The Political System of the World After 'Point X'
An analysis of the current global crisis shows that old paradigms are leading us to a point of no return. But what if we could prepare a new, more viable ideology for the future world? This is a task for practical and political philosophy. It's not about abstract discussions, but about consciously designing the ethical and value-based foundations upon which society could be reborn after a global crisis.
Part I. The Diagnosis: Five Trends Leading the World to "Point X"
The current political state of the world can be characterized as a period of profound transformation and high turbulence. The era that followed the Cold War, with its relatively clear rules, has evidently ended. We are in the process of forming a new world order, and its contours are not yet clear.
The convergence of current trends creates a complex and largely unprecedented picture of a world that is becoming more fragmented, aggressively competitive, and unpredictable. The old order is collapsing faster than a new one is being created. Moreover, it is entirely unclear on what principles this future world will be built. We are at a bifurcation point, where two opposing forces are vying to define the future: a metaphorical "Barbarism"—with its rule of might and rejection of complex systems—and "Civilization"—striving for a higher level of cooperation and consciousness.
Let's examine five key vectors leading us to this critical point.
- The shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world. The unconditional dominance of the United States is waning, while new centers of power are emerging on the world stage: China as an economic and technological superpower, a more assertive Russia, and a strengthening "Global South" (India, Brazil, BRICS). The world is becoming more competitive, with several "poles" fighting for resources and spheres of influence, forming a new, unstable bipolar system.
- The erosion of global institutions. The institutions created after World War II to maintain peace are in crisis. The UN Security Council is often paralyzed by veto power, WTO rules are ignored in favor of trade wars, and norms of international law are yielding to the "right of the strong." The world is becoming less predictable.
- Ideological and technological confrontation. Globalization is giving way to fragmentation. The confrontation between nominal "democracies" and "autocracies," the struggle for dominance in key technologies (AI, 5G, semiconductors), and information warfare have become the new norm, creating the risk of incompatible technological standards (the "splinternet").
- The rise of internal polarization and populism. The foreign policy of many countries is becoming a hostage to their internal problems. Deep societal divisions and the rise of nationalism lead leaders to be more inclined toward risky moves on the international stage to boost their ratings. Decisions are increasingly made under the pressure of short-term interests.
- The intensification of transboundary problems. Against the backdrop of these conflicts, problems that require maximum international cooperation are intensifying: climate change, pandemic risks, migration crises. A dangerous paradox emerges: the need for cooperation peaks at a time when the possibility for it is at a minimum.
These trends inevitably increase the risk of a global conflict. Most analysts agree that the probability of a major war involving leading powers is now higher than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The issue is not inevitability, but that the system of international relations has become dangerously fragile.
Part II. Fragile Safeguards: Why Common Sense Won't Stop a War
Despite the growing risks, there are powerful deterrents: economic interdependence, the rationality of elites, and, of course, nuclear deterrence. However, history teaches us that logic, economics, and common sense are fragile barriers against political will, ideology, and human emotions.
These factors are better viewed not as a guarantee of peace, but as safeguards that might delay a conflict until "Point X"—the moment when the balance shifts, and one side concludes that the risk of war is lower than the price of inaction.
- Economic Interdependence? Europe before World War I was as economically integrated as we are today. Leading thinkers argued that a major war was impossible because it would be economically suicidal. They were wrong. Nationalism and political ambitions trumped rationality.
- Rationality of Elites? History is full of examples of rational leaders making catastrophic decisions, becoming hostages of "groupthink," false intelligence, or their own propaganda.
- Nuclear Deterrence? This is the only qualitatively new factor that has prevented a direct war between superpowers. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) makes a full-scale war pointless. But its weakness lies in the risk of miscalculation, accident, or uncontrolled escalation if a losing side decides to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons added a massive dose of fear to the equation, which has been the most reliable safeguard so far. But the increasing risks mean that more scenarios are leading to that very "Point X," where even this fear may be outweighed by other considerations.
Part III. Civethica: An Operating System for the World After "Point X"
If the existing civilization, built on "ideas of profit and power," is hurtling toward a point of no return, the Civethica movement is unlikely to stop this locomotive. Its role today is not as a braking mechanism, but rather as a "lifeboat" carrying the code for a new operating system needed by those who survive.
Civilization as a Failed Experiment
If we view our current civilization as one grand experiment, its diagnosis, as stated in the Manifesto, is grim: "Man himself is becoming a raw material and is no longer able to understand that the critical point of his Home's existence is approaching." This describes a system that has lost its ability for self-preservation. Like the mice in the "Universe 25" experiment, it is moving toward collapse not due to external enemies, but due to an internal exhaustion of meaning.
In this context, a global war is not the cause of the collapse, but its final, loudest symptom. It is the logical conclusion of a paradigm where unrestricted competition is valued over cooperation, and the part (a nation, a corporation) is placed above the whole (the planet, the biosphere).
A "Firmware" for a New World
What happens after "Point X"? If humanity is not completely destroyed, the survivors will find themselves in the ruins of not only cities but also ideologies. Nationalism, predatory capitalism, geopolitical ambitions—all will be discredited, as it was these "ideas of profit and power" that led to the catastrophe.
An existential vacuum will emerge. At that moment, a new foundational idea will be needed. This could be the interconnected value system of Civethica.
Why would it be suitable?
- Starting Point—Reality, Not Ideology. The Civethica value system begins not with abstract ideas about nations or markets, but with fundamental, indisputable facts: our existence in the Cosmos, on a fragile Planet, within a dependent Biosphere. This will be the "layer-zero protocol," understandable to all survivors.
- Redefining the Human Role. The Manifesto states that man is a "guardian or a destroyer." After the role of "destroyer" leads to catastrophe, the only logical path for survival will be the role of "guardian." Responsibility will become not a moral choice, but a condition for survival.
- Necessity, Not Choice. Principles that seem idealistic today will become pragmatic necessities. Ethics will be the only way to restore trust. The conscious development of technology will become critical. And Culture and Memory will focus on the main lesson: a world built on egoism destroys itself.
From "Multipolarity" to a "Unipolarity" of Survival
The Manifesto states: "There can be only one pole here—the comprehensive care and protection of our common Home." In our current world, this sounds like a call to action. In a world after "Point X," it will become a law of physics. When resources are scarce and the environment is hostile, toxic competition leads to guaranteed extinction. The only winning strategy becomes cooperation and healthy competition within common ethical norms for the sake of survival.
Conclusion
Thus, the Civethica movement, in its current form, is not a political force capable of preventing war. It is, rather, a "monastic order" that, on the eve of a "dark age," is engaged in preserving and systematizing the knowledge that will be needed for the "Renaissance" that follows.
It creates an "operating system" for the future, based on the bitter lesson that the path of egoism and division is a path to self-destruction. And the path of co-evolution, care for our Home, and the preservation of Life and Reason is the only path that will remain for those who survive the failure of the old world. But, most paradoxically, asserting these principles will also require strength, so the confrontation of the modern world does not end in the future. It will simply take other forms.