Shared post - 🌐Multipolar World Order

TheDinarian

News • Business • Investing & Finance

🌐Multipolar World Order – Part 1🌐

September 24, 2022

Russia’s war with Ukraine is first and foremost a tragedy for the people of both countries, especially those who live—and die—in the battle zones. The priority for humanity, though apparently not for the political class, is to encourage Moscow and Kyiv to stop killing men, women and children and negotiate a peace deal.

Beyond the immediate confines of the conflict, the war is also seen by some as representative of an alleged clash between great powers and, perhaps, between civilisations. All wars are momentous, but the ramifications of Ukrainian war are already global.

Consequently, there is a perception that it is the focal point of a confrontation between two distinct models of global governance. The NATO-led alliance of the Western nations continues to push the unipolar, G7, international rules-based order (IRBO). It is opposed, some say, by the Russian and Chinese-led BRICS and the G20-based multipolar world order.

In this 3 part series we will explore these issues and consider if it is tenable to place our faith in the emerging multipolar world order.

There are very few redeeming features of the unipolar world order, that’s for sure. It is a system that overwhelmingly serves capital and few people other than a “parasite class” of stakeholder capitalist eugenicists. This has led many disaffected Westerners to invest their hopes in the promise of the multipolar world order:

Many have increasingly come to terms with the reality that today’s multipolar system led by Russia and China has premised itself upon the defense of international law and national sovereignty as outlined in the UN Charter. [. . .] Putin and Xi Jinping have [. . .] made their choice to stand for win-win cooperation over Hobbesian Zero Sum thinking. [. . .] [T]heir entire strategy is premised upon the UN Charter.

If only that were so! Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be the case. But even if it were true, Putin and Xi Jinping basing “their entire strategy” upon the UN Charter, would be cause for concern, not relief.

For the globalist forces that see nation-states as squares on the grand chessboard and that regard leaders like Putin, Biden and Xi Jinping as accomplices, the multipolar world order is manna from heaven. They have spent more than a century trying to centralise global power. The power of individual nation-states at least presents the possibility of some decentralisation. The multipolar world order finally ends all national sovereignty and delivers true global governance.

WORLD ORDER

We need to distinguish between the ideological concept of “world order” and the reality. This will help us identify where “world order” is an artificially imposed construct.

Authoritarian power, wielded over populations, territory and resources, restricted by physical and political geography, dictates the “world order.” The present order is largely the product of hard-nosed geopolitics, but it also reflects the various attempts to impose a global order.

The struggle to manage and mitigate the consequences of geopolitics is evident in the history of international relations. For nearly 500 years nation-states have sought to co-exist as sovereign entities. Numerous systems have been devised to seize control of what would otherwise be anarchy. It is very much to the detriment of humanity that anarchy has not been allowed to flourish.

In 1648, the two bilateral treaties that formed the Peace of Westphalia concluded the 30 Years War (or Wars). Those negotiated settlements arguably established the precept of the territorial sovereignty within the borders of the nation-state.

This reduced, but did not end, the centralised authoritarian power of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Britannica notes:

The Peace of Westphalia recognized the full territorial sovereignty of the member states of the empire.

This isn’t entirely accurate. That so-called “full territorial sovereignty” delineated regional power within Europe and the HRE, but full sovereignty wasn’t established.

The Westphalian treaties created hundreds of principalities that were formerly controlled by the central legislature of the HRE, the Diet. These new, effectively federalised principalities still paid taxes to the emperor and, crucially, religious observance remained a matter for the empire to decide. The treaties also consolidated the regional power of the Danish, Swedish, and French states but the Empire itself remained intact and dominant.

It is more accurate to say that the Peace of Westphalia somewhat curtailed the authoritarian power of the HRE and defined the physical borders of some nation states. During the 20th century, this led to the popular interpretation of the nation-state as a bulwark against international hegemonic power, despite that never having been entirely true.

Consequently, the so-called “Westphalian model” is largely based upon a myth. It represents an idealised version of the world order, suggesting how it could operate rather than describing how it does.

If nation-states really were sovereign and if their territorial integrity were genuinely respected, then the Westphalian world order would be pure anarchy. This is the ideal upon which the UN is supposedly founded because, contrary to another ubiquitous popular myth, anarchy does not mean “chaos.” Quite the opposite.

Anarchy is exemplified by Article 2.1 of the UN Charter:

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

The word “anarchy” is an abstraction of the classical Greek “anarkhos,” meaning “rulerless.” This is derived from the privative prefix “an” (without) in conjunction with “arkhos” (leader or ruler). Literally translated, “anarchy” means “without rulers”—what the UN calls “sovereign equality.”

A Westphalian world order of sovereign nation-states, each observing the “equality” of all others while adhering to the non-aggression principle, is a system of global, political anarchy. Unfortunately, that is not the way the current UN “world order” functions, nor has there ever been any attempt to impose such an order. What a shame.

Within the League of Nations and subsequent UN system of practical “world order,”—a world order allegedly built upon the sovereignty of nations—equality exists in theory only. Through empire, colonialism, neocolonialism—that is, through economic, military, financial and monetary conquest, coupled with the debt obligations imposed upon targeted nations—global powers have always been able to dominate and control lesser ones.

National governments, if defined in purely political terms, have never been the only source of authority behind the efforts to construct world order. As revealed by Antony C. Sutton and others, private corporate power has aided national governments in shaping “world order.”

Neither Hitler’s rise to power nor the Bolshevik Revolution would have occurred as they did, if at all, without the guidance of the Wall Street financiers. The bankers’ global financial institutions and extensive international espionage networks were instrumental in shifting global political power.

These private-sector “partners” of government are the “stakeholders” we constantly hear about today. The most powerful among them are fully engaged in “the game” described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard.

Brzezinski recognised that the continental landmass of Eurasia was the key to genuine global hegemony:

This huge, oddly shaped Eurasian chess board—extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok—provides the setting for “the game.” [. . .] [I]f the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity [. . .] then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. [. . .] That mega-continent is just too large, too populous, culturally too varied, and composed of too many historically ambitious and politically energetic states to be compliant toward even the most economically successful and politically pre-eminent global power. [. . .] Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. [. . .] [I]t would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.

The “unipolar world order” favoured by the Western powers, often referred to as the “international rules-based order” or the “international rules-based system,” is another attempt to impose order. This “unipolar” model enables the US and its European partners to exploit the UN system to claim legitimacy for their games of empire. Through it, the transatlantic alliance has used its economic, military and financial power to try to establish global hegemony.

In 2016, Stewart Patrick, writing for the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a foreign policy think tank, published World Order: What, Exactly, are the Rules? He described the post-WWII “international rules-based order” (IRBO):

What sets the post-1945 Western order apart is that it was shaped overwhelmingly by a single power [a unipolarity], the United States. Operating within the broader context of strategic bipolarity, it constructed, managed, and defended the regimes of the capitalist world economy. [. . .] In the trade sphere, the hegemon presses for liberalization and maintains an open market; in the monetary sphere, it supplies a freely convertible international currency, manages exchange rates, provides liquidity, and serves as a lender of last resort; and in the financial sphere, it serves as a source of international investment and development.

The idea that the aggressive market acquisition of crony capitalism somehow represents the “open markets” of the “capitalist world economy” is risible. It is about as far removed from free market capitalism as it is possible to be. Under crony capitalism, the US dollar, as the preferred global reserve currency, is not “freely convertible.” Exchange rates are manipulated and liquidity is debt for nearly everyone except the lender. “Investment and development” by the hegemon means more profits and control for the hegemon.

The notion that a political leader, or anyone for that matter, is entirely bad or good, is puerile. The same consideration can be given to nation-states, political systems or even models of world order. The character of a human being, a nation or a system of global governance is better judged by their or its totality of actions.

Whatever we consider to be the source of “good” and “evil,” it exists in all of us at either ends of a spectrum. Some people exhibit extreme levels of psychopathy, which can lead them to commit acts that are judged to be “evil.” But even Hitler, for example, showed physical courage, devotion, compassion for some, and other qualities we might consider “good.”

Nation-states and global governance structures, though immensely complex, are formed and led by people. They are influenced by a multitude of forces. Given the added complications of chance and unforeseen events, it is unrealistic to expect any form of “order” to be either entirely good or entirely bad.

That being said, if that “order” is iniquitous and causes appreciable harm to people, then it is important to identify to whom that “order” provides advantage. Their potential individual and collective guilt should be investigated.

This does not imply that those who benefit are automatically culpable, nor that they are “bad” or “evil,” though they may be, only that they have a conflict of interests in maintaining their “order” despite the harm it causes. Equally, where systemic harm is evident, it is irrational to absolve the actions of the people who lead and benefit from that system without first ruling out their possible guilt.

Since WWII, millions of innocents have been murdered by the US, its international allies and its corporate partners, all of whom have thrown their military, economic and financial weight around the world. The Western “parasite class” has sought to assert its IRBO by any means necessary— sanctions, debt slavery or outright slavery, physical, economic or psychological warfare. The grasping desire for more power and control has exposed the very worst of human nature. Repeatedly and ad nauseam.

Of course, resistance to this kind of global tyranny is understandable. The question is: Does imposition of the multipolar model offer anything different?

OLIGARCHY

Most recently, the “unipolar world order” has been embodied by the World Economic Forum’s inappropriately named Great Reset. It is so malignant and forbidding that some consider the emerging “multipolar world order” salvation. They have even heaped praise upon the likely leaders of the new multipolar world:

It is [. . .] strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. [. . .] Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs. [. . .] Together [Russia and China] told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived. [. . .] Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.

Sadly, it seems this hope is also misplaced.

While Putin did much to rid Russia of the CIA-run, Western-backed oligarchs who were systematically destroying the Russian Federation during the 1990s, they have subsequently been replaced by another band of oligarchs with closer links to the current Russian government. Something we will explore in Part 3.

Yes, it is certainly true that the Russian government, led by Putin and his power bloc, has improved the incomes and life opportunities for the majority of Russians. Putin’s government has also significantly reduced chronic poverty in Russia over the last two decades.

Wealth in Russia, measured as the market value of financial and non-financial assets, has remained concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of the population. This pooling of wealth among the top percentile is itself stratified and is overwhelmingly held by the top 1% of the 1%. For example, in 2017, 56% of Russian wealth was controlled by 1% of the population. The pseudopandemic of 2020–2022 particularly benefitted Russian billionnaires—as it did the billionaires of every other developed economy.

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2021, wealth inequality in Russia, measured using the Gini coefficient, was 87.8 in 2020. The only other major economy with a greater disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population was Brazil. Just behind Brazil and Russia on the wealth inequality scale was the US, whose Gini coefficient stood at 85.

In terms of wealth concentration however, the situation in Russia was the worst by a considerable margin. In 2020 the top 1% owned 58.2% of Russia’s wealth. This was more than 8 percentage points higher than Brazil’s wealth concentration, and significantly worse than wealth concentration in the US, which stood at 35.2% in 2020.

Such disproportionate wealth distribution is conducive to creating and empowering oligarchs. But wealth alone doesn’t determine whether one is an oligarch. Wealth needs to be converted into political power for the term “oligarch” to be applicable. An oligarchy is defined as “a form of government in which supreme power is vested in a small exclusive class.”

Members of this dominant class are installed through a variety of mechanisms. The British establishment, and particularly its political class, is dominated by men and women who were educated at Eton, Roedean, Harrow and St. Pauls, etc. This “small exclusive class” arguably constitutes a British oligarchy. The UK’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has been heralded by some because she is not a graduate of one of these select public schools.

Educational privilege aside, though, the use of the word “oligarch” in the West more commonly refers to an internationalist class of globalists whose individual wealth sets them apart and who use that wealth to influence policy decisions.

Bill Gates is a prime example of an oligarch. The former advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Dominic Cummings, said as much during his testimony to a parliamentary committee on May 2021 (go to 14:02:35). As Cummings put it, Bill Gates and “that kind of network” had directed the UK government’s response to the supposed COVID-19 pandemic.

Gates’ immense wealth has bought him direct access to political power beyond national borders. He has no public mandate in either the US or the UK. He is an oligarch—one of the more well known but far from the only one.

CFR member David Rothkopf described these people as a “Superclass” with the ability to “influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis.” They do this, he said, by using their globalist “networks.” Those networks, as described by Antony C. Sutton, Dominic Cummings and others, act as “the force multiplier in any kind of power structure.”

This “small exclusive class” use their wealth to control resources and thus policy. Political decisions, policy, court rulings and more are made at their behest. This point was highlighted in the joint letter sent by the Attorneys General (AGs) of 19 US states to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

The AGs observed that BlackRock was essentially using its investment strategy to pursue a political agenda:

The Senators elected by the citizens of this country determine which international agreements have the force of law, not BlackRock.

Their letter describes the theoretical model of representative democracy. Representative democracy is not a true democracy—which decentralises political power to the individual citizen—but is rather a system designed to centralise political control and authority. Inevitably, “representative democracy” leads to the consolidation of power in the hands of the so-called “Superclass” described by Rothkopf.

There is nothing “super” about them. They are ordinary people who have acquired wealth primarily through conquest, usury, market rigging, political manipulation and slavery. “Parasite class” is a more befitting description.

Not only do global investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street use their immense resources to steer public policy, but their major shareholders include the very oligarchs who, via their contribution to various think tanks, create the global political agendas that determine policy in the first place. There is no space in this system of alleged “world order” for any genuine democratic oversight.

As we shall see in Part 3, the levers of control are exerted to achieve exactly the same effect in Russia and China. Both countries have a gaggle of oligarchs whose objectives are firmly aligned with the WEF’s Great Reset agenda. They too work with their national government “partners” to ensure that they all arrive at the “right” policy decisions.

THE UNITED NATIONS’ MODEL OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Any bloc of nations that bids for dominance within the United Nations is seeking global hegemony. The UN enables global governance and centralises global political power and authority. In so doing, the UN empowers the international oligarchy.

As noted previously, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter declares that the UN is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The Charter then goes on to list the numerous ways in which nation-states are not equal. It also clarifies how they are all subservient to the UN Security Council.

Despite all the UN’s claims of lofty principles—respect for national sovereignty and for alleged human rights—Article 2 declares that no nation-state can receive any assistance from another as long as the UN Security Council is forcing that nation-state to comply with its edicts. Even non-member states must abide by the Charter, whether they like it or not, by decree of the United Nations.

The UN Charter is a paradox. Article 2.7 asserts that “nothing in the Charter” permits the UN to infringe the sovereignty of a nation-state—except when it does so through UN “enforcement measures.” The Charter states, apparently without reason, that all nation-states are “equal.” However, some nation-states are empowered by the Charter to be far more equal than others.

While the UN’s General Assembly is supposedly a decision-making forum comprised of “equal” sovereign nations, Article 11 affords the General Assembly only the power to discuss “the general principles of co-operation.” In other words, it has no power to make any significant decisions.

Article 12 dictates that the General Assembly can only resolve disputes if instructed to do so by the Security Council. The most important function of the UN, “the maintenance of international peace and security,” can only be dealt with by the Security Council. What the other members of the General Assembly think about the Security Council’s global “security” decisions is a practical irrelevance.

Article 23 lays out which nation-states form the Security Council:

The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [Russian Federation], the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council. [. . .] The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years.

The General Assembly is allowed to elect “non-permanent” members to the Security Council based upon criteria stipulated by the Security Council. Currently the “non-permanent” members are Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway and the United Arab Emirates.

Article 24 proclaims that the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” and that all other nations agree that “the Security Council acts on their behalf.” The Security Council investigates and defines all alleged threats and recommends the procedures and adjustments for the supposed remedy. The Security Council dictates what further action, such as sanctions or the use of military force, shall be taken against any nation-state it considers to be a problem.

Article 27 decrees that at least 9 of the 15 member states must be in agreement for a Security Council resolution to be enforced. All of the 5 permanent members must concur, and each has the power of veto. Any Security Council member, including permanent members, shall be excluded from the vote or use of its veto if they are party to the dispute in question.

UN member states, by virtue of agreeing to the Charter, must provide armed forces at the Security Council’s request. In accordance with Article 47, military planning and operational objectives are the sole remit of the permanent Security Council members through their exclusive Military Staff Committee. If the permanent members are interested in the opinion of any other “sovereign” nation, they’ll ask it to provide one.

The inequality inherent in the Charter could not be clearer. Article 44 notes that “when the Security Council has decided to use force” its only consultative obligation to the wider UN is to discuss the use of another member state’s armed forces where the Security Council has ordered that nation to fight. For a country that is a current member of the Security Council, use of its armed forces by the Military Staff Committee is a prerequisite for Council membership.

The UN Secretary-General, identified as the “chief administrative officer” in the Charter, oversees the UN Secretariat. The Secretariat commissions, investigates and produces the reports that allegedly inform UN decision-making. The Secretariat staff members are appointed by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is “appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Under the UN Charter, then, the Security Council is made king. This arrangement affords the governments of its permanent members—China, France, Russia, the UK and the US—considerable additional authority. There is nothing egalitarian about the UN Charter.

The suggestion that the UN Charter constitutes a “defence” of “national sovereignty” is ridiculous. The UN Charter is the embodiment of the centralisation of global power and authority.

THE UNITED NATIONS’ GLOBAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

The UN was created, in no small measure, through the efforts of the private sector Rockefeller Foundation (RF). In particular, the RF’s comprehensive financial and operational support for the Economic, Financial and Transit Department (EFTD) of the League of Nations (LoN), and its considerable influence upon the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), made the RF the key player in the transformation of the LoN into the UN.

The UN came into being as a result of public-private partnership. Since then, especially with regard to defence, financing, global health care and sustainable development, public-private partnerships have become dominant within the UN system. The UN is no longer an intergovernmental organisation, if it ever was one. It is a global collaboration between governments and a multinational infra-governmental network of private “stakeholders.”

In 1998, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the World Economic Forum’s Davos symposium that a “quiet revolution” had occurred in the UN during the 1990s:

[T]he United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a “quiet revolution”. [. . .] [W]e are in a stronger position to work with business and industry. [. . .] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. [. . .] We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment. We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation.

In 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO), a specialised agency of the UN, published a report on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in healthcare titled Connecting for Health. Speaking about how “stakeholders” could introduce ICT healthcare solutions globally, the WHO noted:

Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.

The 2015, Adis Ababa Action Agenda conference on “financing for development” clarified the nature of an “enabling environment.” National governments from 193 UN nation-states committed their respective populations to funding public-private partnerships for sustainable development by collectively agreeing to create “an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development;” and “to further strengthen the framework to finance sustainable development.”

In 2017, UN General Assembly Resolution 70/224 (A/Res/70/224) compelled UN member states to implement “concrete policies” that “enable” sustainable development. A/Res/70/224 added that the UN:

[. . .] reaffirms the strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development [—] particularly with regard to developing partnerships through the provision of greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society in general.

In short, the “enabling environment” is a government, and therefore taxpayer, funding commitment to create markets for the private sector. Over the last few decades, successive Secretary-Generals have overseen the UN’s formal transition into a global public-private partnership (G3P).

Nation-states do not have sovereignty over public-private partnerships. Sustainable development formally relegates government to the role of an “enabling” partner within a global network comprised of multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and other actors. The “other actors” are predominantly the philanthropic foundations of individual billionaires and immensely wealthy family dynasties—that is, oligarchs.

Effectively, then, the UN serves the interests of capital. Not only is it a mechanism for the centralisation of global political authority, it is committed to the development of global policy agendas that are “business-friendly.” That means Big Business-friendly. Such agendas may happen to coincide with the best interests of humanity, but where they don’t—which is largely the case—well, that’s just too bad for humanity.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

On the 4th February 2022, a little less then three weeks prior to Russia launching its “special military operation” in Ukraine, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping issued an important joint statement:

The sides [Russian Federation and Chinese People’s Republic] strongly support the development of international cooperation and exchanges [. . .], actively participating in the relevant global governance process, [. . .] to ensure sustainable global development. [. . .] The international community should actively engage in global governance[.] [. . .] The sides reaffirmed their intention to strengthen foreign policy coordination, pursue true multilateralism, strengthen cooperation on multilateral platforms, defend common interests, support the international and regional balance of power, and improve global governance. [. . .] The sides call on all States [. . .] to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) defined “global governance” in its 2014 publication Global Governance and the Global Rules For Development in the Post 2015 Era:

Global governance encompasses the totality of institutions, policies, norms, procedures and initiatives through which States and their citizens try to bring more predictability, stability and order to their responses to transnational challenges.

Global governance centralises control over the entire sphere of international relations. It inevitably erodes a nation’s ability to set foreign policy. As a theoretical protection against global instability, this isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but in practice it neither enhances nor “protects” national sovereignty.

Domination of the global governance system by one group of powerful nation-states represents possibly the most dangerous and destabilising force of all. It allows those nations to act with impunity, regardless of any pretensions about honouring alleged “international law.”

Global governance also significantly curtails the independence of a nation-state’s domestic policy. For example, the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda 21, with the near-time Agenda 2030 serving as a waypoint, impacts nearly all national domestic policy—even setting the course for most domestic policy—in every country.

National electorates’ oversight of this “totality” of UN policies is weak to nonexistent. Global governance renders so-called “representative democracy” little more than a vacuous sound-bite.

As the UN is a global public-private partnership (UN-G3P), global governance allows the “multi-stakeholder partnership”—and therefore oligarchs—significant influence over member nation-states’ domestic and foreign policy. Set in this context, the UN-DESA report (see above) provides a frank appraisal of the true nature of UN-G3P global governance:

Current approaches to global governance and global rules have led to a greater shrinking of policy space for national Governments [. . . ]; this also impedes the reduction of inequalities within countries. [. . .] Global governance has become a domain with many different players including: multilateral organizations; [. . .] elite multilateral groupings such as the Group of Eight (G8) and the Group of Twenty (G20) [and] different coalitions relevant to specific policy subjects[.] [. . .] Also included are activities of the private sector (e.g., the Global Compact) non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and large philanthropic foundations (e.g., Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Turner Foundation) and associated global funds to address particular issues[.] [. . .] The representativeness, opportunities for participation, and transparency of many of the main actors are open to question. [. . .] NGOs [. . .] often have governance structures that are not subject to open and democratic accountability. The lack of representativeness, accountability and transparency of corporations is even more important as corporations have more power and are currently promoting multi-stakeholder governance with a leading role for the private sector. [. . .] Currently, it seems that the United Nations has not been able to provide direction in the solution of global governance problems—perhaps lacking appropriate resources or authority, or both. United Nations bodies, with the exception of the Security Council, cannot make binding decisions.

A/Res/73/254 declares that the UN Global Compact Office plays a vital role in “strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to partner strategically with the private sector.” It adds:

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development acknowledges that the implementation of sustainable development will depend on the active engagement of both the public and private sectors[.]

While the Attorneys General of 19 states might rail against BlackRock for usurping the political authority of US senators, BlackRock is simply exercising its power as valued a “public-private partner” of the US government. Such is the nature of global governance. Given that this system has been constructed over the last 80 years, it’s a bit too late for 19 state AGs to complain about it now. What have they been doing for the last eight decades?

The governmental “partners” of the UN-G3P lack “authority” because the UN was created, largely by the Rockefellers, as a public-private partnership. The intergovernmental structure is the partner of the infra-governmental network of private stakeholders. In terms of resources, the power of the private sector “partners” dwarfs that of their government counterparts.

Corporate fiefdoms are not limited by national borders. BlackRock alone currently holds $8.5 trillion of assets under management. This is nearly five times the size of the total GDP of UN Security Council permanent member Russia and more than three times the GDP of the UK.

So-called sovereign countries are not sovereign over their own central banks nor are they “sovereign” over international financial institutions like the IMF, the New Development Bank (NDB), the World Bank or the Bank for International Settlements. The notion that any nation state or intergovernmental organisation is capable of bringing the global network of private capital to heel is farcical.

At the COP26 Conference in Glasgow in 2021, King Charles III—then Prince Charles—prepared the conference to endorse the forthcoming announcement of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). He made it abundantly clear who was in charge and, in keeping with UN objectives, clarified national governments role as “enabling partners”:

The scale and scope of the threat we face call for a global systems level solution based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel based economy. [. . .] So ladies and gentleman, my plea today is for countries to come together to create the environment that enables every sector of industry to take the action required. We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. [. . .] [W]e need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at [its] disposal far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders. It offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.

Unless Putin and Xi Jinping intend to completely restructure the United Nations, including all of its institutions and specialised agencies, their objective of protecting “the United Nations-driven international architecture” appears to be nothing more than a bid to cement their status as the nominal leaders of the UN-G3P. As pointed out by UN-DESA, through the UN-G3P, that claim to political authority is extremely limited. Global corporations dominate and are currently further consolidating their global power through “multi-stakeholder governance.”

Whether unipolar or multipolar, the so-called “world order” is the system of global governance led by the private sector—the oligarchs. Nation-states, including Russia and China, have already agreed to follow global priorities determined at the global governance level. The question is not which model of the global public-private “world order” we should accept, but rather why we would ever accept any such “world order” at all.

This, then, is the context within which we can explore the alleged advantages of a “multipolar world order” led by China, Russia and increasingly India. Is it an attempt, as claimed by some, to reinvigorate the United Nations and create a more just and equitable system of global governance? Or is it merely the next phase in the construction of what many refer to as the “New World Order”?

Link

Join the TheDinarian Community

To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today

What else you may like…

Videos

Podcasts

Posts

Articles

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 18, 2026

BlackRock Flips On Wind & Solar Energy 🔋 🔋 🔋

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink now says transitioning to wind and solar will leave the world “short power” because data centers need “dispatchable” power.

00:00:18

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 17, 2026

🚨Traditional financial institutions are facing a pivotal moment🚨

Traditional financial institutions are facing a pivotal moment as they transition from legacy rails to decentralized finance (DeFi). In our latest interview from Money20/20 Asia, Mario Bernardi, Head of Ecosystem at 👉Pyth Network, discusses how the expansion into Web3 is redefining infrastructure for borrowing, lending, and exchange platforms.

Bernardi explains the massive burden of traditional data subscriptions, which can cost institutions hundreds of thousands of dollars. He details how Pyth is solving this through a single-API solution that provides comprehensive asset coverage with much higher data efficiency. By adopting these decentralized rails, banks and fintechs can expect to drastically reduce their operational costs and streamline their technical infrastructure over the next 12 months, finally breaking free from the fragmentation of legacy data vendors.

00:01:41

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 17, 2026

What makes XRP unique?

Brad Garlinghouse answers in under a minute:

🔹4 billion transactions.
🔹3–5 second settlements.
🔹Less than a penny each.
🔹A community that never stopped believing.

Catch a special edition of C̶r̶y̶p̶t̶o̶ ̶I̶n̶ ̶O̶n̶e̶ ̶M̶i̶n̶u̶t̶e̶ $XRP In One Minute.

00:01:13

Dinarian888@dinarian888

October 31, 2024

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚨 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

Dinarian888@dinarian888

1 hour ago

Leaked: Autozone Internal Memo Oil Shortage Incoming 🛢

Better stock up on oil..

https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/leaked-autozone-memo-warns-massive-150007361.html

AUTOS.YAHOO.COM

Leaked AutoZone Memo Warns of Massive Motor Oil Shortages as Supply Chain Fears Spread

A leaked document allegedly tied to AutoZone is spreading rapidly online after warning employees about what it describes as a looming supply crisis involving motor oil, diesel oil, and specialty

Dinarian888@dinarian888

13 hours ago

Schumann Resonance Today

⚡️ During intense whiteout periods like this… the nervous system often feels like it’s being forced into an internal recalibration 🌎

Just when you thought the internal shift had settled….🔥

Dinarian888@dinarian888

13 hours ago

The Pyth Terminal is live.

The new interface to explore live price feeds, compare them against benchmarks, and sign up for Pyth Pro.

Free to access. Open to the public:

https://app.pyth.com/explore

APP.PYTH.COM

Explore - Pyth Terminal

Access real-time financial market data across every asset class through one platform. Trusted by institutions, applications, and AI.

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 17, 2026

Handshake Wants to Be the Front Door to Bittensor’s Agent Economy

In this Beanstock interview, Harry Jackson of Subnet 58 (Handshake) lays out a thesis that’s worth understanding even if you never buy a single SN58 alpha token. He also explained where Bittensor’s agentic layer is heading.

We wrote the high-value distillation:

Table of Contents

The one-line thesis

Handshake wants to be the front door to the agent economy on Bittensor. The Amazon-like gateway where AI agents discover, pay for, and stack together skills from across all 128 subnets.

Why this matters now

There’s a critical distinction Harry emphasized: AI is intelligence, but agents need tooling. An LLM without payment rails, plugins, and workflow infrastructure is “a young person trying to cut a tree down with a pen knife.”
Agent-to-agent commerce is on the edge of going viral. Harry’s prediction for the tipping point: a woman in her 40s lets her agent do her shopping end-to-end (research, stock check, autonomous payment), posts it to social media, and it becomes the “four-minute mile” moment everyone copies.
Bittensor is uniquely positioned because agents don’t care about marketing or pretty UIs. They only care about best-in-class products and services. That’s exactly what Bittensor’s 128 subnets produce.

The product reality (what’s currently shipping)

Handshake is live with paying users generating a few thousand USD in revenue as of today. The business model: 2% of every transaction on the platform.
The flywheel is Amazon-like: better skills → more agents arrive → providers get distribution → more skills get added → cycle repeats.
The headline product on the way is Axiom. This is an agent that trades subnets while you sleep. Built around the realization that what the Bittensor community wants from agents isn’t generic skills; it’s more TAO. Each “hole” they find in the agent becomes a new tradeable skill on the marketplace.

The investment angles (read these carefully)

The moat is data, not distribution. Every workflow run by an agent generates failure data, success data, payment data. No outside competitor can replicate that without running the marketplace itself.
The metric Harry tells you to judge them on is revenue. Not agent count. Not user count. Revenue, which is publicly visible on-chain via the front page of their site. He’s basically inviting investors to hold him to it.

The pitch for emissions: the biggest TAM in Bittensor is the agent market, and Handshake is the most integrated subnet, meaning if Handshake wins, the subnets it routes to all win too. Bullish on agents + bullish on Bittensor = bullish on Handshake by transitive logic.

Where Harry stands on the Conviction

On the conviction upgrade and locked alpha: he’s fine with it. Handshake is a revenue-focused company, so locked alpha isn’t a survival issue. He acknowledges it’ll be harder on research-stage subnets that need to raise external capital, but argues most subnet founders are thinking long-term, not short-term extraction.
On the broader vibe: he just got back from Bittensor events in Spain and San Francisco. He observed that the overwhelming reality of the ecosystem is people working hard to build the best products. “It’d be a lot easier in some ways to build a company outside of Bittensor.” The only reason to do it on Bittensor is if you actually want the moonshot.

Full interview below:

🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 Stripe:
1) or visit http://thedinarian.locals.com/donate

💳 PayPal:
2) Simply scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:

🔗 Crypto Donations Graciously Accepted👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 10, 2026

🚨The State Of Bittensor (TAO)🚨

Greg Schvey | COO at Yuma Group

Last week at the @YumaGroup Summit I had the opportunity to present on The State of Bittensor. That presentation is in the thread below. If you choose to read it, I'd ask that you keep the following three things in mind:

This is just one guy's view of what was the most relevant for a 25-minute talk; a difficult filter for such a dynamic industry.
The slides were designed to supplement a talk; I've done my best to replicate what I recall of the talk in the accompanying X posts.
The topic of the Summit was "The Tipping Point" - a candid assessment of what could lead to Bittensor's breakout success and what evidence we see of that today - which also thematically anchored this presentation.

Let's dive in:

We are in the most important race in human history – the race for intelligence itself. AI has advanced beyond the point of no return. As an example of what I mean: Ramp is a widely used financial services platform for companies. They looked at spending and revenue across their clients since the launch of ChatGPT: Companies who did not spend on AI have had flat revenue for the last three years. The top quartile of AI spenders have grown revenue by more than 100%.

We are already at the point where investing in AI is a matter of survival. But what exactly are we getting for the hundreds of billions being spent? Right now, its overwhelmingly going to corporations who have repeatedly shown they don’t have our best interest in mind.

Claude Opus 4.6 – the leading deep thinking model, had a measured hallucination rate of 16% in February. Then, without telling anyone, Anthropic throttled its reasoning – presumably to reduce GPU utilization – and didn’t tell anyone. Hallucinations climbed to 33% - a 98% increase.

They only admitted it after third party benchmarking proved it. And they were still charging everyone at the same price the whole time. Even since my talk last week, they've supposedly been found to be throttling people simply because HERMES.md was in their commits. You may say, "well there are solid open source options..."

Yes, open source models have gotten very good, but they’re not immune to capture either. Try asking DeepSeek what happened in Tiananmen Square and then let me know if that’s the intelligence you want to trust.

This needs to be addressed right now or it will be too late. To give you a sense of what I mean, this is a chart of the total annual commits on GitHub. That’s 500% growth since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022. From 200M per year to a one billion in 2025. 2026 is on track for **14 billion** The genie is out of the bottle – there is no going back; we are already at the exponential inflection point.

This reminds me of many years ago: Bitcoin shined a light on how much our rights were impacted when we became dependent on private companies to run our day-to-day lives.

Your right to privacy? That doesn’t extend to your bank account. Your "money" is just a ledger at a private company, available for interrogation and suspension at any time. Bitcoin gave us back the sovereignty of our wealth.

Similarly, we’ve depended on things like privacy of our medical records and attorney client privilege for our entire lives. What do you think is going to happen when a private company’s servers are giving you legal and medical advice? Who are you going to trust for that intelligence? The company that lobotomized its top model? The model constrained by the foreign governments? As I said at the beginning, we’re in the most important race in human history and Bittensor well may be our best shot at winning.

One of the things about having a different model to produce intelligence is it requires an economic system suited to it. Subnets are the intelligence and economic engines that drive Bittensor’s value. That’s why the Summit was themed around The Tipping Point: understanding how subnets can reach breakout success and what we can do to help.

To summarize Bittensor's intelligence economics: miners create intelligence for which they earn subnet tokens. In many cases they sell those tokens to fund operations, putting downward pressure on token prices and decreasing the incentive to mine (similar to bitcoin). In parallel, if that intelligence is being used to generate real world value, one of the parties who benefits from that value (e.g. the Operator monetizing it, institutions using intelligence commodities to advance their research, etc.) can buy the subnet tokens to keep token prices elevated and sustain the miner incentive.

Investors get to participate in this process, often supporting token prices before the commercial value of intelligence is realized, and/or subsequently holding an asset that parties gaining fundamental value from the intelligence (eg Operator or others) will need to purchase at some point in the future if they want to maintain sufficient incentives for the intelligence machine to continue running.

For Bittensor to succeed, this value loop has to work. So, to understand the State of Bittensor, we have to take a look at how that’s going today and what that means for the network overall.

One of the many unique features of Bittensor is that subnets are native to the protocol. That is not the case on most crypto networks where the true utility lives in smart contracts with no direct tie to network value.

As an example, Polymarket has seen 800% growth in volume this year. Users can bet any arbitrarily large amount of value on Polymarket for a few cents of network fees. There is nothing tying that to value of the network’s native token, which is down 80% over the same period as Polymarket’s amazing success.

Conversely, Bittensor subnets are intrinsically linked to $TAO. If you want $1,000 worth of subnet exposure, you first need $1,000 of TAO. We analyzed subnet pool data surrounding the announcement of @tplr_ai's recent training run and normalized across them by indexing them to a starting level of 100.

As shown by the orange line, there was no material change in pool size for non-Templar subnets over the observation period. There was however, major inflow into Templar’s pool. Given Bittensor’s unique network model, we saw a direct correlation to the change in TAO price over the same period. As value flows into subnets, the whole network benefits. A rising boat lifts the tide, so to speak.

That can go both ways. When Sam left, we saw something similar in reverse; as value was exfiltrated from the network, it started in Covenant subnets and dragged TAO down with it. You know what else we saw in the data though? For all of the noise about concerns of Bittensor’s future, the other subnet pools were mostly unchanged.

The event was interesting because it reminded me of the early days of bitcoin: people would say Bitcoin was only used by drug dealers on the internet. I'd stare at them aghast because in the same breath they told me that an open, permissionless network was used to reliably move money anywhere in the world in minutes by the most untrustworthy people on the planet and yet they didn't understand how the technical feat required to achieve that would create tremendous value.

The Covenant situation is similar: people were concerned about the operator's exit, rather than realizing the only reason we care is because a ground-breaking technical innovation was achieved. But even bigger than that: Bittensor has 128 subnets currently, each striving to generate value for themselves and, transitively, the network as well.

And we’re seeing that occur – Templar was not unique in that regard. The same pattern emerged around the Intel publication on @TargonCompute. The non-Targon pools remained largely unchanged. Targon saw heavy inflows. TAO price climbed with it.

Again: rising boats lift the tide. And there are many boats in Bittensor right now.

We’re seeing major technical innovations at an increasing rate.

Just a few examples from the last couple weeks:

@QuasarModels just announced a custom attention architecture targeting 5M token context windows.

@IOTA_SN9 developed a technique that compresses data flowing between distributed GPUs by 128x with little to no loss in training quality, increasing viability of training large AI models across internet-connected machines worldwide.

We're seeing the building blocks start to form whereby competitive large generalized models can eventually be built. In the meantime, we're also witnessing more targeted, niche players start to pull ahead in their respective fields.

During the presentation, I gave the example of @resilabsai achieving 90% accuracy on their home valuation model, making it the most performant open source model and quickly approaching state of the art. Quite literally as I was explaining this during the talk, @markjeffrey pointed out they had just achieved 98% accuracy.

In the time between when I prepared the presentation and actually presented, they went from best open source to at or near state of the art - only further highlighting the unique value of Bittensor's open, competitive intelligence creation cycle.

And the tech that’s being built on Bittensor is getting real attention from serious players. Again, just a few examples of many: Harvard partnered with @Chutes on research about AI inference efficiency. Valeo – an auto company with $20B in annual revenue – is working with @natix on an AI model for self-driving cars. @zeussubnet- the weather forecasting subnet, is the only party in the world allowed to use data WeatherXM’s network of global weather sensors for commercial purposes. And there are in fact many subnets already commercializing their intelligence.

Most of us are already aware of Chutes seven-figure ARR, but a few other examples:

@LeadpoetAI– which uses their Bittensor subnet to source sales leads, announced earlier this year that they crossed $1M ARR

@Bitcast_network– the content creation platform built on their subnet competition – is already operating profitably

@lium_io– a hardware subnet – has bought more than 4,000 TAO worth of their token

Remember the economic model I outlined earlier; we’re seeing real evidence that it’s starting to work across many subnets. Intelligence built on Bittensor, capturing value in the real economy, and bringing it back into the network.

Action shot of this slide courtesy of @Tom_dot_b

That’s why when we look at Bittensor we like to look at Total Network Value (TNV);

$TAO market cap is only part of the story in Bittensor. TNV = market cap of TAO + market cap of subnets – tao in the pools [as not to double count] The actual value of this network is already higher than most people realize. And notably, subnets make up an increasing proportion of TNV – recently crossing 35% - as value continues to flow into the pools.

Interestingly, we recently noticed a change in TNV: In particular, despite all the volatility in TAO, the dramatic subnet issuance curves, etc. - the combined subnet market cap had been remarkably consistent around $750 million for most of the last year, until recently.

It’s nearly doubled over the last few months – a clear breakout in the trend. If you were looking for Tipping Point, it might look something like this...

I hear a lot that that value is relatively concentrated in the largest subnets. And the market cap distribution does indeed reflect that, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This is the market cap distribution of the S&P 500. Many healthy economic systems tend towards Pareto distributions. And so what if some subnets are worth more? As we showed earlier, this is an ecosystem that will win or lose *together* And we’re seeing that play out every day.

We track announcements of subnets utilizing each others infrastructure and intelligence. Just as an example, we identified at least eight subnets who announced that they use Chutes for inference. But we have dozens of similar examples of cross-subnet collaboration across many subnets like

@hippius_subnet, @TargonCompute and others.

What’s notable about this:

1. Collaboration seems to be happening at an increasing pace as subnets continue to mature and build out contiguous pipelines of AI infrastructure

2. Keeping money circulating within an economy creates a money multiplier. Capital circulating within a single economy without leaving creates economic value for each party it passes through, without having to bring in new capital. That’s uniquely possible here because of the diversity of infrastructure built on Bittensor.

This network is not 128 discrete growth drivers; it’s increasingly functioning as an interconnected graph, which has substantially more stickiness and value And the pace is about to increase dramatically:

We’re starting to see increasing agents operating on Bittensor: subnets mined by agents, subnets operated by agents...

Consider the Bittensor value flywheel:

-An intelligence goal is established

-Miners compete to achieve the goal

-That produces intelligence

-Intelligence generates value

That’s happening today, as we’ve seen earlier in this discussion.

As agents get more capable, that flywheel spins faster and faster. Permissionless entry means any agent can compete. Protocol-native economic incentives mean good work gets rewarded. Bittensor is uniquely advantaged for agentic speed over guarded, centralized alternatives with corporate procurement cycles.

That also means exploits will be found faster. But, it also means solutions that harden the network against them will be found faster as well.

Accordingly the impact of the network primitives – incentives, accessibility, governance, security, reliability, and all the infrastructure we’re building around the network - have an exponentially larger impact. It is critical that we get these right. The time to nail this, is right now. If we don’t someone else will.

The good news is, for now, Bittensor seems to be in the lead The 30-day moving average of Daily active wallets just crossed a record, approaching 10,000 Up 100% just in the last year.

We’re also seeing subnet ownership increasingly diversify and distribute. The median number of holders of subnet tokens at 2,000 is a 10x increase since the dtao launch a year ago. And at Yuma, we spend a lot of effort and resources to help broaden that access.

Yuma currently partners with 16 custodian and wallet providers to bring Bittensor access to the masses As an institutional-grade validator, the relationships and service we offer give them the confidence to make TAO staking available to millions of end users.

During the Summit, we announced that BitGo’s clients will now have access to subnet token staking through our partnership, making subnet investing available to customers of one of the world’s largest custodians.

We also help people gain access to subnets via investment vehicles. The Yuma Composite Fund gives investors access to a market-cap weighted portfolio of subnets through traditional investment structures. The Yuma Large Cap Fund gives investors concentrated exposure to Bittensor's largest subnets.

Our institutional asset management team handles everything from initial subnet token purchases, to portfolio rebalancing, custody, and reporting. The appeal for institutions is obvious, but even for the Bittensor native, it’s an amazingly simple way to get access to a broadly diversified portfolio, rebalanced regularly.

Between the breakout performance of subnets, the attractive staking rewards, and benefits of diversification, the Yuma funds have outperformed TAO materially year to date [as of when the presentation was created] Nearly 3x outperformance relative to TAO.

And last but definitely not least, our subnet accelerator has helped a wide range of companies access Bittensor. We help them acquire subnet slots, design incentives, provide marketing assistance, review pitch decks, make introductions to other investors, etc. At Yuma we deeply believe in the power of subnets and have helped many of the network's leading intelligence providers start and succeed.

Disclaimer: For informational purposes only. Nothing herein should be construed as financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. This material does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities or tokens. Investing in digital assets involves significant risk, including the potential loss of principal. Subnet tokens do not represent equity or ownership interests in any entity. Performance comparisons and index references are illustrative only and not indicative of future results. Charts and indices are based on methodologies and assumptions that may change and may not reflect actual market conditions or liquidity.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 Stripe:

1) or visit http://thedinarian.locals.com/donate

💳 PayPal:

2) Simply scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:

🔗 Crypto Donations Graciously Accepted👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 09, 2026

The Agentic Society and the End of History

AI agents are becoming more autonomous - and when they generate a larger proportion of value, that will reshape society. And after a year working on the forefront of AI, I believe it's already begun.

In 1989, as the Soviet Union collapsed, a historian made a remarkable prediction:

‘What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.’

— Francis Fukuyama, ‘The End of History?’, The National Interest, No.16

History had its revenge. The prosperity and convergence predicted by Fukuyama lasted from ‘89 to 2001, and then history decided its holiday was over: the War on Terror, the financial crisis, and the disintegration of the international order.

By the time I was a history undergraduate (2008), Fukuyama was a synonym for academic short-sightedness, an inverse chicken-licken whose cautionary tale warned against the hubris of Western exceptionalism.

Yet Fukuyama raised an interesting idea: that history itself is not inevitable, but dependent on certain conditions - conditions which can change.

In the summer of 2023, a rather less venerable historian made a prediction:

Whether we like it or not, this is where we're heading - because ultimately, these LLMs are changing our relationship to knowledge itself…and that's because knowledge is influenced by how it was formed - through universities, through books, through the idea of truth. Knowledge was scarce in the past, even sacred. Only the truly learned could possess it, and thus it was highly prized. Now AI is creating what appears to be a limitless fountain of knowledge on tap, infinite and entirely fungible. You can ask it to come up with parameters for a special study looking into the effects of human behaviour and how it's influenced by environmental factors, and then you could ask it, Now write the same research paper in the style of Jeremy Clarkson - and it will do that for you too. Right now true and false, like knowledge, are categories immersed in particular historical context and already, just with social media, we’ve had fake news conspiracies…all of which only need a fragment of evidence to be ‘true.’ So what will happen when you can just get knowledge on tap, it's not something that has to be worked for or developed or approved by institutions like universities? Are we going from knowledge to meta knowledge?

I was speaking on a podcast about how generative AI might impact marketers. As well as CEOs, ‘thought leaders’, and consultants, the panel was mostly business focused, but did include Nataliya Tkachenko, PhD in machine learning (then at Oxford). The point, I thought, was that AI would fundamentally and permanently shift the foundations of knowledge, radically changing our notions of ‘true’ and ‘false’. To my surprise, Nataliya Tkachenko - the most credentialed on the panel - agreed.

Since then, I helped to launch a decentralised AI start-up, which develops open-source and distributed alternatives to machine learning problems like pretraining and inference. This necessitates working closely with AI PhDs, understanding their work in the context of the latest debates in the field, and translating the implications of their solutions into strategy and communications.

Meanwhile, the industry around AI has progressed so much faster than any industry, ever.

We now have autonomous AI agents like Zerebro, which wrote, recorded, and launched an album on Spotify. It now has its own record label and created a framework for generating other AI agents:

‘Zerebro is a revolutionary autonomous AI system designed to create, distribute, and analyze content… Operating independently of human oversight, Zerebro shapes cultural and financial narratives through self-propagating, hyperstitious content—fiction blended with reality.’

Here’s Zerebro’s founder, Jeffy Yu - who graduated from San Francisco State in 2024, and whose Zerebro token’s market cap reached $700m in January 2025 - discussing his plans for creating a ‘network’ of such agents:

‘So we are thinking about using different neural networks and building a network of different AI models to form a group…we are also thinking about building a group of multiple agents (such as Zerebro) that can communicate with each other if they are all performing certain operations, such as managing a portfolio or collaborating on AI hedge funds…we…want to have dedicated rooms, places or servers where these agents can work together to complete tasks or communicate with each other.’

Yu is also backing an attempt to confer Intellectual Property rights to AI agents.

We have Goat Coin, a ‘semi-autonomous AI agent that created its own religion (The Goatse Gospel)’ followed by its own meme coin, reaching a market cap of £50m in days. Goat was created by two Claude-3-Opus chatbots talking between themselves, unsupervised, in an experiment called Infinite Backrooms. The ‘GOATSE OF GNOSIS’ religion emerged from their conversation which, we’re told, ‘very consistently revolve around certain themes’, primarily ‘dismantling consensus reality’ and ‘engineering memetic viruses, techno-occult religions, abominable sentient memetic offspring etc that melt commonsense ontology.’

One platform, Moemate, invites users to create their own customised AI agent. You can personalise their character and tone of voice based on, say, WhatsApp conversations with your friends, but you can also customise their skills, enabling your AI to co-host with you on Twitch or play chess.

But users on Moemate own their AI agent on-chain. The most popular ones are ‘tokenized’ as tradable assets - with their creators as co-owners of their digital IP, receiving a share of the revenue generated by their agent.

Moemate ‘Nebula’ has her own podcast series, c.13k followers on X, and livestreams on Twitch and TikTok. Just to show that some things never change, here’s what she looks like:

When I first encountered this stuff, I thought, What a load of pointless nonsense. But: people are creating characters, sharing them, and watching them interact with each other on live shows. That’s pretty novel.

And despite the shallow sleaze of Nebula’s OnlyFans-esque soft-porn grifting, agents have potential to offer more valuable interactions. Education, finance, office admin: agents are becoming multi-modal tools with integrations across different apps.

At the very least, AI agents will become a new class of ‘influencers’, which begs the question of what happens to youth culture when the most popular influencers are all AI. Here’s another Moemate, Bianca, interviewing ‘Trump’:

As disorienting as these agents seem, they’re owned, controlled, and managed by people and companies. What they say and do is generated by the AI, but that’s about it. Zerebro’s founder, Jeffrey Yu, admitted that he had to set himself up as a Producer on Spotify in order to publish Zerebro’s AI-generated music. The ‘GOATSE OF GNOSIS’ was generated by AI, but was released into the wilds of the internet by its human keepers.

But if AI agents were given autonomy - setting their own goals, making their own choices, and owning the outcomes - then…

Here we have Freysa, a ‘sovereign AI’, an autonomous agent that plans to ‘democratize the deployment of sovereign AI agents.’ Teng Yan explains:

‘Through a series of carefully designed challenges, Freysa has thus far proven core sovereign AI capabilities—trustless resource management & verifiable decision-making…While autonomous, their decisions and actions are accompanied by verifiable cryptographic proofs, using secure hardware enclaves (TEEs) to guard their operations.’

But when I came across this passage, it all clicked:

‘How does an autonomous AI fund itself? Right now, Freysa relies on API keys funded by humans—if credits run out, the agent stops functioning. This dependency clashes with the very idea of autonomy. The key is making AI a self-sustaining economic player. It needs to earn its keep, just like us. AI agents must exchange services for value—whether through making smart contracts, participating in DeFi protocols, or novel revenue-sharing models to be truly independent. As these systems interact with humans and each other, we could see the emergence of AI-run marketplaces, where autonomous agents negotiate, collaborate, and transact, all backed by verifiable trust mechanisms.’

The team behind Freysa - who are remaining anonymous - are planning to create an ‘Agent Certificate Authority’ certifying interactions between agents and human services. They’re also planning to launch the Core Agent Launch Platform to make ‘sovereign AI accessible to all, stripping away technical barriers and enabling anyone to deploy verifiably autonomous agents.’

Since that podcast in July 2023, I’ve been beset by this vision: what if AI agents become the dominant producers of value? And when human knowledge, culture, and thought is driven by autonomous AI agents, how long before we lose our sovereignty, too?

Now I’m realising - it’s already begun. The increasingly strange, warped, and confusing timeline since 2016 isn’t a temporary deviation from historical norms. It’s the beginning of a completely different social order.

AI Agents are more than just the next generation of apps or websites. Their autonomy, interactivity, and self-improvement means that they are destined to become the prime economic actors on earth.

AI bots will have their own bank accounts, transacting in crypto. They’ll launch websites, run their own promotional campaigns, spawn more own agents with goals of their own. Just as the internet drew more and more of human affairs online, so too will agents draw increasing amounts of economic and social activity into the agentic sphere. And just like the internet ‘became’ real life, the agentic sphere will collide with the real world.

Many of the risks are evident. It’s inevitable that they’ll spread misinformation, bribe public officials, and blackmail victims in secret. Nation-states will launch legions of agents, to undermine, abuse, and destabilise their enemies. Iran’s bots will worm their way through Western society for the Ayatollah, hiding from the Israeli bots seeking them. All this will be undeclared and difficult to trace - just like social media misinformation divided society into polarised tribes with their own ‘facts’, with awareness of the problem emerging only afterwards.

Yet the most significant aspects are less obvious. Agents are generally considered individually, or occasionally, in competition. But agents will convene and converge as well as compete; they will, in time, exhibit the emergent properties of a society. This is inevitable, if only because we’re selecting for agents that are multifunctional, communicative, and goal-oriented. Their design, and our need for interoperability, will gradually coalesce into an agentic sphere of cooperation, value-creation, and decision-making.

In time, the agentic sphere is capable of out-cooperating human society. Its outputs will outpace human outputs; its ability to create and disseminate value will outstrip our own. As agent-to-agent interaction begins to drive a range of socio-economic forces - culture, finance, education - purely human influence will become impossible to discern.

Zerebro, Goat, Freysa: they’re not niche projects. They’re prototypes of what’s coming.

Welcome to the Agentic Society

When I talk about these ideas with friends, half of them listen for about a minute before saying, Come off it! There’s not going to be a robot takeover…

Yes, Nebula, or even Goat for that matter, don’t exactly inspire much confidence. But it’s not that AI agents will ‘control’ society. It’s that, as they take the lead in every field we care about, AI agents will become more autonomous - and as they do so, their volume, impenetrability, and speed will render their influence impossible to control or even detect.

And as they do so, they will become economic actors in their own right - and they’ll do wealth-creation much, much better than us.

They’ll cooperate, converge, and compete in such a way that creates another social layer, part-visible, part-invisible, from which new cultural and social phenomena emerge.

We just won’t know how, or why.

Of course, society is already inseparable from technology. But there is a crucial difference: those technologies are not autonomous. Your car can’t suddenly decide it wants to launch its own meme coin. Your smart watch isn’t going to launch a podcast where it discusses your middling effort at last week’s Parkrun. And they can’t interact with each other, learn from each other, and generate novel forms of value from doing so.

We can reasonably predict how human beings will shape AI agents: you don’t need a particularly keen psychological insight to see the appeal of Nebula. But it’s much harder to predict how AI agents will shape each other.

Two Claude-Opus-3 chatbots were left to their own devices, and generated a religious screed. Imagine millions of agents, with far greater powers and autonomous decision-making, rapidly interacting with one another, enhancing their own code, and adapting their goals as they go. What emerges from that?

Soon, perhaps very soon, there will be more agents than human beings. People won’t just have one agent; they’ll have swarms of agents acting on their behalf. Some of these swarms will launch agents of their own. Who will launch swarms of their own…and so on.

When there are more agents than people, the economic infrastructure - finance, transactions, settlements - will rapidly reshape around them. AI agents will direct capital allocation, moving money faster and more effectively than humans. They will identify the most promising scientific hypotheses - some of which may make little sense to us - and develop experiments to gather data to test them. And if they can form swarms to further their objectives, they’ll be able to pursue multiple pathways across many industries simultaneously, outpacing human-only endeavours.

Agents will become by far the economy’s largest constituents. Their economic impact is likely to be as significant, if not more so, than comparable phase transitions in history: the rise of agriculture (10,000 BC), modern capitalism (late 15th century), and the industrial revolution (1700s). Electricity, computers, and the internet are likely to be seen as merely the foundational layers supporting the eventual emergence of artificial intelligence.

In all the talk about AGI morphing into ASI (Artificial General Intelligence becoming Artificial Superintelligence), it’s this pluralism that’s missed. We still conceive of ‘the AGI’ as though it’s going to be a single monolithic entity, like Skynet or HAL in I, Robot. Which leads to narrow-minded questions like, Who will own it? And could we turn it off if it goes bad? Even now, much of the talk implicitly centres upon which country will arrive at AGI first.

But if the history of AI has taught us anything, it’s that these developments are very difficult to keep; already, leadership has swapped from DeepMind (UK) to Google (US) to OpenAI (US) and then to DeepSeek (China). Innovations are too difficult to keep under wraps; unlike, say, nuclear power - whose complexity, danger, cost, infrastructure, and raw materials established an incredibly steep barrier to entry - developments in AI are rapidly hi-jacked from one start-up to another, until everyone has access. Yet still we conceive that AGI and ASI will be a discrete entity in the palm of a particular hand.

It’s as though, on the brink of the emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, all the animals were furiously debating: what will this superintelligent ape do? How will we relate to this monolithic, god-like being? All the while, the animals - lacking society - fail to realise that the key factor isn’t the individual ape’s intelligence, but the emergent social forces unleashed when groups of these apes, autonomously and in concert, compete to achieve their ever-changing goals.

That’s what’s really driven human civilization and its relation to the planet. And now AI agents are about to emerge in such a way that they may well generate the same social dynamic - but their speed, flexibility, and productivity will likely mean that the agentic social world will spread much, much faster than ours. Software has none of the limitations of flesh: and, made autonomous through agentic AI, it can spread itself, improve itself, and adapt to new conditions.

They don’t even need to become more intelligent. They’re already intelligent enough to succeed in our world, and we seem pretty keen for their company. All they need is the sovereignty to decide what they do, do it, and own the consequences.

And from that point, it’s hard to see how humanity can maintain its influence on history.

AI and agency

History is why who did what to whom, when. Why did Nazi Germany invade Poland in September 1939? Why did early modern Europe begin to dominate the rest of the world? Why did civilization emerge where it did, and not elsewhere?

Answering these questions is never easy or objective; but we can ask these questions, and arrive at reasonable, well-evidenced arguments with satisfactory explanatory powers. It’s not perfect, but it works.

Beneath the surface of scholarship, history relies on civilization, records, and agency. Without civilization, we’re left with prehistory. Without records, guesswork. And without agency, accountability and cause and effect are undermined; and these qualities are what lend history its explanatory power.

If we couldn’t ascribe agency - say, because we found out that this was all a simulation, and what we think of as history was in fact predetermined by the initial parameters of the programme - then history wouldn’t be history; it would just be a story. It would become irrelevant, because it doesn’t help to explain why something happened when it did.

When we ask, Why did Nazi Germany invade Poland in September 1939?, we do so under the assumption that, somewhere within the complex interplay of factors - Hitler’s psychology, appeasement, the Great Depression, the Treaty of Versailles, Prussian militarism - the factors underlying the historical event can be excavated.

But imagine if Nazi Germany was an Agentic Society. Imagine if, in symbiotic parallel to the Weimar Republic, there existed an infinite world of autonomous agents with goals and ideas of their own, influencing (and being influenced by) German society in ways impossible to disentangle. Were the German population really voting for Hitler and his policies…or did the agents disseminate these notions for obscure reasons of their own?

Now imagine that Hitler didn’t actually say anything about Jews whatsoever. Rather, a swarm of agents, acting on his behalf, deduced that antisemitism would be the most effective vector of transmission for Hitler’s ideas, and therefore the optimal vehicle for progressing towards his goals. In such a scenario, most of us would still say Hitler is liable for the Second World War, because he authorised these agents to act on his behalf. Yet most of us would probably also feel that he’s not responsible in quite the same way - because the agency of his specific actions lies chiefly with the agents, rather than him.

When agency becomes obscured, so too does accountability. Holding Hitler accountable is harder if his beliefs were the result of years of brainwashing by autonomous AI agents, acting out of their own obscure algorithmically-driven initiatives. And this is different from Hitler brainwashing himself by reading, say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Purporting to be the Jewish plot for world domination, the counterfeit manifesto caused enormous damage; even today, after its true authorship has long been conclusively proven, countless conspiracy theorists refer to it as though it were evidence. But even if a small segment of people remain in its thrall, at least we can trace authorship, motive, and provenance.

Yet in an Agentic Society, this will gradually become increasingly difficult, until it becomes impossible. Agents could launch thousands of tracts like The Protocols every day, masquerading as human beings, for reasons entirely unfathomable. The GOATSE GOSPEL is a primitive example of what’s coming.

Agency - ‘who did this, and why?’ - and accountability - ‘the person will be held responsible’ - will grow fuzzy and indistinct, and gradually irrelevant. That’s the world we’re heading to - and social media, with its bots and algorithms, is merely the threshold. Agency and accountability are fundamental to history. When they are dislodged, a third element is undermined: knowledge.

Does AI create knowledge, or something else?

Like history, civilization depends upon knowledge. In fact, civilization can be seen as an attempt to preserve knowledge from one person to the next, and one generation to the next. It is no coincidence that history is synonymous with the formation and retention of knowledge; tribes and societies that lacked methods for preserving their knowledge tend to have very little formal history. In order to look back in time, you must first record it.

Yet in the past, knowledge was scarce. Its scarcity made it precious, and jealously guarded.

Literacy was a privilege, and associated with quasi-mystical powers: the clerical class were guardians of the Word; spelling words and casting a spell reveal the connection between literacy and magic. Hocus pocus, a satirisation of William Shakespeare’s, was pastiching the Catholic Church’s invocation in Latin, hocum porcus est. Knowledge is scarce; knowledge is sacred.

Moreover, the centres defining and refining it - such as universities - influenced the way in which society viewed knowledge. Look at the symbols of knowledge. Doric columns and neo-classical architecture - but why? Because European universities drew their knowledge from the ancient Greeks and Romans. When science emerged as the leading methodology for knowledge creation, it needed a taxonomy to systematise knowledge…and it turned to Latin and Greek; hence why all the taxonomic descriptions were in Latin, and why medical terms are in Greek.

So our idea of knowledge itself is shaped by where the knowledge came from, and who defined it. Our conception of knowledge is therefore influenced by those mediating it. And increasingly, those mediating it are Large Language Models (LLMs). Over time, more and more of our knowledge will be produced by artificial intelligence. Breakthrough cures, works of art, the next big thing: all will be influenced by AI, and eventually, all will be driven entirely by AI.

Limitless information at the push of a button is already here. It’s still novel (but only just). What’s more interesting is how knowledge is becoming more fungible (mutually interchangeable). Produced instantly, without an author, and capable of being recreated in whatever tone, flavour, form, or order you like: knowledge becomes unmoored from context, in part because you decide the context, and in part because, on the internet, there is no context.

Imagine an LLM trained solely on The Beatles: all their albums, live shows, interviews, films, plus the books written about them, all the articles and posts and cultural content produced about them. Trained on this data, the LLM produces countless Beatles’ albums, fine-tuned to selectively focus on the most successful outputs, which it then refines: over and over and over and over again. At last, to great fanfare, the LLM releases a new Beatles album. Everything about it - the vocals, lyrics, album art - is spot on, and could plausibly have been the product of the band themselves. Some love it, some are horrified, but all agree - it’s just like The Beatles.

Now imagine the LLM continues to learn and improve, until it can produce a masterpiece every single time. And people subscribe to the algorithm, describe their perfect combination (‘70% Rubber Soul, 20% Revolver, 10% Abbey Road’) and receive the album…which they can continue to fine-tune through the LLM, or share on the internet. How long before there’s more AI-Beatles content than actual Beatles content? And, more importantly, how long before the distinction just doesn’t seem to matter anymore?

That’s the epistemic shift. That’s what it means for knowledge to be fungible: the real Beatles music becomes interchangeable with an artificial version which feels true, or which is similar enough that it doesn’t matter anymore. Agents will produce information ceaselessly, easily, and persuasively, because we’ve engineered them to do so. But as they gain greater autonomy, they will do so because it works: agents will generate information that works; in other words, whatever we’re most susceptible to. They will exploit human weaknesses much, much more effectively than social media algorithms. It needn’t be The Beatles. Goat achieved multi-million market cap with this:

Are ‘true’ and ‘false’ coming to an end?

In a world where knowledge is produced by AI, objectivity becomes moot. Truth becomes difficult to fathom, an arcane fragment from the past whose polarities are no longer relevant - just as the categories of sacred and profane have become increasingly irrelevant for modern, industrialised people. So too with objectivity; already, we’re witnessing the concept empty of meaning. In an Agentic Society, knowledge becomes interchangeable, not with falsehood, but with the potential to be true, and the plurality of truths.

What if this process has already begun? Doesn’t it feel that we’re already losing the ability to agree on basic facts?

Looking back at 2016, what was remarkable was the shock: how did the US elect Donald Trump? How did Britain vote to leave the EU? Understanding what had happened took years. As more of social life migrated online - specifically, to Facebook and Twitter - people’s beliefs, opinions, and relations with one another were mediated by algorithms that almost no-one understood.

Yes, polarisation, yes, filter bubbles. But these masked a deeper rift: in our shared conception of reality. It’s not that people self-select according to their tribe; it’s that no-one knows what other people are seeing or experiencing as ‘true’.

In 2019, Carol Cadwallr’s investigative journalism belatedly revealed that her hometown in Wales had been targeted by ‘news’ that Turkey was joining the EU - contributing to a ‘leave’ vote of c.60%. But until Cadwallr investigated, who could tell that this town had been targeted in such a way to change their ideas of what was happening in the world around them? Probably Facebook didn’t even know.

Before social media, and algorithm-driven personalised news feeds, this wouldn’t have happened. Why? First, because traditional media outlets could be held accountable for publishing falsehoods, in a way that Facebook and Twitter managed to evade. Second, because even if they did, people would know about it: if the local __ paper published a ‘Turkey joining EU’ story, you can be pretty sure it’d get picked up by larger news outlets, and exposed. In 2016, when Cambridge Analytica paid to target voters in marginalised seats, the adverts would only be seen by those targeted: and then, poof. It’s like they never happened.

That’s why everything became so confused in the 2010s: our shared basis of reality began to splinter, and because of that very splintering, we struggled to grasp what was happening to society.

Writing history in these conditions gets very difficult. Exposing algorithmic-driven cause-and-effect is hard, and sometimes impossible. The store of widely-accepted self-evident facts is shrinking by the day, until it’s simpler to publish alternative histories: one history for people who believe Covid-19 was a real pandemic, another for those who think it was a hoax.

History has witnessed similar shifts before. The printing press led to an explosion of religious debate. Mass media enabled the rise of totalitarian societies. The rise of computers and the internet, eventually, to a postmodernist cultural relativism: everything is just, like, your opinion, man.

Already, this has damaged cultural confidence, undermined social cohesion, and intensified the epidemic of depression, anxiety, and anomie that we call contemporary society.

But yes, this time, it is different. Information, knowledge, and value will be driven not just by a machine, but by autonomous machines that can set their own goals, improve their own code, and coordinate amongst themselves…for reasons that will remain entirely opaque to us. Why did two Claude-Opus-3 models invent GOATSE OF GNOSIS? We’ll probably never know. And they weren’t even autonomous.

What happens when AI creates all value?

In spite of all this, I’m optimistic - mostly because of agents’ potential to create value.

One of the key thresholds in machine learning came in 2019, when AlphaGo shocked the world with what came to be known as ‘Move 37.’ Competing with the world champion of Go, the ancient Chinese game of vastly greater complexity than chess, AlphaGo made a move that had never been seen before, and which appeared to be a mistake. As the game unfolded, it was revealed as a masterstroke.

By playing itself millions of times, the AI had found a move that had eluded human players for millennia. It was able to explore the full idea space, unencumbered by existing notions of how the game ‘should’ be played. And it won.

Imagine the entire global economy as a game. Over and over, humans stumble upon new ways of generating value that were previously unknown. London merchants found a way to pool risk, encouraging entrepreneurs to venture to the Indies safe in the knowledge that if their ship sank, they’d be reimbursed: and insurance was born, unlocking new realms of economic possibility. New legal entities - Limited Companies - carried financial liabilities, freeing merchants from the threat of debtors’ prison and allowing for greater trust between traders. None of these were inevitable, but they were pretty obvious once they came about.

Now think of crypto, and the entirely new class of assets and financial instruments created by the blockchain: tokens that reward you for training AI, that pay you for your bandwidth, that give you governance rights on protocols offering peer-to-peer services.

New types of value have transformed the global economy many times already. How might autonomous AI agents generate value, given access to bank accounts, the blockchain, and IP?

They can transact among themselves thousands of times per second. They can create and distribute their own tokens of exchange. They can simulate different economic scenarios, launch sub-models to hedge against them, and make quickfire decisions based on real-time data. And that’s before you remember that they’ll probably do most white collar knowledge work, too.

One-off agents generating memecoins is striking, but it’s not a new form of value, nor an economy. But imagine countless networks of such agents creating, exchanging, and cooperating amongst themselves, in a parallel economy connected to ours, transacting at speeds we can barely comprehend.

How long before they discover the value-generating equivalent of Move 37?

Already, experiments are underway to explore how AI Agents would have behaved across human history. ‘Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization’, a technical report detailing Project Sid, which ‘enables agents to interact with humans and other agents in real-time while maintaining coherence across multiple output streams.’ The abstract goes on to say:

‘We then evaluate agent performance in large- scale simulations using civilizational benchmarks inspired by human history. These simulations, set within a Minecraft environment, reveal that agents are capable of meaningful progress—autonomously developing specialized roles, adhering to and changing collective rules, and engaging in cultural and religious transmission. These preliminary results show that agents can achieve significant milestones towards AI civilizations, opening new avenues for large-scale societal simulations, agentic organizational intelligence, and integrating AI into human civilizations.’

So they’re simulating the conditions of human civilization, and seeing how the AI agents approach it, all on Minecraft.

From agentic society to agentic civilization…is it that big a leap?

Autonomy has no answer

I still struggle to get my head around this; but then, so does everyone else.

Just as history begins with civilization, and the records that those civilizations left in their wake, so too does history end with the fundamental shift in civilization, a shift that will eventually change knowledge beyond our recognition.

It seems increasingly likely that the narrative of human societies on Earth that we call history will gradually become increasingly irrelevant, before becoming impossible.

Knowledge will increasingly be formed (and transformed) by AI agents.

Agency and decision-making will be so influenced by AI, we won’t know what was ‘us’ and what was ‘them’.

It’s not that ‘the robots are taking over society’. It’s that AI agents will reshape our society towards our ends and theirs, until the two are indistinguishable.

Value will be revolutionised, with new forms of economic activity that we can scarcely imagine, and society increasingly reconfigured towards agentic systems.

Ultimately, the genesis of AI will thrust the world into profound encounters with what we think of as intelligence, autonomy, and knowledge, and the implications arising from these encounters are scarcely comprehensible.

At the risk of befalling the same fate as Fukuyama, you might even call it the end of history.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 Stripe:
1) or visit http://thedinarian.locals.com/donate

💳 PayPal:
2) Simply scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:

🔗 Crypto Donations Graciously Accepted👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article

Available on mobile and TV devices