Nate Hagens

In this week’s Frankly, I open a new series called How to Think About the Future. I begin with some comments I’ve heard repeatedly on this platform: why cover nuclear, plastics, renewables, or climate when something else is the real issue? I observe that these questions come from people who have already settled on a single storyline about what’s coming, and are filtering everything else through it. Our actual reality is much more complex and unknowable, and even the most well-informed perspectives may only be able to capture pieces of the bigger picture. I emphasize that even my own base scenario – that the global economy is likely to hit a wall in the relatively-near future – should be held with humility.

I introduce the idea of “scenario thinking” as a practical strategy to reflect on and prepare for several versions of the future, keeping one engaged and grounded in what matters. I also name why this line of thinking is hard in practice – 1. our nervous systems want resolution, 2. our careers and identities are attached to particular futures, and 3. cultural incentives reward confident stories over honest uncertainty. The episode closes by introducing shortfall risk, which is the danger that something essential, like topsoil, social trust, grid stability, or the nuclear taboo drops below a threshold from which it cannot easily recover. This concept will act as connective tissue across the rest of the series, which is an attempt to expand perception instead of picking the right future, and to identify what is coupled, what is irreversible, and what kinds of responses stay robust across many possible worlds.

Where in your life have you quietly settled on a single story about the future? Which of the essentials you rely on would be hardest to rebuild if they fell below a threshold? And how might the decisions you make this week change if you held more than one plausible future in mind at the same time?