In May 2010 the Rockefeller Foundation & Global Business Network produced a report of four possible future scenarios. Included in these scenarios were a pandemic, lockdown measures, and lethal vaccines. The report was titled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. The President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Judith Rodin, states that its “mission, since 1913, [is] to ‘promote the well-being’ of humanity” (p. 4). Rodin believes that scenario planning, or the creation of stories, allows for rehearsing important decisions and highlights “previously undiscovered areas of connection and intersection” (p. 4) to focus on. In the report “each scenario tells a story of how the world… might progress over the next 15 to 20 years” (p. 17). Rodin references how their scenario planning exercise demonstrates “the role of technology and the future of globalization” (p. 4). She suggests that a group of philanthropists, or people with “private initiatives for the public good, focusing on quality of life…” are best suited to address the root cause of the world’s social problems (Wikipedia). This sounds wonderful, a group of philanthropists, or in this case “grantee representatives, external experts, and Rockefeller Foundation staff” (p. 4) dictate the lives of the general public.
The report highlights the “outputs and insights from a year-long project, undertaken by the Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network (GBN)” (p. 8) while their underlying aim is finding “new pathways for insight aimed at helping the world’s poor” (p. 9). “The Foundation’s work promotes ‘resilience and equitable growth’ [where] resilience refers to the capacity of individuals, communities, and systems to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of changes, even catastrophic incidents” (p. 11).
The Rockefeller Foundation obviously has mounting concerns regarding over-population as the report states that “one demographic certainty is that global population growth will continue and will put pressure on energy, food, and water resources – especially in the developing world” (p. 13). Interestingly there is little guidance on how they plan to help the poor and simultaneously tackle population growth. Maybe if a few unused items of great value were donated by the extremely wealthy it would be a grand gesture in starting to help the poor?
Global political and economic alignment, as well as adaptive capacity, became the focal points for all scenarios (p. 14). Political and economic alignment refers to the flow of goods, capital, people, ideas, “as well as the extent to which enduring and effective political structures enable the world to deal with many of the global challenges it faces” (p. 15). Adaptive capacity refers “to the capacity at different levels of society to cope with change and to adapt effectively” (p. 15). The philanthropists suggest that “adaptive capacity is generally associated with higher levels of education in a society [and is achieved by] the free flow of communication and ideas” (p. 15). I would really like to know how many philanthropists it takes to change a light bulb! I would also be eager to note the time taken as I expect there will be more talk than action in that scenario.
A summary of the four scenarios explored in this report are (p. 16) :
- Lock Step – tighter top-down government control with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback
- Clever Together – coordinated & successful strategies for urgent worldwide issues
- Hack Attack – unstable economics with weakened governments & increased criminal activity
- Smart Scramble – economic depression promoting community solutions
In the first scenario, Lock Step, a new influenza strain, originating from wild geese, kills eight million people in seven months infecting nearly 20 per cent of the global population. The majority of the affected were healthy young adults. “The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains” (p. 18). Local shops and offices sat empty for months. Most countries’ leniency in restricting travel accelerated the spread of the virus, although the Chinese government’s mandatory quarantine and sealing of borders enabled a swifter post-pandemic recovery (p. 18). National leaders “flexed their authority” (p. 19) and imposed temperature checks, face masks, and biometric IDs. “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified” (p. 19). Citizens willingly gave up their sovereignty and privacy and waited with bated breath to hear their national leaders provide further direction (p. 19). Entrepreneurial activity became impossible as only the largest of companies could afford to follow government guidelines. Scientists and innovators were told by governments to research and develop only projects that would make money or were sure bets (p. 20). This is the scenario where only monopolistic companies with big budgets would make significant advances.
Does any of this sound similar to the global 2020 lockdowns as small businesses were forced to shut down leaving only big companies to provide groceries and material goods? The lack of local shops, in 2020, resulted in buyers heading towards Amazon and eBay (whose profits soared) for items that were not available in their own towns. The Lock Step scenario carried on for 13 years until the public grew “weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them” (p. 21). Civil unrest followed as the public “became increasingly organized and coordinated” to the point where protesters brought down the government in Nigeria because they were “fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption” (p. 21).
Two of the predicted technology trends from the Lock Step scenario were scanners incorporating “advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)” aimed at detecting antisocial intent and “regionally defined IT networks” to allow governments to police internet traffic (p. 23).
The second scenario, Clever Together, describes an increasingly unstable climate that caused the Hudson River to overflow “into New York City during a storm… turning the World Trade Center site into a three-foot-deep lake” (p. 26). Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed so high it created an urgency “for governments to do something fast” (p. 26).
The third scenario, Hack Attack, describes a world in which “large-scale catastrophes” (p. 34) occur. Thousands were killed when a bomb explodes at the Olympics while earthquakes, droughts, and tsunamis were globally rampant. In this scenario, the governments became weakened resulting in an increase in violence and crime. “In the context of weak health systems, corruption, and inattention to standards – either within countries or from global bodies like the World Health Organization – tainted vaccines entered the public health systems” (p. 35). Parents learned the dangers of these vaccines and avoided vaccinating their own children. The risk of being hacked forced many companies to up their security and verifying authenticity became near impossible (p. 36).
The fourth and final scenario, Smart Scramble, describes communities joining together to form solutions to increasing problems. Private and public debt led to a depressed economy with little means for global communication (p. 42). With little or no funding for necessary repairs needed to mobile phone towers or fibre optic cables, communities became increasingly cut off and proactively gathered together to help themselves (p. 43). The need to survive resulted in improved living standards in many communities with the introduction of communal gardens, patchwork energy grids, and micro-manufacturing (p. 44).
To me, the Lock Step scenario sounds very similar to the global 2020 lockdowns, while the Clever Together scenario sounds like the continuous climate change threats. Hack Attack describes damaging weather changes, high crime, and a loss of trust in governments due to corruption and lethal vaccines. Instead of coming up with stories and scenario’s, why don’t the philanthropists and governments tackle the current national issues such as homelessness and poverty, while increasing access to physical/mental health and wellbeing information and services? It seems the riches that can ease the large amounts of debt are under lock and key by a few people, while the working class sacrifice everything to do their part in farming and manufacturing, all the while paying ever-increasing taxes.
References
Rockefeller Foundation & Global Business Network. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. May 2010. www.rockefellerfoundation.org
Philanthropy. Wikipedia
About the Author
Clare Hinsley is a Doctor of Philosophy specializing in Metaphysical Counselling, earned through the University of Sedona, Arizona. She also holds a Bachelor and Masters degree in Metaphysical Science from the University of Metaphysics.
Dr. Hinsley is an Ordained Metaphysical Minister with the ability to heal individuals and instil them with the confidence to deal with everyday life situations as they occur. Working with the positive spiritual energies, Dr. Hinsley achieves a pure, non-medicated, approach to healing addressing the root cause of the issue.
Her interests lie in philosophies and practices from Eastern, Native American, Shamanic, ancient Egyptian, and Western origins.
Born in the UK, most of her childhood was spent in California before returning to the UK where she currently resides in Wiltshire.
Dr. Hinsley is eager to promote the incredible benefits of Metaphysics. For more information, please see her website https://loosh.co.uk.
