I recently watched some episodes of the television series created by Gerry Anderson and his colleagues. These programmes were Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and The Mysterons, and Joe 90.
Back in the day Anderson and his team were lauded for their vision of a future which seemed optimistic and quite progressive, envisaging a prosperous, technologically advanced and comparatively harmonious world. Just how accurate and perceptive were these "predictions" and imaginings, and how desirable would those outcomes really be?
The above mentioned programmes were all set in "the future", in the case of Joe 90 roughly our own epoch (the 2010s), and the other two were apparently meant to have taken place in the 2050s or 2060s.
It is clear to me that the shows in question were produced against the backdrop of 1960s optimism and idealism and, some might say, naivete. It could be that the visions contained in the episodes represented a mixture of what the makers anticipated would transpire, and what they hoped for.
In broad terms, the programmes seem to envisage some form of "federal" global structure, with world government agencies and functions, and much emphasis on international co-operation. The main threats are perceived to emanate from rogue (smaller?) nations, potent criminal elements and corrupt business interests. It is curious to think in those terms, as I type this in the Summer of 2022....
The expectation appears to be that large corporations will still exist, and that they will wield considerable power and influence. My interpretation, for what it is worth, is that Anderson and Co. were predicting that, on balance, corporations would be a benevolent force, fulfilling a "progressive" role in society. The current evidence would suggest that the reality will be more mixed and ambiguous, to say the least.
To me it is noteworthy that environmental and ecological issues are touched on relatively infrequently by these 1960s creations. Nuclear power and fossil fuels are shown as still being quite pervasive, although there is some mention of innovations in the fields of renewable and alternative energy sources.
As we now know, the importance of green considerations will likely precipitate changes in social and economic conditions far beyond what these creative people from the Sixties expected. This might be explained in part by the fact that the ecology movement was comparatively under-developed and basic in the 1960s, and did not really gather momentum until the decade which followed. In one Thunderbirds episode, scientists are seen trying to discover new ways of boosting livestock and the world's supply of meat! Clearly knowledge of such topics, and their impact on the planet, was quite unsophisticated, even limited, back then.
When the series in question are discussed, it is often stated that they imagined a "utopian" future. However, looking critically at the economic and social structures which were portrayed, genuinely profound change is not evident. Rather than being "utopian", I see their outlook as progressive-liberal, and certainly not radical in terms of the way that life was expected to develop or evolve.
The attitudes exuded by the characters and people in the stories do not signal any major shift in attitudes, values or beliefs, no big "Enlightenment 2.0". Selfishness, greed and ignorance are still shown as existing, but the Anderson view of human nature seems to be optimistic. The link between socio-economic changes and shifting attitudes may be instructive, in that the extent of the former could be dependent on the magnitude of the latter. Little suggestion, of course, that man-made laws might corrupt people or instil harmful habits or ideas.
I must say that I rather like the future architectural and design trends postulated in these productions. They are in accord with my own "modernist" tastes and inclinations. Maybe these patterns were conceived in the light of things which were around in the 1960s, but which were seen then as futuristic and cutting-edge?
The issue of social stratification, and the class system, is one area of these Anderson programmes which seemed to conflict mildly with other anticipated societal developments. The programmes appear to depict, certainly in Britain and even elsewhere, a society where class distinctions are still very much entrenched and palpable.
One area of the thought-world of those productions, especially Thunderbirds, which intrigues me is the "military" involvement and influence in "civilian" affairs and sectors. People of a military bearing, and sporting military-type uniforms, are seen fulfilling functions which these days we would hope and expect to be carried out by more technically-orientated people.
It seems that the producers saw the future as being an arena of technological progress, but not necessarily as a prodigious driver of social transformation or deep-rooted human emancipation; just making life "easier", but just as hectic and bewildering. In other words, alienation and social exclusion would remain as ills, insidious trends inhibiting change in some areas.
The balance of economic relations and power, and the centralization of power, would likely remain unchanged. Progress? That depends upon how you define and quantify "progress". There has to be at least a gesture towards something more meaningful and far-reaching.
Gerry Anderson's world of the future may indeed be the one which comes to pass, given the current balance of forces, prevailing "wisdom" and policies. We should bear in mind, though, that we as citizens of the world have it within our power to change this state of affairs, at least in theory. Personally, I hope that at least pointers to something more radical are evident by the forthcoming decades in question.
One area where the 1960s creators underestimated the likely scale of development was in the areas of "information technology" and communications. There is little suggestion (to my eyes and ears) of anything resembling what became the internet, although they did admittedly foresee some other leaps and advances.
Despite nurturing a hopeful verdict on human nature, some of the "villains" and antagonists in Anderson programmes appear to presage that egomania and megalomania would continue to pose problems and present obstacles for genuine progress and tranquility, and lead to some grief and suffering for "mere mortals". This is in addition to pride, intransigence, arrogance and narrow-mindedness. Sadly, they were probably right in expecting this to be the case. Changes in attitudes would be needed to militate against this, and such changes could be accelerated by reforms to socio-economic systems.
Above all, I think that the only partial accuracy of the predictions amply demonstrates just how quickly and profoundly our world can change in short stretches of time, thus confounding the experts and the futurologists. No doubt if I am around to write a similar article to this in 2050, I will have to revise several of my judgments on the forecasts of the makers of those television shows.
