PDF Summary:Could Should Might Don't, by Nick Foster

A lot of us have visions of the future that aren’t really our own; rather, they’re pieced together from ideas we’ve been absorbing from parents, teachers, peers, and media since birth. In Could Should Might Don’t (2025) futurist Nick Foster teaches you how to think about the future, rather than what to think about it. Foster argues that this skill is more important than ever because technology is advancing at an incredible pace, and most of us are woefully unprepared for the futures humanity might create.

To begin, we’ll examine some common flaws in how people think about the future and how Foster prefers to imagine it instead. We’ll then discuss four types of futurism: the titular Could, Should, Might, and Don’t approaches. We’ll supplement Foster’s ideas with supporting information and counterpoints from experts in risk management (Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb), leadership (Start With Why by Simon Sinek), and psychology (Stop Self-Sabotage by Judy Ho).

(continued)...

Various forms of entertainment and media then spread these new ideas to the masses. For instance, world’s fairs from the 1939 New York exhibition onward gave the public exciting and immersive views of what life might be like in a hundred years or more. Television shows like The Jetsons and Star Trek cemented the idea of the future as a place of convenience and wonder. The visual effects revolution that began with Star Wars and Industrial Light and Magic made science fiction cinema feel increasingly real and believable, to the point where science fiction frequently dominates the modern box office.

As such, Foster says it’s no surprise that people’s ideas about the future, particularly the distant future, are greatly influenced by Could Futurism.

(Shortform note: Recall that one of Foster’s key points is that our ideas about the future are, largely, not our own—they come from the media and from people around us. In A More Beautiful Question, journalist Warren Berger says you can examine and assess your ideas by asking simple questions like a child might, starting with “Why?” In this case, you could take some belief you hold about what the future will be like and ask, “Why do I think that will happen?” This simple question will get you thinking about where your ideas originally came from and whether those are trustworthy sources. You can also explore other possibilities by asking “Why not?” In other words, is there any reason why the future couldn’t play out in some other way?”)

Cons: Could Futurism Is Vacuous

Foster argues that even though it’s good for entertainment, Could Futurism is fundamentally dishonest. It presents the most extreme version of everything, offering highly unlikely futures and no actionable ways to get there. Furthermore, it tends to crumble when you start looking too closely at the details of its scenarios.

For example, in Ant-Man, the titular hero’s shrinking technology supposedly works by reducing the space between an object’s atoms. That should mean the object still weighs just as much as it did at full size, yet we see a character carrying a tank on a keychain. The shrinking device also relies on fictional “Pym particles,” meaning this futuristic technology can’t ever be created in real life.

Foster is particularly opposed to Could Futurism’s obsession with heroic characters and premium products. When a piece of media shows you the future, it’s often filled with characters like superhumanly brilliant scientists and impossibly attractive families, not the ordinary people who will actually live there. For instance, when virtual reality (VR) companies showcase their technology, it’s usually in the hands of a surgeon or an engineer using it to perform incredible feats. In reality, the vast majority of VR headset owners are average people who mostly use them to play video games.

(Shortform note: Arguably, Foster is overcorrecting for Could Futurism’s emphasis on exceptional people and high-end products. To build upon his example, VR technology has proven to have numerous unexpected uses besides science fiction-style engineering and everyday gaming. A couple of these uses include employee training courses, exercise programs, and physical therapy to help people with disabilities or injuries practice walking.)

Foster adds that, paradoxically, Could Futurism has become oversaturated and repetitive. This school of thought, which is supposedly about finding new ways to push the boundaries of possibility, now mostly rehashes the same few ideas with relatively minor variations.

For instance, science fiction has endless stories of humanity exploring space, encountering alien species, and settling distant planets. The details vary from story to story—how our spaceships work, what the aliens are like, whether humans are peaceful explorers or brutal conquerors, and so on—but the broad strokes are similar. These same clichés have been circulating for decades and show no signs of fading away.

(Shortform note: Foster’s critique assumes that science fiction’s main purpose is to portray new kinds of possible futures, but many writers and scholars would argue otherwise. Instead, science fiction often uses futuristic settings to examine present-day hopes, fears, and moral questions in a new context that makes those topics more engaging or more approachable. For example, Star Trek uses alien encounters and futuristic settings to tell allegorical stories about real, current issues. In this context, the repetitiveness of Could Futurism is a sign that certain ideas persist in our collective consciousness, and those ideas warrant further exploration and discussion.)

Approach #2: Should Futurism—What Do We Want to Happen?

Foster’s second category addresses Should Futurism: ideas of the future based on ideologies, beliefs, predictions, and data. Anyone who describes how the future “ought to” look and presents arguments, numbers, and moral authority to support their assertion, is practicing Should Futurism.

Pros: Should Futurism Offers Direction and Motivation

Foster says that Should Futurism is compelling because ideology and desire are powerful motivators. An inspirational vision of the future offers something to work toward, and it galvanizes the people who believe in that vision. Leaders and movements especially need this kind of thinking so they can rally people to their cause, secure funding, and build momentum for change.

Foster adds that ideas about what “should” happen can even function as self-fulfilling prophecies. By presenting a particular future as both desirable and inevitable, people may create the very conditions that make such a future possible.

For example, Edward Bellamy’s 1888 utopian sci-fi novel Looking Backward depicted a cashless society where people paid for purchases using credit cards (Bellamy’s term). While cash does still exist in the real world, credit cards have now become ubiquitous due to the convenience and extra purchasing power they offer.

Should Futurism Drives Success and Change

One could argue that our entire society is largely driven by competing visions of the future—Should Futurism is the foundation of countless businesses and institutions, though the term itself isn’t widely used. In short, any organization that creates a mission statement, then works to achieve that mission, is practicing Should Futurism.

In fact, in Start With Why, leadership consultant Simon Sinek says any successful business must start with a strong, clear, and inspiring vision. This core purpose should then guide every business decision, ensuring the company’s actions align with and support its fundamental reason for existing.

Like Foster, Sinek argues that a concept of how the future should be will inspire people who agree with your vision. Those people will then help you turn that vision into reality. In the context of a business, this means that a strong mission statement will inspire employees to do their best work and inspire people outside the organization to become loyal customers. This is essentially the same principle that Foster describes, but applied at an organizational level instead of a personal one.

Cons: Should Futurism Is Self-Centered

Foster argues that Should Futurism, by its nature, tends to shut out competing perspectives. We all have our own ideas about how the future ought to be, and we tend to believe that our personal vision is the right one. However, our concepts of what should happen are often incompatible with one another.

For example, the capitalist vision of a global free market naturally can’t coexist with Star Trek’s portrayal of a post-capitalist future where people freely work together for the common good. Both imagine a utopian society of prosperity and opportunity for all, yet they still directly oppose each other.

(Shortform note: Creating Great Choices by Jennifer Riel and Roger Martin discusses the practice of integrative thinking. The goal of integrative thinking is to take two conflicting options and integrate them into a third possibility—one that encompasses their strongest points while avoiding their weaknesses. Riel and Martin add that integrative thinking requires creativity, courage, and patience: You have to give yourself permission to explore courses of action that seem impractical or impossible, look for ways to make them happen, and accept that many of your ideas will fail before you find one that works. Using this practice, it may be possible to discover new concepts of the future that combine the best of seemingly incompatible ideas.)

Foster adds that it’s crucial to recognize when someone is practicing Should Futurism, as opposed to presenting a more neutral view of what may happen in the future. For instance, a religious fundamentalist might fervently believe in a future where everyone worships the same god. However, that doesn’t mean such a future is inevitable, or even likely—it just means that person is taking their own ideology as objective truth.

(Shortform note: In Awaken the Giant Within, Tony Robbins offers one reason why people tend to present their own concept of the future as ideal and inevitable: There’s a strong link between beliefs, emotions, and identity. Because of this link, people’s strongly held convictions become parts of how they see themselves—and even the idea that those convictions might be wrong feels like a personal threat. So, in the previous example, the religious fundamentalist doesn’t just value their own vision of the future above other possibilities, they actively resist even considering other kinds of futures.)

What’s Likely to Happen, and What Shouldn’t Happen?

We’ve explored the aspirational kinds of futurism: what could happen and what should happen. In this last section, we’ll explore two analytical styles of futures work that are, arguably, more practical.

First we’ll examine Might Futurism, wherein people try to determine the most likely futures, rather than the most exciting or compelling ones. Finally, we’ll talk about Don’t Futurism: the practice of imagining undesirable futures and working to prevent them.

Approach #3: Might Futurism—What’s Most Likely to Happen?

Foster’s third approach, Might Futurism, examines various possibilities and tries to determine how likely each of them is. This approach relies on rationality, tools, and structure, rather than just imagination and emotion.

Pros: Might Futurism Encourages Structured Analysis

Foster says that Might Futurism is most valuable for its honesty and practicality—it acknowledges the future is uncertain and presents many possibilities rather than a single prediction. As a result, Might Futurists are prepared for a variety of situations and can adapt as their circumstances change.

Furthermore, Might Futurism gives people concrete tools and strategies to navigate uncertainty. For instance, one key tool is the futures cone, which maps out concentric rings of decreasing certainty: with probable outcomes near the center, plausible outcomes in the middle, and possible (but unlikely) outcomes near the edge, all fanning outward from a center point that represents the present.

(Shortform note: Foster presents Might Futurism as relatively rational and disciplined, but there are some scenarios so unlikely that no tool could help you foresee them. Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls these “Black Swans”—unpredictable events that have massive impacts on society. In The Black Swan, he cites the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 2008 financial crisis as examples of such events. Taleb also offers advice for dealing with uncertainty: We can’t predict Black Swan events, but we can predict their effects. For instance, there was no way to know there would be a financial crisis in 2008 specifically, but it was possible to see that the US housing market was in a bubble, and some kind of market correction was inevitable.)

Finally, Foster says that Might Futurism promotes reasoned debate and draws out different perspectives in ways that other approaches can’t. This approach is rooted in the fundamental idea that nobody knows what will happen, and therefore Might Futurists view the future as something to explore and prepare for.

(Shortform note: Discussions among people with different perspectives may be the greatest benefit of Might Futurism. Research on workplace diversity has shown that companies committed to building a diverse workforce consistently outperform their less inclusive competitors. Even if futurism isn’t related to your career, this demonstrates how helpful it can be to discuss your ideas with people from different backgrounds—their unique experiences help them come up with insights and ideas that you’d never have thought of.)

Cons: Might Futurism Is Limited

While Foster generally favors Might Futurism over other approaches to futures work, he does identify several weaknesses:

First, the methodical approaches Might Futurism relies on can be as limiting as they are helpful. Foster argues that the strategies it uses, such as scenario planning matrices and trend analysis, came from specific contexts and therefore come with built-in assumptions and shortcomings.

A classic 2x2 scenario matrix, for instance, forces you to pick just two areas of uncertainty with two possibilities each, leading to only four potential outcomes. In reality, there are countless possible futures shaped by many different factors, which means this tool could narrow your focus too much to make accurate predictions.

(Shortform note: By their nature, assumptions are hard to recognize—they’re built into your thought processes and the tools you use, and are therefore difficult to separate from those things. One exercise that can help you identify assumptions is to write down your reasoning about a certain topic, write down your conclusion on that topic, then see if your conclusion relies on any information that’s not included in your reasoning. That missing information represents the assumptions you’ve made. So, in the example of the 2x2 scenario matrix, you would look at the possibilities you chose and the outcomes you determined they’d lead to, then try to reason out what additional steps would be needed to ensure each of those outcomes.)

Second, Might Futurism’s models are only as good as the information they’re based on, and that information is often incomplete or unreliable. For example, when military leaders try to predict what an enemy will do in order to respond effectively, they’re practicing Might Futurism. However, their enemy is almost certainly concealing as much information as possible and may even be feeding them false intelligence.

Finally, Foster asserts that choosing and evaluating possible futures always involves biases and human error, no matter how structured the process seems to be.

For example, the US stock market crash of 1929 happened, in part, because stock prices were skyrocketing and projections showed that the increase would continue. The financial experts who made those projections failed to realize that the market was in a bubble; they believed the US economy was unstoppable and would keep growing for the foreseeable future.

Because of these faulty projections, people bought enormous numbers of shares using loans and credit—the predicted increase in value would allow them to easily repay the loans and make huge profits. However, when prices started to dip instead, people panicked and sold off those shares, leading to a sudden and catastrophic decline in the market.

Think Like a Scientist

Incomplete, inaccurate information and human error are practically unavoidable—simply put, we don’t know what we don’t know. Therefore, when you work on models of the future, it can help to recognize that you’ll probably never be completely right, but you can always become “less wrong.”

This is the same mindset scientists should hold, as science historian Thomas Kuhn describes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn explains that scientific research is always grounded in our current understanding of how the universe works, which he calls a paradigm. Furthermore, he says that a paradigm can only be overturned when there’s some irreconcilable difference between what “should” happen based on that understanding and what researchers actually observe happening. Such discrepancies make it clear that there’s some mistake in our current knowledge, and by correcting that mistake, we become “less wrong.”

You can apply the same principle to futures work: When it becomes clear that events aren’t playing out as you predicted, you can update your assumptions and models to be more accurate. Through constant iterations and corrections, you can bring your predictions closer and closer to the truth.

Approach #4: Don’t Futurism—What Should We Avoid?

Foster’s fourth category, Don’t Futurism, is the branch of futures thinking that focuses on undesirable futures and how to prevent them from happening. Common themes for this school of thought are what we should avoid doing, what could go wrong with various courses of action, and what unintended consequences might come from well-intentioned choices.

Pros: Don't Futurism Promotes Diligence and Responsibility

Foster reiterates that people have a natural tendency to shut out negative thoughts and take overly optimistic views of the future. However, he argues that it’s crucial to explore frightening and upsetting possibilities in detail. Doing so will help you identify early warning signals that you might be heading toward a future you don’t want and decide what you’ll do if that future comes to pass.

Don’t Futurism can be highly effective because fear is a powerful tool for shaping people’s behavior. For instance, childhood cautionary tales teach developing minds about consequences and warn them against particular actions or ways of thinking. Foster argues that science fiction, at its best, performs the same function for adults: Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, and The Handmaid’s Tale all present dark visions of the future in the hope that doing so will prompt people to reflect on their present-day choices.

Don’t Futurism is also popular in professional and political contexts, though most people don’t realize they’re practicing it. For example, it’s a common tactic for politicians to warn people that horrible things will happen if their opponents get into power or remain in power much longer. Similarly, workplace rules and regulations carry the implied threat of an undesirable future if you violate them—possibilities include an uncomfortable conversation with your boss, losing your job, getting injured, or even facing legal consequences, depending on which rule you break.

Humans Evolved to Practice Don’t Futurism

Don’t Futurism is so effective because it taps into ancient survival mechanisms that evolution has hardwired into us. In Stop Self-Sabotage, psychologist Judy Ho explains that people have two basic motivations: to seek rewards and to avoid threats. Avoiding danger is the stronger of those two motivations. Don’t Futurism taps into that fundamental drive to protect ourselves. In doing so, it can override our drive to pursue things we want, if we believe those pursuits will lead us into danger.

As Foster notes, this principle is universal. Warning a child they’ll get sick from eating too much candy is a simple form of Don’t Futurism; warning people that our current use of Earth’s resources will lead to devastating climate change is a much larger-scale and more complex example. However, regardless of the setting or situation, the fundamental principle is the same: guiding people’s actions by appealing to their self-protective instincts.

Cons: Don't Futurism Is Sanctimonious

While Don’t Futurism is useful, even necessary, Foster warns that it can turn into self-defeating pessimism. When you’re devoted to finding problems and risks, you start to see them everywhere, and you can become just as shortsighted as someone who’s overly optimistic. This mindset can cause you to overlook genuine progress and dismiss real possibilities.

(Shortform note: What Foster describes closely resembles learned helplessness, the deep-seated belief that you can’t change things no matter how hard you try. In Learned Optimism, psychologist Martin Seligman explains that learned helplessness is the result of applying experiences too broadly—people live through situations in which they want to affect the outcome but can’t, and so they come to believe they can’t affect the outcome of any situation. Similarly, Foster warns that people who practice Don’t Futurism risk applying it too broadly: They see how some actions could lead to negative outcomes and eventually come to believe that every action will lead to a negative outcome.)

Foster also notes that constant negativity, even if it’s warranted, will exhaust people. If you never offer any kind of hope, your would-be audience will either tune you out, or give in to despair and stop trying to prevent the negative futures you’re warning them about. Another problem is that, on its own, this kind of thinking offers no path forward—it’s easy to argue against someone else’s ideas, but harder to develop your own ideas and expose them to scrutiny.

For all of these reasons, Foster says effective Don’t Futurism must be paired with constructive thinking. It’s not enough to say that a certain vision of the future is impractical or undesirable; you should also offer an alternative or at least a way to help mitigate the problems you’ve pointed out.

(Shortform note: In Six Thinking Hats, psychologist Edward de Bono presents a mental exercise that compartmentalizes your mindsets by picturing them as differently colored hats. You can then access the mindset you need at any given time by imagining yourself putting on that color of “thinking hat.” So, when practicing Don’t Futurism, you’ll generally wear the black hat that represents criticism and caution. However, once you’ve made your points, you can mentally switch to the yellow hat—representing optimism and solutions-based thinking—or the green hat that stands for creativity and innovation.)