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

The Elephant, the Rhino, the Fly, and the Bird: A Metaphorical Geopolitical Scenario for the Mid-21st Century

Characters and Representations

Elephant (United States): A wise, aged but slow-moving superpower with immense mass, institutional memory, and military-industrial inertia. Its size makes it powerful but also vulnerable to small distractions.

Rhino (China): Young, bold, increasingly assertive, and charging ahead with unstoppable momentum in economics, technology, and global influence. Not as agile as a tiger, but relentless and tough-skinned.

Fly (Iran): Small and irritating, with limited capacity to hurt directly, but expert in distraction, provocation, and survival. Buzzes around, exploiting chaos and tiredness.

Bird (Israel): Small but surgical, precise, and capable of lethal strikes. It can catch and neutralize some threats but lacks the range to clean the entire sky.

 
Scenario Development: "The Great Distraction"

 
Act I: The Strategic Confrontation

The Elephant sees the Rhino as the primary competitor for space, food (markets), and dominance over the savanna (global order). The Rhino is young, calculating, and no longer willing to play by the rules the Elephant established. A long-term confrontation is inevitable—economically, technologically, and militarily in proxy zones like Africa, Southeast Asia, and cyberspace.

But just as the Elephant begins focusing its bulk and resources toward containing the Rhino’s rise (e.g., via economic sanctions, strategic alliances like AUKUS, and Indo-Pacific military posture), the Fly appears.

 
Act II: The Sting of Distraction

The Fly (Iran) doesn't have the mass to take down the Elephant, but it knows where to bite: proxy militias, asymmetric cyber warfare, oil market disruption, and ideological agitation. Its strategy is not to win—but to distract the Elephant from the Rhino.

The Elephant swats and shakes, but the Fly is nimble and elusive. It survives on minimal resources and thrives in chaos, often hiding behind the ears and near the eyes of the Elephant—right where it hurts and where it’s hardest to strike.

 
Act III: The Bird Strikes

Enter the Bird (Israel). Fast, agile, and hyper-alert, the Bird is evolutionary specialized to spot and neutralize Flies in the region. The Bird hunts flies on behalf of the Elephant, but it has limited capacity: it can neutralize a few, not eradicate the swarm. Too many flies buzzing at once—Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, cyberattacks, etc.—and even the Bird becomes overwhelmed.

Moreover, some flies are too deep or too entangled in civilian spaces for the Bird to strike without causing backlash, raising the cost of every peck.

 
Act IV: The Elephant’s Dilemma

Now the Elephant is conflicted: if it spends too much time swatting the Fly, it loses ground to the Rhino, which continues to gain strength in the background. But if it ignores the Fly, the irritation escalates into infection—destabilizing allies, draining resources, and eroding deterrence credibility.

The Fly, knowing its time may be limited, buzzes louder, even provokes the Bird, hoping to trigger an overreaction that will drag the Elephant into a broader conflict—a swampy distraction that would benefit the Rhino most.

 
Strategic Implications

U.S. Grand Strategy: Must prioritize the main challenge (China) while managing Iran through indirect means (alliances, cyber defenses, economic containment) and avoid being dragged into a full-scale Mideast quagmire.

China’s Role: Quietly benefits from the chaos. The longer the Elephant is distracted by the Fly, the more space the Rhino has to mature and reposition.

Iran’s Calculus: Its survival depends on staying relevant. It doesn't need to win—just remain indispensable in every crisis.

Israel’s Constraint: Tactical superiority is not strategic sufficiency. It needs regional normalization, technology edge, and U.S. support, but it cannot neutralize the Fly alone.

 
Possible Future Outcomes

Scenario A: The Elephant Swats Both

The U.S. builds a multilateral coalition, suppresses Iran decisively while containing China.
Risk: overextension, internal political fatigue.


Scenario B: Strategic Patience

The U.S. deprioritizes the Fly, empowering regional actors and AI-driven surveillance to contain it, while pivoting entirely toward China.
Risk: Iranian escalation or nuclear breakout.


Scenario C: The Rhino and the Fly Align

China and Iran form deeper strategic ties, combining mass and distraction in hybrid warfare.
Result: the Elephant faces a two-front strategic trap.


Scenario D: The Bird Evolves

Israel expands regional alliances (e.g., Abraham Accords 2.0) and tech superiority to take on a bigger share of fly-hunting with surgical precision.
Result: regional stabilization with limited U.S. involvement.

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.

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

Walter Truett Anderson on Culture, Evolution, Technology, Globalization, and Enlightenment

by Thomas Lombardo*


“One species on the planet, and one species only, has reached the point of being able to have an impact on the evolutionary fortunes of all other species and upon the functioning of all ecosystems. We also have, in a way that is not true for any other species, a relationship to the planet as a whole and to the future. We live with all life.”

“The new polarization is a split between different kinds of belief, not between different beliefs. It divides those who believe from those who have beliefs. It pits fundamentalists—who may be fundamentalists of religion, science, ideology, or cultural tradition—against an opposition called relativists here, secular humanists there, religious liberals somewhere else.”

“If there is anything we have plenty of, it is belief systems.”

Walter Truett Anderson



Walter Truett Anderson, in a series of books over roughly a fifteen year period, developed a multi-faceted and relatively comprehensive theoretical analysis of contemporary trends and potential future directions for humanity. In his books, he has examined and synthesized such diverse topics as human belief systems, values, and culture; biotechnology and information technology; evolution and ecology; human psychology; society and globalization; Eastern and Western philosophy; and the past and potential future evolution of enlightenment. His most noteworthy books over this period include, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern World (1990), Evolution Isn’t What it Used to Be: The Augmented Animal and the Whole Wired World (1996), The Future of the Self: Inventing the Postmodern Person (1997), All Connected Now: Life in the First Global Civilization (2001), and The Next Enlightenment: Integrating East and West in a New Vision of Human Evolution (2003)

In Reality Isn’t What it Used to Be, Anderson presents the argument that in contemporary times there is a fundamental conflict and disagreement between absolutists and relativists regarding the nature of human knowledge and human values. The former believe that human knowledge and values are grounded in absolute and objective principles and facts; the relativists believe that knowledge and values are historically, culturally, and psychologically relative (or subjective). In essence, this is the conflict between fundamentalists (the absolutists) and Postmodernists (the relativists), though we could also include as absolutists those who believe that science provides objective and certain knowledge about reality. Anderson, in this book and later writings, clearly seems to side with the Postmodernists, at least to a degree. He does believe though, contrary to many Postmodernists, that there can be progress in the growth of knowledge.

In Evolution Isn’t What it Used to Be, Anderson argues that evolution is evolving and becoming purposeful with the introduction of biotechnology and information technology into the “augmentation” and enhancement of our species. In fact, he sees technology as permeating out into all aspects and dimensions of nature, including the monitoring and control of our environment. There can be no return to a pure or unspoiled nature. Biotechnology and information technology are increasingly intertwined and, following a similar line of thinking to Kevin Kelly, Rodney Brooks, and Andy Clark, Anderson sees a general blurring of the separation of life and technology. The whole wide world is becoming the “whole wired world.”

In The Future of the Self, Anderson picks up the Postmodern theme again, and presents the argument that the human self is a social construction, situational specific, and pluralistic, rather than singular and absolute. Anderson argues that given the complexity and rush of change in our contemporary world, a new type of self is emerging – one that is pluralistic and much more fluid. Anderson ties together human psychology, advances in the sciences, trends in culture and society, and the impact of technology on human life and the human mind, in creating a Postmodern vision of the self.

In an effort to be comprehensive regarding the nature of globalization, Walter Truett Anderson outlines a multi-dimensional theory in his book All Connected Now. Globalization is a multi-faceted phenomenon. Anderson not only discusses economic globalization, but also includes in his book treatments of cultural and political globalization; biological and ecological factors connected with globalization; the significance of the information network in the creation of a global society; the rise of global consciousness, increased human mobility and migration; and the huge growth in numbers of human organizations, and especially, international organizations. Anderson sees “a world of open systems” as the general theme running through all these dimensions of globalization. Anderson also highlights the strong technological dimension to globalization – a theme he carries forth from his earlier book on evolution. We are being wired together - the environment is being wired together as well. Anderson also reinforces and further develops his emphasis on the pluralistic and multicultural quality of our times – a theme he introduced in his earlier books on Reality and the Self. Although there is resistance to globalization, where some cultures and organizations wish to remain closed, according to Anderson, the overall world-wide trend is toward increasing openness and interactivity. In this respect, his view is similar to Friedman’s books on globalization.

Some of Anderson’s main arguments and hypotheses include: There is a general ongoing trend toward multiculturalism, in spite of efforts to preserve integrated pure cultures; the twentieth-century discovery of ecology and the interdependence of the earth, life, and humanity has intensified global consciousness; there has been a significant rise in international corporations and a reciprocal rise in global governance to control and monitor these corporations; there has been a globalization of human rights and human laws; the global society is an “open society” that emphasizes individual responsibility and choice rather than dictatorial rule; a “cosmopolitan citizen” has emerged who does not identify with any particular nation; and the global society is multi-centric with many centers of power. Anderson predicts a series of global societies in the future, as the human community struggles with the challenges and inherent conflicts brought on by globalization. In the coming century, the big issue is going to be globalization itself – its pros and cons.

One theme that runs through Anderson’s books is evolution; nature and human society is dynamic, changing, and developmental. Globalization has had a history which he traces in All Connected Now and in The Future of the Self, Anderson looks at the history and evolutionary development of the self. In fact, for Anderson, evolution is itself changing as conscious purpose and technology become increasingly important in human growth and change (See Evolution Isn’t What It Used To Be). In The Next Enlightenment, Anderson recounts the historical development of enlightenment in both Western and Eastern cultures. Evolution is perhaps the central theme in this last book, for Anderson believes that enlightenment is “an evolutionary project” – an expression of the dynamic and growth-oriented dimension of reality. And a key element in the state of enlightenment is seeing that all is flow – that all being is becoming.

For Anderson, enlightenment involves a liberation from the egocentric constraints of viewing ourselves as a singular and absolute, unchanging self. In The Future of the Self, Anderson critiques this limiting idea of the self. In The Next Enlightenment, Anderson goes further in arguing that the most important problem of our times is overcoming this constraining view of self-identity. War, conflict, indifference, and cruelty, all arise out of conceptualizing our identity, both individually and culturally, as bounded and singular entities. Within this mindset, we fail to see the “oneness” of all humanity and the “oneness” of ourselves and the universe; instead cultures and individuals segregate and oppose each other and humanity separates itself from nature. Enlightenment involves, as a central insight, the understanding and experience of oneness. In All Connected Now, Anderson highlights the importance of a growing sense of global consciousness and the theory of open systems (the interconnectivity of all things). In The Next Enlightenment Anderson discusses the idea of “cosmic consciousness” as an essential feature of enlightenment. It is important to see that enlightenment means freedom for Anderson. In his history of enlightenment, provided in the first part of his book, he reviews efforts through the ages to free the human mind from the cultural and psychological forces and assumptions that enslave and suppress us.

Anderson synthesizes a variety of ideas in his theory of enlightenment. He pulls together ideas from both the East and West. He sees a thematic connection between the Buddhist ideas of oneness and flow and the Western ideas of interdependency, interconnectivity, and evolution. He discusses “flow” and “transcendence” in the context of both the western psychology of Csikszentmihalyi and Eastern meditative practices. He sees the value of both rationality and intuition as paths to enlightenment. He supports the openness of New Age spirituality, but critiques the lack of epistemological standards in this movement. He rejects the professed certainty of fundamentalism and argues instead that a key feature of enlightenment is the courageous embrace of mystery and uncertainty in human existence. Identifying a series of “liberation movements” within human history, which include the European Enlightenment, Darwinian evolutionary theory, Freudian psychology, and the Human Potential movement of the 1960s, Anderson believes that enlightenment is a higher level of consciousness, enveloping and transcending earlier stages in the growth of the human mind, that was achieved by at least some people in the past. He anticipates increasingly more people achieving this state of consciousness and mentality in the future as an expression of the evolutionary development of humanity.

* Thomas Lombardo, PhD. is a member of the scientific council of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi)

A New Cycle of Playfulness

By Victor V. Motti*

A couple of months ago, I attended a lecture by a Harvard scientist at the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC. What struck me most wasn't just the scientific content—it was how the speaker transformed complex data about the universe into an emotionally engaging experience. Through vibrant imagery and even music, he recreated raw data into something visually stunning and resonant with our senses. This approach, blending science with aesthetic appeal, made intricate concepts accessible and beautiful, breaking away from the tedious grind of equations and spreadsheets.

This experience sparked a deeper reflection on the evolving nature of society. We often discuss trends like the "dream society" or "meme society," which emphasize post-factual narratives and cultural symbolism. However, I believe we are increasingly living in an entertaining society, even when grounded in facts. Entertainment is no longer confined to leisure; it permeates education, politics, and even scientific communication. If we are indeed moving toward a largely jobless world due to automation and technological advances, what remains could be an abundance of free time—time dedicated to play and entertainment.

The Shift Towards Edutainment

Education is already transforming into "edutainment," where learning is intertwined with fun and interactive experiences. Fields like futures studies incorporate games, comics, and storytelling to engage audiences on a deeper level. This trend reflects a broader societal shift toward making knowledge not just informative but enjoyable. 

Similarly, politics has become increasingly entwined with entertainment. Campaigns focus on spectacle and public perception, often borrowing techniques from media and performance art. This shift raises questions about whether substance is being overshadowed by style—a concern as pressing as it is fascinating.

A Western Phenomenon?

Interestingly, this entertainment-driven culture appears to be largely Western, particularly American. In many other cultures, being heard or followed does not necessarily require entertainment value. This divergence highlights how societal values shape communication styles globally.

The Risks of Playfulness

While I am largely supportive of integrating entertainment into various aspects of life, I cannot ignore its potential pitfalls. An entertainment-driven culture risks trivializing serious matters like war and death, turning them into spectacles for human play. This unsettling possibility underscores the need for balance—celebrating creativity without losing sight of gravity.

Conclusion: A New Cycle of Playfulness

Through the lens of cyclical macrohistory frameworks, we may be entering a new cycle characterized by playfulness and abundance of free time. As society evolves, entertainment becomes not just a diversion but a central pillar of human experience—a way to connect deeply with facts while engaging our emotions and aesthetics.

The lecture at the Cosmos Club was more than a scientific presentation; it was a glimpse into this emerging world where facts meet beauty and knowledge becomes play. As we navigate this shift, we must ensure that our pursuit of entertainment enriches rather than diminishes our collective consciousness.

* Victor V. Motti is the co-founder and President of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi)

Navigating Uncertainty: Strategic Insights on STEEP Assumptions and Dynamics

This strategic overview delves into critical facets shaping the geopolitical landscape, employing the STEEP framework to explore Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, and Political factors. This essay aims to provide insights into the intricate dynamics of these assumptions and their implications for strategic decision-making.

Social:
The question of whether Americans lean towards supporting more order or chaos in the 2024 election underscores a pivotal societal inclination. Understanding this sentiment is crucial for political strategies, as it influences policy priorities and governance approaches [Ref: AEI Election Watch 2024: The Primaries Begin (youtube.com)].

Technological:
Assessing the trajectory of the US military power, particularly the Navy, in comparison to China's rise is a linchpin in shaping defense strategies. Recognizing technological advancements and potential disparities is imperative for maintaining a competitive edge in an evolving global security landscape [Ref: A Decade of Decline: The Need to Restore America’s Military Power - YouTube].

Economic:
The inquiry into the challenge to US dollar dominance by the BRICS expanded nations prompts an examination of economic interdependencies. Strategic foresight is necessary to navigate potential shifts in global economic dynamics and safeguarding national economic interests [Ref: BRICS Dedollarization: Rhetoric Versus Reality - YouTube].

Environmental:
Mitigating the adverse effects of severe climate change and their impact on global order demands proactive strategies. Leaders must consider environmentally sustainable policies to address not only ecological concerns but also potential geopolitical shifts arising from environmental changes [Ref: (9) Global Foresight 2024: What will the next decade bring? - YouTube].

Political:
The exploration of China's leadership intentions – whether genuinely open to peaceful cooperation or veering towards militarization – requires astute geopolitical analysis. Nations must discern the nuances in China's political motives to formulate effective diplomatic and security strategies [Ref: Navigating the uncertainties of US-China relations over the next decade (youtube.com)].

Additionally, revising the US declared policy on nuclear targeting in China and Russia brings forth intricate questions regarding national security. A nuanced approach, considering the perceived value of the nuclear targets by these nations, is vital for maintaining a delicate balance in nuclear deterrence strategies [Ref: (9) PONI Live Debate: U.S. Nuclear Targeting - YouTube].

Conclusion:
This strategic overview highlights the intricate web of factors influencing global dynamics. Navigating these uncertainties demands a keen understanding of social, technological, economic, environmental, and political nuances. Crafting resilient strategies that respond to these dynamic elements will be paramount for nations seeking to thrive in an ever-evolving geopolitical landscape.

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 Futures of US-China Relations: Examining Historical Trends and Projections Using IFs System

The futures of relations between the United States and China is a topic of great interest to policymakers, business leaders, and the general public. By examining historical trends (until 2016) and projections (until 2050) using the International Futures (IFs) system, we can gain insight into what may lie ahead.

One key factor to consider is the Knowledge Society IFs Index, which measures a country's level of development in areas such as education, technology, and innovation. According to data and projection from 2015 to 2050, the United States is projected to see a slight increase in this index, starting at 68 and rising to 73. Meanwhile, China is expected to make significant gains, starting at 51 and reaching 70 in 2050, almost closing the gap with the USA.

Another important index is the population with less than $2 income. Looking at data and projection from 1980 to 2050, we see that China has undergone a dramatic decrease in poverty, plummeting from nearly 1 billion people in 1980 to almost none in 2050. This decrease was most rapid between 1990 and 2010, after which the slope of decrease became slow and smooth.

When comparing China and the United States using the IFs power measure, we see that China started around 13 in 2015 and experienced a smooth increase, ultimately saturating at around 16.5 on the index from 2040 onwards. In contrast, the United States is projected to experience a declining trend, starting at around 15.5 and reaching around 12 in 2050. Perhaps most strikingly, the year 2025 is identified as a critical inflection point, as the United States and China are projected to tie in terms of this power index.

Overall, these projections suggest that China will continue to make significant gains in areas such as education, technology, and innovation, while poverty levels will continue to decline. Meanwhile, the United States is likely to experience a decline in power relative to China. This underscores the need for the United States to remain vigilant and competitive in key areas, such as education, innovation, and strategic foresight. The futures of the relations between these two great powers will be shaped by these factors and many others, and it will be fascinating to see how events unfold in the coming years.

When comparing China and the United States using the IFs power measure, the impact of these gains on the environment must also be taken into account. See the figure below that compares countries based on the GDP per capita PPP and the emission of carbon and cement production. It shows that carbon emissions globally for fossil fuels and cement production in billions of tons by China is almost double of the USA:

While the progress of China is undoubtedly impressive, it is important to recognize that this progress has come at a cost to the environment. Addressing issues such as carbon emissions and environmental degradation will be crucial for China and the international community as a whole if we are to create a sustainable future for all.

The progress of China is often viewed through the lens of competition with the United States, which is deeply ingrained in the Western mindset and essential to capitalism. However, this view is now shifting from competition to confrontation, which is far more harmful. It is important to recognize that this mindset is not new, and has been present in human history for centuries.

As we look towards the future, it is clear that the coming planetary world must be built on a new form of capitalism, one that is more compassionate and human-centric. This shift is essential if we are to create a sustainable future for all. Unfortunately, the transition to this transformative planetary capitalism will not be easy. It will be rough, noisy, and perhaps violent.

If we are diligent enough and lucky, we may be able to avoid the violence that may ensue during this transition. However, it is unlikely that the key decision makers are ready for a peaceful, smooth, and nonviolent planetary transition. This is a cause for concern, as the consequences of a violent transition could be devastating for the planet and all its inhabitants.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the early 2000s, military spending by the United States sharply increased from $401 billion in 2000 to $753 billion in 2010. This growth in military spending has played a crucial role in shaping global power dynamics over the past few decades.

The progress of China may have a significant military implication. It is worth noting that China's military spending has been steeply rising since 2010. According to projections, there will be an inflection point in 2040, where China will surpass the United States in terms of military spending. This could mark a significant shift in global power dynamics, as China's military might will rival that of the United States.

Such a development could have significant implications for global security and stability, as well as for the balance of power between nations. It is important for global leaders to recognize this potential inflection point and work towards finding ways to maintain a stable balance of power between nations.

As we move towards the future, it is crucial for us to remember that military might alone cannot guarantee global security and stability. It is essential to work towards building strong diplomatic relations between nations and finding peaceful solutions to conflicts. This will require a significant shift in global attitudes towards conflict and power dynamics.

“The current zero-sum power geopolitics may lead to unending conflicts. It is time for us to shift towards a more synergistic approach to analysis, intelligence, advantage, and strategy,” writes Jerome Glenn. 

He goes on to say: “An example of such synergistic efforts between the United States and China is a joint goal of reaching a 350 ppt target for reducing carbon emissions. This could be achieved through a NASA-like R&D program that other nations can also join. 

“Another example of a synergistic approach is the co-sponsoring a UN General Assembly Resolution on AGI working group by the United States and China.” By working together on this important issue, the two nations can help to ensure that the development of artificial general intelligence is more likely to be safe and beneficial for all.

In conclusion, it is up to all of us, as global citizens, to push for a more compassionate and human-centric form of capitalism. We must work towards a world where competition is complemented by synergy and confrontation is replaced by understanding. This is the one way we can create a sustainable future for all and ensure that the progress of China and other nations is not achieved at the cost of the planet and its inhabitants.