From Paradise Lost to Paradise Conceptually Postponed: What Makes Scenarios of the Futures Being Staged

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Yuriy Fedkovych Chemivtsi National University (Chemivtsi, Ukraine)

From Paradise Lost to Paradise Conceptually Postponed: What Makes Scenarios of the Futures Being Staged

Svitlana Balinchenko

PhD in Philosophy

Abstract

In the article, the scenario-moulding is evaluated through the linguistic and conceptual accessibility of the future and the moral challenges of doing and allowing harm to the future participants of the practical discourses rooted in the present-centered scenarios. The viability of the scenarios is suggested to be defined by the alienation from the present and past imaginative contexts, as well as by overcoming the projections of humanity exclusiveness through inversible forecasting with the shift from human power to vulnerability as the key issue in scenario-making. The eccentric approach to the future makes it possible to review both intergenerational and intragenerational perspectives of the future through the chronological distance and yet-inexistent subjects' expectations and needs simulation. Taking to account the impact of the past, present and future otherness implies the three-dimensional assessment model involving metaphorical evaluation of the past-rooted patterns as paradise lost, illusions of the accessible futures as paradise found, and refusal of the futurized present expectations for the yet- unknown imaginative future contexts as paradise conceptually postponed. The approach can find its practical application in tailoring and evaluating migration solutions and scenarios.

Keywords: sustainability, futures studies, power, vulnerability, Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (DDE), scenario

Introduction

cosmological philosophical narrative xian

The scenario-making in the context of sustainability inevitably implies the issues of caring about the future, responsibility, and outcomes evaluation. At the same time, there should be considered the subjects' connections rooted in the political field and shaping the capabilities for action, within the asymmetrical conceptual pattern of care. As Christopher Groves describes it.

Making sustainability a concrete way of working through the multi-decadal collapse of progress narratives requires the improvisation of shared practices that effectively embody care for the world and solidarity with future people, and the articulation of norms that will help us both locate ourselves as performers of these practices, and trouble us with their insufficiency as ways of expressing our responsibility to whoever comes after us. Responsibility is irresponsible unless it is transformed into an actual response. (Groves, 2019: 923).

The problematic issue on the scenarios of the future is that they seem to have a limitation in reaching further from the present in the dimensions shaped and influenced by otherness, dialogical responsibility, and communication goals for the changes introduced. The futures scenarios evaluation, in terms of sustainability, is focused on the aspects as follows: (1) the markers of the scenarios being potentially instrumental, anthropocentric, or present-centric (Groves, 2019: 916); (2) the markers of the future populations being considered in terms of otherness, in Ours-Other-Alien dimensions; the otherness map including the sense-loaded stereotypes and metaphors of family relations that empower the present populations to guide the choices of the successors using the now-established norms and practices; (3) the correlation between the past, present, and future, as well as the chronological balance between the vectors; (4) the symbolic markers that label the outcomes as either preferable or inappropriate on the scenario-moulding stage, and involve social myths and biases.

The paper aims at outlining the methodological limitations of sustainability through the critique of the positions of the accessibility of the future and dominance of the present- centered patterns. The futures studies methodology and categories have been reviewed in the ritournelle-like contexts of the past, present, and future to formulate and test the inverted approach to the future through some intellectual experiments shifting the focus from nature to humankind as something under the question of being preserved.

The novelty of the paper can be described through the inversion of the future as well the eccentric future means to be included in the scenarios of political regulation. Thus, modeling of the future social-cultural space is bound to include otherness issues concerning the nature and the future populations as hypothetical participants of the actual discourses. The community communication within the eccentric future concept includes dialogical responsibility towards the surrounding space, in terms of making and allowing harm as the problem beyond the anthropocentric perspective.

The further impact of the results can be suggested both in restoring social cohesion in the communities affected by the conflict and migration in the wider scope of adaptation involving context reinterpretation. Another possible application is in an adjustment of legal norms by introducing the eccentric future vision and overcoming the current division between human- centered and nature-centered decisions and norms.

The research question could be formulated as follows: Would it be sustainable to preserve the current humanity patterns rooted in the sustainability norms and requirements? The subquestions could be introduced to narrow the scope as follows: What kinds of eccentric scenarios are possible linguistically? What anthropocentric aspects should be alienated to realize a scenario of the eccentric future, and what are the markers of gains and losses in the eccentric scenarios?

In the paper, the terms should be understood as follows. Sustainability implies an ethical approach beyond the efforts of conservation of the resources for the generations to come, that is, to maintain a normative frame enabling responsible scenario-making based on global interdependence and partnership (Earth Charter, 2000; Transforming, 2015; Speth, 2008). While future-for-the-present orientation is described by Groves (2019) through futurediscounting models, the present-for-the-future includes reflections upon the present through possible changes in values and environments (Groves, 2019: 916). Moreover, Groves mentions “specific ways of enacting a temporal relation between present, past and future (...) [that] tend to rest on implicit misinterpretations of the relation between self and other and, therefore, between human subjects and nature” (Ibidem). Thus, past-for-the-future is an added vector of influence applicable when the norms are traditionally accepted without deliberation and shape the present and future decision-making. Discourse principle (D-principle) in the context is necessary as a norm validity criterion to consider the possible norm approval by the affected participants of the practical discourses (Habermas, 1974; Thomassen, 2010). To adjust it to the social-cultural and political fields, inversible forecasting can be suggested as a preference to human vulnerability rather than power as a basic position for long-term scenario-moulding. From this perspective, alienation of the present from past and future in the scenarios can be seen as a constructive chronological distance simulation that makes it possible to evaluate the power/vulnerability ratio of the scenario actors. Adaptation in the context of the futures scenarios should be understood wider than “a consequence of acculturation” (Sam & Berry, 2010: 472) as acceptance of the otherness dimension of the future communities with the incomprehensible yet-to-be experience and worldview when the scale between Ours-Other-Alien is regulated based on the norms and values intrinsic to the present scenario-making process (Bцhler, 2014), as well as the hazy power and rule-changing metagames (Beck, 2005: 2-3).

The study is based on the set of methods and materials chosen to address both the theoretical challenges of scenario-making and the various markers of the outcomes preferability of the scenarios.

The conceptual modeling has been used to extend the future-for-the-present and present- for-the-future constructs (Groves, 2019) by adding the dimensions of the past in its correlation with present and future, and the criteria of the future accessibility that has an impact on the scenario planning and lifeworld organization. Thus, the extensions are aimed at tracing the chronological balance between past, present, and future, as well as the linguistic possibility of including the latter into scenarios.

At the same time, the understanding of the future populations through otherness orientation requires the comparativist imagology instruments (Swiderska, 2013) be applied to the field of otherness markers beyond literature studies to assess the relevance of the scenario-makers' position and that of the actors-to-be-affected by the discourse outcome of the future-oriented decision-making. The otherness of the scenarios addressees in the future, as well as a suggestion of a sustainability model beyond the nature-/anthropocentric ones, made it necessary to refer to intellectual experiments as a means of future modeling (Bцhler, 2014; Lutz, 2021; Parfit, 1984).

The study contains a theoretical outline of the eccentric approach to the future that is still limited and requires further explication and testing based on the wider range of future-oriented analysis. Further development of the approach could be seen through a study of the actors involved in the process of the scenarios making, evaluation, and realization. Further study can also clarify the possibility of avoiding past and present bias being projected onto the yet-to-be-known gaps in the distribution of the actors' preferences.

Accessibility of the future as a scenarios viability marker

The issues of the future accessibility for scenario-making and the limitations of the future- oriented suppositions based on the heredity idea have been widely discussed in the studies through responsibility and otherness attribution between generations.

Discussing identity, Derek Parfit suggests an imaginary situation of a club with the regular meetings of the members having ceased and then the club with the same name and rules being reconvened (Parfit, 1984: 213). The question of whether the club is the same or similar to the original one could be classified as empty; and before deciding between the variants, after Parfit, “we are merely choosing one of the two descriptions of the very same course of events” (Parfit, 1984: 214). If applied to scenario-making, the claim could remain relevant in a range of “re” contexts. For instance, in the line of social sustainability, territories reintegration and deoccupation scenarios as a part of conflict regulation imply the competitive descriptions of either the preoccupation-like identity restoration or construction of the space oriented at the mostly similar identity but with the conflict-related social-cultural distortions being addressed through the consequent adjustments. The practical application of the approaches can be traced in the suggested reintegration and conflict regulation scenarios for Ukraine, for the future post-conflict period (Haran, 2019).

If the shift from regional to personal identity, the Branch-Line Case suggested by Parfit could be furnished as a way to overcome the present-centricity of the future-oriented scenarios. The situation implies that personal identity could be questioned and correlated with what Parfit calls Relation R, that is, “psychological connectedness or/and continuity, with the right kind of cause (...) In an account of what matters, the right kind of cause could be any cause” (Parfit, 1984: 215). Thus, in the Branch-Line Case, the imaginary Replica of a person could live forty years after the original person's death. The focus on the personal identity makes it possible to classify the situation as death, while the supposition that it is Relation R what matters makes it possible “to regard this way of dying as being as good as ordinary survival” (Ibidem). Moreover, there is to be considered a further fact, after the imaginary case by Parfit, as the transmission of the blueprint to the future persons through the psychological continuity implies that “this continuity will not have its normal cause, since this future person will not be physically continuous with me” (Parfit, 1984: 242). When applied to the sustainability scenarios, the continuity of humankind is to fill in the gap of the yet-unknown future populations' claims towards the issues of power, powerlessness, and vulnerability incorporated into the present-formed sustainability goals.

In his turn, Christopher Groves points out that “whose values matter now is shaped by power inequality” (Groves, 2019: 916). The researcher points out that the future-oriented conceptions are mostly human-centered and reduced to the simplification of parent-child and heredity concept fields rooted in the parental care-like assumption of the earth being borrowed from one's children (Ibidem). Thus, the questions that arise were articulated by Groves as follows: (1) “If nature is conceived as that which sustains us - or our children and their children - does this not mean that we will (...) only care for whatever in nature we can currently identify as useful?” (2) “If we translate future-oriented concern into concern for our posterity, are we not reducing the scope of our supposedly cosmopolitan concern to what `we' now consider to be important for `our' children?” (Ibidem).

Another posterity-like connection between the generations can be found in A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. The present as the focus makes it possible to bring the responsibility for the future population into the discussion through the parent-children concept field as well:

But since we take the present time of entry interpretation of the original position (...), the parties know that they are contemporaries; and so unless we modify our initial assumptions, there is no reason for them to agree to any saving whatever. Earlier generations will have either saved or not; there is nothing the parties can do to affect that. So to achieve the reasonable result we assume first, that the parties represent family lines, say, who care at least about their more immediate descendants; and second, that the principle adopted must be such that they wish all earlier generations to have followed it (...). These constraints together with the veil of ignorance, are to ensure that any one generation looks out for all. (Rawls, 1999 [1971): 254).

Nevertheless, such inter interconnectedness between present and future generations remains a statement in need of further justification that it is not a quasi one (Toya, 2021).

To compare with the imaginary cases of posterity suggested by Parfit, the parental care-based determining of what is to be useful and valuable for the future populations is justified by the present and past patterns of sustainability. Nevertheless, the Relation R as a psychological continuity of the generations to come might trigger the emerging of the beliefs and values patterns similar but far from being the same as the present ones.

As for the recent studies, Matt Lutz (2021) reviews the Moral Closure Argument through the possibility to rule out the scenario when “our experiences do not discriminate between the case where our beliefs are true and the skeptical scenario where they are not” (Lutz, 2021: 80). The Closure, after Lutz, can be formulated as follows:

If S knows that P, and P entails Q, and S believes that Q on the basis of competently deducing Q from P, while retaining knowledge of P throughout his reasoning, then S knows that Q (Lutz 2021, 80).

In one of the objections, Lutz mentions the problem of Future Outlandishness based on the imaginary case of the claim that in 2050, the Rocky Mountains will spontaneously transform into a giant whale (Lutz, 2021: 103). If considered as a future belief, the claim is problematic to be ruled out and is to be regarded as logically possible because “this experience generator is cashed out in terms of past facts, which is consistent with the claim that the Rockies will become a giant whale in the future” (Ibidem). Nevertheless, Lutz suggests inductive reasoning being applied to the case of the future belief, supported with the “long history of mountains not transforming into whales”. The future can be reviewed by means of defining the unobserved reality through the facts that could be distinguished, even if there is a questionbegging in the extending of the past to the future: “But what reason do we have to think that the future will resemble the past?” (Lutz, 2021: 104). Another concern is expressed by Lutz as for the possibility of application of the inductive reasoning to morality, as well as for the evaluation of the future cases less outlandish than the Giant Whale case:

Thus, my arguments here still may direct us toward skepticism about many other future facts. This charge has merit, but it is not an objection. Predictions are hard, especially about the future. I can know that the sun will rise tomorrow and that mountains will not spontaneously transform into whales. About many other things, it is best to suspend judgment. (Lutz, 2021: 104).

The communicative aspect of the inaccessibility of the future generations could be considered through Hiroshi Toya's comment on Greta Thunberg's statement of the future generations watching the present ones and refusing to consider the present decisions acceptable due to the necessity to live with the consequences in the future (Greta Thunberg's Speech, 2019), that is “Responsibility for future generations is the responsibility for what does not exist, and in the most extreme sense, responsibility for others outside our community” (Toya, 2021). The researcher reconsiders the responsibility dimensions suggested by D. Bцhler and H. Jonas through the claim that responsibility in itself incorporates the idea of the future bearers of responsibility, regardless of the otherness of the future populations, as “the responsibility to future generations is responsibility to those whom we cannot meet, discuss, or even become acquainted with, which is why future generations are easily forgotten” (Ibidem).

Thus, scenarios being considered, the remaining theory gap includes the issues on the interconnectedness of present and future, limitations of the future beliefs and values acquisition and incorporation into the scenarios, and the possibilities for getting the approval of all hypothetically affected participants in a practical discourse (Habermas, 1987 [1981]) in the situation of the future actors being both inaccessible and unpredictable at the stage of the scenarios being made.

Findings

In the study, the scenario-making and evaluation are suggested to be reviewed in the perspectives as follows: (1) the inversible forecasting as a preference to human vulnerability rather than power as the criteria defining scenarios; (2) alienation of the future from the present and past as a key to a scenario success owing to the possibility of the chronological distance and yet-inexistent subjects simulation.

The eccentric approach to the future involves (1) self-alienation of the present scenario- makers to prevent the scenarios of the future from the biases, values and inequalities engraved in the adopted past and present social imaginative contexts; (2) other-alienation in the view of the imagined future populations and their values, and preferences to avoid the projection of the known onto the linguistically yet-inaccessible future experiences; (3) double alienation of the future and the nature to overcome the present sustainability focus on humanity exclusiveness and nature being preserved as a mere resource and medium for the humankind survival.

Thus, the past systemic patterns defining the lifeworld can be regarded as a paradise lost for sustainability, to reflect Ricoeur's description of the Lebenswelt itself as a never-given but presupposed phenomenological paradise lost (Ricoeur, 1986: 27). Nevertheless, the past- ruled present and past-backed future elements in the scenarios, as well as the elements of the futures discounting and future-for-the-present approach, indicate the attempts to colonization and domestication of the inaccessible future through the notions and patterns of the already adopted social imaginative contexts (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Oht temporal chart rf cOatktltoical impacts ik the scenarios staging

Oht erltkizatitk rf the future by present- ta past- means rf sctkarit-oakiko eatatts an illusitk ik the aaeetieel diseruasts tk the accessible future that eruld be a paradise found fra humankind.

Reflecting rn Riertuа^,s suggestim that the discruase in use atktaetts the ipeaikeay atsrneket rf the things nrt seen but said with reality (Ricreua, 1986: 217), it is ptssible tr assume that the inability tr derive linguistically the dtseаiаtirk rf the future ipeaiketivt crktexts ytt-aiddtk from the aatstkt rbstavtas shruld be en^ded intr the futuats setkeairs as a feasible accuracy rf the paradise conceptually postponed tr ctunteoact the futurized ааtstkt txatetetirks.

Discussion. Moral and temporal limits of the foreseeing

In the view rf the current eаelltkаts, the eaekats in public prlicy and tаrst in individual and stcial btаevirа, eftta James Speth, “are nrt the next steps” as “the serirus actirn is lrng rvtаdut” in the view rf the aupekity- and ketuаt-аtlettd issues (Speth, 2008: 199). Ntvtrtatltss, the atsteaeata suggests that tаensfrаpetirks in ctkscitusktss and аrlities can be crucial in defining the eiаeupstenets ftr the eaekats (Ibidem), and refers, in the crntext rf The Earth Cаerttа (2000), tr the ^utuat-atlettd traksitirn, eprka required rnes:

from diseruktika the future, freusika stvtatly rn the ktea term, tr tParwtaika future 0tktaatitks terkrpieelly, arlitieelly, and environmentally and аterаkizikа duties tr yet unbrm aupek and netuаel ctooumtits well intr the future. ^peth, 2008: 207).

The diseruktika issue alst аtpeiks influtktiel in the terkrpie setkeairs and enelysts. Frr ikstenet, the EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (2010) puts the frcus rn the iktаaotktаatitkal diseruktika in the time atriztk, as rааrstd tr the ikttaatktaetirkel diseruktika:

Intragenerational, or conventional, discounting applies to contexts that may have decades-long time frames, but do not explicitly confront impacts on unborn generations that may be beyond the private planning horizon of the current ones. Intergenerational discounting, by contrast, addresses extremely long time horizons and the impacts and preferences of generations to come. To some extent, this distinction is a convenience as there is no discrete point at which one moves from one context to another. However, the relative importance of various issues can change as the time horizon lengthens. (Guidelines, 2010: 6-1).

The time horizon is not regarded as arbitrary and can have an impact on policies and benefits estimation (Guidelines, 2010: 6). At the same time, this example illustrates the conceptual rupture between the need in the “intergenerational consciousness and conscience” articulated by the researchers in culture and society studies (Speth, 2008: 201-203), on the one hand, and the intragenerational tendencies in the economic analyses and scenarios, on the other hand.

The fork of the perspectives in the futures evaluation leads to the necessity of assessment of the variations of the future. Speaking of the alternative plausible futures, Metzger et al. (2010) mention that, though it is difficult to assess the alternative narratives objectively, explicit personal judgments of scenario implications form the imaginative context of either high- expectation world (HEW) associated with the positive outcomes or low-expectation world (LEW) with the compromised expectations and values or mismatched trade-offs (Metzger et al., 2010).

In the recent studies on sustainability, the multi-scale participatory approach to scenarios as stories about the future based on the stakeholders' insights (Kok et al., 2007) becomes a way to overcome human-centeredness in planning. For instance, Zorrilla-Miras et al. (2021) suggest a view of the complex human-environment relationships that are wider than the instrumental land use narratives.

Nevertheless, the benefits of the multi-scale participatory planning process contain the question of whether the scenarios become conceptually-engaged, judgement-related, and present-human-centered. Thus, the key issue of scenarios viability estimation is whether the present expectations of the existing though hypothetical participants of the practical discourses have an impact on future outcomes that might affect the populations beyond participation in the scenarios and solutions moulding.

Making and allowing harm: an intergenerational perspective

The perspective of the present being granted the central position was described by Paul Ricoeur through a series of linguistical paradoxes. Firstly, the present is opposed to the past and the future through the external and internal linguistic indicators of the present as actualizing, yet-to-be, or having actualized. Thus, the present is prone to tear and dehiscence; it is distended and passing; “the present becomes threefold: present of the future, present of the past, present of the present” (Ricoeur, 1986: 262-263). At the same time, the threefold structure involves both experience and expectations of the future, the latter being “inscribed in the present” in the form of the future-rendering-present, futur-rendu-present (Ricoeur, 1986: 273). The pas-encore dimension implies that “experience tends towards integration, waiting for the bursting of perspectives” (Ibidem). The futures foreseeing in the scenarios operates the present-centered linguistic means while outstretching them to the limits drawn by the intentions and outcomes of the actions evaluated in terms of harm or good.

Thus, the scenarios of the future imply the harm (or good) as a yet-to-happen outcome of some actions or restrain from them. If considered through the Doctrine of Doing or Allowing (DDA), the evaluation of the possible harm for the future populations fits into the consideration that “the Agent will be allowing herself to have done harm as somewhat morally significant but not as so morally significant that it renders her current behavior morally equivalent to doing harm” (Woollard & Howard-Snyder, 2021).

Shelly Kagan (1989) in The Limits of Morality considers four variants of doing or allowing harm, based on whether the harm is “intended as a means or an end” or “merely foreseen as an unintended side-effect” (Kagan, 1989: 86). Thus, countenancing of the harm is dependent on the perspective and is mostly considered separately for the doing-allowing and intended- foreseen cases (Ibidem). However, Jason Hanna (2014) suggests taking into account both moral relevance of actions and temporal proximity, as “our intuitive judgments about some cases seem to indicate that we are especially concerned about the present” (Hanna, 2014: 696). The past and future, thus, could be reviewed through the effects of the past deeds on the moral status of the agent in the present and the future outcomes, even if the harmful behavior does not take part in the present (Hanna, 2014: 689). In the evaluation of the scenarios outcomes probability, the dimension of the DDA involves the subjects' roles repositioning due to the present-centered perspective, as follows:

we could interpret the DDA as claiming not simply that it is more objectionable for an agent to do harm than it is for an agent to (merely) allow harm, but rather as claiming that it is more objectionable for an agent to now ensure that he will become a harm- doer than it is for an agent to now ensure that he will become a (mere) harm-allower. (Hanna, 2014: 696).

What is to be alienated in the scenarios of the future?

The human-centeredness of the sustainable scenarios of the futures places humankind in the position of power towards the resources evaluation, distribution, and preservation for the future human generations. If viewed eccentrically, through human vulnerability rather than power, the scenarios will have to undergo the inversible forecasting by applying the alienation of the humankind exclusiveness idea, with further eccentric (non-present-human-centered) revision of the sustainability goals and projects.

To discuss human exclusiveness and vulnerability through scenario-making, the imaginative experiment of the evolutional ritournelle could be constructed based on the ontogenesis models. For instance, it could be imagined that mutations (possibly, unintentional human-made ones) give some species evolutionary preferences like a counterposed thumb and mind-like properties. To make the fanciful example more focused, imagine that birds' hallux (perching digit) finally turn into thumb not only “allowing the foot to grasp, which evolved from the non-opposable hallux of early theropod dinosaurs” (Botelho et al., 2014), but also presupposing operations with instruments to add to the memory and intellectual abilities of some birds species.

Thus, the question of the nature being preserved as a resource for the future humankind could be shattered with the hypothetical loss of exclusiveness (the birds' evolution is just an imaginative context stressing the unpredictability of the particular alienation course). Even if keep it far from the radical question on the sustainability of the humankind principles preserving in the perspective of the stochastically adjustable futures, the ritournelle of the present in the future (via future-rendering-present) may turn out the Lorenz attractor-like sensitive dependence on initial conditions (Mackenzie 2015).

Another source of hardly predictable deviations in the scenarios based on human exclusiveness evaluation and alienation could be considered from the perspectives of transhumanism and posthumanism. Thus, the shifts in understanding of the role and values of humankind as well as human beliefs resulting from technological progress require a wide range of the accordingly differentiated legal and ethical regulatory means and imply the cosmological presumption (Dobrodum & Kyvliuk, 2021).

At the same time, the inversible approach to the futures requires further investigations of the alienation limitations in the perspective of the relevance projection of the issues under present discussions for the generations to be influenced by the present expectation-formed worldviews, both HEW and LEW in the wider meaning of the crucial values and beliefs defining the scenarios viability in the conceptually unknown futures, the paradise conceptually postponed.

Conclusions

The theoretical and practical applicability of the inversible approach to the future.

While past as a form of paradise lost and the present as longing for it to be found correspond with the experience, they are being lived through and thus can be described in concepts and relations. The future is not accessible to experience; moreover, it is beyond the linguistic expression of the future itself as a paradise found but for intentions, dreams, plans, and expectations. The future is also inaccessible for description, so the prognoses fail to give the outline of the actual events in the future but rather suggest and describe the stochastic range of the possibilities adjacent to the present reality.

Thus, the future being beyond the linguistic experience, it can be evaluated through a combination of results, chances, intentions, responsibilities at the scenario-modeling stage as follows:

Results as past-rooted projections of the actions;

Chances as the clusters of the vector change;

Intentions as direction markers for the changes required in the restructured social space;

Responsibilities as continuity of norms provoking evaluation of acceptable and unacceptable, as well as limitations of normalcy and the context of the norms adjustment (Figure 1).

Thus, to evaluate scenarios of the future, there should be taken to account the self-alienation of the present scenario-makers from the past patterns and the idea of parental-like continuity of the responsibility between the generations. Another level of the present humankind's exclusiveness alienation involves considering the double otherness of the future populations and the nature that cannot be viewed instrumentally.

The inaccessible future becomes an imaginative trap for the scenarios in the form of paradise conceptually postponed. The scenarios implying the needs and preferences of the future populations are utopic, in Ricoeur's perspective on the utopia as “an exercise in the imagination to think about something other than being social” (Ricoeur, 1986: 388).

For instance, the understanding of the future as independent from the projections made onto it from the present angle is important in view of otherness experience in the context of population migrations. The vicious circle of otherness could be outlined as follows: due to the data-gaps, especially on irregular or intersectional migration (Ahmad-Yar & Bircan, 2021), misadapted migrants split the communities and lead to the normalcy scope transformation. In the cases of forced migration, migrants are not only stripped of their past that is attached to the previous place of residence and corresponding social links but of the future as well. The above-mentioned set of intentions, dreams, plans and expectations require minimal stabilizing of the social and cultural space for the numerous shifts to cause resonance. To transform it into the terms of the inaccessible future, the migrants should get access to planning to be able to create their identity as compatible and not contradictory to that of the host community.

Thus, one of the ways of applicability of the inversible-future-based approach to the scenarios evaluation can be suggested in the context of migration solutions tailoring. If seen through the shift from power to vulnerability, the solutions can be reviewed through stabilized needs and vulnerabilities of migrants as a key for the projected adaption to the changed social space.

Further studies of the scenarios-being-staged evaluation could be suggested in the field of the inversible forecasting and its impact on understanding vulnerabilities: Could the humankind-and-present-centered perspective of sustainability scenarios be reversible if the future is beyond the actual experience?

Another aspect to be studied refers to the trial of the communicative resolution of the alienation from the future populations through the vulnerabilities projection instruments different from mirroring the past and present needs and patterns of humankind in the scenarios for the future: How could the otherness caused by time and experience dividing the future into the mutually incomprehensible clusters be considered in the scenarios?

References

1. Ahmad-Yar, Ahmad W. and Tuba Bircan (2021) Anatomy of a Misfit: International Migration Statistics. Sustainability, 13, 4032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074032.

2. Beck, Ulrich (2005) Power in the Global Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

3. Bцhler, Dietrich (2014) Global ethics and moral responsibility: Hans Jonas and his critics. Transl. into Ukrainian. Kyiv: Stylos.

4. Botelho, Joдo Francisco, Smith-Paredes, Daniel, Soto-Acuna, Sergio, Mpodozis, Jorge, Palma, Veronica and Alexander O. Vargas (2015) Skeletal plasticity in response to embryonic muscular activity underlies the development and evolution of the perching digit of birds. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09840.

5. Dobrodum, Olga, and Olga Kyvliuk (2021) Transhumanism and Posthumanism: Reflection of the Human Civilization Future. Philosophy and Cosmology, Volume 26, 77-89. https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/26/6.

6. Dworkin, Ronald (2011) Justice for Hedgehogs. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England.

7. Earth Charter (2000) Earth Charter Commission. Available at: https://earthcharter.org/read-the-earth-charter/.

8. Greta Thunberg's Speech at The U.N. Climate Action Summit (2019) Transcript. NPR. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit.

9. Groves, Christopher (2019) Sustainability and the future: reflections on the ethical and political significance of sustainability. Sustainability Science 14, 915-924. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11625-019-00700-0.

10. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (2010) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses#download.

11. Habermas, Jьrgen (1974) The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article, New German Critique, 3.

12. Habermas, Jьrgen (1987 [1981]) “Lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason” in Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2. Translated by Thomas A. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

13. Hanna, Jason (2014) Doing, Allowing, and the Moral Relevance of the Past. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 11 (4), 677-698. https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-4681049.

14. Haran, Olexiy, Yakovlyev, Maksym and Maria Zolkina (2019) Identity, war, and peace: Public attitudes in the Ukraine-controlled Donbas. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 60, 684-708. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2019.1667845.

15. Kok, Kasper, Reinette Biggs, and Monika Zurek (2007) Methods for developing multiscale participatory scenarios: insights from southern Africa and Europe. Ecology and Society 13(1): 8.

16. Lutz, Matt (2021) The moral closure argument. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 19(1), 80-110.

17. Mackenzie, Adrian (2015) The Problem of the Attractor: A Singular Generality between Sciences and Social Theory. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 45-65. https://doi. org/10.1177/0263276405057190.

18. Metzger, Marc J., Mark D.A. Rounsevell, Harm Van den Heiligenberg, Marta Perez-Soba, and Paul Soto Hardiman (2010) How personal judgment influences scenario development: an example for future rural development in Europe. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 5.

19. Parfit, Derek (1986 [1984]) Reasons and Persons. Clarendon Press. Oxford.

20. Rawls, John (1999 [1971]) A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

21. Ricoeur, Paul (1986) Du Texte a L 'Action. Essais D'Hermeneutique II. Editions du Seuil, Paris.

22. Sam, David L., Berry, John W. (2010) Acculturation: When Individuals and Groups of Different Cultural background Meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5(4), 472-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610373075.

23. Speth, James (2008) The Bridge at the Edge of the World. Yale University Press.

24. Swiderska, Malgorzata (2013) Comparativist Imagology and the Phenomenon of Strangeness. Comparative Literature and Culture 15.7. https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2387.

25. Thomassen, Lasse (2010) Habermas: A guide for the perplexed. A&C Black.

26. Toya, Hiroshi (2021) Responsibility to Others in the Future: The Foundation of the Imperative of Responsibility in Hans Jonas. Philosophy World Democracy. Available at: https://www.philosophy-world-democracy.org/articles-1/responsibility-to-others.

27. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Available at: https://www.un.oig/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.

28. Turchyn, Yaryna, Sukhorolskyi, Petro, and Sukhorolska, Iiyna (2020) Marking time on the way to democracy in Ukraine: A causal layered analysis. New Perspectives 28(2), 150-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X20911287.

29. Woollard, Fiona and Frances Howard-Snyder (2021) Doing vs. Allowing Harm. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/doing-allowing/.

30. Zorrilla-Miras, Pedro, Lopez-Moya, Estrella, Metzger, Marc J., Patenaude, Genevieve, Sitoe, Almeida, Mahamane, Mansour, Lisboa, Sa N., Paterson, James S.; Lopez-Gunn, Elena (2021) Understanding Complex Relationships between Human Well-Being and Land Use Change in Mozambique Using a Multi-Scale Participatory Scenario Planning Process. Sustainability, 13: 13030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313030. Размещено на Allbest.ru