We’ve always been obsessed with what’s coming next. It's a bit of a human quirk. We look at a steam engine and imagine a city on the moon, or we see a telegram and assume we’ll eventually be telepathic. But the history of the future isn't just a collection of failed flying car designs; it’s actually a rigorous field of study—often called "futures studies" or "futurology"—that tells us way more about the present than the actual years ahead.
Think about the 19th-century French artist Jean-Marc Côté. Around 1900, he produced a series of postcards imagining the year 2000. Some of them are hilarious. He thought we’d have "underwater croquet" and whale-bus services. Yet, in that same collection, he drew a "mechanical barber" and "automated classrooms" where info is fed into students' heads via wires. He missed the internet entirely, but he nailed the vibe of automation.
The weird origins of how we "predict" stuff
Predicting the future used to be the domain of oracles and prophets. It was mystical. Then the Industrial Revolution hit, and suddenly, the history of the future became a matter of engineering and linear progression. If we could build a train that goes 30 mph today, surely it’ll go 300 mph in fifty years, right?
This linear thinking is where most people get tripped up.
In the mid-20th century, the Cold War turned futurology into a serious business. The RAND Corporation started using the "Delphi method." This wasn't about crystal balls. It was about gathering a bunch of experts, having them make anonymous forecasts, and then refining those forecasts through several rounds of debate. This wasn't just for sci-fi fans; it was for the Pentagon. They needed to know what nuclear deterrence would look like in 1980.
Why the 1950s "House of the Future" failed us
You've probably seen the old clips of the Monsanto House of the Future at Disneyland. It was all plastic. Plastic chairs, plastic walls, plastic everything. The designers thought the future would be defined by materials. They were wrong. The future wasn't defined by what our chairs were made of, but by the invisible data moving through the air.
This is a classic "future history" mistake: focusing on the hardware while ignoring the software.
We do this constantly. We look at a car and think "flying car." We don't think "an app that allows a stranger to pick me up in their Toyota Camry using a GPS satellite network." The latter is way more transformative, but it’s harder to draw on a postcard.
👉 See also: Why Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces Is Still the Best Way to Learn Kernel Magic
The Shell Oil "Scenario Planning" Revolution
In the 1970s, Pierre Wack, a planner at Royal Dutch Shell, changed everything. He realized that predicting a single "future" was a fool's errand. Instead, he started creating "scenarios." He asked "what if?"
What if oil prices spiked? What if they plummeted?
Because Shell had already "lived through" these futures in their planning sessions, they were the only oil giant prepared for the 1973 oil crisis. This shifted the history of the future from "predicting" to "preparing." It’s a nuance that most people still miss today. We aren't looking for a "correct" prediction; we’re looking for a range of possibilities so we don't get blindsided.
The stuff we actually got right (surprisingly)
It's not all misses.
- H.G. Wells: In his 1914 novel The World Set Free, he predicted "atomic bombs." He even called them that. He understood the physics of the time and just projected the destructive capability to its logical, terrifying conclusion.
- Arthur C. Clarke: In 1945, he proposed the idea of geostationary satellites for global communications. People thought he was dreaming. Now, you can't use Google Maps without them.
- Isaac Asimov: Writing in 1964, he predicted that by 2014, machines would be doing "clerical work" and that we’d have "electroluminescent panels." Basically, he saw the iPad coming.
Why "Future History" feels so different now
Honestly, we’re in a weird spot. For most of the history of the future, change felt like a ladder. You climb one rung at a time. Now, because of Moore's Law and the way AI is accelerating, it feels like we’re on an escalator that's speeding up.
Ray Kurzweil is the big name here. He talks about the "Singularity"—the point where technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible. While some think he’s a genius, others, like Jaron Lanier, warn that this brand of futurism is almost like a new religion. It’s a belief system, not just a set of data points.
There’s also the "Pessimism Trap."
In the 1960s, everyone was worried about overpopulation. Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb predicted hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s. It didn't happen. Why? Because Norman Borlaug led the "Green Revolution," developing high-yield crops that saved a billion lives.
The lesson? The history of the future is always being rewritten by human ingenuity. A prediction is often a warning, and if we heed the warning, the prediction becomes "wrong." That’s actually a success, not a failure.
How to actually use this knowledge
If you’re trying to figure out what’s coming in your industry or life, stop looking for "The Answer." It doesn't exist. Instead, follow the lead of the best futurists in history:
- Look for the "Lindy Effect": This is a concept popularized by Nassim Taleb. It basically says that the longer something has lasted, the longer it’s likely to last. Books aren't going anywhere. Candles aren't going anywhere. Don't predict the death of things that have been around for a thousand years.
- Watch the "Fringes": The future usually starts with hobbyists and weirdos. The internet started with academic researchers. Crypto started with cypherpunks. If something looks like a toy but a small group of smart people are obsessed with it, pay attention.
- Distinguish between "Complicated" and "Complex": A jet engine is complicated. You can predict how it works. A society is complex. It has feedback loops. Small changes can have massive, unpredictable effects.
- Avoid the "Jetpack Fallacy": Just because we can build something doesn't mean we will. We’ve had the tech for jetpacks for decades. We don't use them because they're loud, dangerous, and inefficient. Humans are lazy and like being comfortable. If a "future" technology makes life more annoying, it probably won't happen.
Practical Next Steps for Navigating the Future
- Audit your inputs. Stop reading "Top 10 Predictions for 2030" articles. They’re usually marketing fluff. Instead, read history. Read about how the printing press changed Europe. The patterns of the past are the only reliable guide to the patterns of the future.
- Build "Scenario Maps." If you're a business owner, don't just have a Plan A. Create a "High Tech/Low Trust" scenario and a "Low Tech/High Trust" scenario. How does your life or career look in both?
- Focus on "Human Constants." In 50 years, the tech will be unrecognizable. But humans will still want to feel loved, they’ll still want status, they’ll still be afraid of the dark, and they’ll still want to provide for their kids. If you bet on human nature, you’ll rarely lose.
The history of the future isn't a straight line. It’s a messy, looping, tangled web of "almosts" and "never-saws." By studying where we went wrong before—like the plastic houses and the underwater croquet—we can finally start to see the real shifts happening right under our noses. Focus on the invisible shifts in how we connect and trust, rather than just waiting for the flying car to land in your driveway.