The Courage to Act: The Critical Link Between Future Foresight and Present Action

This blog post is going to pull together three events - one in 2001, another in 2010, and one now in 2024 - that demonstrate that Future Foresight by itself is insufficient to navigate our changing world. Actions needed to be taken on those insights, and often such actions if successful prevent the very "bad day" scenario that the foresight discerned which can risk the predictor looking like they were all for naught. Similarly sometimes organizations won't take action until the foresights do occur, and then finally sufficient motivation to take action arises.

Bot and AI Will Present New Opportunities and Challenges for Auditors

Recently, tech influencer Evan Kirstel featured an insightful conversation with me about the intersection of future foresight and action - a topic that's become increasingly relevant as we navigate the complexities of AI, drone technologies, and emerging security challenges. We had a lively conversation that you can watch in full here.

Also, as I prepare to speak at GAO's 25th Biennial #Forum of Government Auditors about AI's impact on the auditing profession, I'm reminded of how crucial it is not just to predict future trends, but to take meaningful action on those predictions. This reflection brings to mind my own experience with bot-submitted comments during my time as a federal agency Senior Executive in 2017. While we recognized something unusual was happening with the flood of automated submissions, it wasn't until 2021 that the full scope of that digital manipulation became clear. This experience, combined with my work in countering disinformation from 2017-2020 (including surviving a personal disinformation attack in 2018), underscores a critical point:

"... future foresight without corresponding action leaves us vulnerable to emerging threats."

As we face new challenges with AI's impact on auditing and other professions, we must couple our predictions with proactive measures to adapt and respond.

When Worlds Collide: From 2010 Drone Predictions to 2024's UAP Reality

In 2010, I gave a keynote at a military event highlighting how the collision of science, technology, business, and national security would create unprecedented challenges in U.S. airspace. The central warning was clear: advances in drone technologies would enable both state and non-state actors to increasingly challenge our domestic security by 2020 and beyond. What made this particularly complex was that our Constitution doesn't explicitly address whether drone intrusion response falls under federal or state jurisdiction - a governance gap that remains relevant today.

Fast forward to 2024, and we're witnessing not just the drone challenges predicted, but also an increasing number of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) reports that further complicate our airspace security picture. The democratization of technology has led to a situation where distinguishing between commercial drones, potential security threats, and unexplained phenomena has become increasingly challenging for our national security infrastructure. Recent incidents near critical infrastructure and military installations underscore the prescience of those 2010 warnings about the need for clearer governance frameworks and response protocols.

What's particularly striking is how the original prediction about "worlds colliding" - where science, technology, business, and national security intersect - has become even more relevant with UAPs. Just as with drones, we're facing questions about jurisdiction, response protocols, and the balance between transparency and security. The lesson here isn't just about accurate prediction - it's about the importance of establishing governance frameworks before emerging challenges become critical security issues.

When Future Foresight Meets Institutional Resistance: A Lesson from 2001

Back in 2001, while working with the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program, I encountered a classic example of institutional resistance to forward-thinking approaches. The prevailing wisdom at the time favored traditional waterfall IT development methodologies and rigid 3-5 year planning cycles. As someone who had previously worked with enterprise technology activities and understood the rapid pace of technological change, I knew this approach wouldn't suffice for the challenges we faced.

My argument was straightforward but met significant pushback: we needed working solutions immediately because we didn't have a "deal" with either terrorists or Mother Nature to wait until our IT systems were ready. The traditional development cycle would leave us vulnerable for years. This wasn't just about IT methodology - it was about national security and public health preparedness. I advocated for agile development before it became mainstream, understanding that we needed the flexibility to adapt our systems quickly to emerging threats.

The events of 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks tragically validated this perspective. Had these events not occurred, I might have been labeled a heretic and trouble maker for challenging the status quo. Instead, these incidents demonstrated why future foresight must be paired with immediate action, even when such actions face institutional resistance.

Learning From the Past to Inform Our Present Actions

Today, as we face unprecedented technological advancement and global challenges, we must remember:

"... Future foresight isn't about being right - it's about being ready."

Taking action on foresight requires courage, especially when the benefits of prevention may never be visible. The same principles that applied to bioterrorism preparedness in 2001 and drone security in 2010 apply to our current challenges with UAPs and emerging technologies.

What future challenges are you seeing on the horizon? More importantly, what actions are you taking today to address them?