in April 2009 by the Ecologist Magazine of the UK as one of the ten leading visionaries with “big ideas for a better world.”

External links[link]

• Official website for Duane Elgin
• Great Transition Stories website
• Primary blog site for Duane on Huffington Post
• Pete and Duane’s Window, a series of half-hour programs.

See also[link]

• Voluntary Simplicity
• Simple Living
• Conscious Evolution
• Collective Consciousness
• Alternative Futures
• Richard Gregg
• E. F. Schumacher
• Joseph Campbell

This article about a United States writer of non-fiction is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e