Future Scenario: A Divided World With Delayed Climate Change

In the last few months, we have been busy working on a book project to describe plausible futures in the intersection of AI and faith. After some extensive brainstorming, the scenarios are finally starting to come alive (need a refresher on the project click here). After selecting our macro drivers, we have settled on the foundations for our 4 scenarios that form the backdrop for the stories to be written. Here is what they look like:

Each quadrant represents the combination of drivers that undergirds that scenario. For example, in the Q1 scenario, we have National (divided geopolitical system) Green (lower climate change impact). In short, this represents a future where the effects of climate change are delayed or lower than expected but where cooperation among nations is worse than it is today. How can such a combination even be possible?

Now that the parameters are set, the fun part of describing the scenarios can start. In this exercise, we try to imagine a future that fits within these parameters. For Q1, we imagine the global order deteriorating as nations turn inward. On the climate change side, we see a better or delayed outcome even if that seems counter-intuitive. How can a divided world somehow escape the worse of climate change? These difficult questions create the tensions from which creativity can flow.

What does that look like? Before a full description of the National Green scenario, let’s kick it off with a poem that evokes the feeling of this world.

Repent Before it’s Too Late

Gradual change can come too little too late. This scenario is based mostly on a continuation of the present. The 20s decade witnessed gradual climate decay with growing local and regional challenges. The geopolitical order drags along as US and China become major poles of influence, followed by the EU. Polarization within countries increases as political regimes oscillate between democracy and authoritarianism. This vacillation in direction stifles international coordination on climate leading to increased regionalization. In 2028, the Paris agreement collapses yearly climate conferences stop as the US, China, India, and Russia pull out from conversations. 

By 2030, climate change is undeniable, but the lack of international cooperation on how to address it leads to scattered and uncoordinated efforts. Powerful nations think in terms of “energy independence” which ensures that fossil fuels remain an option for many even if they do not play the same role as in the past century. Mother nature seems patient with humanity, giving gentle reminders for them to mend their ways in the way of increased floods, droughts, and the melting of the ice caps. Yet, the gradual impact is scarcely enough to jolt humanity out of its enchanted oblivion. Affected areas in the developing world lack the clout and the resources to catch the world’s attention. The overall sense is that if we could just figure out how to work together, maybe we could avoid the worse. 

As the 2040’s begin, a growing portion of the population no longer believes in stopping climate change. The hope now is simply to stem and adapt to the gradual but decisively transforming effect of a warming planet. In 2045, as the temperature rises by 2-degree celsius, well beyond UN goals, humanity hits a decision point. It must repent before it is too late. Yet, can it come together as a unified front? Can humanity heed nature’s call to repentance or will they be betrayed by half-measures that can no longer prevent the worse? Will it turn a corner or slowly descend into a Malthusian trap?

Nationalism leads to competition rather than cooperation. Tech development accelerates due to a tech “arms race” as nations strive for energy independence and the superiority of AI, supercomputers, weapons, and communications. While generalized war is absent in this period, there is a growing build-up of arms. This overall climate of mistrust guides and hamstrings national investments in tech. Tech dev + adoption is characterized more by competition and parallel acceleration than by shared research or resources. Cybersecurity becomes more of an emphasis here than in other scenarios. 

AI adoption and development are uneven as international cooperation wanes. For example, AI justice slows downs as interests in this area are overshadowed by security concerns. Digital assistants take hold but increasingly become an artifact for developed nations with little use to the global south. Deepfakes and text generation develop more towards political propaganda within regions. The Metaverse mirrors the trend toward nationalism becoming more regionalized rather than the global commons it promised to be. AI/VR advances here take hold in the western versions of the metaverse and make some progress in China. The rest of the world is mostly cut off from it. Green AI advances within the confines of research institutions and government-funded labs in western nations. The benefits don’t trickle down to the global south.

Christianity mirrors many realities of this divided world. The Catholic church becomes more traditionalist and more distributed, therefore less tied to Rome. Even so, the Vatican emerges as a haven for cooperation in a regionalizing world. A string of progressive popes speaks up for the environment following Pope Francis’s lead. Yet, strong conservative factions, more in line with Pope Benedict, hold increasing power both in the West and in the global south. Green consciousness is present but not a forefront preoccupation for traditionalists that remain caught up in theological and liturgical debates. 

Mainline Protestants doubled down on green aspects of Christianity but without the evangelistic component. The focus is more on education than pushing Christian people to action. Their influence wane as their decline in the West continues. They are also unable to gain a foothold in the global south being no match for evangelicals who by now are well-established even as their growth slows down. 

Evangelical Christianity in the US takes up the green consciousness, wedded to a national push for energy independence. Good eco-theology comes in through the back door, so to speak, marshaled to support US national interests. Overall green consciousness in culture is embraced and evangelicals attempt to use this as an evangelism tool–“look how Christianity does such a good job of advocating for a green, sustainable world”. Emphasis on positive comparison between Christianity and other religions in this regard: “Christians are more green than Muslims, Hindus, etc.” captures a bit of the mindset. While greener, they remain militant and disinterested in interfaith dialogue. Missionary networks endure even in a more divided world but the focus continues on personal salvation, with a bit of green consciousness on the side. 

Christian roots of green consciousness find independent expression, less tied to mainline church or institutional Christianity. Organizations like CTA, Biologos, EACH, and others grow, but become more secularly focused and theologically diffuse as a result. They fail to coalesce around common causes and weakened global cooperation ensuring its impact is also limited and only a shadow of its potential. While emerging as a viable alternative to organized Xianity, its lack of cohesion translates into multifold affinity groups that coalesce around narrow missions rather than a movement with a broad vision for transformation.