Let’s start with a simple question:

When did you last read a terms and conditions agreement?

I thought so.

We click ‘accept’ dozens of times a year — on platforms, services and devices that govern our lives more than any government. We agree to things we’ve never read, written by people we’ll never meet, enforceable by institutions we don’t trust.

These are legal contracts. But what makes us willing to accept them without reading all, or any of the copy, is an implicit social contract that among other things is based on trust and do no harm. We call this a social contract.

The challenge: Our social contracts are fraying fast.

What’s a Social Contract

The idea goes way back. In 1762, JJ Rousseau explained it as the agreement — explicit or implied — between individuals and the society they form together. You give up some absolute freedom. In return, you gain protection, cooperation, and the possibility of collective flourishing.[1] ( a nice turn of phrase)

That’s the theory. In practice, social contracts are the operating systems of society.

They are what makes it possible to walk into a hospital and trust the doctor. To send your child to school and trust the teacher. To deposit money in a bank and trust it will be there tomorrow. To disagree with your neighbour and not fear for your safety.

Social contracts are not legal contracts. They are the accumulated agreements — formal and informal, written and understood — that make cooperation possible at scale. They answer the question: how do we behave?

They are not naive. The best social contracts acknowledge power and try to distribute it more fairly. They acknowledge self-interest and build systems that align it with collective good. They acknowledge that humans are neither purely rational nor purely altruistic — and they create conditions for our better angels to win, more often than not.

What they are not: social contracts are not surveillance. They are not compliance. They are not the 47 pages of legalese you agreed to this morning when you updated your phone.

A real social contract is built on something much simpler, and much harder.

Mutual obligation. Shared purpose. Explicit commitment.

What We Took for Granted

When social contracts work, they are almost invisible. That is precisely their genius.

I’ve worked with governments, corporations, and international institutions across three continents and the thing that strikes me, every time I enter a functioning institution — a well-run hospital in Doha, a community school in Tunis, a governance body in Brussels — is the energy.

When people trust the system they’re in, they concentrate on the work itself. They don’t waste their time or emotions on suspicion or self-preservation.

That is what a working social contract buys us. It is not a small thing.

The post-war international order – however imperfect – was built on exactly this logic. The United Nations, Bretton Woods, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: these were explicit social contracts between nations. We agreed that some things were beyond negotiation. We agreed that collective problems required collective solutions. We built institutions to hold those agreements in place.

The results were remarkable. Not perfect. Not equal. But remarkable.

Extreme poverty fell by more than half in thirty years. Child mortality dropped dramatically. Diseases were eradicated. Trade expanded. Standards of living rose across much of the world.[2]

None of this was automatic. It happened because people made and held agreements. Because institutions, however flawed, provided continuity. Because the social contract — messy, contested, imperfect — held.

And now it isn’t.

Everywhere You Look

Let’s be careful here, because alongside the loss, some genuinely inspiring things are happening.

New technologies offer possibilities unimaginable a generation ago. Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in most of the world. mRNA vaccine platforms can respond to new diseases in weeks, not years. Digital infrastructure connects communities that were previously unreachable. Young people — Jim’s Olivia in Canada, Mervis in Malawi, and millions like them — are building movements, businesses, and solutions that their parents’ institutions would never have conceived.

That is real. And it is good.

But we are also seeing the architecture of the old social contract collapse in real time — and nothing coherent is replacing it.

The UN Security Council has been functionally paralysed on the defining conflicts of our era. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shattered the post-Cold War European security order. The rules of engagement in Gaza are being contested, rewritten, and ignored simultaneously. The US invasion of Iran is being waged with apparent disregard for international law and the rules of war. And mainstream media is virtually silent.

When one side or another decides the rules don’t apply to them, you have entered dangerous territory.

International institutions were designed to mediate these kinds of conflicts but they are being rendered impotent — not because the idea behind them was wrong, but because the commitments behind them have been abandoned.

The return of something that looks uncomfortably like empire is not happening in the shadows. It’s happening in press conferences, in the explicit redrawing of spheres of influence, in the weaponisation of trade, in the casual contempt for international rules.

And no one seems to have instruments of control.

Not because the technology doesn’t exist. Because the agreements don’t.

The governance of artificial intelligence is a clear version of this problem. We are building tools of extraordinary power — tools capable of autonomous decision-making in warfare, tools capable of surveillance at a scale authoritarian regimes in history could only dream of — and the great powers are competing to be the first to deploy them without restriction, not the first to agree on limits.

To agree to that social contract, the powerful participants have to agree to limits on their own power. How likely is that?

The Agreement We Forgot We Made

Here is what I want to push back on: the idea that there was no social contract, or that it was always a fiction.

There was one. We made it. And we are currently in the process of pretending we didn’t.

When I was working with UN Women, one of the things that struck me was how much of the progress on gender equality was being achieved not through law alone, but through shifting social contracts — explicit and implicit agreements within institutions, communities, and families about what was acceptable, what was expected, what was owed.

Laws matter. But social contracts — when they work — are self-enforcing. They don’t require a regulator in every room. They require people to genuinely internalise the agreement.

We have allowed that internalisation to erode. We have let cynicism — understandable responses to genuine failures of institutions — slide into something more dangerous: the idea that there are no obligations. That it’s every person for themselves. That the only contract that matters is the one that maximises your own position.

We need to draw on the people who still want to cooperate, still believe in and try to hold their part of the contract, and hope they don’t give up as they look around and see others opting out. If too many people ignore the need for a social contract, everyone is at risk.

What Can Leaders Do Differently

If you are in a leadership position — in a corporation, a government, an institution, a community — you are a party to social contracts every day. The question is not whether you have obligations. The question is whether you are honouring them.

Several things are required and I don’t think they are optional:

Make the implicit explicit. The most powerful thing you can do in your institution is to name the agreements that have been operating invisibly and decide, together, whether you still hold them. What do you owe your employees? Your community? Your supply chain? Our planet? These questions used to be answerable by convention. Convention has broken down. You need to answer them deliberately.

Stop confusing compliance with commitment. Compliance is what you do when someone is watching. Commitment is what you do when they’re not. The institutions that are going to matter in the next decade are the ones where the social contract runs deep enough that it doesn’t require enforcement. Build that. It is harder and slower and more valuable than any policy framework.

Govern the technology you deploy. Every organisation using AI systems — and that is most— is a party to a new set of social contracts: with the people whose data trains those systems, with the workers whose roles are being reshaped, with the communities affected by the decisions the systems make. Most organisations are not behaving as though they understand this. They need to.

Rebuild institutional credibility by earning it. Not with purpose statements or communications campaigns. With behaviour, consistently, over time. The crisis of institutional trust is real, but it is reversible. Trust is rebuilt the way it is built through demonstrated reliability, honesty when it costs something, and genuine accountability when things go wrong.

Think at the scale of the problem. The social contracts we need are not just internal. They span industries, nations, and generations. The leaders who are going to matter are the ones willing to build agreements at that scale — to show up at the table for the hard conversations, to accept constraints on their own power in exchange for a more stable and equitable system. That requires a different kind of ambition than the ones we’ve been rewarding.

A New Contract for a New Age

The social contract we need now is not a nostalgia project. We cannot simply restore the institutions of 1945 or 1990 and hope they hold.

The world has changed too much. The power structures have shifted. The technologies are new. The crises are more interconnected than anything those institutions were designed to handle. The voices that were excluded from the original agreements — and there were many — need to be in the room this time.

But the underlying logic is unchanged.

We are capable of extraordinary things when we cooperate. We are capable of monstrous things when we don’t. The choice between those outcomes is not made once, in some grand historical moment. It is made continuously, in thousands of decisions by thousands of leaders, about whether to honour their obligations or opt out of them.

In that light, the social contract is not a document. It is a practice.

It is the daily choice to treat the people in your institution as though you owe them something. To treat the communities your organisation affects as though their futures matter. To treat the planet as though it is something we hold in trust, not something we own.

In our next episode, we turn to the sixth and final Axiom: Trust and Truth as civic infrastructure. Because a social contract without shared truth is a building without foundations — and we’ll examine what it takes to rebuild both.

———

Laura Haynes is a strategic advisor, and co-author of The Human Race: A Framework for Hope. She has worked with governments, corporations, and international institutions across Europe, North America, and the Middle East for over thirty years.

[1] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du droit politique. Amsterdam: Marc Michel Rey, 1762. (The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right. Multiple English translations available.)

[2] World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform: data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty. / UNICEF, Levels and Trends in Child Mortality Report 2023. New York: UNICEF, 2023.

“The universe is made of stories, not of atoms.”

_{— Muriel Rukeyser}

In September 1970, a 58-year-old economist published an essay in the New York Times Magazine. It ran to roughly 2,000 words. It did not introduce new data. It did not describe a new technology. It did not propose a law.

It told a story.

The story went like this: a corporation has exactly one legitimate purpose, and that purpose is to maximise returns to its shareholders. Any executive who diverts resources elsewhere — who behaves, in Milton Friedman’s famous phrase, as though they have social responsibilities — is essentially stealing from the people who own the company. Imposing their personal values on others. Doing, in a small way, the work of a socialist.

That’s the whole argument. You can agree with it or not. But watch what it did.

Within a generation, shareholder primacy had moved from provocative idea to unquestioned orthodoxy. Business school curricula rewrote themselves around it. Executive compensation structures followed. Corporate law adapted. The language of boardrooms changed. The metrics changed. The behaviour changed.

This change required no regulation, nor act of Congress. The right story, told with confidence, at the right moment, into the right institutional vacuum, restructured the operating philosophy of the global economy.

This is the most important thing I know about stories: they don’t have to describe reality - they can construct it.

I imagine — or I hope — that you are thinking of the stories from your own history that caused you to construct a different version of your future. For me, my father was famous for his stories, and they live with me today, long after his passing. They formed the foundational narratives of my world view. The ones I still reach for when I need to find my bearings.

Narrative Is Not a Soft Skill

Let me be direct about what I mean here, because “storytelling” is one of those words that has been co-opted by the communications industry until it means almost nothing. Narrative strategies. Brand stories. Authentic storytelling. Executives are told they need to be better storytellers the way they’re told they need to be better at golf.

That’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about something structural. Civilizational. The stories a society tells itself determine what it is capable of imagining — and therefore what it is capable of building. They are not the decoration on top of strategy. They are the scaffolding upon which products, strategies, markets, and customer personas, nations and futures are crafted.

Anthropologists have spent decades trying to explain how Homo sapiens managed to coordinate at scales no other species has achieved. We’re not the strongest, not the fastest, not even the cleverest in raw cognitive terms. What we have — uniquely, strangely, powerfully — is the ability to collectively believe in things that don’t yet exist. Shared beliefs. Companies. Nations. Human rights. Money. These are stories that enough people agreed to treat as real, until they became real.

Every institution you work inside, every value you operate by, every social contract you honour — all of it was a story before it was a structure.

And every crisis we are facing right now is, in some meaningful part, a story that has stopped working.

The Stories That Are Failing Us

Right now, there are three dominant narratives about the future. I see them everywhere: in the business media I read, in the conferences I attend, in the conversations I have with leaders trying to figure out what to do.

The first is doom. The data is overwhelming, the systems are failing, the window is closing, and it’s probably too late. This story is not wrong, exactly. The crises are real. The urgency is real. But doom does not recruit. Paralysis is not a strategy. And a story that ends with “we’re finished” will not move the people you need to move.

The second is nostalgia. Make it like it was. Return to the time when things were simpler, when institutions worked, when we knew who we were. This story is powerful because it speaks to genuine grief — something has genuinely been lost. But it paints and idealised picture and offers the wrong destination. The institutions of the past were not designed for the crises of the present. Reverse gear is not a governance framework.

The third is naive techno-utopianism. The technology will fix it. AI will solve climate. Biotech will end disease. Abundance will dissolve inequality. Just get out of the way and let the innovators innovate. This story is seductive because parts of it are true. But we know that even if the innovators can fix some of the symptoms, techno-utopianism always puts power in too few hands. A story that ignores the questions about power and wealth distribution is not a story about the future for everyone. It’s a story about the future for some.

None of these stories are adequate. Not because the facts are wrong. Because none of them address the whole picture and so they fail to recruit people into the difficult, yet hopeful, work that is actually required.

The stories we tell recruit us into futures.

What Recruitment Actually Looks Like

On Christmas Eve, 1968, astronaut Bill Anders pointed a camera out the window of Apollo 8 and took a photograph.

You know the image. Earth, small and luminous and impossibly fragile, rising above the grey lunar surface. Nothing but darkness beyond it.

Nobody had seen it before. Not like that. Not from out there.

The photograph didn’t add any information to what scientists already knew. Everyone understood, intellectually, that Earth is a small planet in a large universe. The data was not new. But the story the photograph told — here is our home, alone, and there is no other — was. And that story did something that decades of scientific papers had not managed to do.

Within five years, the United States had passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and created the Environmental Protection Agency. Direct correlation or not, the modern environmental movement, in its organised political form, can be traced with unusual directness to that single image.

Not because people didn’t care before. Because they didn’t have a story that made them feel, at a level beyond argument, that the planet was something worth protecting.

That is what recruitment looks like. Not persuasion. Not information transfer. A story that makes an abstract future feel emotionally real and personally relevant — relevant enough that people are willing to change how they behave.

The question is not whether you believe in the power of narrative. There is no doubt about that power. The question is whether you are conscious of the stories you are telling. And what their impact will, or could, be.

The Story Crisis Inside the Epistemic Crisis

We wrote earlier in this series about the epistemic crisis — our collective inability to agree on what’s true or coordinate action around it. We called it the crack in the foundation.

Here’s another way to look at it: the epistemic crisis is, at its root, a story crisis.

When shared narrative collapses — when there is no story big or bold enough to hold people across difference — the vacuum fills with competing tribal stories that are less interested in truth than in loyalty. You don’t need facts to win a story war. You need repetition, emotional resonance, and an enemy. The algorithm provides all three, at scale, for free.

And now we are entering a moment when the cost of generating stories — compelling, personalised, emotionally targeted stories — is approaching zero. Remember our Abundance conversation. AI can produce content at a scale and speed that human verification cannot match. Which means the asymmetry we already had — bullshit is cheaper to produce than truth is to debunk — is about to get dramatically worse.

That should give us pause. And a clear call to action.

If narrative is infrastructure, then those of us who care about the direction of that infrastructure have an obligation to build it. Intentionally. Strategically. At scale. Not to out-manipulate the manipulators. But to fill the space with stories worth believing — stories that are true, and grounded, and ask something of people, and point toward something real.

What Leaders Can Do

Be ruthlessly honest about the story you are currently telling.

The Patagonia story is well known — we touched on it in Regeneration. But what is most impressive about that organisation is the consistency, and the dare-I-say ruthlessness, with which they tell their story. Not through abstract imagery or inspirational copy. They tell it through what they measure, and how they hold themselves accountable — not to shareholders, but to all of us and to the planet.

My own experience with the Rainforest movement a decade ago started with a social contract that was present in every meeting. We had people physically sign it. It stated not only what we saw today, but what future we expected and hoped for — and what every signatory was committing to in order to get there. That physical act of signing changed the room. It changed the conversations. The story became a commitment the moment someone put their name to it.

Make the possible feel real.

The job of a story is not to describe a better future in abstract terms. It’s to make a specific person in a specific situation feel and believe what that future would be like to live in. This was my explicit approach at the heart of “Tip of the Spear”: Mervis in Malawi. Olivia in Toronto. Two fictional personas, conjured from research and imagination, who translated the abstraction of “the future” into something every reader who has ever been thirteen, or raised a child that age, could feel.

And here is what I didn’t fully anticipate when I wrote them: those two young women aged with us. Olivia is 22 now. Mervis is 22 now. I can tell their story today — not as speculation but as a kind of reckoning — to show readers where the world arrived relative to where we hoped it would go. Stories, it turns out, are not static. They move through time like water in a stream. The best ones keep working long after you’ve told them.

In a business context: the community downstream of your supply chain, the worker whose role is being automated. Stories that stay at the level of the aggregate do not recruit. Stories that make it personal do.

Tell the story before the destination is certain.

Ørsted, the energy company, told a story about a renewable energy future before the economics were proven. They committed to it publicly, structurally, in a way that made the outcome more likely. The story preceded the reality and, in doing so, helped create it. The leaders who will matter in the next decade are the ones willing to articulate a future clearly enough that others can choose to join them in building it — even if the destination is over the horizon or hidden in the fog.

None of this is easy. Stories told from power can manipulate as readily as they can inspire — history offers plenty of evidence for both. The obligation that comes with narrative leadership is exactly the obligation that comes with any other form of leadership: to use it in service of something larger than yourself, and to be honest when the story needs to change.

Coming Up Next

Stories recruit. But recruitment is not enough.

A story that moves people toward a shared future still has to answer the harder question: what do we owe each other when we get there? What are the terms of the arrangement? Who is included, who is protected, what cannot be traded away?

That is not a narrative question. It is a commitment question.

In our next episode, Laura takes on the fifth Axiom of Ways: The Social Contract. The agreements — explicit and implicit, written and assumed — that make cooperation possible at scale.

The stories we tell can rebuild those agreements. But only if we’re willing to be held to them.

In 2010, the International Energy Agency — the world’s most respected energy forecasting body — published a projection for the future cost of utility-scale solar power.[1] Their number: solar might reach 15 cents per kilowatt hour by 2050. Maybe.

They were off by about 400%. And by 20 years.

Today, solar is the cheapest source of electricity in human history.[2] New projects in the Middle East and South Asia are coming in at under 2 cents per kilowatt hour. In Chile’s Atacama desert,[3] and other places around the world, there are hours in the day when the grid has more solar power than it can use — electricity that is, functionally, free.

How did the IEA’s forecasters get it so wrong? They were linear thinkers facing an exponential curve. Which is exactly what we have been challenging since 2017 when in “Tip of the Spear”, I predicted that our linear institutions would consistently underestimate exponential change — and then be surprised when reality arrived ahead of schedule.

Abundance is arriving ahead of schedule.

And we’ve been here before.

Abundance 1.0: What We Built, What It Cost

Our first experiment with abundance started, as most things do, with an optimistic premise: technology would make things cheaper, more accessible, and broadly available. And it did. Spectacularly, in places.

The Green Revolution fed a billion people who might otherwise have starved. Mass manufacturing put a car in the garage, a television in the living room, and eventually a supercomputer in every pocket. The digital revolution gave anyone with a connection, access to more information than the greatest libraries in history.

These are real achievements. Let’s not underestimate them.

But the operating system running beneath Abundance 1.0 was extraction. The goal was not shared flourishing — it was competitive advantage. The result was cheap calories with limited nutritional value and an obesity epidemic across the developed world. Digital connectivity that devolved into algorithmic manipulation. A prosperity machine that, at the end of its run, has produced the largest inequality gap in human history. Five people now own more than the bottom four billion.[4]

We got abundance. We just distributed it badly.

And we sent the costs to the planet – its climate systems, its species and its oceans - to sort out.

Abundance 1.0 was Innovation of Things racing ahead of Innovation of Ways. We built the capability without building the wisdom to steward it.

The Choice We’re Making Right Now

We are in the earliest moments of Abundance 2.0. And we are about to make the same choices again — at greater speed, at greater scale, with technology far more powerful than anything Abundance 1.0 ever put in our hands.

Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels across most of the world. AI is compressing decades of scientific research into months. New protein sources are beginning to reshape the economics of food. Desalination technology, powered by renewables in desert environments today, is turning water scarcity into a distribution problem — and distribution problems are solvable.

This is not science fiction. It is economics. Exponential cost curves are doing what they always do: arriving faster than institutions expected, redistributing advantage to those willing to see them.

The question is not whether this abundance arrives. It will. The real question that matters is whether we design it for the few or the many.

A Company That Chose Differently

In 2012, a Danish company called DONG Energy — Danish Oil and Natural Gas, as its name suggests — made a decision that most people in the industry thought was economic suicide. They announced they would stop investing in fossil fuels and pivot entirely to offshore wind.

The analysts were skeptical. The market was skeptical. Their own board had serious doubts.

Twelve years later, rebranded as Ørsted, they are the world’s largest offshore wind developer.[5] Their share price increased tenfold. They didn’t just survive the energy transition — they became its primary architect in European waters.

What Ørsted’s leadership understood is that the economics of Abundance 2.0 are genuinely different from the economics of extraction. In an extractive model, value lives in controlling the resource: the oil field, the gas deposit, the mine. In an abundance model, value lives in designing the best system to capture and distribute something that is, in physical terms, essentially unlimited.

The sun doesn’t charge you for the photons.

The leaders who understand this are already making different decisions than those who don’t. That difference compounds.

What We’re Up Against

I want to be honest about the resistance. Because Abundance 2.0 doesn’t arrive without a fight.

The industries built on scarcity will not yield quietly. They never do. Companies that have profited for a century from controlling access to energy, water, food, and knowledge have every incentive to slow the transition, acquire the alternatives, and use political leverage to protect their position. This is not conspiracy. It is a description of how incumbent power works.

When someone’s business model depends on scarcity, abundance is their existential threat.

This is why the Innovation of Ways problem is not peripheral to Abundance 2.0 — it is central. The technology can deliver. The governance, the distribution, the policy frameworks, the new business models: these are the actual work. And we are right now choosing whether to do that work.

The decisions being made in the next five years — about grid design, AI access, protein IP, water rights, and who captures the value of the cost curves — will determine our approach to abundance.

We get to choose the operating system. We’re choosing it right now.

What Leaders Need to Know

First: your scarcity assumptions are probably wrong. If your strategy for the next decade assumes that current cost structures will hold, you are likely to be surprised. The exponential curves in energy, AI, and biology are not slowing down. The IEA was wrong about solar. Most incumbents are wrong about the next transition, too. Build scenarios in which abundance arrives five years earlier than your models predict, and ask what your business would look like if it did.

Second: the transition creates disruption at real scale. This isn’t only opportunity — it’s creative destruction. Industries that currently employ millions will be restructured. The leaders who navigate this well will be those who think about the transition holistically: the workers, the communities, the social contracts embedded in current business models. Abundance that lands badly is still Abundance 1.0.

Third: your governance choices are your essential choices. In a world of abundance, getting the distribution of cost and profit right is crucial. Who captures the value? Who bears the transition costs? What mechanisms prevent abundance from consolidating in the hands of those who control the infrastructure?

These are operational decisions that need to be made in boardrooms and legislatures and procurement meetings.

The leaders asking those questions explicitly are making different bets than those who aren’t. In a decade, those bets will look very different.

A Challenge for This Week

Identify one area in your organisation where a scarcity assumption is built into your strategy — a resource, a capability, a technology — where an exponential cost curve could fundamentally alter the economics within five years.

Don’t ask how you defend against that change. Ask how you design for it.

That’s the beginning of Abundance 2.0 thinking.

Coming Up Next

Abundance 2.0 tells us what is possible.

It doesn’t, on its own, tell us how to bring people with us — how to build the coalitions, shift the culture, and move institutions toward a different kind of future.

That requires something older and more enduring than economics.

It requires stories.

In our next episode, we turn to the fourth Axiom of Ways: The Stories We Tell. The futures that get built are the ones that first get imagined and shared. Which means the most powerful instrument in a leader’s toolkit right now might not be a technology or a policy.

It might be a narrative.

[1] International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris: IEA, 2010. Available at: iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2010

[2] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2023. Abu Dhabi: IRENA, 2024. Available at: irena.org/Publications

[3] As reported by Reuters, Bloomberg, and the Chilean National Electric Coordinator (Coordinador Eléctrico Nacional, coordinador.cl). Chile has reported negative spot electricity prices during peak solar hours in the Atacama since approximately 2016.

[4] See Episode 1, footnote 1: Oxfam International, Inequality Inc., January 2024.

[5] Ørsted A/S. Company history and investor relations available at: orsted.com/en/about-us/our-history. / Financial data: Ørsted IPO, June 2016 (Copenhagen Stock Exchange: ORSTED).

Regeneration

I’ve spent thirty years watching smart, well-intentioned people do the responsible thing while the systems they depend on degrade anyway.

In our last post, we introduced the first Axiom of Ways: Other Ways of Knowing. The invitation to open ourselves to a richer set of perspectives — Indigenous wisdom, lived experience, emerging artificial intelligence — as a foundation for better decisions. We learned the lessons of the wayfinders.

Now we step into what may be the most demanding axiom of all.

The Problem with “Good Enough”

For thirty years, sustainability has been the gold standard of responsible leadership. Reduce your footprint. Lower emissions. Slow the damage. These are good things. Necessary things.

But they are not enough. Not anymore.

Here is the problem with sustainability as a goal: it assumes the system is basically intact and just needs protecting from further harm. Slow the bleeding. Manage the depletion. Don’t make it worse.

What if the system isn’t basically intact?

What if the soil is already depleted, the trust already broken, the environmental and social capacity already below what we need? In that world, not making things worse is moving backwards.

Regeneration starts from that reality.

Not: how do we reduce the damage we’re doing?

But: how do we actively restore what has been lost?

The shift sounds subtle. It isn’t.

Sustainability is defensive. Regeneration is Active.

Sustainability minimises what we take. Regeneration asks what we can give back. In economic terms, sustainability tries to limit negative externalities. Regeneration seeks positive system returns.

That difference — between reducing harm and creating health — is the heart of this axiom.

5,000 Acres in North Dakota

The clearest proof of concept we’ve found isn’t in a corporate boardroom or a government policy paper. It’s on a farm.

Gabe Brown made a decision that conventional agriculture said was economically reckless: he would stop extracting from the soil and start rebuilding it. No synthetic fertilisers. Cover cropping. Managed grazing. Soil biology first.[1]

Within a decade, the results were hard to argue with. His land was sequestering four tonnes of carbon per acre annually. Seventy plant species where there had been eight. Zero synthetic inputs. And — the part that stopped neighbouring ranchers cold — higher profit margins than farms using conventional methods.

Brown now spends significant time teaching other ranchers. Not because of regulation. Not because of a subsidy. Because the returns spoke for themselves.

This is what regeneration looks like in practice. Not only have we stopped degradation. We’ve started improvement. What began as environmental responsibility became a competitive advantage. The economics shifted — and kept shifting.

We need to go further because regeneration is not just an environmental framework that happens to have leadership implications. It is a systems principle that applies wherever we have been in the habit of extracting faster than we restore. That includes soil. It also includes communities, the health of the people we serve and the people we employ, the cities we design and how we expand them.

Regeneration Across Systems

The healthcare version of this question is clear. Most health systems are built around treating illness — managing deterioration, responding to crisis, processing throughput. They are, in the language of regeneration, defensive. They work to sustain function in the face of ongoing damage.

A regenerative health system asks: Why is the damage occurring at all? It invests upstream — in housing, nutrition, social connection, early intervention — because it recognises that the emergency room is not where health is built. It is where the failure of health shows up at 3 am. Treating symptoms while ignoring the conditions that produce them is expensive, exhausting, and will ultimately lose. The system depletes faster than it can be replenished.

The shift shows up in what gets measured. A regenerative health institution doesn’t just track readmission rates; it tracks community health trajectories. It doesn’t just ask “did we treat this patient?” but “is this population becoming healthier over time?” Those are genuinely different scorecards — and when we ask them, they produce genuinely different investment decisions.

The evidence from community health worker programs is consistent: investing in the conditions that create health costs far less than managing the consequences of their absence. The economics of regeneration hold here exactly as they held on Gabe Brown’s ranch.

The same logic applies inside an organisation itself.

The language we use is revealing. “Talent pipeline.” “Human resources.” “Headcount.” These are the words of extraction — inputs to a process, managed for throughput and replaced when depleted.

The regenerative question for any organisation is simple and uncomfortable: do the people who work here leave with more capacity than they arrived with?

Not just more experience — more capability, more agency, more belief in what they can do. An organisation that consistently produces that outcome doesn’t struggle to attract talent; it becomes a source of talent that the whole sector draws from. It builds rather than depletes the human systems it depends on.

The extractive alternative is familiar. Run people hard, under-invest in development, treat retention as a cost rather than a return, and wonder why engagement is low and institutional knowledge keeps walking out the door.

That model works for a while, though only in conditions of labour surplus. In a world of genuine talent scarcity and rising expectations of what work should be, it stops working. The corporate soil is depleted. More inputs don’t fix it.

What if we reframe the question with a regenerative lens? Redesign our relationship with our people -less about human capital and more about human opportunity. Let’s ask: how can we increase the value and the opportunity with and for our people. What do we owe the people who build this organisation — not just in compensation, but in development, in meaning, in the conditions for their best work? This recognises that answering that question well, is not a cost. It is how you build an organisation that compounds.

The Orthodoxy Being Challenged

What makes regeneration genuinely hard isn’t the technical challenge. It’s the philosophical one.

The economic frameworks that built the prosperity most of us depend on, rest on a foundational assumption: that human systems sit outside of and above natural and social systems. We manage nature. We extract from it. We mitigate our impact on it. The very language of “externalities” reveals the thinking: environmental and social costs are treated as external to the “real” economy.

Regeneration says that assumption is wrong. Human systems are embedded in environmental and social systems, not above them. When those systems degrade, so does everything built on top of them. What we call externalities get internalised eventually — one way or another. The only question is when, and by whom.

We have spent generations innovating the extraction. We have barely begun innovating the restoration. That gap — between the sophistication of our taking and the crudeness of our giving back — is precisely what this axiom asks us to close.

This isn’t abstract philosophy. It has direct consequences for how organisations measure performance, design supply chains, and define what leadership success actually looks like.

Patagonia is the most cited corporate example — and they’ve earned the citation.[2] Their leadership has been explicit: sustainability is not enough. Their model actively tries to strengthen the systems they depend on rather than merely extracting from them. They are not fully there — no organisation is — but they are asking the right questions, loudly, in public. The direction of travel matters as much as the destination.

What This Means For Leaders

For leaders, regeneration changes the questions at every level.

It is no longer enough to ask: how do we reduce our carbon footprint? The question becomes: how do we rebuild the environmental and social systems our business depends on?

It is no longer enough to ask, "How do we comply with ESG requirements?” The question becomes: how do we redesign our value chains so they strengthen the systems they draw from?

These aren’t small variations on the same question. They point toward genuinely different strategies, different investments, and different definitions of success.

They also require something most organisations aren’t built for: longer time horizons, new scorecards, and a willingness to measure success in soil health, social cohesion, and system resilience — not just quarterly returns.

Competitors who aren’t thinking this way may post better short-term numbers. Investors trained on quarterly cycles may push back. Boards that inherited sustainability frameworks may need to be brought along. We’re not pretending otherwise.

But the frame itself changes what leaders look for, what they reward, and what questions they bring to strategy. And frames, once internalised, tend to change behaviour.

Why This Is the Hardest Axiom

We want to be honest with you about something.

Of the six axioms, this one asks the most of us. Not just operationally, but cognitively and culturally.

Sustainability has been the “responsible” benchmark for a generation. Moving beyond it feels, to many leaders, like moving the goalposts right when they were starting to clear the bar. That resistance is understandable. It needs to be acknowledged, not dismissed.

More fundamentally, regeneration requires a different way of thinking — systems thinking — that most of us were never trained in. It asks leaders to hold complexity, interdependence, and long-term horizons simultaneously. To steward rather than optimise. To accept that complex systems cannot be controlled with precision, only tended with care and intelligence.

That is harder than being more efficient. It asks us to trade the clarity of a single metric — emissions per unit, waste reduction percentage — for a richer but messier picture of system health. Most of our organisations, incentive structures, and reporting frameworks are not designed for that.

We are not aware of any organisation that can fully claim to be regenerative today. Including organisations run by people who deeply believe in this direction. The gap between principle and practice is real. It is large. It will take time.

But the leaders who are beginning to ask regenerative questions — about supply chains, about communities, about the long-term health of the systems they depend on — are making different decisions than those who aren’t. That difference compounds.

A Challenge for This Week

Identify one system your organisation depends on — a supply chain, a community, a talent base, a piece of shared infrastructure — that is degrading under current use.

Don’t ask how to sustain it longer. Ask: How do we redesign our relationship with this system so it strengthens over time?

That question is the beginning of regenerative leadership.

Coming Up Next

In our next episode, we introduce Axiom 3: Abundance 2.0. We have been operating under scarcity assumptions for so long that genuine abundance has become hard to imagine — even as the tools to create it arrive faster than we can govern them.

That changes the frame again.

[1] Gabe Brown, Dirt to Soil: One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agriculture. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018.

[2] Yvon Chouinard, Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman. Penguin Books, 2005 (updated edition 2016). / Patagonia, “Our Mission,” patagonia.com/our-mission

I do.

I knew everything. I held very strong views and believed absolutely that I was right. If I read something, it must be true. If I heard it from someone I admired, their view became mine. If my peers agreed, it was sacrosanct.

With time, distance, and experience, I have come to see that my sixteen-year-old self did not, in fact, have all the answers. Some might call that maturity.

I’m not sure it’s that simple. I know plenty of fully grown, accomplished people who still can’t genuinely consider another point of view — who walk with, vote with, and rally behind the tribe, regardless of the evidence.

Our algorithms make sure of it. A wider or deeper perspective might change someone’s perception of reality or open a different course of action. A dangerous thought, apparently.

And yet. That widening of perspective — that willingness to know differently — is precisely what this moment demands.

What Other Ways of Knowing Actually Means

The first of our six Axioms of Ways is called Other Ways of Knowing. It sounds simple. It is, in fact, wicked hard to live.

Let me be clear about what it is not.

It is not woo-woo new age thinking. It’s not reading the stars to determine your fate — though we might want to understand what the ancient navigators of the Pacific can teach us about trusting natural signals to plot a course forward.

It is not five minutes in an ashram in India, or an Indigenous smudging ceremony in western Canada, and concluding that you now possess spiritual insight. It might, however, be hearing what traditional knowledge has to teach us about keeping nature’s systems in balance with human progress and taking it seriously.

And it is absolutely not taking dictation from ChatGPT. It might be understanding the power of computational pattern recognition — what it can surface, what it cannot, and where human judgement remains irreplaceable.

Other Ways of Knowing is an invitation.

It introduces the principle of epistemic humility which simply means the recognition that no single perspective holds the whole truth, that no one ideology will resolve complex problems, and that what any one of us perceives as reality is always partial.

It is a call to blend scientific fact with indigenous wisdom, intuitive insight with embodied experience, relational understanding with new technological interpretation. To apply critical thinking across all of them. To continue learning, and to keep working to manage our bias.

What Conventional Thinking Keeps Hidden

Conventional thinking rewards depth over breadth — commit to your framework, master your domain, trust your tradition. In more stable conditions, that specialisation had real advantages. The blind spots it created were manageable, even recoverable. Today, they cascade.

Does anyone genuinely believe that the norms of today will be the norms of tomorrow? That work, education, mobility, commerce will remain unchanged? Of course not. So just as there will be other ways of being, we need to accept — truly accept — that there are other ways of knowing.

Now, repeat after me:

Things are not necessarily true just because they’re what I learned at school.

It is acceptable not to know all the answers.

It is not acceptable to do nothing in the face of complexity and you can act before you are certain of everything.

The best ideas, deepest wisdom, and most creative solutions often come from unexpected places. Wisdom grows from wider perspective and deeper perception.

We’re no longer limited by narrow resource bases of information or the biases of a single tradition. Theoretically and I use that word carefully we are standing at the threshold of a genuine leap. We can combine the tools of human perception, experience, and creativity with data-driven analysis to think in genuinely new ways.

The Wayfinders

Jim told me about an encounter that offered both of us a way of thinking not just about what we may be losing — but what we need to find, remember, and reclaim.

During his travels, he came across the story of Nainoa Thompson, a native Hawaiian now in his seventies, and the co-founder and president of the Polynesian Voyaging Society. Nainoa is one of the world’s few remaining Pwo — master navigators.

He learned his art from a Micronesian navigator from the island of Satawal, who carried centuries of seafaring knowledge in his memory. This is navigation without maps, compasses, or GPS. It is knowing the ocean through the way swells rise, birds fly, clouds form. These were the astronauts of their day.

In 1980, Nainoa became the first Native Hawaiian since the 14th century to navigate a canoe between Hawaii and Tahiti using only ancestral methods. Since then, he has sailed thousands of nautical miles, connecting islands and cultures across the Pacific.

But his mission has always been far larger than the voyages themselves. Nainoa is calling for a new generation of Wayfinders — people capable of navigating deep uncertainty, holding fast to values while adapting to changing conditions, connecting the wisdom of the past with the possibilities of the future.[1]

In other words, Other Ways of Knowing.

When we heard this story, we knew we had found the spirit of this first axiom. Explore his story here.

Today, we live in an age where the loudest voice drowns out the wisest one. Where complex problems are often reduced to simple, binary choices. Where certainty is prized above curiosity, and influence matters more than knowledge, let alone wisdom.

We need Other Ways of Knowing. Other Ways of Knowing doesn’t ask us to slow down. It asks us to catch up.

AI as Another Way of Knowing

On the surface, nothing could be further from the traditions of Polynesian navigation than artificial intelligence. And yet AI – particularly the large language and reasoning models emerging now – already operates as a distinct way of knowing.

Unlike humans, AI does not perceive the world; it models it. It knows by finding patterns in vast datasets, correlating and predicting without direct sensory experience. In doing so, it extends human capacity: working at scales and speeds we cannot match, surfacing connections and solutions that might otherwise remain invisible.

Think of DeepMind’s AlphaFold, which solved one of biology’s most enduring mysteries — the folding of proteins — in a fraction of the time it would have taken human researchers alone.[2] This is a genuinely new epistemology: knowing through computation, correlation, and recursive feedback.

It is not unlike wayfinding. It asks us to trust knowledge we cannot fully see, to act on patterns we cannot entirely explain. And like all powerful tools, it demands skill, care, and wisdom in its use.

In practice, it takes past ways of knowing from diverse cultures and civilisations, and adds current or emerging leaps in knowledge, and the aggregation of data. The head and the heart. Experience and supposition.

What Leaders Can Learn

For most people, epistemic humility is a difficult practice. We are wired to seek certainty. No one wants a surgeon who is uncertain about outcomes. And we are deeply uncomfortable — both with leaders who admit they don’t know everything, and with ourselves when we have to change tack as new information emerges.

But that is exactly what is required now.

We need leaders who can challenge the orthodoxies of their field. Who can speak with authority in the presence of uncertainty. Who recognise the vastness of what they do not know yet still lean into their roles as seekers and guides. Who can integrate multiple, sometimes contradictory signals — and hold them without rushing to false resolution.

And who can trust the yet-unseen and move forward: gathering knowledge from diverse sources, building wisdom from it, and finding a direction — not despite the uncertainty, but through it.

The navigators we seek in this century will blend the oldest and newest Ways of Knowing: the deep memory of our species, the cultural perspectives of our diverse world, and the computational power of our own creations.

They will connect rather than divide. They will curate, convene, and find meaning from many sources — even when those sources appear in conflict.

They will be leaders who listen before they speak, who can chart a course toward a shared horizon — even if that horizon is beyond sight.

Where the Horizon Leads Next

We may not yet know what we don’t know. But we need, at minimum, to know that we don’t know everything. And we need to be willing to act from that place — not paralysed by it, but propelled.

Other Ways of Knowing is the genesis axiom – not because it is the most dramatic, but because without it, none of the others are possible. As you will see in the upcoming series, you cannot regenerate what you cannot first imagine. You cannot rebuild trust across difference from within a single frame. You cannot tell new stories if you’re still imprisoned by the old ones.

If Other Ways of Knowing is about the mindset of navigation and invitation, then our next axiom – Regeneration – is about the destination.

In the same way that Wayfinders trust the stars to guide them across open ocean, we must trust in the possibility of a future where our economic, social, and ecological systems are not merely maintained — but replenished, renewed and made whole again.

That is the next part of our journey. And the next chapter in the Axioms of Ways.

[1] Polynesian Voyaging Society. polynesiainstitute.org. Sam Low, Hawaiki Rising: Hokulea, Nainoa Thompson, and the Hawaiian Renaissance. University of Hawaii Press, 2013.

[2] John Jumper et al., “Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction with AlphaFold,” Nature 596 (2021): 583–589. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2. / DeepMind, “AlphaFold: a solution to a 50-year-old grand challenge in biology,” DeepMind Episode, November 30, 2021. https://deepmind.google/blog/alphafold-five-years-of-impact/

We’ve introduced the Five Horsemen: a planet under strain, the concentration of power, the assault on trust and truth, the rise of intelligence augmentation, and the failure of governance.

Each is destabilizing on its own. But together, we have our own tipping point for the Human Race.

The temptation in such moments is either paralysis or prescription: do nothing and maybe it will all go away — it won’t. Or declare simple solutions, choose sides, retreat into ideology — the solution most have chosen so far, and look where that has got us.

Clearly, neither reaction is sufficient.

Before policy, before reform, before institutional redesign — we must ask deeper questions: How are we thinking about the world we are trying to lead? What assumptions have we already made about the “way the world is”, our place in that world, and what the future should look like?

The Pattern Beneath the Crises

I recently had the opportunity to design and teach a class on entrepreneurial thinking in the built environment — architecture, cities, the places where people actually live. Two groups of 110 undergraduate students. In one of the early sessions, I introduced the three laws of disruption from Tip of the Spear and the Five Horsemen. The look on their faces was instructive: many had not paused to consider the perilousness of the moment we find ourselves in.

I stopped and asked two questions.

First: Is this a unique moment in our species’ history, or have we “seen this movie before”?

Second: I put up the Nick Bostrom quote from Superintelligence: “AI is the last invention of mankind.” And asked, with a smile: “What do you think?”

The room split — on both questions. Some felt we are in a genuinely unique moment, given the convergence and acceleration of five simultaneous crises. Others reached for historical parallels: Gutenberg, the industrial revolution, nuclear weapons. And to some extent, both groups were right. The pattern is familiar. The scale and speed are not.

The Bostrom question split the room just as cleanly. The concerns matched the optimism, almost exactly. Which, if you think about it, is exactly the right response to a sentence that may be the most consequential ever written about our species.

Crises are often symptoms of deeper design failures. And design failures begin with flawed assumptions — about value, progress, growth, truth, knowledge, and power.

We have spent generations innovating Things — technologies, markets, systems. These have changed our lives. But we have not paid the same attention to innovating the Ways we govern, distribute, measure, and decide.

Innovation of Things has outpaced Innovation of Ways.

The result is extraordinary capability — and growing instability.

This is not a call to slow down technological progress. It is a call to accelerate the evolution of wisdom, governance, and institutional design at a pace that matches our tools. And that is the urgent need that gives rise to our framework. We call it the Axioms of Ways.

These axioms are not policy proposals, partisan platforms, or economic blueprints. They are something more foundational: lenses for evaluating decisions in a world defined by acceleration and interdependence.

A Journey, Not a List

The six Axioms form a progression — a journey from seeing differently to acting differently.

We begin with an invitation to expand what we count as knowledge — integrating ancient wisdom, diverse perspectives, and new forms of intelligence. This is epistemic humility as practice, not performance. This is Other Ways of Knowing.

From there, we move to renewal — shifting from sustainability’s defensive posture to regeneration’s active restoration of living systems. Not preserving what remains, but healing what has been damaged. This is Regeneration vs. Sustainability.

This opens the door to transformation — recognizing that abundance is not inevitable but a design choice, and that intelligence augmentation forces us to decide: shared prosperity or concentrated advantage? This is Abundance 2.0.

Transformation requires inspiration — the stories we tell recruit us into futures. When narrative becomes infrastructure, truth-telling becomes governance. This is The Stories we Tell.

Inspiration must harden into commitment — new social contracts that make explicit what was once implicit, binding us to each other and to the systems we share. This is The New Social Contract.

And commitment demands action — rebuilding trust and truth as civic infrastructure, not as ideals, but as operational necessities. This is Trust and Truth.

How to Use This Framework

These are not abstract principles. They are practical instruments.

Think of them as a pilot’s dashboard, not a checklist to complete in sequence. A pilot doesn’t stare at every gauge simultaneously — but they know which ones are critical in which conditions. Turbulence calls for different instruments than navigation does.

A board deciding whether to deploy AI sees different questions through the lens of Regeneration than through quarterly returns. A policymaker viewing inequality through Abundance 2.0 designs different interventions than one viewing it through scarcity. A citizen evaluating truth claims through epistemic humility makes different judgments than one seeking certainty.

The Axioms don’t give answers. They change the questions. And better questions — asked consistently, across institutions, across crises — produce better choices.

Before we go deeper into each axiom, we want to show you something. We mapped all six axioms against each of the five crises, scored and weighted them, and showed which ones are critical to each problem and why. The picture is not what most people expect. Some axioms that feel universally important turn out to be secondary for specific crises. Others you might overlook become the primary lens. Take five minutes with this before next week. It will change how you read everything that follows.

→ Explore the Axioms of Ways: Crisis Dashboard

What Comes Next

In the episodes ahead, we examine each Axiom in depth — what it reveals that conventional thinking obscures, where it’s already emerging in practice, and what it demands of leaders now.

Each episode builds on the previous. Each Axiom illuminates something the others cannot.

The crises describe the terrain. The Axioms describe how to navigate it.

The work ahead is not incremental. It is architectural, and it begins with how we see.

Next week, Laura opens the journey with the first Axiom — and the hardest one to truly practice: Other Ways of Knowing.

In our last episode, we talked about AI racing ahead of our capacity to govern it. And that was the optimistic framing!

Here’s the truth: we can’t govern AI because we can’t govern anything anymore. We can’t agree on what’s real. We can’t coordinate at scale. We can’t even have a conversation without it turning into a tribal loyalty test.

This isn’t a crisis of technology. It’s a crisis of knowing—of our collective ability to figure out what the hell is actually true and what to do about it.

And it’s accelerating.

Let’s Talk About Epistemic Humility (Yes, Really)

I know. “Epistemic humility” sounds like something a philosophy professor says right before you check your phone.

Epistemic just means “related to knowledge”—how we know what we know.

Humility means admitting we might be wrong.

Put them together, and you get: the discipline of not being certain about things you can’t verify.

Revolutionary concept, I realize.

But here’s the problem: we’ve built a civilization that rewards certainty and punishes doubt. Algorithms amplify confidence. Influencers monetize conviction. Politicians campaign on answers, not questions.

And underneath all of it, quietly, the shared ground we used to stand on—the ability to agree on basic facts—is crumbling.

So yeah. Epistemic humility. It’s an awkward phrase for an urgent problem.

We’ve forgotten how to say “I don’t know” when we actually don’t know.

The Problem Has Two Faces

First: We can’t agree on what’s true.

Not complicated truths. Basic truths. Today, we have to ask ourselves: did this thing happen? Is this number accurate? Is this source credible?

We used to have systems for sorting this out—journalism, science, courts, audit. Imperfect systems, sure. But systems designed to test claims against evidence.

Those systems are now under assault. Not because they’re broken (though some are), but because undermining them is profitable.

Platforms optimise for engagement, not accuracy. Repetition creates credibility. Outrage outperforms nuance. Speed beats reflection. The dopamine hit of “more, faster, angrier” doesn’t leave room for the hard work of verification.

We believe things because we’ve heard them repeatedly. Everyone we know heard the same thing. The algorithm made sure of it.

And the cost of generating bullshit has dropped to zero while the cost of debunking it has skyrocketed.

Second: We can’t coordinate even when we agree.

Here’s the thing that keeps me up at night: even when we do agree on the facts, we can’t act on them.

Climate? We’ve known the science for 40 years. The treaties exist. The technology exists. The economics increasingly work. And yet?

Pandemics? We had playbooks. We had early warning systems. We thought we knew exactly what would happen. And yet?

AI risk? Every serious researcher says the same thing: this is moving faster than our capacity to understand it, let alone govern it. And yet!

The problem isn’t knowledge. It’s governance.

Political systems operate on electoral cycles. Corporate decisions run on quarterly earnings. But the crises we face operates on civilizational timescales.

The mismatch isn’t a bug. It’s structural.

Here’s Where It Gets Scary

These two failures—truth collapse and coordination failure—are not separate problems.

They’re related, two faces of the coin, and they reinforce each other in a way that’s genuinely frightening.

• When people can’t agree on what’s true, they can’t coordinate action.

• When people can’t coordinate action, they lose faith in institutions.

• When they lose faith in institutions, they retreat into tribes.

• When they retreat into tribes, shared truth becomes impossible.

It’s a flywheel. And it’s accelerating.

At the global level, the rules between nations are fraying. The postwar operating system—institutions, norms, treaties—was built for a world that believed restraint had value and cooperation was possible.

That world is receding. What’s replacing it is harder, faster, and more tribal: blocs, leverage, sovereign speed. “If we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” as Canada’s PM put it at Davos 2026.[1]

At the human level, something equally consequential is happening, but it’s easier to miss because it unfolds inside us.

The citizen—the atomic unit on which democracy depends—has less and less capacity to pay attention, filter information, and think critically. Not because people are stupid. Because they’re exhausted. Overloaded. Outmatched by systems designed to keep them reacting.

When attention becomes contested terrain, collective reasoning collapses. And when collective reasoning collapses, power fills the vacuum.

This is why truth, trust and governance belong among our Five Horsemen. These crises are real, not just background noise. And our dealing with them determines whether we can address any of the others.

What This Means

Here’s the architecture of the problem:

Shared truth creates trust. Trust enables cooperation. Cooperation makes governance possible.

Simple, right?

Now reverse it.

When truth fragments, trust fractures. When trust fractures, governance becomes difficult and expensive. When governance becomes too difficult, it becomes optional—at least for those with enough power to ignore it.

And suddenly, none of the other stuff works.

You can’t govern a planetary crisis if half the room thinks the crisis is a hoax and the other half thinks it’s too late anyway.

You can’t regulate AI when the people building it, funding it, and profiting from it are the same people writing the regulations.

You can’t address inequality when “fair” has become a tribal identifier instead of a shared value.

You can’t maintain democracy when citizens are too exhausted to distinguish truth from noise, signal from performance, governance from theatre.

The epistemic crisis isn’t one crisis among many. It’s a crack in the foundation. And when foundations crack, everything built on top of them starts to tilt.

This is not a metaphor.

There are key Questions that we Should Be Asking (But Mostly Aren’t)

• How do we rebuild institutional credibility when distrust has been weaponized for profit?

• What does “evidence-based decision-making” even mean when evidence itself is contested?

• How do we measure success when the metrics reward outrage, not accuracy?

• Where are we optimizing for attention when we should be optimizing for truth?

These aren’t abstract questions. They’re decisions being made—or not made—right now, in boardrooms, in legislatures and in newsrooms. And mostly, we’re choosing wrong.

Because choosing right is hard. It’s slow. It doesn’t trend. It doesn’t drive engagement. It requires epistemic humility.

It requires saying: I don’t know. Let’s find out. Together. And right now, that’s the rarest sentence in public life.

We’ve solved coordination problems before.

The Montreal Protocol worked. Nations came together, listened to scientists, phased out CFCs, and the ozone layer began to recover.

It’s possible.

The difference between then and now isn’t scientific uncertainty. It’s the operating conditions under which we’re trying to coordinate.

Then, crises arrived one at a time, unfolded over years, and gave us time to respond.

Now: crises arrive simultaneously, accelerate at machine speed, and give us no time to think.

Then, information moved slowly enough that gatekeepers could verify it.

Now: information moves at the speed of computation, and verification can’t keep up.

Then, attention was scarce but renewable.

Now: attention is weaponized, and exhaustion is the norm.

This is new. We’ve never tried to coordinate at this scale, at this speed, under these conditions.

And we’re trying to do it with governance systems designed for a slower, simpler world.

The epistemic crisis isn’t separate from the others—planetary, inequality, AI. It’s what makes all of them harder to solve.

Because when you can’t agree on what’s true, you can’t agree on what to do.

And when you can’t agree on what to do, the vacuum fills with power, speed, and whoever shouts loudest.

In our next episode, we’ll stop diagnosing and start building: the Axioms of Ways, a framework for seeing these crises more clearly and responding more wisely.

But first, we had to say this plainly: the house seems to be on fire, and we’re still arguing about whether fire is real.

We need to stop that. Now.

[1] World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, Davos, January 2026.

Last month, something happened that should have been a wake-up call.

Anthropic – the company that builds Claude, the AI you might be using right now – walked away from a $200 million Pentagon contract. They drew two red lines: no mass domestic surveillance of Americans, no fully autonomous weapons. The Pentagon said those restrictions were unacceptable, gave them 72 hours to comply, and when they refused, designated them a national security “supply chain risk.”[1]

Within hours, OpenAI stepped in and took the deal.

Now, you can argue about who made the right call. Anthropic says that in a narrow set of cases, “AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values” and that “Some uses are also simply outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do.”[2] Perhaps someone needs to pump the brakes.

OpenAI says they got the same protections through different mechanisms, and the Pentagon needs a partner, not a holdout.

But here’s what nobody’s arguing about: we’re building the most powerful technology humans have ever created, and we’re doing it without the governance systems to manage it.

The technology has leapt ahead of safety. And we’re choosing speed over wisdom, capability over alignment, Innovation of Things over Innovation of Ways.

Again.

Anyone else sensing a dystopian world?

Why This Time Is Different

I know. You’ve heard the “this time is different” argument before. Every new technology gets the same treatment—radio, television, the internet, social media.

But AI actually is different, and not in the way most people think.

It’s different because it’s general-purpose. It doesn’t do one thing. It does everything. And it gets better at everything, exponentially, whether we’re ready or not.

The gap between what’s technically possible and what’s governable is widening faster than any previous technology in human history. And unlike previous technologies, AI doesn’t just amplify what we do. AI makes decisions, generates content, allocates resources, and increasingly, acts autonomously and when we pour AI into systems optimised for extraction, concentration, and short-term gain, we’re not just making those systems faster.

We’re making them permanent.

But hold on, another minute, what if we change the narrative? What if AI amplification is put in the service of abundance?

Abundance That’s Possible (And I Mean Actually Possible)

Here’s the thing that drives me crazy: that’s real with potential benefits that are incalculable.

Not sci-fi hope. Not “maybe someday” hope. Real, tangible, within-a-decade hope.

Energy. AI is already optimizing renewable energy grids, improving battery chemistry, and accelerating fusion research. We’re approaching energy abundance—where the marginal cost of power drops toward zero. Solar + storage + AI optimization could mean cheap, clean, distributed energy for everyone.

Healthcare. AI is reading medical scans better than human radiologists, discovering new drug compounds in months instead of years, and personalizing treatment plans in ways we couldn’t imagine five years ago. We’re talking about cutting drug discovery timelines by 90%, making diagnostics available in remote areas, and fundamentally changing what’s curable.

And it’s not just energy and healthcare. It’s food systems, education, climate modelling, and materials science. In every domain where scarcity has been the constraint and human cognitive limits were the bottleneck, AI could remove both constraints.

For the first time in human history, we have a credible shot at a new period of post-scarcity in the things that matter most.

That’s not hype. That’s what the technology allows.

Why Every System Will Fight This

But here’s the problem.

Every abundance is someone’s scarcity pricing model getting destroyed.

Oil companies don’t want energy abundance. Their entire value proposition is to control a scarce resource and extract rents from it. Free energy is an existential threat.

Pharmaceutical companies don’t want this. Their business model is predicated on long development timelines and patent monopolies.

While education is free in some parts of the world, the social mobility model relies on credential gatekeeping and limited access.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is how markets work. The people with the most to lose from abundance are the people with the most power to prevent it.

So what do they do? They lobby for regulatory capture. They patent the tools. They concentrate the compute. They make sure the abundance flows through them rather than around them.

And they succeed. Because power doesn’t surrender quietly.

But with AI, this potential for abundance is real – if we allow it.

And, what comes next?

We don’t know.

We have lived with a system - economic and political, capitalism and democracy - that most accept has served us well. And we admit that we don’t know what comes next.

What we do know is that AI has extraordinary potential. And when the AI helps us deliver the promise of free (and sustainable) energy or AI helps us find the cure for cancer at new shortened timescales – how do you think the energy or pharmaceutical companies will respond?

You don’t need us to tell you the answer to that one.

But There is a Choice

We have a genuine opportunity to lead the world in Innovation of Ways - in governance, the distribution, the alignment, the wisdom to steward this technology toward abundance rather than extraction (and extinction).

Instead, we choose an”Innovation of Things arms race.

“First to AGI wins.” “AI supremacy.” “Beat China, the US or some rogue state that has AI in their arsenal”

We’re treating AI like we treated nuclear weapons. Whoever gets there first dominates. Mutually assured destruction logic. Speed over safety. Capability over alignment.

And that approach guarantees the worst outcomes.

Because when speed is the only metric, you skip the questions that matter:

· Who benefits from the coming abundance?

· What does alignment actually mean?

· How do we prevent concentration?

· What governance do we need before the crisis, not after?

Do we really need a “Hiroshima moment” before we establish the governance systems, protocols and agreements?

The largest economies in the world and the ones that could have – or should have – set a different standard – choose the obvious, extractive, old playbook.

We’re not building governance for abundance. We’re building an arms race for dominance.

But what if the incentive structures are wrong.

The Inflection Point

Here’s why the Anthropic-OpenAI decision matters more than it might seem.

AI isn’t like previous technologies: deploy it, see the consequences, regulate.

AI is recursive. It improves itself. It operates faster than human decision-making. It makes choices we won’t understand until after they’ve been launched or cascaded.

The decisions we make in the next 3-5 years will determine which operating system AI gets poured into.

If we pour it into the current system—extraction, concentration, quarterly returns, arms race logic—AI will make that system permanent. It will optimise for those goals faster and more thoroughly than humans ever could.

If we pour it into a system designed for regeneration, distribution, and long-term resilience—which we could design, we have the wealth and knowledge—AI could actually deliver the abundance it promises.

We’re choosing the operating system right now.

And right now, we’re choosing extraction.

Not because it’s inevitable. Because it’s the path of least resistance.

We talk endlessly about Innovation of Things: models, chips, benchmarks, market caps, but the real challenge of this era is Innovation of Ways:

• Ways of knowing: verification, provenance, auditability, transparency

• Ways of governing: accountability, incentive design, standards, and guardrails

• Ways of distributing: who benefits, who is at risk, who is protected

• Ways of adapting: education, retraining, mobility, dignity, meaning

• Ways of leading: courage, restraint, and legitimacy under uncertainty

AI is forcing us to innovate not only in what we build—but in how we choose.

Some Real Hope

But here’s the thing: we’re not locked in yet. Some actors are choosing differently.

Anthropic walked away from $200 million rather than compromise on autonomous weapons and surveillance. That’s not virtue signaling. That’s a real choice with real costs.

Some governments are exploring public AI infrastructure—compute as a public utility rather than a private monopoly.[3]

Some researchers are building open models, not to give away IP, but to prevent concentration.[4]

The tools for abundance do exist. The technology does enable different choices.

But only if we choose them. And only if we move fast enough to shape the systems before they harden.

What This Demands from Leaders

If you’re making decisions that involve AI – and increasingly, that’s all of us – these are the questions that matter:

• Are we optimising for speed or for alignment?

• Who benefits from the abundance this technology creates—and who’s being left out?

• What governance exists to prevent concentration, and is it adequate for exponential change?

• Are we pouring AI into extractive systems or building new ones designed for regeneration and distribution?

These aren’t abstract questions. They’re decisions happening right now.

The Anthropic-Pentagon standoff was one company’s choice. But the bigger choice is the one we’re all making, every day, when we decide what to optimise for.

In our next episode, we will look at what is holding us back. We introduce the concept of epistemic humility and why we are facing an epistemic crisis.

[1] Anthropic’s public statement on the matter is available at https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war.

[2] Anthropic’s public statement on the matter is available at https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war.

[3] There are growing calls for a “Public AI” option to prevent monopolisation of AI resources, with governments exploring roles in owning and operating key elements of AI infrastructure, including data centres and model development. Latitude Media Also Mozilla Foundation, Public AI Report, September 2024, available at foundation.mozilla.org. / OECD, “Public AI: Policies for Democratic and Sustainable AI Infrastructures,” OECD.AI, 2024, oecd.ai. / For specific national examples: India’s IndiaAI Mission (18,000+ national GPU infrastructure); France’s sovereign AI compute initiative (the Mistral-Nvidia “Project Compute” partnership endorsed by President Macron, 2025). “Public AI” was a major theme at the AI Action Summit in Paris, February 2025 https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/02/public-ai-infrastructure-a-media-leader-explains/

[4] The open-weight AI movement is led by organisations explicitly motivated by reducing concentrated control of AI. Key examples: Meta’s Llama family (released under open licence, downloaded over 400 million times as of 2025); Mistral AI (Paris-based, founded by former DeepMind and Meta researchers, releasing open-weight models with permissive licences as a deliberate alternative to closed proprietary systems like OpenAI’s GPT TechCrunch); and EleutherAI (a nonprofit research collective explicitly founded to counter concentration in AI development). See also: Hugging Face Hub, which hosts over 100,000 community models as a shared public resource. huggingface.co

Welcome back to The Human Race - A Framework for Hope.

This is the first of three episodes examining the convergent crises of our day, described as The Five Horsemen in our introduction.

We want to look at the first two crises together because when you do, you can only reach one conclusion…. WTF!

Here’s what keeps us up at night.

Not that we’re facing existential crises. We are, obviously. Planetary systems are destabilizing, inequality is spiralling, and the whole mess.

What keeps us up is that we know how to fix this.

We have the science. We have the technology. We have the wealth. We even have the historical playbooks showing us it’s possible. But, we’re choosing not to.

That’s not a choice. That’s a tragedy, and it’s catastrophically wrong.

Let’s Start With What We Actually Know

Kate Raworth nailed it with her Doughnut Economics framework. She took Johan Rockström’s planetary boundaries—the nine biophysical limits that keep Earth stable—and added the inner ring: the social foundation. Education, health, food security, political voice, and social equity.

The idea is simple and brutal: we need to stay inside the planetary boundaries (don’t destroy the life-support systems) while staying above the social foundation (don’t let people fall through the floor into deprivation).

The doughnut is the sweet spot. The safe and just space for humanity.

Guess where we are?

We’re blowing past the outer boundaries—climate, biodiversity, nitrogen cycles—while millions of people are still below the inner ring, lacking clean water, adequate food, basic education.

We’re simultaneously overshooting planetary limits AND failing to meet basic human needs.

How is that even possible when we have more wealth, more technology, and more knowledge than any civilization in history?

I’ll tell you how: because we’re using an extractive operating system designed for scarcity in an era of potential abundance.

And it’s breaking both the planet and social cohesion.

The Planetary Part: We’ve Known for 50 Years

The science on climate isn’t new. We’ve known since the 1970s that burning fossil fuels would destabilize the climate. We’ve known since the 1980s that deforestation would accelerate it. We’ve known since the 1990s that biodiversity loss would compound it.

And we did it anyway.

Not because we didn’t know better. We did. We just decided that quarterly earnings and GDP growth mattered more than, you know, not making the planet uninhabitable.

Fossil fuels lifted billions out of poverty, true. They also locked us into an energy system that’s now driving temperatures toward levels that make agriculture unreliable and coastal cities untenable.

Industrial farming fed billions – also true. It also rewired the nitrogen cycle, depleted topsoil, and turned oceans into dead zones.

We cleared forests to house and feed people—and weakened the climate systems that make housing and feeding people possible.

Every time, the logic was the same: extract value now, deal with consequences later.

Later has arrived.

And the consequences are compounding faster than we anticipated, which is saying something, because we anticipated a lot. Scientists have been sounding alarms for decades. The models were clear. The thresholds were identified. The warnings were specific.

We ignored them.

Not because the science was unclear. Because the politics and economics of not ignoring them were hard.

And here’s the kicker: we’ve proven we can coordinate when we want to.

The Montreal Protocol, 1987. Nations came together, listened to scientists, phased out CFCs, and the ozone layer started recovering. It worked. It’s still working.

So it’s not that global coordination is impossible. It’s that we only do it when the economic disruption is manageable and the profit motive doesn’t fight back too hard.

Climate demands more. It demands transformation of the entire energy system. And that reconfigures power.

So we stall. And the thresholds keep getting crossed.

The Inequality Part: Are You Kidding Me?

Now let’s talk about the social foundation—the inner ring of the doughnut.

We have enough wealth on this planet to ensure that no one falls below the floor. Not theoretically. Actually. The numbers work.

And yet.

840 million people don’t have enough to eat. 2 billion lack clean water. 1.6 billion live in inadequate housing.

Meanwhile, five individuals hold more wealth than the bottom half of humanity combined—about 4 billion people.

Read that again.

Five people. Four billion people.

This isn’t a natural distribution. This isn’t the market working efficiently. This is a system designed to concentrate power and extract value upward.

And it’s accelerating.

The same technologies that could create abundance—AI, automation, renewable energy—are being deployed in ways that concentrate wealth rather than distribute it. Algorithms optimize for engagement, not equity. Platforms extract data, not value for users. AI training costs that can now exceed $100 million and benefits accrue to whoever owns the compute.

We’re building the tools for an abundant future and wiring them into a scarcity operating system.

Every civilization that concentrated power in this way, eventually collapsed. Not because the math stopped working—because the social contract broke.

When the gap between the top and everyone else gets wide enough, governance becomes optional and self-serving for those at the top, and illusory for the rest of the population.

Rome. The French monarchy. The Gilded Age.

We know how this story ends.

And we’re running it again anyway, only faster and with more sophisticated tools for maintaining the gap.

The Connection:

Here’s what clicked for me:

The planetary crisis and the inequality crisis aren’t two separate problems that happen to be occurring at the same time.

They’re symptoms of a common human flaw.

We’re strip-mining the planet AND strip-mining the social contract with the exact same logic: extract maximum value in the short term, externalise the costs, let someone else deal with the consequences.

It’s the same operating system applied to different domains.

And it’s not working.

Not “not working efficiently.” Not working at all.

Because the planet has boundaries and when you cross them, systems collapse.

Societies also have tolerance limits and when you exceed them, social contracts fracture.

We’re simultaneously doing both at accelerating speed.

The wealth exists to solve this. The technology exists. The knowledge exists.

What’s missing is the political will to do anything that threatens the current distribution of power and wealth.

Because here’s the thing about abundance: it’s a design choice, not an inevitability.

We could choose to design systems where renewable energy is cheap and distributed, where AI benefits are shared, where the gains from automation fund education and healthcare instead of accumulating only in shareholder value.

We could choose regeneration over extraction—not as a nice idea, but as the basis for our energy needs.

We could choose to stay inside the planetary boundaries while lifting everyone above the social foundation.

The doughnut is achievable. Kate Raworth proved the math.

We’re choosing not to achieve it.

Why This Should Piss You Off

Because we know better.

We know the planetary science. We know the social science. We know what happens when inequality gets extreme. We know what happens when you overshoot ecological thresholds.

This isn’t happening because we lack information. It’s happening because the people with the power to change it benefit from not changing it.

And that should make you furious.

Not hopeless. Not cynical. Furious.

Because fury is what you feel when something preventable happens anyway, because the people who could prevent it, chose not to.

We have the opportunity—right now, this generation—to be the ones who get it right. Who look at planetary boundaries and say, “Okay, let’s design for that.” Who looked at radical inequality and say, “This is both morally indefensible and structurally unstable—let’s fix it.”

We have the tools. We have the wealth. We have the knowledge.

What we don’t have is a system designed to use any of it wisely.

And that’s a choice we keep making, every quarter, every election cycle, every time we optimize for speed over resilience, extraction over regeneration, shareholder value over shared prosperity.

What This Means

If you’re running a company, sitting on a board, making policy, allocating capital—you’re making this choice right now.

Not theoretically. Literally.

Every quarter you optimise for short-term returns at the cost of long-term system stability, you’re choosing extraction.

Every time you externalise environmental costs because regulation hasn’t caught up, you’re choosing to overshoot.

Every time you concentrate value at the top because the incentive structures reward it, you’re widening the gap.

And every time you do this, you’re making both the planetary crisis and the inequality crisis worse.

Not because you’re evil. Because the system you’re operating in rewards the wrong things.

The question is: are you going to keep playing by those rules? Or are you going to acknowledge that the rules are producing catastrophic outcomes and need to change?

Because here’s the thing, we haven’t crossed every threshold. We haven’t locked in every failure. We still have time—not a lot of time, but some—to redesign for regeneration, for distribution, for staying inside the boundaries while lifting people above the floor.

But only if we choose it.

And right now, we’re choosing the opposite.

The WTF Crisis isn’t complicated. It’s not mysterious. It’s not even surprising.

We know what happens when you overshoot planetary boundaries. We know what happens when inequality gets extreme. We’ve seen both throughout history.

The difference now is speed and scale. We’re doing both simultaneously, faster than ever, with better tools for ignoring the consequences.

And we’re doing it while knowing better.

That’s the real crisis.

In our next episode, we’ll look at what’s happening in the world of AI. We are calling it a “crisis” because we are releasing increasingly capable models and tools – regardless of what you think of its true level of intelligence or capability – to make new kinds of decisions, build grid-defying data centres and betting our future on the outcome of trained models. The genie is truly out of the bottle, and we are only just starting to ask, “just because we can, should we?”

But first, let’s sit with this: we have everything we need to solve this except the willingness to redesign the system that created it.

And that should bother you.

A lot.

Subscribe now

The Human Race started about 10 years ago with a lot of long-day and late-night conversations about everything under the sun - about technology and society, responsibility and leadership, about what it means to be human when everything around us seems to be changing. We even wrote a book.

Again and again, we came back to the same thought: that something fundamental is shifting beneath our feet, faster than we could understand it, and faster than others seem to be governing it.

We’ve been programmed for progress, but frankly, we weren’t sure if this was progress or just change at speed.

Beneath the surface of the endless debates about innovation and disruption, we decided that we were engaged in something deeper: a race with our own creations, with our own systems, and perhaps with our own future.

That piqued our curiosity, and we needed to find out what others thought. We spoke with business, social, and political leaders; with entrepreneurs, academics, and scientists; with parents, students, and citizens of all ages.

Across disciplines and cultures, we began each conversation in much the same way with a series of questions:

• Is this a unique moment in history?

• Are we prepared for the challenges we face—or even aware of them?

• Have we encountered moments like this before, and if so, what did we learn?

• And, ultimately, what comes next?

Each conversation came with a different perspective, yet a consistent picture emerged.

Yes, we have developed extraordinary tools—tools that would have seemed godlike to previous generations—yet we are losing the human capacities needed to use them wisely: compassion, empathy, long-term thinking, collective responsibility. These capabilities feel increasingly scarce, at precisely the moment we need them most.

We all felt it.

We are living through a convergence of forces that, taken together, create risks of existential scale. Yes, existential, without exaggeration.

The instability and anxiety of our time is being shaped by these forces.

Individually, each is approaching—or has crossed—critical thresholds.

Together, they interact, amplify one another, and create risks far greater than the sum of their parts.

We came to think of them as the Five Horsemen of the modern age.

The first is planetary. Human activity is pushing complex ecological systems toward irreversible change. Climate disruption, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation are no longer abstract future risks—they’re here, they’re now, they’re lived experience, regardless of geography, politics, or belief.

The second is inequality. The concentration of wealth, power, and influence is out of control and has reached levels unprecedented in human history. Systems once celebrated for expanding freedom and prosperity have been coopted, so that very few benefit while the majority are excluded and disaffected. This isn’t new—but the scale and speed are.

The third is trust. Trust is breaking. Digital infrastructure, built to connect us, has been weaponised. Information has become abundant, but wisdom is scarce. Truth competes with nonsense on equal footing, and confusion—sometimes accidental, often deliberate—erodes confidence in institutions, values, and each other.

We know that our lifetime has been unusual: a brief post-war period of cooperation and shared progress. That window is closing.

The fourth is intelligence itself. Artificial intelligence represents the sum total of human innovation, now accelerating rapidly through large language models and generative systems. What was once speculative, has entered everyday life with startling speed.

Yet we are only beginning to wake up to the fact that it requires adult supervision. The genie is not merely out of the bottle; it’s bouncing off the walls turning an already difficult technological shift into an existential gamble for our species.

That happened fast.

And finally, there is governance. The rules of the game are being rewritten. Global order is disintegrating. Geopolitics is returning to zero-sum logic.

And at the human scale,15 years of unregulated algorithmic social media has suppressed critical thinking. We’re overstimulated, overwhelmed and unfocussed—some have called it the “hacking of the human brain”. We call it the weaponization of attention.

These are the Five Horsemen—a collection of interlocking failed design decisions threatening to disrupt the human race. And if not fully addressed - and we don’t believe they are - these forces will make it impossible for us to win that race.

And if they were not enough to keep you up at night, at the same time, we are racing blindly to activate a unprecedented technological transition called AI.

The result is an existential gamble for our species.

A New Framework

We have come to a simple but unsettling conclusion: the crises are not isolated; they are converging. Our current governance models and institutions are simply not equipped to deal with them.

This isn’t political. It does not argue from left or right. It begins from a simpler premise: we are human, and we are in this together.

These crises demand a new kind of thinking—not just faster responses, but wiser ones. We need a framework capable of helping us make better decisions in the face of complexity.

That framework is what we call the Axioms of Ways.

The Axioms are not solutions. We don’t have the instruction manual. They are lenses—for focus, for clarity and to help us make difficult choices, more wisely.

Each Axiom reveals something that conventional thinking obscures. Together, they form a discipline of attention for an age that has forgotten how to pay attention.

In the posts ahead, we’ll introduce each Axiom. We’ll explain how they work, and we’ll use them to address real problems in new ways.

That’s the optimistic part. First, before we can get ourselves out of this hole we find we ourselves in, we have to stop digging and start to understand the mess we are in.

We begin with the planetary crisis because, if we don’t deal with that one, the rest is academic.

Welcome to The Human Race.

In 2017, I published a book called Tip of the Spear.

The central thesis was simple: Technology is advancing exponentially, our institutions are linear, and the gap between them is becoming catastrophic. I warned that we were approaching an inflection point - that the decisions made in the next decade would determine whether we used our extraordinary tools to level the playing field or entrench inequality forever.

I introduced two 13-year-old girls - Olivia in Canada, Mervis in Malawi - and asked you to imagine their futures. Would Olivia’s education prepare her for a world of AI and automation? Would Mervis’s Africa leap-frog the developed world’s mistakes, or repeat them faster?

I wrote it as an invitation. A call to pay attention. A framework for understanding what was coming.

It is nine years later, and it’s here

Everything I warned about in 2017 has materialized - faster and more dramatically than even I predicted.

Would AI soon be a fact of life? ChatGPT went from zero to 200 million users in months.

The governance crisis I said would emerge when our linear institutions couldn’t keep pace? Last month, Anthropic refused a Pentagon contract over autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Within 72 hours, they were designated a national security risk and replaced by OpenAI. The AI governance crisis isn’t theoretical anymore - it’s happening in real time.

What about predicted inequality acceleration? Five people now hold more wealth than the bottom half of humanity - 4 billion people. That’s not a typo. That’s not future projection. That’s today.

The education system, I said, wouldn’t prepare Olivia? She’s 22 now. AI can do her college assignments better than she can. Her degree is worth less than it would have been a decade ago. And her younger siblings are being prepared for jobs that won’t exist by the time they graduate.

And what of the forecasted epistemic crisis - our inability to agree on truth, to trust institutions, to coordinate at scale? We just lived through a pandemic where we couldn’t agree on basic facts. We’re watching democracies fracture in real time. We’ve built the most powerful information distribution system in human history and used it to fragment truth into tribal loyalty tests.

I guess that I was right. And those who know me know I desperately wish I’d been wrong!

Because here’s what I’ve learned in nine years: Being right about the crisis doesn’t matter if we don’t do something about it.

In 2017, I wrote Tip of the Spear to help people understand what was coming. It was contemplative, exploratory, and invitational. “Join me in thinking about this,” I said.

That was the right tone for 2017. When you’re warning about a fire that hasn’t started yet, you can be measured. You can take your time. You can invite people to consider the possibility.

But the fire has started.

And when the house is burning, you don’t invite people to contemplate the flames. You tell them where the exits are. You tell them how to save what matters.

Our new platform - The Human Race: A Framework for Hope - is that map.

Not hope in the sense of wishful thinking. Hope in the sense of having a plan. Hope in the sense of knowing that we still have agency, if we act now.

Between 2017 and now, something else changed: I found a thinking partner who could help me translate the diagnosis into action.

Laura Haynes – thinker, changemaker and advisor to top businesses - with over 30 + years building purpose-driven strategy across Europe, North America, and the Middle East, and my dear friend for over 20 years - has been my equal partner in developing what we now call the Axioms of Ways.

We spent years testing this framework against real leaders, real companies, and real governments. We asked: What would it actually take to navigate the convergence of crises identified in Tip of the Spear? Not in theory - in practice.

The answer became six axioms - principles that work at every scale, from individual decisions to civilizational choices. Not solutions. Lenses. Instruments for seeing more clearly and choosing more wisely when the old maps don’t work anymore.

Laura will introduce this framework shortly. But first, I need you to understand why the tone has changed.

In 2017, there was still time for warnings.

In 2026, It’s time for action.

The contemplation phase is over. The three crises identified in Tip of the Spear - technological disruption, inequality, and institutional failure - have converged. And they’ve been amplified by two more: the epistemic crisis (we can’t agree on truth) and the AI crisis (we’re building godlike tools without the wisdom to use them safely).

That’s what the next section will show you - not as future speculation, but as present reality. The Five Horsemen aren’t coming. They’re here.

Olivia is 22 now. Mervis is 22 now.

The future you were asked to imagine for them is their present.

The decisions we make in the next 3-5 years - not decades, years, months - will determine whether the generation after them has a livable planet, a functioning society, and any agency at all.

So here’s what I’m asking:

If you read Tip of the Spear and thought “interesting but not urgent,” read this.

If you didn’t read Tip of the Spear but you’ve felt the ground shifting beneath your feet, read this.

If you’re a leader making decisions that will shape the next decade, read this.

If you’re exhausted by the constant crisis and looking for a way forward that doesn’t collapse into either naive optimism or fatalistic despair, read this.

The crises are real. The urgency is real. But so is the possibility.

That’s what Laura and I have spent many years figuring out. Not whether we can solve this - but how.

Let’s begin. Subscribe to this channel and follow along as we release 12 stories of the current state of our world, our future, and some hope for what comes next.

Jim Gibson
March 2026
(Nine years later)