We especially need imagination in science. It is not all mathematics, nor all logic, but it is somewhat beauty and poetry." This quote, dating back to the 1800s, implies that the tie between science and beauty is not a new or forward-looking concept, but rather one that has been around for centuries. However, recent signals point to a future where science and aesthetic are inextricably connected. The first SpaceX launch occurred earlier this month, garnering significant public attention. Although most of the spotlight was on the breakthrough itself, several publications posted online commentary on the fashion faux-pas of the space suits. While the criticisms that came from fashion focused media outlets could be expected, it was surprising and significant to see the attention paid by general news sources and tech specific platforms to the aesthetic choices. But space suits are not unique in the recent trend for science to be fashionable. In the peak of the COVID pandemic, when public health officials recommended that the general public wear non-medical masks, social media was flooded by new products from artisans and designers trying to make a fashion statement out of personal protective equipment. While the existence of fashionable masks doesn't prove that the public would have rejected a more functional option, the continued uptick in artisanal masks when medical-grade alternatives became more easily available implies that the adoption of masks in general may not have been as seamless without a fashionable option. These current examples point to a future where the public demands aesthetic benefits from science. The growing field of user experience (UX) design has been showing for years how we expect a certain level of beauty and usability in our technology, but these expectations have rarely been imposed on science. In a future where fashion and function are equal, science will not be able to stand solely on merit. For example, the disinfecting properties of hand sanitizer may not be enough to entice people to use it. The gel that keeps us germ free would likely see more sustained success if it were incorporated into our clothing, repackaged in a trendy way, or presented some visible benefit beyond the occasional built in moisturizer. Perhaps future disinfectant is presented as a perfume that offers all-day germ protection in the same way that one application of bug spray keeps the mosquitos away. Or maybe the addition of temporary dye in sanitizer sparks a new trend of colourful hands to match manicures or hair highlights. As another example, researchers have confirmed the health benefits of home-cooking, yet millennials are increasingly choosing to eat out. Since the dietary benefits are not enough, perhaps home cooking could provide some unique aesthetic benefits. Residential-grade kitchen appliances might one day include a technology that emits particles helping to clear the complexion or boost the hair lustre of the user. Opponents to a future like this argue that science shouldn't have to be fashionable, but why not? Why shouldn't science adjust to a world with shortened attention spans and increasing platforms for criticism? The fashion industry recognized the need to incorporate as much function as possible and is already making significant movement in that direction. There are smart shoes that vibrate to give turn-by-turn directions and belts with sensors that track vital signs of the wearer. Materials scientists in the fashion industry have engineered clothes that expand in crowds to offer additional personal space or regulate body temperature regardless of weather, jackets that harvest solar energy, and workout clothes that provide support to damaged and fragile joints. Some brands are also using scientific advancements on their production and supply chain. H&M, one of the most notorious brands for their 'fast fashion' business model, embraced the scientific realities of climate change and the fashion industry's impact. The company appointed their new CEO from their sustainability staff, and have committed to becoming 100% circular and renewable by 2030. The marriage between science and fashion, or aesthetic more broadly, is a likely future state that we are moving towards. As the fashion industry continues to bend and adapt to the changing demands of the public, scientific fields will start to show flexibility in repackaging their work for public acceptability. But even if the scientific community remains resolute in their rejection of fashion and aesthetic, the next SpaceX launch will surely come with jazzier suits, if only to keep the attention on the science.
1 Comment
By the year 2030, contact-tracing will be considered a standard prevention method similar to vaccination. The majority of the population will understand that this small sacrifice in their privacy is the best way to protect our communities from health threats and to quickly suppress the spread of future pandemics. A small group of radicals will choose to opt-out of this process, and will be met with harsh public criticism, with many considering 'anti-tracers' to be selfish as they threaten the wellbeing of the population. In the time leading up to 2030, contact-tracing apps will have become as much a part of our smart phones as calling and texting capabilities. In that time, the advancements that scientists will have made with gene-hacking will be substantial, and they will be in the early stages of incorporating some features from our smart phones directly into our genes, eliminating the need to carry around cell phones. Contact-tracing technologies will be among the first that scientists start to implant in humans, and one of the most common to be requested by consumers.
While it started as a prevention method for public health threats, contact-tracing will become an important part of our society. The exposure of systemic oppression and anti-black racism in our police system has already provoked calls to defund and dismantle police forces. Policy makers will create new, community-based models of law enforcement. The proliferation of contact-tracing technologies, and the availability of that data to government entities, will make this an ideal tool to effectively identify witnesses and suspects in crimes based on their GPS location. As reliance on contact-tracing data increases, the government will increase enforcement measures to ensure people are tracing consistently and effectively. When contact-tracing is implemented at the level of mandated gene-hacking, this will serve as a significant deterrent to physical crime, eliminating most of the need for law enforcement beyond cyber crime. As our dependence on contact-tracing data grows, individuals will have some control over who has access to it and who does not. Big tech firms will likely have unparalleled access, as the suppliers of the contact-tracing software, and will use the information to control our access to financial services. These firms will have taken over most of the responsibilities of traditional financial institutions, including the big banks, and will therefore be the most likely supplier of loans. Access to contact-tracing data can provide insight into the types of people and activities that individuals are engaged in, allowing tech firms to either restrict or advance funds to people based on their interactions with religious groups, visible minorities, drug dealers, criminals, or prostitutes, for example. ​Most employers will have switched to a mostly remote model of working, but some will implement conditions around sharing their contact-tracing data in order to earn the privileges of working from home. Those who refuse will need to install alternative softwares that allow employers to track screen time, click rate and key strokes on their computers to allow employers to monitor their staff productivity. In some cases where employees decline any of these surveillance options, they will be required to continue working from a more traditional office setting, although this will likely be a shared space between several organizations, since each company will have only a few people present and will not want to pay the overhead costs for entire office buildings.
While this might seem like an extreme view of the future, many aspects of this scenario are rooted in signals that we are seeing today.
|
AuthorI'm Chelsea and I'm an aspiring futures thinker. I have experience in the Canadian innovation space, and I approach everything with a global affairs lens. I'm excited about the possibilities that the future holds, and I enjoy dreaming up scenarios of what it might look like. Learn more about me here. Categories
All
|