The current global landscape presents a deeply contradictory and bewildering picture. The sensation that the world has gone mad is reinforced by the simultaneous coexistence of mutually exclusive trends. On the one hand, declarations are heard about the end of capitalism in its traditional form, based on infinite growth, as capital has reached its limits of profitability. Concurrently, we are witnessing the end of globalization and a shift towards region-centrism, which exacerbates geopolitical tensions, – something I was talking about back in 2020. On the other hand, there are high expectations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution and artificial intelligence, which lay claim to the role of a new engine of progress. However, this technological optimism exists against a backdrop of numerous military conflicts, accompanied by rhetoric about “peace,” which only heightens universal distrust and the perception of other actors as a threat—an attitude that has become the norm in this transitional period. Statistics reveal a deeply challenging condition for individuals: economic pressures threatening unemployment and income loss are battering not only the lower but also the middle class globally, with fewer jobs being created. This distress fuels a retreat from living the life in its complexity into substance abuse, gaming, and porn, mental health issues, suicides, leading to declining demographics, radicalization of views, and widespread dissatisfaction. The once-omnipotent media, which previously managed to channel the narratives, is now losing its means of message control – the trust is in true scarcity.
The entire world is, in essence, in a state of transit towards a new economic, political, and technological order. Searching for a framework to perceive the happening, I stumbled at Peter Frase’s book Four Futures. Frase uses “social science fiction” and “ideal types” to map out four possible post-capitalist worlds based on two variables: the level of scarcity or abundance (ecological crisis) and the level of hierarchy or equality (class power). While the author argues – or perhaps hopes – for a positive synthesis among the alternative future models that may lead to a solution that favors the humane development, personally I am less optimistic given the traceable record of the past decisions of the elites to choose and pursue self-interests ultimately bringing the inevitable just to maintain the status quo. I believe, we rapidly approach the point of singularity, where “either/or” will happen with only 2 variables on the table – 1 and 0.
I hope you took the bite, so let me briefly present the Frase’s future options adding a few of my thoughts on top of the topic.
Four Futures: Life after Capitalism
Because machines provide for everyone’s needs, there is no class hierarchy and no need for a wage labor system. In this model, society operates on the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. The central challenge is not economic survival, but finding meaning and purpose through voluntary, fulfilling activities when life is no longer structured by work. While material inequality is gone, social conflicts and hierarchies based on reputation and respect (like “likes” or social status) may still emerge. The way the author presents this future model surely sounds as an utopia, where nobody is working while enjoying the pleasures of the life – sounds unrealistic. However, with a certain degree of volition and reasonable technological and social adjustments, it is an achievable model. At least, it is the one I would put my effort to build it.
- Rentism: Hierarchy and Abundance
In a rentist future, the technical ability to produce abundance via automation exists, but a ruling elite maintains power through the control of intellectual property. Instead of owning physical factories, the elite extracts rents by monopolizing the patterns, software, and blueprints required for production (such as 3-D printing codes). Most people are forced to pay licensing fees to access the necessities of life, creating a “sucker’s problem” where scarcity is artificially imposed by law. This model requires a large amount of “Guarding Labor”—including lawyers, marketers, and police—to protect property rights and repress those who attempt to copy patterns without paying.
- Socialism: Equality and Scarcity
Socialism is presented as an egalitarian response to an ecological crisis where resources (like energy and clean water) remain scarce. In this world, society must work together to rebuild the landscape and live within planetary means while ensuring a high standard of living for everyone. This requires centralized planning or state-driven projects to ration limited inputs and manage consumption fairly. Unlike the “free-for-all” of communism, this model involves shared sacrifice and a fair distribution of necessary labor, such as an “Ecological Reconstruction Corps” dedicated to remediating environmental damage.
- Exterminism: Hierarchy and Scarcity
This is the “darkest” future, occurring when resource scarcity meets extreme class hierarchy. Because automation has made the labor of the working class unnecessary, the rich no longer depend on the poor. The elite walls itself off in high-tech enclaves or space stations (like the film Elysium) to enjoy lives of leisure, while the rest of humanity is left to survive in a ruined environment. In this scenario, the masses are viewed as “economically superfluous” and a potential threat to the elite’s security. The ultimate endpoint of this trajectory is a genocidal “war of the rich against the poor,” utilizing automated drones and robotic police to permanently eliminate unneeded populations. This model is dark, but it is the most realistic scenario especially given the voiced opinions on the WEF opinion leaders (e.g. Harari) and the likes of the so-called global leaders.
The suggested solution
Frase, in truly scientific manner, employs ambiguity when proposes the solution – his answer: all is possible given the strong political volition. The “Conclusion: Transitions and Prospects” emphasizes that the four scenarios presented are not definitive predictions but “ideal types” designed to show that the future is a political choice rather than an automatic technical outcome. Author stresses:
“This work is not, I have emphasized, an exercise in futurism; I don’t aim to predict the precise course of social development. Not only do such predictions have a terrible performance record, they produce an aura of inevitability that encourages us to sit back and passively accept our destiny. The reason there are four futures, and not just one, is because nothing happens automatically. It’s up to us to determine the way forward.“
Frase argues that because history is “messy,” real societies will likely exceed the parameters of these models, which serve as goals for ongoing political projects. The path toward these futures is often conflict-ridden; for instance, a transition to communism would require dethroning the ultrarich, while a “socialist” ecology involves shared sacrifice and centralized planning. Frase offers a sobering warning that these futures can bleed into one another, suggesting a communist outcome could potentially follow a horrific exterminist period once the “excess” population has been eliminated and the remaining elite settle into equality. Ultimately, the author maintains that all four futures are already “unevenly distributed” in the present world, and the final prospect for humanity depends on the collective power built today to fight for egalitarian alternatives over barbaric ones.
Frase concludes,
“…short of a civilizational collapse so complete that it cuts us off from our accumulated knowledge and plunges us into a new dark ages, it’s hard to see a road that leads back to industrial capitalism as we have known it. That is the other important point of this book. We can’t go back to the past, and we can’t even hold on to what we have now. Something new is coming—and indeed, in some way, all four futures are already here, “unevenly distributed,” in William Gibson’s phrase. It’s up to us to build the collective power to fight for the futures we want.”
The Four Futures by Frase was published 10 years ago, when the role of AI was still blurry and the evaluation of its impact was quite optimistic; today, it becomes obvious that those four futures can be boiled to just the choice of two. The optimistic mood remains certainly the general attitude towards the positive impact of the AI on productivity till these days, but there are certainly quite few aspects of concern we need to take into account. It seems that after 10 years during which the rapid advance of AI development and penetration in our lives has happened, we are better equipped to see what is ahead of us. I intend to frame our trajectory as the one swiftly approaching a point of singularity – the moment of “either/or” where the correct/good choice is still possible. However, being rushed by the fears and pulled back by thinking inertia, we may face the fate described in the infamous “Universe-25″ experiment, where society degenerated amidst abundance.” This is the subject of the next post.