In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for so many years finally struck. Unlike the 2009 H1N1, this new strain of flu—which originated from wild geese—was extremely contagious and deadly. Even countries that were better prepared for a pandemic were overwhelmed when the virus rapidly spread across the globe, infecting 20% of the world’s population and killing 8 million people within seven months, mostly healthy young adults. The pandemic also had dramatic effects on economies: the international movement of people and goods came to a halt, devastating industries such as tourism and disrupting global supply chains. Even locally, stores and offices that were once bustling with people remained empty for months, deprived of both customers and employees.
The pandemic hit the entire planet – although disproportionately large was the number of deaths in Africa, Southeast Asia and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire due to the absence of official restriction protocols. But even in developed countries, containment proved a challenge. The initial US policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from traveling abroad proved utterly unenforceable, accelerating the spread of the virus not only within the US but also across borders. Still, a few countries did much better – particularly China. The Chinese government’s decision for immediate imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as the almost immediate hermetic sealing of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus much earlier than in other countries and allowing for a rapid recovery after the pandemic.
The Chinese government was not the only one that implemented extreme measures to protect its citizens from the risks of exposure to the virus. During the pandemic, leaders of countries around the world strengthened their power and imposed suffocating regulations and restrictions, from mandatory mask-wearing to temperature checks at entrances of public spaces such as train stations and supermarkets. Even when the pandemic receded, this most authoritarian control and surveillance of citizens and their activities remained, even strengthened. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly internationalized problems – from pandemics and terrorism, to environmental crises and deepening poverty – leaderships around the world are hardening their power even more.
Initially, the prospect of a more controlled world was met with considerable acceptance and support. Citizens were willing to voluntarily surrender some of their independence—and their privacy—to a more paternalistic state in exchange for greater security and stability. Citizens proved more tolerant, if not eager, for guidance and oversight from above, and national leaderships had greater leeway to impose measures in whatever way they deemed fit. In developed countries, this increased surveillance took many forms: biometric identification for all citizens, for example, and stricter regulations for critical industries whose stability was deemed vital to the national interest. In many developing countries, mandatory cooperation based on new regulations and agreements gradually but steadily restored both order and, to some extent, economic growth.
In the developing world, on the other hand, the story evolved differently – and with more variables. Top-down guidance took different forms in different countries, depending on the capabilities, scale, and intentions of their leadership. In countries with strong and visionary leaders, the economic situation and the quality of life for citizens generally improved. In India, for example, air quality improved dramatically after 2016, when the government banned the circulation of the most polluting vehicles. In Ghana, the implementation of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and provide clean water for all led to a drastic reduction in diseases. But authoritarian power had less – and in some cases tragically negative – results in countries with irresponsible elites who exploited their increased power to serve their own interests at the expense of their citizens.
There were other negative consequences as well, as the rise of toxic nationalism created new risks: for example, spectators at the 2018 World Cup wore bulletproof vests, which of course had national emblems sewn onto them. Strict regulations on technology stifled innovation, kept costs high, and limited exchanges. In the developing world, access to “approved” technologies increased, but beyond these, things were restricted. The focus of technological innovation remained largely in developed countries, allowing developing countries access only to the final products of technologies that other countries considered “cutting-edge.” Many countries viewed this as paternalistic and refused to distribute computers and other technological products that they considered to be “second-hand.” Meanwhile, many developing countries with more resources and greater capabilities began to develop innovation internally to fill the gap on their own.
Meanwhile, in the developed world, the application of a plethora of rules and regulations gradually restricted the most innovative activities. Scientists and researchers often took directives from governments on which research directions to follow, and were steered primarily toward projects that would generate money (for example, developing products for market needs) or that would certainly yield results, leaving the more advanced or innovative fields of research without resources. The richest countries and monopolistic companies with their enormous research budgets made great advances, but the know-how behind their achievements remained locked behind strict national or corporate protective regulations. Russia and India imposed the strictest regulations on the supervision and approval of products that included encryption – a category that essentially covered all IT innovation. The US and the EU responded with countermeasures, practically putting a brake on the development and global diffusion of technology.
Especially in the developing world, a policy in favor of national interests often means seeking specific alliances compatible with those interests—whether related to access to essential resources or collaborations aimed at mutual economic development. In South America and Africa, regional alliances have become more structural. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new collaborations emerged across the continent. China’s investments in Africa grew, as negotiations for new job positions or infrastructure in exchange for access to valuable minerals or food products proved welcome by many governments. Cross-border ties were also strengthened through official security aid. While the development of foreign security forces was viewed positively in some of the struggling states, it was ultimately proven that one-dimensional solutions yielded few positive results.
From 2025, people began to appear increasingly anxious due to excessive control from above, and because of the excessive power the authorities had to make choices for them.
Whenever national interests come into conflict with private ones, conflict follows. Sporadic reactions began to become more organized and coordinated, as dissatisfied youth and people who saw their status declining – mainly in developing countries – caused social unrest. In 2026, protesters in Nigeria overthrew the government, reacting to years of corruption and nepotism. Even those who were satisfied with the stability and predictability of the world began to become dissatisfied and suffocated by such strict regulations and closed borders. The feeling was that sooner or later, something would inevitably disrupt the strict order that governments around the world had worked so hard to impose.
Technology in lock step
While there is no way to accurately predict what the significant technological developments of the future will be, scenario narratives focus on areas where conditions may allow or accelerate the development of specific technologies. Thus, for each scenario we provide an initial approach to the content of technological innovation, taking into account the pace, geography, and key creators. We also suggest certain technological trends and applications that may emerge in each scenario.
Technological innovation in the “lock step” is basically government-driven and focuses on issues of national security, health, and protection. Most technological achievements are created by and for developed countries, and are shaped by the dual desire of governments to control and monitor their citizens. On the other hand, in countries with failed governance models, large-scale projects abound that fail to move forward.
Technological trends and applications that we might see:
Scanners that use advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging technology1 (fMRI) are becoming the norm at airports and other public spaces to detect unusual behavior that may indicate “antisocial intent”.
In the wake of pandemic fears, smarter food packaging is first used by large companies and producers in inter-corporate dosages and then adopted for individual products in retail.
New diagnostic tools are being developed for the detection of infectious diseases. The technology of health monitoring and case detection is also changing. Testing is becoming a prerequisite for discharge from the hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases.
Tele-activity technologies respond to the demands for cheaper, lower bandwidth, advanced telecommunications networks for populations with limited mobility.
Guided by protectionism and national security, countries are creating their own, independent, local computer networks, following the example of China’s firewalls. Governments are succeeding to various degrees in policing traffic on the internet, but in any case, these efforts lead to the fragmentation of the “world wide” web.
translation: Harry Tuttle
- Stm: Functional magnetic resonance imaging shows the hemodynamic response associated with neural activity in the brain and spinal cord. It is a relatively recent neuroimaging method (from the Greek wikipedia). ↩︎