“We place more faith in technology than in culture”
For Jeannie Schneider, there is no such thing as the future – there are futures. And these cannot be seen as a linear process, but as a zone full of opportunities where we can actively shape the interplay between technology, politics and society.
Jeannie Schneider, you explore the future at the Think & Do Tank Dezentrum. As a child, how did you envision your own future?
I grew up in the countryside in the US state of Hawaii. We had cows, chameleons and guinea pigs in our garden. So for me, it was clear that I would grow up to become a farmer.
Instead, you are now a partner at Dezentrum. How did that come about?
I was politicised at an early age and joined the Young Socialists at 14. They made me aware of the importance of social problems. At the same time, I noticed that technological development is not perceived as a political issue, but as a natural course of events. In my opinion, the interface between politics and technology has not yet been sufficiently researched, even though technological development is one of the biggest drivers of change today.
Is it possible to manifest the desired future?
This can work on an individual level, but on a structural level, confrontation with the future is more emancipatory. Many of us have the feeling that it will descend upon us, leaving us little scope for action. If you realise that there is not just the future, but several futures, the scope for action expands. At the same time, this notion makes it all the more urgent to change one’s behaviour now and thus direct our steps towards one future or another.
The deep geological repository should remain intact for one million years. What does this incredibly long timescale mean to you as a researcher?
That is a fundamental problem in futures studies. Research aims to create knowledge that can be validated, either by means of an experiment or a survey. But the future is inherently a black box. This tension means that futures studies is not only a descriptive discipline, but also always based on values. We have to think about how we want something to be – and not how it will be. Researching something that does not yet exist multiplies the unknown to an extreme degree in a project covering such a long timescale.
What methods do you use to approach such questions at Dezentrum?
We primarily work with scenario technology and speculative design. In scenario technology, the future is not thought of as a linear process, but as a zone full of possibilities. As a first step, we describe the status quo and the circumstances that influence it. The second part is speculative: we take a leap into the future and sketch out possible scenarios. A good scenario is not the likeliest one, but one that feels right to us. This is how we try to open up the horizon of possibilities. Speculative design, on the other hand, involves imagining what a tool or instrument of the future could look like.
Can you give us an example?
The makers of Star Trek asked themselves what communication could look like in the future. Someone came up with the idea of a communicator, something mobile and able to provide communication at all times – like a mobile phone. And indeed: a Motorola designer later said he was influenced by the communicator. Speculative objects can help to typify something, thereby making it tangible.
Are you more of a listener than a reader?
This interview was conducted as part of the third issue of the Magazine of the Century “500m+” from Nagra. Hannes Hug interviewed the protagonists at Nagra’s meeting point in Stadel – the community where the surface facility for the deep geological repository is to be constructed.
Ten exciting discussions provide new perspectives on the deep geological repository. You can listen to the Podcast of the Century (Jahrhundertpodcast, in German) on the website of The Magazine of the Century or wherever podcasts are available.
The smartphone is a disruptive innovation and we still don’t know exactly how it will affect us. How do you incorporate such aspects into your research?
Digitalisation and its impact on society are our core topic. In the case of smartphones, we really don’t know what impact they will have – especially on children who are confronted with them from a very young age. With social media, on the other hand, we have to be aware that we are the product. All of these platforms are designed to maximise dwell time, which studies show has devastating consequences for the mental health of children and young people. We need to understand digital technologies more as a political issue and take a closer look at their use and consequences.
Participation plays an important role at Dezentrum. What participatory process would you suggest in the case of a deep geological repository?
For me, proper participation means co-determination. In our processes, we see participation as the process of equalising different perspectives: laypeople must have just as much to say as political or digitalisation experts. We see the opposite in the repository project, where a technocratic top-down approach is applied. There is a specific site that is best suited due to the geological conditions there. We talk about a participatory process, but at the same time the decision is determined by expert knowledge – this leads to tensions.
More interviews from the Magazine of the Century
“A repository site should be designed to exude something cultish or religious”
How can we ensure that humans will not go near the repository even thousands of years from now? Archaeologist Andrea Schaer argues in favour of creating a monumental site. Just like those humans have erected time and again throughout history.
“I can understand how some people might dislike Benny Brennstab”
Thomas Meyer was the first cultural guest in Stadel. The author is a staunch opponent of nuclear power but, at the same time, he is fascinated by the repository project. This is a contradiction he has to bear.
“We geologists think in time-scales of millions of years”
What Nagra does almost has the ring of science fiction, says its CEO, Matthias Braun, in the third issue of the Magazine of the Century “500m+”. But this “science fiction” is based on hard facts – and on swarm intelligence.
The deep geological repository is an incredibly large and complex project. Are we capable of realising something like that?
We have to. What I find exciting is that the repository is supposed to last one million years, but the decision-making process has only been underway for around thirty years. Put in perspective, that is very short. We often think that something has to proceed quickly and efficiently in order to be good. But in a democracy, speed and efficiency are not always the best way forward. Especially if you don’t want to depend solely on expert decisions, the process should perhaps be thought through in more detail. Whether it takes another five or ten years longer is irrelevant when considering the long lifetime of the repository.
How do you personally view the issue of radioactive waste?
For me, it symbolises the way we think about technology: nuclear power and the disposal of radioactive waste are seen as two different issues. We see the same behaviour with many other topics such as oil or lithium. The true, long-term costs of a technology are ignored.
I am 56 years old and the nuclear debate has been with me for most of my life. You are 27 years old, how did you perceive the development?
All my life, nuclear power has been on the verge of being phased out, a technology that we are gradually turning our back on. The climate crisis suddenly put nuclear power back on the political agenda, even though the risks are the same as before. For me, this symbolises how we deal with problems – including the climate crisis. Instead of transforming our society so that we need less energy, we resort to nuclear energy. The dangers and resulting waste are pushed into the background just so that we can maintain our standard of living. We face the same problem with the deep geological disposal of radioactive waste. We are looking at how to make it safe. To this end, we place far more faith in technology – in this case Castor containers – than in a culture that could ensure the safety of the waste in the long term.
“We have to think about how we want something to be – and not how it will be.”
Jeannie Schneider, partner of Think & Do Tank Dezentrum
How can we make people more interested in the deep geological repository?
I can see how this topic doesn’t draw huge crowds. The timescale is so overwhelmingly long. We also live in a time when people are unable to pay their heating bills, and political commitment always depends on personal resources. If your everyday life is a struggle, you won’t have time for political engagement – especially not for an issue as abstract as a deep geological repository.
How far into the future do you look ahead?
Personally, my time horizon is rather short; at Dezentrum we often only look at one generation. This is because our clients represent small entities such as a company or its employees. We will soon be launching a project on the question of whether shorter working hours result in economic, personal and economic benefits. For this project, we look ahead to 2040, as many of those affected today will still be working by then.
Among other subjects, you studied history. To what extent does history help you to anticipate the future?
History is our only source of information. We cannot use information from the past to predict the future, but we can learn from it. For example, consider earlier scenarios about the future, such as those shown at the national exhibition at the beginning of the 20th century. They sold postcards showing life in the 21st century. One of these features a classroom. The children have colanders on their heads and are being fed knowledge through a machine. All the students are boys, even the teacher is a man. Another postcard features a kitchen. An automated broom is cleaning the floor – but a woman wearing an apron is standing next to the broom. This shows that we anticipated technological change – but not social change. Ideas about the future say a lot about the present.
For a long time, the future was portrayed as promising, today it is seen as more dystopian. When did that change?
For generations, the question of whether children would be better off than their parents was answered in the affirmative. This changed in around 2010. Even now, you can tell that the future offers fewer possibilities, or at least that is how it feels. That doesn’t surprise me, because we have been living with a very rigid mindset for around forty years. We adhere to one economic system and one way of living to ensure growth – and with growth, we mean prosperity. At the same time, we are currently experiencing the failure of this premise. We recognise that endless growth is not possible on a planet with limited resources. We must narrow our expectations for the future, which gives rise to tension.
One last question that I ask everyone I interview: If you could leave a message in the planned deep geological repository, what would you write in your note?
Nobody said it would be easy.
Jeannie Schneider studied political science, law, philosophy and global history. As a partner of Think & Do Tank Dezentrum, she researches participatory change and the interface between technology, politics and society.
Photos: Maurice Haas
Similar articles
“Risks” are the least of our concerns
In the Mont Terri Rock Laboratory located in the Jura Mountains, Nagra is carrying out tests for Switzerland’s deep geological repository – that is to remain intact for one million years. The big question: is there a scenario of which you have not thought?
“Implementing a deep geological repository is a team sport”
Can a “radiation-eating fungus” solve all our radioactive waste problems?
Chernobyl’s black fungus and frogs captivate scientists and fascinate the internet community. Numerous myths have grown up around the “Chernobyl fungus” –aided by false information and AI-generated images. But what is really behind the phenomenon?