Futures Tools to Envision a Post-Growth World

Image generated by Stanley Yang with Generative AI

VUCA, BANI, RUPT, TUNA…What’s the way out?

A cup of lavender tea in hand, I doom-scroll TikTok for about an hour or so before bed. Makeup tutorials, memes, cooking videos and the occasional news article reminding me of how terrible the world is. I wake up to check my X feed. Ah! A new technological advancement! One more sector down. I still have about three years in university left, I wonder to myself if the concept of ‘employment’ as I know now will still exist by the time I graduate. Regardless of the state of the world, I still have my errands to run. Before going about my day, I slather myself in sunscreen and ensure my portable mini fan is fully charged. The heat has been unbearable in Singapore. I wonder if the golden days are behind us.

Is it a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) or a BANI (brittle, anxious, non-linear, incomprehensible) world? I’ve also heard that RUPT (rapid, unpredictable, paradoxical, tangled) is the new thing, right up there with TUNA (turbulent, uncertain, novel, ambiguous)^[1]. Whichever acronym you choose to abide by, one thing is clear- the contours of our existence is blurring into a disorienting mosaic of challenges.

It is easy to get caught up in the doom-and-gloom narratives that pervade the everyday. Equally tempting is to simply opt out of the world, to retreat into the comforting embrace of cognitive dissonance, as it shields us from the harsh realities unfolding around us. Why invite the discomfort of confronting the uncomfortable and seemingly monolithic, when ignorance and status-quo preservation is far more palatable? No harm, no foul — it is a perfectly understandable reaction in response to the overwhelming enormity of the challenges we face, and the insurmountable nature of the systems that perpetuate them.

Indeed, the current socio-economic paradigm has been woven so intricately into the very fabric of our existence that it feels near impossible to envision a world beyond its confines. Yet, it is precisely in such moments of crisis and uncertainty that we must try.

In this essay, I propose the use of futures thinking as a tool to defy the inertia of the present and assist us in imagining better, alternate futures. While it is commonly associated with businesses and governments anticipating and preparing for uncertain futures, these tools can be repurposed to help activists, communities, and individuals imagine and create alternate narratives and action plans.

This essay will examine how three key futures thinking methods — deliberative visioning, back-casting, and the three horizons framework — particularly through the rising movement of post-growth.

It’s time for a rethink

Post-growth (or degrowth, as it is more commonly known) speaks to the primary contradictions of our time. As our current economic system seeks infinite growth on a finite planet, we find ourselves mired in various crises — environmental, economic, and social^[2]. Post-growth encourages a radical rethinking of this unsustainable paradigm. It does not imply a regression or a decline, but a reorientation towards values and systems that prioritise sustainability, equity, and human flourishing. It is the reconciliation of the modern economy and the unflinching reality of ecological and resource constraints. Proponents of post-growth argue that our pursuit for economic growth has reached its limits, leading to diminishing returns in terms of happiness and quality of life.

“Money can’t buy happiness”. That is true, to a certain degree^[3]. Some money can buy you a house, a car, a healthcare plan, and food. But at some point, the novelty of it all fades, and especially so if that money comes at the cost of time. The idea is captured in the economic concept of diminishing marginal utility where beyond a certain point, additional income or material wealth does not contribute proportionally to one’s happiness and wellbeing.

What is the result of a society infected with the dogged pursuit of growth, productivity, and achievement? According to Byung-Chul Han, the answer is burnout. He delineates two kinds of tiredness^[4].

1. “I-tiredness”, the type of solitary tiredness from working all day alone at a desk. The sort of exhaustion which pushes others away. ‘I am tired of you’.

2. “We-tiredness”, the type of reconciliatory tiredness from communal activities. The sort of exhaustion shared with others. ‘I am tired with you’.

Post-growth asserts that “we-tiredness” is what we should seek to centre our lives around. The form of tiredness from a day spent on meaningful, social activities. Think sunny days at the beach with friends. Picking up hobbies such as pottery. Parents spending the day with their children. That feeling of satisfied exhaustion from a day of volunteering. Contrast the above examples of “we-tiredness” to “I-tiredness”, referring to the kind of fatigue after working a full day plus overtime isolated in an air-conditioned office, only to get home haggard with no energy for anything or anyone.

Post-growth challenges us to redefine progress, prosperity, and growth decoupled from narrow economic metrics. That growth should not be just for (economic) growth’s sake, but in order to lead purposeful and meaningful lives.

Therefore, the post-growth movement posits three broad goals^[5].

1. Reduce environmental impact of human activities. This involves transitioning to sustainable practices in energy, production, and consumption that respects planetary boundaries

2. Emancipation from certain undesirable ideologies (extractivism, neoliberalism, consumerism etc.)

3. A society grounded in autonomy, sufficiency, and care. This goal emphasises community, well-being, and quality of life over material accumulation.

Post-growth is not about having less, but having enough, and wanting something different. It is a hopeful ideology, but a truly ‘post-growth future’ is still nebulous in definition and hard to imagine.

How to imagine a post-growth future?

Here is where we can tap onto the immense power of futures thinking. I highlight three tools commonly used in futures work that can aid in envisioning post-growth futures.

First step: Deliberate visioning

Maslow’s work pioneered the notion that ordinary individuals possess dreams and aspirations that are not only attainable, but also essential for personal fulfilment. After basic needs (food, shelter, and safety) are met, people are naturally inclined to pursue higher aspirations such as self-actualisation. As he states: “the study of motivation must be in part the study of ultimate human goals or desires or needs”^[6]. In other words, goals and visions of the future are the key drivers motivating present actions and behaviour.

Deliberative visioning (DV) is an inclusive and multi-stakeholder process of figuring out what makes a ‘desirable future’. Psychologically, it liberates discussion from the burden of the present, fostering an environment where participants can freely explore possibilities unconstrained by current limitations (be it societal, technological, political, economic etc.). DV provides a motivational “attractor”, offering a guiding mission/goal to steer and motivate collective efforts, facilitating mediation and consensus-building between stakeholders. It empowers participants to challenge assumptions of the immutable status quo, encouraging constructive questioning on the inevitability of our current trajectory. This is done through speculative scenarios, narrative construction, and scenario planning.

Here is where our imagination runs wild, where nothing is out of reach and where it is essential to go beyond conventional narratives. One way that the visioner can do so is by taking reference from Ursula K. Le Guin’s ‘Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction’^[7]. Le Guin pushes us to reconsider the purpose and structure of narratives, to move beyond dominant themes such as that of the ‘hero’s journey’ and towards themes of community and inclusivity. She offers an alternate reading on mankind’s origin and purpose.

For example, Le Guin proposes that humankind’s earliest cultural invention was in fact a container, and not sticks, lancers, nor weapons for killing.

‘A leaf, a gourd, a net, a bag, a sling, a sack, a bottle, a pot, a box, a container’. The ancient human first learned that a carrier had more capacity for fruits and oats compared to closed fists, that a carrier could hold a child and fun trinkets like rocks and flowers. The hunters might have had all the glory, but it was the gatherers who sustained and provided for the community, and that allowed civilisation to thrive and flourish over the ages. This simple reframing avoids the fatalist assumption that humans have and always will be about blood and gore. It humbles us and reminds us to look beyond hard power and into lived experiences.

We cannot create what we cannot imagine. We all desire a better future, but they are often confined to abstract notions of ‘equality’, ‘freedom’, ‘care’, and ‘happiness’. DV helps to bridge this gap with its emphasis on inclusive, multi-stakeholder dialogue and strive for imagination. This shift in framework can help us imagine post-growth futures that prioritise collective well-being over material accumulation.

Second step: Back-casting

Now that you have the ideal end-goals and a vision for the future produced through DV, you can start formulating strategies simply by working backwards from these futures.

Forecasting is a commonly used method for envisioning the future through the process of extrapolating current trends and projecting them forward. It involves data, trends, and patterns. Back-casting, on the other hand, is the inverse of this process.

Back-casting provides the strategic framework to bridge our current reality with our desired post-growth future. This tool is instrumental in not only developing concrete action, but also identifying potential roadblocks that need to be overcome. It allows us to identify key leverage points and necessary steps to transition towards our desired futures.

Figure 1: Template for back-casting

Third step: Three-horizons framework

With the steps broken down, the three-horizons framework can complement back-casting through a more structured and rigorous approach^[8].

Figure 2: Three-horizons framework

The core of this framework recognises the existence of three distinct time frames. Horizon One (H1) represents our reality, with all its entrenched systems, policies, and practices. It is the day-to-day firefighting and business-as-usual. Horizon Three (H3) is the emerging future, the future that we want and have imagined through the process of deliberative visioning. Horizon Two (H2) represents a disruptor and a possible change in the status quo. It could be a technological or cultural change.

At H2 however, much of the disruptor’s innovative potential is often stymied by the current paradigm and assimilated into existing power structures, reinforcing the status quo instead of leading to transformative change. For example, the phenomenon of greenwashing, where companies co-opt green growth narratives to promote products or services. Greenwashing distracts by diverting action away from the underlying problem of environmentally harmful practices and overproduction, creating a façade of environmental responsibility without enacting substantive change. It remains business-as-usual, and we continue in the H2- paradigm.

On the other hand, Horizon Two Plus (H2+) is the situation where the very same innovation is harnessed instead of captured, encouraging the decline of the status-quo (H1) while promoting the rise of our ideal future (H3). For example, a clothing company can implement transparent and ethical supply chains, utilise green energy in production, create clothing that is durable, and promote initiatives such as the mending and recycling to extend product lifespan.

Three horizons thinking thus serves as a powerful tool for navigating towards a post-growth future. First, it keeps our desired end goal (H3) in mind, allowing us to articulate and prioritise values and principles which matter. Second, in identifying potential disruptors (H2), we can recognise opportunities to leverage disruptive innovations, support and steer them to align with our vision of a post-growth society (H2+).

Figure 3: Putting the pieces together to imagine a post-growth transportation system

Conclusion

The growing popularity of futures thinking comes as no surprise, given our collective need for new conceptual frameworks to navigate the dynamic and complex world we inhabit. Futures thinking is a powerful tool that goes beyond forecasting; it helps us to sense-make, envision, and actively shape the future we desire. It is a tool that can help us cur through the noise of uncertainty and impenetrability, stretching the boundaries of our imagination. Beyond a mere intellectual exercise, it reminds us that the future is not predetermined, but a realm of possibility waiting to be shaped by our collective imagination and agency.

Endnotes

[1] VUCA-World. “VUCA, BANI, RUPT or TUNA.” VUCA-WORLD (blog), March 15, 2023. https://www.vuca-world.org/vuca-bani-rupt-tuna/.

[2] Mann, Geoff. “It Was Not Supposed to End This Way.” Boston Review, September 13, 2019. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/geoff-mann-it-was-not-supposed-end-way/

[3] Fierberg, Emma “Money and Happiness: Does the Perfect Salary Exist?” CNBC, May 26, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/05/26/money-and-happiness-does-the-perfect-salary-exist.html.

[4] Han, Byung-Chul. The Burnout Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015.

[5] Fitzpatrick, Nick, Timothée Parrique, and Inês Cosme. “Exploring Degrowth Policy Proposals: A Systematic Mapping with Thematic Synthesis.” Journal of Cleaner Production 365 (June 19, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132764.

[6] Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.

[7] Le Guin, Ursula K. “The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction”. Ignota Books, 2019.

[8] Sharpe, Bill, Anthony Hodgson, Graham Leicester, Andrew Lyon, and Ioan Fazey. “Three Horizons: A Pathways Practice for Transformation.” Ecology and Society 21, no. 2 (June 2016). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08388-210247.

Harper Chew was Research Assistant at the Centre for Strategic Futures.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the Centre for Strategic Futures or any agency of the Government of Singapore.