Protection against the “storm” Entry 16

I have been trying to understand that future since the pandemic began (five years ago). And I have formed a fairly clear idea, which I have shared in my previous entries.

I have decided that this is a good time to conclude my current series of entries with a summary of everything I have studied and a description of the future that awaits us. In other words, I am not talking about what is happening today, but about what is going to happen soon, when the world will change a lot. I will do so below. I will describe the new paradigm, the trends, and the levers that condition it.

*****

The cause of everything. The paradigm is changing.

We are facing enormous changes, the kind that happen less than once a millennium. That is why it is important to pay more attention than ever, to prepare ourselves as best we can.

I have said this repeatedly in my previous entries. There is a common cause that generates all the changes that are coming. It is the existence of the Internet. I am referring to the Internet in its broadest sense. That includes AI and cryptocurrencies, which would not be possible without the Internet, as well as countless other developments.

Some will say that the Internet is already very old. To them I have to say that this is true, but that it is not so old when it comes to its use by a massive percentage of humanity, nor when it comes to the development of such disruptive issues as AI.

I explained this in some detail at this entry. There, I said that there are revolutions in the “flow of things,” such as the industrial revolution, and there are (much larger) revolutions that change the “flow of ideas or knowledge,” such as the printing press and now the Internet. This is summarized in the following graph.

After the printing press, the Middle Ages ended and the Renaissance began. All social, political, and scientific structures changed… That is what is happening now. And we are only at the beginning of the changes. It is a PARADIGM shift.

We have a new tool to move knowledge faster (and further). It also allows us to analyze it better and make better and faster decisions on all issues.

In addition, this tool allows many more people to have access to the same knowledge. The concept of privileged information is “transformed,” with the risk of it becoming misinformation or manipulated information. And its usefulness lasts only a few seconds, from the moment the first person has that information until many others have it.

Everything is in doubt. It is the “Storm.”

Many people are surprised that all kinds of instability coincide at the same time: economic crisis; political crises; social stability; geopolitical changes; currency reliability; energy model; media, etc.

This is no coincidence. What is happening is that the Internet is changing how information is managed, and everything mentioned above is a consequence of how that information is managed and how decisions are implemented. With the Internet, we can manage better, but almost all institutions and management habits need to change. That is why all institutions and management systems are in crisis at the same time… and they will all disappear, to be replaced by new ones. It is a paradigm shift that will be implemented gradually.

At the beginning of my studies, I already sensed these things. That is why, in this entry (written on May 22, 2020), I said the following:

The signs that the “current order” is crumbling are clear.

… Now, with the masses indoctrinated in the importance of obedience and fear, with leaders full of power, and with the “guilty” free of blame, is when change begins. …

… I also know that no idea, however good, can work before its time. And that time comes depending on mass psychology. In other words, whatever the idea may be, the time has come. …

… After the end of lockdown, street riots will begin, along with hunger among those who have been harmed, social tensions, the autocracies of our leaders… In short, fertile ground for messianism and the overturning of many established dogmas.

And it is a fact that all this is happening.

That is why we are in a time of change. It is a time of turmoil, which will last for an indeterminate period, depending on how events unfold. Everything will depend on the resistance to change offered by the forces that seek to defend the old order, and on the power of those who want to establish the new one.

Without a doubt, the forces of change will win. This is because it is not sustainable to manage everything with institutions designed for pre-Internet tools. But, as inertia matters a lot in almost everything, and as those who do not want change still have a lot of power, it is possible that the changes will be delayed.

Therefore, our personal decisions must be focused on emerging from these stormy times as unscathed as possible. And on being prepared for when the storm ends and the new era of humanity begins. It is time for a “Complete Reset,” to implement the new paradigm.

*****

Having explained this main cause and the need to change almost everything, I will now summarize the fundamental aspects of these changes, which I have already discussed in detail in my previous entries. I do so with the intention of helping each of us decide on our personal adaptation strategies.

What I will not do is provide explanations for each of the things I say. I am not doing so because those detailed explanations are in my previous entries, and repeating them here would make the text very long.

The youth revolution.

It so happens that, in these times of large-scale change, young people are at a great disadvantage. There are several facts to consider:

Young people are much more agile in using new technologies. They are what are called digital natives. They should be the ones leading the changes, as has historically been the case in any revolution.

However, for now, power and wealth are in the hands of older people, who make decisions with less knowledge. Furthermore, older people make decisions that suit them in order to protect themselves, not those that promote a good future for young people.

It should be noted that the above has one major exception: technology companies, where most of the power is exercised by young people (or, not so much anymore, but with a young mindset).
Demographically, young people are a minority in the West. The baby boomers are not yet retired (although it won’t be long). And when they do retire, they will still be in the majority and will consume most of the public resources for their care, which will have to be paid for by young workers. For this demographic reason, and as long as there is democracy, young people will lose elections. This is one of the reasons why young people have little confidence in democracy.

Young people get their information and form groups through new technological channels (something broader than the concept of “social media”). Older people, for the most part, do so through traditional media. In other words, they live in different worlds and respond to different stimuli.

For these reasons, it is very likely that one of the major conflicts of the future will be generational.

This is contrary to what happened after the industrial revolution, where the conflict between workers and capitalists, of Marxist origin, was born. That conflict evolved into left-wing and right-wing political parties (although Marx did not succeed). At that time, workers outnumbered capitalists, and democracy gave them some options (which were later minimized by mass control through the media). This is not the case today for young people, who are in the minority.

It can be summed up by saying that young people are the demographic minority and the technological majority.

We should better find ways to give young people access to better salaries and more power. Otherwise, we may face civil wars in the West. And although young people are less numerous, they are better equipped for war than older people, both in technological wars and in brute force wars.

Technology.

I have already said that technology is the cause of all the changes that are coming.

The fact is that all the structures we have for managing the world are designed for decision-making with our “old” tools.

And those structures are very ineffective at managing the world in the way that technology allows.

A “Complete Reset” is necessary. We need to reformulate the very concept of nationhood. We also need to reformulate the concepts of democracy, education, money, international organizations (UN, World Bank, etc.), and many others.

By making good use of technology, everything can be done much better and more usefully.

However, this raises a difficult question: useful for whom?

I fear that the answer is that the decision on usefulness will be made by those who control these technologies. This leads us to another question: who will control them?

This is where a discussion arises in which young people are very active (but not older people). It is the debate between controlled and free technologies. Free technologies are based on free software and decentralized management systems (such as Bitcoin or Nostr). In controlled technologies, the name says it all: they have an owner (whether public or private is up for debate), who is the decision-maker.

Given the importance of technology for future development, this decision is fundamental.

For now, China has technology controlled by political power, and the West has it largely controlled by large technology companies and, to a small but growing extent, by free systems.

It is essential to be aware of what technology is going to change (whoever controls it). It is not about being able to send emails or perform easy searches on ChatGPT. These are issues of a different magnitude. Examples include:

Drones are changing warfare (e.g., Ukraine, where cheap drones are being used to destabilize Russian infrastructure). They will also soon change parcel delivery systems in cities, which will reshape the transport of goods.

Amazon has already changed the concept of commercial premises. Airbnb is changing the concept of hotels, etc.

Teleworking is changing the concept of the office (people who live far away can now work live, which is much more efficient). The “best” people will work on each issue, wherever they are. Not like before, when only those who were available right here and now worked.

Bitcoin, Tether, or other cryptocurrencies are going to change the concept of money. It will no longer be controlled by governments. Nor by central banks.

We have the recent example of Netflix buying Warner Bros (new technology buying the old giant). It would not be unreasonable to think of a future purchase of JP Morgan by a cryptocurrency company.
Robots will soon eliminate many manual jobs, as well as those caring for the elderly.

Autonomous (or even flying) cars will reshape transportation systems. Car ownership will disappear, as will the concept of parking (cars will be working all the time for different customers, unlike now, when they are idle 90% of the time).

Even the need for streets and roads will disappear (with flying cars). What are now streets will become urban spaces for enjoyment and socializing. The way we understand, design, and experience the city will change.
There will be the possibility of conquering space. Other planets too, where the first installations will be created by robots, which do not tire and do not suffocate when there is still no breathable air.

When properly trained, AI will be able to make better decisions than politicians or businesspeople. This is because it will have access to more information than they do, and will be able to process it better and faster. The logical thing will be to let it decide on more and more issues. This changes the very concept of “power.“

All assets will be tokenized, from stocks to real estate. This will make property exchanges much faster, safer, and more reliable. In addition, markets will operate 24/7 and will be available to anyone, even with small amounts, and from anywhere. This completely changes the current systems of stock exchanges, banking intermediaries, notaries, etc., which have become slow, expensive, and outdated in the face of the new paradigm.

And there are many more examples.

All this will happen. At different speeds, but it will happen. And the decisions will not be made by politicians or current banks, but by those who control the technology. This is a major change in efficiency, and also in power. It is the new paradigm.

Geopolitics.

Precisely because all these changes are taking place, it will also be necessary to change the world political order.

I have already said that politics is losing power to technology (which includes AI). But it still has a lot of power left.

With today’s communication capabilities (enabled by technology), the concept of “country” is too small for the decision-making that will remain in the hands of politics.

Something like a “world government” would be desirable. However, given the great differences in current social structures, that would not work. It is the problem of cultural differences among the masses in each place.

Therefore, it is almost certain that we are moving towards a world organization of two blocs of countries (one led by the US and the other by China). Above and beyond ideologies, the common feature within each bloc is the structure of its population.

The US bloc will have a majority of middle classes whose quality of life is declining. They will therefore be very angry. This explains the social tensions that are already visible everywhere.

The Chinese bloc will have a majority of lower classes whose quality of life is improving. They will therefore be relatively content. Although they still live worse than the angry middle classes in the US bloc, they live better than they did yesterday, which is what they know well. It will be easier for the countries in this bloc to control their populations.

I already wrote about this issue in my April 2020 entry.

When the quality of life in both blocs becomes more homogeneous, it will be possible to think about a world government. At that point, the issue of cultural differences will reappear. Normally, there will be no “world political government,” but rather a de facto government, allowing each distinct cultural unit to have its own “apparent” political government, for the peace of mind of the masses, who will take longer to understand and accept the future.

Until then, the borders between blocs will be largely closed. This will be done to reduce mass migration, which is putting so much strain on Western societies. It will also be done to prevent one bloc from “blackmailing” the other by having a resource that the other needs.

This means that each bloc will seek to be self-sufficient in raw materials and production capacity. This could result in one bloc having to “sign up” a country from the other bloc to guarantee its resources, especially energy, minerals, and agriculture. Examples of this can be seen in Ukraine, Venezuela, Greenland, Argentina, etc. Countries will be recruited either by peaceful means (elections, agreements, etc.) or by force (invasions and wars).

A good approximation of the initial composition of each bloc of countries is reflected in the UN vote on the war in Ukraine, which was as follows.

Based on this initial composition, countries are being “recruited” due to the need for resources. I discussed this issue in more detail in this note.

The countries.

While everything I have said above about technology and geopolitics is happening, the current countries will continue to exist. But they will be in “gradual decline.” I mean that they will have less and less decision-making power. Some decisions will be made by the leader of their bloc, and others will be made by whoever controls the technology.

Most will be puppet governments. Their only job will be to control their population so that it accepts and implements what has been decided by the leader of the bloc, or by technology, as well as to prevent revolutions.

Of course, some country leaders will try to assert their importance to the bloc leader. They will do so by saying that they are very necessary because their population is very “rebellious” and difficult to control, and… they are the only ones capable of doing so. An example of this is encouraging nationalist sentiments.

Meanwhile, each country (mainly in the Western bloc) will have to face the risks of two civil wars:

I call one of them the “old” one. With the current discontent, there is a lot of polarization between supporters of “old” policies (those on the right and left). These policies no longer make sense, but the polarization exists, the public believes it, … and there is a risk of civil war.

The “modern” one is generational. Young people against older people. It is more like a struggle between those who understand the future that is coming and those who do not.

In some countries, the current leaders will have the tact to avoid these civil wars, even if there is inevitable tension. In others, there will be real war. We must be attentive to events in our countries. If we see that war may break out, it would be advisable to change countries, because it makes no sense to risk your life in these futile wars.

Energy.

With or without global change, energy has always been fundamental. And it will continue to be so. Without energy, nothing can be done.

It so happens that this change we are undergoing requires much more energy than our previous society.

Both AI and cryptocurrencies are major energy consumers.

The famous transition to renewables is also a major consumer of energy. This is because renewables focus on producing electricity, and electricity suffers significant losses in production, transport, and storage. Thus, if we maintain current energy production but switch entirely to renewables, we will have much less energy available for final consumption, so we will have to produce more energy than we do today to consume the same amount (I discussed this in this entry).

In addition, the development of formerly poor countries will also cause them to demand much more energy than they do today.

Therefore, it is inevitable that much more energy will have to be produced. This leads us to the following conclusion:

Despite climate change targets, adaptation will have to be delayed. Existing sources cannot be dispensed with, but must be expanded. This does not prevent much of the expansion from being with renewable energies.

Nuclear energy production will even be expanded worldwide, probably to twice its current capacity.

Any increase in energy production (even in renewables) implies an increase in mining (either to obtain fuel or to manufacture facilities, as in the case of solar panels). And that creates new pollution problems that will have to be addressed. In addition, the issue of rare earths has a significant influence.

In the meantime, we need to step up research into new forms of energy production. In this regard, advances in deep geothermal energy (which I explained here) and nuclear fusion energy are promising.

Progress must also be made in finding better ways to store and transport energy.

Demographic asymmetry.

Demographics is another very important issue to monitor. In each place, it varies with births and deaths (slowly) and with immigration (more quickly).

There are aspects of demographics where only the number of inhabitants in a place matters, such as food needs or housing. Both aspects require foresight, because the capacity to respond to them is not rapid.

There are other aspects where the age of the inhabitants is important. Fundamentally, these refer to the percentage of the working-age population in relation to the total population. This has an impact on the ability to produce enough, to generate enough taxes, or to increase/decrease unemployment.

In this regard, there are two groups of countries with very different problems:

Those that have (or will soon have) more older people than young people. In these countries, there will be difficulties in generating production and taxes, unless the increase in productivity due to AI can solve this (or an increase in immigration). Almost the entire Western world is in this situation.

Those with the opposite situation. They will have fewer problems with production and tax generation, but greater problems with unemployment if AI increases productivity.

Interestingly, this is another factor that differentiates between groups of countries. Also interestingly, technology has a significant impact on the evolution of this problem.

The powers that be.

Finally, a very relevant issue is that of the powers that be. In the paradigm that is coming to an end, these powers are those of the financial world and the conventional media. However, in the emerging paradigm, they will be those who dominate technology and the new media (perhaps also religions, whose power will increase due to the confusion of the citizenry).

The speed at which this shift in power occurs will affect all the issues I mentioned above. Of course, we must bear in mind that even at its slowest, this speed will be much faster than in other periods of paradigm shift (the printing press, for example). Precisely because of the capabilities of technology, changes that in other eras took centuries to implement will now take only a few years, or a few decades in the slowest case. It is likely that those of us who are middle-aged today will see them implemented.

If those who hold the real power do not understand the new world, their decisions will delay its implementation (and vice versa).

*****

There are so many uncertainties that it is impossible to put serious dates on everything described.

However, we can mention some important issues to watch out for, such as warnings of the “brake or accelerator” type.

I should mention that what I say below only affects the West. This is because, in the Chinese world, the only thing that can delay change is disunity among the countries that comprise it.

Changes would be accelerated by:

An agreement between the US and China to divide up the world (which would also prevent World War III). This would be done in stages. One of these stages may be what seems to be happening right now: “You take part of Ukraine, and I’ll take Venezuela, and neither of us will complain.”

A major economic crisis, with banks collapsing (even if it is very painful in the short term). That would mean imminent change in the powers that be, and a domino effect.

A loss of confidence in the dollar for international trade. Some of this is happening with Tether (although it is backed by the dollar) and with the various payment systems being developed by the BRICS countries.

A youth revolt. There would be changes even if they lose the revolution. Of course, they would be huge if they win.

Changes would be delayed by:

A major technological failure. Even if the failure is a lie. If they can get the public to believe it, there will be a delay in the changes. Of course, they will be delayed even more if the failure is real.

A major crash in cryptocurrencies, even if temporary (the current powers that be are working to force this). That is why the current financial world is attacking Strategy (Michael Saylor’s company). That company has accumulated so many bitcoins that its collapse would force huge sales and destabilize bitcoin.

The (apparent) adoption of the changes by the powers that be. It would be an example of Lampedusa’s style: “everything changes so that nothing changes.” Until it becomes apparent that this adoption is only apparent, real changes would be delayed.

A political change in the US in favor of the Democrats. Not because of ideology, but because they are the ones who support the old powers that be. In this regard, we must pay close attention to what happens in the upcoming midterm elections.

*****

With this entry already written (but not yet published), the November 2025 National Security Strategy document, written by the White House (available here), has been released. I find it curious that many of the issues it cites coincide quite closely with what I have been saying in my entries. Of course, that’s not because they’ve read them, but I like it.

Before concluding, I would like to mention the joke (or perhaps not so much) that we may be facing another immense change. SPACE is the new battlefield, where we may find struggles between civilizations (China vs. the US), or even unknown civilizations that use planet Earth as a landing pad. There are those who seriously argue that we are going to come into contact with extraterrestrial civilizations (Avi Loeb suggests this here). If so, let’s hope they come in peace and teach us how to create a better world. It could be that they have been watching us for some time and have decided that we are now close to having enough knowledge (technology) to be worthy of their attention.

As I said at the beginning, this entry concludes the current series. I hope to have more to share soon, and I am very grateful to my readers for their attention and the many ideas they have contributed.

As always, I welcome comments at my email address: pgr@pablogonzalez.org