Debating the Future with NATO Defense College Research Director Florence Gaub
Last week JCU Institute of Future and Innovation Studies Director Francesco Lapenta hosted a debate with NATO Defense College Research Director Florence Gaub at the Luigi Sturzo Institute in Rome. The event was held in collaboration with the Hanns Seidel Foundation Italy/Vatican, the Festival of Diplomacy, and the Association of Friends of Luigi Vittorio Ferraris.
The event brought together an engaged audience for a thoughtful and forward-looking conversation on the future. At the center of the discussion were Florence Gaub and Francesco Lapenta, two scholars with complementary perspectives on strategic foresight, uncertainty, and the forces shaping tomorrow.
Florence Gaub, NATO Defense College Research Director is a leading expert in strategic foresight and author of Future: A User Manual. She has gained recognition for her constructive and accessible approach to futures research, emphasizing how societies can actively shape their future rather than passively fearing it.
Francesco Lapenta, Director of the Institute of Future and Innovation Studies, focuses on the systemic and structural dynamics that influence future-making, including technological acceleration, geopolitical power, and ecological constraints. His work highlights the ethical, political, and methodological mission, and challenges, of futures research.
The discussion between the two Directors created a rich dialogue exploring the complexity of how we think about the future. Gaub emphasized that foresight is not about prediction, but about preparedness, providing frameworks that help societies navigate uncertainty. Lapenta built on this, questioning how much control we truly have in a world shaped by emergent disruptions and structural forces. Both agreed that while human agency is crucial, it operates within powerful constraints—technological shifts, economic structures, and ecological limits that shape what is possible.
The conversation also addressed the politics of future-making. Who gets to define which futures are pursued? Gaub argued that expanding public engagement in foresight is key to avoiding deterministic or fear-driven narratives, while Lapenta highlighted the concentration of power in corporate and political elites, raising the challenge of ensuring more democratic and pluralistic future-making processes. Both agreed on the importance of critical future literacy, ensuring that future-thinking is not just a tool for governments and institutions, but an open and inclusive process.
Finally, the discussion explored the cultural and philosophical dimensions of futurism. Both speakers reflected on how Western linear models of progress often dominate foresight methodologies, potentially overlooking alternative perspectives, such as Indigenous and cyclical conceptions of time. While Gaub emphasized that foresight is meant to open possibilities rather than close them, Lapenta questioned whether some dominant future narratives, AI governance, automation, transhumanism, risk becoming self-fulfilling prophecies that limit alternative visions.
In the end, the discussion reinforced the idea that thinking about the future is not just about forecasting, it is about responsibility, ethics, and adaptability. Both Gaub and Lapenta agreed that future-making must be critical, inclusive, and aware of its own limitations and functions. The audience was left with an essential takeaway: the best way to approach the future is not with uncertainty and fear, but with curiosity, strategic thinking, and a commitment to shaping it in an ethical and inclusive way.
