Planetary Futures in the Balance: Synergy or Conflict Between Global Powers

The trajectory of global climate outcomes hinges overwhelmingly on decisions made in the United States and China. Their climate policies are not merely national choices; they are planetary determinants, with consequences rippling across every ecosystem and civilization (see, for instance, this trend analysis).

Against this existential backdrop—where humanity faces twin “fires” of climate collapse and nuclear war—the shape of the geopolitical order is defined above all by the relationship between these two nations. They differ profoundly in governance, ideology, and narrative: liberal democracy versus socialist governance; individualism versus collective civilizational identity.

Yet, at a deeper cognitive level, both operate within a shared mental model: modernism and modernization. Even China’s official vision for the future underscores civilizational identity, Marxism as a guiding framework for humanity, and socialist modernization (see a discussion here). While its content diverges sharply from America’s universalist democratic mission, the underlying commitment—shaping the future through modernization—is remarkably aligned (watch a video here).

It is clear that the United States and China will not reconcile their political systems or social architectures. (See, for instance, Three Futures for the USA.) Yet, modernism offers a subtle, often overlooked common ground. China’s vision for the future of “mankind” may, paradoxically, provide a constructive entry point for dialogue at the level of worldview and mindset.

This shared foundation, understated though it may be, could constitute the only feasible platform for cooperative governance of climate change, nuclear weapons, advanced AI, and planetary stewardship—within the parameters of contemporary thought.

Here lies the decisive question: will the U.S. and China synchronize their modernist trajectories, or will they weaponize them? (Watch a talk here.)

Advanced AI is poised to become the operational brain of planetary systems. Digitally transformed infrastructure may increasingly run on autopilot, with automated systems governing essential global functions. If the civilizational brain fractures into militarized, competing blocs—machine doctrines trained on suspicion and dominance—the autopilot may accelerate us toward armed conflict far faster than human intervention can mitigate.

Yet the path forward is not solely technical; it is profoundly imaginative. Addressing these existential risks demands more than fear or precaution. It requires cultivating a pluralistic and expansive imagination—e.g. by using Khyal — to explore possibilities beyond the horizon of modernist assumptions. We need a mindset that transcends modernism: one capable of envisioning futures radically different from current narratives of consciousness, meaning, and value.

By expanding our collective capacity to imagine diverse futures—and embedding these visions in governance, whether for climate, nuclear stewardship, or advanced AI—we may preserve not only human survival but the richness of uniquely human experience as it evolves alongside post-human forms of consciousness. The challenge is nothing less than ensuring that the unfolding of civilization remains a deliberate, mindful project rather than an automated drift toward catastrophe (see an introduction here).