Ivana Milojević, Sohail Inayatullah, Ora-orn Poocharoen.
A two-day workshop was held on 7-8 November 2023 and was facilitated by Professor Sohail Inayatullah and Dr. Ivana Milojević from Metafuture.org as well as Professor Ora-orn Poocharoen from the School of Public Policy, Chiang Mai University, Thailand. The workshop was attended by over sixty participants from diverse organizations in Thailand from governmental, academic, civil society, corporate, and non-governmental organization sectors. The purpose of the workshop was to use futures thinking to widen and deepen strategic conversations about the directions of public policy in Thailand. The School of Public Policy, Chiang Mai University and the National Intelligence Agency spearheaded the effort, using the snowball approach to gathering delegates new to the field of Futures Studies.
The intent of the workshop was triple. First, to develop futures literacy in the nation through a methods and tools approach. Second, to build a coalition of public policy influencers dedicated to bolstering Thailand’s capacity for critical foresight. The aspiration is that this coalition will spark creativity and a deeper understanding of futures thinking across various sectors in Thailand, to create an ecology of innovation. This workshop marked a distinctive shift in Thailand’s approach to futures thinking. Unlike previous work that focused on technological forecasts, this workshop took a broader and more critical stance. It emphasized a multifaceted exploration of the future that extended beyond just technology, indeed, including spirituality (Boonmavichit and Boossabong, 2022). Innovation and advanced education, organizers believed, is critical in helping Thailand escape the middle-income trap. Third, to prepare to host the 10th conference of the Asia-Pacific Futures Network (Wagner and Inayatullah, 2020).
To create alternative futures, a Six Pillars approach to futures thinking (Inayatullah, 2008) was used. While scenarios and causal layered analysis were the mainstay of the two days, this report is focused on the futures triangle (Inayatullah, 2002, 2005, 2023; Milojević, 2023) part of the process. The futures triangle is used as it is a simple and easy to access methodology. It is an initial point of entry into futures thinking. This report is intended to demonstrate to participants that their work was heard and valued. As much as possible, fidelity to the voice of the workshop participants has been kept. A longer more in-depth analytic report focused on the other methods employed is forthcoming in the Journal of Futures Studies (2024). For space considerations and for easy accessibility into the futures discourse, we focus on the futures triangle for this report.
The workshop process invited participants to break up into six groups. They were:
- Water insecurity
- Enterprise Adaptation/Nature-Based Solutions
- Civil Service and AI
- Artificial Intelligence and Society
- Constitution 2033
- Spirituality 2033
The Futures Triangle
The futures triangle links the vision of the preferred future or “the pull of the future” to “the pushes of the present” (enabling drivers and trends) and “weights” (barriers to change). The futures triangle is used as an introductory method in the foresight process. It is introductory as it is relatively easy to do and intuitive in that most people have a lived experience of the weights of the past (the barriers to change), and most people, especially in dynamic economies such as Thailand, have a lived experience of change (new technologies, demographic shifts, and geo-political transitions). They also tend to have implicit understandings of their preferred future. The triangle not only makes the vision explicit but also clarifies the relationship of these three symbiotic factors – the pull, the push, and the weight. The futures triangle introduces a level of realism into the process by examining the context in which change occurs. It enables researchers and activists to map the forces in play, offering a better understanding of what requires alteration – whether it is challenging the weight, enhancing, or clarifying the vision, or linking the vision to the pushes, the drivers of change.
Workshop participants identified “the pull” (the vision, the preferred future), “the push” (external changes), and “the weight” (barriers) based on their respective domain questions. Once the futures triangles were created, participants presented back using skits. This was to create embodied learning to ensure that the future was not just a rational construct but an affective one (Dunagan et al., 2019).
Diagram by Milojević and Inayatullah
Water Insecurity
The group identified the following pull, push and weight factors impacting water insecurity as follows:
Pull: The envisioned future, characterized by water security, relies on several aspects including scientific innovation, the exploration of alternative water sources, water recycling initiatives, and the promotion of water self-sufficiency. But the highlight of their preferred future was the introduction of water as a currency.
Push: The external factors driving the need for water security included existing water scarcity; outdated technology and a lack of innovation in water management; health-related concerns associated with inadequate access to clean water; socioeconomic inequalities influencing water distribution; and the impact of climate change on water availability. The pushes suggested that change was likely to occur given the increased pressure to solve mounting systemic environmental problems. However, the weights were considerable.
Weight: Barriers hindering progress towards water security included government policies that may impede water-related initiatives; insufficient innovation and investments in water management; limited cooperation with neighbouring countries and regions on water-related strategies; and budget constraints affecting the implementation of water security measures.
Their conclusion was that water security required a radical shift in policy, ideally with the introduction of a water currency. They visualized the pull as a flying turtle, taking water futures to the next level. The current situation was that of the Ostrich, with overwhelming weights of the past. The push could lead to a transformed future or could strengthen the forces of resistance to change. Participants were passionate about the need for a shift in mindset and national water strategy. Water was an urgent and important concern for participants.
Image drawn by participants of the Water futures group.
Participants present the futures triangle on water futures. Photograph by Inayatullah.
Enterprise Adaptation/Nature-Based Solutions
Within the Enterprise Adaptation/Nature-Based Solutions group, participants identified the following factors shaping their vision for the future:
Pull: Envisioned a future emphasizing enterprise adaptation and nature-based solutions. The characteristics of this future included: nature-based transport and the exploration of environmentally friendly transport options such as canals and waterways. At the heart of the pull was a vision of Bangkok as the “Venice of the East.”
“Venice of the East” as the pull of the future. Prompts by Inayatullah using Bing Co-Pilot.
Push: External factors motivating the need for enterprise adaptation and nature-based solutions included climate change leading to the prioritizing of eco-friendly transportation options including solar driven boats and civil society initiatives leading to community-driven and tourism-oriented initiatives.
Weight: Barriers and challenges hindering progress towards nature-based solutions and enterprise adaptation included: current regulatory frameworks and policies related to water use; challenges associated with relocating communities; financial limitations affecting implementation; the current lack of adequate infrastructure for parking and pier facilities; and droughts and floods.
While they could all imagine “A Venice of the East” they also understood that not only was Venice sinking but so was Bangkok. Rising sea-levels and the weight of infrastructure development point to a precarious future. The weights, they deemed, were such that the vision of the future seemed far. As with the water futures group, their concern was not just academic, but survival based. They all wished to move from survival to thrival.
Civil Service and AI
Within the Civil Service group, participants identified pull, push, and weight factors shaping the future of government services.
Pull: Envisioned a future that emphasized the integration of “smart” hybrid automated civil servants, leveraging talents with new skills and mindsets. The key aspects included a smart governance system that embraced AI; system governance/thinking: embracing intelligent and adaptive governance systems; transparency and accountability in government operations; an inclusive decision-making process; and the safeguarding of individual privacy within government operations.
Push: External factors driving the need for advancement in government services included changing people’s expectations of government efficiency, trustworthiness, the integration of AI in all services and new legal requirements required for digital innovation.
While the pushes suggested that the vision was plausible, a look at the weights suggested that change would be difficult, if not impossible.
Weight: Barriers and challenges hindering progress in government services included financial constraints impacting government initiatives; a lack of talent and workforce; a lack of innovation infrastructure; fear of organizational and cultural change; a monology of certain technology platforms; a generation gap in terms of understanding emerging technologies; and the challenges associated with an ageing population.
The application of the futures triangle assisted in understanding the dynamics of change. The image below illustrates the futures triangle for this group.
The futures triangle as articulated by participants of the Civil Service and AI Group.
Artificial intelligence and Society
In the AI group, participants explored the pull, push, and weight factors influencing the development and application of artificial intelligence.
Pull: Envisioned a future where AI is a legal person.
Push: External factors motivating the need for regulating AI included the need to address concerns related to the unethical use of AI technologies; greater use of AI throughout all sectors; an accelerated use of AI; cheaper availability of AI; and a global movement to regulate AI.
Weight: Barriers and challenges in the development and application of AI include the legal system resistance to change (as it is precedence based); knowledge of AI is not well established in the legal field; and a human-centric worldview that resists seeing AI as a legal person.
Through the futures triangle participants had greater clarity on the possibility of AI becoming a legal person in the future. The theme of the turtle as the envisioned future returned; however, this time, the turtle was flying on the rocket of IT. This meant a radical change in law, personhood, and the use of AI.
Image drawn by participants of the AI and Society Group.
Participants of the AI group brainstorming (and using generative AI for ideas on the futures of AI). Photograph by Inayatullah.
Constitution 2033
In the Constitution 2033: Thaiger group, participants explored pull, push, and weight factors shaping the envisioning of Thailand’s constitution in 2033.
Pull: The envisioned future for the constitution in 2033 consisted of the following aspects: an AI-Generated Constitution that was agility and inclusivity and an easy and fast amending of the new living constitution and process that ensured broad public participation and legitimacy in the constitutional process.
Push: External factors driving the need for a new constitution included responding to public demands for increased participation; an increasing number of politically engaged citizens; greater and more widespread use of the internet for civic engagement; and global and national AI trends in governmental processes.
Weight: Barriers and challenges in the development of the constitution in 2033 were numerous and consisted of the following: resistance from Powerholders/Elites; the financial constraints associated with constitutional development; low Digital Literacy and technophobia; concerns related to AI-induced misconceptions; and limitations in technological capabilities.
While the weights were extensive, participants remained optimistic given the rise of AI and peer to peer platforms that a new agile and adaptable constitution could be created. The image below illustrates the futures triangle for this group.
The futures triangle drawn participants of the Constitution 2033 group.
Participants drawing the Thaiger futures triangle. Photograph by Inayatullah.
They were idealistic in spirit and action arguing while they could not foresee the new constitution, using AI and Peer-to-peer networks, they could see the emergence of a constitution that was far more adaptable to the changing legal needs of Thai citizens. Thailand, the argued, had to transform, to adapt to a changing world.
Spirituality 2033
In the Spirituality 2033: Accessible Self-Actualization group, participants examined pull, push, and weight factors shaping the future of spirituality in 2033.
Pull: the envisioned preferred future for spirituality in 2033 included embracing the concept of reaching one’s highest potential; boundary-less Identity: engaging in immersive virtual experiences for spiritual practices; and using AI to provide digitalized feedback for spiritual experiences.
Image of Spirituality with AI. Prompts by Inayatullah using Bing Co-pilot.
Push: External factors driving changes in spirituality included the rate of progression of AI; digitalization of spiritual practices; increased government and community responses to increased awareness of mental health issues; greater competition as to groups providing and influencing the importance of spiritual practices; and collective efforts to overcome challenges in fragmentation in communities.
Weight: Barriers and challenges in the development of spirituality included powerful institutions that focus on superstition and folklore and commercial factors focused on the selling of spirituality – spiritual materialism.
Participants were hopeful that AI and other advancements could help create more personalized spirituality and spiritual experiences for many, democratizing the experience of the transcendental.
Conclusion
In summary, through the futures triangle, novel images of the future emerged across various domains. In the realm of water insecurity, the envisioning of a secure future hinged on scientific innovations, alternative water sources, and collaborative efforts with neighbouring regions. Challenges included government policies and budget constraints. In the civil service and government group, the pull towards smart automated civil servants and inclusive governance was countered by challenges such as budgetary limitations and resistance to change culture. The AI group grappled with the legal recognition of AI persons, the push for AI regulation, and the weight of a legal system resistant to change. In crafting the Constitution 2033, the group envisioned an AI-generated constitution for inclusivity but faced resistance from powerholders and budget constraints. Lastly, the spirituality groups explored the pull towards ultimate self-actualization and immersive spiritual practices, facing challenges such as spiritual materialism and resistance from traditional belief systems. Following the work of Susantha Goonatilake (1991), this is not surprising. He has argued that while Western traditions will find it difficult to develop an AI assisted spirituality, Buddhism and other Indic traditions face no such issues. The underlying worldview is far less human centred (the wall of the soul) and more focused on impermanence, the self is not solid but fluid, open to evolution through interaction with artificial intelligence. It is this fluidity that allowed participants to explore new expressions of artificial intelligence and spirituality, we would argue. The mind, thus, as the Asian philosopher, P.R. Sarkar (Inayatullah, 1999, 33) has argued, can enter technology, allowing for co-evolution.
At the end of the two-day meeting, the working groups in a plenary session focused on the national vision for Thailand in 2045. The vision focused on 1. Achieving self-sustainable water regimes including the creation of a water currency; 2. Creating well-being through adaptive innovation; 3. Becoming a green hydrogen energy hub; 4 Becoming a spiritual destination; 5. Embracing a highly automated civil service; 6 Creating a new a people-led, diverse constitution; and 7. Creating a justice system based on care, emphasizing accessibility and universality for all by 2045.
Participants sharing their personal backcast events in relationship to their preferred future for Thailand 2045. Photography by Inayatullah.
As with other parts of the world where the polarization of political views is leading to legislative stalemate, the futures session offered the possibility of a third way focused on innovation and an inclusive vision. The futures triangle mapped out the possibility of this new vision by pointing out the barriers of transformation (and there are considerable, resistance by the bureaucracy, for example) and the pushes of the present that could make change not just possible but, in some cases, inevitable (new technologies, for example, and new age-cohorts). While the full vision is likely to far and too difficult to achieve, there were many ideas that could find easy support i.e. wherein traditional culture is supportive and there is commercial interest, for example, making Thailand a spiritual destination.
One imagination of the preferred future. Prompts by Inayatullah using Bing Co-Pilot with keywords from the participants’ preferred future.
Funding Sources
This research was partially funded by Chiang Mai University, the Knowledge Center and Coordination on Spiritual Health, the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, the Khonthai Foundation, the Thailand Institute of Justice, and the Humanitarian Dialogue.
References
Boonmavichit, T., and Boossabong, P. (2022, June 4). Approaching Foresight through Critical Realism: Lessons Drawn from Thailand. Journal of Futures Studies. 26(2). https://jfsdigital.org/2022-2/vol-26-no-4-june-2022/approaching-foresight-through-critical-realism-lessons-drawn-from-thailand/.
Dunagan, J. et al. (2019). Strategic Foresight Studio: A First-Hand Account of an Experiential Futures Course. Journal of Futures Studies. 23(3): pp. 57-74.
Goonatilake, S. (1999). Evolution of Information: Lineages in Gene, Culture, and Artifact. St. Martin’s Press.
Inayatullah, S. (2015). What Works: Case Studies in the Practice of Foresight. Tamkang University.
Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six Pillars: futures thinking for transformation. Foresight, 10 (1): pp. 4-21.
Inayatullah, S. (2002, 2005). Questioning the Future. Tamkang University.
Inayatullah, S. (1999). Situating Sarkar. Gurukul Publications.
Inayatullah, S. (2023). The Futures Triangle: Origins and Iterations. World Futures Review. 15(2-4): pp.112-121.
Milojević, I. (2023). Contextualizing Conflict: The Futures Triangle. World Futures Review. 15(2-4): pp.122-132.
Wagner, J., and Inayatullah, S. (2020, August 28). ASEAN 2030. Journal of Futures Studies. https://jfsdigital.org/2020/08/28/asean-2030/.
Authors’ Affiliation
Ivana Milojević, Director, Metafuture and Metafutureschool, Brisbane, Australia
Sohail Inayatullah, UNESCO Chair in Futures Studies, Sejahtera Centre for Sustainability and Humanity, IIUM, Malaysia, and Professor, Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Ora-orn Poocharoen, Director, School of Public Policy, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
