Multiculturalism Within: The Only Stable Future for a Fragmenting Planet

[Victor Vahidi Motti]

I increasingly feel that when we talk about today’s political turbulence—whether the war grinding on in Europe with no horizon of peace, or the intensifying domestic conflicts in the United States—we are actually watching the same drama unfold on different stages....

https://altplanetaryfuturesinst.blogspot.com/2025/12/multiculturalism-within-only-stable.html

Best Regards,

Victor V. Motti

[David Bray, PhD]

Hoorah Victor - your post mirror a video I produced in 2013 and two postsI wrote back in April 2018 on the trends that were present event then that have grown with regards to our current "now" and where we might go from here: 

Video from 2013: https://vimeo.com/74825776

Part 1: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/growing-friction-among-societies-what-we-can-do-david-bray-phd/

Part 2: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-communication-especially-on-going-david-bray-phd/

From Part 1, for those interested: 

Growing Friction Among Societies and What We Can Do About It

April 7, 2018

Back in 2003, I had the opportunity to give a talk looking at trends that would shape year 2030. The talk was a follow-on to my work as a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program. As part of the CDC Team, I had participated in the response to what initially was called "atypical febrile illness" and later came to be known as an outbreak Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

The international response to SARS was still fresh in my mind when I gave talk.

Back in 2003, I openly asked whether "Organizing by geographical borders would still be the predominant paradigm for societies" by 2030? I based this premise first on the increasing impact of the Internet on our lives -- during the 1990s folks had talked about "going online" and the idea that one left the activities of the real-world to participate in digital "cyberspace" activities. Yet with the start of the 21st century it became more clear that there were not two different worlds, there simply was an overlapping of Internet activities on our physical world activities with increasing augmentation of what we humans could do.

Given that the Internet itself makes it hard to define where a packet of information is geographically -- is it where it is sent from or received by -- it was clear that geographical borders, in an Internet world, would become more porous and ambiguous with time.

Similarly having responded to SARS, it was clear that infectious diseases, public health events, and other bio-related activities do not stop at national borders. Part of what attracted me to work in public health was the view that it connects all of us humans together -- you can't build a wall or an isolated house on a hill or attempt to forego the reality that public health events half a world away can and will ultimately impact us. The health of the world matters and has long-lasting ripple effects on the economic, social, and political stability of communities.

In early 2003 the idea of "do-it-yourself bio" being available to individuals was mainly still a dream, yet it was clear the technology was going in a direction that would allow individuals to ultimately do what was only possible in expensive national or commercial labs at present. Much like the Internet, the rise of increasingly affordable and available DIY bio technologies would have the impact of making it harder to define where the sovereign border of one entity is and isn't when it comes to responding to public health and other bio-related events.

Now, fifteen years later, I am concerned that as we transition from predominately organizing in the form of nation-states with sovereignty defined by geography to something else -- not yet defined -- that there is growing friction among societies in the process of determining what comes next?

At the Crossroads in Europe

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to travel for 24 days as a Marshall Memorial Fellow to Europe and meet with private and public sector leaders in Belgium, the United Kingdom, Montenegro, Poland, and Germany. Seventy years ago, in April 1948, the United States signed into law the European Recovery Program -- known more popularly as the "Marshall Plan" -- to help rebuild war torn Europe after World War II and put into place institutions that ideally would prevent another World War from ever happening again.

Over the next few months I'll share posts providing individual observations from the different countries of Montenegro, Poland, and Germany -- I have already posted on both Belgium and the United Kingdom -- for this post however I wanted to share the central, macro-observation, I gained from the discussions.

Europe's default state for the last 2,000+ years has been that of political instability.

Those of us who did not witness World War I or World War II, and for whom these are only references in a history text book, may look now at Europe and miss the centuries of conflict that occurred people with different languages and ethnic identities on that continent.

Some individuals posit the jagged geography of Europe compared to other continents contributes to the fragmentation of different peoples and identities. Other individuals post the different languages present add to the fragmentation. Most would agree the long history and series of grudges present make stability in Europe difficult. Regardless: Europe's default state for the last 2,000+ years has been that of political instability.

After World War II, the United States and Europe committed to the task of putting in place two institutions in the hopes of providing artificial stability to the continent, namely:

(1) Dream of an EU - European Union to allow Europe to resolve economic and social differences in a peaceful forum, and

(2) NATO - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to provide the military force to protect Europe from external aggression.

And for the most part, these two organizations have succeed in such stability for the last 70 years. Given that the Balkans conflict in 1991-1999 was the first time a "heated" war occurred in Europe since World War II, that's a fairly long period of relative stability despite the tensions of the Cold War.

I intentionally say "providing artificial stability to the continent" because it was only through continued investment in these two institutions did Europe avoid fragmentation and reverting back to old grudges and old conflicts among different identity groups. Granted these institutions are not perfect, and there are so valid concerns about the representative nature of members of the the European Union and their attentiveness to their constituents -- yet such concerns should place renewed emphasis on improving the European Union vs. devolution of it.

Currently in 2018 and there appears to be a rise in nationalism (or tribalism disguised as nationalism for certain parts of a society) in different European countries. Interest is waning in providing the needed financial and political investments to make the European Union work. To wit the U.K.'s decision to exit the European Union.

There also are rising tensions between wealthier EU members and less wealthy ones over individual EU member national debt and declining economies. In addition there are rising tensions over immigration issues in different countries -- giving rise to reactionary political movements in individual countries -- combined with questions of whether the EU as a whole should have a holistic response to immigration.

In several regions, Europe's support for belonging to a European Union appears to be waning. At the same time support for NATO is at a crossroads, both within Europe and for the United States -- who for has "shouldered the bill" by a large for ensuring NATO had the military capabilities that it did. In return the United States gained allies in Europe, a robust economic trading partner, and most importantly protection against external instability in Europe that might pull the world into another World War.

War Among the Estates

While I mentioned that I would dive in future months into the observations I heard in individual countries in Europe, since this post focuses on the growing friction among societies I wanted to highlight that in every country I visited I heard a common refrain, namely:

Rising tensions between governments and the media over what was perceived as real news vs. misinformation or what some representatives considered adversarial reporting with a political slant.

I am not going to dive too much into the discussion in this post except to say this is a complicated area where clearly there are times when governments don't want certain information about them published and thus mislabel media as being biased -- and yet clearly there have also been times in the past when media outlets (at least in the United States in 1895-1898) "emphasized sensationalism over facts" according to an account of yellow journalism practices present at that time.

Nowadays the Internet seems predisposed to sharing sensationalistic emotions vs. in-depth facts. While it is great that anyone with a connection to draft a blog or post a video and most social media -- at the same time the faceless nature of the Internet erodes human empathy. While sites exist to categorize data and information, and more and more scientific papers are now accessible when previously they were available only in physical form in libraries -- so too are sites that can spread hate, stereotypes, or information that distances ourselves from people we perceive to be different than ourselves.

The underlining tensions between governments and the media (as the Fourth Estate) still exist and the public has a right to want to dive deeper on substantive issues that governments may not want to divulge. What is more troubling is the conflict is not just between governments and media outlets, but also between different parts of societies that support certain government leanings and media outlets -- in fact in Poland a leader noted that it felt like there were at least two different societies attempting to exist in Poland with minimal interaction and conversations with each other.

The Internet can bring us together -- yet it can also allow the devolution of social institutions that used to require us to interact in-person and have conversations as a way of social unity. Nowadays your friends, co-workers, media inputs, political interactions, and social interactions can all be mediated by the internet in such a way that they reinforce your world view, at expense of being exposed to other ideas and perspectives. Internet dialogues, which are often faceless, also devolve into negative emotions and in particular "shaming" of the outsider or the alien who is different -- on both sides of the political aisle unfortunately -- and the idea of pluralistic societies where it was okay to have different views seems to be eroding.

If civilization is when we don't automatically kill the newcomer -- or new idea -- we're becoming less civilized and more tribal in nature.

So Where Do We Go From Here?

In the past I have written about how we humans always seem to want to claim that this moment is the ultimate apex of something in human history: either something really good or something really bad. After all, it was Charles Dickens' who observed in his "A Tale of Two Cities" (1859) that "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair..."

So I do not want to conclude this post saying all is lost as organizing by geography becomes less relevant and with it some nation-states revert back to tribalism. Nor do I want to say all will be stable -- certainly the history of Europe would suggest political instability as the default vs. the artificial period of stability since World War II.

What I do want to emphasize, as I have for some time, is that micro-level activity can become cumulative and larger than any of us.

Action 1: If enough positive #ChangeAgents start raising these questions, ideas, and possible solutions to "what comes next" for the decades ahead -- and most importantly what social institutions will allow for the plurality of human co-existence and encourage peaceful resolution (and forgiveness) of disputes -- than perhaps we have a lasting chance.

Action 2: The importance is focusing on being positive #ChangeAgents. Getting angry, sad, or giving in to hate and those detracting from co-existing removes our ability to empathize with others and strive to find the common humanity in us all.

Action 3: As Abraham Lincoln once noted: "I don't like that man, I must get to know him better". If we only take the time to get to know people we like, find caring, and find supportive of our world views than we reinforce an age-old human paradigm of "us vs. them" and miss the opportunity to try and find a merit of compassion or insight even in people we might not agree with in principle.

Personally, I'd like to think President Lincoln intentionally picked the word "know" because of its root in the Greek word gnósis, meaning knowledge gleaned from first-hand (personal) experience working or interacting with a person, thing, or system.

With this meaning, President Lincoln might intended getting to "know" someone better meant you have to interact and engage, even if you don't like someone, with them as humans and a recognition that they were born, have had a series of life experiences that shaped them, and ultimately will die (like us all) in time. In these experiences we humans are all the same.

So much has been achieved by humans working together over the last 70 years -- as a species we have improved the public health and living conditions of many around world (though there is still much to be done). We have reduced infant mortality globally. We have become more aware of what is going on as well as the different issues and community identities of humans around the world. We have built interconnected technologies that allow us to talk to anyone around the world by phone (though we still have work to be done to connect the rest of the world to the Internet should they so desire).

And while human nature itself has not changed, we have found ways to co-exist as 7.6 billion people (up from 5.3 billion people in 1990 -- 2.5 billion in 1950 -- and just 1.8 billion one hundred years ago in 1918.

We are facing new and novel challenges unprecedented in human history, yet we need to recognize the lessons of history and of human nature, and strive to be brave, bold, and benevolent in finding ways wherever we can at the local level across organizations or sectors to build bridges.

Action 4: We need to find ways to benefit multiple groups, not just groups we self-identify with (lest we accelerate tribalism) or from which we benefit.

Action 5: We need to work across communal groups and help build a world in which different ideas and people can co-exist.

Action 6: We need to identify what choices we are making that are disconnecting ourselves from others vs. connecting ourselves with others, and strive to build bridges.

The reason why is simple: we and future generations deserve such a world.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lifeboat Foundation Advisory Boards" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lifeboat-advisory-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAGfq%3Dbrf%2Bh5BiXt4-DffP%3DGjhycqgSn7zyMK7Lwt0KoFgBmDqg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ryan Setliff]

Cosmopolitan theorists continue to imagine a future in which conflicting identities can be dissolved within the individual, or rendered irrelevant through technological mediation. This view misunderstands the nature of human beings and the dynamics of human societies. Individuals do not abandon their deepest sources of meaning, nor do communities readily relinquish the traditions and beliefs that distinguish them from others. Civilizations endure; technologies merely rearrange the margins.

The primary fault lines of the twenty-first century will run along the boundaries of civilizations, not along the artificial constructs preferred by transnational elites. Ethnicity, religion, and creed are not obstacles to be engineered away. They are, rather, the organizing principles of social life and the principal markers by which men and women understand who they are. These identities generate cohesion within communities precisely because they create differentiation between them.

The cosmopolitan impulse—to fuse cultures, dissolve borders, and homogenize the human condition—collides with this fundamental reality. People will continue to partition communities and societies, formally or informally, according to their inherited identities. They will seek security among their own. They will resist efforts to impose universalist norms that conflict with their traditions. And they will negotiate, conflict, and coexist along civilizational lines that are not malleable at the pace cosmopolitans desire. Sure cosmopolitans can do pursue such identities and communities, but I think they realistically need to accept it must be in select cosmopolitan centers and metroplexes committed to such an anthropology and cultural vision. It's too totalitarian to have a one-sized-fits-all formula of culture writ large worldwide whether the market imposes it or a polity. This is what the conservative Patrick Deneen called the Globalist Anticulture. I think the reactionaries have valid points regardless of how they're received by the technocrats. 

In short, the world is not moving toward a post-civilizational order governed by multicultural minds. It is moving toward a world in which civilizations reassert themselves as the primary actors in geopolitics—where the forces of culture, faith, and tribe shape the future more powerfully than the utopian ambitions of those who would transcend them. Samuel Huntington will prove most prescient in the 21st century not the author of The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil.

This is not an endorsement of conflict. It is a recognition that without acknowledging the permanence of cultural identity, we cannot hope to manage the conflicts that arise from it. The task of statesmanship in the twenty-first century is not to eliminate civilizational differences, but to understand them, respect them, and build a stable order upon their inevitable persistence.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 12:13 PM Victor Vahidi Motti <vahidv...@gmail.com> wrote:

[nino marcantonio]

A Strategic Blueprint for American Prosperity: Prioritizing Security, Innovation, and Worker EmpowermentIn an era of global uncertainty, a forward-looking economic strategy must balance national sovereignty with technological advancement and equitable growth. Drawing from President Trump's ongoing 2025 border enforcement measures, this approach advocates for robust border security, "America First" trade priorities, heavy investments in AI, robotics, and automation, pro-worker labor reforms, and AI-driven workforce augmentation. Below, I outline these pillars, grounded in empirical evidence, explaining their mechanisms and rationale for fostering sustainable U.S. economic resilience.1. Secure the Borders: Enforce Strict Immigration Controls to Safeguard National InterestsEmulate and expand President Trump's 2025 immigration crackdown, which includes executive orders declaring a border "invasion," suspending asylum claims at ports of entry, mandating detention for all apprehended migrants, and deploying military assets to seal the southern border. Key actions include revoking prior humanitarian parole programs, expanding expedited removal nationwide for those unable to prove two years of continuous U.S. residency, and ending the CBP One app for orderly processing—resulting in six consecutive months of zero migrant releases at the border by October 2025.

cbp.gov

These policies have slashed southwest border apprehensions by 95% from Biden-era averages, dropping total encounters to just 30,573 nationwide in October 2025—92% below the 2024 peak.

cbp.gov

Why it works: Uncontrolled migration strains public resources, depresses wages in low-skill sectors (by up to 5% per a 10% immigrant influx surge, per economic models), and heightens security risks, with over 170 known terrorists apprehended at the border in 2024 alone. By prioritizing enforcement, these measures protect American workers from wage suppression, reduce fiscal burdens (estimated at $150 billion annually in welfare and healthcare costs for undocumented households), and restore public trust in institutions. The result? A safer, more stable foundation for domestic investment, with border security enabling reallocation of $170 billion in enforcement funding toward infrastructure and innovation.

nilc.org

2. Embrace "America First" Policies: Prioritize Domestic Industries Through Targeted ProtectionismAdopt a nation-centric trade framework, imposing reciprocal tariffs on high-deficit partners (e.g., 25-60% on China and others under IEEPA authority) to curb unfair practices like subsidies and IP theft, while renegotiating deals like USMCA for stricter rules-of-origin. Trump's 2025 tariffs have generated record $215 billion in fiscal year revenue, with monthly collections hitting $34.2 billion in October—funding proposed worker dividends while pressuring allies to align on security and fair play.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Why it works: Global imbalances have hollowed out U.S. manufacturing, costing 5 million jobs since 2000 due to offshoring. Tariffs shield key sectors: steel production stabilized post-2018 duties, adding 8,000 jobs despite downstream costs, and 2025 measures have boosted intra-U.S. supply chains by 15% in autos and electronics. While short-term consumer prices rose 1.2% ($1,700 per-household hit), long-term gains include 1.58% higher border-county employment and reduced poverty (down 2.29 points in protected areas), fostering self-reliance and countering China's 20% FDI diversion from the U.S.

This isn't isolationism—it's strategic leverage for a $28 trillion economy to reclaim 3-5% GDP growth lost to trade deficits.

Metric	Pre-2025 Baseline	2025 Impact (Tariffs Enforced)	Net Economic Rationale
U.S. Manufacturing Jobs	12.8M (2024)	+28% Share of Total Employment	Protects against offshoring; adds 100K+ roles manhattan.institute
Tariff Revenue	$80B (FY2024)	$215B (FY2025)	Funds worker rebates; offsets 0.5% GDP drag taxfoundation.org
Consumer Price Increase	N/A	+1.2% Short-Term	Temporary; yields 0.39% lower unemployment manhattan.institute

3. Accelerate Investments in AI, Robotics, and Automation: Drive Productivity Without DisplacementCommit $500 billion over a decade—via tax credits and public-private partnerships—to deploy AI agents, humanoid robots, and automated systems in manufacturing, logistics, and healthcare. This builds on 2025 trends where robot costs fell 20% amid rising wages ($34/hour manufacturing average), enabling scalable adoption.

globalxetfs.com

Why it works: Automation addresses labor shortages (projected 10 million U.S. unfilled jobs by 2030) while unlocking $2.9 trillion in annual value by 2030 through workflow redesign—boosting productivity 0.8-1.4% yearly and GDP by 1-7% ($7-25 trillion globally, with U.S. capturing 40%).

Humanoids could automate 33% of industrial tasks, creating $5 trillion in potential by mid-2030s, per Global X ETFs, while enhancing precision (e.g., 15% faster diagnostics in hospitals).

globalxetfs.com

Unlike zero-sum offshoring, this amplifies output: McKinsey reports 7-12% revenue lifts in sales via AI-optimized outreach, turning scarcity into abundance.4. Reform Labor Laws for Workers: Strengthen Protections to Fuel Inclusive GrowthEnact pro-labor measures like expanding the PRO Act for easier unionization, raising the federal minimum wage to $15 (phased), mandating paid family leave, and banning non-competes—while preserving right-to-work flexibility in high-growth states. Union workers earn 11.2% more, with 94% health coverage vs. 68% non-union, per AFL-CIO data.

aflcio.org

Why it works: Worker-friendly laws correlate with robust local economies: states with strong protections saw 70% productivity gains from 1979-2018 (Economic Policy Institute), and minimum wage hikes boost spending (adding $50 billion in consumer power annually) without net job loss in tight markets.

Right-to-work complements this by spurring 105% employment growth (1978-2017), reducing poverty 2.29 points, and enabling 19% higher mobility—ensuring gains accrue to at-risk families, not just elites.

The net: Reduced inequality (down 15% in protected regimes) and $6.5 trillion GDP uplift from reskilling.5. Harness AI as a Workforce Multiplier: Augment Skills for Human-Centric DevelopmentIntegrate AI assistants into training programs—e.g., personalized upskilling via tools like JPMorgan's COiN (analyzing contracts 360K hours faster) or Google's internal bots (freeing 20% employee time)—to democratize expertise. By 2030, AI could complement 60% of advanced-economy jobs, enhancing productivity without full replacement.

Why it works: AI shifts drudgery to strategy: workers using AI agents report 72% higher productivity and 62% more creative roles, per Slack's 2025 survey, with tasks like data analysis yielding 5%+ revenue gains (McKinsey).

In workforce development, generative AI crafts tailored paths (e.g., Siemens' diagnostics training, cutting errors 30%), boosting satisfaction and output—potentially adding $4.4 trillion in corporate productivity (McKinsey).

This "superagency" empowers 1.1 billion global workers via reskilling, turning AI from threat to ally.This integrated vision—secure, innovative, and equitable—positions America to lead the 21st century, converting challenges into $10+ trillion in compounded growth by 2040. Implementation demands bipartisan resolve, but the data underscores its viability: protection without isolation, tech without exclusion, and prosperity for all.

v/r

Nino Marcantonio
CEO, Marcantonio Global
DoD Senior Strategic Technology Advisor
Director, Defense Logistics Innovation Forum
202.631.8710 (work/cell)
VENI VICI INNOVAVI

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain material that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected or restricted under applicable government laws. Any review, disclosure, distributing or other use without expressed permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies without reading, printing, or saving.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAL62UYqq%2BuaDTZwof9pE16pm65NyAFky8vLdsZ4gOrEd6nbFEA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Charles Brooks]

Excellent Nino! 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 11, 2025, at 3:59 PM, nino marcantonio <ni...@marcantonioglobal.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAEzwGZOADg9Cx87BVY8mHi66EkHdcj8G3%2BWODUJcbbW-xNK%2BRg%40mail.gmail.com.

[nino marcantonio]

The world needs to wake up to reality.

v/r

Nino Marcantonio
CEO, Marcantonio Global
DoD Senior Strategic Technology Advisor
Director, Defense Logistics Innovation Forum
202.631.8710 (work/cell)
VENI VICI INNOVAVI

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain material that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected or restricted under applicable government laws. Any review, disclosure, distributing or other use without expressed permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies without reading, printing, or saving.

[nino marcantonio]

Dr Motti,

Russia is your biggest worry and you should thank Trump for giving Europe a wake up call on how to help herself. Close the borders, rearm, shield up, winter is coming,  

v/r

Nino Marcantonio
CEO, Marcantonio Global
DoD Senior Strategic Technology Advisor
Director, Defense Logistics Innovation Forum
202.631.8710 (work/cell)
VENI VICI INNOVAVI

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain material that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected or restricted under applicable government laws. Any review, disclosure, distributing or other use without expressed permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies without reading, printing, or saving.

[paradigm...@gmail.com]

Many European analysts argue that NATO and EU consensus, defensive organizations and this excuses a slow and incomplete European response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. From my point of view a strong and instantaneous counter-strike capability is both crucial for deterrence, and of course a powerful and effective kinetic defense capability. The reality is there is no substitute for European boots on the ground. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has pointed out the obvious: "The paradox is that 500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians". He argued that Europe as a whole is financially and economically stronger than Russia and capable of winning a confrontation, provided it shows the political will and confidence to act."

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAEzwGZMP4mnDAUbm43ii8FcLdorUBUEd0ezRDBvQ0vE97S2YfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Victor Vahidi Motti]

Mr. Marcantonio,

Thank you for sharing your insightful comments and feedback.

I actually share a certain level of ideas.

I am trying to seek Alternatives to Globalization — and consider the external multiculturalism agenda a largely failed agenda in the EU and the US. 

In particular, I am asking how can keep the border closed to the free flows of people and goods, but at the same time, enable those who want multiculturalism to keep that in their individual minds as opposed to artificially imose it in the wider society by external multiculturalism — that is allowing aliens to celebrate their original identity without any tangible and meaningful attempt toward learning, assimilation, and integration in the host country. 

Some transhumanist tech visions can empower people to do just that if they are in favor of some expanded identity in their own minds.  

Unlike globalization, which emphasizes open borders and unrestricted flows of goods, capital and labor, even   requiring erasing ethnic, linguistic, or national identities, it seems that planetization inspired by Noosphere framing, is a mindset change that can thrive under diverse political systems. 

Like the Lifeboat Foundation I try to look at the futureS of humanity and am keeping track of different inputs on the planetary scales, making sense of critical uncertainties and the big picture. 

See for example all the resources collected here: https://www.apfi.us/about-us

Regarding the geopolitical scenarios — and your observation about Russia and Europe — I would say that the scenario often described as "dividing the world among the three powers", is both plausible and probable.

Whether it's extremely negative or not I cannot say before the fact. 

It is also a full chapter in the 2025 book "Planetary Foresight and Ethics".

I expect by 2029 the new world order will settle.

Dividing the world among the three powers had a milestone a few days ago in Washington DC:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/america-250-presidential-message-on-the-anniversary-of-the-monroe-doctrine

Additionally this development in Tehran might provide further information to be assessed and analyzed about Russia's plans:

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202512091605

Apparently the inhabitants of rich countries in Europe do not want to go to war.

But the development mentioned above indicates the impoverished inhabitants of the world will play a significant role in this scenario given their motivation and desperation.

Best Regards,

Victor V. Motti

[nino marcantonio]

We should set up a FORUM and discuss the AoAs. Can you guys find sponsors at Lifeboat foundation? I will bring the Pentagon and NATO.

v/r

Nino Marcantonio
CEO, Marcantonio Global
DoD Senior Strategic Technology Advisor
Director, Defense Logistics Innovation Forum
202.631.8710 (work/cell)
VENI VICI INNOVAVI

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain material that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected or restricted under applicable government laws. Any review, disclosure, distributing or other use without expressed permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies without reading, printing, or saving.

On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 4:21 PM Timothy Dolan <policyf...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree that Europe does not want war, given generations of complacency about threats, shielded mainly by the U.S. commitments to their collective security.  I recall Scott Golway's observation about European lags in technological development: European risk-takers emigrated to America long ago.

Best Regards,

Timothy E. Dolan

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Council of the Alt Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-council-of-the-alt-planeta...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-council-of-the-alt-planetary-futures-institute-ap-fi/CAGfq%3Dbp-tVCTFQmSoSzNNS%3D9EjBbVwLp72wceevswLV1OE3GaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[Victor Vahidi Motti]

Timothy,

It is notoriously difficult to measure the rise, peak, and decline of empires in real time. Power does not disappear all at once; it changes form. What often looks like strength is, on closer inspection, a sophisticated effort at preservation. My conjecture is that today’s great powers are no longer primarily leveraging their advantages to grow, but to maintain:

https://altplanetaryfuturesinst.blogspot.com/2025/12/great-powers-in-age-of-maintenance.html

Best Regards,

Victor V. Motti

On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 4:21 PM Timothy Dolan <policyf...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree that Europe does not want war, given generations of complacency about threats, shielded mainly by the U.S. commitments to their collective security.  I recall Scott Golway's observation about European lags in technological development: European risk-takers emigrated to America long ago.

Best Regards,

Timothy E. Dolan

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Council of the Alt Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-council-of-the-alt-planeta...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-council-of-the-alt-planetary-futures-institute-ap-fi/CAGfq%3Dbp-tVCTFQmSoSzNNS%3D9EjBbVwLp72wceevswLV1OE3GaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

[nino marcantonio]

I am worried about China's true intentions. In essence, the article argues that China’s 2049 plan is deliberate, long-term, and expansionist, requiring the democratic world to actively counter China’s economic, diplomatic, and military advances.

China’s 2049 plan a big challenge before the world | South Asia Monitor

v/r

Nino Marcantonio
CEO, Marcantonio Global
DoD Senior Strategic Technology Advisor
Director, Defense Logistics Innovation Forum
202.631.8710 (work/cell)
VENI VICI INNOVAVI

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain material that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected or restricted under applicable government laws. Any review, disclosure, distributing or other use without expressed permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies without reading, printing, or saving.

[Victor Vahidi Motti]

Yes, that is the correct and important point.

China’s 2049 plan is itself part of a larger plan called Shared Future for Mankind:

0. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjbzhd/202501/t20250127_11546599.html

1. https://altplanetaryfuturesinst.blogspot.com/2025/10/narratives-of-future-china-rockefeller.html

2 . https://altplanetaryfuturesinst.blogspot.com/2025/11/planetary-futures-in-balance-synergy-or.html

Best Regards,

Victor V. Motti

[Ryan Setliff]

Victor, Nino, Timothy,

I think this is precisely where clarity is required, because phrases like “Shared Future for Mankind” are doing a great deal of ideological work while presenting themselves as neutral, ethical, or planetary.

China’s 2049 project is not simply long-term planning; it is a civilizational assertion wrapped in universalist language. The CCP is not attempting to dissolve civilizational differences but to subordinate them within a Sinocentric order—one that tolerates diversity only insofar as it does not challenge hierarchy, sovereignty, or cultural primacy. The CCP, however, ran roughshod over Ugyhur identity in Xinjiang, what separatists would call East Turkmenistan. In that sense, Beijing understands something the West increasingly forgets: that power, identity, and culture remain inseparable.

What concerns me is that many Western analysts respond by reaching for equally abstract frameworks—planetary ethics, noospheric consciousness, post-national governance—that fail to grapple with anthropology. Civilizations do not converge by persuasion, commerce, or connectivity alone. They bargain, deter, align, and sometimes clash based on deeply rooted conceptions of order, authority, and meaning.

This is why I remain skeptical of both globalization and its technocratic successors. A multipolar world is inevitable, but it will not be stable if one pole insists on civilizational permanence while another insists on civilizational transcendence. That asymmetry produces strategic vulnerability.

The task ahead is not to invent a universal future, but to construct rules of coexistence among civilizations that do not share moral premises, governance models, or metaphysical assumptions. That requires borders, spheres of influence, cultural confidence, and restraint—rather than ideological evangelism, whether market-driven, technocratic, or planetary.

In short: China is not proposing a shared future; it is proposing its future, shared on its terms. The West will only respond effectively once it abandons the illusion that history has moved beyond civilizational contestation, and relearns how to negotiate, deter, and coexist as a civilization among others.

—Ryan

c.f. Yoram Hazony | The Virtue of Nationalism

c.f. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order: Huntington, Samuel P.: 9781451628975: Amazon.com: Books 

c.f. From Plato to NATO Claremont Review of Books -- From Plato to NATO, A review of On Politics, by Christopher Caldwell - Claremont Review of Books 

[David Bray, PhD]

Keep in mind an early investor of the Gutenberg printing press was the Catholic Church. 

Would the Catholic Church investor and user of the printing press if they had known Martin Luther would pin his 95 Theses - prompting the Great Schism - less than 100 years later after the printing press was invented? Later both sides of this divide used the printing press for propaganda. Later came censorship of heretical ideas. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dbray_worthconsidering-activity-7330977005686898688-X4KZ/

At any rate, the rise of Westphalian notions of sovereign nation states also only came about 200 years **after** the invention of the printing press. This was also after the influence of the church in Europe had waned. 

Humans have undergone multiple forms of organizing. And we probably will again as a result of the Internet and now AI. 

And yes, we humans are held back by our biological factors associated with what outcomes in our evolution resulted from selection pressures. Dunbar's number is a manifestation of this. The multitude of biases as well as issues with properly assessing abstract risk for things half-a-world away or invisible or otherwise foreign to what most of our 150,000+ history before the current now are additional examples. 

So yes, any form of organizing must address both what technologies enable individuals and groups to do. *And* the biological basis of what makes us human - while also recognizing some of the biological traits and behaviors can be unlearned through education and experiences (and new ones learned). And finally narratives/storytelling as well as human laws/imposed force can also shape behaviors. 

What makes a nation is not just its geographical boundaries, it's also the shared stories and narratives the people that make up a nation tell, share, and belief. With the Internet that no longer has to be tied to geography. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/geotech-cues/pandemic-may-replace-the-nation-state-but-with-what/

We live in interesting times. We always have been, and probably always will. 

--

David Bray, PhD Principal, LeadDoAdapt Ventures, Inc.

Chair of the Accelerator & Distinguished Fellow, Stimson Center
Inst. for Human-Machine Cognition, National Security Inst., MIT Horizon

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAL62UYp7sq4Wz1et0oMBr%3DiUA5uREUj38MooVdQbKNrP%3DDYwsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Victor Vahidi Motti]

Ryan,

What you describe is reasonable and a likely scenario. 

When reading China' Shared Future for Mankind' statement, and observing their "Vision of the Future' becoming crystallized and more assertive, I tend to note the increasing likelihood of "Collide in Physical Space":

https://altplanetaryfuturesinst.blogspot.com/2025/06/when-abstract-visions-of-futures.html

Unlike the socialist China, in the US, the federal government capacity for vision building is not consolidated and centralized. 

I believe that this could be a missing component of the foresight ecosystem and puzzle here in the US in the light of what CCP is doing, see for example what this US foundation is advocating:

1. https://baldrigefoundation.org/news-resources/press-releases.html/article/2024/03/01/baldrige-foundation-supports-federal-foresight-advocacy-alliance-and-creation-of-new-u-s-office-of-strategic-foresight

2. https://www.ffaa-us.org/

Best Regards,

Victor V. Motti

[nino marcantonio]

Dear Ryan,

Great thought leadership!

The Chinese approach is indeed sly, and the motherland is at their core driver.

Best regards,

v/r

Nino Marcantonio
CEO, Marcantonio Global
DoD Senior Strategic Technology Advisor
Director, Defense Logistics Innovation Forum
202.631.8710 (work/cell)
VENI VICI INNOVAVI

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain material that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected or restricted under applicable government laws. Any review, disclosure, distributing or other use without expressed permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies without reading, printing, or saving.

[Paul Bigham]

Nino, possible to drop my name off of the email trail?  Thanks.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lifeboat Foundation Advisory Boards" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lifeboat-advisory-...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAEzwGZOAGnT1PERGqwJXYdFb4oX-fuDf%3DfS%3DRdU_u_pUd7hOhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jean-Marc LEMAITRE]

could you remove me of this mailing list..,

Best

Jean-Marc

---

De : lifeboat-adv...@googlegroups.com <lifeboat-adv...@googlegroups.com> de la part de Victor Vahidi Motti <vahidv...@gmail.com>
Envoyé : mardi 16 décembre 2025 19:12
À : Ryan Setliff
Cc : nino marcantonio; Timothy Dolan; lifeboat-adv...@googlegroups.com; Charles Brooks
Objet : Re: [Ap-Fi] Re: Multiculturalism Within: The Only Stable Future for a Fragmenting Planet

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAGfq%3Dbo7sP3-iQDdzwu4tbNM9a2CzPik5JY-T44TSjftTGX%2BFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Miguel F Aznar]

I would also like to leave this list.

Miguel

Miguel F Aznar

(831) 566-1980

On Dec 17, 2025, at 12:41 AM, Jean-Marc LEMAITRE <jean-marc...@inserm.fr> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/32dd89dd446d4af29c003f32f94a8c61%40inserm.fr.

[Linas Vepstas]

Bravo! +1 -- I affirm what Ryan says.  Words like "culture" and "civilization" and "globalization" are so abstract, it's easy to forget what they describe. So, for example: you can use the word "ecology" and it sounds very nice until you realize it really means "there is a fox that is hunting a rabbit" (that eats grass that is fertilized by fox poo and rabbit blood.)  Or, in the case of the CCP, you can call it "civilization" if you wish, but also perhaps "the tiger hiding in the grass". 

-- Linas

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAL62UYp7sq4Wz1et0oMBr%3DiUA5uREUj38MooVdQbKNrP%3DDYwsg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Patrick: Are they laughing at us?

Sponge Bob: No, Patrick, they are laughing next to us.

 

[Linas Vepstas]

In the post below: > "In the US, capacity for vision building is not consolidated and centralized. ..."  This is both good and bad. The good part is that the lack of centralization means that more ideas get generated, and they are more diverse, and the better your chances are of finding some really good ones.

The bad part is that this all feels like a hustle for funding: "pay me and my think tank/institute and we'll generate great ideas for you", when the zeitgeist is "Lets fire everybody who knows anything and replace them by AI, so what if they starve on the streets, who cares" -- and so here in the US, we have all these super-high-IQ thinkers who are unemployed, no visible means of income, posting absolutely brilliant ideas about national and foreign policy on bluesky, twitter, and that hustle-for-money called "LinkedIn".  Creating institutes for this and that and shmoozing with crypto-bros for some spare bitcoin.

This is not exactly a healthy way of forging national policy. I assume that the CCP party members who write vision papers for 2049 are not worried about their next paycheck, nor about being replaced by AI.

(Full disclosure: my salary comes from someone who has more bitcoin than they know what to do with, and I'm not complaining, I guess, but leaving national policy in the hands of some tech-support nerds who got into bitcoin mining fifteen years ago is not a solid foundation for developing national policy.)  

--linas

[Victor Vahidi Motti]

Following up on this call for a consolidated and centralized federal body of strategic foresight,

See this link for your information: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/15972-2026-Strategic-Foresight-Report_en

The EU is searching for 

1) Unexplored Leverage Points 

2) A New Narrative of the Future 

Facing the new world order.

Perhaps in the absence of a centralized body in the USG, the Lifeboat Foundation can take the initiative and do something similar to the EU's call for leverage identification and narrative shaping to  balance the Chinese Planetary Narrative for the future of the mankind.

As I can see the logo of the Lifeboat Foundation says Safeguarding Humanity.

Best Regards,

Victor V. Motti

[nino marcantonio]

(2092) 3I Atlas may be heading for Earth after all! Stranger than Oumuamua UPDATE! - YouTube

On bigger things to worry about.

v/r

Nino Marcantonio
CEO, Marcantonio Global
DoD Senior Strategic Technology Advisor
Director, Defense Logistics Innovation Forum
202.631.8710 (work/cell)
VENI VICI INNOVAVI

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain material that is proprietary, confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected or restricted under applicable government laws. Any review, disclosure, distributing or other use without expressed permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies without reading, printing, or saving.

[Ryan Setliff]

I'm not an ADMIN. But given that this is a  googlegroups.com list, the fastest way out is to do it yourself. I wasn't expecting it. I signed up in 2022. It doesn't bother me so much.

Option 1: The Email Method (Fastest)

You can unsubscribe without logging into a Google account by sending a blank email from the address that is receiving the messages.

1. Open a new email.

2. In the To field, type: lifeboat-advisory-...@googlegroups.com

3. Leave the subject line and body blank.

4. Hit Send.

5. Check your inbox: You will receive a confirmation email. You must reply to that email or click the link inside it to finalize your removal.