It is said that the future cannot be predicted. That is evidently not entirely true. We cannot accurately predict unlikely events. However, in science, much is predictable, and particularly young scientists and engineers (no offence to the advanced ones!) who spend their days justifying their position and going for high-risk funding are thinking about the future beyond the Petri dish or chromatogram on their bench today. In certain fields, such as electronics, future predictions are driven by almost mathematical precision in the short term (Moore’s law application, for example) with tendrils towards the distant future. Many things we experience now as major advances were predicted well in advance. In other fields, digital twins are becoming commonplace.Unfortunately, little attention is given in the field of environmental sciences and (eco)technology towards predicting the future beyond considering, e.g. climate impacts. With some effort, we can know more about the future than we do know today, though. As an example, I am providing here a figure by Parker (Fig. 1) in which different technologies are outlined in terms of how long it took for them to diffuse into the market, starting from their time of development.
Fig. 1
Development cycle of different technologies for the water industry. The figure is adjusted from Refs. [1].
Development cycle of different technologies for the water industry. The figure is adjusted from Refs. [1].The figure shows that water technology may need 40 years towards full mainstream implementation. The trajectory for technology development is evident in terms of its technical implementation, the issue is evidently that other factors such as legislation, existing infrastructures, societal decisions and so on also contribute to the mix. Bringing together those different views via involving scientists from different fields allows us to better and better target technology development and get some predictive insights for when these developments would be put to use and where and why. Similarly, one can consider evolutions in analytical methods, understandings of (bio)geochemical fluxes, models for impact assessment and so on. The more fields contribute, the more comprehensive futuristic projections could become.Yes, it is, to some extent speculation, blasphemy in your scientific journal. Every now and then, though, some speculation put in context does not hurt. Certainly, at the start of a new journal like Environmental Science & Ecotechnology, we need to invite views on which topics will become more and more important in the future. We collect these views from those who have to make that future, young scientists who today, unfortunately, are forced to worry more about impact factors than impact. Frank Herbert, the author of Dune (which aptly is a world without water, quite an environmental issue), wrote, “Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous.” Dear colleague: read the Young Lions (and Lionesses) perspectives, realize fully that you are being (a bit) manipulated. If the ideas of your bright young colleagues instill new views, then there is no danger, only opportunity.
Fig. 1