Doomsday scenarios. I love them.

Not because I’m wishing for the end of the world or anything, but they are extremely revealing about the mindset of those who develop them. Shell’s scenarios are an excellent example of scenario planning – even for the bad stuff. Thinking about the future of any sector, or the world for that matter, you need to consider numerous possibilities. Including the possibility that the future that you envisage may not quite as rosy or profitable as you imagine it to be.

Human history has shown us that technological advancement is almost inevitable. We strive to improve our lot as a species, to gain advantage as a species, to ensure that we provide for our loved ones. We fashioned arrows and spears to take down big animals and defend ourselves from those that threatened us. Some bright spark realised that using a round thing meant you could transport heavy loads long distances. Agriculture, weapons, industrial processes, how we get around, sending men to the moon – all representing great leaps in technology and our capability as a species. Advancement is human nature, and it is reflected in every aspect of our society and economy.

Yet human history has also shown us that technological advancement comes at a price, and not a pretty one. Smashing the Spinning Jenny, industrial action, and the devastation of communities when an uncompetitive major employer can no longer compete signify change is often painful, even brutal on the losers. The benefits of progress are always uneven.

So consider this scenario for a moment: what if the great opportunity brought about by the technological revolution facing the transport sector actually destroys it?

Whilst this blog is generally favourable to technological advances in the transport sector, and believes that they bring significant benefits, it is also careful about what it wishes for. Consider the following:

• Predictions on the total job losses resulting from increased automation range from 33% to 40%. And white collar jobs are not immune.

• The number of rail ticket sales at ticket offices (although they are used for things other than ticket sales) has been declining year-on-year, with an increasing use of alternative payment methods.

• Whilst new mobility models can lead to some incremental value generated, the majority of the anticipated value realised from new technology will be redistributed (e.g. from operators to mobility as a service providers)

• Those who are least likely to adopt new technologies are also in groups that are the most dependant on supported transport services.

• People still prefer dealing with a person, despite the increasing use of machines.

This also doesn’t count for the people in work as well. Much is made of the impact of the sharing economy in terms of enabling flexible working patterns, delivering tasks on demand to meet your personal life, offering your services to the highest bidder. All well and good if that pattern suits you, but this does not apply to all.

Speaking of the sharing economy, much is made of Uber’s (not that they are a sharing economy company per se) dubious employment practices – admittedly anecdotally. Hardly a good case for a new economy.

So, in this future scenario, millions across the world are made unemployed. Those who remain in the transport sector have poor working conditions and are increasingly being replaced by newer, more innovative technologies. The most vulnerable still don’t benefit, and technology companies hive off all the value putting pressure on already tight margins for those companies who do remain.

Who the hell wants that kind of future?

Now clearly the above is extreme, and to be honest its unlikely (not to mention not having the rigour of a full-scale scenario planning analysis). But it is intentionally so, and it is to make a serious point.

Much hype is made around the impacts of technological innovation, disruptive business models, disrupting entire industries even. I daresay that much of this is almost uncritical in its positivity, typically by those at the forefront of the technological wave – the winners. But a society, a nation, even us as a species are defined by how we treat the most vulnerable, those who will lose from this great change. If that doesn’t come into the mindset of thought leaders and policy makers, we are in trouble.

The transport sector is no different. All human actors in the system stand to equally benefit or equally lose from the adoption of new technologies and approaches. Whilst we shouldn’t hold back on technological change, planning for and helping those who won’t win in the forthcoming revolution is as important as catering for it. Otherwise, there will be trouble ahead for the transport industry.

But one of the truisms of futures work is that it is almost impossible to predict precisely who the winners and losers are. And with the speed of technological change, by the time you have studied who could win or lose the change has happened anyway and you have to react. So any such strategy for this is as much a (well evidenced) leap of faith as it is a precise judgement with detailed plans for execution. As with all strategy decisions, we need to decide if the price of the revolution is one worth paying.

This revolution is going to be fun, isn’t it?