Just under two years ago, the UN's Summit of the Future adopted a "Future Pact," which has generally been seen as a rather idealistic vision document. Yet visions of the future do play a role, as do people who try to think about how to make the world better. Not everything imagined will ever become reality, but such ideas can still plant seeds in people's minds. The creation of the United Nations itself was widely seen as idealistic, especially in light of the fate of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, the UN has played an important role — despite its current difficulties.

This time, we turn to an idealistic vision of the future, based on a work by Stephen Heintz, head of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, titled "The Logic for the Future."

Heintz maps out the current global situation, painting a rather bleak picture. At the time of writing, there were 183 violent conflicts underway worldwide — the highest number in the past three decades. Many advanced democracies are plagued by political polarization, and authoritarianism is on the rise. Environmental problems are also worsening. We have discussed these issues before and will not repeat them here.

Heintz notes that the current era is characterized by the simultaneous impact of disruptive forces — whether political, geostrategic, economic, social, technological, or environmental.

Institutions created in the last century to solve problems are no longer capable of handling new challenges. As one wise person once said, in turbulent times the greatest danger is not the turbulence itself but acting according to outdated logic. In other words, the prevailing logic needs to be reassessed: what to keep, what to change, and what to discard entirely. Any future system, according to Heintz, will be a blend of the old, the contemporary, and the new, forming a basis for efficiency and sustainability.

Heintz selected 12 concepts rooted in past thinking and proposed replacements — a new approach for each. Let us go through this list.

First, human-centeredness, or anthropocentrism. In its place, he proposes a future based on respect for the entire living environment. Second, national sovereignty should be replaced by cooperative, people-centered sovereignty. This is a complicated idea, as we are currently seeing a resurgence rather than a decline of national sovereignty, and sovereignty — along with the right to self-determination — is enshrined in the UN Charter.

Already in the late 20th century, there was a move toward shared sovereignty in order to overcome the limitations of individual states in influencing economic, geopolitical, and environmental issues. Heintz considers the European Union the best example: its member states try together to manage a wide range of economic, social, and foreign policy issues. The transition from nation-states to member states was a major achievement — legally, financially, and psychologically. For this reason, Heintz regards the creation of the EU as the most successful political development of the last century and as a model for the future.

We might also add NATO and several regional organizations such as the African Union, the ASEAN, and others. However, the EU seems to be the most advanced example. That said, the union itself is currently at a crossroads, and its future is not entirely clear. Still, it seems worth investing in and working to shape the EU into something lasting and positive for the future — perhaps even as an "island" that could serve as an example to the rest of the world. It may seem unlikely, but you never know.

Among other outdated ideas, Heintz highlights the primacy of national interests, which should be replaced by a focus on shared global interests — a proposal that is also open to debate.

Next, the dominance of great powers should give way to a more even distribution of power worldwide. In this context, the problems of the UN Security Council must be addressed, since its five permanent members can each independently block any initiative they oppose. At the same time, a group of so-called "middle powers" — such as India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia — has emerged and seeks a greater say in global affairs.

The current practice of addressing international problems at the collective level can remain, but it must be more consistently supported. However, reliance on multilateral institutions and large bureaucracies should be replaced by a more diverse ecosystem of institutions, networks, and processes. Numerous local structures and civil society organizations should also have a voice. The UN system employs 125,000 officials, plus many more in related bodies — and it is fair to ask whether the results justify such a large apparatus.

The existing principle of so-called "negative peace," maintained through military force, should be replaced by "positive peace," built through inclusive diplomacy, development, and, where necessary, military capabilities. Zero-sum thinking — especially common during the Cold War — should give way to solutions that create positive outcomes for all. Strategic self-absorption should be replaced by strategic empathy — understanding and considering the interests of others.

Imperialism, racism, and patriarchy should be replaced by justice and cosmopolitanism. This is again a very difficult issue, as the word "cosmopolitanism" is like a red flag to many hardline conservative politicians.

Neoliberal economics should be replaced by an economy focused on the well-being of people and the planet. The unrestricted adoption of new technologies should also become more selective, guided by global norms and rules. This point is becoming increasingly important in the age of artificial intelligence. Without some agreement on limits or regulations, technological development could spiral out of control and render all other issues irrelevant.

As an American, Heintz also addresses the need to reshape the United States' global leadership role and proposes the creation of a permanent U.S.–China secretariat — though this somewhat contradicts his earlier argument for dispersing power.

As noted, all of this sounds idealistic, and the current moment seems to favor a resurgence of more primal human instincts. Yet without idealism, no positive reality can emerge.

Further reading

• A Logic For the Future | Rockefeller Brothers Fund
• Kim Stanley Robinson & Stephen Heintz: A Logic For The Future — LONG NOW TALKS
• "the long now" — LONG NOW IDEAS

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!