A conversation with Erik Overland about his paper, Sustainability and Futures, Moving Beyond the Natural and Artificial.
Interviewed by: Peter Hayward
Links
Sustainability and Futures Paper
Transcript
Peter Hayward: Sustainability has been a core tenent of much of the work of our community with our focus on protecting the natural world. But is that still a useful idea for us to work with. Is there such a thing as the natural world?
Erik Overland: If you look at how the concept of nature is treated within the environmental policy tradition is a kind of a universal idea of a reference point which humans are manipulating more or less with. It's a very principled stand to what is nature and following on that, what is natural and what is artificial. Because if we look at the history, I think the modern conceptualization of what is natural and what is nature is also a construction.
Peter Hayward:That is my guest today on FuturePod, Erik Overland who is the President and Chairman of the Board of the World Futures Studies Federation and Co-editor in Chief for the European Journal of Futures Research.
Peter Hayward: Welcome back to FuturePod, Erik.
Erik Overland: Thank you.
Peter Hayward: Erik, I checked, and your last podcast on FuturePod was in June 2021, titled The Universal Perspective.
Erik Overland: Yeah.
Peter Hayward: We were just emerging from COVID. So my first question to you, Erik, is: the world of Erik in 2021 versus Erik in 2025—has your view of the world changed much in these last four years?
Erik Overland: Well, some aspects of my mindset might have changed slightly. But fundamentally, it’s more or less the same. Especially when reflecting deeply on humanity, nature, our surroundings, and the world in general, I don’t believe events like the pandemic fundamentally alter one’s orientation toward the world. So, I still have the same reference points guiding me. Essentially, I am still the same person, just four years older—but that’s a different story.
Peter Hayward: Certainly. So, in 2023, you published a paper, which you sent to me. It’s a very interesting paper in „Futures“ titled Sustainability and Futures: Moving Beyond the Natural and the Artificial.
Peter Hayward: I want to focus on a part of that paper because I think it introduces an important discussion. You argue that sustainability and climate concerns have become a conceptual lock-in for our field. We, as practitioners, must understand whether we are confined by this dominant way of thinking and, if so, how we might move beyond it. Could you elaborate on that?
Erik Overland: Yes. In that paper, I refer to other works that have been developed over time, including my own research. My thinking on this topic started many years ago when I was studying classical German philosophy, particularly the works of Hegel, Marx, and Kant.
Erik Overland: The paper is rooted in a transcendental philosophical position. At first, it may seem unusual to connect these ideas to contemporary discussions on the Anthropocene, sustainability, and environmental policy. However, when analyzed from a fundamental perspective, clear connections can be made.
Erik Overland: In particular, if you look at how the concept of nature is treated within the environmental policy tradition, sustainability is often framed around an idea of an original, human-independent natural condition—something inherently given and unchanging. This concept serves as a universal reference point that humans are seen as manipulating, often destructively.
Erik Overland: I take a critical stance toward this framing of sustainability and environmental policy. However, when it comes to concrete policy measures and instruments aimed at combating pollution and mitigating negative consequences of modern industrial development, I fully support them. We must address these challenges seriously.
Erik Overland: My critique is more fundamental—it concerns the way we conceptualize nature and, by extension, what we consider natural and artificial. Throughout history, human activity has always been about interacting with and transforming the environment. Humans create tools to help them survive; this is an essential part of our nature.
Erik Overland: Therefore, it is misleading to view human-made instruments and interventions as mere artificial disruptions threatening some original, pristine natural state. The modern conceptualization of nature is itself a constructed idea. If you read Immanuel Kant or Bruno Latour, you will see that nature is a conceptual framework—a human-defined construct – a conceptually defined undefined („Begrifflich bestimmte Unbestimmtheit“).
Erik Overland: So, it is not the case that nature exists as a pure entity independent of human activity, nor that humans are inherently destructive by engaging with their environment. That is the core of my critique—a fundamental challenge to the way sustainability is framed conceptually.
Peter Hayward: Sustainability, when it first emerged—through the Club of Rome in the 1960s and 70s—was a reaction against the dominant paradigm of industrialization.
Erik Overland: Yes, exactly.
Peter Hayward: And so, prioritizing the planet and considering the natural world was, in my view, Erik, an antithesis to the thesis of industrialization. We were actively challenging the dominant paradigm and trying to bring it into the mainstream, despite being in the minority. Now, fifty years later, sustainability is widely accepted. As you mentioned, it appears in virtually every United Nations document, every organizational strategy, and vision statement. Are you suggesting that because sustainability has now become part of business as usual, futurists need to move toward the next principle—the next fundamental idea—as disruptive as sustainability once was?
Erik Overland: Yes, exactly. I believe that’s one of my main points. I, too, was part of that initial reaction. As a young scholar, I was actively involved in what we called Natural Youth, a youth organization focused on environmental policy and saving the world. It was an essential reaction against the one-dimensional, growth-focused thinking that emerged from the modernist paradigms of the 1950s and 60s.
Erik Overland: That reaction was crucial—it attempted to establish a new paradigm not only within futures studies but also within social sciences and the humanities. However, as you pointed out, the paradigms set forth by the Club of Rome and similar organizations fifty years ago were both necessary and, at times, problematic. Some of these reactions were appropriate, while others may have been overly rigid in their opposition.
Erik Overland: In my paper, I discuss the linguistic turn, which emphasizes dialogue, much like Habermas’s work. Communication and discourse are crucial. However, I am highly skeptical of reintegrating a sacralized view of nature, as this risks reverting to a pre-modern perspective that blurs the line between what is secular and what is not.
Erik Overland: I am also critical of the rigid anti-growth stance found in some sustainability narratives. Societies require a certain level of growth to function and evolve. Without innovation and continual reinvention, societies stagnate and decline. We cannot simply reproduce past conditions—we must create new solutions and continuously adapt. If equilibrium in society is lost, it leads to instability.
Erik Overland: You may find it surprising, but Karl Marx himself touched on this in Das Kapital, specifically in chapter 21 and 22 of the second volume. Conventional Marxists often interpret his discussions of simple and expanded reproduction as descriptions of real social formations. However, these are actually Hegelian-inspired models demonstrating that modern society must be understood as a growth-based system. If growth halts, societal structures begin to break down. Today, the rise of global fascist movements can, in part, be seen as a reaction to the signs of economic stagnation. But that’s a longer discussion for another time.
Peter Hayward: You also argue that one of the fundamental issues within our field is that we remain captive to negating dominant paradigms rather than moving beyond them. You refer to this as post-isms. I see this as a frozen dialectic—we need dialectics to develop new paradigms, but we cannot remain stuck in opposition. Instead of merely crafting a powerful antithesis, we must also articulate a strong thesis, and hold both in tension to achieve a synthesis that transcends and integrates the key aspects of each.
Erik Overland: Yes, exactly. It’s fundamentally about dialectics. If we consider Hegel’s framework of thesis and antithesis, the goal is not to remain in opposition but to push toward synthesis.
Erik Overland: But it's not just that—there is also a fundamental shift in thinking. If you consider the concept of nature, as the Anthropocene does, it defines a period in history in which human activity has significantly influenced the environment. Before that, there was an idealized notion of nature as a pristine paradise, an untouched natural condition. However, this perspective is problematic because it assumes a static, pre-human condition that never truly existed.
Erik Overland: If we look at the various 'post-isms'—postmodernity, post-normality, and so on—we see a tendency to frame everything as quasi-normal. This results in a fragmented and somewhat directionless conceptual framework. That is why I experimented with the term universal perspectivism. I wanted to acknowledge the postmodern turn because it pointed out crucial issues—such as the need to critique one-dimensional, linear modernity—but also to move beyond it by fostering broader, alternative perspectives.
Erik Overland: The universal aspect of this concept emphasizes the need to create shared narratives—orientation points that enable us to connect with others and affirm a common human identity. If these universal narratives break down, we risk falling into identity politics and fragmented discourse. This is why it is necessary to rethink the relationship between modernity and postmodernity.
Erik Overland: The perspectivism part, on the other hand, acknowledges that truth is not simply about appearances. The only absolute truth within this framework is the construction of a natural reference point—an idea of nature that is defined in contrast to human activity. To be a moral human being, one must construct and reflect on the world rather than assume a predefined natural state. This conceptual differentiation between nature and human morality is essential. You shape yourself as a human moral beiing through the construction of what you are not – natural science and technological innovations.
Erik Overland: In my paper, I explored these themes by revisiting Kant and interpreting how the relationship between humanity and nature has been historically framed. The key challenge is not the unity of nature and humanity, but rather understanding why the differentiation between the natural world and human moral society emerged in the first place.
Peter Hayward: Just to clarify, Erik—you are distinguishing universal perspectivism from both relativism and globalism. These are distinct ontological perspectives on the world, correct?
Erik Overland: Yes.
Peter Hayward: But your goal is to introduce a different perspective—one that allows new ways of thinking about the world to emerge.
Erik Overland: Exactly. I must admit that I haven't yet fully explored every aspect of this idea, but I believe I am onto something. You cannot simply accept the conventional binary choices. For instance, in the current political climate, right-wing movements often react aggressively against globalism, using terms like 'globalist' as an insult. They advocate for nationalistic policies, protectionism, and isolationism, breaking down the idea of universal human solidarity.
Erik Overland: However, while it is necessary to critique empty globalist ideology—which sometimes lacks substantive content—we must not abandon the ambition of fostering a shared human solidarity. The challenge is to strike a balance between these competing forces.
Peter Hayward: That’s an interesting point. I am particularly sensitive to Toynbee’s idea of elite overproduction, where intellectual elites become self-serving carriers of ideology, while most people simply seek a better life. In democratic societies, people often turn toward older ideas when contemporary ideologies fail to improve their quality of life.
Erik Overland: Exactly. If postmodernism leads to excessive identity politics—where discussions focus not on class or economic realities but on group-based privileges—then we inevitably face backlash. The reactions often mirror the same exclusionary tendencies they seek to critique, just in different forms.
Erik Overland: In my view, we must reestablish a discussion about universal human conditions. What could be a new universal framework for humanity—one that does not fall into the traps we currently see unfolding? That, I believe, is the key question we need to explore.
Peter Hayward: In your paper, you discuss transhumanism, AI, and the digitization of body and soul. Do you think the issue of human hybridization—the merging of humans with powerful technologies—is a valuable experimental field for futurists? Should we engage with these ideas to explore new ways of thinking about the future?
Erik Overland: Definitely. Personally, I find these areas fascinating because they involve transformative technologies that humanity has never encountered before. The potential consequences of these developments are profound, and one of our primary responsibilities as futurists is to examine their implications.
Erik Overland: That being said, I am also somewhat critical of certain terms used in this discourse, particularly artificial intelligence. Why is it called artificial? And what do we mean by natural intelligence? There seems to be an assumption that human intelligence exists as an innate, pre-existing phenomenon, while AI is something separate and external. But intelligence itself has been developed and refined through human interaction with tools and the environment since the very beginning.
Erik Overland: The pace and scale of technological development today are significantly different from before. Terms like natural intelligence and artificial intelligence blur the reality of what is actually happening. The issue is not about artificiality versus naturalness—it is about humans creating tools to improve their lives. That is the essence of these technological advancements.
Erik Overland: The same logic applies to transhumanism. The term suggests a distinction between what is naturally human and what extends beyond that. But we are not transcending humanity—we are further developing what it means to be human. Biotechnologies and emerging synergies between technology and biology are reshaping our understanding of human existence. A hundred or 150 years ago, we had a certain idea of human genetics as something biological given. Today, new technologies influence even our fundamental genetic structures.
Erik Overland: This is not something we should resist. Instead, we must explore how these technologies can be used to create a more humane society—one in which people see themselves as part of a shared humanity, working toward a better environment for all. That is why I am skeptical of the term transhuman, because the current development does not imply a radical transformation; it represents a continuous evolution of what it means to be human.
Peter Hayward: Do we, as futurists, have the necessary methodologies, language, or conceptual frameworks to critically engage with these developments? Or are we constrained by traditional scenario methods? While scenarios are a useful tool for imagining futures, are they sufficient for the kinds of challenges you are describing?
Erik Overland: We must differentiate between the fundamental elements of our approach. Scenario methodology is incredibly valuable—it allows us to illustrate potential consequences and uncertainties. In my view, it remains a gold standard for futures reasoning. I do not entirely agree with critiques that claim we must go beyond scenarios, because I have yet to see what going beyond truly entails.
Erik Overland: However, there are underlying principles that must be acknowledged. I once had a discussion with Riel Miller in southern Saudi Arabia about whether we, as futurists, should engage in dialogues with groups like QAnon, who reject conventional rationalist frameworks. I am deeply skeptical of such engagements because they undermine basic principles of truth and human understanding. There are foundational concepts that we must uphold.
Erik Overland: So, while scenario development is not entirely postmodern or relativistic, it must be anchored in some fundamental assumptions about human existence and the material world. If we relativize everything, we risk losing essential reference points.
Peter Hayward: Do futurists need to be better philosophers to engage with these ideas in the way you are suggesting?
Erik Overland: I would phrase it differently—I became a better futurist because I studied philosophy, not the other way around. My background in social anthropology, sociology, and philosophy has shaped how I approach futures thinking. The training I received in philosophy has been invaluable to my work.
Peter Hayward: You are still the president of our Federation—thank you for your service. Given the history of futures studies, which emerged from operations research, systems thinking, and cybernetics, do you think the field is still focused on understanding and managing complexity? Are we still trying to leverage, influence, and shape the future in a way that involves control and manipulation? Or do you see a different trajectory for the next 50 years?
Erik Overland: The balance between sociopolitical ambition and open reflection on possibilities is both intriguing and crucial. If we look at the history of the Federation, as you mentioned earlier, it was a product of the 1960s—a response to one-dimensional modernist thinking.
Erik Overland: At that time, concerns about nuclear threats, environmental degradation, and other global issues drove a strong reaction. While these concerns were legitimate, the movement sometimes overemphasized the opposition, leading to the creation of a new paradigm. In retrospect, this was not entirely beneficial, as it may have constrained creativity and engagement with emerging technologies. Perhaps, as futurists, we should have engaged more actively in shaping new technologies instead of merely reacting to them.
Erik Overland: The Federation was not party-political but was certainly rooted in a sociopolitical movement. That was its historical context. However, that was fifty years ago. Today, what I am searching for is a discussion about the framing that will guide us for the next fifty years. I believe this relates to democracy, the organization of societies, and the use of technology within geopolitical contexts.
Erik Overland: While sustainability remains an important goal, repeating the reactions of the 1960s and 1970s is insufficient. The role of a progressive futurist today is not merely to advocate for environmental policies but to engage in deeper systemic thinking about the structures that will shape our future.
Peter Hayward: Would you accept that if we push forward a new paradigm or discussion for the next fifty years, we may end up discussing topics that are not yet widely recognized in government, education, and other institutions? Do we risk becoming irrelevant if we move too far ahead?
Erik Overland: Yes, there is a risk of becoming disconnected from the concerns of many people. Environmental issues remain critically important, and we must engage with them creatively and constructively. However, we must also broaden our perspective.
Erik Overland: Take Norway as an example. If electricity prices skyrocket due to environmental policies, making basic necessities unaffordable for many, then we have failed to address essential concerns. If futurists and policymakers ignore these realities, they risk alienating the very people they seek to help. We must be mindful of our approach, continuously reflecting on whether it meets the needs of society.
Peter Hayward: Let’s talk about the Federation. How is it doing? For those listening who may be interested, how can they get involved?
Erik Overland: That’s a great question. Looking at the broader geopolitical and sociopolitical landscape, the field of futures studies remains somewhat fragmented, with various networks and groups. However, in the grand scheme of things, we are still a relatively small community.
Erik Overland: In my opinion, there is significant potential to bring people together more effectively. As President of the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), I have worked to strengthen its academic dimension while maintaining rigorous criteria for engagement. We could expand much further while maintaining our core mission.
Erik Overland: One of our major recent initiatives is an accreditation program for universities, higher education institutions, and research organizations. This has been very successful so far, with continuous applications coming in. By the end of this year, we expect to have accredited six or seven universities. This is a historic first in our field, and I am very proud of this achievement.
Erik Overland: Additionally, we are working to strengthen our journal presence. I am about to take over as Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Futures Research.
Peter Hayward: In your spare time, of course.
Erik Overland: Yes, in my spare time! But as my term as President of the Federation concludes in October, I will have more capacity to focus on this long-term academic effort.
Erik Overland: We are also connecting with other journals and institutions to further legitimize the academic and professional aspects of futures studies. Many other networks, such as the Dubai Future Foundation, have different priorities, but our role remains essential in fostering serious research and interdisciplinary discussions about the future.
Erik Overland: I think that’s a very important step to take. If you look at other networks, such as the Millennium Project, we see that they also require a stronger connection to the academic world. Strengthening these links is a crucial part of our work.
Erik Overland: We are also launching a mentorship program to reach more people. This initiative aims to attract new members to the Federation, providing them with a structured pathway to develop expertise. Our goal is to offer training, courses, and various learning opportunities to help less experienced members grow and engage more actively.
Erik Overland: At the moment, we are also organizing our 26th conference, which will take place in Stellenbosch, South Africa, at the end of October this year. We will be sending out a call for participation soon, so please keep an eye out for that and join us if you can.
Peter Hayward: Great! I’ll do a podcast on that once the call is out. Erik, it’s been wonderful catching up after four years. Thank you for your insightful and much-needed thoughts on how our field must continue pushing its boundaries. And, of course, thank you for your long service as the Federation President. I hope your new role as Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Futures Research goes well. Thanks for taking the time to be on the podcast.
Erik Overland: Thank you, Peter, for hosting this discussion and for your kind words. I really appreciate it. Now, I am heading to another discussion soon, where one of your publications will be analyzed—something you wrote back in 2005!
Peter Hayward: Thanks, Erik.
Erik Overland: Take care, Peter.
Peter Hayward: Thanks to Erik. There is a link to his very interesting paper on Sustainability and its usefulness for our community on his show page. Its worth reading. FuturePod is a not-for-profit venture. We exist through the generosity of our supporters. If you would like to support the Pod then please check out the Patreon link on our website. I'm Peter Hayward thanks for joining me today. Till next time