A very British genealogy of zoefuturism

By Christine Aicardi

Vector’s call to explore zoefuturism was the first time I heard of the word. But the editors’ framing of this newly coined variety of futurism spoke to me. Reading it through the prism of (feminist) scholarly literature in Science and Technology Studies (STS), it brought to mind the theorizing of ethics in more-than-human worlds, and its emphasis on the living relationalities of care across human and nonhuman agencies (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017); it brought to mind multispecies assemblages and their lifeways entanglements (Lowenhaupt Tsing, 2015); it brought to mind the Chthulucene, proposed by Donna Haraway as more apt than the Anthropocene at describing current times, when human and nonhuman are more than ever inextricably entangled in living and dying together (Haraway, 2016).

But what caught me was a recommendation in the “Further explorations…” section of Vector’s call – the short story “Euglena” by Jane Norris (Norris, 2024). I had read “Euglena” and remembered it as a moving homage to the second generation of British cybernetics through one of its main figures, Stafford Beer. The monologuing slime mould narrating the story (we don’t know at the start that they are a slime mould) explain that their “first connection was with Stafford Beer”, that they loved his brain, and that they were born as a pond computer around 1960 (265-67). This, for me, raised intriguing questions about the possible relations between zoefuturism and cybernetics.

Beer (1926-2002), born in Putney, London, is best remembered for his contributions to operational research, management cybernetics (a field he launched in the 1950s) and (exceedingly) complex systems thinking (Rosenhead, 2006). A historical landmark was Project Cybersyn (1971-73), an experiment in socialist cybernetics in Allende’s Chile, which was framed by Beer’s writings on management cybernetics and to which he actively participated (Medina, 2006). Less known are Beer’s highly imaginative forays into biological computing in the 1950s and 1960s, on his own and in collaboration with Gordon Pask, another important British cybernetician of the second generation.

From the mid-1950s, Beer started looking far and wide for natural systems that could be used in the construction of cybernetic machines (Pickering, 2010: 231-34). He investigated with young children (his own, probably), successfully using positive and negative feedback to train them in solving simultaneous equations without teaching them the maths. He reported on thought experiments aimed at enticing various kinds of animals to “play this game” using adequate “reward function[s]”: mice, using cheese; rats and pigeons (already studied for their learning abilities); bees, ants, termites, which “have all been systematically considered as components of self-organizing systems” (Beer, 1962, cited in Pickering (2010): 232). But it was with simple pond life that he most experimented: colonies of a freshwater crustacean (Daphnia) and… of Euglena, a genus of microscopic unicellular flagellate algae, of which some species live in freshwater and some in saltwater. Eventually, for over a year he tried to enrol an entire pond ecosystem, in a large tank which contents “were randomly sampled from ponds in Derbyshire and Surrey” (Beer, 1962, cited in Pickering (2010): 234).

Continue reading “A very British genealogy of zoefuturism”

Who Writes the Future: All Tomorrow’s Futures at King’s College London

By Zoe Mantas

The panel, left to right: Claire Steves, Elizabeth Black, Christine Aicardi, Benjamin Greenaway, Stephen Oram

What could the future look like? What do we want it to look like? ‘All Tomorrow’s Futures: scientists meet sci-fi writers to invent possible futures’ hosted by the King’s Institute for Artificial Intelligence attempts, if not to answer, then to explore how we might try. 

Bringing together creatives and experts, All Tomorrow’s Futures is a project in foresight, attempting to provide plausible (or at least thought-provoking) narratives for how technologies may change our society. What makes it different from other projects is its methodology tying experts and creators together from the very start of the process to bounce ideas off each other and bring in research and creative resources. The panel was chaired by Dr. Christine Aicardi, senior research fellow in science and technology studies (STS) from King’s College London, and included editors and writers Benjamin Greenaway and Stephen Oram, with contributions from Dr. Elizabeth Black and Professor Claire Steves, and the discussions focused more on the process and intent of the project rather than the content of the book which contained resulting stories. 

So, what is foresighting? Let’s start with what it isn’t: a definitive prediction. Foresighting isn’t about saying what will happen. It’s about saying what could happen.  More importantly than that, it is about the skill of asking important questions and developing ideas to support future possibilities. Interestingly, the panellists emphasized the importance of participatory foresight, bringing in perspectives beyond the usual ‘experts’. The panellists emphasized the importance of asking who is envisioning these futures in the status quo right now and the need to actively include those in society who feel, in the main quite rightly, that they do not have agency in the decisions being made that will affect their futures.This also goes beyond the UK, for example, the future is African – it is the youngest continent, yet our global future imaginaries in the field of science fiction and beyond are not yet shaped in a way representative of people who will live in those futures. 

Continue reading “Who Writes the Future: All Tomorrow’s Futures at King’s College London”