Design Economics Podcast with Vinny Tafuro

We're living in a an economy, and we should be living in a society. And it just like, it boom. Right? It hit me. And that that frame is still here, like, that we have actually the society is now serving the economy, and, you know, one might argue that it should be the other way around.

Hello, and welcome to season 1 of the Design Economics podcast, where we explore how design thinking driven by data is revolutionizing economics for the 21st century. My name is Vinny Tafiro, a futurist economist and your host for this episode. Today, I will be talking with my friend and colleague, Dr. Andy Hines from the University of Houston. Andy is an associate professor and the program director of the university's graduate program in foresight.

Our conversation today will focus on Andy's latest book, Imagining After Capitalism, the culmination of Andy's 10 year exploration as a futurist of what comes next. And with that, I hope you enjoy this conversation with Dr. Andy Hines.

Well, thanks so much for having me. What a great, what a great way to spend a morning.

Absolutely. Could you give a brief, a little bit of a background on future studies first in foresight as a field? Absolutely. Most people are not familiar with it.

Right. So I've been I've actually been a professional futurist for about 35 years now. It's this, we like to say, we've been a stealth marketing in our field for a long time, and we've succeeded there as we we still we're still not relatively well known. But there has been a lot of, I guess, you would say professional work, looking to the future, what does that mean for us here in the present? It's been going on in the, private sector, military.

And, really, the it's what's interesting is the big growth in the last 5, 10 years has been in the public sector and the government. And we're seeing that not only international, national, even now the local level. So there's been a nice, a nice kind of mini explosion of growth of interest in foresight in the last, you know, 5 or 10 years, which is awesome.

That is great. I I I find the field fascinating. You and I were introduced, I think it's gonna be a decade now

Wow.

By by now a fellow futurist, because I was working on conscious capitalism, and you were working on this idea of after capitalism. So can you maybe provide an overview of the book and maybe a path, since I know you've been working on it at least a decade, on what brought you to this and what it is?

Sure. And it's one of those it's it's one of the great benefits. So I've been in the, university space full time for about the last 10 years. And every spring, we put together a a conference thematic, typically. And in 2012, the the sort of the theme there the discussion in the classroom, so to speak, was around what comes after capitalism?

And it was Christopher Manfredi, now now an alum, who was really the had his being his bonnet about it. So we actually organized our spring gathering in 2012 around Africa capitalism. And we spent the whole day on it, and and it was fun. We had a great time. And what we the kind of the takeaway was we had a lot more problem diagnosis.

We didn't have a lot to say about what went well. What what might actually come afterwards. Right? So it's you know, it kind of intrigued me, and I think, you know, so I started kinda following it loosely. And, you know, the more I started to follow it loosely, I got more interested in it.

And, you know, over time, that really picked up. And I think it was probably about 5 years later, I'm like, oh, there's something here. This is and I really dove in and kinda started the more, formal research to what eventually became the book. And, you could just plot the interest. Right?

You know, back in 2012, it was barely a blip, and you could just see it start to go. And if I had been a fast book writer, maybe I would have been first. But, you know, even in 2017, you go, oh, it's coming. And then sure enough. We've seen a real big, maybe not quite mainstream explosion of interest, but, you know, in in in the sector of the people like you and I that are thinking about this, definitely a big, what comes next discussion has emerged.

Yeah. I I would definitely say over that last 5, 6 years because, you know, I I was a pioneer too with my first book on this and writing on this, and I'm like, nobody's talking about it as a system that is evolving and changing. So could you describe a little bit about the visions, in the after capitalism book?

Sure.

I think they're fascinating. So I'm I love scenarios, and I love visions.

Yeah. I mean, we we can maybe do a little more on the how later, but the the short story is it's a synthesis. Right? So what I wanted to do is basically find what was out there and, you know, using foresight methodology. But find what was out there and kinda tell the story of what what do we what's the current, what's the current thinking about what could happen next, so to speak.

And and so the the data, if you will, the research suggested these 3 clusters. And, you know, so it it didn't really come in with I want 3 clusters or I didn't know what I was gonna find. Right? So it it just kinda came out that way. And the, the 3 are the first one, the circular commons is kind of the environmentally driven future.

Right? And I think those who are interested in that will find this really appealing. This, the second, we call it the non workers' paradise. And so on I someone else came up with that idea, which I thought was very clever because, of course, the workers' paradise was the Marx's original version, but we actually think it's a post work future. And they're the driver there, social and political transformation is kind of the main thing.

Right? And then in the 3rd, cluster was around technology, and we call end up calling that tech led abundance. Of course, their technology is the big driver. And one of the things that comes up, you know, I think anyone that's gone spend any time with these three visions that goes to the book, it's like, oh, wait. It's a little bit of each.

And I agree. But I I thought it was useful to actually kinda pull pull them a separate things. Right? Because I think that's, you know, what's how people tend to think. Right?

Like, I I I'm really interested in technology, and I'm gonna be interested in that piece of the puzzle. But I think to really be successful, it's there's probably some sort of, synthesis of the synthesis, so to speak. It's a little bit of all of it.

Yeah. That that's fascinating. And I think, you know, I I guess that there's little bits of this going on now in all three of them. Do you think one of them has a dominance, at this point in time?

Sure. Yes. There are as we say is futurists. Right, the the future's already here. Right?

And and even in terms of the long term, like, when we think of the long term, the seeds of the long term future are here now. They're just very faint. The signals are faint. And there's a lot of different signals, but if we look hard enough, we can see, like, some possibilities for that long term. So in the case of the, after capitalism kind of framing, we can see some ideas about what that might look like right now.

Yeah.

And I would say of the 3, for sure, tech led abundance is the most developed. I mean, you know, we have, like, you know, we we're even to the point where we have the best sellers. Right? You know, we have, you know, d m Peter Diamandis talking about abundance and Kurzweil's singularity, and you have Bostrom's superintelligence. So, you know, those are somewhat developed visions of the future.

Obviously, very techy centric, but, yeah, definitely the most mature of the 3. No doubt.

Yeah. I I would find yeah. I in looking at that that that tech driven future, and and, you know, I I I started this I read, Homo Deus by

Yeah. Yeah. Horacio. The one that I included, by the way. Yes.

Very

good. And it's almost seems like the tech led abundance has a foothold because GDP doesn't have to change for that to be successful. You know, our kind of systems where it's like, how do we get to a circular commons or a non workers' paradise? Whereas, like, it's almost like tech led abundance is the baseline, a little bit.

Yeah. I mean, certainly, there's, to get to either one of those other 2, if tech led you know, if technology serves those purposes, we get there much faster. We get there much easier. I think we could get there without the technology driver, but, boy, that would that would certainly make it a lot harder and probably make it, take a longer, take a longer time. So, yeah, it could be the fundamental enabler, but not necessarily so.

Yeah. So how did you're going back to the the question of, like, then how did these visions develop out of this? And, you know, we're we're both you and I are both familiar with foresight, but our audience, you know Yeah. How these things came together? They weren't you're just not just a fiction writer.

Right. Well yeah. So our basic framework of, you know, we think of terms of 3 time horizons and if, you know, thinking out to the 3rd time horizon, what what is the, what is the new the new system, the new future look like? So in this case, we have a capitalist system, neoliberal capitalist system today. And we're trying to say, if we look over the horizon and that horizon, I put it at 20 to 30 years.

I mean, you could argue that, but it it basically, I wanna say it's it's a ways off. But what does that new system look like? We call that the 3rd horizon. We're in the first horizon, the current system. And then there's this zone of transition where the ideas, if you will, about what might come next compete, right, with one another.

Or they might combine. They may you know, so there's that zone of transition where we'll see, you know, again, it's like looking at at how the different ideas might either play out, come together, and so on. So the the first kind of I guess, the framing, idea is, like, we wanted to look beyond, you know, what what is the other side of that might it look like? And so in a sense, it's almost like picking a few potential winners. Right?

Something some sort of environmental. Right? Some sort of social political, some sort of tech. But we don't know exactly what that will look like. But the key thing that futurist can do is, you know, try to paint that picture.

So if you if when I say circular commons, you look at what you know, how that's described, Does it create something you can say, oh, alright. Yeah. You know, I I don't know exactly what that looks like, but I I kinda yeah. That that that appeals to me. Right?

Or, you know, whichever one of those, images, it does appeal to you. It's just just our goal is to try to create that, that a mental picture of what that future could look like such that so you know what? I am I'm going to do what I can, you know, to drive towards that future. So I think that the the whole idea of the creating the images is to say, you know, since we we don't know what's next, we haven't really thought a lot about what's next, what might it look like, and what's appealing to me. So hopefully, we're you know?

And I know you that's the the same kind of work you're doing. Like, we're putting ideas out there to kind of give people a chance to say, alright. You know? Let let me look at this and, what what says to me, This is something that I wanna work to. So I think that's the goal, to put some images into the marketplace of ideas and see what if, what resonates.

So how do how does the futures methodologies relate to design thinking? Because this is this is the before before I got involved with the foresight and futures program, I it was challenging for me to kinda link those 2, and I've done a lot since then.

Yeah. So this particular work, it's a little bit different maybe than a typical client project in that, whereas the the the bulk of the emphasis is just saying I it's kinda answering the question, where might we wanna go? And in a project work, we would then the second half of the project would be, alright. If that's where we might wanna go, what do we do? And I think in this book, I I was I did a pretty light treatment of, that second part.

Like, how do we get there? I mean, there's some there's some indications, but in a sense, it was like, I think first step and I I I would I I think that's true of any futures endeavor. First step is like, where do you wanna go? Like, let's first find out. It's not in detail, but it it what's the directionality?

What are the principles? Like, you know and then, you know, once we have some degree of, agreement on that, then let's go through and start mapping, you know, if you will. We call it, you know, road mapping, backcasting, however you wanna call it. But what are the steps that you might take to get there? So, this is, if you will, this is almost like a part one.

Here's the ideas, and we'll throw them out there in the marketplace, see if anything, catches. And then if it does or alright. Now let's get to work on what the, if you will, the plan might look like.

That's excellent. That's excellent. You know, the 20 to 30 year, time frame for change, like, where did that come from? And maybe you could describe the horizon's method a little bit too, in that. Sure.

So this, might be a little geeky, but I'll I'll throw it out there anyway. We actually did some research because we our experience is futures. My own look at having done probably over a 100 projects over the years, there seems to be a pattern and and a timing of how the future unfolds. So we went back and looked at we ended up finding 78 scenario sets. Historical, like, you know, they started, they talked about the future.

And we analyze them and said, you know, how do those how did the actual topic or domain? How did it actually evolve over time? Did it follow a pattern? What did that pattern look like? And in terms of the three horizons, like, you know, when something started out in that horizon 1, when did it go to 2 and when did it get to 3?

So so we basically had some historical data to say, yeah. Then, you know, you can kind of you can follow that three horizons framework. And as we suspected, it takes a real long time to get to that 3rd horizon. We're you know? And I I don't know if 30 years will end up being the average.

I mean, I think it's, you know, it could obviously, depending on the domain or the topic, it could really vary. However, that seemed to be, you know, like a a a starting point. Like, it takes so, in the case of, you know, in this after capitalism looking at it, I mean, what one of the judgments was, you know, there's no doubt that the current system is under some degree of fire. Let's let's just put it that way. So there's some challenges.

There's right. So we we know that we're at least ripe that it's not gonna be a 100 years away. Right? It's it's it's but it's still the dominant system. And, again, we don't really have a clear set of alternatives out there.

Right? We really don't. So it it's gonna take some time to just even get, you know, get the players into the game, so to speak. So, that's why I said it. I thought 30 was, you know, 20 was a little ambitious.

20 is, you know, it collapses sooner than we think. 30 is probably a little bit more realistic. And, you know, one of the interesting points though, Vinny, that came out of this research is I am actually one of the things that worries me the most is that if you will, the current system collapses too fast because we are just not ready. We are just not ready.

We have a vacuum.

Right? So that's and to me, it's like, you know, and I and it's interesting because one of the things you hear a lot in our space, I'm sure you heard it. Well, we need a, you know, we need a collapse to kinda clear the space for something new. And, you know, I understand that idea, but boy, I think we'd be taking a bit of a risk here because I just don't feel like we have enough. So, you know, in a sense, the gradual

I see that.

Right? The gradual approach is actually, I think, even if it were maybe we're impatient, it's actually probably a little bit more, a wiser course.

Yeah. I do see that. Now I almost you know, you vacuum when people talk about, like, anarchy or something like that. That is the vacuum between systems. Anarchy is not a system. Something will replace it.

And I was wondering when you look at the, you know, this is, you know, kind of to one one of our our third tenant for the institute is this idea of, you know, economic literacy is a way of counteracting this kind of populist kind of uprising that goes, how how do we talk about the economy in a better way? And I think what you what you what you reminded me of is we use in one of our presentations, the Kuhn cycle of scientific revolutions.

Mhmm.

And it is you know, if you look at what when you and I first started talking about this over a decade ago, we were in that model drift period.

Yeah.

Whereas today and over the last 5 years, we're in that crisis period. So how how how have you kind of taken on the idea of paradigm change, with your thinking on this?

Well, so couple of maybe just a couple of points there that that, came up fairly in during the research. So one, in in doing the 78 scenario sets, one of the things we saw is that by far the more common path of transformation was the the we called it the looping pattern, but it was more gradual. Start, stop, start, stop, start, stop. We actually saw very few examples of collapse and replace. And we we're left with the research question is what happens after collapse?

Because it isn't if it's not going to transformation, like, what exactly is happening? So again, that was and that surprised us a little bit. Again, we would have guessed that yeah. You know? Alright.

We tear it down and then we rebuild, but it's like we tear it down and and we don't necessarily rebuild. It goes away. We're not exactly sure what happened. But, so anyway, that's that was one observation. The data seems to suggest that gradual approach is actually the more common route to that to the new system.

And the other is maybe a little bit of a side interest, but I read I've read a lot and just kind of interested in revolutions. Right? So in particular, I did a lot of lot of reading around the Russian revolution. And one of the things that striking things that comes up so many times, I guess, you know, kind of a truism for the scholars, but you just see that a lot of times the revolutions succeed in the the revolutionaries are a bit surprised. Like, oh, crap.

We won. And like, right on the other side of it, there's really no actual plan. Like, it's are you spending all this time trying to win the fight? And then when you win, it's like, oh, god. We what do we do now?

Right? And It's it's the dog that caught the car. Exactly. Exactly. And so that seems to be a pretty common pattern.

I thought, oh, you know, that that's the kind of thing that, you know, scares you a little bit. It's like, wow. Yeah. If we if we do topple it, do we have anything behind it?

Yeah. What's what's your a little bit deeper on that. What's and and this kinda goes into a little bit of that creativity part of it. You know, in foresight and futures, I think there's an inherent creativity, and we acknowledge paradigm change. Have you had much discussion yet?

I know the book's not out yet, officially, with economists on on how this impacts or where they're at with it.

Not really. I mean, I would say so the the one sort of bias in terms of the the the works that I did so I should probably just mention quickly. So there's really the major research path. There were really 2 major research paths. So one was, I guess, you'd say classic horizon scanning where we look for signals of change.

So we create a kind of a map of the in this case, the, a a capitalist system. And really the the the way that I've defined and I think most would would agree is not just the economic system. It's really like the operating system of the world. Right? I mean, it's it's it's so central to, the way we live.

It's kind of more like an operating system. Right? Nonetheless, I did decide, so path 1, horizon scan, look for signals of change relating to that, that that basic system. And then the second path was to look at, you know, who actually has talked about at least either in part or in full or even in tidbits, a news a new economic system. So there is a little bit of a bias.

I tried to keep the search around, you know, next economic, next as opposed to looking at every single new idea. Right? Because that in that, I think I would have drowned. And even so there I I would say that definition was a bit permeable. I mean, somehow, like, the tech led abundance was really not super duper economic.

Right? But I tried to keep, you know, the and that was the original focus was like, what's the next economic system? So there is a Yeah. So in a sense, I came across a lot of, economic works. You probably won't be surprised to find that not a lot of the actual long term visions were by economists.

Shocking news, I know.

It it is it's not shocking, and it and it's unfortunate because I think I think that is, you know, something lacking in the field of economics is a lack of historical context Yeah. And a lack of long term vision. And so what you end up is is you don't have it's just not being a creative field because it's only it's it's what I see today and I can apply math to. Yeah.

Well, it's good. I mean, The Economist, if you will, the the the most help I got from that was the ex explanation of the current system, right, and the history and how we got here and and, you know, maybe some of the problem diagnosis. But, yeah, not a lot of horizon 3 thinking coming in that from that space. Yeah. But definitely useful.

Right? I mean, I I learned a lot from, how they how they talked about it. But,

what What I'm interested in in next is kinda you know, you look at how this brings visions of the future in talking about our economic system to the forefront. You know? I I know you had said at one point, you know, about how we're living in the economy. And so, you know, as as we cultivate this literacy towards people understanding economic ideas and visions, what is the importance of stuff like this, and how does that how does making this accessible work for

me? I, you know, I heard this. I heard Robert Reich, and I can't remember when it was 15 years ago, and he I don't I I still can remember when it was 15 years ago, and he I don't I I still cannot find the original source for it. It's driving me crazy. And I think he was actually pulling from Carl Polanyi's work, which I read was just fabulous.

And it was basically, you know, he he had said this, made this quip. It might have been, like, on an NPR interview or something. Right? That we're living in a an economy, and we should be living in a society. And it just like, it boom.

Right? It hit me. And that that frame is still here. Like, that we have actually the society is now serving the economy, and, you know, one might argue that it should be the other way around. Right?

The economy should be serving the society. And I think the pervasiveness of that is just it's it's it's one of those things like it's the fish in the water. Like, the fish doesn't know it's in the water. Like, it's just so, like and if you think about where we are today, like, almost every single thing we do has turned into some kind of an economic transaction. We've economized everything, you know, sex, parenthood.

I mean, everything is a it's a you know, and it's so ubiquitous that it's almost hard to kinda step outside it and say, wait a second, Like, is this what we want? Right? You know, like, we don't even challenge it anymore for the most part. So I think that's a boy. That's a tough one.

Right? Like, how do you how do you help people get out of that? You know, get it kinda like stand above it and say, is this you know, this is the these are the choices we've made. Do we wanna make different choices? And I think the answer is yes, but it's like just to be able to get that question across is is I think quite challenging.

How do you it that that visioning side and this is maybe a little bit of how does the intersection between kind of sci fi or may not sci fi as much as, like, a solarpunk future visions compared to, like, the visions you're proposing.

Sure. There's actually 2 two visions that came from, I'd say, the sci fi ish literature that I just thought were fabulous, And they've really informed my thinking. Not the the specifics necessarily, but the principles. So one is, Carl Schroeder, who's a graduate of the, OCAD Futures Program up in Canada. He's a sci fi author that became a futurist.

I always do both. Anyway, he had this idea. Basically, he described a scenario unfolding in which the kind of a gaming community developed its own little economy. Right? And over time expanded that gaming economy such that it it starts to rival quote the real economy, and then, of course, in the story, there's that sort of battle.

Right? But it was just like you know, I'm not sure the whole thing, but, like, there was some it really like, does a new system grow up alongside the existing? Uh-huh. Interesting. And the other one was, Corey Doctorow's walk away.

And his basic idea there is that, you know, the alternative, if you will, just people just check out. Right? So it's the off the grid off the grid gone wild, so to speak. Right? But people just started checking out of the existing system and, you know, if you will kinda forming their own, you know, obviously, it starts off small and then it starts to scale up over time, but this kinda just this kinda check out idea.

I think both of those principles are, oh, very, you know, very interesting and plausible, and maybe it's a little bit of both, but, super duper helpful, helpful works. I mentioned them quite prominently because I I thought they were perfect.

That system within a system Right? And it kind of evolves as it goes. I I know this was, oh, I forget his name. Neil Herb wrote a book on economics back in the, thirties or forties may but or, no, it was a recap. I think it was in the fifties at that point, but it was, you know, basically, compared the the economy and society as like a chrysalis, and, like, it's not one motion that changes.

It's all these little motions that break apart the shell and, you know, out emerges the butterfly or the new system, that's always been there inside in some capacity.

Right. And that gets back to what we learned as futurist in this kind of journey, if you will, this kind of journey across the three horizons. It's not like, you know, on, you know, September 17, 2045, we're gonna declare the post capitalist society. Right? You know, this is gonna be one of those things where it's going to you know, maybe in retrospect, we we might put a date on it.

But, as we're living through it, it will be, you know, new systems don't just suddenly replace the old ones. There's this kinda, you know, tension over time and dynamic interplay and, you know, it's you know, at some point, we see the, you know, the prevalence of the new system start to, overtake the old. Yeah.

So there's

a it's a it's a yeah. We'd like to just say we're gonna yeah. We're gonna just replace it like it, you know, tomorrow, but it doesn't work like that.

Yes. Do you see, over the the the coming years, ideas like this kind of working more closely with economics or with other fields? I know, you know, future you know, from our standpoint, economic literacy is important. I know from the University of Houston, futures literacy is important. That, you know, it's not just reading, writing, and arithmetic anymore.

Like, we need to have literacy in so many different ways, but how those might intermingle and and and evolve.

Well, I certainly hope so. I guess, you know, that that I mean, it's just so I guess that, like, I I would go back to that to me where I would hope we could start. It's just in that sort of paradigm question. Like, just starting to say, wait a sec. You know?

Like, again, kind of framing that. Like, what what is what do we wanna do, so to speak? Right? I mean, what what is the ultimate goal? Because you could argue, especially with tech led abundance.

Like, we the bad version of tech led abundance, if you will, is we do create the abundance, but it's still, you know, 3 people get all the money and everybody else is, you know, fighting for scraps. Right? Like, so I think the you cannot you can kind of imagine how the wealth thing could really but then how do we address that question of what do we wanna do with that? How do we wanna distribute it? How do we wanna use it?

Obviously, those are the huge questions. Right? And I guess, you know, to your point, like, have just thinking that through, I mean, that's even in even in the the the research that I did to come up with these visions, I mean, there's some folks who had kinda went down to some levels of detail. Right? Well, here's how you'd organize a, you know, participatory, direct democracy, But it's usually at, like, a really small scale.

Right? Like, real here's how you could do a village. Right? So there's there's some fragments of ideas of how you could, you know, how you could redistribute. But, boy, I mean, we we're not we're not even at the point of asking a question yet.

And I think first, we're gonna ask the question of what we want. So so maybe to to to summarize that a little bit better. What I did see is a lot of the proposals, so to speak, around what's what that would look like is it's very much a kind of a local decentralized direct democratic and, you know, some might say there's a there's a lot of wish maybe some wishful thinking in there, but that's that seems to be the model that, you know, is is kind of out there. Right? And and seems to be, emerging.

But, you know, not a lot of detail on how we pull it off, but some ideas about the scale is is local distributed networked.

Gotcha. What so to that, you know, we've been we've been kind of talking as as optimistic futurists on how how this is going to happen. Who's resisting this, and and how does that play in?

Yeah. And, again, this is just to kinda reinforce our our futurist thinking here. One of the things we know why you know, And it came up when we did the research about, wow, those if you will, the we talked about that horizon 1. There's a dominant system with dominant players. And usually the dominant system and the dominant players wanna keep things the way they are because it's to their benefit.

I mean, it's just, you know, basic self interest, so to speak. Right? And so we know that usually that sort of current system hangs on longer than we might think because the people who support it are in the power positions. It just makes sense. Right?

So it is difficult to kind of, and what you what we tend to see is what that system does as it's as it starts to recognize the attacks or if you will, are becoming a little more direct and a little more effective. What compromises do we make? Like, how can we accommodate some of these new ideas and bring them into our and, you know, kinda keep control of it within our overall framework. So it tends to try to co opt some of the new ideas to keep them, you know, to keep them in their proper place. So you you know, and I I joke, like, I know it's not a real thing, but the the this the the current system is very clever at preserving itself.

It's not an entity, but it's almost it thinks that way. Right? It looks that way. Like, it's like, oh, we're oh, boy. That's a we gotta get that one and, you know, we gotta go grab that or else that could really harm us.

Right? And so, that you know, in general, that tendency is to sell to self preservation is, it's a tough one to to get past.

It is. You know? And and that's something I I think back to the my naivety in the beginning on all of this when I was like, really thought I was like, well, if you tell people the system can be changed, they'll wanna change it.

Right.

And it's realizing now, you know, how few people really see that, which I think that that, you know, going to you know, what do you feel the role is for, you know, additional work like this, and fiction as well to kind of paint you know, we have a lot of dystopia out there, Far less of this.

The good news the good news is even though I've just kind of laid out the basic I mean, I would say that's a basic assumption. Your current system tends to preserve itself. However, there is underneath that, there is and and why it eventually does change, there is a growing groundswell that says, hey. This isn't right. We need something different.

Right? So that's always happening. Now what's what I think, you know, and why I think we can pull this off in 20, 30 years is there is a groundswell of people that just saying, like, look. This this current system, this current capitalist system is based on some assumptions about, you know, growth and competition and so on that, actually made great sense for centuries. This is not like it's a new system.

Right? It has worked very well for a long time. And we're moving into a future context where that kind of behavior is actually not a good fit with the what we need in the future. Right? Now we obviously have to deal things with, you know, climate, resource scarcity.

There's a whole bunch of a whole host of issues where there's probably a diff we need a different mindset. And when when I've, you know, one of my other research interest in the long term future values is you've seen those kind of new value. We'll just call it for the sake of argument. The newer values are actually growing. Right?

And poised, I think, eventually to become the the next dominant paradigm. So even though right now it might look like, oh my goodness, there actually is a lot. We're and it's basically saying, we're we're gonna ask questions. Like, why are we? Why have we made this choice?

And and maybe we should make a different choice. So I do see in the long term that there is some very, very positive potential for challenging that paradigm. But, you know, it won't happen at the same time. It won't happen automatically to your point. What can we do?

We can encourage that. Right? We can we can grow that. We can nurture that and help support that sort of alternative thinking.

I like that. I I like that a lot. And I I think yeah. May may we start wrapping up a little bit on this. So you you seem optimistic about this.

Yes. And what is the next step for the book? The these visions are coming out. What is the kinda what's that what's that, the the rollout of of after capitalism for you?

Well, thanks. So, yeah, doing the we'll see, you know, doing a a lot of these kinda, talking about the book, workshopping it, you know, just just throwing the ideas out there and basically seeing what sticks. Right? What if anything sticks? I I would say that no matter what happens, I I'm now in the game here, and, you know, is a is one of the things that futures do is we we always are scanning for signals of change.

Right? What's what's and this is just in my in the fiber of of me now. I can't help but every time I look out, I see I see signals. Right? Here's one exam right.

So I'm gonna keep tracking it. And one of the things that, you know, I'm getting close to the old in in next career is, like and done a little bit of this already. Just don't have the luxury of time to do it on a large scale. Let's go visit. Like, we say alright.

So you say the pockets of the future are already here. Well, go see them. What are they doing? And and, like, go meet those people. Go talk to them.

You know, what do you you know, in kinda reporting, almost doing like a travel log on the future of after capitalism. So that's one of the that's kinda my, one of my grand hopes. And and, you know, just kinda bringing hope hoping helping bring to light, like like you're saying, like, these there are good signs. There are positive signs. And just, kind of, maybe cover that in a different way in a more, instead of a book format actually going out into the field and kinda sharing some of that stuff.

So I I look forward to continuing. I ain't done.

Good. Good. So how how will, listeners, find you, when they stumble on this podcast? So come podcast will come out before the end of January. I think your book, gives us a little bit about the release of your book, How to Reach You, etcetera.

I think well, thanks for that. So, yeah, the, physical book is already out in Europe. So if you're listening from Europe, you can get it from the publisher right now. And, actually, if you're in the US, you can order it from Europe, but it will cost you quite a bit more than the book itself to to get it shipped from Europe to the US. So, so it's a the European publishers in Europe.

So it's a European release first. It'll be out in the US, February 10th. You can also get the ebook right away from the publisher in Europe. Triarchy Press. And I love try they're just such a wonderful I wanna shout them out because they're one of those, like, they have a a vision.

They're systems thinkers. They're really committed to getting, you know, good ideas out there. And, you know, I just love the ethos of it. They they're and they've been wonderful to work with, really competent, and they just they put out some good stuff. You know, it's it's one of those things where, you know, you wanna you want the next Grisham.

Right? If you wanna make money as a publisher. Right? That's you know, publishing systems book is not the way to, you know, get rich and famous, and that's not what they're doing. Right?

They have a mission and they're supporting that and, you know, bless them. Right? I I and I really liked working with them. So that's basically the story. It'll be out, you know, in full, by February 10th.

Excellent. And so how would people reach you directly if you, are up for that conversation?

Absolutely. So you if you just type in Andy Hines, I have a book website called imagining aftercapitalism.com, all one word. I have a my blog or website is called Hinesight, all one word, Hines site. Very clever. And, you know, if you just type in Andy Hines or ahines@uh.edu.

So I am open to being contacted. It is interesting, Vinny. One of the things I noticed. So I had I synthesized a lot of work of other folks. Right?

And I offered them the book, you know, to say, hey. I mentioned your work and, you know, would you like to look and I noticed a lot more people these days are saying I am no longer taking any unsolicited emails.

I don't know

if you've run into that, but, you know, be because some you know, you you can get so slammed with request and stuff that some folks are saying, like, I just can't deal with the why I'm in. So, I Yeah.

I've definitely I've definitely seen that same thing.

Right? But I I want that problem, sorta. I I don't know. Right? But right now, I don't know.

What we

ask for. Right? Right. Right. Right.

Right. So right now, I'm like, come on. Come on. Let's go. Let's discuss.

Let's do it. So share, and let's let's make some let's let's make some things happen.

Well, thank you, Andy, so much. Andy Hines is the, author of Imagining After Capitalism, and I am so grateful to have had you here on the Design Economics podcast, and, thanks again.

Thank you for having me. What a blast. That boy, that went fast. It did.

See you next time.

Alrighty.

We hope you enjoyed this episode of the Design Economics podcast. We will be back next month with another engaging conversation. You can find the Design Economics podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. Please check out our show notes on our website, designeconomics.io. The Design Economics podcast is produced by the Institute For Economic Evolution, and I am your host, Vinny Tafuro.

Thank you for listening.