The well-known motto of the inner party in George Orwell's novel “1984”-“Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present, controls the past”-is not just a famous phrase from a literary dystopia. It is, in fact, a profound formula of manipulating political reality, which remains relevant. In a world in which the past is reinterpreted and rewritten, the future is inevitable according to this narrative, says Ukrainian ambassador Serhii Korsunski, in an article in Zerkalo Nedeli.
This dynamic is manifested today on a global scale. From the Trump administration rhetoric, which invokes a counterfective past to justify the future scenarios – “if Trump was president, the war would not have taken place” – to revisionist policies such as Russia, China or Poland, the narratives become tools for designing a certain version of the future.
A world in an accelerated transformation
The current world changes at a speed that makes it impossible to anticipate events exactly. All that can be predicted are the general directions, not the facts themselves. And in this context, not those who hold the largest databases are the most powerful, but those who can interpret uncertainty and understand the substantive trends.
In order to understand the future, it is essential to understand the fundamental principles underlying these transformations. Along with Orwell's idea, it is worth mentioning the observation of the former high representative of the European Union, Josep Borrell: “Time, in politics, is relative. If changes take place faster than your ability to adapt, from a relative point of view, you move back.” In other words, in today's world, time does not flow evenly – and, with it, the future is not equally distributed.
Future no longer belongs exclusively to states
The phenomenon of “multiple future” – in which various scenarios develop simultaneously, depending on the geopolitical, technological or cultural context – is already a reality. And in the center of these scenarios there are more and more non-state entities. In China, for example, the social credit system and digital supervision are interwoven with millennial cultural traditions, offering a version of the future in which the control is total, but perceived internally.
In parallel, what we call “digital state” acquires more and more influence – although, technically speaking, it is not a state structure in the classical sense. These digital entities, powered by global networks and huge amounts of data, work independently of borders or democratic legitimacy. They are not chosen, they are not transparent, but they gain a power that allows them to redefine traditional decision -making processes.
When data and networks become power
Digital capital – in the form of cryptocurrencies, databases or artificial intelligence – is no longer subject to state control. These elements do not belong to a clear jurisdiction and do not respect the traditional logic of sovereignty. As a result, the new “global digital power” is built beyond and beyond states, in a way similar to how modern states have replaced the old feudal structures in Europe-XVI centuries.
This new model of “algorithmic governance” takes from the functions of the state, under the pretext of efficiency and modernization, but without going through the filter of representativeness or democratic control. Essentially, network architects – gigantic private companies and technology developers – create their own rules, not responsible in front of citizens. In this equation, the state becomes an increasingly peripheral structure.
Artificial intelligence and illusion of a perfect future
With the advent of artificial super-intelligence, social transformation could be complete. It is already stated that these systems will be so performing that the human presence in the decision -making process will become redundant. The state, in its current form, would thus be replaced by an algorithmic control mechanism, supposed objective and incorruptible.
This vision excludes man from his own evolution, reducing him to an entity that must be “improved” technologically-with implants, augmentations and human-mergers. But the question remains: will this transformation mean the end of human evolution?
A world in unstable balance
Probably not. In history, the processes pushed to the extreme often generate reverse reactions. When globalization seemed unstoppable and the ideal of the “United States of the Earth” appeared to be one step away, the reality came with a brutal correction – pandemic, energy crises, regional conflicts and an increasing technological fragmentation.
Today, while the great powers are engaged in a confrontation with increasingly vague rules, small states are looking for refuge. The lack of resources, strategic depth and self -defense capacity pushes them either to ally with great powers – taking considerable risks – or form survival clusters. In both cases, the direction is clear: the world becomes more and more fragmented.
The same trend will most likely apply to artificial intelligence systems. Once they begin to consume resources disproportionately – either water or energy – and influence political processes or even armed conflicts, a human reaction is expected to occur. Finally, people who can still count without a computer could prove more valuable than we expected.
History is written retrospectively
Often, the correct predictions are not recognized when they are made, but only over the years. The global financial crisis of 2008, for example, was rarely anticipated at the right time, but it has been shown that some economists have fired alarm long before. Likewise, the idea of a major conflict in Eastern Europe was discussed since the 1990s, but has been ignored until the actual triggering of the war.
As the Polish mathematician Stefan Banach observed: “The remarkable mathematician is the one who sees analogies between theories, but there are those who can discover analogies between analogies.“Maybe to understand the future, you need such a type of thinking – able to see not only the events, but also the hidden models behind them.
