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