Clusters of Possibility

When we look at the sky, we see billions of stars. Some appear in patterns, constellations, as if they are next to each other. In reality these stars are usually nowhere near each other. As such, a constellation to us wouldn’t be a constellation from the perspective of another galaxy, or even another planet in our own galaxy. But there are pockets of stars which truly are close together and are perceived similarly from any point in the universe. We call these star clusters. Future possibility and innovation work the same way: some inventions and creative courses of action aim at constellations of possibilities, others aim at clusters. Clusters of possibilities lure us toward a future which brings, often, more than we foresaw, because getting one or two possibilities in a cluster brings along the whole group. If you aim at a constellation of future possibilities, you may achieve one without making any real progress toward the others you associated with it. For example, consider violence and nonviolence. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, in effect, these are not constellations of possibilities, they are real clusters. Violence begets violence and solves no real problems. Nonviolence begets nonviolence and solves problems. Malcolm X disagreed. He treated violence as a constellation and nonviolence as a fool's errand. Similar arguments are associated with artificial intelligence, with technological progress (e.g., cloning), with economic relations, and so on. What people very often disagree about is how closely associated the various future possibilities are. How do we make sure we are exploring what’s really there (clusters), in our future, rather than what only appears to be there (constellations)? What can we know about the relations among possibilities? Perhaps more than you ever dreamed.