According to a recently published report, optimistic scenarios for the medium-term future pale in comparison to the worst-case scenarios.
The British Ministry of Defense recently released the Global Trends Report His, which details exactly why it is being prepared until the year 2055.
So what are the British preparing for? What do they expect to happen in the world in the next thirty years?
First of all, as they themselves admit, they have no idea what will happen. And in a slightly more dry language –
"Inevitably, there is a huge level of uncertainty in what is described, and some of this analysis may at first glance conflict with other parts – simply because it describes possible paths to the future, rather than a single version of the future."
So why write a report about the future, if you don't know exactly what will happen in the future? Simply, to –
"…to shed light on the fullest scope of risks and uncertainties."
Anyone expecting to read a clear prediction for 2055 will be disappointed. This report is for those who want to understand the world better, not for those looking for clear answers.
In this spirit, the report's authors do not limit themselves to describing just one future, but five possible futures. Each of these futures is optimistic and pessimistic in its own way, and contains different opportunities and threats. Each also includes clues – some events and conditions that, if realized, would mean that we are moving closer to this future and further away from the others.
Let's jump right into the action, with the first future: cooperation under existential threat.
Future First: "Together we will win - alone we will die"
You may have heard of climate change and global warming. Well, in the first scenario, the world finally wakes up to the threat these developments pose, and realizes that they need to be tackled together. It doesn’t just happen. All it takes is a series of natural disasters that lead to a wave of global activism that puts pressure on governments. Oh, and then there’s the rise of organized crime that threatens the international financial system, the expansion of the truly dangerous weapons – nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare – and of course, the emergence of a new, deadly virus that spreads around the world like wildfire.
And then, when all this happens, governments realize that they need to cooperate to deal with the threats together.
But not only them.
One of the special and exciting things about the first scenario is that everyone is coming together to bring about a better future. The major powers – the United States, China, the European Union and India – are forging new agreements regarding the use of lethal weapons. China is investing more in global security and trying to assimilate among other countries. Medium-sized and small countries are receiving better representation in the UN, demanding and receiving more influence on global issues. International corporations are polluting less. Cities are taking advantage of the connections between them to formulate economic, environmental and social policies that are more suitable for the new world. The crypto community and its ilk are creating a new, safer financial system from crime. And new ideologies and religions are emerging and influencing the public mindset, to enable international cooperation between all of these.
Let it be clear: this is not a utopian future. We will have to go through some very unpleasant events before we get to it, including disasters that will cost the lives of many millions. Even when it comes true – if it comes true – Westerners may not be happy with it. Cooperation always requires concessions and sacrifices on all sides, and the West will have to compromise on a new worldview, in which the needs of the Far East are no less important than those of the United States.
But hey – at least there will be world peace. Or we will come as close to it as possible. And the implicit belief between the lines is that when everyone works together for a certain goal – tackling the climate crisis, or organized crime, or artificial superintelligence – then we will succeed.
Together we will win. Alone we will die.
How will we know this future is coming? When we see small and medium-sized countries gaining power and demanding more influence, and at the same time cooperation and agreements between the powers and corporations. Hopefully, we can reach the desired cooperation even without a major natural disaster or global pandemic, but if they happen – they could certainly be a signal that this future is more likely.
A Second Future: The Victory of Democracy
In the second scenario, too, one can find global coalitions that deal with the climate crisis, the expansion of organized crime, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The difference is that this time, the United States maintains its place as the leader of the free world. Ukraine receives strong support from the West and manages to maintain its independence from Russia. Together with the other liberal-democratic countries, a coalition is being formed that attracts the world's most talented, smartest, and most diligent citizens. Is it any wonder that this coalition only continues to grow, grow stronger, and attract more and more scientists, engineers, and thinkers, who strengthen it even more?
This future is not utopian either. The authors emphasize that countries will need to maintain the ability to deal with military threats and threats of terrorism and crime of all kinds. This will be the way to "deter major conflict," as the authors say, who come from the British Ministry of Defense after all, and are not big believers in world peace and the brotherhood-of-evil-people-with-marshmallows-around-the-fire. They can be understood.
Still, it is certainly an optimistic future for lovers of the West, democracy, and human dignity and freedom. We will know we are getting closer to it if the European Union continues to grow and accept new members, if the United States remains the largest economy, and if the number of students in democratic countries increases (even if they come from other countries originally). And no less important: if totalitarian states seem unable to form their own competing coalitions, and fail to attract neutral countries to them.
It is not an exaggeration to call this scenario a “triumph of democracy,” but will humanity itself win? That is a harder question. Will a divided world be able to forge the alliances and cooperation necessary to confront the climate crisis, or to stop lone wolves – fanatical terrorists – from using weapons of global destruction to cause immense damage?
Solutions for the future.
Third Future: The Fall of the West
The second future can be summed up simply in four words: the West wins, the East falters. Reverse the order – and you get the third future. China becomes the world’s largest economy, with the world’s most important currency. Russia conquers Ukraine, or at least ends the war with some nice gains, but still weakens in the process. China jumps at the opportunity, and manages to pull and push Putin into aligning with one large Eurasian bloc.
Who else will be found in the Eurasian bloc? India will certainly be there, and alongside it countries like Kazakhstan, and perhaps Belarus, Hungary, and others. The thing that will characterize most of them will be that they will teeter on the border between totalitarianism and democracy, at best. At worst, like Russia, they will simply be countries with one eternal ruler.
And where will the United States and the European Union be at this time? They will be too busy with their own internal troubles. Western democracies will have to deal with the problems of refugees, the economy, drugs, organized crime, and radicalizing social media. The United States will lose a significant part of its international power. Perhaps because of its economic problems, perhaps because Americans simply will no longer want to be responsible for the whole world. And since “nature hates a vacuum,” as the saying goes, the Eurasian bloc led by China will fill the void that will be created.
Let's face it for a moment: this is a pessimistic scenario. It will mark the end of the world as we know it – a world of democracy and liberalism, in which every person has the right to exist, to freedom of thought and religion, to love and self-expression. We will replace these values with more conservative and historical values: the leader decides, and religion and tradition follow. In the new Eurasian bloc, there will be no place for homosexuals, or foreigners, and perhaps not even for Jews. This will be a de facto return to the era of monarchy.
If that doesn't scare you, you probably haven't experienced life in a foreign country, where you can be stopped on the street in broad daylight, just for complaining about the government in a casual conversation with a friend. Or you're trying to walk with a same-sex partner in the middle of the street. Or you're simply a Jew in an anti-Semitic country. Because in countries that are not democratic, when the rulers need a scapegoat, they focus public attention on minorities. And if you think it's hard for Jews to live in democratic countries today, wait until you see what their situation will be like in illiberal countries.
Future Wednesday: Everything goes to hell
Did the previous future depress you? I'm not sure that the fourth scenario will be able to restore the mood. In this scenario, competition between countries for resources, influence, and the ideologies they promote intensifies. The United States grows stronger. Or weakens. No one is sure. China, India, Japan, and Russia are trying to form alliances with everything that moves, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so. No one knows who is on whose side anymore. The only thing that is clear is that the world is, well, broken. Border disputes between different countries occur every week, and at some point develop into a war in the East, with implications for the entire global system. In the wake of the war, the various parties begin to realize that it is impossible to find common ground or agreements, and the process of deglobalization strengthens. In other words, countries focus on themselves and close their borders to trade and foreigners. When they look outward, they do so through military binoculars, and with the intention of conquering or at least exerting power over the world around them.
As the authors summarize in one short sentence –
"The current international order is collapsing."
This could be an even worse future than the previous one. In the third scenario, a large part of humanity has lost its basic rights, true, but at least the Eurasian bloc could put up a common front against the global disasters that are about to come. In the fourth scenario, we cannot take comfort even in that. In a world divided into fragments, countries are unable to cooperate with each other to deal with natural disasters, terrorist organizations or weapons of mass destruction and threats such as artificial superintelligence. If you are lucky in this scenario, you will find yourself in “islands of stability,” as the authors put it, and there you will spend your days. At least until the next major natural disaster.
Future Thursday: Bad, bad, bad, okay
All of this brings us to the fifth scenario. Remember the great disaster we experienced in the first scenario, which led to the joining of forces by the states? In the fifth scenario, there is also a series of disasters and challenges, but it quickly becomes clear that governments are unable to cope with them. Organized crime is growing, and states are failing to suppress it. Climate change is accelerating, and governments are explicitly saying that they do not intend to do anything about it.
The result is that the citizens of the world are beginning to realize that the previous order is not really capable of serving them. They are beginning to despair of the states, and are turning in other directions. And as the researchers write in more formal language –
"Networks of non-state actors are emerging to provide a viable alternative to the old model of states and institutions, proving to be more flexible and innovative than less adaptable political structures."
What kind of networks are the researchers referring to? They do not write explicitly, partly because they themselves are not sure which networks and which actors could replace the currently accepted nation-state model. One can assume that they are thinking of blockchain technologies, for example, which can provide an alternative to the international financial network, but could undermine the ability of countries to control their national currency. Or perhaps they are referring to artificial intelligence, which could be integrated into government decision-making in the coming years and, by 2055, could be capable of running an entire country on its own.
In my 2017 book “Controlling the Future,” I proposed that the combination of blockchain technologies and artificial intelligence could lead to the creation of a new social structure: “cloud states.” These would be ‘states’ that support their members in every way that a regular state does today – with insurance services, justice and judicial systems, banking, and more. There’s just one thing they wouldn’t have: their own piece of land. And yet, they would be able to provide their cloud citizens with high-level services. Higher than what physical states can currently provide their citizens. We may also see such network structures emerge and undermine the supremacy of states, in the fifth scenario.
What signs will indicate that we are approaching this future? First, we will see states failing in their role in ensuring a better future for their citizens. Governments will explicitly declare that they cannot focus on mitigating the climate crisis. Financial crises will lead citizens to invest more of their money in alternative financial systems. States will prefer to entrust the regulation of technology to private sector actors. These private actors – associations, companies, and even religions – will become more active and vocal on a variety of social, economic, and environmental issues. In some cases, they will become more powerful than some states.
Sounds crazy? Well, according to the authors, it's already happening today.
“There are significant parts of the world where this scenario is already occurring to some extent,” they write, “with informal structures providing services that the state is unable to provide.”
Where are we going?
So where do we go from here? Which future is preferable? Each person will decide for themselves. But one thing is certain: in the next thirty years, governments will have to deal with many new challenges, stretching their capabilities to the limit. Governments will be measured by how they deal with these tensions and, just as importantly, how others see them dealing with them.
“Countries with high levels of trust, stable economies, and efficient and capable institutions should weather the storm. But other, less efficient countries may struggle with the burden of challenges ahead, leading to increased political instability… in many parts of the world.”
Is Israel ready to face this new world? Are we entering it with a high level of trust in the government, with a stable economy, and with efficient and competent organizations?
You decide.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
