Future of Technology 2050
Future of Technology 2050
Future of Technology 2050
Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and artificial intelligence experts are warning the
world about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence growing beyond human control as it
becomes superintelligence, artificial general intelligence, or strong AI—the ability to
autonomously rewrite its own software code based on feedback, implement the new software
simultaneously around the world, modify its goals, and outperform human intellect. Nick
Bostrom’s expert survey in 2012/2013 found a 50–50 chance that “high-level machine
intelligence” could be achieved by 2040–50 and that superintelligence could be archived 30
years thereafter. (See http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf.)
Whether AI can evolve beyond human control into the nightmares of science fiction or not, it
is certain that it and other future technologies (e.g., synthetic biology, computational science,
nanotechnology, quantum computing, 3D and 4D printing, Internet of Things, self-driving
vehicles, robotics, and other technologies and synergies) will have fundamental impacts on the
nature of work, economics, and culture by 2050. The Pew Research Center found that the
“experts” are nearly evenly divided about whether future technology will replace more jobs than
it creates in just 10 years. Already we see that:
Concentration of wealth is increasing.
Income gaps are widening.
Jobless economic growth seems the new norm.
Return on investment in capital and technology is usually better than in labor.
Future technologies can replace much of human labor.
Long-term structural unemployment is a business-as-usual forecast.
If long-term structural unemployment is inevitable, what should be done to improve the
future prospects for civilization? Instead of a dystopian socioeconomic future, some believe that
this could lead to a global renaissance of creativity as people are freed from the necessity of
working for a living. But financial viability is not yet clear.
The Millennium Project assumes that the world needs to think seriously about all this now,
because it may take a generation or more to make the changes necessary to improve our future
prospects. To address this challenge, it launched a Future Work/Technology 2050 study with
eight steps:
1. Literature and related research review
2. Real-Time Delphi international survey
3. Road maps and scenario drafts
4. Real-Time Delphi feedback on the draft road maps and scenarios
5. Final scenarios, policy implications, and production of an initial report
6. Initial report as input to national planning workshops
7. Collect results of the national planning workshops; analyze and synthesize results
8. Final report for public discussion
Based on a review of the literature and related research, the following main questions were
asked online using the Real-Time Delphi software in the Global Futures Intelligence System:
1. If socio-political-economic systems stay the same around the world, and if technological
acceleration, integration, and globalization continue, what percent of the world do you
estimate could be unemployed—as we understand being employed today—during each of
the following years: 2020; 2030; 2040; 2050?
2. More jobs were created than replaced during both the Industrial and Information Ages.
However, many argue that the speed, integration, and globalization of technological
changes of the next 35 years (by 2050) will cause massive structural unemployment.
What are the technologies or factors that might make this true or false?
3. What questions have to be resolved to answer whether AI and other future technologies
create more jobs than they eliminate?
4. How likely and effective could these actions be in creating new work and/or income to
address technological unemployment by 2050?
5. Will wealth from artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies continue to
accumulate income to the very wealthy, increasing the income gaps?
6. How necessary or important do you believe it is that some form of guaranteed income be
in place to end poverty, reduce inequality, and address technological unemployment?
7. Do you expect that the cost of living will be reduced by 2050 due to future forms of AI
robotic and nanotech manufacturing, 3D/4D printing, future Internet services, and other
future production and distribution systems?
8. What big changes by 2050 could affect all this?
9. What alternative scenario axes and themes should be written connecting today with 2050,
describing cause-and-effect links and decisions that are important to consider today?
10. Other comments to improve this study?
Participants were selected from the literature and research review and by The Millennium
Project’s Nodes around the world. Some 300 experts provided both numeric judgments and over
1,000 comments about their judgments.
There were 99 participants from North America (U.S. and Canada), 111 from Europe, 49
from Latin America, 25 from Asia-Pacific, 5 from Africa, and 9 undefined. There were almost
four times as many male (232) as female (65) respondents. Tables 3.1 to 3.3 present the
demographics of the participants by their affiliation, experience in futures studies, and age
categories. The institutional affiliation results in more than the number of participants, since
some respondents listed themselves in more than one category.
Distillation of responses
The following presents the averages of the quantitative responses and a distillation of the
comments:
The graph in Figure 3.1 displays the averages of 279 responses by 10-year increments. This
clearly shows that without changes in the socio-political-economic systems, unemployment is
thought of as an increasing trend.
30
24
25 20
Percent unemployed
20 16
11
15
10
0
2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
All age groups and geographic regions expect unemployment to increase over the years.
There was almost no difference between male and female average unemployment estimates. The
greater the experience of the futurist, however, the higher the unemployment forecast. Similarly,
the greater the experience in AI and technical field, the higher the rating of unemployment
forecast.
The following is a distilled set of reasons given by the respondents for their forecasts, and
additional comments:
Concept of work, jobs, employment will change. Rates of unemployment may become
meaningless.
We will be creative and adapt.
Tech unemployment will accelerate when AI masters vision and how to learn.
Everything that can be automated will be; we need to start talking about a world without jobs
quickly.
The issue is distribution of income and wealth.
Tech augments human work; human-tech symbiosis is a new form of work.
The applications of AI and other tech may go slow at first, but expect their applications to
begin to spread around the world more quickly around 2030–40 with unemployment impacts
spreading more broadly by 2050... that is if we do not begin to create new approaches now,
which may take decades to implement. When AI learns how to learn on its own, worldwide, it
will learn faster and faster than humans can learn, unless humans become augmented cyborgs.
30-hour work week; global tele-work will take up the slack; new tech creates new work,
rising BRICs and 3W creates new work.
Unemployment in richer countries but new jobs in poorer countries.
There will be more working-age population in the poor regions than job-creating
technologies could cover.
Unlike the industrial revolution, there will be no plateau during which human labor will have
a chance to catch up.
Global megaprojects will really change the economy creating innovations in human-machine
work; meaningful activity such as space exploration to promote the chances that life and our
species survives in the longer term.
The AI revolution should trigger changes to entire social and economic systems, as the
agricultural and the industrial revolutions have done at those times.
Freed from the necessity of working to make a living:
2020: Increasing technological unemployment balanced by economic upswing
2030: People who would like to work increasingly replaced by machines
2040: Basic income guarantee in most wealthy countries—most people no longer seek
employment and the definition of unemployment no longer applies
2050: Basic income in most countries
The tools and technologies of abundance are expanding faster than they can be expropriated.
Work as fulfillment, self-actualization, and not just income.
The top 10 job categories in 2025 do not exist today. We will deal with problems that have
not yet been identified, and apply solutions that are based on technology that has not yet
been developed.
Freelance work will increase exponentially.
Unemployment rate of over 25% across the world would lead to massive unrest and possibly
the collapse of civilization.
Effectively 100% unemployment by 2100 may not be unreasonable.
Passive income will become as common as checking your email or Facebook messages and
will create an inflation of what it costs for a real human on the job.
The real question is not about "employment" or "unemployment" as we understand them
today, but about an income or distribution of wealth that would allow all (or most) members
of society to have a decent living standard.
Our technological surrogate workers may be arriving just in time to save us from societal
decay due to distraction by new forms of human activity that are not productivity-oriented.
Question 2: More jobs were created than replaced during both the Industrial and
Information Ages. However, many argue that the speed, integration, and
globalization of technological changes of the next 35 years (by 2050) will cause
massive structural unemployment. What are the technologies or factors that
might make this true or false?
Table 3.4 Average Rating of Technologies Likely to Replace Rather than Create
More Jobs/Work by 2050
Causative
Technologies Replacing Jobs
Strength
Robotics 7.51
Integration and synergies among these making technologies not known today 6.92
Artificial intelligence 6.81
Artificial general intelligence 6.47
Retraining unable to keep up with accelerating technological changes 6.43
3D/4D printing 6.14
Other factors 5.54
Drones 5.35
Nanotechnology 5.19
Synthetic biology 4.66
The following is a distillation of the 241 comments given by participants for their answers,
along with comments on question 2.1:
We are currently developing a second intelligent species, which we have never done before
and which humans simply cannot compete with; it will have FAR MORE CAPABILITY and
LESS COST than humans.
The definition of "employment" will change from something you need to survive or live
decently to something you do voluntarily to get a feeling of self-worth or more luxuries.
I don't think full general artificial intelligence will arrive in this time frame. If it does, it
would change most of my answers as it would be a huge force for change and would enable,
for example, nanotechnology to achieve its full potential, which it otherwise would have a
difficult time doing without AI control systems.
The current leaps in automation and AI will NOT "plateau"; they will keep accelerating
beyond our control. That is the key dynamic we absolutely must address. Never in our history
has the technology itself been so free of human control to improve itself.
With the widespread job disruption coming through artificial general intelligence and
robotics, retraining will be irrelevant. Retrain to what?
Technological asymmetry will be a problem between the haves and have-nots.
AI and AGI will replace the need for any workforce eventually.
Table 3.5 Average Rating of the Factors Thought to Help Create Jobs and Prevent
Mass Unemployment by 2050
Average
Factors Creating More Jobs Than Replaced
impact
New economic and work concepts 7.17
Self-employment, freelancing, Do It Yourself support systems, incentives, and training 7.07
Growth in new jobs in leisure, recreation, and health care industries 6.67
Freedom to create new work to make life worthwhile beyond “necessary” work 6.28
Human creativity will accelerate across the world 6.25
Other technologies could create more jobs than they replace 6.14
Human-technology symbiosis and/or augmentation 5.95
Crowd sourcing for finance (Kickstarter) and crowd-sourced work 5.61
Biological revolution (synthetic biology and other new biology-related industries) 5.42
Self-correcting: as unemployment goes up, purchasing goes down, reducing growth of
4.12
AI robotic systems, in turn replacing fewer jobs
The following is a distillation of the reasons given by the participants for their answers, along
with comments on question 2.2:
Information and means of production are far more open and distributed in the forthcoming
Biological Revolution than they were during the Industrial Revolution and the Information
Revolution.
An unlimited number of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations is possible, each with an
unlimited number of peer-to-peer ad hoc “workers.”
The maker and self-employed economies are likely to thrive.
The capital requirements for start-ups are increasingly low—consider YouTube, Facebook,
Uber, etc.
People will adapt by looking beyond today's restrictive views of activities as being "labor" or
"work" and seeking to have worthwhile lives but only if political and economic and social
systems and expectations are adjusted as they should be.
If humanity can move into a phase where thought is valued above physical labor, and
creativity is treasured above output, it could be a watershed moment.
Occupations within virtual reality; the metaverse.
Sharing economy is creating new business concepts.
Internet to obtain skills on a global basis, providing for new work structures.
The most sought-after good might be a purpose in life.
Local economies will be more sound than global economies.
DIY will eliminate some job categories, but potentially many more self-employment and
freelance "jobs" can be created.
DIY, crowd sourcing, etc. only makes competition more intense; a race to the bottom for
resources and money.
Hormonal peaks and valleys tend to be a driving factor of human creativity. It will be
interesting to see how a perfectly engineered intelligence can compete with natural hormonal
creative cycles.
A future “TradeNet” with smart AI contracts peer-to-peer using blockchain financial systems.
Question 3.2: What are your thoughts about answers to the questions you suggested?
Question 4: How likely (question 4.1) and effective (question 4.2) could these
actions be in creating new work and/or income to address technological
unemployment by 2050?
Table 3.6 presents the average rating of the suggested actions using the following scale:
5=Solves the Problem; 4=Very Effective; 3=Effective; 2=Little Impact; and 1=Makes It Worse.
Some 215 respondents provided their judgments. The two grey cells identify the most effective
and the most likely actions.
Table 3.6 Average Rating of the Likelihood and Effectiveness of Some Suggested
Actions to Create New Work/Income by 2050
Average Average
Action Effectiveness likelihood
Retraining programs for more advance skills 3.43 3.20
Require science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and coding in all
3.33 2.87
levels of education
Make increasing national and individual intelligence a national priority 3.27 2.56
Create incentives to attract and create advanced skilled jobs 3.25 3.26
National innovation programs 3.24 3.42
Consolidate public welfare systems into a basic guaranteed income pending
3.20 2.48
national situations
Create Do It Yourself Maker areas, hubs, centers, districts 3.18 3.05
Double national R&D budgets by 2020 (to have impact by 2050) 3.08 2.35
Create incentives for employee ownership plans 3.05 2.72
Make university education free to students 3.04 2.33
Tax the new wealth generated by new technology for public financial
3.04 2.74
support
Massive public training in self-employment 3.03 2.56
Government investments in future technology firms with profits from
2.87 2.40
government shares redistributed to unemployed
Question 4.1 and 4.2: No actions were rated as “Solving the Problem” or being “Very
Effective” or “Very Likely.” The following is a distillation of the reasons given by the panel
regarding the effectiveness and likelihood of the suggested actions:
There are some people who are so far behind technologically and emotionally they will never
be able to catch up, but by 2050–60 that race will be moot once strong AI will reach human
capacity.
Requiring STEM and CS education at all levels of education would be a prerequisite for
basic productive life by 2050 but it would not, in itself, be sufficient to mitigate systemic
technological unemployment.
Training people in how to be self-employed would mitigate technological unemployment
because people would have the necessary skill sets to bootstrap and maintain their own jobs.
It is more expensive to create jobs for people whose work contribution is not enough to make
a living than to have them living on welfare.
Free university education in medicine leads to lower-cost medical services and efficiently
develops national talent resources.
Most of these things will be "tried" and most will fail due to lobbying by partisan interest
groups in the governments.
Democratic governments in most parts of the world operate within a limited time frame. They
prefer immediate gains of their policies/programs to meet public expectations. They, as such,
would be hesitant to invest in long-term goals. And the non-democratic governments usually
are not sensitive to the needs of the masses. It is thus rather rare for governments to
incorporate a view of the distant future in their programs.
Question 5.1: What is likely to happen by 2050? Table 3.7 presents the ratings of some
suggested developments using the following scale: 0=No Chance to 10=Almost Certain.
Some 213 people provided responses.
Question 5.2: What future high-impact strategies should be studied today that could
significantly improve the future work-technology-wealth-income dynamics?
Enforce triple bottom line accounting (Profit, People, Planet) and find regulating mechanism
to force the stock-market and banks to take them all into account.
Innovative ways of supporting self-generated jobs (AI/expert systems, finance, technical
assistance, education, marketing, open-source movement, open collective intelligence,
training, facilities provision, technology access through new start-up funding mechanisms).
AI disasters—pacemakers are already being hijacked for ransom. Recall Frank Herbert's
"Butlerian Jihad" against the machines in his DUNE series. The disaster brought back
higher education and training of actual humans and their actual brains.
Enact viable strategies for mitigating the effects of homelessness informed by those who are
already on the street or who interact with them on a daily basis.
Use results of scientific investigations of the outcomes of laws of government to eliminate
harmful/useless laws and enhance laws that solve problems.
Transfer activities to the virtual world.
Look at the former machine tax debate from last century; avoid mistakes of the last century.
Table 3.8 displays the panel’s judgments concerning the necessity of a “guaranteed income”
rank-ordered by the average scores.
Very hard to see how people will survive and buy goods and services without some level of
basic income; the alternative is social collapse.
All sophisticated countries in the West have proved that a minimum income is the surest way
to better education, better health, lower crime, better quality of life (cf. the Scandinavian
countries as examples).
It is a form of social investment, ensuring the financial sustainability of many people. The
payback in social stability should not be underestimated.
Will create immense immigration problems in the countries that would implement it.
Machines taking all the jobs and owned by the 1% is the current direction. EITHER the 1%
is taxed to provide a guaranteed income for the 99% or the 1% will have no one to sell to.
The alternative is the DIY on steroids; subsistence high-tech living obviates the need for jobs
and current econometrics; hence, the 1% goes away.
To implement lifetime income will take longer; current workers are used to contributing to
guarantee their retirement in the next 25 to 30 years. Only increasing rates of self-
employment can change the current tendencies.
It all depends on how much employment is created directly and indirectly by synthetic
biology, self-employment via the Internet, and how much new human creativity will result
from labor-saving tech.
The only market-driven income solution I can find is AI-controlled businesses that generate
dividends for dependent shareholders.
Government must not give money for nothing. Welfare programs like this don't help, they
promote and even force people into poverty; incentives to work and get higher education will
be reduced and people will drop out of the competitive economy except for barter and black
markets.
Capitalism as a primary logic will end due to abundance; the consequence is that we no
longer need to focus on making money to live.
New production/consumption cultures will need less money with lifestyles that are outside of
capitalistic trade.
This is a short-term fix and should be implemented soon. Eventually, it will mostly be
irrelevant as the cost of most things will be nearly zero.
False assumption that there is a single baseline that will cater for all "below" this median.
A guaranteed income is not sustainable by any government in the long run. Also, it is not
healthy for the new generations, no motivation to innovate.
Either totally necessary or totally irrelevant, depending on how we choose to distribute
resources in the future.
Question 7: Do you expect that the cost of living will be reduced by 2050 due to
future forms of AI robotic and nanotech manufacturing, 3D/4D printing, future
Internet services, and other future production and distribution systems?
Question 7.1: How much will the cost of living be reduced by 2050 compared with
today? The responses are presented in Table 3.9.
The panel was divided on cost reductions: 77 participants expected the cost of living to be
reduced significantly or reduced in most areas, while 62 participants expected the cost of living
to be significantly increased or increased in most areas.
The following is a distillation of 195 responses given by the participants:
The costs of goods have been reducing for decades. The new techs are miniaturizing and
improving the performance, productivity of everything. On site 3D printing and fairly soon
molecular manufacturing will greatly accelerate this trend.
Not only the cost of items could go down, but items will last much longer (e.g., nanotech
coating) and have multi functions (mobile phones). Hence the rate of buying things could
also be reduced.
Since more can be done for less work, far more efficiently, and since these tools will be
largely open-sourced and widely available, the total cost in terms of time and money will be
marginal.
Physical products "going to zero" in many cases, but food is likely to remain expensive, and
housing would be hard to reduce
New form of materials such as graphene and others may make buildings, clothes, and city
structures stronger than ever. Education and social services may become almost free with
MOOC and AI robots. Energy may become very cheap with solar clothes/tents being saved in
home energy saving systems.
Increase in the cost of living comes from dramatic unbalance in the global economy. So... If
the unbalance goes away, the cost of living will go down.
Technologies for circular/green/eco-friendly production will allow the use and reuse of
materials that are normally discarded today and will reduce costs; lower mobility costs will
be facilitated through AI (fuel/operational costs) and telecommuting.
The digital life and 3D/4D printing will reduce shipping costs. When renewable energy
becomes the majority, energy costs will fall. However, some areas will have resource
shortages, causing some increasing costs in those areas.
The cost will remain the same, however the qualitative conditions of living will improve
thanks to AI and other new technologies.
No amount of automation can increase the amount of coastline available for putting down
cottages.
Climate change will increase the cost of living, no matter what technologies we are using for
manufacturing.
Tech will not be evenly available across the world and within countries.
Even if manufacturing cost will be reduced, other cost related to new added value services
will make the total costs increase.
The cost of living is a relative thing. Most things will become cheaper as we learn how to
make them cheaper—finite resources may get more expensive temporarily, but the meaning
of "living" and its requirements are likely to change accordingly.
Question 8.1: What high-impact events, developments, surprises, wild cards, or black
swans could change the future work-technology relationship?
Question 8.2: If the future AI/Robot economy creates the abundant wealth many expect
by 2050, how should it be distributed? Please explain briefly how this might be
accomplished.
The following is a distilled sample of over 200 answers received from the panel:
Low but sufficient guaranteed annual equal income via governments to compensate for the
fact that we will not need 70% of the labor force by 2050. This could be paid for by taxes on
consumption, automation technologies, carbon, Internet transactions, robots that would let
people focus on making their lives and others better rather than having to focus on economic
survival.
Basic income, as the Swiss are contemplating, combined with investments for free or low-
cost access to health services, energy, education (for the very young to the very old), water,
transportation, communications, housing, food, 3D-printer time/resources, and other do-it-
yourself entrepreneurial activities.
Give everyone shares in the GNP, while maintaining incentives for work that still could be in
demand.
A certain percentage must go back to the stakeholders that created it; the rest to the society.
Workers owning shares of the companies, ownership of worker robots and their income.
The same way wealth is distributed today: income tax, profit tax (on companies) etc. Today’s
system is the product of many decades of development and shouldn’t be easily overthrown—
just adapted as needed; We still need incentives to advance.
Combination of three ways in a private enterprise/capitalistic society: a) legislation that
limits the earnings potential of the few (owners/inventors) in both public and private
companies ; b) taxation on wealth and/or by applying a progressive tax bracket system; and
c) mandatory employee stock ownership for all companies over, say, 10 people.
Nations are not charities; each will keep its share and maybe give something for
development aid. However, it is not to be expected that shares will be distributed equally.
Instead of a central distribution control system, radical distribution of abundance will
happen organically and automatically in the absence of enforceable intellectual property
rights.
Global networks and AI can optimize wealth distribution based on big data analysis and
direct voting.
By creative output by individuals that improve the human condition; financial incentives for
those that create collective benefits; it should go to those who create and sustain the wealth;
distributed to those who earned it, whether owners, stockholders, distributors.
High taxation of productive and creative individuals and corporations could stunt the growth
of the very technologies that would eliminate poverty and provide food and shelter to many.
Human consciousness melded with machine consciousness will create a civilization where
risk-reward is no longer operant and cost-benefit is obvious.
Smart contracts, AI, peer-to-peer, and blockchain (used by Bitcoin) style financial systems
connected to personal devices.
We need dialogue on creating basic income formulae.
First, a kind of sustainable capitalism and then, a new kind of circular, recycling, people-
planet-profit economy.
Through revolution or through democratic change or, more likely, it will not change until the
next major crisis or the next two or three major crises.
Some nations implement basic income for everyone, then other states will follow.
Disempowerment of corporations when people no longer "have to work to live."
More network communities will transform hierarchical systems into decentralized ones.
Increased concentration of wealth to the top 1%, then under massive pressure and crisis
government interventions and crowd self-organization; e.g., local food, services, with local
alternative currencies.
The masses become self-sufficient, organized for creating basic needs and some surplus via
free enterprise, free expression and great creativity with a minimum requirement of
"responsible" mandatory work such as guarantee each individual's self-support.
Public pressure, having elective candidate who sees the big picture, and by actually voting
on Election Day.
Reducing the costs of goods and services is equivalent to rising income levels for everyone.
Through increasing automation, human activity will increasingly shift to fun and creative
pursuits—to self-actualization. After improved technologies help restore the ecological
systems, more radical and powerful technologies will continue to flourish, grow, and expand
beyond Earth into high frontiers unknown.
Question 9.1: What scenarios axes or assumptions should shape useful scenarios on
the future of work-technology dynamics for 2050? The panel was asked to check all that
apply. Table 3.10 summarizes the votes.
The following is a distillation of the panel’s reasons given for their answers and additional
suggestions:
Economic decoupling or "opting out" should be considered; i.e., will certain communities
elect to drop out of the global economy entirely? Hyper-localized, autonomous
communities—imagine the hi-tech equivalent of a monastery, but occurring at a variety of
scales from neighborhood up to city-state levels.
Geo-social axis: Or social acceptance axis. At one extreme, overwhelming global acceptance
of the benefits of AI/robotics/IoT, and at the other extreme, many see the use of such
technologies as a loss of control and behaviors considered abhorrent and many work to
quash the technology.
Other axes to consider: draconian government intervention is the one that concerns me most.
General artificial intelligence will be an all-or-nothing scenario. They'll either cause
catastrophic (perhaps existential) damage, or they'll be an unbelievable boon. There's not
much room in the middle.
Question 9.2: What themes, foci, titles would be the most useful for the 2050 scenarios
that would expose what we don't know today, that we should explore to know how to
build a better future for the world-technology dynamic? The rating used a scale from
1=Least Useful to 5=Most Useful.
Table 3.11 displays the themes’ usefulness as rated by 196 of the panel’s participants.
The following is a distilled sample of the panel’s reasons or additional comments on their
answers:
Rapid global acceptance of the usefulness of AI/Robotics/IoT or a widespread cultural and
religious rejection? And to what extent will humans really be willing to give over their entire
lives and trust to an AI/robotic system?
How will people engage in policy decisions in 2050?
Changing our understanding of the relationship between work and well-being.
The symbiotic society; the tech-human factor.
Money-neutral society in circular economy.
Humankind's optimized civilization for the space industry; optimize positive benefits to Earth
and humankind from the future space epoch.
Doubling or tripling of the faction of the population having a first-world living standard,
with increased productivity etc. and issues of aging.
If we get anywhere near 50% structural unemployment we are doomed to a long period of
darkness.
Question 9.3: What would make these scenarios worth your time to read them and
share with others?
The results of this Real-Time Delphi will be used as input to the construction of alternative
scenarios and road maps. These drafts will be made available for comment and feedback to those
who participated in this Real-Time Delphi and additional experts. Based on the feedback, the
scenarios will be rewritten. Strategies will be drawn from the final scenarios and used as inputs
to national planning workshops. These will be initiated by some of the 56 Millennium Project
Node Chairs around the world and others who express interest during this process. The results of
the workshops will be integrated and distilled and made available in a variety of media for public
discussion.