INTRODUCTION

Looking at past predictions can be an amusing endeavour: in 1900, an American engineer predicted that by the year 2000 the letters C, X and Q would have become obsolete (because unnecessary); that mosquitoes, flies and all wild animals would have disappeared; and that gymnastics would be mandatory for all.¹ 50 years later, the New York Times science editor was sure that by 2000 humans would eat sweets made from sawdust and wood pulp, and that chemical factories would convert discarded paper table linen and rayon underwear into candy.² 

In 1966, Time magazine was certain that at the turn of the millennium, humans would travel on ballistic missiles, all viral and bacterial diseases would have been wiped out, only 10% of the population would work and drugs to regulate mood disorders would be widely available. As the piece stated, ‘if a wife or husband seems to be unusually grouchy on a given evening, a spouse will be able to pop down to the corner drugstore, buy some anti-grouch pills, and slip them into the coffee.’³ Needless to say, these predictions turned out to be inaccurate.

But reviewing past statements on the future is more than just entertainment: it provides useful insights on how foresight can be improved as it helps us understand the mistakes we can make whenever we try to predict how the future will unfold. And foresight is to decision-making what reconnaissance is to warfare: without it, we stumble ahead rather than follow a strategic vision. This is particularly true in today’s complex and high-speed world. As a result, foresight activities are on the rise not just in European Union institutions but also in EU member states – but they can improve in terms of frequency, quality, and self-assessment.

It is important to note two things at the outset: firstly, the vast majority of predictions do not fall into one of the two extremes of being entirely right or entirely wrong, but in-between. Secondly, to conclude from erroneous predictions that the entire exercise is futile would clearly be to misconstrue what foresight is about: it is a creative exercise, and as such it does not have to be 100% accurate to be useful. Instead, it has to be stimulating, open new doors of thinking, show different ways in which the future can unfold – and perhaps even lead to a change in policy.

We find broadly six reasons for past statements on the future that turned out to be inaccurate: status quo bias, linear and exclusionary thinking, the role of emotions such as fear and hope – but also simply lack of knowledge and (perhaps the best way to be wrong) a change in policy.

In this analysis, the concern is not with the things that were missed (such as the Arab Spring, Brexit or September 11) – but things that we thought would happen but which failed to materialise. What are the patterns in our foresight errors – and what can we learn from them?