From Project 2025 to 2036: The Most Controversial Predictions for the Next Decade

The Two “Project 2025” Blueprints

The Book That Knew Too Much

In 1997 - when the World Wide Web was still a novelty, when smartphones existed only in science fiction, when the idea of working from home was a fringe fantasy - three futurists sat down to write a book that would, nearly three decades later, read less like speculation and more like a classified government memo that had been leaked to the public.

Joseph F. Coates, John B. Mahaffie, and Andy Hines published “2025: Scenarios of US and Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology” - a 502‑page doorstop of a book that made the audacious claim that it could predict the world of 2025 with startling accuracy.

The book was not a work of prophecy. It was a work of “scenario planning” - a disciplined methodology used by corporations and intelligence agencies to prepare for multiple possible futures. Coates was a former researcher at the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress. Mahaffie and Hines were professional futurists who had advised Fortune 500 companies and government agencies. They did not rely on crystal balls. They relied on trend analysis, expert interviews, and the careful extrapolation of existing trajectories.

And they were right. Eerily right.

The book predicted that by 2025, approximately 37% of the US workforce would engage in distributed work - working from home or remote locations. At the time, the internet was still dial‑up for most Americans. The phrase “remote work” was not in the common lexicon. And yet, when COVID‑19 struck in 2020, the world was catapulted into exactly that reality. By 2025, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 35% of US workers were still fully remote, with another 20% in hybrid arrangements. The prediction was off by only 2 percentage points - a margin of error that would be impressive for a forecast made 28 years prior, even without accounting for a global pandemic.

The book predicted the development of “genetic vaccines” - a concept that seemed like science fiction in 1997. The first human gene therapy trials were still experimental. The idea of injecting RNA into human cells to instruct them to fight disease was theoretical. Then came 2020, and the Pfizer‑BioNTech and Moderna COVID‑19 vaccines arrived - the first approved mRNA vaccines in human history. The prediction was not just accurate. It was prescient.

The book predicted that AI would cause “significant job displacement” by 2025, particularly in white‑collar sectors like legal research, accounting, and customer service. In 1997, AI was beating Garry Kasparov at chess - but barely. Deep learning was not yet a field. Neural networks were academic curiosities. By 2025, generative AI had disrupted industries worldwide, with Goldman Sachs estimating that 300 million jobs were exposed to automation.

The book predicted the rise of “digital currencies” and “cashless societies.” In 1997, cash was still king. Credit cards were widespread but not universal. The idea of a purely digital currency - one not backed by any government - was the stuff of cyberpunk novels. By 2025, cryptocurrencies had become a multi‑trillion‑dollar asset class, central banks were piloting digital currencies, and Sweden had become effectively cashless.

These were not lucky guesses. They were the product of rigorous, evidence‑based forecasting. And they raise an unsettling question: if Coates, Mahaffie, and Hines could see 2025 with such clarity in 1997, what do they - and other experts - see for 2036?

The Predictions That Haven’t Happened (Yet)

The 1997 book was not infallible. Some of its predictions have not yet materialized - and some may never materialize.

The book predicted that “DNA enhancement” - the genetic engineering of human embryos to produce “designer babies” - would be common by 2025. This has not happened. While CRISPR gene editing has advanced dramatically, the ethical, legal, and social barriers to human germline modification remain formidable. The world has chosen restraint - for now.

The book predicted “space mining” - the extraction of resources from asteroids - would be an established industry by 2025. This has not happened. While companies like Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries have come and gone, and while NASA’s OSIRIS‑REx mission successfully returned samples from an asteroid in 2023, commercial space mining remains a distant prospect.

The book predicted “brain‑computer interfaces” - direct neural connections between human brains and computers - would be widely available by 2025. This has not happened. While Neuralink has made headlines with animal trials, and while brain‑computer interfaces have restored limited function to paralyzed individuals, the technology remains experimental and invasive.

But the fact that these predictions have not materialized does not mean they were wrong. It means their timelines were optimistic. The underlying trajectories remain in motion. DNA enhancement may be delayed, not defeated. Space mining may be postponed, not abandoned. Brain‑computer interfaces may be a decade away, not three decades away.

The question is not whether these technologies will arrive. It is when. And what the world will look like when they do.

The 2022 “Project 2025”: A Different Kind of Blueprint

In 2022, the Heritage Foundation - the most influential conservative think tank in the United States - published its own “Project 2025.” But this was not a book about science and technology. It was a 900‑page political manifesto titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.”

The confusion between the 1997 book and the 2022 manifesto is understandable. Both use the same year. Both claim to describe the future. But they could not be more different. The 1997 book is descriptive - it describes what will happen. The 2022 manifesto is prescriptive - it describes what should happen.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” is a detailed blueprint for a conservative takeover of the US federal government. It is built on four pillars: a policy agenda, a personnel database, a training program, and a 180‑day “playbook” for the first months of a new administration.

The manifesto proposes eliminating the Department of Education, dismantling the Department of Homeland Security, reducing environmental regulations, consolidating executive power, and purging what it calls the “deep state” - career civil servants who, in the view of its authors, have thwarted conservative agendas for decades.

By April 2026, after Donald Trump’s return to the White House, many of these proposals were already being implemented. According to a TIME magazine analysis, nearly two‑thirds of Trump’s executive orders during his first 100 days were at least partially consistent with the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint.

The manifesto’s authors include dozens of former Trump administration officials. Its director, Paul Dans, served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management. Its advisory board includes former Trump officials like Russell Vought, who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The manifesto has been compared to other authoritarian blueprints from history. Elizabeth Graham, writing on Substack, drew explicit parallels between “Project 2025” and Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” (1925) and Aleksandr Dugin’s “The Foundations of Geopolitics” (1997). “Each book imposes the will of one man on the millions of others in a society,” Graham wrote.

The comparison is provocative, but it is not without merit. All three documents share a common structure: a diagnosis of national decline, a vilification of internal enemies, a call for the centralization of power, and a detailed plan for restructuring the state along ideological lines.

The 1925 “Mein Kampf” outlined Hitler’s vision for a racially pure German empire. The 1997 “Foundations of Geopolitics” - written by Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin - outlined a plan for Russian expansion, the destruction of NATO, and the establishment of a Eurasian empire. And the 2022 “Project 2025” outlines a plan for the consolidation of conservative power in the United States.

The convergence of these three blueprints - published exactly 100, 75, and 25 years apart - is not a coincidence. It is a pattern. And patterns, in geopolitics, are rarely innocent.

The Chinese “Made in China 2025”

The “Project 2025” confusion extends beyond the United States. In China, “Made in China 2025” - a strategic plan announced in 2015 - has been the subject of intense international scrutiny.

“Made in China 2025” is not a political manifesto. It is an industrial policy - a blueprint for transforming China from the “world’s factory” into a global leader in high‑tech manufacturing. The plan focuses on ten key sectors, including next‑generation information technology, aerospace, robotics, electric vehicles, and biopharmaceuticals.

By 2025, China had largely achieved its goals. According to a report in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, more than 86% of the plan’s targets had been met, with electric vehicles and renewable energy production far exceeding expectations. China had surpassed Japan to become the world’s largest automotive exporter - a title previously held by Germany.

The success of “Made in China 2025” has been a source of growing concern in Washington. The plan is not about Chinese manufacturing. It is about Chinese technological independence. It is about reducing China’s dependence on Western intellectual property. It is about challenging American technological supremacy in sectors like semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing.

The collision course between the American “Project 2025” and the Chinese “Made in China 2025” is one of the defining features of the 2026 geopolitical landscape. Both are blueprints for power. Both are designed to reshape their respective societies. And both are accelerating the transition from a unipolar world order to a multipolar one.

As the Taiwanese newspaper United Daily News observed, the two “2025” blueprints represent fundamentally different visions: America’s is about “politics” - consolidating power, reshaping the state, fighting culture wars. China’s is about “economics” - building industries, mastering technology, expanding influence.

“The United States is still the world’s leading power,” the newspaper concluded, “but if its reforms are too radical, it risks destabilizing its own system. China is rising rapidly, but it still faces technology restrictions and a trust deficit.”

The convergence of these blueprints - the American political blueprint, the Chinese economic blueprint, and the 1997 technological blueprint - is creating a perfect storm. And the storm is only intensifying as we look toward 2036.

The Russian “Foundations of Geopolitics”

No discussion of future predictions is complete without examining the 1997 book that arguably predicted the 21st century more accurately than any other: Aleksandr Dugin’s “The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia.”

Dugin’s book is not a work of futurism. It is a work of strategy - a manual for Russian imperial revival. It was published in 1997, at a moment when Russia was at its weakest, its economy in shambles, its borders shrinking, its military gutted. And it outlined a plan for how Russia could rise again.

The book became required reading at the Russian General Staff Academy - the training ground for the country’s top military officers. It was adopted as a textbook for Russian military strategists. Its ideas seeped into the Russian defense establishment, influencing a generation of officers who would rise through the ranks.

Dugin’s core argument is simple: Russia’s destiny is to control the Eurasian landmass. The United States, as a maritime power, is Russia’s natural enemy. The goal of Russian strategy should be to “introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity” - to destabilize the United States from within, to encourage separatism, to weaken American alliances.

The book predicted that Russia would need to reassert control over its “near abroad” - the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic states. It predicted that Russia would need to cultivate nationalist movements in Europe to weaken NATO from within. It predicted that Russia would need to align with Germany and France to challenge American dominance.

Twenty‑nine years later, the book reads less like a prediction and more like a post‑hoc justification for events that have already occurred. The 2014 annexation of Crimea. The 2022 full‑scale invasion of Ukraine. The 2023–2024 escalation of hybrid warfare across Europe. The cultivation of far‑right political movements in France, Germany, and Hungary.

As the New Zealand Herald noted in 2017, “The book now reads like a to‑do list for Putin’s behavior on the world stage.” This was written five years before the full‑scale invasion of Ukraine - and it was already true.

The success of Dugin’s predictions raises a profound question: if a Russian philosopher could predict the trajectory of global conflict in 1997, who is predicting the trajectory of global conflict today? And what do they see for 2036?

The Unfulfilled Prophecies of 1997

What the 1997 Book Got Right - And Wrong

The 1997 book “2025: Scenarios of US and Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology” was not just a collection of lucky guesses. It was a systematic attempt to forecast the future using rigorous methodology. And its track record is remarkable.

Prediction 1: Remote Work. The book predicted that by 2025, 37% of the US workforce would work from home. Actual figure: 35% fully remote, 20% hybrid (BLS, 2025). The prediction was off by only 2 percentage points.

Prediction 2: Genetic Vaccines. The book predicted that genetic vaccines would be developed by 2025. The Pfizer‑BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines were approved in 2020.

Prediction 3: AI Job Displacement. The book predicted that AI would displace millions of jobs by 2025. Goldman Sachs estimated in 2023 that 300 million jobs were exposed to AI automation.

Prediction 4: Digital Currency. The book predicted the rise of digital currencies. Bitcoin launched in 2009. Central bank digital currencies are now in pilot phase worldwide.

Prediction 5: Cashless Society. The book predicted that cash would become obsolete in many contexts. Sweden is now effectively cashless; China’s digital renminbi is widely used.

Prediction 6: DNA Enhancement (Unfulfilled). The book predicted that “designer babies” would be common by 2025. This has not happened due to ethical, legal, and social barriers.

Prediction 7: Space Mining (Unfulfilled). The book predicted that asteroid mining would be an established industry by 2025. This has not happened.

Prediction 8: Brain‑Computer Interfaces (Partially Fulfilled). The book predicted widespread availability of BCIs. Neuralink has implanted devices in humans, but widespread adoption remains distant.

Prediction 9: 32‑Hour Work Week (Unfulfilled). The book predicted that the standard work week would shrink to 32 hours. It has not - though some European countries are experimenting.

Prediction 10: Lifespan Extension (In Progress). The book predicted significant advances in human longevity. Senolytics, gene therapies, and other interventions are in clinical trials.

Why Some Predictions Failed - And Why That Matters

The unfulfilled predictions of the 1997 book are not failures. They are lessons. They reveal the limits of even the most sophisticated forecasting.

Lesson 1: Ethics Slows Technology. The DNA enhancement prediction failed not because the technology was impossible, but because society chose not to use it. The ethical, legal, and social barriers to human germline modification are formidable. They are not technical barriers - they are human barriers.

Lesson 2: Economics Delays Technology. The space mining prediction failed because the economics did not work. Launch costs remained high. Asteroid resources remained inaccessible. The return on investment was negative. Technology without economics is a hobby.

Lesson 3: Regulation Shapes Technology. The brain‑computer interface prediction is delayed because regulation is still catching up. Neuralink’s human trials are heavily scrutinized. Safety concerns dominate. The technology is ready - but the regulatory framework is not.

Lesson 4: Culture Resists Technology. The 32‑hour work week prediction failed because culture resisted. Even when technology enables shorter hours, cultural norms - the Protestant work ethic, the cult of productivity - keep people working longer. Technology changes what is possible. Culture changes what is acceptable.

These lessons matter for 2036 predictions. The unfulfilled predictions of 1997 are not dead. They are delayed. DNA enhancement will come - eventually. Space mining will come - eventually. Brain‑computer interfaces will come - eventually. The question is not whether, but when. And the “when” is shaped by ethics, economics, regulation, and culture - not just technology.

The 2026 Expert Consensus: 63% Believe 2036 Will Be Worse

In early 2026, the Atlantic Council - a prominent Washington‑based think tank - surveyed 447 experts across 72 countries. The respondents included current and former government officials, academics, think tank researchers, and private sector strategists. The question was simple: will the world in 2036 be better or worse than today?

The results were stark. Sixty‑three percent of respondents said the world in 2036 would be worse off. Only 37% said it would be better - roughly the same share as the previous year’s survey on this question.

The pessimism was not evenly distributed. Experts from the Global South were significantly more pessimistic than those from North America and Europe. Younger experts were more pessimistic than older experts. Women were more pessimistic than men. The pattern suggests that those who are most vulnerable to the coming disruptions are also the most aware of them.

What are the experts afraid of? The survey identified three primary drivers of pessimism: geopolitical confrontation, climate change, and the societal impact of artificial intelligence.

Geopolitical Confrontation. Experts ranked great power conflict - particularly between the United States and China - as the most significant short‑term risk. The possibility of a hot war over Taiwan was cited by 43% of respondents as the most likely trigger for a global conflict - higher than Eastern Europe (Russia‑Ukraine) or the Middle East.

Climate Change. Experts ranked extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem disruption as the most severe long‑term impacts. By 2036, the effects of climate change will be impossible to ignore - even for those who have spent decades ignoring them.

Artificial Intelligence. Experts ranked AI as the most transformative technology of the next decade - and the most dangerous. The potential for AI‑driven misinformation, autonomous weapons, and labor displacement are not speculative risks. They are already unfolding.

The Atlantic Council’s 2036 Scenarios

The Atlantic Council survey did not just measure pessimism. It also generated scenarios - detailed descriptions of what 2036 might look like.

Scenario 1: Multipolar Chaos. In this scenario, the United States is no longer the world’s dominant power. China has become the world’s largest economy, but it is not a hegemon. Russia has been diminished by its war in Ukraine, but it remains a disruptive force. Europe has fractured. The Global South has risen. And no single power is capable of enforcing global order.

Only 7% of experts believe the United States will be the dominant power in 2036. Only 4% believe China will be dominant. The overwhelming majority believe the world will be multipolar - fragmented, contested, unstable.

Scenario 2: Democratic Depression. In this scenario, democracy is in retreat worldwide. Authoritarian governments have consolidated power in China, Russia, and much of the Middle East. Even in the United States, democratic norms have eroded. Trust in institutions has collapsed. Disinformation has poisoned public discourse. And the “rules‑based international order” has effectively ceased to exist.

This scenario is not speculative. It is already underway. The question is not whether democracy is in retreat - it is whether the retreat can be reversed.

Scenario 3: AI‑Driven Transformation. In this scenario, AI has reshaped every aspect of human life. Labor markets have been transformed. Warfare has been revolutionized. Science has been accelerated. And the line between human and machine has begun to blur. The experts are divided on whether this transformation will be positive or negative - but they agree it will be profound.

The Chinese Reunification Question

One of the most controversial predictions to emerge from the Atlantic Council survey concerns Taiwan. Seventy percent of experts said China would take action to achieve reunification within the next decade. Twenty‑one percent “strongly agreed” with this prediction - up from 15% two years earlier.

The survey also asked experts to identify the most likely flashpoints for global conflict. Forty‑three percent cited the South China Sea - higher than Eastern Europe (Russia‑Ukraine) or the Middle East.

The message is clear: the next decade will be defined by great power competition between the United States and China. And the most likely flashpoint is not Ukraine - it is Taiwan.

This prediction has profound implications. A conflict over Taiwan would not be a regional war. It would be a global war - one that would draw in the United States, Japan, Australia, and potentially European powers. It would be the first great power conflict of the 21st century. And its consequences would shape the world for generations.

The Dollar vs. The Cryptocurrencies

Another controversial prediction from the Atlantic Council survey concerns the future of money. The experts believe the US dollar will remain the world’s primary currency - but it will be significantly weakened by cryptocurrencies and central bank digital currencies.

The dollar’s dominance is not guaranteed. The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) have been actively working to create an alternative to the dollar‑based financial system. China has been promoting the international use of the renminbi. Russia has been building a gold‑backed currency. The trend is clear: de‑dollarization is underway.

By 2036, the experts predict, the global financial system will be multipolar - just like the global political system. The dollar will remain important, but it will no longer be dominant. And the transition away from dollar dominance will be turbulent - potentially triggering financial crises, trade wars, and geopolitical conflicts.

The NATO Question

The Atlantic Council survey also asked experts about the future of NATO -the military alliance that has been the cornerstone of European security since 1949.

The experts predict that NATO will survive - but it will be fundamentally transformed. The alliance will focus less on collective defense against Russia and more on emerging threats: China, cyber warfare, space, and AI. European members will be forced to increase defense spending. And the United States will demand that European allies take more responsibility for their own security.

The survey also asked about the possibility of NATO expansion. The experts are divided. Some believe that Ukraine will eventually join NATO - though not within the next decade. Others believe that NATO expansion has reached its limit - that further expansion would provoke a Russian response that no one wants.

The most controversial prediction concerning NATO is about its internal cohesion. The experts are worried that a second Trump administration - or a similarly nationalist future administration - could pull the United States out of NATO or significantly reduce its commitment to European defense. If that happens, NATO would effectively cease to exist as a credible alliance. And Europe would be forced to build its own defense - something it has been unwilling or unable to do for 75 years.

The AI Arms Race

No discussion of 2036 predictions would be complete without addressing artificial intelligence. The experts are unanimous: AI will be the most transformative technology of the next decade - and the most dangerous.

The Atlantic Council survey identified several AI‑related risks:

Autonomous Weapons. The development of AI‑powered autonomous weapons systems - “killer robots” - is already underway. By 2036, these systems could be deployed on battlefields around the world. The risk of accidental escalation is significant. The risk of non‑state actors acquiring the technology is even greater.

Disinformation. AI‑powered disinformation is already a problem. By 2036, it will be a crisis. Generative AI can produce convincing fake videos, fake news articles, fake social media accounts at scale. The line between truth and fiction will become increasingly difficult - if not impossible - to discern.

Labor Displacement. AI will displace millions of jobs - not just blue‑collar jobs, but white‑collar jobs as well. Lawyers, accountants, radiologists, and customer service representatives are all at risk. The social and political consequences of mass unemployment could be severe.

Existential Risk. Some experts worry that AI could pose an existential risk to humanity - not through malevolent intent, but through misalignment. An AI system optimized for one goal could pursue that goal in ways that are catastrophic for humans. The risk is small - but it is not zero.

The Climate Tipping Points

The Atlantic Council survey also asked experts about climate change - the slow‑moving catastrophe that will define the lives of everyone born after 1990.

By 2036, the experts predict, the effects of climate change will be impossible to ignore. Extreme weather events will be more frequent and more severe. Sea levels will have risen. Biodiversity will have declined. And the economic costs will be staggering.

The survey identified several climate‑related tipping points that could be reached by 2036:

Arctic Ice Melt. The Arctic could be effectively ice‑free in summer by 2036. This would have profound implications for global weather patterns, sea levels, and geopolitics - as the Arctic becomes navigable, competition for resources will intensify.

Coral Reef Collapse. The Great Barrier Reef and other coral ecosystems could be effectively dead by 2036. This would devastate marine biodiversity and the coastal communities that depend on it.

Amazon Dieback. The Amazon rainforest could reach a tipping point, transitioning from a carbon sink to a carbon source. This would accelerate global warming and have catastrophic consequences for the global climate.

The experts are pessimistic about the world’s ability to address climate change. The Paris Agreement targets will not be met. Global emissions will not peak by 2030. The 1.5°C warming limit will be exceeded. The question is not whether climate change will be catastrophic - it is how catastrophic, and who will suffer most.

The Demographic Collapse

One of the most overlooked - but most consequential - trends of the next decade is demographic collapse. Across the developed world, birth rates have fallen below replacement levels. Populations are aging. Workforces are shrinking. And the economic consequences are severe.

By 2036, several countries will be facing demographic crises:

Japan. Japan’s population has already been declining for over a decade. By 2036, it will have shrunk by millions. The country will be older, poorer, and less dynamic.

Germany. Germany’s birth rate is among the lowest in Europe. By 2036, its workforce will have shrunk significantly. The country will struggle to maintain its economic competitiveness.

China. China’s population peaked in 2022. By 2036, it will have declined by tens of millions. The country will grow old before it grows rich - with profound implications for its economy, its military, and its global ambitions.

The United States. The United States is in better demographic shape than most developed countries - but it is not immune. Birth rates are falling. The workforce is aging. And immigration - the traditional solution to demographic decline - has become politically toxic.

The demographic collapse will be one of the defining challenges of the 2030s. The countries that manage it well will thrive. The countries that manage it poorly will decline. And the countries that ignore it will collapse.

The 10 Most Controversial Predictions for 2036

Prediction #1: The United States Will No Longer Be the World’s Dominant Power

This is not a prediction about American decline. It is a prediction about the emergence of a multipolar world.

The Atlantic Council survey found that only 7% of experts believe the United States will be the dominant power in 2036. Only 4% believe China will be dominant. The overwhelming majority believe that no single power will dominate - that the world will be contested, fragmented, and unstable.

What does this mean in practice? It means that the United States will no longer be able to enforce its will unilaterally. It means that China will not be able to replace the United States as global hegemon. It means that Russia, India, and other powers will carve out spheres of influence. It means that international institutions - the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF - will become less relevant.

For Americans, this prediction is deeply unsettling. The United States has been the world’s dominant power since 1945. The post‑war order was built on American power. The dollar was the world’s reserve currency because of American power. NATO was the world’s most powerful military alliance because of American power. The idea that this era is ending is not just a prediction - it is a reckoning.

Prediction #2: China Will Reunify with Taiwan

Seventy percent of experts believe China will take action to achieve reunification with Taiwan within the next decade. This is the single most controversial prediction in the Atlantic Council survey - and the one with the most profound implications.

A Chinese reunification with Taiwan would not be peaceful. Taiwan has been a functioning democracy for decades. Its people have no desire to be absorbed into an authoritarian China. Any attempt by Beijing to force reunification would be met with resistance - and that resistance would be backed by the United States, Japan, and other democratic powers.

The result would be a great power conflict - the first of the 21st century. It could be a naval blockade, a missile strike, a cyber attack, or a full‑scale invasion. It could escalate into a global war. It could trigger a nuclear exchange. The risks are existential - and the experts know it.

The prediction is controversial not because it is unlikely - but because it is likely. The trajectory is clear. The question is not whether China will attempt reunification - it is when, and how, and at what cost.

Prediction #3: The US Dollar Will Lose Its Reserve Currency Status

The US dollar has been the world’s primary reserve currency since the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944. For 80 years, the dollar has been the currency of last resort - the currency that countries use to settle international debts, to hold their reserves, to price their oil.

That era is ending.

The Atlantic Council survey found that the dollar will remain the world’s primary currency - but it will be significantly weakened. Cryptocurrencies and central bank digital currencies will erode its dominance. The BRICS nations will promote alternatives. China will push for the internationalization of the renminbi. Russia will push for a gold‑backed currency.

The loss of the dollar’s reserve currency status would be catastrophic for the United States. It would mean higher borrowing costs, lower living standards, and reduced geopolitical influence. It would mean that the United States could no longer print money to finance its deficits - that the “exorbitant privilege” of the dollar would be gone.

The experts are not predicting that the dollar will collapse. They are predicting that it will decline. But even a managed decline would be painful - for the United States and for the world.

Prediction #4: AI Will Surpass Human Intelligence

This prediction - known as the “singularity” - is the subject of intense debate among AI researchers. Some believe it will happen within the next decade. Others believe it will never happen.

The Atlantic Council survey found that experts are divided. But a significant minority - and a growing one - believe that AI will match or surpass human intelligence in certain domains by 2036. Not general intelligence - the kind of flexible, adaptable intelligence that humans possess. But narrow intelligence - the ability to outperform humans at specific tasks.

The implications are profound. If AI can outperform humans at strategic planning, it will revolutionize warfare. If AI can outperform humans at scientific discovery, it will accelerate technological progress. If AI can outperform humans at financial trading, it will reshape global markets.

The risk is not that AI will become malevolent - though that is a risk. The risk is that AI will become too powerful for humans to control. That the systems we build will evolve in ways we cannot predict. That we will create something we cannot contain.

Prediction #5: NATO Will Fundamentally Change

The Atlantic Council survey found that NATO will survive - but it will be fundamentally transformed. The alliance will focus less on collective defense against Russia and more on emerging threats. European members will be forced to increase defense spending. And the United States will demand that European allies take more responsibility for their own security.

The most controversial prediction concerning NATO is about its internal cohesion. The experts are worried that a nationalist future administration could pull the United States out of NATO or significantly reduce its commitment to European defense.

If that happens, NATO would effectively cease to exist as a credible alliance. Europe would be forced to build its own defense - something it has been unwilling or unable to do for 75 years. And Russia - emboldened by Western disarray - might be tempted to test the limits of European resolve.

The prediction is not that NATO will collapse. It is that NATO will be forced to adapt - or die.

Prediction #6: Cryptocurrencies Will Challenge the Global Financial System

The Atlantic Council survey found that cryptocurrencies and central bank digital currencies will significantly weaken the US dollar’s dominance by 2036. But the prediction is not about the dollar - it is about the entire global financial system.

Cryptocurrencies are not just a new form of money. They are a new form of governance - a way of transacting without banks, without governments, without intermediaries. The rise of cryptocurrencies is a challenge to state sovereignty itself - a claim that the state no longer has a monopoly on the creation and control of money.

By 2036, the experts predict, cryptocurrencies will be widely used - but not universally accepted. They will coexist with traditional currencies, creating a hybrid financial system that is more complex, more volatile, and more difficult to regulate.

The risk is not that cryptocurrencies will collapse - though they may. The risk is that they will succeed - and that the transition away from state‑controlled money will be chaotic, disruptive, and destabilizing.

Prediction #7: The Climate Will Pass Tipping Points

The Atlantic Council survey found that by 2036, the effects of climate change will be impossible to ignore. Extreme weather events will be more frequent and more severe. Sea levels will have risen. Biodiversity will have declined. And the economic costs will be staggering.

The prediction is not that climate change will be catastrophic - it is that climate change will be irreversible. By 2036, several climate tipping points will have been passed. The Arctic will be ice‑free in summer. The Great Barrier Reef will be dead. The Amazon will be a carbon source, not a carbon sink.

Once these tipping points are passed, the effects will be irreversible - at least on human timescales. The world will be locked into a trajectory of warming that cannot be stopped, only managed. And the costs of management will be staggering - trillions of dollars, millions of lives, entire countries made uninhabitable.

Prediction #8: Demographics Will Reshape Global Power

The Atlantic Council survey found that demographic collapse will be one of the defining challenges of the 2030s. The countries that manage it well will thrive. The countries that manage it poorly will decline. And the countries that ignore it will collapse.

The prediction is not about population size - it is about population structure. An aging population is a burden - fewer workers supporting more retirees, slower economic growth, reduced dynamism. A young population is an asset - more workers, more innovation, more energy.

By 2036, the demographic divide between the developed world and the developing world will be stark. Europe, Japan, and China will be aging rapidly. Africa, India, and parts of Southeast Asia will be young and growing. The balance of global power will shift - not just because of economics, but because of demographics.

Prediction #9: The Global South Will Rise

The Atlantic Council survey found that the Global South - Africa, Latin America, South and Southeast Asia - will become increasingly influential in global affairs by 2036. Not because they will challenge the United States or China - but because they will no longer be content to follow them.

The rise of the Global South is not a prediction about economic growth - though that is part of it. It is a prediction about political agency - the assertion that countries outside the traditional Western‑dominated order have the right to shape global rules.

The experts predict that the Global South will demand a seat at the table - not as junior partners, but as equals. They will demand reforms to international institutions - the United Nations Security Council, the World Bank, the IMF - that have excluded them for decades. They will demand a multipolar world - not a bipolar one, and certainly not a unipolar one.

Prediction #10: The Rules‑Based Order Will Collapse

The most controversial prediction of all - and the one that underpins all the others - is that the “rules‑based international order” will effectively cease to exist by 2036.

The rules‑based order is the system of international laws, norms, and institutions that has governed global affairs since 1945. The United Nations. The World Trade Organization. The International Criminal Court. The Geneva Conventions. These institutions are flawed - deeply flawed. But they have provided a framework for managing conflict, for resolving disputes, for protecting human rights.

By 2036, the experts predict, this framework will be largely irrelevant. Great powers will ignore international law when it suits them. International institutions will be paralyzed by gridlock. Human rights will be violated with impunity. And the world will be more dangerous - not less.

The prediction is not that the rules‑based order will be replaced by something better. It is that it will be replaced by nothing at all - by chaos, by fragmentation, by the law of the jungle.

This is why 63% of experts believe 2036 will be worse than today. This is why the predictions for the next decade are so controversial. And this is why the world - despite all the warnings, despite all the evidence, despite all the suffering - is not prepared for what is coming.

The Road to 2036

The Convergence of Crises

The predictions outlined above are not independent. They are interconnected - each crisis feeding into the others, creating a cascade of consequences that will define the next decade.

The geopolitical confrontation between the United States and China will be exacerbated by climate change - as competition for resources intensifies. The demographic collapse of the developed world will be exacerbated by AI‑driven labor displacement - as fewer workers compete for fewer jobs. The rise of cryptocurrencies will be exacerbated by the loss of trust in institutions - as people seek alternatives to a system they no longer trust.

This is the convergence of crises - the simultaneous arrival of multiple existential threats, each amplifying the others. It is the defining feature of the 2036 landscape. And it is why the experts are so pessimistic.

The Unfulfilled Prophecies of 1997 Revisited

The unfulfilled predictions of the 1997 book - DNA enhancement, space mining, brain‑computer interfaces - are not dead. They are delayed. And they will eventually arrive.

By 2036, the experts predict, many of these delayed technologies will have matured. DNA enhancement will be possible - though it will remain controversial. Space mining will be economically viable - though it will remain risky. Brain‑computer interfaces will be available - though they will remain expensive.

The question is not whether these technologies will arrive. It is what the world will look like when they do. Will they be used for good or for ill? Will they be regulated or uncontrolled? Will they benefit humanity - or only the wealthy and powerful?

The 1997 book did not just predict technologies. It predicted that technology would be a double‑edged sword - bringing both benefits and risks. That prediction has already come true. And it will continue to come true in the years ahead.

The 2036 Worldview: What the Experts Are Really Saying

The Atlantic Council survey is not a prediction. It is a snapshot of expert opinion - a compilation of what the smartest people in the world think will happen. And what they think is sobering.

They think the world will be more dangerous. They think great power conflict is likely. They think climate change will be catastrophic. They think AI will be transformative - and risky. They think the rules‑based order will collapse.

But they also think that the future is not predetermined. The decisions we make today will shape the world of 2036. The actions we take - or fail to take - will determine whether the experts’ pessimism becomes a self‑fulfilling prophecy or a warning that was heeded.

The experts are not saying that 2036 will be worse. They are saying that it could be worse - if we continue on our current trajectory. And they are saying that we have the power to change that trajectory - if we choose to exercise it.

A Final Word: The Blueprint We Choose

The 1997 book “2025: Scenarios of US and Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology” was a blueprint for the future - not a blueprint that anyone was required to follow, but a blueprint that described the likely trajectory of technological change. Its predictions were accurate because its authors understood the forces shaping the world.

The 2022 “Project 2025” is also a blueprint - but a different kind. It is a blueprint for political change - a plan to reshape the United States along conservative lines. Its predictions are not about what will happen - they are about what should happen.

The Chinese “Made in China 2025” is a blueprint for economic change - a plan to transform China into a global leader in high‑tech manufacturing. Its predictions are not about what will happen - they are about what China intends to make happen.

The Russian “Foundations of Geopolitics” is a blueprint for geopolitical change - a plan to restore Russian power and challenge American dominance. Its predictions are not about what will happen - they are about what Russia intends to make happen.

The world is not passive. It is being shaped - by blueprints, by plans, by the decisions of powerful people. The question is not whether the world will change - it is who will shape the change.

The 1997 book described a world shaped by technology. The 2022 manifesto describes a world shaped by politics. The Chinese blueprint describes a world shaped by economics. The Russian blueprint describes a world shaped by geopolitics. And the Atlantic Council survey describes a world shaped by all of these forces - converging, colliding, cascading.

The next decade will be defined by choices. The choice between confrontation and cooperation. The choice between regulation and deregulation. The choice between adaptation and denial. The choice between building a better world - and accepting a worse one.

The experts are pessimistic. But pessimism is not prophecy. It is a warning. And warnings can be heeded.

The 1997 book did not just predict the future. It described a range of possible futures - and showed how the choices we make determine which future we get. The same is true for 2036.

The blueprints are on the table. The choices are ours. And the future - for better or worse - is waiting to be written.