geopolitical zone
The 20th century ended with the establishment of “globalization”. This globalization was characterized by a hyperspecialization of geopolitical zones. It was established by the world’s high finance, which considered that all people had the same needs: food, housing, clothing and health care, but that certain areas should be more dedicated to design and others to production and the resulting social and environmental pollution. This model no longer makes sense with robotization, the dissemination of knowledge or the fight against pollution, etc.
Little by little, each geopolitical zone begins to produce its own airplanes and yogurts and grows its middle class.
Nevertheless, with the development of digital technology, we are witnessing the emergence of supranational structures that control the data of humanity and are preparing to control its monetary and ideological flows.
This is becoming a concern, and naturally we see the popular reaction mobilizing around the notion of sovereignty. Each geographical area has its own history, its own vision of the world and its own desire for autonomy.
In terms of digital technology, several areas are beginning to emerge, although digital seems culturally transnational. With 20 years of practice, we are beginning to see a fragmentation in the way it is conceived and used. These ways reflect our deep perceptions of life: utilitarian America, Confucian China, Stoic Europe, while other areas are marked by animistic thinking.
For the moment, the United States is attached to its model of individual freedom. The Chinese accept that the individual has no weight in relation to the interests of the community. As for Europeans, they are attached to the idea that everyone has rights and duties with respect to the community. They are becoming aware that a prosperous community allows each individual to prosper. The younger generations understand the need to get involved in the life of their community, their profession, their political party, their church and that they must contribute to culture and the development of knowledge. They are concerned about digital technology, which is a vector of fake news. An all-digital world, such as it was imposed during the periods of confinement, disgusts them. They aspire to a digital world that makes their lives easier and in which they have confidence.
The utilitarianism of American culture has given rise to consumerism, and this consumerism no longer brings the satisfaction it promised. For more lasting satisfaction, it is better to turn to activities that develop self-esteem. This is a trend that is emerging in the younger generations around the world.
Europe is the corner of the planet that laid the foundations of the Western model. But it has dominated the world for five centuries, accumulating some resentments, and these resentments are at work to move the world forward. These resentments arrive in particular via digital technology, and it must protect itself from them, which does not exempt it from dealing with them through diplomatic and cultural actions.
1.3.3. From the Anthropocene to the symbiotic, an opportunity for Europe
The period of European domination has exhausted its institutions and calcified its arteries. But it remains a privileged corner of the planet because of its climate, its very diverse geography and its extremely ancient cultural heritage. It is from this diversity that it has drawn its capacity to constantly challenge itself. The last world war turned it into an American protectorate. The current economic war could turn it into a Eurasian zone dominated by China, driven by the Han’s will to conquer.
This hypothesis is unlikely because China has a cultural heritage that is also very old, but very different, which constitutes sources of eternal tension. If it was possible to deal with American cousins, it seems culturally complicated to deal with Asian cultures. But above all, global diversity would lose a lot.
Thus, Europe can seize its chance by innovating for itself, for example, by setting itself the objective of leaving the Anthropocene that we have entered as soon as possible, in order to move as quickly as possible towards a symbiotic model.
The Anthropocene means admitting that humans have destroyed the planet and that we must deal with the damage. It is to make normal the idea that we have made mistakes and that we must repair them. For example, with regard to demography, which we have failed to regulate as all other species do, either by themselves or via their predators.
Some work on a scenario and objectives of destruction. And bam! We go back to where we were. This project is certainly effective, but it is naive and arrogant on the part of those who work on it and can only create traumas with formidable counter-effects.
The symbiotic model is slower, but more sustainable and morally more likely to enshrine the idea that humanity is progressing. This model is based on the idea that if I am doing well, those around me benefit. So, if my neighbors are doing well, I benefit. So, when I do something, I care about its effect on those around me and eventually I involve them in my actions. That is how you build society. Being social means not being afraid of empathetic behavior. But it also means being demanding with your neighbors. In this way, it is possible to move towards a more mature and environmentally friendly model of society.
Today’s Europe was designed, under Uncle Sam’s control, not to become the European United States but to be simply a territory where the member states do not go to war with each other. It must be prosperous enough to provide a solvent market for American business and a storehouse of knowledge to advance Western technological dominance.
It is the corner of the world where social buffers are quite effective and, as a result, it is a good place to live. It has a governance that has been perceived as ineffective until now, with a bizarrely short-lived rotating presidency and complex prerogative contours. But the locks of American protectorate are loosening, and even if its membership of the Western world must be preserved, it can once again organize its future as a zone that is small in size but big in its resilience.
In fact, it is moving forward. It is even inventing symbiotic governance. Germany, within Europe, cannot remain the “21st century” wealth magnet in the 21st century in the face of China and the United States, who also want to be wealth and knowledge magnets but on a global level. Germany is therefore beginning to see the value of a symbiotic approach to its neighbors: if they are doing well, it is also doing well in the medium term.
Otherwise, the danger of Europe breaking up is too great. In particular, it is becoming necessary for the populations to manage to classify the bickering of the great royal houses of the last centuries without further action. Sapiens has never left Europe for more than 30,000 years, and this is what our children feel without knowing it: they do not understand the risks we are taking by keeping European governance unclear.
Faced with the new international situation, Europe is perfectly capable of waking up. Its “Erasmus” citizens9 feel it and want it. It can do so at a time when Africa, its historical cultural neighbor, wishes to do so. It is stimulated in this by the Asian dynamic and the phase of civilizational restructuring undertaken by the Americas.
But there are so many roads to travel to get there!
1.3.4. Solzhenitsyn syndrome
1.3.4.1. The institutions that are bogged down
One of the signs of the suffering of our institutions is expressed through Solzhenitsyn syndrome.
In 1978, Solzhenitsyn alerted the West to the dangers of “legalism” that freezes life. This is at the heart of the debate between the West and China or Russia. Is it better to have an interventionist state that imposes
