Originally published on February 5, 2016 (Episode 46)
Introduction
Historians already struggle to understand the past—should they also try to forecast the future?
David Hochfelder thinks so. In his view, historians are uniquely qualified to anticipate what comes next. “The major rationale for studying history,” he argues, “is to figure out how we got here. And if we answer that question, the very next one is, ‘So where are we going after this?’”
In this conversation, Hochfelder and I explore why the 19th century—not the 20th—experienced civilization’s greatest technological leap; the distinction between predicting and forecasting; and why historians might actually make the best futurists.
About the Guest
David Hochfelder is Associate Professor of History at the University at Albany (SUNY). An electrical engineer turned historian, he specializes in the histories of technology and business. He is the author of The Telegraph in America, 1832–1920.
For Further Investigation
“Historians as Futurists?”, Inside Higher Education, January 11, 2016
H.G. Wells, “Wanted—Professors of Foresight!”
Jason Pontin, “Why We Can’t Solve Big Problems,” MIT Technology Review (Nov. 2012)
Paul Sabin, The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble Over Earth’s Future
Related Episodes
“Visionary Histories”—with David Staley
“The History of the Future, Part II”—with David Staley
Listen & Discuss
Do you think historians should stick to the past—or should they lean into forecasting the future? Leave your thoughts in the comments, and don’t forget to share this episode with a friend or colleague who loves thinking big.
Subscribe
Support Historically Thinking and keep the conversations flowing. Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform—or right here on Substack to get new episodes delivered straight to your inbox.
SEO Tags
history of the future, David Hochfelder, historians and forecasting, history of technology, telegraph in America, futurism and history
