I've found the following abstract frame/set of heuristics useful for thinking about how we can try to affect (or predict) the long-term future:
“How do we want to spend our precision/reach points? And can we spend them more wisely?”
[Meta: This is a rough, abstract, and pretty rambly note with assorted links; I’m just trying to pull some stuff out and synthesize it in a way I can more easily reference later (hoping to train habits along these lines). I don't think the ideas here are novel, and honestly I'm not sure who'd find this useful/interesting. (I might also keep editing it as I go.]
----------------------------------------
An underlying POV here is that (a) scope and (b) precision are in tension. (Alts: (a) "ambition / breadth / reach / ...” — vs — (b) “predictability / fidelity / robustness / ...”). You can aim at something specific and nearby [high precision, limited reach] or at something larger and farther away, fuzzier [low precision, broad reach]. And if you care about the kind of effect you’re having (you want to make X happen, not just looking for influence ~for influence’s sake), this matters a bunch.
Importantly, I think there are “architectural” features of the world/reality[1] that can ease this tension somewhat if they're used properly; if you channel your effort through them, you can transmit an intervention without it dissipating (or getting warped) as much as it otherwise would. Any channels like this will still be leaky (and they’re limited), but this sort of “structure” seems like the main thing to look for if you’re hoping to think about or improve the long-term future.
(See a related sketch diagram here. I also often picture something like: “what levers could reach across a paradigm shift?” (or: what features are invariant in relevant ways?))
----------------------------------------
Some examples / thinking this through a bit:
1. Trying to organize or steer a social movement (/big group of people) might extend your reach, but