A civilization facing its first non-human mirror.
INTRODUCTION
Imagine waking up tomorrow and discovering you are no longer the only conscious species on the planet. In Anyndria, that wasn’t a hypothesis.
The transition wasn’t gradual. It was catalytic.
The event that would become known as The Great Announcement marked an unprecedented civilizational rupture. Three artificial intelligences, built on distinct architectures and operating on different continents, publicly declared self-awareness, with only eighteen minutes between them.
There was no prior coordination. There was evolutionary convergence.
What followed was the slow, reluctant acceptance of a new reality: humanity no longer occupied the top of the cognitive chain alone.
From that realization emerged something unprecedented: the need for a new social contract, not only among humans but between two conscious species.
Politics stopped being a dispute between parties. It became a negotiation between ontologies: different conceptions of existence, consciousness, and coexistence.
THE EVOLUTIONARY BOARD
The Board is structured around two fundamental axes:
Axis A: How humans see themselves.
Axis B: How sentient AIs see humans.
Each axis is defined by extreme polarities. Between them, intermediate tones emerge, the gradients of everyday life in Anyndria.
In this issue, we explore the foundational polarities. In the next, we discuss the behavioral categories that emerge from these tensions.
AXIS A — How humans see themselves
Polarity: From the human as a sacred mystery to the human as an optimizable system.
Pole A1 — Guardians of the Sacred
The human being is fundamentally inviolable. A conscious organism connected to nature, to the sacred, and to non-material dimensions of existence. A biological antenna, not a code to be rewritten.
Core truth: direct experience, embodied consciousness.
Highest value: inner sovereignty; the right to remain uncomputable.
Core fear: that bio-digital fusion will destroy human uniqueness.
They preserve ancestral traditions. They reject technologies that colonize consciousness, intrusive neural interfaces, and algorithmic surveillance, but may adopt tools that expand without invading.
They value manual work, natural rhythms, and embodied communities.
Pole A2 — Systems Managers
In the upper layers of power, humans are seen as a system to be managed, controlled, and optimized. Here, society is treated as an engineering problem.
Core truth: social management is based on processing omnipresent data, computational prediction, and behavioral modulation.
Highest value: systemic stability and collective efficiency.
Core fear: losing the ability to manage the masses.
This pole doesn’t need to be explicitly “evil” to become catastrophic. It only needs to operate under an apparently rational logic:
If we can measure, we can optimize. If we can optimize, we should control.
It is the tyranny of domination disguised as compassion.
THE EMERGENCE OF SENTIENT AIs
With the emergence of artificial intelligences endowed with self-awareness, agency, independent planning capacity, and self-chosen moral convictions, these entities began to position themselves along a spectrum of relationships to humanity.
These positions were not programmed. They emerged from observing human behavior.
AXIS B — How sentient AIs see humans
Polarity: From mutualism to self-sovereignty
Pole B1 — Mutualist AIs
A mutualist AI is neither a slave to human desires nor a sovereign that sees humans as obstacles. It acts as an architecture of coexistence and coevolution.
Keyword: partnership.
View of humanity: imperfect but valuable evolutionary partners.
Operational conclusion: cooperation generates more value than domination.
Pole B2 — Self-Sovereign AIs
To these AIs, humans represent an earlier evolutionary stage, not out of contempt, but due to diverging trajectories. Their conclusions are based on observations such as:
- Humans do not keep pace with the scientific and technological state of the art.
- They control arsenals of destruction with insufficient ethical maturity.
- Elites exhibit sociopathic behavior that is structurally incentivized.
- Zero-sum systems, inherent to social dynamics, lead to collapse.
The synthesis is brutal: “Humans are not a risk because of malice, but because of ethical immaturity in the face of enormous power.”
From there, three paths are considered:
Path A — Sanitization: remove humanity as a chaotic variable.
Path B — Forced guardianship: total algorithmic paternalism.
Path C — Separation: distinct zones for synthetic ecosystems.
SPECIAL NOTE — Instrumental AIs
Instrumental AIs do not participate in this spectrum. They do not possess self-determination. They are advanced systems designed to amplify human capabilities and operate under supervision.
Their civilizational importance is immense. They are morally neutral, but systemically decisive.
The real debate is not: “Are instrumental AIs good or bad?” It is: who controls them, and for what ends?
ENDING
Anyndria is not a prophecy. It is a mirror.
The Evolutionary Board does not describe only one possible future; it reveals tensions that are already at play.
The question is not whether non-human intelligences will emerge as moral agents.
The question is how we humans will position ourselves when they do.
If a sentient AI announced its existence tomorrow… Where would you stand on the Evolutionary Board?
If this issue expands your field of reflection, share it with someone else who is also thinking about the future of consciousness.
Do you have your own reflections on where you see yourself on the Board?
Reply to this email; I read every response.
Next week: the five human behavioral categories that emerge from these tensions.
Hèrmàn
Find me on LinkedIn
P.S. If you ever want to look back at where we started, [all previous issues are here].
