Future Imperfect #15: Redrawing the world map
Welcome to Future Imperfect! If you haven’t done so already, be sure to follow the FI publication to get this newsletter in your inbox each Thursday.
Here’s what I’ve been following this week:
Redrawing the world map
After the mass wave of decolonization in the wake of World War II, the pace of territorial changes has dramatically slowed down. But, given recent events in the Middle East, Ukraine, and elsewhere, are we likely to see new nations emerge this century?
“No one knows how much bloodshed it will take, but any of the following might emerge as fully recognised states: the Kurds in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey; Syria’s Druze, Yazidis and Alawites; Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis; and Palestine itself. Superpower tit-for-tat could achieve some of it: if, say, the US recognises an Assad-run Syrian enclave in exchange for Russia tolerating a pro-US Kurdistan. Or perhaps the UN will convene a grand remapping conference as the only alternative to the power vacuum ISIS currently fills.”
Alternatively, I could imagine a similar political division of Syria, one that maintains its borders and federal government, that is seen in Bosnia and Herzegovina (though this scenario is ripe with administrative challenges).
All told, it seems more likely that the relative geopolitical calm of the past 20 years will prove to be an outlier, rather than the new rule.
Aggregation theory at work
Ben Thompson has a grand theory of Trump’s rise to the GOP nomination—one that has more to do with technology than authoritarian leanings.
“There is no one dominant force when it comes to the dispersal of political information, and that includes the parties described in the previous section. Remember, in a Facebook world, information suppliers are modularized and commoditized as most people get their news from their feed….This is a big problem for the parties as described in The Party Decides. Remember, in Noel and company’s description party actors care more about their policy preferences than they do voter preferences, but in an aggregated world it is voters aka users who decide which issues get traction and which don’t. And, by extension, the most successful politicians in an aggregated world are not those who serve the party but rather those who tell voters what they most want to hear.”
My takeaway: Get used to Trump-like figures. He might be the first, but he certainly won’t be the last.
Entering the new professional utopia
WeWork, the commercial real estate startup, is worth $16 billion. No that’s not a typo. Its business plan seems almost comically simple: “rent office space from landlords wholesale, break it into smaller units, and sublease it at a profit.” But, according to this profile in Fast Company, the company has much bigger ambitions at work. Because it’s not just WeWork—it’s WeLive, WeCities, and potentially much more.
Of course, in order to follow through on any of these plans, WeWork needs to convince young, urban professionals to buy into its philosophy of living and working together. Which is why, in addition to square footage, WeWork runs on something that doesn’t easily fit on a term sheet. You can call it a mission, a vibe, or culture. Neumann calls it “energy.” If anyone can create energy, it’s him. But is it enough to power WeWorld?
It’s turtles all the way down
If we had an infinitely powerful computer, could it be programmed to simulate our entire universe? And, to take it one step further, if that computer is sufficiently powerful, what are the odds that we ourselves are constructs in that computer? Here’s a short story, “Responsibility,” from Sam Hughes on this very question.
“We can manifest stuff in that universe? We can alter it?” Diane nodded. “Cool. We can play God. Literally.” Tim stood up and tried to take it in. “That would be insane. Can you imagine living inside that machine? Finding out one day that you were just a construct in a quantum computer? The stuff we could pull, we could just reverse gravity one day, smash an antimatter Earth into the real one, then undo everything bad and do it again and again… freeow… man, how unethical would that be? Extremely, clearly.”
Question of the Day: If we were in a simulation right now, would that change your behavior at all? Or would you just go on your way as if nothing was amiss?
GIF of the Week: “Touch tha fishy”
Like Future Imperfect? Why don’t you go ahead and click that recommend button below so others can find it too! And send me feedback at lasky.joshua@gmail.com.
