This new series will rough out a new grand narrative of our historic opportunity to harness AI and other transformative technologies in order to make a much better world in the next 25 years
Great Progression? More like Total Degeneration. You sound naïve or are just another full of shit tech utopia freak. Every generation has people like you - full of the promises of innovation and technology to make our lives better. Well that's not the way it has gone for anyone with a basic understanding about quality of life issues. We work more for less money than since the last Gilded Age and tech has not simplified our lives but made them more complicated and fragmented. Most social scientists around the world now agree that the invention of the smart phone in early 2000s and explosion of superficial social medias utilizing brain washing algorithms to create addiction is the number cause of teen depression - especially for females. The toxic waste created every minute from millions of gadgets and computers being tossed out into landfills around the world is destroying the planet. After the first big wave of useful inventions in the early 20th century like running water for all, refrigerators, washing machines, penicillin, early vaccines and less importantly - cars, Radio and TV - nothing since these has made life easier or better including this computer I am typing into. Your type seem to think that tech can solve all problems but actually creates most problems that humanity and the planet face today. For every amazing invention you come up with I will counter with reality of what the toxic ecological effects are based on mass consumption and exponential numbers. Your type of tech enthusiast bore and now anger me given the horrible state of nature with Mother Nature finally starting to push back with extreme weather events etc. Unless we slow down and take stock of what is truly important in life - family, friends and community and a healthy nature to live in- we are all screwed and will end up as another fossil layer sooner than later. For profit anything always ends up being evil.
90% of humans lived in abject poverty in 1900. Now about 10% live in abject poverty and squalor. Pull yourself out of the trees and look at the forest. There are plenty of places to live in the world without technological advances if one wants to go back to 1880. Which was about when Malthus predicted the destruction of all humanity by 1900...
I don’t know about 90% but yes humanity as made progress as far lifting folks out of abject poverty as Pollyanna thinker Steven Pinker and others like yourself have pointed out - but at what costs via so called progress post Industrial revolutions, the digital info age and now AI era coming hard and fast? Depression. anxiety and Cancer rates were half as much just a few decades ago. Chronic illness and heart disease also going up. I do not want to manage cancer disease - I do not want to manage disease. The latest headline sums up my point - teaspoon of micro plastics in our brains doubling every 10-15 years? Is this worth all the so called progress? Surely we could slow down and take stock of what is really important - a long life with disease management or a healthier possibly shorter life free of sickness? Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Malthus was right because exponential toxic consumer numbers are finally catching up with humanity via the Global Warming crisis extreme weather etc Finally why is that folks like you never post anything or tell us who you are? Either you are a troll or a person with opinions but no courage to take ownership of those opinions by letting the world see who you are. Either way - weak..
it wasn't a longer life until recently - plastic or not!! as recently as 1900, people died from starvation, disease, and natural catastrophes in droves compared to today, and they died long before the current life expectancy.
malthus wasn't right about anything. you are making him look right by changing his predictions...
oh and now i see the personal attack... i won't interact with you anymore and please do not interact with me. people like you are why i hide my identity. i got tired of the personal attacks.
💯. I’m all for progress - tech or non tech - but progress is the key word. The AI revolution is going to exacerbate the environmental crisis due to the energy demands. Renewables can’t accommodate and we may not have enough finite resources for true green energy. We need to figure out how to keep this planet alive.
cold fusion is on the horizon. AI will shake things up radically, but the impact of energy won't be the major factor. Economically the advanced nations face massive changes in commerce.
i essentially only trust reports from the dept of energy. but i have two caveats.
caveat 1 - the DOE was very
in 2000, i was doing applied research. in that job i ran across a DOE report that said: 1.) there were 19 successful cold fusion experiments in the 1990's. they clarified that this meant we learned how to create a cold fusion reaction on demand. they went on to say that the lab equipment was destroyed in every experiment. 2.) they reported that the next phase was controlling the reactions and that between 2010 and 2015 that would be achieved and there would be a useful application - powering a facility, perhaps a boat.
they did not mention that it took more energy to create the reaction than was garnered from the reaction, and that condition needs to be flipped. i only became aware of that obstacle a few years ago. however, that apparently occurred a year or two ago...
caveat 2 - subtract 20 years
in 2001, i decided to go back an reread that report. but, i could no longer find it... i was good at finding reports... it was essential to my work. the DOE, someone, had pulled that report...
an oddity about my career is that i worked with many former US military general officers and many former military technicians. i also worked for a US air force test pilot, and an astronaut that commanded a few missions... something i learned from them was that the US government (and specifically the DOD) is typically 25 to 30 years ahead of what is known to the public.
so, when a report about the future comes out from a DOD source (okay, the DOE isn't DOD, but the DOE does manage the US nuclear materials in all forms) and they pull a report that predicts a usable technology, i subtract 20 years.
i know this does not prove my opinion, but it is why i am of the mind that the US federal government already has a useful application for cold fusion which means it will become commercially available when the US government believes it can be controlled (kept from being a terrorist or criminal weapon).
there have been recent reports from other sources saying that by 2035, cold fusion will be commercially viable, but i didn't see any from the DOE.
if you live to be 77, you have until 2045 to see cold fusion... seems very likely to me...
Right on point, Christopher. Peter Leyden obviously has drunk the Silicon Valley Kool Aid. Like so many others, he has totally disregarded the findings of The Limits to Growth simulations, the unsustainable nature of exponential economic growth on a finite planet supported by systems beyond human control, and Jevons Paradox, among other things. Tunnel vision and Hopium - fatal weaknesses.
those simulations are like Malthus circa 1880. so many bad assumptions. such limited data. so much bad data. such naively simplistic models for such a complex environment as the Earth. the models are ridiculous.
At the time the models that supported The Limits to Growth were constructed, they were state of the art. Simulations of that sort have certainly advanced with time and data have become more readily available. I am very satisfied with their results, given that much of what they suggested has actually come to pass.
having done some of that kind of work, i am of the opinion that they are little more than speculative and we will not be useful except for starting arguments and political manipulation for decades because we have an elementary understanding of the object we are trying to predict... so, we should keep improving them and hopefully in a hundred years or so they will become really useful.
I agree with you, his breathless enthusiasm for tech expansion and dominance conveniently ignores all that you cite, or the death-grip of the billionaire class using the tools he cites to subjugate most of society.
It is like the tightening and suffocating grip that a python would use to kill a sheep, tightening up on every exhale. Concentrated wealth has been extracting excess profits from the system that favors the wealthy, who own the governmental ruling class, which tips the field to favor wealth and further concentration thereof, through many means, agents and agencies. I could elaborate but hopefully you get my point.
The Fourth Turning is here - but we are in an extraordinary times. We need a lot of resilience, and that comes from hope and creativity over reactivity. How we frame things shapes our perception, and our perception influences our actions.
It might be worth noting that each stage of Progression has its own Barons: the Land Barons of Colonial America; the Slave Barons of the Cotton Economy; the Robber Barons of the Industrial Age; and today's Tech Barons. They are important not because of their wealth but because they are personifiers of that wealth. In their time, they are also avatars of inequality and reminders of the need to democratize.
no doubt, slavery was oppression. but other than that, i don't buy the oppressors/oppressed story line in the US. the "land barons" of the colonial age is using a bit of artistic license... the "Robber Barons" were out of control, but the solution was government intervention - always a risk. when has the world every not had "inequality" and where was that?
Pete is a futurist and it is worth understanding the world that he sees coming. He is an optimistic light that shines even brighter in such dark times.
Peter, this is a vital reframing of our moment—clear-eyed, wide-lens, and long overdue. You’re right: 2025 is not just another election year, it’s a civilizational hinge.
But we can’t afford to only celebrate the birth of new systems without naming the forces midwifing them—or the ones hijacking them.
Yes, AI, clean energy, and bioengineering are reaching inflection points. But exponential tech without democratic scaffolding becomes exponential extraction. We’re not just in a Great Progression—we’re in a Great Contest over who builds, who benefits, and who governs.
While you focus on building the next systems (which we agree is urgent), some of us are also focused on shielding what’s left of the democratic substrate they must grow on. Because this isn’t just the end of the long 20th century—it’s also the potential beginning of a post-democratic age, if we aren’t careful.
The real opportunity is fusing both imperatives:
• Protect core institutions from authoritarian collapse
• Build next-gen systems that are decentralized, just, and human-centered
Let’s dream forward. But let’s not sleepwalk past the war for control over the very tools we’re hoping to liberate humanity with.
We’re building too—from Arizona, from the ground up. Let’s stay in conversation.
I like how you frame this. I think the two front approach is essential, but I would argue we have way more people defending the old systems to slow down the dismantling than on the other side of envisioning what could come next. Very few out on that side, and that's where I am trying to focus my energy. But you put your energy where it is best used. We need both fronts.
with all respect, and you are quite articulate, i find this quote interesting "While you focus on building the next systems (which we agree is urgent), some of us are also focused on shielding what’s left of the democratic substrate they must grow on. Because this isn’t just the end of the long 20th century - it’s also the potential beginning of a post-democratic age, if we aren’t careful."
it sounds like a modernized version of the caveats expressed about the thoughts expressed by copernicus, newton, galileo, bruno, voltaire, darwin, and pascal.
i suppose changes to the status quo are always seen as a severe threat by a significant part of any society. something has to change in my opinion, and it isn't joust doubling down on what we have done since 1940 because:
- we are at each other's throats with little or no tolerance.
- some want to undo the constitution (or huge elements of if like the electoral college, stacking the scotus, voting rights, citizenship rights, etc.)
I appreciate the nuance in your response I’d offer this: shielding democracy and evolving beyond its current failures aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, failing to evolve may be the most dangerous threat to democracy of all.
Yes, we must protect constitutional rights and the civic substrate they grow on but we also have to confront the fact that many of those “foundations” were built for a world that no longer exists. The 20th-century scaffolding is now used to entrench minority rule, economic extraction, and institutional stagnation. That’s not preservation. That’s paralysis.
Change doesn’t always mean destruction. It can mean upgrading the system so it serves more people, more fairly, more transparently. If we can’t do that, then we aren’t shielding democracy, we’re embalming it.
I am looking forward to this series! Your words of common sense and your encouraging vision of the future have been extremely helpful for me in quelling my trepidation about the changes that will happen in the next several decades. Thank you for your voice of optimistic sanity!
let's deal with the elephant in the room. The current progress in AI is still not understood by general population but instead it's fear of unknown and "what about me, the victim" is the common notion that is expressed. Not all progress in current tech evolution could lead de-shackling of our psychee and hopefully this space could provide some insight to help with understanding. However, the current regime has set their sights on AI surveillance and what is worse unaccounted manipulation of facts. That is going to be the tremendous obstacle and challenge to overcome. A proper oversight is essential and until that is established we are going to be in trouble.
Charlie, good to hear you are engaged. You can forward this email around to whoever you think might like it. And they can easily subscribe for free to read. Or a modest monthly charge to take part in the virtual gatherings.
I'd like to believe there is much more to hope for than to fear, however I don't think humanity has evolved enough as a species or a society to harness the full power of things like AI or quantum computing. My fear is that corrupting money influences + a large portion of the population being relatively stupid and easily manipulated will result in something that takes things dramatically forward for a handful of oligarchs and their supporting cast.
If AI continues to develop at a rapid pace, then less and less humans will be needed for manual labor. The human race becomes mouths to feed, rather than human resources. We're not all going to be painting at our own island mansion in utopia. I don't see capitalism going away - it's just going to get restructured. I see more Blade Runner than Utopia ahead.
We have more people out of poverty than before - that IS true, but it sure seems like there is a hell of a lot of starving masses who are desperately trying to find someone to care for them. Pew research has close to 300 million people are global migrants. That's probably a smaller percentage than historically (We're at about 8 billion people in the world), but that's a lot of people.
As an American my view is that two things can be true at the same time - our lives are both better and worse than recent history. We can communicate globally 24 hours a day and have access to so much information and we mostly post cat video, argue with strangers, take endless photos of ourselves, etc. The internet felt healthier when it was mostly about buying stuff we needed more easily, playing a game, using a dictionary, etc. Social media is a mirror and many of us are UGLY where it matters most - inside.
I hope optimists like Peter are right. I have no problem being dunked on via the internet, as I'm old enough not to care about my social media street cred. I just don't see the evidence for humanity getting it right for the larger group when the levers of power are so openly corrupted by money. Some of it brazen like Elon Musk/DODGE, but most of it hidden via corporate lobbyists. Congress and Senate are corrupt and now they get to be media celebrities too, so they all want the jobs.
And I'm not even the full bleeding heart type. I don't believe in universal income or free welfare for life. I just think we're going backward as a country. Our people are gullible, free of much critical thinking, vain. A full third of them seem to be in a cult. THESE people are going to be part of unlocking the human potential of AI? No they are the mob to be stirred up and used by whichever monied interest can control their reality. Entertaining them and selling them merch is much cheaper than building a society. Screen resolution baby! Now someone get me a better return on my 500,000 stock options I get for going to conferences. Daddy needs a new helicopter to get to his yacht!
(Sorry this is long, but Peter raises a weighty topic and this is first time I've seen it crystalized this way.)
The way I see it, we have a few chunks of society:
Retiring boomers - large in number, expect their social security, DGAF about Gen Z problems...except for their own individual family members who are all special and totally deserve something better. They are about 21% of our population.
Gen-X/Millenials - People in prime working age are large portion but many of them are going to have jobs that AI will incinerate over the next decade. Another large chunk are dumb as shit, unmotivated and just want to take selfies. I see a shrinking of the "professional class". Not a terrible thing if we can replace that with a larger technical class - people who work with their hands because machines cannot replace every human element effectively. If these people are well-paid and not abused, you can build a new society.
Gen-Z and younger - Sadly I fear parenting and the educational system have not prepared these people well for the future. These kids don't know a world without the internet and smart phones and many of the trappings that I fear have exposed an ugliness in our society. Is there a way to transfer that understanding of what life was like before without it just being something to read about in a history book. I fear this is a hand the baton off moment and it's important we set these people up for success, but without coddling them.
Boomers are going to need home health aides and I don't think GenZ is going to want that pain in the ass job. The Boomers are going to change their mind about immigration when that robot wiping their ass isn't gentle enough, however AI + the right algorithm can make that wipe personalized!
you make some legitimate points. on the other hand:
> i think you radically underestimate GenX-GenY
> we don't know what GenZ and Alpha will become - why assume the worst?
> my grandparents said the same things about our generation (me and you) not being prepared
> i remember my math teachers saying the world would end if kids were allowed to use calculators in school...
> social media sucks, but the truth is, all it does is reveal an aspect of humanity that is always lurking and waiting for a trigger - now we have a chance to expose that darkness found in all humans to some light...
> if you follow the geopolitical analysts (i suggest George Friedman and Peter Zeihan as two worthy professionals) they see a bright future for the US
> you prediction about boomers and immigration is moot - albeit funny
The great regression. I returned to might makes right by weilding economic power to increase a stratified society relegating those perceived as lessor or different to servitude. Or to put it differently, mediocre white men with money want to make sure that nobody can take their place at the top of the heap
I’m not buying it. A1 will simply be another way for the owners to transfer more wealth from us (the little people) to them (the space travelers). Look at history, with the exception of a few generations when has this not happened?
This feels like a 12yr old wrote this? am I crazy? This is surface-level understanding presented as deep insight by someone who's been drinking their own Kool-Aid for decades.
the forces that shaped the world since 1947 are on the verge of change. geopolitical analysts tend to agree that the changes we are seeing would happen regardless of who is in charge - not even Presidents can hold back geopolitical forces...
The US created NATO, the UN, rebuilt Europe, defended Europe, and kept oil flowing from the Middle East for Europe to keep the USSR at bay. Now Russia can't defeat Ukraine w/o using nukes. The US also enable "globalization" by keeping the worlds sea lanes open hoping to keep communism at bay.
Meanwhile, the rise of China and innovations (mentioned by our host) are changing the geopolitical forces. Whether it happens in this presidency, the next, or the one after, big change is coming and no President or tech-baron can stop it.
The US needs to adapt to the new forces - a muscle flexing China (though they have screwed their demographics with the one child policy and will have very serious economic problems for at least 30 years because of it) and new economics. The US will adapt. The world will have to deal with it. based on what i read, we can expect to see:
> the US letting Europe handle more of its own problems (defend itself for a change)
> a decline of the EU as an economic power
> a rise in historical inner-European conflict (the old geopolitical forces are still there)
> US getting out of Middle East except for Israel - let euros get their own energy again
> increase in US engagement in the Pacific - already seeing that some
> redeployment of US navies to different sea lanes that enable the US economy
> rebuilding of manufacturing in the North America (a lot in northern Mexico, some in US)
> struggle between Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (with advantage to Turkey)
The real breakthroughs we need aren’t just technological. We need presence, relationship, and the courage to feel what’s hard to face. Until we can do that, “progress” will keep circling back to the same old patterns.
human nature does not change. civilization has advanced despite that. arguably technology has enabled much or all of the advances in civilization.
the same old patterns implies no progress but in my lifetime the US society has advanced radically civil rights for minorities, civil rights for women, and lifted the "poverty level" above "middle class" for the rest of the world. there were no black presidents, women senators, black or women CEOs, same sex marriage wasn't even a topic, voting age was 18, and you get drafted at the age of 17... things can improve, but are much better.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Arthur. I agree that there’s been real, tangible progress in many areas, especially in civil rights and representation. And I’m grateful for that.
What I was trying to point to is a different layer: how some of the deeper relational and systemic patterns (like domination, disconnection, exploitation) can persist underneath the surface of progress, even as society evolves. So yes, things have improved, and yet many of the same emotional, cultural, or power dynamics seem to resurface in new forms.
To me, progress includes not just what we build or legislate, but how we relate to each other, ourselves, and to the planet. That’s the kind of breakthrough I think we still need to fully step into the future we hope for.
the progress you advocate sounds nice. doesn't that require a change in human nature, or a force to impose such behavior? history tells us it requires the later... caution
I don’t think we need to impose new behavior so much as remember something that’s already in us, but often buried by fear, systems of control, or disconnection.
Great Progression? More like Total Degeneration. You sound naïve or are just another full of shit tech utopia freak. Every generation has people like you - full of the promises of innovation and technology to make our lives better. Well that's not the way it has gone for anyone with a basic understanding about quality of life issues. We work more for less money than since the last Gilded Age and tech has not simplified our lives but made them more complicated and fragmented. Most social scientists around the world now agree that the invention of the smart phone in early 2000s and explosion of superficial social medias utilizing brain washing algorithms to create addiction is the number cause of teen depression - especially for females. The toxic waste created every minute from millions of gadgets and computers being tossed out into landfills around the world is destroying the planet. After the first big wave of useful inventions in the early 20th century like running water for all, refrigerators, washing machines, penicillin, early vaccines and less importantly - cars, Radio and TV - nothing since these has made life easier or better including this computer I am typing into. Your type seem to think that tech can solve all problems but actually creates most problems that humanity and the planet face today. For every amazing invention you come up with I will counter with reality of what the toxic ecological effects are based on mass consumption and exponential numbers. Your type of tech enthusiast bore and now anger me given the horrible state of nature with Mother Nature finally starting to push back with extreme weather events etc. Unless we slow down and take stock of what is truly important in life - family, friends and community and a healthy nature to live in- we are all screwed and will end up as another fossil layer sooner than later. For profit anything always ends up being evil.
90% of humans lived in abject poverty in 1900. Now about 10% live in abject poverty and squalor. Pull yourself out of the trees and look at the forest. There are plenty of places to live in the world without technological advances if one wants to go back to 1880. Which was about when Malthus predicted the destruction of all humanity by 1900...
I don’t know about 90% but yes humanity as made progress as far lifting folks out of abject poverty as Pollyanna thinker Steven Pinker and others like yourself have pointed out - but at what costs via so called progress post Industrial revolutions, the digital info age and now AI era coming hard and fast? Depression. anxiety and Cancer rates were half as much just a few decades ago. Chronic illness and heart disease also going up. I do not want to manage cancer disease - I do not want to manage disease. The latest headline sums up my point - teaspoon of micro plastics in our brains doubling every 10-15 years? Is this worth all the so called progress? Surely we could slow down and take stock of what is really important - a long life with disease management or a healthier possibly shorter life free of sickness? Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Malthus was right because exponential toxic consumer numbers are finally catching up with humanity via the Global Warming crisis extreme weather etc Finally why is that folks like you never post anything or tell us who you are? Either you are a troll or a person with opinions but no courage to take ownership of those opinions by letting the world see who you are. Either way - weak..
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-human-brain-may-contain-as-much-as-a-spoons-worth-of-microplastics-new-research-suggests-180985995/
it wasn't a longer life until recently - plastic or not!! as recently as 1900, people died from starvation, disease, and natural catastrophes in droves compared to today, and they died long before the current life expectancy.
malthus wasn't right about anything. you are making him look right by changing his predictions...
oh and now i see the personal attack... i won't interact with you anymore and please do not interact with me. people like you are why i hide my identity. i got tired of the personal attacks.
💯. I’m all for progress - tech or non tech - but progress is the key word. The AI revolution is going to exacerbate the environmental crisis due to the energy demands. Renewables can’t accommodate and we may not have enough finite resources for true green energy. We need to figure out how to keep this planet alive.
cold fusion is on the horizon. AI will shake things up radically, but the impact of energy won't be the major factor. Economically the advanced nations face massive changes in commerce.
I would love to see your research on cold fusion. It's probably not on my horizon at 57.
i essentially only trust reports from the dept of energy. but i have two caveats.
caveat 1 - the DOE was very
in 2000, i was doing applied research. in that job i ran across a DOE report that said: 1.) there were 19 successful cold fusion experiments in the 1990's. they clarified that this meant we learned how to create a cold fusion reaction on demand. they went on to say that the lab equipment was destroyed in every experiment. 2.) they reported that the next phase was controlling the reactions and that between 2010 and 2015 that would be achieved and there would be a useful application - powering a facility, perhaps a boat.
they did not mention that it took more energy to create the reaction than was garnered from the reaction, and that condition needs to be flipped. i only became aware of that obstacle a few years ago. however, that apparently occurred a year or two ago...
caveat 2 - subtract 20 years
in 2001, i decided to go back an reread that report. but, i could no longer find it... i was good at finding reports... it was essential to my work. the DOE, someone, had pulled that report...
an oddity about my career is that i worked with many former US military general officers and many former military technicians. i also worked for a US air force test pilot, and an astronaut that commanded a few missions... something i learned from them was that the US government (and specifically the DOD) is typically 25 to 30 years ahead of what is known to the public.
so, when a report about the future comes out from a DOD source (okay, the DOE isn't DOD, but the DOE does manage the US nuclear materials in all forms) and they pull a report that predicts a usable technology, i subtract 20 years.
i know this does not prove my opinion, but it is why i am of the mind that the US federal government already has a useful application for cold fusion which means it will become commercially available when the US government believes it can be controlled (kept from being a terrorist or criminal weapon).
there have been recent reports from other sources saying that by 2035, cold fusion will be commercially viable, but i didn't see any from the DOE.
if you live to be 77, you have until 2045 to see cold fusion... seems very likely to me...
don't see how to edit a comment post submission. caveat 1 should say the DOE can be deceptive in re timelines...
Right on point, Christopher. Peter Leyden obviously has drunk the Silicon Valley Kool Aid. Like so many others, he has totally disregarded the findings of The Limits to Growth simulations, the unsustainable nature of exponential economic growth on a finite planet supported by systems beyond human control, and Jevons Paradox, among other things. Tunnel vision and Hopium - fatal weaknesses.
those simulations are like Malthus circa 1880. so many bad assumptions. such limited data. so much bad data. such naively simplistic models for such a complex environment as the Earth. the models are ridiculous.
At the time the models that supported The Limits to Growth were constructed, they were state of the art. Simulations of that sort have certainly advanced with time and data have become more readily available. I am very satisfied with their results, given that much of what they suggested has actually come to pass.
i don't doubt they were and are state of the art.
having done some of that kind of work, i am of the opinion that they are little more than speculative and we will not be useful except for starting arguments and political manipulation for decades because we have an elementary understanding of the object we are trying to predict... so, we should keep improving them and hopefully in a hundred years or so they will become really useful.
but until then you keep believing!!
I agree with you, his breathless enthusiasm for tech expansion and dominance conveniently ignores all that you cite, or the death-grip of the billionaire class using the tools he cites to subjugate most of society.
I'd like you to elaborate. what is in the "death-grip" of the billionaire "class"?
I'm definitely subjugated to the IRS, local property taxes, medicare, and was subjugated to the draft during the Vietnam war.
What subjugation have billionaires imposed on me?
It is like the tightening and suffocating grip that a python would use to kill a sheep, tightening up on every exhale. Concentrated wealth has been extracting excess profits from the system that favors the wealthy, who own the governmental ruling class, which tips the field to favor wealth and further concentration thereof, through many means, agents and agencies. I could elaborate but hopefully you get my point.
it seems i do not get your point. please elaborate. and please explain:
> what are "excess" profits?
> who decides what is excess better than people that voluntarily spend their money?
> who are the "governmental ruling class"?
i recall unions having a huge influence most of the 1900's and still have much influence with the DNC. am i wrong about this?
i don't see wealth as a zero-sum-condition. no matter how much a billionaire has, i/you can still create wealth. am i wrong about this?
An expression like “making a killing” might be taken as a description of excess profits.
ok. i get it. you don't want to engage, or you've made up your mind and don't want to consider alternative information or logic. all good.
PS - "making a killing" is vague, passive language. some people might think any profit is a killing...
The Fourth Turning is here - but we are in an extraordinary times. We need a lot of resilience, and that comes from hope and creativity over reactivity. How we frame things shapes our perception, and our perception influences our actions.
many people thought 9/11 was the start of the 4th turning... seems a generation was skipped...
It might be worth noting that each stage of Progression has its own Barons: the Land Barons of Colonial America; the Slave Barons of the Cotton Economy; the Robber Barons of the Industrial Age; and today's Tech Barons. They are important not because of their wealth but because they are personifiers of that wealth. In their time, they are also avatars of inequality and reminders of the need to democratize.
no doubt, slavery was oppression. but other than that, i don't buy the oppressors/oppressed story line in the US. the "land barons" of the colonial age is using a bit of artistic license... the "Robber Barons" were out of control, but the solution was government intervention - always a risk. when has the world every not had "inequality" and where was that?
this all sounds too much like Marx.
Pete is a futurist and it is worth understanding the world that he sees coming. He is an optimistic light that shines even brighter in such dark times.
I agree with you though it seems you might be implying humanity hasn't tended to improve for 4,000+ years.
what are the conditions that lead you to depict these times as "such dark times"?
i ask because in my life in the US we have:
> dramatically increased civil rights (from segregation to a Black President)
> opened civil rights for women (CEOs, VPs, astronauts, senators, etc.)
> made same sex marriage legal
> essentially cured aids
> lowered the voting age from 21 to 18
> eliminated the draft
> raised the poverty level to a degree that exceeds the middle class for the rest of the world
no time to stop improving, but hardly dark times
Peter, this is a vital reframing of our moment—clear-eyed, wide-lens, and long overdue. You’re right: 2025 is not just another election year, it’s a civilizational hinge.
But we can’t afford to only celebrate the birth of new systems without naming the forces midwifing them—or the ones hijacking them.
Yes, AI, clean energy, and bioengineering are reaching inflection points. But exponential tech without democratic scaffolding becomes exponential extraction. We’re not just in a Great Progression—we’re in a Great Contest over who builds, who benefits, and who governs.
While you focus on building the next systems (which we agree is urgent), some of us are also focused on shielding what’s left of the democratic substrate they must grow on. Because this isn’t just the end of the long 20th century—it’s also the potential beginning of a post-democratic age, if we aren’t careful.
The real opportunity is fusing both imperatives:
• Protect core institutions from authoritarian collapse
• Build next-gen systems that are decentralized, just, and human-centered
Let’s dream forward. But let’s not sleepwalk past the war for control over the very tools we’re hoping to liberate humanity with.
We’re building too—from Arizona, from the ground up. Let’s stay in conversation.
— Vario
I like how you frame this. I think the two front approach is essential, but I would argue we have way more people defending the old systems to slow down the dismantling than on the other side of envisioning what could come next. Very few out on that side, and that's where I am trying to focus my energy. But you put your energy where it is best used. We need both fronts.
with all respect, and you are quite articulate, i find this quote interesting "While you focus on building the next systems (which we agree is urgent), some of us are also focused on shielding what’s left of the democratic substrate they must grow on. Because this isn’t just the end of the long 20th century - it’s also the potential beginning of a post-democratic age, if we aren’t careful."
it sounds like a modernized version of the caveats expressed about the thoughts expressed by copernicus, newton, galileo, bruno, voltaire, darwin, and pascal.
i suppose changes to the status quo are always seen as a severe threat by a significant part of any society. something has to change in my opinion, and it isn't joust doubling down on what we have done since 1940 because:
- we are at each other's throats with little or no tolerance.
- some want to undo the constitution (or huge elements of if like the electoral college, stacking the scotus, voting rights, citizenship rights, etc.)
- some want to undo our economic foundations
best
I appreciate the nuance in your response I’d offer this: shielding democracy and evolving beyond its current failures aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, failing to evolve may be the most dangerous threat to democracy of all.
Yes, we must protect constitutional rights and the civic substrate they grow on but we also have to confront the fact that many of those “foundations” were built for a world that no longer exists. The 20th-century scaffolding is now used to entrench minority rule, economic extraction, and institutional stagnation. That’s not preservation. That’s paralysis.
Change doesn’t always mean destruction. It can mean upgrading the system so it serves more people, more fairly, more transparently. If we can’t do that, then we aren’t shielding democracy, we’re embalming it.
we agree
I am looking forward to this series! Your words of common sense and your encouraging vision of the future have been extremely helpful for me in quelling my trepidation about the changes that will happen in the next several decades. Thank you for your voice of optimistic sanity!
hopeful
let's deal with the elephant in the room. The current progress in AI is still not understood by general population but instead it's fear of unknown and "what about me, the victim" is the common notion that is expressed. Not all progress in current tech evolution could lead de-shackling of our psychee and hopefully this space could provide some insight to help with understanding. However, the current regime has set their sights on AI surveillance and what is worse unaccounted manipulation of facts. That is going to be the tremendous obstacle and challenge to overcome. A proper oversight is essential and until that is established we are going to be in trouble.
the public didn't understand radio communications, chemistry, flight, electronic computing, etc. what is new?
I love this Peter. I'd love to help get your message forward and connecting with the right people.
Charlie, good to hear you are engaged. You can forward this email around to whoever you think might like it. And they can easily subscribe for free to read. Or a modest monthly charge to take part in the virtual gatherings.
I'd like to believe there is much more to hope for than to fear, however I don't think humanity has evolved enough as a species or a society to harness the full power of things like AI or quantum computing. My fear is that corrupting money influences + a large portion of the population being relatively stupid and easily manipulated will result in something that takes things dramatically forward for a handful of oligarchs and their supporting cast.
If AI continues to develop at a rapid pace, then less and less humans will be needed for manual labor. The human race becomes mouths to feed, rather than human resources. We're not all going to be painting at our own island mansion in utopia. I don't see capitalism going away - it's just going to get restructured. I see more Blade Runner than Utopia ahead.
We have more people out of poverty than before - that IS true, but it sure seems like there is a hell of a lot of starving masses who are desperately trying to find someone to care for them. Pew research has close to 300 million people are global migrants. That's probably a smaller percentage than historically (We're at about 8 billion people in the world), but that's a lot of people.
As an American my view is that two things can be true at the same time - our lives are both better and worse than recent history. We can communicate globally 24 hours a day and have access to so much information and we mostly post cat video, argue with strangers, take endless photos of ourselves, etc. The internet felt healthier when it was mostly about buying stuff we needed more easily, playing a game, using a dictionary, etc. Social media is a mirror and many of us are UGLY where it matters most - inside.
I hope optimists like Peter are right. I have no problem being dunked on via the internet, as I'm old enough not to care about my social media street cred. I just don't see the evidence for humanity getting it right for the larger group when the levers of power are so openly corrupted by money. Some of it brazen like Elon Musk/DODGE, but most of it hidden via corporate lobbyists. Congress and Senate are corrupt and now they get to be media celebrities too, so they all want the jobs.
And I'm not even the full bleeding heart type. I don't believe in universal income or free welfare for life. I just think we're going backward as a country. Our people are gullible, free of much critical thinking, vain. A full third of them seem to be in a cult. THESE people are going to be part of unlocking the human potential of AI? No they are the mob to be stirred up and used by whichever monied interest can control their reality. Entertaining them and selling them merch is much cheaper than building a society. Screen resolution baby! Now someone get me a better return on my 500,000 stock options I get for going to conferences. Daddy needs a new helicopter to get to his yacht!
(Sorry this is long, but Peter raises a weighty topic and this is first time I've seen it crystalized this way.)
The way I see it, we have a few chunks of society:
Retiring boomers - large in number, expect their social security, DGAF about Gen Z problems...except for their own individual family members who are all special and totally deserve something better. They are about 21% of our population.
Gen-X/Millenials - People in prime working age are large portion but many of them are going to have jobs that AI will incinerate over the next decade. Another large chunk are dumb as shit, unmotivated and just want to take selfies. I see a shrinking of the "professional class". Not a terrible thing if we can replace that with a larger technical class - people who work with their hands because machines cannot replace every human element effectively. If these people are well-paid and not abused, you can build a new society.
Gen-Z and younger - Sadly I fear parenting and the educational system have not prepared these people well for the future. These kids don't know a world without the internet and smart phones and many of the trappings that I fear have exposed an ugliness in our society. Is there a way to transfer that understanding of what life was like before without it just being something to read about in a history book. I fear this is a hand the baton off moment and it's important we set these people up for success, but without coddling them.
Boomers are going to need home health aides and I don't think GenZ is going to want that pain in the ass job. The Boomers are going to change their mind about immigration when that robot wiping their ass isn't gentle enough, however AI + the right algorithm can make that wipe personalized!
you make some legitimate points. on the other hand:
> i think you radically underestimate GenX-GenY
> we don't know what GenZ and Alpha will become - why assume the worst?
> my grandparents said the same things about our generation (me and you) not being prepared
> i remember my math teachers saying the world would end if kids were allowed to use calculators in school...
> social media sucks, but the truth is, all it does is reveal an aspect of humanity that is always lurking and waiting for a trigger - now we have a chance to expose that darkness found in all humans to some light...
> if you follow the geopolitical analysts (i suggest George Friedman and Peter Zeihan as two worthy professionals) they see a bright future for the US
> you prediction about boomers and immigration is moot - albeit funny
So you think destroying state capacity and initiating a for profit tech oligarchy is the springboard to utopia. OK
don't think anybody said that. but what should be feared more than state "capacity"?
Enjoy your oligarchy, son.
so you don't want your ideas challenged. you just want to share your fears? ok. whatever, boy.
You fear democracy.
Ro, i don't fear democracy. i fear its abuse. i have some good company...
"It's not tyranny we desire, but a just, LIMITED federal government" - Alexander Hamilton
"A true patriot will defend his country from its government" - Thomas Jefferson
"Crises is the rallying cry of the tyrant" - James Madison
"Democracy is the most vile form of government" - James Madison
"Government is at best a petulant servant and at worst a tyrannical master" - George Washington
The great regression. I returned to might makes right by weilding economic power to increase a stratified society relegating those perceived as lessor or different to servitude. Or to put it differently, mediocre white men with money want to make sure that nobody can take their place at the top of the heap
Please find another lens for looking the world - for you sanity...
I’m not buying it. A1 will simply be another way for the owners to transfer more wealth from us (the little people) to them (the space travelers). Look at history, with the exception of a few generations when has this not happened?
i got an MS in Data Analytics (ML/AI) at the age of 63. if i can do it, you can do it.
Then don't be a sucker. Educate yourself and get onboard the innovation train!!!
This feels like a 12yr old wrote this? am I crazy? This is surface-level understanding presented as deep insight by someone who's been drinking their own Kool-Aid for decades.
So you’re suggesting that what Trump and Musk are doing is a good thing? Truly?
i didn't see that written anywhere.
the forces that shaped the world since 1947 are on the verge of change. geopolitical analysts tend to agree that the changes we are seeing would happen regardless of who is in charge - not even Presidents can hold back geopolitical forces...
The US created NATO, the UN, rebuilt Europe, defended Europe, and kept oil flowing from the Middle East for Europe to keep the USSR at bay. Now Russia can't defeat Ukraine w/o using nukes. The US also enable "globalization" by keeping the worlds sea lanes open hoping to keep communism at bay.
Meanwhile, the rise of China and innovations (mentioned by our host) are changing the geopolitical forces. Whether it happens in this presidency, the next, or the one after, big change is coming and no President or tech-baron can stop it.
The US needs to adapt to the new forces - a muscle flexing China (though they have screwed their demographics with the one child policy and will have very serious economic problems for at least 30 years because of it) and new economics. The US will adapt. The world will have to deal with it. based on what i read, we can expect to see:
> the US letting Europe handle more of its own problems (defend itself for a change)
> a decline of the EU as an economic power
> a rise in historical inner-European conflict (the old geopolitical forces are still there)
> US getting out of Middle East except for Israel - let euros get their own energy again
> increase in US engagement in the Pacific - already seeing that some
> redeployment of US navies to different sea lanes that enable the US economy
> rebuilding of manufacturing in the North America (a lot in northern Mexico, some in US)
> struggle between Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (with advantage to Turkey)
The real breakthroughs we need aren’t just technological. We need presence, relationship, and the courage to feel what’s hard to face. Until we can do that, “progress” will keep circling back to the same old patterns.
human nature does not change. civilization has advanced despite that. arguably technology has enabled much or all of the advances in civilization.
the same old patterns implies no progress but in my lifetime the US society has advanced radically civil rights for minorities, civil rights for women, and lifted the "poverty level" above "middle class" for the rest of the world. there were no black presidents, women senators, black or women CEOs, same sex marriage wasn't even a topic, voting age was 18, and you get drafted at the age of 17... things can improve, but are much better.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Arthur. I agree that there’s been real, tangible progress in many areas, especially in civil rights and representation. And I’m grateful for that.
What I was trying to point to is a different layer: how some of the deeper relational and systemic patterns (like domination, disconnection, exploitation) can persist underneath the surface of progress, even as society evolves. So yes, things have improved, and yet many of the same emotional, cultural, or power dynamics seem to resurface in new forms.
To me, progress includes not just what we build or legislate, but how we relate to each other, ourselves, and to the planet. That’s the kind of breakthrough I think we still need to fully step into the future we hope for.
the progress you advocate sounds nice. doesn't that require a change in human nature, or a force to impose such behavior? history tells us it requires the later... caution
I don’t think we need to impose new behavior so much as remember something that’s already in us, but often buried by fear, systems of control, or disconnection.