The Way the Future Was • Kevlin Henney & James Lewis • GOTO 2025

The Way the Future Was • Kevlin Henney & James Lewis • GOTO 2025

🎙 Kevlin Henney & James Lewis 👥 1.1M 📅 November 13, 2025 ⏱ 56 min 👁 2K 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-02
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

futuretechnologyscience fictionsoftware engineeringhistory

Summary

In this keynote at GOTO Copenhagen 2025, Kevlin Henney and James Lewis explore how the future was envisioned in the past, from the optimistic visions of the 20th century to the more cautious outlook of today. They discuss the cultural and technological promises of the past, such as flying cars, moon bases, and post-scarcity societies, and contrast them with the current reality. The talk is structured in four parts: ‘The way the future was’, ‘The way the future is’, ‘The way the future comes to be’, and ‘The way the future could be’. They reflect on the role of science fiction in shaping expectations, the impact of the Cold War and the 1990s on collective optimism, and the challenges of predicting technological progress. They also touch on concepts like Jevons’ paradox and the Fermi paradox, and consider how the future is actively created through innovation and craftsmanship. The talk concludes with a call to reimagine the future with a balance of optimism and realism.

164 words

Critical Evaluation

The talk offers a thoughtful and engaging reflection on the history of future visions, drawing on a wide range of cultural references from science fiction literature, historical predictions, and personal anecdotes. The speakers, Kevlin Henney and James Lewis, are respected figures in the software engineering community, which lends credibility to their perspectives. However, the talk is primarily an opinion piece rather than a rigorous scientific analysis. The arguments are based on anecdotal evidence and personal experiences, and while they reference specific books and concepts, they do not provide a systematic review of the literature. The discussion of Jevons’ paradox and the Fermi paradox is interesting but not deeply explored. The talk’s strength lies in its ability to provoke thought and encourage reflection on the relationship between technology and society. The speakers effectively highlight the gap between past promises and current realities, and they raise important questions about how we shape the future. The adéquation between the title and content is strong, as the talk indeed focuses on how the future was perceived in the past. However, the talk could benefit from more concrete examples and data to support its claims. Overall, it is a valuable contribution to the discourse on technology and futurism, but it should be viewed as a perspective rather than a definitive analysis.

216 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content, which explores how the future was envisioned in the past and contrasts it with current perspectives.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The talk is an expert opinion by two well-known software practitioners, discussing historical visions of the future and their relation to technology. They reference specific books and concepts, but the content is largely anecdotal and reflective rather than rigorously sourced. The speakers are credible, but the talk is not a formal scientific study.

Chapters

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

External References

Contribution & Novelties

The talk provides a unique perspective on the history of future visions, connecting cultural expectations with technological development. It highlights the shift from optimistic to more cautious outlooks and encourages a critical examination of how we imagine the future.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Fermi paradox — The paradox is referenced in the talk as a context for existential risks.
  • Jevons paradox — The talk mentions this economic concept in relation to efficiency and resource use.
  • The Culture series — The science fiction series by Iain M. Banks is discussed as an example of a post-scarcity utopia.

97 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows a balanced distribution across information quantity, quality, and technical level, with a slightly lower reliability score. This reflects a talk that is rich in content and well-argued but relies on personal expertise rather than empirical evidence.

Reliability 6/10