Institute for Futures Studies

A voter-backed radical nationalism has taken root not only in Europe but in many parts of the world. Against the backdrop of the global breakdown of international law, large-scale mobilisations of violence against minorities, the politicisation of universities, corporate campaigns against climate science, and tech oligarchs tightening their control over surveillance systems and algorithmically curated information flows, a growing number of people have begun to ask whether parts of the West are currently witnessing the return of fascism.What speaks in favour of this interpretation? What speaks against it? And how do today’s fascist forms and expressions differ from those of the past?Participants:Lea Ypi, Professor of Political Theory at the London School of Economics and author of, among other works, Free (2021) and Indignity (Albert Bonniers Förlag, 2025).Agri Ismaïl, critic and author of Hyper (Albert Bonniers Förlag, 2023).From the Sakli(g)t book festival 2026. Sakli(g)t is organised by Rikstolvan in collaboration with the Institute for Futures Studies and Linnaeus University, with support from the Swedish Arts Council, Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, the Natur & Kultur Foundation, and the Swedish Academy.If you wish to receive invitations to our seminars via email, subscribe here: https://www.iffs.se/en/about-us/newsletter/

The instrumentalism of the title says roughly that the form of governance that would be feasibly best in any circumstances is any one whose establishment and operation would bring about consequences morally no worse than those of any other that might instead be put in place. I stipulate that the consequences to be assessed exclude any possible noninstrumental value that attaches to all members of the society having an equal vote or equal opportunity for political influence (EOPI). This allows, components of democratic institutions such as protection of freedom of speech and association do have such value that weighs on the scales. Authoritarians favoring nondemocracy might be reasonable liberals, social democrats, or conservatives. Does instrumentalism favor democracy always or almost always in our time? The stipulated exclusion is incorrect if all having equal vote or EOPI really in themselves have noninstrumental value. This exclusion applies only to political power, not power generally, but might be supported by a general claim: The distribution of power over others is normatively neutral in itself and matters only insofar as it gives rise to good or bad consequences. No person has a moral claim to power over others except on the basis, that person’s having the power will be fair in its effects on those affected. The discussion surveys relevant arguments advanced by Niko Kolodny, Daniel Viehoff, and Jeremy Waldron.Research seminar with Richard Arneson, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at University of California, San Diego. He is a holder of Valtz Family Chair in Philosophy. Arneson received his PhD in philosophy from the University of California, Berkeley in 1975. His work focuses on theories of social justice, as well as normative ethics including applied ethics topics.

This paper presents a chapter from the draft manuscript entitled Exploitation & Time and asks whether and how future generations can be exploited given that they do not yet exist and cannot interact with us. It argues that existing accounts of exploitation struggle with this problem because they rely on interaction reciprocity counterfactual comparisons or collective generational agency all of which break down across time. In response the paper develops a structural role-based model of intergenerational exploitation that shifts the focus away from generations as homogeneous moral agents and toward enduring social roles authorised and sustained by state and institutional frameworks. On this view exploitation across non overlapping generations occurs when earlier generations design and entrench roles such as creditor, regulator, policymaker, corporate executive or caregiver in ways that systematically position future individuals in structurally vulnerable roles from which value can be extracted. Future people are therefore often exploited not by the dead but by their own contemporaries who inherit and occupy these empowered roles. The model avoids the non-identity problem by locating injustice in the structure of roles rather than in welfare comparisons allows for fine grained attribution of moral responsibility within generations and captures the uneven impacts of exploitation across different future groups. The paper illustrates the account through cases involving climate policy, resource extraction, public debt, and unpaid care work and concludes that protecting future generations requires institutional reform aimed at dismantling exploitative roles before they are inherited.Research seminar with Nicola Mulkeen. Nicola is a Lecturer in Political Philosophy at Newcastle University. Her research interests are in contemporary political philosophy. At the moment, her focus is primarily on intergenerational justice. She is currently working on two book projects one entitled Exploitation & Time which develops an account of how exploitation is reproduced over time and across age groups including between present and future generations and a second on climate debt and future debt relations. Alongside her academic work, Nicola collaborates with Save the Children on research policy and impact concerning children in future generations. Prior to joining Newcastle University, she was a Teaching Fellow in PAIS at the University of Warwick and a Lecturer in Political Philosophy at the University of Manchester. Recently, she has held visiting positions at the University of Oxford and the University of Gothenburg.

Recent debates and research on economic inequality give conflicting results and views on the developments (even when using similar data). This project argues that much of the disagreement reflects differences in the underlying concepts of income and wealth rather than purely empirical disputes. Building on the Haig–Simons definition of income as changes in consumption possibilities, the paper proposes a framework that traces how macroeconomic resources recorded in national accounts reach households through institutions such as firms, pension systems, and government programs. Different inequality measures capture different points along this transmission chain, which helps explain why studies often reach different conclusions about inequality trends and gives some examples based on Swedish developments.Research seminar with Jesper Roine, Adjunct Professor of Economics at the Department of Economics and deputy director at Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE). He holds a Ph. D. from Stockholm University (2002).

Genocide is one of the most charged concepts of our time. It is a legal term, but it also carries moral imperatives and can be a political weapon. In the book Genocide: Sweden and the Fight Over a Concept, international law professor Mark Klamberg describes, among other things, how the foundation for genocide as a concept and thus for the UN Genocide Convention was laid in Stockholm in 1940, and how Sweden, during the negotiations for the convention, wanted to implement restrictions so that it would not include the treatment of the Sami. This book highlights stories, perspectives and legal battles that are in various ways connected to Sweden – but which have not yet been fully reflected in historical writing. The presentation will also highlight present-day conflicts which involve allegations of genocide and will be in English.Research seminar with Mark Klamberg, professor of international law at Stockholm University. He did his post-doc at University of Oxford and was a member of the senior common room of Christ Church, has been a guest lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, Georgetown University and American University Washington College of Law (DC). He often appears in the media to comment on current events and has recently been part of an OSCE mission where he and the other experts of the mission presented a report on how Russia treats Ukrainian Prisoners of War.

Philosophy of Madness is a rising philosophical subfield. There are diverging opinions and many unclarities surrounding its relationship to other subfields, most notably Philosophy of Psychiatry. In a chapter for a forthcoming Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Zsuzsanna Chappell and I tentatively define Philosophy of Madness thus: In a narrow sense, it is philosophy about madness, done by openly mad philosophers, which centres madpeople’s experiences. In a wider sense, one or both of the first two conditions could be absent. The author might identify as sane, neurodivergent-but-not-mad, or neither. The text might use mad insights, mad intuitions, etc., applied to a topic other than madness itself. In any case, wider or narrower, the centring of madpeople’s experiences is crucial, if Philosophy of Madness is going to be anything other than a new, edgy name for the same old Philosophy of Psychiatry.When discussing Philosophy of Madness in a narrow sense, the topic naturally connects to the lively debate about involving people with lived experience in research projects and academic writing. What role can and should they play? Psychologist Jasper Feayerts (Ghent University) and I are starting up a research group about this matter. There may be little that you necessarily need LE people for, little that is impossible to achieve for a thoroughly sane research group. Nevertheless, involving LE people could remain important if doing so makes certain pitfalls much more likely to be avoided.One necessary difference between the madperson and the sane academic studying them, which the madperson is more likely to take into account, is this: the madperson can’t declare themself a hopeless case and proceed to walk away from themself to other topics. They must continue to live with themself, and find some way to do so. This is something that I and Elliot Porter have written about in different papers on agency and moral responsibility, but the difference is relevant for many other topics as well.

This presentation asks whether halving premature death by 2050 is feasible – and explores ethical issues in defining and attempting to reach such a target. Premature death is defined here as death before age 70 years. In an earlier study we examined the large variation in premature death rates before age 70 and trends over the past 50 years, covering ten world regions and the 30 most-populous nations, and we concluded that nations that choose to do so can achieve this goal. We did not, however, justify the age cut-off, examine the implications for mortality in old age, or discuss the mortality impact of climate change and global warming. This presentation will explore these ethical issues in more detail.If you wish to receive our newsletters, and invitations to our seminars, subscribe here.Research seminar with Ole F. Norheim, Mary B. Saltonstall Professor of Ethics and Population Health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, as well as Adjunct Professor of Medical Ethics at University of Bergen. 

What could be more futuristic on Earth than to discuss about mankind’s possibility to become a multiplanetary species in the universe? Tech visionaries like Elon Musk claim that it would become possible to send 1 million people to planet Mars within the next 2 decades. In response to this, 59 researchers, representing multidisciplinary fields from astronomy, biology, engineering, medicine, law, economy, AI, politics to humanities, have recently published a book that critically and constructively reviews the current visions on colonization of Mars. Dr. Natuschka Lee, one of the contributing researchers, will present a summary of this book and initiate discussions from various perspectives.Research seminar with Natuschka Lee, microbiologist and an astrobiologist, with a PhD degree in Biotechnology from Lund University, with many years of research experience in Germany and in Sweden. She is a former fellow of Swedish Collegium of Advanced Science and the Alexander von der Humboldt Foundation. Today, she is a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala.If you wish to receive our newsletters, and invitations to our seminars, subscribe here.

In an era of climate change and geopolitical turbulence democracy faces many challenges. Drawing on his research and recent book, Climate Change and the Endurance of Democracy (Routledge, open access), Lindvall will examine how disasters and extreme weather events have historically affected human reasoning and political agency, and how the climate crisis may shape the future of democratic governance. He will show how such events can contribute to democratic backsliding, but also how they may create new opportunities for social mobilization and democratic revitalization.Research seminar with Daniel Lindvall, researcher in sociology at the Institute for Futures Studies and at the Climate Leadership Initiative at the Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University. His research areas are climate and energy transition. Author of the books Folkstyret i rädslans tid and Upphettning - demokratin i klimatkrisens tid. Daniel has been the main secretary for several government investigations such as the 2014 Democracy Investigation.If you wish to receive invitations to our seminars via email, subscribe here. https://www.iffs.se/en/about-us/newsl...

In this episode Victor Galaz, Associate Professor in Political Science at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, dives deep into what artificial intelligence might mean for climate change. AI is often discussed as a potential “game changer” for climate change action. One key issue in this conversation focuses on the growing energy, water and carbon footprint of AI, and ways to mitigate these footprints. While important, this debate has failed to grasp the wider impacts of “AI” in the climate and sustainability domain, thus leading to a failure to fully grasp – and thus govern – these technologies impacts. In this talk, I will explore the complex and at times deep indirect impacts of AI on climate action and policy. These relate to 1) “AI” as a scientific method (e.g., driving new advances in the climate sciences); 2) “AI” as a consumer product (e.g., embedded in digital products used by people on a daily basis like chatbots and messenger apps); 3) “AI” as a growing and influential political actor (thus shaping climate policies, environmental legislation, and carbon markets). Victor Galaz is Associate Professor in Political Science at the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, and at the Beijer Institute for Ecological Economics, at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Sign up to our newsletter to get invitations to upcoming seminars, events and the latest news from the frontiers of Futures Studies.