Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Devin Galloway's avatar

I find your "New Enlightenment" suggestion compelling, especially the sequential pattern you've identified: technology first, then economic transformation, then societal/political upheaval. I'd never thought about it this way, but your argument makes a lot of sense. The 40-year cycle provides useful perspective on where we might be headed.

Your point about AI being under-hyped rather than over-hyped resonates with me. I think people focus too much on whether AI will take their jobs and miss the deeper shift you're describing—that we're moving toward fundamentally different economic and social structures.

What strikes me about your timeline is how the technological breakthroughs often create invisible tipping points that accelerate everything else. I've been tracking this pattern in chess, where computers became so dominant that the entire evaluation framework flipped—we now measure human players against computer standards rather than the reverse. This happened much faster than anyone anticipated once the technology crossed a certain threshold. (Quick plug for my own essay about this, devingalloway.substack.com/p/stockfish-swap )

It wouldn't surprise me if we see a similar acceleration with your economic system phase. Once AI capabilities reach certain benchmarks, the pressure to rethink capitalism, work, and wealth distribution could intensify much faster than the 40-year timeline suggests. The chess world went from "computers as tools" to "computers as the gold standard" in barely a decade.

Your point about Millennials and Gen Z living to see 2100 is sobering. We're not just observers of this transformation—we're participants who'll need to navigate all three phases.

Expand full comment
Jeff A Neumeyer's avatar

I really enjoy the speculation on what the future may bring and how we should attempt to structure it.

My only concern is the statement, "Yet if those same smart founders were living today, they would almost certainly be looking at how they might use this amazing new tool to determine the will of the majority of Americans and then efficiently execute policy."

One must be careful that the "will of the people" also considers individual rights when executing policy. e.g. Thomas Jefferson abolished slavery in the original Declaration of Independence, but to get a majority of votes to form a union, this had to be dropped. Gay rights and many other individual rights are not necessarily taken into consideration by a 51 percent majority.

Expand full comment
33 more comments...

No posts