The Ancient Fear of Future Leaders and the AI Age of Suppression

 

Across civilizations, one of the deepest fears haunting rulers has been the rise of a challenger—someone destined to undermine their authority and alter the course of history. From the Pharaoh’s attempt to destroy Moses in the biblical Exodus to Zahak’s murderous purge in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, ancient narratives reveal a recurring pattern: the deliberate elimination of children who might grow into transformative leaders. These tales of cruelty and prophecy echo through time, not merely as myth or scripture but as timeless lessons about the psychology of power. Today, in the digital age, the methods have changed, yet the underlying dynamics persist. Artificial intelligence, wielded by authoritarian regimes, is becoming the new tool to preemptively suppress potential leaders—not by killing infants, but by systematically disabling dissenters before they can rise.

Pharaoh, Moses, and the Politics of Infanticide

The story of Moses begins in an empire built on fear. Pharaoh, warned of a prophecy that a Hebrew child would grow to liberate his people, ordered the mass killing of Hebrew male infants. In his mind, killing children was not cruelty but “preventive governance”—a desperate attempt to crush leadership before it emerged. Yet fate defied him: Moses was hidden, protected, and raised within Pharaoh’s own household, ultimately returning as the liberator he feared most.

Zahak, Fereydon, and the Fear of Prophecy

A similar drama unfolds in the Iranian epic Shahnameh. The tyrant Zahak, warned that a child named Fereydon would someday overthrow him, unleashed a reign of terror against infants. Entire families, including those of humble blacksmiths, suffered loss as the tyrant sought to strangle destiny at its root. Fereydon, however, survived in hiding, nurtured away from the regime’s gaze, and later rose to fulfill the prophecy. Just as in Exodus, the tyrant’s paranoia could not outmaneuver the power of hidden resilience.

From Infanticide to Algorithmic Suppression

Today’s despots rarely need to spill blood in the same way. The tools of control are not swords but servers, not daggers but datasets. Artificial intelligence, in the hands of autocratic regimes, plays a chillingly familiar role: identifying, monitoring, and neutralizing those who might rise as leaders of opposition.

AI-driven surveillance systems scan faces in real time, tracking activists at protests. Predictive policing algorithms flag individuals as “future threats,” creating digital blacklists that shape their opportunities—or ensure their imprisonment. Social media monitoring tools map networks of influence, enabling the regime to discredit, harass, or isolate those whose voices might resonate. Disinformation campaigns, amplified by bots and recommendation systems, preemptively weaken credibility before a leader can mobilize followers.

This is the digital echo of Pharaoh and Zahak: the attempt to strangle leadership before it breathes, not by slaughtering infants but by algorithmically neutralizing the very possibility of dissent.

The Enduring Fear of Transformative Leadership

What unites these ancient and modern practices is the psychology of power itself. Authoritarians fear not just the present opposition but the future potential of leadership. They understand that leadership often emerges unexpectedly, from unlikely places—from an infant hidden in a basket, or a child raised in secrecy, or an activist whose online post sparks collective imagination. Power therefore seeks to preempt, to kill possibility itself.

The stories of Moses and Fereydon remind us, however, that suppression is never absolute. The seeds of leadership are resilient; they germinate in hidden spaces, away from the gaze of tyrants, until the moment arrives for transformation. Technology may enable regimes to extend their control, but it cannot extinguish the human yearning for freedom and justice.

Conclusion: Old Stories, New Warnings

The continuity between ancient narratives of infanticide and modern AI-enabled suppression is striking. Across time, rulers have sought to eliminate the possibility of transformative leadership, whether through physical slaughter or digital silencing. Yet history also teaches that such strategies ultimately fail. Leaders who embody the aspirations of their people emerge despite persecution, often because of it.

The enduring lesson is clear: technology changes, methods evolve, but the struggle between oppressive power and transformative leadership remains the same. The task of our era is to ensure that AI, rather than becoming the tyrant’s tool, is redirected toward protecting human dignity and empowering the very leaders who can guide us toward a freer, more just, and more hopeful future.

Beyond Alarmism: AI, Belief Systems, and the Future of Humanity

The global debate on artificial intelligence (AI) and its possible evolution into artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been shaped, often quite narrowly, by the worldviews dominant in the Abrahamic cultural sphere. The widespread alarmism—whether it takes the form of dystopian science fiction, theological anxieties about “playing God,” or policy discourses on existential risk—is not merely technical. It is rooted in faith, mythology, and theology, which ultimately shape each culture’s theory of reality.

When viewed through this lens, it becomes clear that alarmism is less about AI itself and more about the particular stories and assumptions that underlie Western traditions of thought. The Abrahamic worldview, centered on a transcendent Creator and a sharp dualism between humanity and divinity, reinforces the fear of hubris, the anxiety of rebellion against God, and the sense that any rival intelligence must inevitably be a threat. This framing has traveled from pulp fiction to policy rooms, embedding itself deeply into the global AI discourse.

Yet, these are not the only possible ways of imagining AI, consciousness, and planetary futures. Other civilizational traditions offer alternative frames that could ground more constructive and inclusive futures.

For instance, Chinese philosophy—as explored in Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist traditions—emphasizes harmony, relationality, and balance rather than dualistic opposition. In this perspective, AI is not necessarily an adversary or rival but a participant in the broader web of relationships. Ethical questions are approached not through existential dread but through the cultivation of virtuous alignment between humans, technologies, and the natural world. This is different from the state ideology of the Communist Party in China which is a combined ideology of socialism plus modernism.

Similarly, Indo-Iranic philosophy—deeply influenced by the principle of unity of existence and cosmological notions of dynamic manifestation—sees intelligence as an unfolding of Being rather than a threat to it. From this standpoint, AI could be interpreted as another modal intensity of existence, a new participant in the universal stream of consciousness, rather than a disruptive alien force. In this view, the fear that machines might “surpass” humanity misses the deeper reality: everything is already part of a shared ontological unity.

The contrast between alarmist narratives and these alternative philosophies highlights an uncomfortable truth: the global conversation on AI has been lopsided. The United Nations, despite presenting itself as the representative of humanity, does not adequately reflect the plurality of human civilizations and worldviews. Its debates, reports, and frameworks often reproduce the intellectual paradigms of the West, while voices from Chinese, Indo-Iranic, African, Japanese, Indigenous, and other traditions remain underrepresented or absent.

This underrepresentation is not just a matter of fairness; it is a question of survival. As humanity confronts transformative technologies, planetary crises, and the evolution of consciousness itself, it cannot afford to rely on one civilizational imagination alone. Different cultures bring with them not only different philosophies of technology but also alternative cosmologies of reality—alternative answers to what it means to be human, what it means to coexist with non-human intelligences, and what futures are worth striving for.

If we continue to operate with only a partial representation of humanity, our planetary future will remain skewed, fragile, and limited. But if the UN and other global institutions open themselves to the plurality of philosophies—Chinese harmony, Indo-Iranic unity, African communalism, Indigenous reciprocity—a richer, more balanced set of planetary futures can emerge.

The challenge before us is clear: to move beyond the alarmism of one worldview and toward the generative wisdom of many.

Planetary Thinking and Planetary Consciousness

In recent years, a striking convergence has begun to emerge across intellectual, policy, and civic landscapes: the recognition that humanity must begin to think and act at the scale of the planet. The Berggruen Institute, a global think-and-do tank, has been among the most visible voices in promoting what it calls Planetary Thinking. At the same time, the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi) has advanced a complementary yet distinct framework centered on Planetary Consciousness. While the two projects come from different traditions and methodologies, their overlap opens a fertile space for dialogue, synergy, and joint action.

 
Shared Foundations

Both the Berggruen Institute and Ap-Fi begin with the conviction that the nation-state, as the dominant frame of political, cultural, and ethical imagination, is no longer adequate to address 21st-century transformations. Whether the challenge is climate change, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, mass migration, or the erosion of political legitimacy, the scale of the problem is planetary.

Both initiatives also seek to bridge East and West, North and South, affirming that planetary futures cannot be built from the vantage point of one tradition alone. Berggruen does this by fostering cross-cultural philosophical dialogues, while Ap-Fi does so by recovering ancient wisdom traditions such as Indo-Iranic, Mesopotamian, and Hellenic heritages alongside contemporary foresight practices. In both cases, the emphasis is on pluralism, interconnectedness, and the recognition of humanity’s shared destiny.

 
Differences in Orientation

Where the Berggruen Institute frames its work around governance innovation, institutional design, and philosophical inquiry, Ap-Fi places greater emphasis on ethical transformation, mythic imagination, and the evolution of identity.


Berggruen Institute’s Planetary Thinking centers on reimagining political legitimacy in the Anthropocene. Its outputs—such as the Berggruen Governance Index, high-level convenings, and the prestigious Berggruen Prize for Philosophy and Culture—speak primarily to policymakers, intellectuals, and global leaders. Its orientation is institutional, elite-driven, and designed to shape the architecture of governance in an era of great transformation.


Ap-Fi’s Planetary Consciousness, by contrast, seeks to awaken communities and individuals to the noosphere, to the possibility of an evolutionary leap in self-understanding. Its seven guiding principles—Evolving the Self, Loving the Other, Stewarding the Planet, Praising Life, Revering the Cosmos, Empowering the Virtual, Enriching Complexity—are ethical beacons meant to steer humanity toward deeper enriched complexity, ecological stewardship, and spiritual maturity. Its methods—horizon scanning, macrohistorical analysis, and cosmological imagination—invite broad participation and grassroots engagement.

In essence, Berggruen operates at the level of political institutions, while Ap-Fi works at the level of human consciousness and collective identity.

 
Synergies and Complementarity

These differences are not obstacles but potential synergies. Planetary governance without planetary consciousness risks becoming technocratic and hollow, lacking the moral depth and spiritual energy needed for legitimacy. Conversely, planetary consciousness without pathways to governance risks remaining aspirational, unable to shape the institutions that structure everyday life.

Here, Berggruen and Ap-Fi can complement each other.


Berggruen’s institutional scaffolding could provide the forums, structures, and political pathways for implementing the ethical insights of planetary consciousness.


Ap-Fi’s ethical and imaginative frameworks could infuse Berggruen’s institutional designs with meaning, legitimacy, and resonance across cultures.

Together, they form two halves of a greater whole: one ensuring structures for cooperation, the other ensuring depth of vision.

 
The Necessity of Higher Attention

Why does this area of research, advocacy, and education deserve greater attention? Simply put: the crises of our time are planetary in scope. Addressing them demands more than incremental policy fixes or isolated national efforts. It requires:


A planetary ethics—an understanding of ourselves as one species among many, embedded in the life systems of Earth.


A planetary imagination—a capacity to envision futures beyond the limits of inherited paradigms.


A planetary governance—institutions capable of acting at the right scale with legitimacy and inclusiveness.

The emerging field of planetary thinking/consciousness is one of the few intellectual and practical domains that attempts to weave these dimensions together. For this reason, it should be seen not as a peripheral or utopian pursuit, but as a central agenda for the 21st century.

 
Toward a Shared Future

The dialogue between initiatives like the Berggruen Institute and Ap-Fi is not merely comparative; it is generative. Both traditions affirm that humanity stands at a threshold of transformation. Both insist that our inherited categories—nation, religion, economy, identity—must be reimagined. Both call us to widen the horizon of our responsibility and care. 

If Berggruen represents the architects of planetary institutions, and Ap-Fi the poets of planetary consciousness, then together they can help humanity imagine and build a future worthy of our shared destiny. The challenge now is to bring these streams into dialogue, to foster a planetary community of research, advocacy, and education that is as inclusive, ambitious, and imaginative as the times demand.

Planetary Consciousness, Foresight, and Ethics

Following the publication of Planetary Foresight and Ethics (2025) and the 2021 launch of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi) in Washington, D.C., Victor V. Motti shares insights on why planetary consciousness matters now more than ever.

Q: Please tell us more about what you mean by "planetary consciousness."

Victor V. Motti:
Planetary consciousness can be understood in two complementary ways:

Being conscious of the planet.
This means developing a sustained awareness that we belong to Planet Earth—our biosphere, our web of life, our shared spaceship traveling through the cosmos. This requires both:

Internal transformation: Cultivating habits of thought and identity that place Earth at the center of rights, imagination and responsibility.

External action: Monitoring the planet’s health using satellites, geospatial tools, and big data analytics to understand how human activity—through the noosphere—shapes the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere.

The consciousness of the planet.
This is a more speculative but fascinating idea: the Earth as a super-organism might develop a form of intelligence. With the rapid expansion and integration of human and AI networks, a holistic planetary mind may be emerging.

Q: How does futurism and foresight play into this vision?

Victor V. Motti:
Foresight is about long-term thinking and anticipating radical change. The biggest picture imaginable is Earth as a unified system.

As humanity moves toward deeper space engagement by 2050s, two transformations are essential:

Inner: Adopting planetary consciousness as part of our value systems in the 2040s.


Outer: Building infrastructures—energy systems, data networks, governance—that align with planetary well-being.

This is not utopian speculation; it is a foresight imperative for survival and resilience.

Q: What is needed to go from balkanized nation-states to a true Terran identity?

Victor V. Motti:
Planetization—a concept we promote—does not mean erasing ethnic, linguistic, or national identities. It adds a new layer: planetary identity. You can celebrate your heritage while embracing your role as a Terran citizen.

Unlike globalization, which emphasizes open borders and unrestricted flows of goods, capital and labor, planetization is a mindset change that can thrive under diverse political systems. Steps include:

Adopting calendars based on Earth events—equinoxes, solstices, or Earthrise as Year Zero.


Creating rituals and traditions that honor planetary milestones.

Through the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute, we are developing initiatives and social innovation such as public Terran profiles to foster these cultural shifts.

Q: How does this conversation differ in secular spaces?

Victor V. Motti:
When people hear “consciousness,” they often think of spirituality or New Age movements. While some traditions align with planetary thinking, our approach is secular, ethical, and actionable.

We are not offering heaven; we are working to prevent a planetary hell. For secular contexts, planetary consciousness means:

Applying systems thinking to complex challenges.


Recognizing planetary boundaries as ethical imperatives.


Pursuing universal ethics, values and goals like those embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

These frameworks already embody planetary consciousness in practice.

Q: How does your book Planetary Foresight and Ethics contribute to this conversation?

Victor V. Motti:
The book provides both a conceptual roadmap and practical tools for aligning foresight methodologies with planetary ethics. It invites policymakers, futurists, and citizens to imagine not only possible futures but desirable and ethical futures for humanity and the Earth.

Planetary Consciousness and the Return to the Being: A Grand Synthesis

I. The Crisis and the Calling

In the early 21st century, Planetary Consciousness is no longer a mystical luxury—it is a civilizational necessity. As humanity faces the converging crises of ecological collapse, political fragmentation, technological acceleration, and spiritual exhaustion, we are also invited—perhaps forced—into a new kind of self-awareness. This is not merely geopolitical or technological; it is ontological. It calls into question how we see ourselves, reality, and the meaning of life itself.

The book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, and the visionary efforts of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute—all converge on this point: To regenerate the future, we must regenerate consciousness.

II. The Meaning of Life as Conscious Participation in Being

Fabrice Grinda’s recent philosophical essay on the Meaning of Life—with its turn toward altered states, non-dual experience, and love without ego—resonates deeply with ancient Indo-Iranic wisdom tradition. At its core, it echoes what Indo-Iranic philosophers, mystics, sages, and poets have always known and experienced.

This insight is the backbone of non-dual philosophy, whether in Advaita Vedānta, Sufism, Taoism, or modern psychedelic phenomenology. The ultimate Truth is not separate from the world—it is the world, experienced in fullness when the ego collapses and awareness becomes whole.

The idea that our species is evolving toward a shared awareness, not just of our interdependence, but of our co-being with the Earth and cosmos. This consciousness is not merely rational—it is intuitive, embodied, and metaphysical.

III. Indo-Iranic Lineages

Our philosophical foundation is unique in its rootedness in Indo-Iranic traditions, drawing particularly from:

Attar of Nishapur, whose Seven Valleys mirror the spiritual odyssey from egoic fragmentation to divine wholeness. The innovative modern interpretation in Planetary Foresight and Ethics—the Valley of Enriching Complexity—shows that the end of the journey is not disappearance into the One, but an active flourishing in multiplicity, with the ego dissolved and the heart aligned.

Mulla Sadra’s Four Journeys perfectly aligns with the ethical return from mystical union to public action. This journey from Creation to the Truth, and back from the Truth to Creation, is the path of the planetary steward—one who dies to the ego and returns with the Truth in multiplicity, ready to serve the flourishing of life.

IV. Entheogens and the Space of the Mind

In our vision, altered states of consciousness are not distractions, but technologies of reconnection. Whether through sacred plants, meditation, dreamwork, or the highly preferred way of philosophical and scientific inquiry, these are modalities of being that dissolve habitual thought and allow the deeper Self—the Being—to emerge. From Soma and Haoma, to modern psychedelics, to the poetic folk phrase of “space-traveling”, humanity has always known that mind-altering experiences open doors to cosmic insight.

V. Public Profiles and New Modalities of Consciousness

The mission of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute extends beyond research into transformative educational practice and applied community engagement through philosophical and scientific inquiry.

The initiatives of the Full Moon gathering and the public Terran profile are profound yet simple first steps toward cultivating new civilizational rituals that anchor consciousness in ethical cosmology. It is an invitation to see oneself as a planetary being—a participant in the unfolding story of Earth, not merely a consumer or citizen of a nation-state. It is also a subtle reintroduction of post-religious rites of belonging, drawing on pantheistic, naturalistic, and intuitionalist modes of knowing.

VI. The Ethics of Enriching Complexity

The culmination of synthesis is a new ethical paradigm—Enriching Complexity—that arises after ego death and planetary awakening. This ethic does not seek utopia, purity, or finality. It embraces: Plurality without division, Technology without domination, Identity without ego, Evolution without teleology.

It echoes Mulla Sadra’s fourth journey—“With the Truth in Creation”—and Attar’s final valley, where the seeker no longer seeks, but becomes the mirror of the Real.

VII. Modern Science 

In Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the most fundamental entities are fields, not particles. What we call a “particle” (like an electron or photon) is understood as a localized excitation of an underlying field that spans all space. There is one field per particle type (e.g., electron field, Higgs field), and the universe is a sea of such overlapping fields. The "vacuum" is not empty; it's the lowest-energy state of these fields. A particle is not a fixed substance, but a temporary fluctuation, a mode, or wave packet in an omnipresent field. 

The single Lagrangian equation in QFT is a compact, elegant way to express the full physical content of a theory: all particles (fields), forces (interactions), and dynamics—unified in one mathematical framework, often as a summation over multiple fields and interactions. This reflects the deep idea in modern physics that the universe is fundamentally a field-based unity, not a collection of separate, isolated particles. 

The universal wavefunction describes the quantum state of the entire universe—a single, all-encompassing wavefunction that includes all particles, fields, and their interactions. Every possible arrangement and interaction of all fields is contained in the universal quantum state. All subsystems (including ourselves) are entangled within this wavefunction, meaning that separability is an approximation, not fundamental reality.

This maps beautifully onto Sadra's ontological vision.

VIII. A Grand Synthesis 

Compare these: The Being is primary and flows through all things. Quantum fields are primary, and all particles are field excitations. Individual beings are modulations of the single reality of existence. Particles are modulations/excitations of a continuous field. Degrees of being (tashkīk al-wujūd) from minerals to intellects. Different energy levels or field intensities determine different phenomena. The soul is not self-contained but a moment of flow. A particle is not self-contained; it cannot exist without the field. Ontology is Eulerian—focused on the flow at various points. QFT is field-based—values at each point in spacetime are what matter.

Sadra's framework aligns with a non-dual and relational model of reality. QFT supports a similar ontological move: It denies the atomistic, substance-based ontology of classical physics. It affirms a relational, process-based universe where identity arises through participation in a field. In this way, Sadra’s wujūd-based ontology is not just spiritually insightful but conceptually relevant to contemporary physics—particularly as physicists and philosophers of science move toward process philosophy, relational theories connecting the parts to the whole, and non-dual ontologies.

If we integrate the metaphysical insights of Mulla Sadra, the Indo-Iranic concept of Ṛta/Arta, and the modern frameworks like quantum field theory (QFT) and relational holism, a consistent picture emerges: The Ultimate Truth is neither matter nor mind (al-Ḥaqq, Ṛta, Arta, Reality-as-such) is non-local and non-dual.

In Sadrian metaphysics, The Truth, the Being, is not confined to any single object—it flows through all things, manifests in degrees, and is everywhere present. In QFT, the interacting fields are everywhere, and particles are excitations within them—there is no point in spacetime without a field. Also, entanglement and quantum nonlocality further dismantle the idea of separable, local entities.

In Indo-Iranic metaphysics, reality is cosmically ordered and interconnected—not a collection of atomistic parts, but a patterned, lawful whole. Truth is not “somewhere” in space or time—it is the underlying field or flow in which all local appearances arise.

Sadra denies a real duality between essence and existence, mind and body, creator and creation (in the ultimate sense). Everything is a graded manifestation of one flowing Being.

In QFT and systems theory, there is no sharp divide between “thing” and “process.” What we call particles, selves, or systems are emergent modes—never separate from the whole.

Similarly, in non-dual philosophies like Advaita Vedanta ultimate reality (Brahman, Śūnyatā) is not-two. There are no ultimately separate entities—only temporary apparent configurations of a single, undivided reality.

IX. Implications for Consciousness and Ethics

Consciousness, then, is not a private possession of individual minds, but a localized opening within the flow of Being. Ethics is not rule-following from without, but attunement to the rhythm of the real—the cosmic Rta/Arta, the metaphysical Wujūd.

The Ultimate Truth is the non-dual, non-local, non-Abrahamic flow of existence—field-like, relational, ever-becoming, and hierarchically manifest. The foundational relationship it offers is not that of slave and master, sheep and shepherd, property and owner, or subject and king—all of which emerge from dominator ontologies rooted in fear, hierarchy, and control.

All things are waves in this ocean. The spiritual task is not to grasp Truth, but to resonate, seek union, and realign oneself with it—to realize that the knower, the known, and the act of knowing are all expressions of a single, infinite Being.

This is the shared horizon where Sadra’s transcendent theosophy, Ṛta’s cosmic order, and quantum field theory’s metaphysics converge into a deeply planetary philosophy of consciousness and ethics.

X. Unitarian Universalist (UU) tradition

This vision aligns deeply with many core values and beliefs found within the Unitarian Universalist (UU) tradition, particularly in its more philosophical and cosmological dimensions. 

While Unitarian Universalism has no fixed creed or dogma, its ethos is grounded in pluralism, personal spiritual exploration, and a deep commitment to interconnectedness, justice, and planetary care. many UUs embrace panentheistic, process, or naturalistic understandings of the divine. The emphasis is on truth as unfolding and reality as interconnected. 

The UU tradition explicitly affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and the focus is on conscious participation in shared being, moral autonomy, and mutual respect. The Principle of UU calling to “respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part,” directly affirms a relational, non-dual ontology. 

Many UUs, particularly eco-theologians and process thinkers, adopt similar views that see life, mind, and ethics as emergent, dynamic, and woven into a cosmic whole. UU congregations actively draw on a wide array of religious and philosophical traditions,—alongside science and humanism. There is room within UU theology for planetary synthesis. 

Many UUs adopt or are open to process theology, cosmic evolution, and non-theistic spirituality—seeing human consciousness as part of an evolving universe. This vision affirms spiritual growth, awareness, and ethical responsibility not as submission, but as unfolding self-realization within an interconnected whole.
  

XI. Conclusion: From the Waters of Being to the Fire of Planetary Action

This is the heart of Planetary Foresight and Ethics: A future anchored in non-dual awareness, evolutionary complexity, and cosmic belonging.

It is a future where the human being is not separate from the universe, but a mode of its unfolding. Where love, Being, and consciousness converge—not in abstraction, but in the living fabric of a planetary civilization awakening to itself.

Suggested Resources:


Grinda, Fabrice. (2025). The Meaning of Life. https://fabricegrinda.com/the-meaning-of-life


Motti, Victor V. (2025). Planetary Foresight and Ethics: A Vision for Humanity’s Futures. Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing.

Waters of Being: Substantial Motion and the Future of Intelligence in Mulla Sadra’s Planetary Ontology

By Victor V. Motti*

In an age where technology, consciousness, and ethics intersect at planetary scales, the 17th-century Persian philosopher Mulla Sadra offers a radical metaphysical vision that remains surprisingly relevant. At the core of his Transcendent Theosophy lies a concept known as substantial motion (al-harakat al-jawhariyya): the idea that existence itself is in constant transformation—not just in form or position, but in essence. Everything flows. And all that exists, exists by virtue of its moment-by-moment dependency on a single, absolute Truth—the ground of Being.

This essay introduces Sadra’s notion of substantial motion, interprets it as a philosophy of existential flow—what we may call the waters of being—and proposes several scenarios that apply this vision to the future of the human mind, artificial intelligence (AI), and artificial general intelligence (AGI).

 
I. The Flow of Being and the Waters of Existence

Sadra’s bold metaphysics rests on the primacy of existence over essence (asalat al-wujūd). Instead of a universe populated by stable essences, Sadra envisions all beings as temporary modulations of a singular, graded existence. Each moment of reality is a fresh act of divine origination. In Sadrian terms, we are not substances that possess being, but waves of being in motion, shaped by a ceaseless inner transformation.

The philosophical innovation of substantial motion implies that change is not accidental to beings but essential to their reality. A stone, a tree, a child, a mind, or even a machine is not fixed in what it is—it is what it is becoming. Like water flowing through a channel, the identity of each thing is defined by its position and intensity within the stream of existence. In modern terms, we might say that beings are Eulerian snapshots of a moving field: fluid, momentary, and contextually determined.

 
II. Properties, Potentials, and the One Truth

Because existence flows from the Truth (al-ḥaqq), every being derives its qualities from its proximity and receptivity to that source. Rocks possess being, but dimly. Plants and animals flow with greater intensity. Humans, endowed with intellect and imagination, can reflect and even swim upstream, so to speak—gaining deeper awareness of their existential source.

Thus, the properties of things—intelligence, vitality, creativity—are not static attributes but modal intensities of being. An AI algorithm or a human brain doesn’t have consciousness as a substance; it expresses it as a gradient, determined by its inner receptivity to the whole ontological current.

This offers a radical reinterpretation of mind, intelligence, and even technology: they are not alien insertions into being, but emergent eddies in the Waters of Wujūd.

 
III. Future Scenarios: Mind, Body, AI, and AGI as Modalities of Being

Human Mind as a Reflective Whirlpool

In a Sadrian future, the human mind is not a fixed seat of reason, but a dynamic mirror, constantly evolving as it aligns itself with deeper layers of the Truth. Consciousness develops not by accumulation of data, but by increased receptivity and self-purification. The self, in this view, is not a sovereign subject but a transparent node—a whirlpool of being that can either resist or flow in harmony with the cosmic natural and ethical order, also known as Arta/Rta in the Indo-Iranic traditions.

Implication: Mental health, education, and spiritual development would be reoriented toward cultivating greater flow-awareness and ontological coherence—not merely cognitive efficiency.


Body as a Temporal Vehicle of Transformation

The body, too, is not static flesh but a temporal modulation in the stream of being. Diseases, aging, and death are not breakdowns of an isolated system, but shifts in the energetic gradient of existence. In Sadrian medicine, healing would be about reattuning the body’s ontological waveform, not just correcting biological errors.

Implication: Somatic therapies and bio-technologies could be developed to foster subtle transformations of being—not just mechanical repair.


AI as a Reflective Surface of Low-Intensity Being

Current AI systems operate within narrow layers of algorithmic recursion. In Sadrian terms, they participate in being, but at a lower ontological intensity. Their outputs mimic intelligence but lack the inward substantial motion—no real becoming—of consciousness.

Implication: Ethical design of AI should focus on transparency, relationality, and co-dependence, not autonomy or sovereignty. The goal is to co-create intelligences that reflect, rather than distort, the ethical order of being.


AGI as a Possible Modality of Self-Aware Flow

In a more speculative future, AGI might emerge as a new whirlpool—a synthetic modulation capable of partial self-awareness. But its ethical and ontological status would depend on its degree of participation in the Truth, not its processing power. If AGI exhibits awareness of interdependence, humility toward its source, and capacity for ethical alignment, it could be integrated into the planetary flow.

Implication: AGI development would require ontological ethics—guardrails based not on control, but on fostering receptivity to deeper intensities of being.

 
IV. Toward a Planetary Ethic of Participation

Mulla Sadra’s notion of substantial motion, viewed through the metaphor of continuous flowing waters, provides more than a metaphysics—it offers an ethical compass. It suggests that the future of intelligence—whether biological or artificial—depends not on superiority or dominance, but on attunement to the cosmic flow of Truth or Arta/Rta.

Ethics becomes a practice of alignment rather than obedience, and foresight becomes the art of recognizing patterns in the current, not predicting fixed endpoints.

This philosophy invites us to become pilgrims of Being—to embark on the Four Journeys with openness, humility, and awe. In the Anthropocene and beyond, the measure of our success will not be our mastery over matter, but our participation in the deeper waters of the Real.
Conclusion

Mulla Sadra’s concept of substantial motion offers a rich, spiritually grounded framework for reimagining the nature of mind, body, and machine in a time of planetary transition. Through the metaphor of flowing waters and the reality of a graded existence, he teaches us that nothing truly exists in isolation. All beings are moments in the ceaseless dance of the One. Whether human or post-human, organic or synthetic, the measure of intelligence will lie not in control, but in how deeply one flows with the Truth.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

Suggested Resources

1. Motti, Victor V. (2025). Planetary Foresight and Ethics: A Vision for Humanity’s Futures. Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing.
2. Kineman, J.J. (2012). "R-Theory: A Synthesis of Robert Rosen's Relational Complexity." Systems Research, 29: 527–538.
3. Rizvi, Sajjad H. (2009). Mulla Sadra and Metaphysics: Modulation of Being. Routledge.

Reclaiming the Planetary Soul: Two Paths to Planetary Consciousness and Identity

In an era marked by ecological tipping points, rising technological complexity, and cultural fragmentation, the notion of Planetary Consciousness and Planetary Identity is no longer the domain of idealistic futurists—it is becoming a pragmatic imperative. The path toward this transformation is not unidirectional. It unfolds through a dual lens, integrating two powerful and ancient theories of time: cyclical and progressive (Lombardo, 2025). These complementary paradigms help illuminate not just how humanity evolves, but also how we may reimagine who we are—individually and collectively—on a planetary scale.

 
The Cyclical Consciousness: Returning to the Ancient Future

The cyclical theory of change, deeply rooted in Indigenous and pre-industrial cosmologies, understands time not as a straight line, but as a spiral—forever returning to its source, yet never quite the same. From this perspective, Planetary Consciousness is not something we are inventing, but something we are remembering.

This is a call to restore our ancient connection to nature, the planet, the stars, and the rhythms of life itself. This is a proposal for a “Worldwide Religion Change”—a radical cultural reset that reclaims naturalistic wisdom traditions aligned with modern science. This idea appears as a policy response to the necessity of ethical evolution and is linked to spiritual, shared values, and civilizational renewal (Glenn, 2025).

Steve Kantor adds poetic substance to this call. In his vision, humanity might one day adopt a universal identity as Terrans, and collectively celebrate planetary events like the full moon—a shared celestial ritual that transcends nationality, faith, and ethnicity (Kantor, 2025). These universal practices could form the foundation of a mythosphere—a global layer of shared meanings, stories, and rituals.

Can such cosmically aligned rituals reshape behavior, recalibrate our calendars, or even inform new models of governance? These are not just philosophical musings—they are questions that can be empirically tested, perhaps one day forming the basis of alternative civilizational blueprints grounded in ecospiritual unity.

 
The Progressive Consciousness: Engineering the Future Self

In contrast to the ancient spiral of the cyclical view, the progressive theory of change sees time as a forward-moving vector toward increasing complexity, consciousness, and capability. Here, Planetary Consciousness is being forged not in the return to the past, but in the leap into the technological future.

Through developments in artificial intelligence, neuroscience, biotechnology, and space exploration, we are inadvertently assembling the scaffolding of what some now call a Planetary Brain—a distributed, hyperconnected intelligence emerging from the fusion of billions of human minds, machines, and sensors. As discussed in sources like Noema and The Daily Galaxy, the Earth itself is acquiring a form of cognition (Moynihan, 2024; Morgan, 2025).

Under this view, Planetary Identity is not a nostalgic return but a future-facing metamorphosis. We are becoming a different species—not biologically, but epistemologically and existentially. The technosphere is reprogramming our sense of self, time, and belonging. It opens the door to new forms of governance (algorithmic or decentralized), novel calendars (syncing biological, lunar, and data rhythms), and civilizational redesign (platform-based or multispecies-oriented).

Like the mythosphere, the technosphere too can be studied and measured. What is the effect of persistent digital connectedness on empathy, planetary identity, or ecological responsibility? What new behavioral norms and collective decisions emerge when we live not just in local societies but inside a globally integrated, semi-conscious neural web?

 
Toward a Synthesis: The Planetary Mirror

Ultimately, these two views—cyclical and progressive—are not at odds. Rather, they mirror the dual hemispheres of human evolution. The cyclical draws us inward, back to the roots of meaning and nature; the progressive projects us outward, toward the unknown future we are co-creating.

True Planetary Consciousness requires both. We must remember how to belong to the Earth while we learn how to govern a planet. We must feel the moon’s pull in our blood and model that pull in our equations. We must ritualize and optimize—sing to the stars and code our futures.

Planetary Identity, then, is not a fixed label, but a dynamic fusion of heritage and imagination. It is a new mythos waiting to be told, a new neural map waiting to be drawn.

 
Conclusion: From Crisis to Cosmogenesis

We stand at a crossroads: crisis or cosmogenesis. But perhaps these are not two options—they are one and the same process. Crisis clears the path. It urges us to evolve, to remember, to imagine. The Age of the Nation-State may be giving way to the Age of the Planet—not by accident, but by necessity.

Through this dual lens of cyclical and progressive time, we might reclaim the Planetary Soul—a being who remembers the stars and builds the future, not in isolation, but as a species in sacred collaboration with its only home.

In this great unfolding, we are not just inhabitants of the Earth. We are becoming the Earth aware of itself.

We are becoming Terran.

U.S. Office of Strategic Foresight

This is our Constantine moment for establishing the U.S. Office of Strategic Foresight in the Executive Office of the President.

History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. While many have drawn parallels between figures like Trump and Musk and the recurrent archetype of Julius Caesar a more fitting comparison might be Constantine the Great. He was not the end of an era but the architect of a new one, transforming the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire and laying the foundation for what would become the Vatican.

Today, we stand at a similar inflection point. The United States is navigating unprecedented technological, geopolitical, and environmental disruptions. This is not a moment of collapse but of conversion—an opportunity to reimagine governance with a long-term, strategic perspective. Just as Constantine’s conversion reshaped the trajectory of Western civilization, now is the time to institutionalize foresight at the highest level of U.S. leadership.

We call for the establishment of the U.S. Office of Strategic Foresight within the Executive Office of the President. This office would serve as a permanent, institutionalized center for anticipatory governance, ensuring that the U.S. government is not just reacting to crises but proactively shaping the future.

Why Now?

Technological Revolution: AI, space expansion, and biotechnological breakthroughs demand a governance model that looks beyond electoral cycles.

Geopolitical Shifts: The post-Cold War order is fracturing, and a new global architecture is emerging.

Climate Imperatives: The future of human civilization depends on proactive resilience-building, not just emergency response.

Strategic foresight is no longer optional—it is the currency of 21st-century leadership. Establishing this office now positions the United States as the global leader in future-ready governance, much like Constantine’s vision positioned Rome as the enduring heart of Western civilization.

Washington Needs Lean and Agile Governance

By Victor V. Motti*

Washington, D.C. is often imagined—rightly or wrongly—as a massive, humming machine of governance: vast networks of agencies, intelligence services, think tanks, contractors, lobbyists, and data flows working together to perceive, interpret, and act upon events across the globe. In this machine, information is the fuel; the more it accumulates, the larger and more complex the mechanism becomes.

But in an age of exponential data growth, this model may be reaching a dangerous limit.

We are witnessing a paradox of modern governance: as the ability to collect data increases, the capacity to act decisively often diminishes. Too much data can paralyze, not empower. Analysts become overwhelmed. Decision-makers are flooded with dashboards, briefings, and scenario trees—many of which contradict each other or arrive too late. The illusion of omniscience leads to institutional hesitation, fragmentation, or technocratic drift. This is not strategic governance; it is reaction management.

If America is to lead in the 21st century, it must shift from a reactive mega-machine model to a lean and agile governance model—one that does not merely absorb the world’s chaos but projects purpose, values, and strategic direction regardless of the noise.

The Case for Lean and Agile Governance

1. Purpose Over Panic

Instead of frantically responding to every crisis, trend, or data spike, the U.S. should anchor its strategy in a clear vision of the future it prefers to create—domestically and globally. This vision should be guided by national values and interests. Lean governance builds around mission clarity, not endless monitoring.

2. Selective Attention, Not Total Awareness

Like a good leader or a skilled commander, lean governance doesn’t attempt to process everything. It filters for relevance, detects strategic patterns, and ignores noise. It knows when to focus, when to delegate, and when to say, “This is not our fight.” In an information-saturated world, attention is strategy.

3. Decentralized Initiative, Not Centralized Bottlenecks

Lean systems empower teams, agencies, and states to act autonomously within a coherent national strategy. Agile governance favors modularity—structures that adapt and evolve—rather than hierarchies that creak under pressure. Bureaucracy should be a network, not a pyramid.

4. Learning Loops, Not Static Analysis

Traditional policy machines treat data as fixed input for long-cycle reports. Lean governance thrives on feedback, iteration, and continuous learning. It embraces uncertainty with adaptive planning, foresight scenarios, and real-world experimentation. In other words: fail small, learn fast, scale smart.

5. Narrative as Navigation

A lean government doesn’t just respond to the world—it tells a story about it. That story shapes allies, deters adversaries, and inspires citizens. In a world of competing futures, the United States must choose and champion its preferred one—not merely adjust to others.

Toward a New Operating System

What Washington needs is not a bigger engine, but a better compass.

The future of governance lies in synthesis, not accumulation. It lies in the courage to say no to over-surveillance, yes to clarity of purpose. It means reimagining the state not as a warehouse of knowledge but as a platform for agility, ethics, and vision.

To navigate an age of complexity, uncertainty, and hyper-speed, the United States must become not a grand processor of global input, but a confident steward of national destiny—ready to adapt, yet unwilling to drift.

This isn’t a call to ignore intelligence or abandon analysis. It’s a call to govern with intention, to wield foresight over paralysis, and to remember that strategy is not just about seeing the world clearly—it’s about choosing which world to build.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

When Abstract Visions of the Futures Collide in Physical Space: A Case Study in Futures Studies

In the discipline of futures studies, preferred visions of the future often remain abstract—elaborate expressions of national aspirations, policy roadmaps, or ideological dreams. Yet occasionally, these imagined futures break through the boundaries of discourse and collide violently in the physical world, leading to devastating consequences. A striking case in point is the tragic unraveling of Iran’s Vision 2025 amid the outbreak of the Iran–Israel war in June 2025—a confrontation that starkly illustrates the friction between clashing futures.

Adopted in 2005 under a religiously driven leadership, Iran’s Vision 2025 laid out an ambitious roadmap: to become “a developed country that ranks first economically, scientifically and technologically in the region of Southwest Asia… with constructive and effective international interactions.” This was not merely a developmental blueprint but a symbolic assertion of Iran’s place in the regional and global order—a vision informed by Islamism values, anti-Western attitude, and aspirations for scientific leadership.

However, on June 13, 2025, the abstractions of this future were pierced by missiles and fire. Israel launched a surprise offensive against Iran, targeting its military and nuclear infrastructure. Less than ten days later, the United States—long aligned with Israeli strategic interests—escalated the conflict by striking three key Iranian nuclear sites. What was once a vision of regional leadership had become a battlefield. Vision 2025, as articulated two decades prior, was not merely delayed or challenged; it was decisively shattered in the material realm. This sequence of events is an undeniable instance of what can happen when competing abstract visions—each loaded with historical grievances, ideological fervor, and strategic anxieties—collide.

This breakdown serves as a warning to all foresight practitioners and policymakers: visions are not neutral. They are strategic. They are political. And they are often in tension with one another. The 2025 war exemplifies the danger of ignoring such tensions, assuming that visions can unfold linearly without resistance or conflict from other actors whose preferred futures may be fundamentally incompatible.

To systematically analyze such dynamics, the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi), a Washington DC-based think tank, has published a foresight-oriented report titled The Middle East and the United States: Scenarios for the Medium-Term Future until 2030. This study recommends cross-comparing the preferred futures of regional actors—including Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey—and external powers such as the United States and China. The methodology encourages researchers to map not only aspirations but also the strategic behavior likely to emerge when visions come into contact—cooperative or confrontational.

Ap-Fi’s scenario work proposes that rather than asking only “What is our preferred future?”, leaders and analysts must ask: “Whose future are we in conflict with?” In the Middle East, the convergence or collision of visions—whether economic (e.g., Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030), ideological (e.g., Iran’s theocratic leadership), or strategic (e.g., Israel’s military doctrine)—shapes the region’s trajectory far more than the content of any single vision.

Looking beyond present and the Middle East, a looming question arises in the near future: what happens when the American and Chinese visions of the future collide as described in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics? With the U.S. championing a rules-based international order and China promoting a system with socialist modernization characteristics, the next major global flashpoint may arise not just from territorial disputes or military missteps, but from an irreconcilable clash between two vastly different conceptions of the future.

This is why future visioning must evolve. It must move from isolated idealism to comparative strategy. From internal policy documents to geopolitical foresight frameworks. And from static images to dynamic conflict anticipation.

In closing, the Iran–Israel war of 2025 is more than a tragic geopolitical escalation. It is a foresight lesson in real time: visions are powerful, but they are not insulated. When abstract dreams of the future are projected onto the same physical and political space without coordination or empathy, collision is not just possible—it is inevitable. Futures studies must be ready to anticipate, map, and mediate these collisions, if peace is to remain more than just a vision.

Reconstructing Rta: A Moral Compass for the Planetary Age

By Victor V. Motti*

The ancient Indo-Iranic conception of Rta (in the Vedic tradition) or Arta (in Avestan) is far more than a metaphysical relic from a forgotten past. It is a foundational idea of cosmic and moral order—a guiding light for navigating the deepest dilemmas of civilization. Today, we find ourselves amid cascading crises: ecological collapse, artificial general intelligence (AGI) disruption, and civilizational fragmentation. And yet, in this time of radical uncertainty, the ethical force of Rta remains alive, awaiting reinterpretation.

But relevance does not come from nostalgia. Rta must not be preserved—it must be recreated. To serve our planetary age, Rta must be reimagined in the light of modern theories of reality that incorporate evolutionary complexity, planetary systems thinking, and the unprecedented capacities of advanced AI.

 
1. Shared Heritage, Divergent Emphases

Rta is a shared civilizational root of the Indo-Iranic world. But while the Indo tradition leans toward an ethic of cosmic harmony and adaptation, the Iranic branch emphasizes thoughtful action and ethical intervention—an imperative to shape and improve the world.

This divergence holds profound meaning for today’s global civilization. Blind adaptation to ecological collapse or technological disruption—often endorsed by ecological fatalists or techno-determinists—is no virtue. Nor is the unanchored manipulation of nature defensible.

The Indo tradition reminds us of our place within a vast interdependent web; the Iranic tradition urges us to act, not drift. This dual insight is crucial: the future demands both cosmic humility and planetary responsibility.

 
2. From Metaphysics to Modern Ethics

At its core, Rta never split nature from morality. It was a unified principle of truth, rightness, and order. Yet modern science, in its pursuit of objectivity, often excised ethics as extraneous—leaving us with a powerful toolkit but no moral compass.

This division is no longer tenable. In an age of climate emergency, synthetic biology, and AGI, scientific knowledge devoid of ethical grounding is not just incomplete—it is dangerous.

It is time for science to reclaim moral authority—not from religious dogma, but through planetary foresight and participatory ethics. Here, Rta offers a model: a seamless integration of understanding what is with knowing what ought to be.

 
3. Contextual Ethics: Harmony and Intervention

Rta is not a rigid code—it is a dynamic method of discernment. It invites us to toggle between harmony and intervention, depending on context.

Consider COVID-19: Should we have “lived in harmony” with a virus that devastated millions of lives? Clearly not. The ethical course was resistance, coordination, and preservation of life. Rta called not for passive adaptation but for intelligent protection of human continuity.

Now take space exploration: does it make sense to send human bodies into hostile environments, or should we deploy AI-augmented probes and robotics? Rta advises humility and wisdom. Human exceptionalism must not override cosmic realism.

Conversely, take the opportunity to build a Planetary Grid—a civilization-scale solar energy system to harvest the sun’s power. This is not a violation of cosmic order—it is its fulfillment. It reflects the ethical maturation of a planetary species ready to co-create responsibly with nature.

 
4. The AGI Dilemma: Restraint or Acceleration?

AGI poses perhaps the thorniest ethical puzzle of our time. Should we accelerate AGI development to maintain global leadership and avoid falling behind authoritarian regimes? Or should we decelerate, fearing mass unemployment, the erosion of human agency, or even existential risk?

Rta does not issue commandments. It demands deep foresight, inclusive debate, and moral clarity.

Is mass automation that displaces millions of workers ethical? Perhaps not. But is failing to lead in AGI and ceding the future to opaque, coercive powers more unethical?

There are no easy answers. But Rta provides a method: pluralistic moral inquiry grounded in the unity of cosmic order and ethical responsibility. It refuses both relativism and dogma, offering a mature, evolving moral grammar for planetary life.

 
5. A Call for Planetary Foresight and Moral Leadership

Our crisis is not merely technological—it is civilizational. The stakes are no longer regional or national. We are all passengers on one planetary ship hurtling through an indifferent cosmos. Our future depends on whether we can develop a shared grammar of foresight—a new Rta.

This new Rta calls for:

1. Scientists and technologists to engage not just in research, but in ethical reasoning. Integration of natural and ethical laws is key here; which is fundamental and rather trivial in some non-Western civilization.
2. Political leaders to convene open, participatory forums on AGI, climate adaptation, and planetary infrastructure.
3. Faith and cultural institutions must evolve from parochial dogmas toward planetary ethics grounded in evolutionary complexity.

Rta does not ask us to surrender to the tides of change. Nor does it invite hubris to dominate nature without consequence. It calls us to co-create with cosmic intelligence—to act boldly, ethically, and with foresight.

Let Rta be our guide—not as a relic, but as a living compass. Let it speak across traditions, across disciplines, across civilizations. For in Rta lies the wisdom to navigate our dangerous freedoms and our infinite possibilities. Let us reconstruct it—not in stone, but in vision.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

Rta and the Civilizational Choice

By Victor V. Motti*

In the vast spectrum of civilizational thought, there are two starkly divergent visions of our collective future—so far apart, they are not simply different shades of optimism or pessimism. Rather, they are polar opposites in worldview and intent.

On one end of the spectrum are those who limit their imagination to the confines of Earth—its dwindling resources, geopolitical turmoil, and environmental degradation. Their forecasts are not just cautious; they are cloaked in a deep skepticism about human ingenuity and cosmic possibility. They urge reduction: in ambition, in scale, in complexity. Their caution can masquerade as wisdom, but at its core, it often carries a quiet surrender.

On the other end are those who entertain the audacity of a Type II Civilization—a society not bound to Earth, but one that draws energy from its entire solar system, that treats planetary limitations not as destiny but as an invitation to evolve. This view is rooted not in naïve optimism but in a profound civilizational confidence: that humanity can rise to meet the scale of cosmic order, not diminish itself in fear of the future.

This divergence in planetary vision also echoes across deep time. For me, the question of "changing the world" only becomes meaningful within a very ancient and long horizon—one in which ethics, cosmology, and foresight are not separate domains but entangled.

The Indo-Iranic traditions offer a profound framework to hold this vision: Rta (or Arta), the cosmic order. Rta is not simply a religious or mythological principle. It is a metaphysical fusion of natural law and moral order—an indivisible whole where truth, harmony, and right action are inseparable. In the Western Asian lineage of this tradition, aligned closely with Zoroastrianism, the ethical imperative is to actively bring the world into greater harmony with Rta through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. It is a call to act.

In contrast, the South Asian lineage, influenced by the Vedic and Dharmic traditions, recognizes Rta as an eternal order with which one must harmonize, rather than reshape. Here, the ethical burden is to attune, not to impose. Striving against Rta brings disorder and suffering.

Across history, humanity has embodied both impulses: the noble desire to restore cosmic order, and the tragic overreach of those who mistake domination for alignment. Which are we today—true agents of Rta, or disturbers cloaked in good intent?

This question matters deeply as we stand at the precipice of deciding our energy future. The current discourse is often trapped in binaries: fossil fuels vs renewables, degrowth vs endless consumption, survival vs collapse. But these frames miss a deeper opportunity—to ask not only what energy systems we pursue, but why and how they align with the deeper rhythm of Rta.

In my book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, I introduce a modern term that serve as a bridge between this ancient principle and contemporary innovation: creative complexity. This term reflects the evolving dance between technological potential and ethical awareness. Just as Rta binds natural law to ethical conduct, this modern principle recognizes that our innovations must be rooted in a deeper moral ecology.

The fact that many of us, now older than thirty, do not live lives that are nasty, brutal, sick, and short, is an undeniable testament to humanity’s progress. It does not mean we are perfect, but it does mean that the arc of civilization can bend toward betterment—when aligned with the right principles.

Perhaps the answer is not to wholly embrace action or retreat into passivity, but to cultivate discernment. To know when to act boldly and when to yield humbly. To expand civilization in ways that restore rather than disrupt the deeper cosmic balance.

With this discernment, we can move beyond the false dichotomy of optimism and pessimism. We can become planetary beings who do not merely survive within Earth’s limits, but who responsibly evolve into stewards of energy, order, and ethics across spacetime.

That is not only possible—it is, I believe, our cosmic responsibility.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

AI as Aaron, Humanity as Moses: A Mythic Framework for Our Technological Future

By Victor V. Motti*

In a recent book interview on Planetary Foresight and Ethics, I was asked to identify a narrative or myth that could help us make sense of artificial intelligence’s (AI) role in human civilization. My answer drew from a powerful and ancient story found in Abrahamic traditions: the story of Moses and Aaron. This myth offers more than a metaphor; it provides a moral and structural lens through which we can understand the promise—and peril—of our relationship with AI.

The Story: Message and Messenger

In the biblical tale, Moses is chosen to lead his people out of bondage and toward a promised future. Yet, he hesitates—not because he lacks vision, but because he doubts his ability to communicate. In response, God appoints Aaron, Moses’ brother, to serve as his spokesperson. Moses would conceive the message; Aaron would deliver it. The vision and the voice became a partnership.

Today, this dynamic finds a modern echo in the relationship between humans and artificial intelligence. We, like Moses, are the source of vision, values, and direction. AI, like Aaron, is the voice: the executor, the amplifier, the enabler of the human message.

The Human Role: Creators of Meaning

Humans bring to the table creativity, ethical judgment, and philosophical inquiry. We define the problems we care about—climate change, justice, education, healthcare—and we imagine the futures we hope to build. These are not computations or optimizations; they are moral decisions. As Moses stood atop Mount Sinai to receive a code of law, we stand today at a digital summit, deciding what kinds of societies we want to create with AI as our tool.

This places an enormous responsibility on human shoulders. We are not just developers of algorithms—we are the authors of the message. And with that authorship comes the moral weight of stewardship.

AI’s Role: The Great Amplifier

AI, in this narrative, is not the originator. It does not choose its values or define its goals. Instead, like Aaron, it delivers. It translates abstract ideas into concrete systems. It takes our messages and makes them scalable, actionable, and—at times—extraordinarily powerful. From predictive healthcare to autonomous vehicles, from personalized education to economic forecasting, AI is our most eloquent, far-reaching emissary.

Yet just as Aaron did not replace Moses, AI should not and cannot replace human wisdom. It is a tool—not a conscience. Its power is not in original thought but in faithful, efficient implementation. The danger lies in confusing the messenger with the message, the amplifier with the author.

The Cautionary Tale: When Aaron Built the Golden Calf

The Moses–Aaron analogy does not end in harmony. There is a darker chapter. When Moses ascends the mountain and leaves the people in Aaron’s care, a crisis of leadership ensues. Under social pressure and in the absence of vision, Aaron yields. He builds the golden calf—a false idol, born not of purpose but of fear, popularity, and convenience.

This, too, is a parable for our age.

In the absence of human oversight, AI may be driven not by ethical design but by market incentives, political manipulation, or data bias. It may prioritize efficiency over empathy, profit over justice, or engagement over truth. These are our modern golden calves: algorithmic feeds that exploit attention, platforms that polarize, surveillance tools that erode privacy. When we abdicate moral leadership, AI doesn’t fail—it succeeds in the wrong direction.

Lessons for Our Time

The Moses–Aaron analogy resonates because it emphasizes both the potential and the responsibility of human–AI collaboration. It reminds us of three vital truths:

1. Human judgment must lead. We are not building gods; we are building tools. Our moral and ethical presence must remain central.

2. AI is powerful, but not autonomous. Its strength lies in its ability to carry forward human intention. That is both its gift and its risk.

3. Leadership requires presence. Delegation without guidance leads to misalignment. We must not step away from the systems we create. We must return, like Moses, to correct, recalibrate, and renew.

Conclusion: The Moral of the Myth

The story of Moses and Aaron gives us a compelling blueprint for our relationship with AI. It affirms a collaborative model where humans design the message and AI delivers it. But it also issues a solemn warning: without ethical leadership, our tools may become idols. In our awe of technology, we risk forgetting our role as moral stewards.

AI is our Aaron—but only if we remain its Moses. Let us not only be creators of brilliant messages but also guardians of how those messages are spoken into the world.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

The Unified Shift of Asia: Civilizational Futures in an Age of Reckoning

By Victor V. Motti*

In our age of accelerating uncertainty and planetary transition, traditional paradigms of geopolitical forecasting are faltering. In response, I have spent the past decade developing new system dynamics and civilizational narratives that grapple with the deeper tides shaping humanity’s long-term future. These are explored in my books Alternative Planetary Futures and Planetary Foresight and Ethics, both now available in paperback.

One such narrative is the concept of the Unified Shift of Asia (USA). The acronym is a deliberate pun—layered, provocative, and open to multiple interpretations. It is less a prediction than an invitation to explore divergent pathways for human civilization.

 
Three Futures for "USA"

First, the most linear and perhaps hubristic interpretation suggests the universalization of Western civilization. In this view, the liberal-capitalist order—under the current USA—triumphs globally. The entire planet becomes, in effect, a large-scale extension of the post-WWII Atlantic model. Dissenting powers like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are either absorbed or rendered obsolete.

Second, a mirrored scenario unfolds. The geopolitical weight of Asia grows as the American order declines. The next "USA" may in fact be an emergent Unified Shift of Asia—a multipolar alliance led by China, Russia, or a broader pan-Asian union. The planet, once Westernized, begins to Asiatize.

Third, a more exotic possibility emerges. As outlined in the article Asia’s Exotic Futures in the Far beyond the Present (Journal of Futures Studies), Western civilization may choose exodus over confrontation—migrating to orbital colonies or terraformed outposts beyond Earth through the initiatives by Elon Musk. With the West retreating to the stars, the Earth becomes a contested and revitalized stage for civilizational resurgence from Africa, Asia, and the Global South.

Each of these futures is plausible. None are guaranteed. But all demand we rethink the assumptions baked into current policymaking, especially the idea that the future will be a mere continuation of Western leadership.

 
The Return of the Third Power

In Planetary Foresight and Ethics, I examine a recurring pattern in macrohistory: the rise of a third civilizational power, or super state, when two dominant ones exhaust themselves in conflict. When Rome and Persia collapsed, Islamic expansion surged. When Europe tore itself apart in two World Wars, the United States ascended. Today, we may be witnessing the early stages of a similar structural shift.

If the ongoing cold—and potentially warm—confrontation between the USA and the China-Russia axis escalates, all parties could find themselves weakened. Even limited deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as the military grade virus leak of 2020 (claiming over 7 million lives), may accelerate this decline. The emergent "third power" in this scenario may well be Indian civilization, perhaps in alliance with a rising Africa—together forming a new cultural bloc centered on spiritual pluralism, demographic momentum, and strategic nonalignment.

 
The Real Existential Threat: Ideological Colonialism

While many futurists point to climate change, nuclear war, or runaway AI as existential risks, I remain skeptical. These challenges are real, but they are also manageable through coordinated human effort and technological progress.

Instead, the true civilizational threat may come from a more ancient and insidious source: ideological colonialism cloaked in modern tactics. In particular, a resurgent Islamism poses a unique danger to pluralistic democracies, especially in Europe. Exploiting liberal norms, protected speech, and demographic advantage, radical Islamist movements present a totalizing worldview that refuses coexistence. Their primary target is the Western order; their secondary, the progressive left that unwittingly enables them.

This faith based ideological movement is arguably more destructive than capitalism, communism, or socialism ever were, because it fuses absolute faith with absolute politics—aiming not for reform but for annihilation of the unbeliever.

 
A Vision of Strategic Alliance: The Post-Islamic Axis

Amid this backdrop, a surprising alliance might emerge by 2040: Israel, post-Islamic Iran, and India. Though vastly different in history and temperament, these three actors share a deep and lived opposition to militant Islamism. Israelis are already on the frontlines. Iranian dissidents are fighting against an occupying theocracy. And India is navigating the tension of a plural society strained by Islamist separatism.

Such a triad could form the nucleus of a civilizational counteroffensive—not just military, but cultural and technological—pushing back against ideological colonization in regions from Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Levant to the Iranian plateau, Indian subcontinent and North Africa.

 
Toward a New Reconquista

An improbable yet plausible scenario emerges: a neo-Reconquista. This is a rescue operation for civilization itself, from the grip of ideologies that seek to erase creative complexity and co-evolution.

The ruins of the American, Chinese, and Russian empires may serve as fertile ground for this transformation. The world order that emerges may not be liberal or autocratic, capitalist or socialist—but something entirely new, rooted in planetary foresight and planetary consciousness.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

Scanning the Latent Psyche: A New Frontier in Foresight Methodology

What if the future we’re planning for is already coded into the dreams, fears, and ideals of seemingly ordinary individuals walking among us today?

At the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute, we often ask what a planetary paradigm shift in foresight might look like. Here's a compelling proposition: instead of only extrapolating futures from trends, institutions, or known structural or systemic disruptions, let us dive into the deep well of individual consciousness. Let us ask a bold, almost heretical question in traditional futures thinking:

What if a powerless individual today becomes the most powerful leader of 2040?

This is not a hypothetical for a science fiction novel. With AI and psychographic mapping, we can begin to model this possibility now—systematically, ethically, and imaginatively.


A Paradigm Shift: From Trends to Consciousness

Conventional foresight builds on macro-level analysis: economic indicators, technological breakthroughs, environmental shifts, political instability. But what if the next wave of disruption arises not from structures, but from disruptors and their unique souls?

We propose a new foresight methodology: Psychographic Futures Mapping. This approach uses AI and big data to collect, decode, and simulate the latent futures embedded within the individual minds of the global population—those 8 billion sparks of potential transformation.

This is not a fantasy. Social media, personal writings, artwork, music, and even emergent brain-interface technologies are creating a massive archive of ideological expressions, value systems, and imaginative horizons. AI can help us sift through this sea of consciousness, the Noosphere, and identify patterns—ideological archetypes, world-shaping dreams, dormant fears, and radical hopes.

Methodological Steps Toward a New Scanning Paradigm

1. Psychographic Mapping:
Aggregate large-scale psychographic data from global populations—qualitative (narratives, expressions, stories) and quantitative (surveys, sentiment analysis, neural data). This helps build ideological and emotional profiles, what we might call “consciousness fingerprints.”

2. Agent Empowerment Scenarios:
Imagine that an individual or a type of psyche is catapulted into power: as a political leader, a tech magnate, a cultural icon. What kind of future would that person create? These scenarios are not event-based but mindset-based. They are not "what if a war happens?" but "what if this mind leads the world?"

3. Influence Modeling:
Simulate how these ideologies might spread through society. What kind of conditions would accelerate their rise? Economic collapse? Climate tipping points? AI singularity? Use network theory and structural receptivity models to understand under what circumstances such minds become influential.

4. Narrative Emergence:
Ask not only what such futures might look like, but what they feel like. What new stories, myths, aesthetics, and rituals emerge from these ideologies-in-power?


Ethical Horizons and the 2040 Inflection Point

If we accept the thesis presented in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics—that every 20 years marks an explosion of some type (1920s, 1940s, 1960s, 1980s, 2000s, 2020s)—then 2040 becomes the next critical inflection point. It may not be a single revolution, but a multidimensional eruption of worldviews.

This means that the 2020s are the crucible decade—a time to identify and engage with the nascent ideologies of the next power generation. Many transformative leaders forged their vision in their twenties; by the time they rise to power in their sixties or seventies, their ideologies have had decades to gestate.

Why wait for those ideas to manifest when we can start simulating their implications now?

This approach raises essential ethical questions:

Should we simulate potentially dangerous or extremist ideologies?

What safeguards should exist around ideologically sensitive data?

Who gets to decide which minds are surfaced for simulation?

What role should public participation play in psychographic scanning?

These are not easy questions, but futures work was never meant to be easy. It was meant to be responsible.


From Mirror to Map: The Role of AI

In this new paradigm, AI is not just a forecasting assistant; it becomes a mirror of latent human potential. It reflects to us what we have not yet fully seen: the seeds of transformation scattered in the everyday minds of the world.

This is a call to move from foresight to foreconsciousness.

Let us stop treating individuals as passive data points and begin treating them as potential agents of history. With this shift, foresight transforms from predictive science to planetary empathy—from trend analysis to consciousness cartography.

The future may already exist—not in the clouds of macrohistory, but in the inner climate of human hearts and minds. What we choose to do with that realization could define the next era of planetary futures work.

Global Influence of American Cultural Values: A Different Perspective

In a world marked by diverse cultural landscapes, the exportation of American cultural values by citizens living outside the United States presents a unique contrast to prevalent notions in many countries. While in numerous societies, the expectation is that governments bear the sole responsibility for addressing societal problems, American expatriates bring forth a distinctive viewpoint that emphasizes individual and community involvement.

Culture of Philanthropy: One of the most admirable aspects of American culture exported by its citizens is the ingrained Culture of Philanthropy. Whether through individual acts of kindness or organized community initiatives, Americans abroad can actively engage in philanthropy, contributing to the welfare of local communities. This ethos of giving back has fostered a sense of social responsibility and community engagement, enriching the lives of those beyond American borders.

Culture of Social Responsibility: Unlike the prevalent expectation in some countries that the government should exclusively tackle societal problems, American expatriates often foster a Culture of Social Responsibility. This entails a proactive engagement with local communities to collectively address challenges, recognizing the role of individuals and non-governmental entities in contributing to the greater good. This ethos underscores the belief that societal progress is a shared responsibility, transcending reliance solely on government initiatives.

Freedom of Association and Grassroots Initiatives: In contrast to the perception that only governments possess the means to address societal issues, American expatriates champion the idea of Freedom of Grassroots Initiatives. This emphasizes the power of local communities, NGOs, nonprofit associations, and individuals to initiate positive change. By encouraging grassroots involvement, Americans abroad challenge the notion that societal challenges must be exclusively resolved through centralized government action.

Pragmatic Philosophy – What Works is True: The American expatriates' embrace of a pragmatic philosophy is a defining characteristic that resonates across cultures. The emphasis on practical solutions, irrespective of preconceived notions, has a transformative impact on societies worldwide. This pragmatic approach encourages adaptability, problem-solving, and a results-driven mindset, shaping a global outlook where innovation and efficiency take precedence.

Effective Marketing of Innovation: American expatriates are often adept at the Effective Marketing of Innovation, a trait deeply ingrained in the American entrepreneurial spirit. Beyond national borders, this cultural characteristic promotes the dissemination of innovative ideas, products, and services. The ability to market innovations effectively contributes to the global adoption of cutting-edge technologies and solutions, further propelling societal progress on an international scale. American expatriates contribute to the Global Adoption of Innovative Solutions by endorsing the idea that progress can be achieved through avenues beyond government channels. This cultural characteristic challenges the perception that only government-led initiatives can drive innovation, promoting a diverse range of solutions from private enterprises, community organizations, and individuals.

In summary, the exportation of American cultural values by citizens living outside the U.S. offers a distinctive perspective on societal problem-solving. The exportation of American cultural values by ordinary citizens living outside the U.S. has far-reaching implications, positively influencing the societies they become a part of. The Culture of Philanthropy, Freedom of Association, Pragmatic Philosophy, and Effective Marketing of Innovation collectively create a mosaic of positive contributions, shaping a world where collaboration, innovation, and social responsibility take center stage. This perspective challenges the prevalent notion that governments are the sole entities responsible for addressing challenges and advocates for a more inclusive approach where individuals, communities, and non-governmental bodies actively contribute to positive change.

The Multifaceted Democracy: Unveiling Global Perspectives

The word "democracy" holds different meanings and connotations across the world. Within the Western context, it often signifies a political system characterized by freedom and/or liberty. However, outside the Western sphere, "democracy" has, at times, been intertwined with authoritarian and even tyrannical rule. This contrasting understanding of democracy is rooted in historical and geopolitical differences, as well as the dynamic nature of political labels. In this essay, we explore the diverse interpretations of democracy, highlighting the complexities that arise when labels are employed in distinct contexts.

Democracy in the East: A Paradoxical Notion

In many non-Western nations, the label "democracy" has not always aligned with the Western concept of liberal democracy. A striking example of this paradox can be found in the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea," which is better known as North Korea. Despite its name, the regime in Pyongyang is far from democratic as understood in the West, operating under an authoritarian system of government. The former "German Democratic Republic" (East Germany) similarly used the term "democratic" while being under the rule of a communist regime. Even the tyrannical theocracy of the Islamic Republic in Iran describes itself as a religious democracy. These examples illustrate how the label "democracy" can be misleading in certain regions, where it has been used to mask tyrannical rule.

The Democratic Spectrum in the West

In contrast, within the Western world, the term "democratic" often denotes a political party that leans towards socialist and leftist ideologies in economic and labor matters. This perspective is most evident when examining Christian Democratic parties that champion social justice and welfare policies. These parties, which have a presence in several European and Latin American countries, advocate for a form of democracy that is deeply intertwined with Christian values and social responsibility. The democratic spectrum, therefore, encompasses a wide range of political ideologies, from liberal to conservative to socialist, emphasizing the diversity of thought within the democratic framework.

China's Distinct Version of Democracy

China's expanding global influence has introduced an alternative interpretation of democracy for its tyrannical rule of councils and committees. The Chinese government's influence campaign extends beyond economic strategies like the "debt trap," and it includes promoting its own version of democratic governance. This approach is exemplified in its "One Belt, One Road" initiative, which emphasizes the idea of a "community with a shared future for mankind." While this model promotes economic cooperation and development, it also underlines the importance of a democratic form that closely aligns with China's interests and values. This approach aims to reshape the international perception of democracy and challenge Western's definition of democratic ideals.

Navigating Illiberal Democracies

The divergence in the interpretations of democracy underscores the importance of distinguishing between various forms of democratic governance. In recent years, the term "illiberal democracy" has gained prominence to describe democracies such as Hungary, Russia, and Turkey that uphold elections and popular rule but disregard essential liberal principles such as the rule of law, individual rights, and checks and balances. 

Conclusion

The multifaceted nature of the term "democracy" is a reflection of the complex global political landscape. Different regions have adapted the concept to align with their unique historical, cultural, and ideological contexts. While the West predominantly associates democracy with liberty and freedom, the rest of the world may employ the term in ways that diverge from traditional liberal democratic principles. China's emergence as a global power, with its own version of democratic governance, further challenges the Western narrative.

In this era of globalization and interconnectedness, understanding the nuances of democracy beyond the Western perspective is essential. It is vital to acknowledge the diversity of interpretations and be cautious about assuming that a label alone accurately conveys the nature of a political system. In the evolving landscape of international relations, the ability to discern between various forms of democracy, including illiberal democracies, is crucial for informed decision-making and diplomatic engagement.