The Birth of THE FUTURIST

Eventually it occurred to me that perhaps I myself could start a newsletter devoted to the future, and that would put me into contact with others interested in the future. Though I had failed to get funding for a magazine, I could afford to start a simple newsletter without any help from others. I knew only a few “futurists” to send it to, but they might know a few others, and gradually a network of futurists would be created. Then perhaps we could organize a society for the future, especially if there were a few of us who could meet regularly and work out the details of setting up an organization. A key step would be finding people who could meet as a group. Perhaps there were other people beside myself in the Washington area to join in a Society-creating effort.

So I began preparing an initial newsletter and I also drew up a prospectus for a “Society for the Future.” This typed and crudely reproduced prospectus, running seven single-spaced pages, noted the increasing pace of social and technological change was generating interest in the future and a need to anticipate future changes. As evidence, I mentioned de Jouvenel and his Futuribles group in Paris.

“At present,” I wrote, “scholars and experts concerned with the future operate in relative isolation from each other. Yet the electronics engineer, the demographer and the sociologist are all talking about the same world. Hence it would seem useful for those interested in the future to have forecasts brought together in a regular and systematic way, perhaps through a journal. It might also be useful to have a broad-based organization devoted to study of the future. Such a society, open to anyone interested enough to pay dues, could encourage a cross-disciplinary approach to social and technological forecasting. It might provide a communications network for funneling ideas about the future to appropriate government agencies and congressmen. Its file of members would be a list of individuals in various fields who could be consulted by scholars and public officials.

“The study of the future might help the cause of world peace. Almost all the world’s leaders share a common vision of the future: they all agree that their peoples must and will become more affluent, and this common ideology of progress seems to offer some hope for an eventual solution to present international political disagreements. As people become more future-oriented, that is, more conscious of the dynamic nature of human institutions and ideologies, they may become less rigid in their insistence on time-worn customs and beliefs that have been largely outmoded. It should then be easier to find areas of agreement. Thus serious study of the future which all men will share in common may offer a kind of counterweight to the burden of traditional grievances and present fears. Perhaps the ‘conquest of the future’ may provide what William James called ‘a moral equivalent for war.’”

The prospectus went on to describe in some detail the journal that the Society for the Future might produce, since I was still largely focused on creating a substantial publication devoted to the future. However, I also discussed the practical issues of operating a society: governance, recruiting members, funding, etc.

The prospectus, written in 1965, reflected my continuing fear of war and search for some practical means of dealing with it. Besides my dread of thermonuclear war, I had been outraged as President Kennedy and later Johnson sent increasing numbers of American soldiers into Vietnam. When I was a news correspondent based in Paris, I had the sad duty of editing reports from our correspondents in Vietnam when French—not American—soldiers were fighting and dying there. I had despaired over the sufferings of my beloved France, and now I was boiling with rage that we Americans had learned nothing from the French experience.

While I was pondering what to call my projected newsletter, Time magazine solved my problem by publishing an extraordinary essay entitled, “THE FUTURISTS: Looking Toward A.D. 2000” (February 25, 1966). This essay focused on precisely the kind of people whose work fascinated me, such as Herman Kahn, Olaf Helmer, Buckminster Fuller, and Bertrand de Jouvenel. By referring to them as “futurists” Time had validated the term. In 1966, Time was probably the best-read publication among serious Americans, so a Time essay devoted to a subject made it important, whether it really was or not.

Strongly encouraged by this development, I began preparing a prototype newsletter called THE FUTURIST based on my collection of newspaper articles, books, reports, etc., related to the future. I also developed a mailing list of people who might be interested in a newsletter about the future, but I couldn’t come up with more than about 40 or 50 names. So I decided to enclose several copies of the newsletter and suggest that the recipients forward copies to anybody they thought might be interested.

To cast a wider net, I looked through directories of corporations and made a list of executives whose job titles suggested they should have an interest in the future, such as “Manager of Corporate Planning.” I also went through the Congressional Directory, looking for government officials whose jobs suggested they should be interested in the future.

After typing up my final version of THE FUTURIST, I had it printed by a firm in Washington, and began the task of addressing envelopes to the people I had identified. By this time, my wife Sally was taking an interest in the project, and she got our young sons (now numbering three—Tony, Jeff, and Blake) to help stuff the newsletter into envelopes.

The response to THE FUTURIST was extraordinary. Scores of people, many quite prominent, wrote back asking to be put on the mailing list, and many had strong words of support.

Buckminster Fuller said that he thought the newsletter was excellent and was sending the copies to his “most trusted associates.” One of them turned out to be my old friend John Dixon, who showed me the copy Bucky had sent him. It had a handwritten note at the top: “John, I think this is something you should look into.”

Olaf Helmer wrote saying the newsletter “photocopies well,” and he was sending copies to his colleagues within the RAND Corporation. Herman Kahn said he planned to look me up on his next visit to Washington. Glenn T. Seaborg, chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, asked to be put on the list, as did U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman. Others who wrote in included noted authors like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke.