44 Chapter 2 here include future environmental and societal impacts of climate change as well as governance of novel technologies, such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, or geoengineering (see e.g. Douglas & Stemerding, 2014; Fonseca & Pereira, 2014). Even though some similarities exist with approach 1, this approach emphasizes the need to enhance preparedness to reflexively steer sociotechnical developments in mitigating potential future harms. Conception of the future: This approach sees more fundamental and irreducible uncertainties in the future. This makes multiple future trajectories possible that are all plausible and that cannot be ranked or reduced to one single most likely future (Guston, 2014; Michelson, 2016; see also Selin, 2011). Considering that multiple plausible futures exist, and that plausibility itself is considered a matter of individual and group subjectivity (Ramírez & Selin, 2014), their content can only be legitimately envisioned through broad deliberation (Boyd et al., 2015; Guston, 2014; Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009). Actions in the present: An engagement with the future that recognizes multiple plausible future trajectories then calls for the development of adaptive capacities and a state of preparedness in the present, to navigate diverse future trajectories. Such preparedness should involve a broad range of actors in reflexive modes of future-making as well as futures-based decision-making (Guston, 2014; Sadowski & Guston, 2016). Guston (2014), for example, highlights the need for reflexivity in contemplating technological trajectories and progress, such that contingencies and possible disruptions can be better anticipated and prepared for ex ante. Future stakes should be brought into a reflexive conversation in dialogic spaces that include scientists, engineers and policymakers (Davies & Selin, 2012; Wiek et al., 2013). The call for upstream public engagement (Fuller, 2009; Macnaghten, 2009; Macnaghten et al., 2014) is hence critical for this second approach. It is seen as important is to include the concerns and hopes of lay publics who can support more socially robust technological development or climate adaptation planning (Lister et al., 2015; Nykvist et al., 2017; Serrao-Neumann et al., 2013). Anticipatory methods are used to exchange knowledge between experts and lay people, with anticipation understood here as being more about “practicing, rehearsing or exercising a capacity in a logically, spatially, or temporally prior way, than it is about divining a future” (Guston, 2014, p. 226). Ultimate aim: Whereas in the first approach, anticipatory governance aims at reducing future risks, this second approach focuses on preparedness to adapt to technological innovation and socioecological change, with the ultimate aim being to reflexively navigate uncertain futures (see also Pickering, 2019).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw