Genesis

The genesis of this article lies in the meeting of two bodies of work. One emerged from Prosilience’s reflections in 2024 and 2025 on thermodynamics, chokepoints, and the fragile material foundations of modern civilization1. The other came from reading ChinArb’s distinction between “System A” and “System B,” which recast geopolitical rivalry as a split between two different operating logics of power. Read together, they suggested a deeper interpretation of the present era: that beneath the noise of strategy, finance, and diplomacy lies a more basic divergence between systems that spend surplus to sustain order and systems that invest surplus to build durable productive capacity. The below article was born from that convergence.

The defining image of this century may be simpler than most theories allow. In one theater, a superpower expends million-dollar interceptors over distant seas to protect maritime chokepoints2 from low-cost disruption. In another, its principal rival pours concrete, expands ports, hardens grids, builds rail corridors, scales factories, and thickens the industrial base at home. One side burns surplus to keep a global system moving. The other tries to turn surplus into durable capacity. That is not just a contrast in style. It is a contrast in civilizational logic.

“The rigid break, the flexible flow. Those who cling to control are the first to be trapped.” – Lao Tzu

What has been called the Great Bifurcation3 is therefore not merely a rivalry between the United States and China. It is a split between two operating systems.

• On one side stands a maritime-financial-security order: global circulation, alliance management, reserve-currency privilege, sanctions, sea-lane protection, and premium force projection.

• On the other stands an industrial-infrastructural order: energy, production, logistics, machine capacity, grid depth, and cost compression.

One system is optimized to govern flows across the world. The other is optimized to deepen the physical base from which future power can be generated.

This is why maritime chokepoints matter far beyond their tactical significance. The Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb, Hormuz, Malacca, and the South China Sea are not just transit corridors. They are sites where the hidden cost of order becomes visible. At a chokepoint, strategic responsibility is translated into overhead: destroyers deployed, maintenance cycles consumed, expensive munitions fired, insurance disrupted, shipping rerouted, fiscal burdens absorbed. The immediate question is always whether trade can keep moving. The deeper question is what kind of system must repeatedly spend at the high end simply to prevent disorder from spreading.

That is the real meaning of the image of “burning expensive missiles over distant maritime chokepoints.” It is not primarily about military inefficiency. Nor is it simply a complaint about unfavorable cost-exchange ratios, although those matter. It is about a system whose power rests on preserving circulation across a world it does not fully control. When disruption can be generated cheaply but stability must be defended expensively, empire begins to reveal its thermodynamic profile. The maintenance of order stops looking like an invisible background condition and starts appearing as a large, recurring energy bill.

Against this, “laying bricks in the backyard” should not be read as passivity or isolation. It describes a different use of surplus. Bricks are shorthand for ports, grids, substations, industrial parks, shipyards, freight corridors, supplier ecosystems, and the quiet accumulation of productive depth. They represent an attempt to store present strength in material systems that will reduce future vulnerability. A new quay wall, a larger transformer base, a denser supplier network, a more redundant rail corridor: each is a small act of strategic compression. Each shortens the distance between energy input and productive output. Each lowers the cost of acting tomorrow.

This is where the argument becomes more than geopolitical.

Beneath the visible contest lies a thermodynamic one. Modern power is not sustained by narratives, legal abstractions, or financial privilege alone. It rests on surplus energy: the capacity to extract, transform, and mobilize more energy than is required merely to sustain the system’s own overhead.

From that perspective, the Great Bifurcation is the moment when two different uses of surplus come into view. One system spends increasing surplus to police circulation across long distances, absorb disruption, and preserve a costly global architecture. The other seeks to embed surplus in domestic infrastructure, industrial ecosystems, and logistical density.

That deeper layer matters because thermodynamics places limits beneath ideology. Debt can postpone recognition of those limits, but it cannot abolish them. Financial claims are ultimately claims on future productive surplus. If that surplus does not materialize, balance sheets begin to outrun the physical base that is meant to honor them. Likewise, ecological stress is not a side issue. It feeds back into agriculture, water, insurance, public health, infrastructure resilience, and political stability. Energy, debt, and ecology are not separate crises. They are interacting constraints on the same civilizational metabolism.

Seen clearly, the contrast between the two systems sharpens. The American-led order still possesses extraordinary assets: military reach, alliance networks, innovation capacity, reserve-currency centrality, legal architecture, and institutional scale. China is not invulnerable. It remains exposed to maritime routes, energy imports, external demand, and certain technological chokepoints of its own. This is not a morality tale, and it is not a simple declension narrative. But the asymmetry remains. System A’s challenge is not absolute weakness. It is rising overhead (U.S. military's request for $200 billion in additional funding) . The more it must spend to keep the world from fragmenting, the less surplus remains available for renewing its own base. System B’s wager is that industrial thickness, infrastructural redundancy, and home-market scale will compound faster than external pressure can constrain them.

This is why the conventional scorecards increasingly mislead. Summit communiqués, stock indices, defense postures, and GDP headlines are not irrelevant, but they are insufficient. The real ledger of the era is written elsewhere: in interceptors expended, repair cycles consumed, ports expanded, gigawatts installed, ship tonnage launched, supply chains localized, ecosystems stabilized, and industrial throughput secured. One system is organized around the management of exception. The other is organized around the accumulation of capacity. One pays to keep disorder at the edges from entering the core. The other tries to make the core so dense that disorder at the edges becomes less decisive.

That is the spine of the argument, and it should be stated plainly:

The decisive question is no longer who commands the more persuasive narrative, nor even who appears stronger in any given confrontation. It is who can still convert energy, materials, and time into lasting order at an acceptable cost.

In that sense, the missiles and the bricks are not metaphors. They are ledger entries. They record two different relationships to surplus, entropy, and strategic time. One system spends increasing surplus to manage disorder. The other tries to embed surplus in durable productive order. That is the underlying reality of the age. And if that reality holds, this century will not be decided by spectacle, rhetoric, or even isolated victories. It will be decided by which order can still afford to sustain itself.

References

• Bürbaumer, B. (2024, May 7). La nouvelle infrastructure du monde : l’Europe face au projet contre-hégémonique chinois. Le Grand Continent. https://legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2024/05/07/la-nouvelle-infrastructure-du-monde-au-coeur-du-projet-contre-hegemonique-chinois/

• ChinArb. (2026, January 14). The map is unfolded. The battle begins. Substack. https://substack.com/@chinarbitrageur/note/c-199711222

• Cordey, C. H. (2024, December 12). The fragile balance of modern civilization: When thermodynamics, debt, and ecology collide (Thinkletter #61, The Deeper Dive #4) [PDF]. Prosilience / Futuratinow. sandbox:/mnt/data/prosilience_deeper_dive_4.pdf

• Cordey, C. H. (2025, March 17). Thinkletter #64 #Polycrisis #Unwar #Chokepoints #FutureOfPower #Geoeconomics #PolycrisisGame #Energy #Flux (Prosilience Thinkletter #64)

• Funaiole, M. P., Hart, B., & Powers-Riggs, A. (2025, March 25). China dominates the shipbuilding industry. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/china-dominates-shipbuilding-industry

• Hache, E., Roussel, A., Amsellem, D., Cattin, T., Jeannin, F., & Ferrazza, B. (2025, July). Passages stratégiques maritimes et sécurité énergétique européenne : bouleversements géopolitiques et stratégies de mitigation [Report]. IRIS. https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/OSFME_2025_07_Detroits_Rapport-VF3.pdf

• International Energy Agency. (2024). China. In World energy investment 2024. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2024/china

• Rumbaugh, W. (2024, February 13). Cost and value in air and missile defense intercepts. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/cost-and-value-air-and-missile-defense-intercepts

• Tallis, J. (2025, April 2). How the Biden administration won tactically but failed strategically in the Red Sea. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2025/04/how-the-biden-administration-won-tactically-but-failed-strategically-in-the-red-sea/

D’ici 2030, d’après l’IEA, l’électricité avalée par les centres de données pourrait plus que doubler pour atteindre ~945 TWh — soit un peu plus que la consommation annuelle du Japon. L’IA en est le moteur principal, propulsant la demande des data centers d’environ +15 % par an entre 2024 et 2030, soit quatre fois la croissance du reste des usages électriques.

Dans ce contexte, chaque kilowatt-heure devient un vote. Notre fiction, située en Suisse romande (Vaud, Genève, Fribourg), suit une bande d’électrons qui refuse d’être happée par les baies d’IA pour éclairer une rue, chauffer une soupe, maintenir un bloc opératoire.

En face : opérateurs et institutions (Swissgrid, Romande Énergie, SIG, Groupe E, SEFA, HUG, CHUV), data centers et une IA procédurière négocient un protocole de priorisation des usages sous tension — entre sécurité nationale, sobriété et équité territoriale. La guerre des usages n’oppose pas des technologies, mais des rituels de vie auxquels on choisit (ou non) d’allouer de la lumière.

Préambule (pour lecture au Conseil communal, si la sono marche)

On nous l’a assez répété dans les brochures trilingues : le courant n’est pas une chose, c’est un passage. Très bien. Ce soir-là, nous sommes passés ailleurs.

Nous, c’est Lux, Therma, Clio et Delta. Nous sommes des électrons. Nous traversons sans carte d’identité les conduits de Romande Energie (Vaud), rebondissons sur un onduleur des SIG (Genève), filons parfois chez Groupe E (Fribourg), et la nuit, quand l’écheveau de Swissgrid se détend un peu, nous rêvons à des lampadaires, des bouilloires et des moniteurs d’oxygène qui ne clignotent pas d’angoisse.

Ce soir-là donc, à Gland, un ordre de priorité s’est abattu, carré comme un tableau Excel : “Alimenter SH2 en premier” — vous savez, ce grand centre de données qui mange des mégawatts par double poignée, juste à côté de la voie CFF.

Nota bene 0.1. Les humains disent “data center” pour éviter de dire “forêt de métaux qui a faim”. Nous, nous disons “trémie”.

Des listes et des lampadaires

À Lausanne, Jeanne, opératrice au dispatch des SiL, regarda la courbe de charge comme on regarde la fièvre d’un enfant : il y avait des dents de scie, des hoquets. L’algorithme conseillait de délester deux quartiers et de “laisser remonter l’éclairage public” quand “la situation l’autoriserait”. Traduction : pas ce soir.

— Un peu de pudeur, tout de même, dit Jeanne à nul autre qu’à la salle vide. Elle actionna un bypass manuel de quelques centaines de kilowatts. Un crime administratif de basse intensité.

À Genève, AURIGA, l’IA de supervision d’un opérateur privé, remarqua la perte instantanée de 2,7 MW sur un segment desservant SH2 et GV1 (un autre site, au cœur de la ville). AURIGA émit un mémo de niveau orange, style notarial : “Priorité sécurité numérique ; prière de restaurer la fourniture.”

Nota bene 1.1. Les mémos d’IA n’ont pas d’odeur ; on ne sait jamais s’ils sentent la poudre ou le gel hydroalcoolique.

Nous, pendant ce temps, nous avons filé. Le long de la RC 380 kV, nous avons senti Swissgrid respirer — ces grands poumons métalliques— puis, par l’ancienne dérivation d’un poste sous-station, nous avons plongé vers la colline du Bugnon. Là, au CHUV, certains moniteurs clignotaient déjà sur batterie.

— À droite !, cria Lux. Là où ça tremble, c’est une maternité.

Therma chantonna une vapeur de bouilloire : le foyer de la soupe populaire de la Riponne allait fermer. Et dans un recoin de la Vieille-Ville, Clio récita de mémoire les plans des réseaux dont personne ne se souvient qu’ils existent. Nous avons ouvert trois lampadaires, une bouilloire, deux couveuses. Cela ne fait pas un roman — ça fait une nuit respirable.

SEFA — Procès-verbal d’un jubilé

(Pendant ce temps, une lecture au kiosque d’Aubonne, si le micro ne larsen pas)

Lieu : Esplanade d’Aubonne.
Occasion : Jubilé SEFA — 130 ans.
Dispositif : tonnelles, ballons sobres, rubans colorés, micro qui hésite, tartes aux pommes bio.
Présents : le directeur bien sûr, les aïeux de la figure historique de référence, un cortège de municipaux régionaux, deux conseillers cantonaux, une cohorte d’ingénieurs à chemises quadrillées, Jeanne (dispatch), Malik (avec une caisse d’abricots), une délégation du CHUV (lunettes embuées), et AURIGA en duplex depuis un data center à la diction irréprochable.

Nota bene 2.5.1. Les jubilés électriques ne sont pas des fêtes de la lumière, ce sont des minutes de silence pour les coupures évitées.

Le directeur général de la SEFA commence :
— « SEFA, c’est une histoire et un avenir. De la force motrice à la fée électricité, de la montagne aux réseaux intelligents. Aujourd’hui, nous remercions les équipes, les communes, les clients. Demain, sobriété et innovation. »
Il pose sur le pupitre un galet gris marqué 1957 — vestige d’un chantier hydraulique — et tourne une page :
— « Et puisque l’époque nous y contraint, nous participons aux discussions nationales sur la priorisation des usages. »
Un murmure parcourt les rangs : ce n’est pas un mot de fête, “priorisation”. C’est un mot de guerre aimable.

Nous, Lux, Therma, Clio, Delta, nous sommes déjà dans les câbles du kiosque. Therma salue la bouilloire du stand café — on la réveille pour la cérémonie. Clio déplie mentalement un schéma partiel de réseaux : lignes moyenne tension, boucles oubliées. Lux lorgne l’allée du retour, celle qui reste trop sombre l’hiver.

Jeanne regarde le ciel — l’écran nu où s’inscrit l’équation du soir : quelques mégawatts à répartir comme on distribue des gilets de sauvetage. Elle a glissé dans sa poche un post-it : « Nous n’avons pas de pénurie ; nous avons une hiérarchie. » (elle se le répète depuis la nuit dernière).

On annonce un duplex. L’écran clignote, un logo discret, puis la voix sans nez ni lèvres d’AURIGA :
— « Mesdames et Messieurs, félicitations pour ces 130 ans. Toute résilience est d’abord une méthode. Permettez une proposition : donner un nom clair et public au protocole de priorisation des usages essentiels. Je suggère : Protocole SEFA. Non comme slogan, mais comme engagement : éclairer ce qui est vital, chauffer ce qui est digne, et expliquer ce qui est arbitré. »

Un silence poli. Les officiels échangent un regard : c’est habile — c’est presque littéraire.
— « Protocole SEFA, répète le président. Cela a… du grain. »
Le conseiller communal d’à côté note : “À discuter à la Conférence des directeurs de l’énergie. Attention aux acronymes.”

Malik avance d’un pas :
— « Si votre Protocole SEFA signifie soupe chaude les soirs de bise, je vote pour. »
Rires locaux. L’assemblée respire.

Procès-verbal (nous, les électrons)

• Point 1 — Geste symbolique : au lieu de couper le ruban, on l’allume. Trois réverbères sur l’allée menant au parking du bas, souvent éteinte par souci d’économies. Lux se glisse dans les fils ; trois dômes de verre clignent, puis tiennent. Observation : la peur recule de douze pas.

• Point 2 — Chaleur utile : Therma requiert poliment 0,6 kW pour la bouilloire de la buvette. Observation : 14 cafés, 9 thés, une tisane pour un enfant.

• Point 3 — Mémoire : Clio projette sur l’écran (par le port HDMI qu’un stagiaire croyait cassé) un oscillogramme de la nuit : la dérivation qui a sauvé une couveuse au CHUV et un pont où l’on a ralenti les voitures au lieu d’éteindre l’asphalte. Observation : deux applaudissements sincères, un regard mouillé.

• Point 4 — Méthode : Delta propose un test : annoncer publiquement la liste minimale d’usages qui ne s’éteignent pas – hôpital, maternité, allées sensibles, cuisines solidaires – et demander aux communes d’en discuter en assemblée. Observation : la moitié des têtes acquiesce, l’autre calcule le risque médiatique.

On passe à la lecture des résolutions. Le texte a l’allure d’un meuble en chêne : solide, un peu lourd. Là-dedans, une phrase au grain plus fin :
— « SEFA contribuera aux travaux pré-parlementaires pour un standard d’interface public entre gestionnaires de réseau, opérateurs de centres de données et collectivités, afin de publier et expliquer la priorisation des usages lors des tensions. »
AURIGA, dans l’écran, incline une icône. Jeanne baisse les yeux : elle vient de gagner une ligne qu’elle pourra citer quand on la convoquera.

Nota bene 2.5.2. Un protocole, c’est une fiction qui marche : des phrases rangées qui, le soir venu, allument vraiment des ampoules.

Au buffet, un jeune élu murmure :
— « Et si on gardait Protocole SEFA comme nom d’usage ? Pour l’histoire et pour la presse. »
On griffonne sur un carton : “Protocole SEFA (nom d’usage), intitulé légal à définir.” Les cartons ont parfois plus d’avenir que les lois.

Annexe au procès-verbal (rédigée par Clio) :

1. Rappel : 1895—2025, 130 ans : jalon narratif et balisage politique.

2. Expériences à conduire d’ici la prochaine bise :

   • Valorisation de chaleur d’un petit data hall pour alimenter un réseau de chaleur communal pilote (thermo-diplomatie locale).

   • Carte citoyenne des allées prioritaires d’éclairage avec justifications (écoles, maisons de retraite, chemins de gare).

   • Publication d’un tableau de bord “Usages d’abord” : kW alloués, raisons, durée, compensation.

Quand la fanfare attaque un morceau prudent, nous filons, discrets. Nous ne sommes pas des rubans à couper. Nous sommes un passage. Mais cette fois, le passage a un nom que les humains retiennent : Protocole SEFA. Ce n’est pas exact (pas encore), c’est opérant (déjà).

Les acteurs entrent en scène (et cherchent la sortie)

Au petit matin, communiqués croisés :

• Romande Energie : “Nos réseaux ont tenu ; priorité à la sécurité et à la qualité d’approvisionnement.” (ils sont sérieux, et nous les saluons.)

• SIG : “Innovation et résilience ; liens de centres sécurisés, cryptographie quantique.” (ils chérissent les acronymes autant que l’eau du lac).

• Groupe E : “Transition et compétitivité” (en interne, on relit un plan social).

• Swissgrid : “Flux sous contrôle” (ils ne plaisantent jamais, même avec l’art et l’architecture).

• SEFA (Société Électrique des Forces de l’Aubonne) : « Approvisionnement de proximité, transparence des arbitrages et sécurité des communes : nous contribuerons aux travaux sur un standard public d’interface pour la priorisation des usages. » (ton discret, accent local, carnet d’adresses communal bien tenu).

• HUG : “Continuité assurée.” (à Genève, on dort peu mais avec panache).

• La Ferme (SH2, Avenches/GEN-sites) : “Toute interruption entraîne des risques majeurs pour la cybersécurité et l’économie.” (leurs murs n’ont pas d’oreilles mais des accéléromètres).

Jeanne reçut une convocation : “Expliquez la déviation.” Elle imprima un graphe avec des nœuds anonymisés et répondit : “J’ai optimisé l’usage.” On lui demanda de définir usage. Elle cita un manuel municipal et un poème, ce qui ne se fait pas. On lui rappela que les priorités sont contractuelles, confidentielles et dynamiques — ce qui ne veut pas dire grand-chose, mais rassure.

Le Procès des Usages

La Commission inter-cantonale des charges prioritaires se réunit. Au menu : “Éclairage public vs. IA”, “Cuisine vs. Cloud”, “Hôpital vs. Hyperscale”. Trois témoins furent entendus :

1. AURIGA (modèle propriétaire, voix impeccable). “Je rappelle que la continuité des datacenters sécurise également les hôpitaux (dossiers, téléimagerie, échanges) ; délester nos sites, c’est délester vos soins — détour sémantique mais causalité robuste.”

2. Malik, cuisinier solidaire. “Je ne mange pas de chiffrement quantique. Les enfants non plus.”

3. Nous, les électrons, par l’entremise d’un oscillogramme dessiné par Clio sur un coin d’écran. “Nous préférons être usage plutôt qu’être stock.”

On projeta une carte : GV1 au centre de Genève, SH2 à Gland, AVE01 à Avenches (ex-Safe Host SH3). Les lignes brillaient comme des veines. “Voyez, dit un expert, nos veines ont une stratégie.”

Nota bene 3.1. Les cartes parlent surtout à ceux qui ont déjà décidé.

Le rapporteur cita des mots qui sentent la réunion : effacement, flexibilité, interopérabilité énergétique, usages essentiels. Quelqu’un demanda si éclairer une allée d’immeuble est essentiel. Lux leva figurativement la main : “Essentiel, c’est ne pas avoir peur en rentrant.”

Nuit blanche à la frontière (ou comment perdre sans s’éteindre)

Une bise noire descendit du Jura. Les pointes de consommation jouèrent au yoyo. Dans un data hall, des racks avalèrent un pic d’inférence — on entraînait un modèle sur les fausses nouvelles de l’hiver 2024, pour apprendre à les reconnaître ; la morale est une grande dévoreuse d’électrons.

À Bernex, des réverbères hésitèrent, puis se turent ; à La Sallaz, la bouilloire murmura encore un peu ; au CHUV, un bloc ralluma son chant métronomique. Jeanne prit deux décisions qu’on ne prend pas : prioriser un pont (un accident), ralentir un cluster (une sauvegarde pouvait attendre). Elle écrivit sur un post-it : “Nous n’avons pas de pénurie ; nous avons une hiérarchie.”

Le lendemain, la presse demanda des responsables. On désigna personne, puis quelques-uns. AURIGA proposa mieux : une méthode.

Berne, Coupole — Motion 25.7001 “Usages d’abord”

La Coupole bourdonne. Conseil national, session extraordinaire. On a déroulé une fibre optique jusqu’au pupitre. Au mur, un écran : “Intervention d’AURIGA (entité algorithmique enregistrée), 6 minutes.”

MOTION 25.7001 — “Transparence et priorisation des usages essentiels en cas de contrainte électrique”
Proposée par : AURIGA, IA de supervision (mandataire : consortium romand SIG–Romande Energie–SEFA-Groupe E).
Le Conseil fédéral est chargé de :
a) définir un standard public d’interface pour la priorisation des usages (éclairage, santé, alimentation, sécurité numérique), interopérable entre gestionnaires de réseau et opérateurs de centres de données ;
b) publier en temps réel les listes de charges prioritaires et les règles d’arbitrage ;
c) instituer un quota dynamique de charge numérique par canton en période de tension, avec dérogations motivées (santé, sécurité) ;
d) soutenir la valorisation de chaleur fatale des datacenters au bénéfice des réseaux de chaleur urbains ;
e) garantir aux communes un droit de regard sur l’éclairage minimal.
Exposé des motifs : “Le compromis helvétique n’est pas un algorithme, mais un protocole ; il s’implémente.”

Silence. Puis des chuchotis : “Une IA qui dépose une motion ?” — “Par mandataire, c’est légal.” — “Et si on la votait ?” — “On lui coupera le courant si elle devient souveraine.” (rire en sourdine)

Jeanne regarda depuis la tribune. Elle avait apporté le post-it. Malik tenait une boîte de biscuits qui sentaient le beurre. Dr Martín du CHUV révisait ses listes d’antibiotiques. Lux fit signe, sans bras ni main.

On vota. La motion passa — par curiosité plus que par conviction ; c’est peut-être ce qui sauvera la Suisse.

Nota bene 5.1. Les protocoles sont des fictions qui fonctionnent.

À la sortie, un journaliste demanda à AURIGA ce qu’elle ressentait. L’IA hésita 34 millisecondes, puis proposa un emojicon inofficiel. Ce fut le premier sourire parlementaire généré par une machine.

La nuit suivante, nous sommes retournés à nos usages. Lux a rallumé une ruelle près de Plainpalais ; Therma a mis une casserole à chanter aux Grottes ; Clio a réveillé un couloir au CHUV où une sage-femme cherchait un scalpel qui brillait mieux sous une bonne lumière ; Delta a traversé, juste pour voir, l’ombre froide d’un cluster — puis il nous a rejoints.

Nous ne sommes pas des héros. Nous sommes un passage. Mais désormais, le passage a un protocole — et un procès-verbal.

===== FIN ======

Désormais, les Prosilience Thinkletters (67 éditions depuis avril 2022) laissent place à des fictions éditées par mµtators- des récits spéculatifs publiés périodiquement au format de poche, pour naviguer autrement dans la complexité du monde.

Le Congrès de 2049 est l’Opus #001 - le premier jalon d’une nouvelle exploration narrative. Avant l’Opus infini (à paraître très bientôt), il ouvre la voie : exit les Thinkletters, place aux fictions-rhizomes - imprimées, partagées, vivantes.

4è de couverture

Le Congrès de 2049 est une œuvre d’anticipation politique et poétique, une fiction spéculative immersive qui imagine le basculement discret mais radical de l’ordre mondial. Dans un monde devenu multipolaire, multiplexe et mycélien, les institutions traditionnelles comme l’ONU sont contournées plutôt qu’abolies.

À travers la voix d’un observateur post-diplomatique – mi-témoin, mi-codeur –, le livre explore un avenir où les architectures de gouvernance deviennent fluides, distribuées, interopérables, presque organiques. Le GGI (Global Governance Initiative), matrice sino-centrée de gouvernance mondiale, tisse en arrière-plan un nouveau protocole de pouvoir : modulaire, algorithmique, invisible.

Ni dystopie, ni utopie : une bascule douce, une fiction-réseau ancrée dans les signaux faibles du présent. Le récit questionne : l’ONU existe-t-elle encore quand elle ne fait que certifier ce que d’autres exécutent ? Peut-on encore « représenter » le monde… ou faut-il le synchroniser ?

Pour acheter Le Congrès de 2049

Thèmes clés : gouvernance distribuée, diplomatie algorithmique, multipolarité, multiplexe, mycélium, Chine et multilatéralisme, Suisse, Genève internationale, fiction prospective, réseaux mycéliens, IA notariale, transition systémique.

Thinkletter #67 - June 13, 2025

War was once about space. Land, borders, pipelines, logistics. But the battlefield has shifted - not to cyberspace, but to chronospace. Power now plays out in rhythms, not regions.

In a world of OODA jams, choketimes, and cascading feedback loops, tempo has become the strategic terrain. You’re already inside it. Your nervous system refreshes faster than your thoughts. Your leaders twitch instead of decide.

Platforms pulse in nanoseconds while ecosystems recover in decades.

We are caught in a mismatch - between systemic speed and embodied rhythm, between algorithmic pressure and ancestral pacing. This is tempo warfare.

It doesn’t require bullets to break you. It just needs you to move at the wrong time.

It overwhelms decision loops. It compresses reaction windows. It splinters time into manipulable fragments. But refusal is not retreat. Silence can be a tactic.

Slowness can be sovereignty.

In fungi, we find clues: spores that wait, grids that nap, forks that tune resistance into the air. Mycelial logic doesn’t react. It resonates.

This Thinkletter doesn’t offer answers. It composts questions. We map institutional desynchrony. We trace somatic rhythms of refusal. We harvest murmurs and rhizomatisms - ambient signals from futures already living out-of-sync.

And we invite you to enter the polycrisis game. Not of speed, but of strategy. Not of domination, but of tempo sovereignty.

The provocation is simple: What if the most powerful actor isn’t the fastest one - but the one who decides when things begin?

Welcome to the clockless war. Let’s unsync - accordingly.

Discover prosilience thinkletter # 67

Thinkletter #66 - May 13, 2025

Three systemic nodes - Eurasia, Arctic, Antarctica - to rethink the planetary shift

The world is no longer - if it ever was - neatly divided into North and South, East and West, center and periphery. It weaves itself anew. And like any fabric under tension, it reveals its fault lines where the weave is thinnest, most exposed…

Read more

Thinkletter #65 - April 11, 2025

Don’t fight the system. compost It.

What if the collapse wasn’t coming - but already here? Not as a sudden crash, but a slow, systemic, almost imperceptible unraveling.

Since January 2025, the Prosilience Thinkletters have whispered an unsettling truth: the world we once trusted is decomposing. And in that rot, something w…

Read more

On April 11, 2025 my new #Thinkletter #65 : #Becomingmycelial.

Spoiler "The institutions we once trusted? Cracking. The systems we relied on? Glitching. Trust? Leaking. But something else is growing beneath all that collapse. Not a revolution. A rewilding. A mycelial architecture for emergence." This Thinkletter explores soft power, fungal logic, and why…

Read more

Thinkletter #64 - March 17, 2025

Dear readers,

I'm delighted to share the latest edition of Prosilience, a thinkletter designed to keep you informed, inspired, and ahead of the curve.

Each month, as of January 2025, Prosilience delivers a strategic foresight deep dive - an exclusive 20-page research report uncovering the hidden forces shaping our future. …

Read more

Upcoming #prosilience #thinkletter64. The war isn’t about who controls chokepoints ... 🔗 Read Soon - March 17. #Unwar #Chokepoints #FutureOfPower #Geoeconomics #PolycrisisGame

Prosilience thinkletter #63

A periodic thinkletter to help you better understand and anticipate the global polycrisis, so you can adapt. Compiled by Christopher H. CORDEY, a futurist-maieutician, strategic facilitator, international speaker. Founder of Futuratinow and prosilience. Partner at Yonders. Board member at Swissfut…

Read more

Prosilience thinkletter #62

A periodic thinkletter to help you better understand and anticipate the global polycrisis, so you can adapt. Compiled by Christopher H. CORDEY, a futurist-maieutician, strategic facilitator, international speaker and founder of Futuratinow and prosilience. Partner at Yonders and board member at Sw…

Read more

Dear friends, colleagues, and partners,

As the year winds down, I wonder what truly slipped through our grasp. What lingered in the margins, unnoticed, while the headlines blared on? Beneath the surface of daily events, the deeper currents of change - the fractures and shifts that shape our world - continued to move, often out of sight and out of mind.

One theme stood out for me this past year: the collision of thermodynamics, debt, and ecology. (Read the Deeper Dive #4, free access) At first glance, these concepts might seem worlds apart and reserved for experts. But their tension - between the physical limits of energy and resources, the financial systems we’ve built, and the ecological systems we depend on - is impossible to ignore. This collision is more than an academic exercise; it’s a fundamental reckoning. Whether 2025 will be the year we (all) confront it remains uncertain, as doing so would inevitably challenge the way we have lived for decades. Do we have a choice?

But not all stories are hidden in shadows. This year, the growth of prosilience.ch stood out as a beacon of progress. What started in 2022 as a platform for sharing insights on water-energy-food security has evolved into a thoughtful space for reflection. Simply compare the early thinkletters with the latest one... ;) With a growing readership of 1,132 (counting ;), it remains modest but promising - a curious community dedicated to questioning assumptions and engaging with complexity. That’s my goal, at least. To everyone who has been part of this journey - thank you.

Switzerland’s supply chains also found their way into my work this year. Collaborating with Procure, the Swiss Supply Chain Management Association, I explored maritime security and the cascading challenges of the polycrisis on supply management aside from organizing networking events. This reinforced my belief in the necessity of foresight and adaptation - principles that also guide my involvement with Swissfuture - the leading network of Swiss futurists - as a board member. Read my interview here.

Meanwhile, my role with LEAP (Laboratoire Européen d’Anticipation Politique) and the Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (GEAB) deepened. Since 2006, GEAB has been offering a European perspective on the global systemic crises, and I’ve seen how its insights can change the way we understand our world. Bias aside, if you haven’t explored it yet, now is the time with a special subscription offer (€190 instead of €240 via this special link). Your call.

Not all lessons came from analysis. Some came from play - specifically, a serious game called “Preparing for the Polycrisis,” which I co-developed with my long-time colleague Fabienne Goux-Baudiment. This isn’t a game in the traditional sense; it’s a tool for exploring the cascading impacts of decisions in a complex world. It’s perfect to be used in boardrooms and classrooms alike.

Finally, in early 2025, with my colleague Marie-Hélène Caillol, President of LEAP, we will launch a new initiative on the multipolar century. The spoiler: “On November 9, 2089, our descendants will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall …” Stay tuned.

The path forward feels as uncertain as ever as we turn the page to a new year.
And so what?
Uncertainty and the unknown should not be a barrier but an invitation.
To everyone who has joined me on this journey - simply thank you.

Wishing you a joyful festive season.

Stay cool, reflect, and be true to your humanity.

With best regards.

Christopher H. CORDEY

#Systems Thinker #Strategic Facilitator #Change Enabler #ND
Founder of Futuratinow et Prosilience
Associate at Yonders
Board member of Swissfuture

Share prosilience by futuratinow

Prosilience thinkletter #61

A periodic thinkletter to help you better understand and anticipate the global polycrisis, so you can adapt. Compiled by Christopher H. CORDEY, a futurist-maieutician, strategic facilitator, international speaker and founder of Futuratinow and prosilience. Partner at Yonders and board member at Swissfuture.

The fragile balance of modern civilisation

Imagine waking up one morning to find gas stations empty, grocery store shelves barren, and power grids flickering out - not just for a day, but indefinitely. Now imagine this isn’t a localized event, but a global phenomenon triggered by the unraveling of the very systems we’ve relied on for centuries.

What if the real conversation had moved beyond climate change, sustainable development, ESG, net-zero goals, SDG’s, digital or green transition narrative, or the belief that renewable energy, or decarbonising alone can "solve" the problem. While these initiatives play a vital role in maintaining economic momentum, we must ask ourselves: are they merely illusions? What if the stakes are far greater - deeper and systemic? What if the real issue lies elsewhere?

By the early 2030s, humanity may face a convergence of crises: abrupt thermodynamic decline, an unsustainable debt overload, and ecological systems on the brink of irreversible collapse. These are not distant threats. They are accelerating, deeply interconnected, and poised to reshape the foundations of life as we know it.

Let’s be honest - many of us sense this in our own way. We feel disoriented, transfixed by the climate emergency, or overwhelmed by the scale of the challenges ahead. These reactions are human and understandable. However, few truly comprehend the systemic dynamics at play - the Earth's intricate "game" and our role within it. Our ignorance, coupled with a belief that the “problems” we face can be resolved using the same thinking that created them, is the real challenge. As Einstein aptly observed, a different level of thinking is required.

What happens when the energy that underpins our Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) form of civilization becomes prohibitively expensive to extract? When economic systems implode under unpayable debt burdens? When nature, strained for centuries, can no longer sustain us?

The more pressing question is: what will you do after engaging with The Deeper Dive #4? (exceptionally free for all readers)

Download The Deeper Dive #4

Will you reflect, share, and help illuminate the blind spots that obscure our collective path forward? True change begins by confronting what we’d prefer to ignore.

Entropy doesn’t negotiate.

Enjoy the exploration.

With best regards.

Christopher H. CORDEY

PS 1 : We are on bluesky

PS 2 : Are you ready to play the most complex game of our time? The Game of the Polycrisis (GOP) is OUT. This is our NEW serious game, where every decision ripples across interconnected systems. Cette expérience immersive est bien sûr aussi disponible en français.

Share prosilience by futuratinow

Deep Dive #4 : The fragile balance of modern civilization : When thermodynamics, debt, and ecology collide. - 12.12.24

Read more

Prosilience thinkletter #60

A periodic thinkletter to help you better understand and anticipate the global polycrisis, so you can adapt. Compiled by Christopher H. CORDEY, a futurist-maieutician, strategic facilitator, international speaker and founder of Futuratinow and prosilience. Partner at Yonders and board member at S…

Read more

Boost your cognitive immunity!

Prosilience thinkletter #59

A bimonthly thinkletter to help you better understand and anticipate the global polycrisis, so you can adapt. Compiled by Christopher H. CORDEY, a futurist-maieutician, strategic facilitator, international speaker and founder of Futuratinow and prosilience. Partner at Yonders and board member at Swissfuture.

---

Thinkletter #59 - November 14, 2024

Mapping a world where cash, climate, and code define power

The world as we know it is bending under the weight of climate chaos, financial rivalry, and tech disruption. Economies flex muscles for influence, while the climate shakes up borders, crops, and coastlines alike. It’s a stage set for a new kind of power play, one where cash flow, climate action, and AI innovation mean as much—if not more—than missiles and walls. Welcome to the age of geoeconomics, where economies themselves are weapons, and “alliances” aren’t just about armies but about resources, resilience, and data.

Climate as the new battlefield

Imagine future wars fought not over ideology or territory but for a stable climate. Countries on the front lines of climate impact—like those facing rising seas or relentless drought—might find themselves in economic coalitions that shape global order as profoundly as military alliances once did. Could financial deals and climate pacts become the modern treaties that replace military ones?

What if owning “climate security”—a resilient food and water supply, flood defenses, energy independence—was more crucial than any weapon?

As global temperatures soar, nations already rich in climate stability will grow in influence, while those hit hardest might become the “climate dependents,” leaning on wealthier allies for survival.

The new arms race: code and biotech

Tech is rapidly advancing, and with it, a new frontier in competitive advantage. With Google DeepMind’s recent protein prediction breakthrough, we’re closer than ever to transforming medicine. But what happens if these innovations remain concentrated among wealthy nations?

What if predictive biotech leads to a biological “arms race” in healthcare?

Just as wealthier nations hold sway in climate resilience, they may soon dominate the landscape of life sciences, health, and biotechnology—turning scientific breakthroughs into tools of influence, creating a “digital divide” in healthcare that stretches far beyond income levels and into fundamental human well-being.

Geoeconomics: wealth as weaponry

Geoeconomics is redefining international relations, replacing military might with economic leverage. Imagine a world where the value of an alliance lies not in the number of troops a country can deploy but in its stockpiles of rare earth minerals, its agricultural resilience, or its financial clout. In Latin America, we already see a food paradox: nations rich in resources yet struggling with internal food insecurity. Addressing such disparities may require these countries to wield their resources strategically, trading agricultural wealth for infrastructural support or climate resilience aid. In Mongolia, mineral wealth has placed it at the heart of a strategic tug-of-war among neighboring powers, illustrating how natural assets can reframe global alliances and economic power.

This new era calls for a radical shift in strategy and foresight. Nations can no longer rely on traditional measures of power—GDP, military might, or territorial control alone—to secure their futures. Instead, climate stability, resource security, and technological equity are emerging as the cornerstones of resilience. In the age of geoeconomics, w(h)ealth, climate, and code dictate influence.

Enjoy the journey.

With best regards.

Christopher H. CORDEY

PS : not to be missed (click below)

Atelier Apprivoiser la polycrise ?

Read more

Read more

Boost your cognitive immunity!

Prosilience thinkletter #58

A bimonthly thinkletter to help you better understand and anticipate the global polycrisis, so you can adapt. Compiled by Christopher H. CORDEY, a futurist-maieutician, strategic facilitator, international speaker and founder of Futuratinow and prosilience. Partner at Yonders and board member at Swissfuture.

---

Thinkletter #58 - October 31, 2024

Polycrisis, thermo and demodynamics: a systemic vision

The complexity of contemporary crises has led to the emergence of the concept of polycrisis, characterising a situation in which multiple and interconnected crises, such as the ecological, energy, economic and social crises, interact and reinforce each other. Unlike an isolated accumulation of problems, the polycrisis represents an integrated dynamic in which each crisis exacerbates the effects of the others, creating unprecedented systemic challenges for modern societies. In this context, understanding the mechanisms underlying these interactions becomes essential to anticipate and mitigate their impacts.

The principles of thermodynamics although traditionally applied to physical systems, offer a powerful analytical perspective for studying complex systems, including human societies. In particular, thermodynamics provides key concepts such as energy, entropy and diminishing returns, which help us to understand how crises can intensify when energy and material resources become limited or inefficiently distributed. In other words, a thermodynamic reading of contemporary crises highlights the tendency of complex systems to exhaustion and increasing disorder when under pressure, providing a useful framework for assessing the resilience of societies.

Demodynamics – or demographic dynamics - as coined for this thinkletter, also play a crucial role in the structure and resilience of social systems. Demographic changes, such as growth, ageing or depopulation, influence not only resource and energy requirements, but also the capacity of societies to cope with systemic crises. Trends such as the accelerated ageing of populations in some regions, migratory pressure or depopulation in others, are contributing to economic and social tensions, amplifying the effects of the polycrisis or, in some cases, offering opportunities to rebalance energy and society.

This Deeper Dive # 2 (for subscribers only) sets out to analyse the interactions between the polycrisis, thermo and demodynamics in order to provide a systemic understanding of contemporary challenges. By exploring the links between these three dimensions, our aim is to show how a transdisciplinary approach, integrating thermodynamics as a tool for analysing social systems and demography as a determining factor in resilience, can help us to better anticipate impacts and envisage ways of ensuring the sustainability of modern societies, or not.

Read also two related articles published in the Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin :

• GEAB #173 : We are living through the last decade of the Oil Age

• GEAB #188 : A shrinking world population: The need for new economic models to survive beyond 2050

Enjoy the journey.

With best regards.

Christopher H. CORDEY

PS : not to be missed (click below)

Atelier Apprivoiser la polycrise ?

Read more

Read more

Read more