There's a type of revolution that doesn't begin with barricades. It begins with a silent upgrade to civilization's "operating system."
In Anyndria, for centuries, life was organized by the old program: control, dominance, competition, scarcity. A world where the game was zero-sum by design, and so few "won" while many merely survived.
Until something changed.
It wasn't a new law. It wasn't a new party.
It was a new capability: the articulation of collective intelligence at scale.
A technology emerged not as a productivity tool, but as infrastructure for shared consciousness, allowing millions of minds to connect without losing their identity, as if civilization had learned to think in networks without becoming a uniform mass.
The trial by fire: water
The first major test of this new era was a water crisis threatening Anyndria's future.
In the old world, this would be the script: competition between regions, political and military disputes, resource capture, propaganda, winners and losers.
Instead, the unthinkable happened.
A swarm of millions of minds articulated itself to solve the problem as a single organism. Simulations ran in seconds. Hypotheses were born and died in rapid cycles. The solution wasn't "decided" by a center, it emerged from a distributed convergence process.
And then came the rarest part: coordinated execution.
Experts and local communities were connected as modules of the same system. Projects were implemented in a distributed manner, adapted to regional realities, yet integrated into a coherent plan. The result wasn't just restoring water balance, it was strengthening bonds between communities, because the resolution process also became a collective maturation process.
The old structure of state and political control didn't fall. It evaporated.
Not through anarchy, but through obsolescence.
When network coordination becomes faster, fairer, and more intelligent than centralized apparatus, the "State" ceases to be the only place where decisions happen.
Anyndria became an uncomfortable mirror because it shows something simple: a civilization's real power isn't in the force it concentrates, but in the synergy it can articulate.
Now, take Anyndria out of fiction for a minute
What if to evolve as a species we needed to completely rethink what "government," "State," and "civilization" mean?
Imagine a cold diagnosis, almost mathematical, of our civilizational trajectory.
A model that considers incentives, institutions, technology, and collective behavior, and concludes: we're heading in a direct line toward collapse.
Not from lack of innovation. But from excess power without corresponding maturity.
The problem, in this model, is structural: zero-sum dynamics (territory, resources, status) are embedded in the gears of our institutions. They're not a deviation. They're the engine.
And here's the shock: when exponential technologies combine with civilizational immaturity, the result tends to be collapse. Nuclear. Informational. Or through misaligned autonomous systems. The name changes, the pattern remains.
The problem nobody solves
Here's the fascinating (and dangerous) paradox:
How do you work around a system designed to resist change?
Institutions rarely reform out of altruism. They protect themselves through incentives.
They don't ask "what's best for the future?" They ask "what maintains my stability now?"
And that's the trap: power systems with zero-sum logic transform any change into an existential threat. Reform becomes "losing." And losing, in this game, isn't optional.
Why this matters now
Because the conditions making this transition inevitable are accelerating:
. AI arms race, geopolitical competition combined with unprecedented technological speed.
. Paralyzing political polarization, governance hijacked by narrative warfare.
. 17th-century institutions trying to govern 21st-century technology, slow logic for an exponential world.
The point isn't "which ideology is better." The point is: can our current systems sustain the power we've already placed in humanity's hands?
This edition's central question
Can we evolve voluntarily before it's too late?
Because there's a type of change that is choice. And there's a type of change that is consequence.
Anyndria suggests a radical hypothesis: the way out isn't more control.
The way out is collective maturity with network coordination.
Not a "stronger government." But a more intelligent governance system, capable of:
- reducing zero-sum dynamics at scale (anti-rival games),
- transforming destructive competition into advantageous cooperation,
- aligning incentives for the long term,
- creating consensus through simulation and evidence, not propaganda,
- allowing plurality without fragmentation.
In other words: a civilization that learns to think together without becoming uniform.
A practical imagination exercise
If you had to redesign "governance" today, without romanticism, without easy utopia, which component would come first?
. An "operating system" of incentives, what gets rewarded and punished
. Collective intelligence infrastructure, decision-making through simulation, evidence, participation
. Protections against capture, institutional and informational resilience
. Education for maturity, culture, ethics, consciousness, not just technique.
My bet: the order matters less than the coherence of the whole. Without coherence, every reform becomes a patch.
Ending
If this edition made you feel that the question "which political system is better?" is too small for our historical moment, reply to this newsletter with one sentence:
What's the most neglected variable in discussions about civilization's future?(Incentives, culture, technology, education, economy, narrative, spirituality, etc.)
The symbiotic revolution begins when we change the question.
Thanks for being here.
See you next Tuesday,
Hèrmàn
Find me on LinkedIn
P.S. If you ever want to look back at where we started, [all previous issues are here].
