Tag Archives: Patrick Wood

And Who Is Writing AI?

Posted on by

What? Most AI Is Now Written by AI?

This supercharges AI development by orders of magnitude

Patrick Wood's avatar
PATRICK WOOD
JUL 13, 2026

For the better part of the last two years, I have been tracking what appeared to be a reasonably predictable pattern in AI development: a doubling of capability roughly every 3.5 months. That figure came from METR’s time horizon benchmarks — measurements of how long an AI agent can work autonomously on a task before failing. Early 2024 through early 2026, the data held with uncomfortable consistency. If you plotted it, the curve bent upward with almost mechanical precision.

I say “appeared to be predictable” because that framing is now obsolete.

The variable that breaks every forecast model is Recursive Self-Improvement — the condition in which AI systems are no longer just tools that humans use to build AI, but active participants in building themselves. We crossed that threshold. The question of when is already behind us. The question now is what happens when a system that rewrites its own code, runs its own experiments, and optimizes its own training recipes starts doing so faster than any human team could direct it.

There is no clean answer. That is precisely the point

What Has Actually Changed

Let me be specific, because vague gestures toward “exponential growth” have become their own form of intellectual laziness.

As of May 2026, Anthropic confirmed that more than 80 percent of the code merged into its own production systems was written by Claude — its own AI. Not assisted by Claude. Written by Claude. The company’s own engineers have described the shift as moving from doing work to managing a system that does the work. One Anthropic engineer publicly stated that 100 percent of his personal code output was AI-generated, with 22 pull requests shipped in a single day.

OpenAI’s announcement of GPT-5.6 in July 2026 included a data point that deserves more attention than it received: over the previous six months, the share of internal research compute devoted to AI coding inference grew one hundredfold, while internal agentic token usage — meaning AI agents working autonomously inside OpenAI’s own research infrastructure — increased twenty-two fold. OpenAI is now using its own frontier models to diagnose training failures, optimize training systems, run experiments, interpret results, tune computational kernels, and improve training recipes for the next model. The company described this as “quickly becoming standard.”

Google reported in early 2026 that 75 percent of all new code at the company is AI-generated, up from 25 percent in 2024.

These are not productivity statistics. These are evidence that the loop has closed. AI is now a primary agent in its own development cycle.

Why the 3.5-Month Doubling Figure Was Always a Floor, Not a Ceiling

When I cited the 3.5-month capability doubling figure, I was describing what the data showed for models built primarily by human engineers using AI as an accelerant. That is a fundamentally different situation from what is unfolding now.

RSI compresses timelines in a way that no benchmark extrapolation can capture in advance. Here is the basic mechanic: if AI doubles in capability every X months under human-directed development, and AI is now directing a significant fraction of its own development, then the effective time to the next doubling shrinks in proportion to how much of the development loop the AI controls.

If AI handles 80 percent of code output and that percentage is rising, you are not looking at a linear compression of the doubling time. You are looking at a feedback loop where each generation of AI produces a more capable successor faster than the previous generation did — and that successor inherits the full research infrastructure of its predecessor.

Google DeepMind’s June 2026 paper, From AGI to ASI, described the unconstrained version of this as potentially “hyperbolic” — meaning super-exponential, a curve that in theory races toward a singularity. The authors were careful to note that real-world resource constraints bend such curves into S-shapes before they go vertical. Compute costs money. Power requires physical infrastructure. Fabricating chips takes years of supply chain work. These are genuine friction points.

But friction points are not stopping points. They slow the curve. They do not reverse it.

Breakthroughs At Any Time

Here is where intellectual honesty requires admitting the limits of any analysis, including mine.

RSI does not just accelerate known processes. It creates conditions for qualitative leaps — the kind of change that looks, in retrospect, like it came from nowhere. The history of science is full of these moments. They are not random, but they are not predictable either. You cannot model the arrival of a genuinely new idea. You can create the conditions that make such ideas more likely, and an AI system running millions of research cycles per day, improving its own ability to run those cycles, is precisely such a condition.

What this means practically is that the question “when will ASI arrive?” is not answerable with a date. The consensus among serious forecasters — not YouTube thumbnails, but the AI-2027 team, the METR researchers, the Google DeepMind paper authors — clusters around AGI in the 2026-2027 range and ASI following within months to a few years. But those estimates assume that progress continues on a roughly continuous curve. RSI introduces the possibility of discontinuous jumps — moments where capability does not inch forward but lurches.

Nobody knows when those moments arrive. That is not a failure of analysis. That is the nature of the phenomenon.

What This Means Beyond the Lab

The implications of RSI extend well past questions of benchmark performance or corporate strategy. They reach into every institutional structure that assumes human cognitive supremacy — which is to say, every institutional structure that exists.

Legal systems assume that humans write laws, interpret them, and enforce them. Economic systems assume human judgment at key decision points. Democratic governance assumes a human electorate making decisions about a world they can understand. All of these assumptions are being stress-tested simultaneously by a technology that is now improving itself at a rate that exceeds the capacity of any regulatory body to track, much less manage.

The same politicians and regulators who failed to anticipate the social consequences of social media algorithms — a comparatively simple technology — are now being asked to govern RSI. This should concern everyone, regardless of their position on the political spectrum. This is not a left-right question. It is a question of institutional competence in the face of something genuinely unprecedented.

Sam Altman wrote in mid-2025 that “we are past the event horizon; the takeoff has started.” That is as close to a plain statement of fact as you will get from a sitting AI lab CEO. The event horizon metaphor is apt. Past a certain point, events inside cannot be communicated outward in a way that allows course correction.

We may or may not be past that point. What is certain is that the institutions charged with maintaining human oversight of this process were not built for it, are not staffed for it, and show no signs of being reformed fast enough to matter.

Conclusion

Anyone who tells you they know exactly how this unfolds is selling something. The honest position is this: AI capability is growing faster than any previous technology in history, the development loop has partially closed, and the factors that could produce discontinuous breakthroughs are now structurally embedded in the research infrastructure of every major AI lab on the planet.

The 3.5-month doubling was a data point describing yesterday’s trajectory. RSI means that the trajectory is now self-modifying. The curve is not just bending upward — it is bending the conditions that determine how fast it bends.

There are serious people who believe this ends well for humanity. There are equally serious people who believe it does not. What there is not, on either side, is certainty. The responsible course is to watch what the systems are actually doing — not what the press releases say — and to resist the temptation to normalize a situation that is, by any historical standard, abnormal.

The machine is rewriting itself. Pay attention.

from:  https://patrickwood.substack.com/p/what-most-ai-is-now-written-by-ai?publication_id=721283&post_id=206935814&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Save Your Kids! Save Yourselves!

Posted on by

Technocracy’s Digital ID Is Being Smuggled In On The Backs Of Children

Enter, the KIDS Act…

Patrick Wood's avatar
PATRICK WOOD
JUL 03, 2026

I have spent more than fifteen years analyzing technocracy as a system of rule by engineered administration, where the credential replaces the citizen, and the dashboard replaces the vote. Technocrats have their requirements, and they keep hammering on them until they get their way.

In all those years, how many times have we seen digital ID come up? Just about every year!

The fact is, Technocrats need digital identity to work. Without it, Technocracy is dead. You cannot administer what you cannot enumerate. You cannot meter, permission, or exclude a population that you cannot individually identify. Programmable money, social scoring, algorithmic governance, all of it waits on a unique, verified, machine-readable identity for every human being.

That is why the past twelve months deserve your full attention. The hinge pin for digital ID is being fitted right now, on both sides of the Atlantic, and the hand doing the fitting is wearing a child-safety armband. The Technocrat’s feigned concern for children is so patently hollow that it borders on child abuse.

First, The Age Check For Minors, Then ID For Everybody

Britain ran the experiment first, so watch this pattern.

In July 2025, the age-verification rules of the Online Safety Act took effect. To protect children, adults were suddenly required to upload government IDs or submit to face scans to reach lawful content on Reddit, X, and Discord. The public understood immediately what an “age check” really is. It is an identity check with a bedtime story attached.

The response was remarkable. VPN signups surged by more than a thousand percent within hours of enforcement. One provider compared the numbers to what it sees during civil unrest. Millions of ordinary Britons, no manifesto required, simply refused to show papers at the door of the internet. These weren’t extremists as the government maintained, but ordinary, run-of-the-mill citizens.

Two months later the government showed its hand. The Prime Minister announced a national digital ID, mandatory for the right to work. The pretext shifted from children to migrants, but the architecture was the same. No credential, no participation. That Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, happens to be a member of the elitist Trilateral Commission.

Then the public won the first round. Nearly three million people signed a petition against the scheme, one of the largest in parliamentary history. Opposition came from every direction at once, left and right, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and by January 2026, the government retreated to a “voluntary” ID. Read the fine print, though. Digital right-to-work checks are still on track to become effectively unavoidable. The ID is optional, just as cash is optional once every register goes card-only.

Now watch American Technocrats run the same play. In June 2026, the House passed the KIDS Act, a package that consolidated 14 separate child-safety bills into a single vote. Its defenders point to language disclaiming any age-verification mandate, and that language is real. But the liability standard does the work instead. Platforms face consequences if they “should have known” a user was a minor. No general counsel on earth reads that phrase and concludes the company should collect less identity data.

The Senate side is more revealing, even if there are doubts about passing. A package is being negotiated that would trade children’s online safety legislation for federal preemption of state AI laws. Sit with that switch-a-roo for a moment. The most powerful industry in history is offering to accept identity-adjacent rules for the public in exchange for removing safety rules for itself. The children are the currency, not the beneficiary.

Always Call Them Out By Name

Skeptics like Jeremy Boreing tell me Technocracy has no unified plans, names, or even an address. Here are three names (there are many more), and I invent nothing about any of them. The public record says it all.

Start with Sam Altman, because he skipped the pretexts and built His company, Tools for Humanity, that manufactures the Orb, a biometric device that scans human irises and issues a “proof of personhood.” The project’s founding white paper described the goal as “a globally-inclusive identity and financial network, owned by the majority of humanity.” Every human. That is the stated scope.

So far, the project has scanned millions of people across roughly 160 countries. It rolled thousands of Orbs into American cities in 2025. By this spring, it had struck verification partnerships with Tinder, Zoom, and DocuSign. Dating, work, and contracts: that is the connective tissue of ordinary life, and it is being wired to an eyeball scan.

Governments elsewhere saw the danger in the Orb. Brazil banned the project outright. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand halted it, citing consent violations and the recruitment of poor communities paid for their eyeballs. It expands anyway. And savor the business model. The man whose AI floods the internet with convincing bots now sells the only antidote, proof that you are not a bot. He built the disease, he owns the cure, and the cure is a global biometric registry.

Marc Andreessen shows you the financing. His firm, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), was an early and repeated backer of Altman’s identity project, participating in the funding rounds that built the Orb network. At the same time, Andreessen and his partners helped bankroll Leading the Future, one of the largest super PACs in the history of technology politics. Its purpose is to elect politicians who will preempt and dismantle state-level AI regulation, the very preemption now being traded for kids’ safety bills in the Senate.

Follow both hands at once. One hand funds the infrastructure that credentials every human. The other funds the campaign to strip oversight from the machines. Deregulate the algorithms, register the people. You do not need to infer this from whispers. It is written in funding announcements and FEC filings.

Peter Thiel supplies the government side of the pincer. The company he co-founded, Palantir, saw its federal contracts nearly double to roughly a billion dollars in 2025, spanning ICE, the IRS, and the Pentagon. A March 2025 executive order instructed agencies to eliminate “information silos,” which is bureaucratese for merging the data files. Reporting throughout 2025 and 2026 placed Palantir at the center of efforts to link tax records, Social Security data, health claims, and immigration status across agencies.

Even a Republican congressman, Warren Davidson, said the quiet part aloud. Combining those data points, he warned, “essentially creates a digital ID.” Notice the form it takes. No card in your wallet, no enrollment ceremony. A dossier assembled on the server side, which is the one kind of digital identity nobody ever asks you to consent to. Britain knows the pattern too. Palantir won the contract to consolidate NHS patient data, nearly half a billion pounds, over loud objections from privacy campaigners.

Three men, three vectors, and this is the tip of the iceberg. Altman builds the credential. Andreessen finances it while defunding oversight. Thiel fuses the state’s records behind it. Do they meet in a smoke-filled room? They do not need to. Interests that align coordinate themselves, and that self-coordination is exactly what makes technocracy durable. It requires no conspiracy, only convergence.

It’s Always The Children

Notice what none of these projects leads with. Control never introduces itself as control. Digital ID never arrives as a demand. It arrives as a favor. Protect the children. Stop the bots. Catch the fraudsters. Secure the border.

Each rationale is genuinely sympathetic, which is exactly why each is selected. The children are the most effective of all, because no politician survives a vote against “child safety.” So the age check becomes the wedge, the wedge becomes the norm, and the norm carries the full system in behind it.”

Britain presented a timetable of 14 months from age checks to a national ID proposal.

The Pushback Is Working, So Get Busy While Time Remains

Here is the part the doom alarmists leave out, and it matters. The public keeps winning.

Britain repealed Blair’s ID cards in 2011. The mandatory BritCard was gutted in four months by petition signatures and cross-party revolt, Farage and Corbyn objecting in the same season. Brazil threw the Orb out of the country and fined it for coming back. Even in Washington, the bill that actually passed the House had its most speech-restrictive provision stripped out first, and nearly a hundred advocacy groups fought it from one side while civil liberties groups fought it from the other.

Every one of those victories came from ordinary people making noise: signing, calling, refusing, switching on a VPN as an act of quiet defiance. The architects of these systems are patient, but they are not invincible, and they retreat every single time the public notices before the concrete sets.

If Britain’s voluntary ID stays genuinely voluntary through 2029, if American age checks stay confined to explicit-content sites, if World ID never becomes a de facto requirement for work or platforms, then the hinge-pin reading loses force, and I will be happy to say so in print.

But watch the edge, because that is where this gets decided. The right-to-work check that quietly requires the “optional” credential. The liability rule that makes identity collection the cheapest legal insurance. The platform partnership that turns an iris scan from a novelty into a prerequisite. The pin does not get hammered in. It gets slid in, one sympathetic millimeter at a time. Don’t fall for it!

The Technocrats that I have tracked for fifteen years have names, funding rounds, federal contracts, and a floor vote. Every victory so far came because people spoke up before the concrete set. Speak up now, while it is still wet.

from:    https://patrickwood.substack.com/p/technocracys-digital-id-is-being?publication_id=721283&post_id=204959414&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Documentary on Technocracy – Learn What It Means for You

Posted on by

The first-ever full-length documentary on Technocracy

The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future
Patrick Wood's avatar
PATRICK WOOD

Long in the making, it is finally released! This documentary was made in the UK, and while I sat for an interview, it shows that others around the world are getting the big picture. My works, videos, and books on Technocracy broke this story starting in 2015, and have clearly impacted each of the presenters.

In five days since its release, it has received 150,000 views, 5,500 thumbs up, and over 800 comments. It could go over the top viral if enough people share it!

I am re-posting it on Substack for posterity’s sake, in the event that YouTube decides to axe it. Here is the original link:

Please share this video especially with all the nay-sayers in your life!

Share

from:    https://patrickwood.substack.com/p/the-first-ever-full-length-documentary

The Endgame?

Posted on by

An Assessment Of The Accelerating Timeline for “You Will Own Nothing”

Patrick Wood's avatar
PATRICK WOOD
MAY 21, 2026

I am an economist, first and foremost. I’m going to give you a sobering look at the progression of Technocracy and what to expect in the future. Take it for what it is. I have been following the global elite and Technocracy for over 48 years, and since my first book with Antony Sutton, Trilaterals Over Washington, Vols. I and II, I have never pulled any punches and never watered anything down. I have been warning for 12 years that the endgame was upon us. I gave you the receipts for my thinking. Time is running out… soon.

My epic new book, The New Economics of Technocracy: You Will Own Nothing, laid bare the structure, architecture, and strategy being used to dominate the world. My earlier book, co-authored with Courtenay Turner, was released in November 2025: The Final Betrayal: How Technocracy Destroyed America.

(Patrick Wood’s Technocracy News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

If you don’t read these books, I can’t help you. There will be no discussion. For those of you who have read these books already, you should tear into this essay with determined resolution to get to the bottom of it.

To the rest of America who have fought me tooth and nail for decades (from the left and right, you know who you are), I have only one final thing to say to you: “I told you so, and I was right.” ⁃ Patrick Wood Editor.)

When Klaus Schwab declared at the 2016 World Economic Forum that “you will own nothing and be happy,” most observers treated it as aspirational futurism. A decade later, the architecture to deliver the first half of that sentence is being built in front of us — and it is being built faster than nearly anyone outside the industry has acknowledged.

I have been documenting Technocracy for almost 20 years. The pattern is always the same. The technocrats describe the future they intend to build. Critics dismiss the description as paranoia. The future arrives on schedule. Then a new generation is told the new arrangement was inevitable.

What is different this time is the speed. And the speed is itself accelerating.

I want to lay out a defensible timeline for May 2026 with the full understanding that it will look different in six months. That is not a hedge. It is a feature of the moment we are in. The compressors are themselves compressing.

The Original Estimates Were Too Conservative

Industry analysts have been forecasting tokenization timelines using growth-rate models built for human-paced engineering and human-paced legislation. Boston Consulting Group projected $16 trillion in tokenized assets by 2030. McKinsey echoed similar figures. The World Economic Forum suggested ten percent of global GDP would move on tokenized rails by 2027.

These numbers were defensible eighteen months ago. They are no longer defensible today.

Six forces have entered the picture that none of those models accounted for. Each one shortens the timeline. Stacked together, they multiply.

The first is artificial intelligence and its compounding doubling curve. The second is regulatory capture by the technocratic class. The third is the buildout of more than five thousand AI data centers as the physical substrate. The fourth is the Pax Silica Declaration binding signatory nations to American AI infrastructure. The fifth is the federal-wrapper strategy for routing around state property law. The sixth is the Bank for International Settlements as the global alignment mechanism for tokenized monetary infrastructure.

Three of those compressors I had previously misclassified as immovable constraints. They are not. They are accelerants.

The AI Acceleration

METR, an AI evaluation organization, has been measuring how long a task an AI model can reliably complete. The doubling time used to be seven months. It is now closer to four. On software-engineering benchmarks, the doubling time is under three months.

This matters because tokenization is, at its technical core, a software-engineering problem. Smart contracts must be written. Audited. Integrated with custody systems. Reconciled with off-chain registries. Connected to oracles. Hardened against exploits. Compliance logic must be embedded.

Every one of those tasks is being accelerated by AI tooling that did not exist two years ago. The TON ecosystem is already shipping AI-assisted smart-contract toolchains. Base has launched dozens of agentic AI projects executing on tokenized assets. Broadridge surveyed 900 financial-services technology leaders in February 2026 and the headline conclusion was unambiguous: “GenAI delivering now, tokenization is next.”

The build phase that should have taken a decade is being completed in three to four years.

The Technocratic Capture

The second compressor is what Harvard’s Sabeel Rahman has called the “technocratic impulse” — the regulatory posture in which legislators defer rule-drafting to the very industry they are meant to oversee.

Members of Congress cannot read smart-contract code. They do not understand zero-knowledge proofs. They cannot evaluate consensus mechanisms. Representative Ro Khanna stated the problem out loud: Congress does not have the knowledge base.

Share

Industry is happy to provide the missing knowledge. And the missing legislative text.

Big Tech alone deployed $1.1 billion in political spending through 2025 to shape AI rules and preempt state regulation. The crypto industry deployed comparable sums to pass the GENIUS Act and move the CLARITY Act through the House.

The pattern is visible in the regulatory record:

  • The GENIUS Act was drafted in close consultation with stablecoin issuers themselves.
  • The SEC’s January 2026 statement that tokenized securities “may or may not” carry shareholder rights was language requested by tokenization platforms.
  • The Department of Labor’s “asset-neutral” safe harbor of March 30, 2026 uses verbatim phrasing from industry comment letters.
  • Chair Atkins’s Project Crypto framework cites industry-developed standards like ERC-3643 as the regulatory model.
  • The December 2025 AI preemption Executive Order was prepared with substantial industry coordination.

This is not bribery. It is something subtler. The legislators are being handed pre-built solutions to problems they cannot independently evaluate. They sign because they have nothing else to sign.

This is what regulatory capture looks like when the captured do not realize they have been captured.

The 5,000 Data Centers

The reader might ask why this is happening now. The answer is partly political. But it is also physical.

The United States is in the middle of a buildout of AI data center capacity, unlike anything in industrial history. Estimates put the global figure at well over five thousand operational and announced data centers, with the United States hosting more than half of large-scale capacity.

These facilities are not just running language models. They are the physical substrate on which the tokenized economy will execute.

Every tokenized stock trade requires compute. Every smart-contract execution requires compute. Every oracle update, every compliance check, every identity verification, every agentic AI transaction on a tokenized rail requires compute.

The data center buildout is the engine room of the architecture. It is being financed by sovereign-wealth capital from the UAE and Saudi Arabia, by Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, Oracle, and the new entrants — Stargate, CoreWeave, and the rest.

This is the part Schwab’s quote glossed over. “You will own nothing” requires somewhere for the not-owning to happen. The data centers are that “somewhere”.

Pax Silica and the Treaty Workaround

I previously assumed cross-border legal recognition of tokenized assets would set a hard floor on the timeline because treaty cycles run five to fifteen years. That assumption is already obsolete.

The Pax Silica Declaration binds signatory nations to American AI infrastructure as the operating substrate for their digital economies. Once a country is inside that arrangement, it inherits the technical standards, identity systems, compliance hooks, and settlement rails that come with it. That is not a treaty in the traditional sense. It is soft annexation through infrastructure dependency. Legal recognition follows the wire.

Then there is World Liberty Financial. The WLF deal with Pakistan for cross-border payments was not on most analyst maps a year ago. It is now operational. WLF is positioning USD1 as an upgrade to the dollar itself, deployed through bilateral arrangements with friendly jurisdictions. A stablecoin issued by a politically connected American entity is being used to settle cross-border flows in a sovereign state of 240 million people.

This is a treaty substitute executed at the speed of a smart contract. Pax Silica plus WLF plus USD1 means the cross-border problem is being solved through bilateral infrastructure deals and dollar-aligned tokenized settlement, not through the Hague or the UN.

The treaty cycle of five to fifteen years collapses to whatever the bilateral signing schedule is.

The Federal Wrapper Around State Property Law

I also previously assumed that state-by-state title statutes would slow the tokenization of sovereign property because state law moves slowly, and there are fifty of them.

That was the wrong frame.

The architects do not need to replace every state’s title system. They need a federal wrapper that leaves state title systems formally in place while allowing tokenized representations to function as the operative instruments for transfer, financing, securitization, and beneficial-interest trading.

This is the same legal trick used for mortgage-backed securities under MERS. The deed stays where it is. The economic interest moves through a parallel federal layer that the underlying state recording offices treat as authoritative. State recording becomes ceremonial. Federal tokenization becomes operational.

A federal wrapper of this kind requires one act of Congress, not fifty acts of state legislatures. With CLARITY-Act-style preemption already in motion and the precedent of the AI preemption Executive Order of December 2025, the wrapper can be deployed in a single legislative cycle.

That bottleneck is essentially removed.

The BIS Whip

The third constraint I had wrongly classified as a floor was the alignment of 195 jurisdictions on tokenized monetary infrastructure. That is not a 195-decision problem. It is a Bank for International Settlements problem.

The BIS sits above the central banks. Through Project Agorá, Project mBridge, the Innovation Hub network, and the Unified Ledger initiative, it has been pre-positioning the technical and governance scaffolding for tokenized monetary alignment for years. Member central banks are already conforming their domestic CBDC and tokenized-deposit work to BIS-published standards.

When the BIS decides the architecture is ready, it does not need 195 separate political decisions. It needs roughly two dozen central-bank governors at the table in Basel agreeing to a coordinated launch, after which the remaining jurisdictions align by default through correspondent-banking dependency, IMF conditionality, and SWIFT-successor-rail compatibility.

That is the whip. The Basel capital accords were imposed on the global banking system through exactly this mechanism. There was no global vote. There was a BIS framework, and compliance followed.

The 195-jurisdiction floor exists only as long as the BIS chooses not to crack the whip. Once it does, alignment compresses from decades to roughly the implementation window of a single coordinated rollout — call it eighteen to thirty-six months.

The Rolling Process

Now to the question that matters most. When does this hit ordinary people?

The answer is not a date. It is a sequence.

Nobody wakes up on a Tuesday in 2030 and discovers all their assets are gone. The architecture is being designed so that the losses arrive in waves. Different victims. Different asset classes. Different legal vehicles. Different demographics.

The first wave is already underway. Retail crypto users buying offshore tokenized stocks — xStocks, Robinhood EU, Kraken’s tokenized US equities — are the first generation to discover that what looks like a stock token may carry no shareholder rights, no dividend pass-through guarantee, and no recourse if the platform fails.

The next wave is stablecoin holders facing GENIUS Act compliance triggers — whitelisted-only redemption, freeze authorities, and the discovery that a “dollar token” is not a dollar. USD1 and the WLF rollout will accelerate this wave.

After that come the US retail buyers of third-party-wrapped tokenized stocks under the SEC’s innovation exemption. Synthetic exposure without entitlements. The price tracks. The rights do not.

Then come the 401(k) participants — roughly seventy million Americans — whose target-date defaults will quietly absorb tokenized private equity, tokenized credit, and crypto under the DOL’s new safe harbor. They will not be asked. They will not be told. The illiquidity and valuation losses will surface only in the next downturn.

Then pension beneficiaries. Then self-directed IRA holders. Then fractional real-estate token buyers who discover they own LLC interests, not deeds. Then conventional shareholders of Russell 1000 stocks whose governance gets diluted by third-party wrappers. Then physical property owners under the federal wrapper, whose state-recorded deeds become ceremonial. Then cash users as CBDCs and tokenized deposits become the dominant settlement layer.

That is a ten-wave sequence running across roughly a decade — but with the first six waves now compressed into the next four to five years.

Each wave’s victims look different from the last. That is the point. No common identity forms. No political coalition forms. No reversal happens.

The Revised Timeline as of May 2026

Putting the six compressors together, with the three former floors now reclassified as accelerants, gives a defensible answer for the present moment.

The original analyst estimates of 2038–2042 for 80 percent global asset tokenization are obsolete by every measure I can identify. They were drawn before the AI doubling data, before the technocratic-capture cycle of 2025–2026, before the data center buildout reached its current pace, before Pax Silica was operational, before WLF and USD1, and before the federal-wrapper strategy was visible.

My previous revision placed the saturation window at 2030–2033 with an aggressive case of 2029–2031. That estimate is now also too conservative.

The defensible May 2026 timeline:

  • Mid-case: 80 percent global asset tokenization by 2029–2032.
  • Aggressive convergence case: 2028–2030.
  • Architecture load-bearing across all asset classes: 2027–2028.
  • First six waves of dispossession substantially completed: 2027–2030.
  • Full ten-wave sequence: completed by 2032–2034.

That is the picture from where we sit today. My honest expectation is that this estimate will move forward by another six to nine months when I revisit it in late 2026. The compressors are themselves compressing. AI doubling pulls forward the technical buildout, which pulls forward the regulatory permissions, which pulls forward the next set of bilateral infrastructure deals, which pulls forward the BIS readiness window. Each loop tightens the next.

I am writing this with the explicit caveat that any reader looking back from November 2026 should expect to find the dates have moved earlier, not later.

Why It Will Be Brutal

The brutality is not in any single wave. The brutality is in the cumulative effect.

News emerged in January 2026 that all NYSE-listed stocks will be tokenized. By April, the platform was unveiled. We now know it will be launched by year-end. Formerly, such an operation would have taken years to cut through regulations, deliberation, and testing; not so with Technocrats driving the process.

A retail trader loses on a tokenized stock platform in 2026. A worker discovers their target-date fund underperformed because of illiquid alts they did not choose in 2027. A pensioner watches benefits cut as “necessary recalibration” in 2028. A small landlord finds their LLC token diluted by sponsor amendment in 2029. A homeowner finds their deed has become ceremonial under a federal wrapper in 2030. An elderly cash user finds their preferred medium quietly unusable in 2032.

Each of these is dismissible in isolation. The aggregate is the most thorough redefinition of property in American history.

The technocrats know this. They have always known it. Wyoming’s Select Committee on Blockchain spelled out the destination in 2020: once tokens are recognized as title, tokens replace physical title. That is not a metaphor. That is the statutory roadmap.

Industry voices are equally candid. A January 2026 LinkedIn analysis titled “The Programmable Square Foot” declared: “Static ownership is fading. Programmable value is taking over.” State Street describes tokenization as a process that “redefines ownership.” Better Markets warns of “shadow stocks” that look like the real thing but lack the legal substance.

Programmable. Redefined. Shadow.

These are the words of the people building it. They are not hiding what they are doing. They are simply describing it in a register that most of the public cannot decode.

Where This Leaves the Reader

I am not writing this to alarm anyone. I am writing it because the timeline has changed, and the public discussion has not caught up. And because the timeline will change again before this essay is six months old.

The legal permission to dispossess is being passed faster than the technical capacity to execute, and both are being passed faster than the public capacity to understand what was done.

Four things follow from this.

First, the window for political resistance is now measured in months, not years. The compression of the legislative cycle means the architecture will be substantially load-bearing by 2027–2028. After that point, undoing it requires a future Congress to take affirmative action against an entrenched industry, a foreign infrastructure dependency network, and a BIS-aligned monetary system. That is a far higher bar than the original passage.

Second, the rolling nature of the dispossession means waiting for a defining event is fatal. There will be no single crisis. There will be a sequence of small ones, each affecting a different population, each dismissed as an edge case until the aggregate is irreversible.

Third, the convergence of AI, technocratic capture, data center buildout, Pax Silica, the federal wrapper, and BIS alignment is the actual story. No single one of those is enough on its own. Together they are a regime change in what property means and who controls it.

Fourth, the timeline itself is a moving target. Anyone who assumes the dates I have given here will hold for two years is reading the same map the analysts read in 2024 — and that map is now wrong by a decade.

I have called this Technocracy for almost two decades because that is what it is. The 1930s technocrats believed engineers should run the economy because politicians were incompetent to manage industrial complexity. The 2026 technocrats believe blockchain architects, AI engineers, and tokenization specialists should design the rules of property and finance because politicians are incompetent to manage digital complexity.

The difference is that today’s technocrats do not need to seize power. They are invited in by legislators looking for someone to write the technical bits of the bill.

That is the pattern. That is the timeline. That is why the thesis of “You Will Own Nothing” is no longer a 2030s problem. It is a now problem with a 2028–2030 endpoint, rolling forward one wave at a time.

The question is whether enough readers will see all ten waves as a single pattern before the fourth wave normalizes the technology beyond recovery.

That is the contribution this work has to make.

I will revisit this timeline in six months. I expect the dates will have moved earlier.

Endnotes

Boston Consulting Group and ADDX, “Asset Tokenization to Grow into US$16 Trillion Opportunity by 2030,” Ledger Insights, September 11, 2022.

Rony Dahan, “Global Adoption of Tokenization: Where Institutions Are Leading,” LinkedIn, September 23, 2025.

World Economic Forum, “Tokenized World: The Future of the Economy in 2030,” BBVA, May 5, 2026.

METR, “Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Tasks,” March 19, 2025.

METR, “Task-Completion Time Horizons of Frontier AI Models,” May 7, 2026.

arXiv preprint, “Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Tasks,” 2503.14499v2.

AI Digest, “A New Moore’s Law for AI Agents,” April 8, 2025.

BlockchainXTech, “How AI Is Accelerating Web3 Development & Automation,” LinkedIn, November 16, 2025.

Crypto Briefing, “TON’s New AI-Ready Toolchain Accelerates Smart Contract Development,” May 12, 2026.

BingX, “Top AI Agent Projects in Base Ecosystem 2026,” February 12, 2026.

Broadridge, “GenAI Delivering Now, Tokenization Is Next,” PR Newswire, February 24, 2026.

K. Sabeel Rahman, “Envisioning the Regulatory State: Technocracy, Democracy, and Institutional Experimentation,” Harvard Journal on Legislation.

Public Citizen, “$1.1 Billion in Big Tech Political Spending Fuels Attacks on State AI Laws,” November 20, 2025.

Wikipedia, “Regulatory Capture.”

Forbes, Zennon Kapron, “America Is About to Have Two Stock Markets for the Same Company,” May 19, 2026.

Better Markets, “The SEC’s Embrace of Tokenization Must Prioritize Investor Protection,” March 23, 2026.

SEC Statement on Tokenized Securities, January 28, 2026.

US Department of Labor, “Proposed Rule: Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives,” Federal Register Doc. 2026-06178, March 31, 2026.

US Department of Labor / EBSA Press Release, March 29, 2026.

Latham & Watkins, “DOL Proposes New ERISA Safe Harbor for Alternative Investments in Retirement Plans,” March 30, 2026.

Ogletree Deakins, “DOL Unveils Proposed Rule to Remove Restrictions on Alternative Investments,” March 29, 2026.

Executive Order 14330, “Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors,” August 7, 2025.

Cleary Gottlieb, “2026 Digital Assets Regulatory Update: A Landmark 2025,” January 14, 2026.

Fireblocks, “5 Key Digital Asset Policy Changes in 2025 and What to Expect in 2026,” December 16, 2025.

Latham & Watkins US Crypto Tracker, Legislative Developments.

Americas Credit Unions, “GENIUS, STABLE, and CLARITY Acts and State Laws,” June 23, 2025.

Morgan Stanley, “The ‘GENIUS’ of Greater ‘CLARITY’ on Stablecoin,” July 17, 2025.

McGuireWoods Consulting, “Executive Order Targets State AI Regulation Through Federal Preemption,” January 19, 2026.

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, “New Executive Order Signals Federal Preemption Strategy for State Laws on Artificial Intelligence,” January 6, 2026.

Holland & Knight, “What to Watch as White House Moves to Federalize AI Regulation,” December 14, 2025.

Pillsbury, “Real Estate Tokenization: Recent Developments in New Jersey and Dubai,” July 15, 2025.

Wyoming Select Committee on Blockchain, “Real Estate Tokenization,” May 19, 2020.

ScienceDirect, “Is the Tokenization of Property the Next Step in the Financialization of Housing?,” 2026.

Lobusto, “The Programmable Square Foot: Real Estate Tokenization and the $2 Trillion Opportunity,” LinkedIn, January 23, 2026.

Binaryx, “BlackRock’s 4-Stage Tokenization Plan Explained,” February 27, 2025.

State Street, “Digital Asset Regulation Accelerates in 2026,” March 2026.

Atlantic Council, Central Bank Digital Currency Tracker, May 13, 2026.

Financial Stability Board, “The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenisation,” October 21, 2024.

World Bank ID4D, “Tokenization.”

Canton Network, “State of RWA Tokenization 2026 Report,” December 16, 2025.

World Economic Forum, “What to Expect for Digital Assets in 2026,” January 12, 2026.

Frontiers in Blockchain, “Tokenization and the Reshaping of Traditional Finance,” February 11, 2026.

SNS Insider, “Asset Tokenization Market Size, Share & Growth Report, 2035,” September 22, 2025.

Pointsville, “Global RWA Tokenization Industry: Market Analysis and Forecast,” August 19, 2024.

Rep. Ro Khanna, statement on AI regulation, July 13, 2023.

Bank for International Settlements, Project Agorá, Project mBridge, and Unified Ledger initiative materials.

World Liberty Financial / USD1 Pakistan cross-border payments deal coverage, 2026.

Pax Silica Declaration, signatory framework documents, 2025–2026.

MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems), federal-wrapper precedent for state title law.

Brickken, “How to Tokenize Real Estate: A Step-By-Step Guide,” February 19, 2026.

from:    https://patrickwood.substack.com/p/an-assessment-of-the-accelerating?publication_id=721283&post_id=198786723&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The New Mask of Technocracy

Posted on by

Technocracy is NOT Communitarianism

Let’s settle this once and for all…

Patrick Wood's avatar
PATRICK WOOD
AUG 18, 2025

There has been a noticeable shift in narrative over what is going on in Washington, DC. I say Technocracy. Others used to say Communism, socialism or fascism. Now it’s being called Communitarianism.

The uptake on this word to mask Technocracy is stunning. It’s unprecedented. It might be that you are getting a taste of “The Science of Social Engineering”, Technocracy’s favorite definition of them themselves from the 1930s.

When Technocrats want to shield their technocratic polices, they intentionally do so in the language of Communitarianism.

Example #1: Smart Cities

Technocratic Policy: Urban planners, relying on data analytics and technical expertise, design “Smart City” infrastructure—deploying sensors, AI, and algorithms to manage traffic, resources, and public services. Core decisions, like placement of surveillance, adoption of digital IDs, or algorithmic resource allocation, are made by unelected and unaccountable technical experts and private sector consultants with little direct citizen input.

Communitarian Framing: Policymakers frequently describe these initiatives as advancing “inclusive urban communities,” “empowering local groups,” and “building public trust through collective digital transformation.” The emphasis is on “community-driven sustainability,” “shared public spaces,” and “strengthening community ties”—even as the actual governance, surveillance, and decision-making remain centralized in expert hands.

Example #2: Public Health Policy

Technocratic Policy: National public health agencies, guided by epidemiologists and technocratic advisory boards, roll out mandatory vaccination campaigns and digital health credentials. The implementation relies on technical modeling, centralized data management, and scientific expertise, often minimizing open deliberation or individualized consent.

Communitarian Framing: The rollout is explained using phrases such as “protecting our communities,” “collective responsibility for health,” and “building resilient neighborhoods together.” Authorities stress “we’re all in this together,” “community solidarity,” and “shared sacrifice for collective safety”—presenting programs as communal responses to crisis when the driving mechanism is expert rule and data-driven mandates.

In both examples, the language of communitarianism (“collective good,” “community empowerment,” “shared values”) is leveraged as public messaging, even as the substance of the policies is totally technocratic, with centralized, expert-directed authority.

So What Is Communitarianism?

If you ever read Walden Two by B.F. Skinner, you know everything about communitarianism that you need to know. (The story ended horribly.)

Communitarianism is a political and social philosophy that places primary emphasis on the importance of community, the common good, and social relationships in shaping individual identity, values, and moral judgments. It asserts that people’s identities are molded by their social environment and community ties rather than by strict individualism. Forget about individuality, your personhood, even your soul. Communitarianism sees community as an end in itself.

Right-Think Takes Care of Free Speech

Technocratic elites or their supporters deliberately frame current governance realities as “communitarian” in order to deflect criticism, obscure their own authority, or create ideological cover for technocratic rule.

You should know from my years of critical analysis of Technocracy that Technocrats don’t give a whoop about consensus, the common good or social cohesion. They are throwing up a smokescreen to confuse you, and are using AI to do it with “right think”: that is, DARPA’s idea of Theory of Mind.

Theory of Mind AI refers to systems that can infer human intentions, emotions, and likely responses by analyzing behavior and context. DARPA’s program aims to simulate, predict, and influence decision-making by modeling individual and collective psychologies—originally intended for national security and adversary prediction, but already applied to civilian contexts.

Patrick Wood’s Technocracy News: The Quickening Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, systems based on these principles were used for real-time sentiment analysis and targeted messaging to adjust public attitudes, encourage compliance, and foster community-oriented behaviors. This created feedback loops, guiding both policy and public reaction by tweaking narratives and interventions for maximum “collective good”—core communitarian ideals.

By the way, Palantir (Peter Thiel, co-founder) is a master of these tactics on the battlefield and in civilian life.

Conclusion

Technocracy is NOT Communitarianism.

If you have this word embedded in your vocabulary to explain what is going on in Washington, DC, your mind has been hacked. Ditch the word “Communitarianism.”

Call it by its real name – TECHNOCRACY.

Time to Check Out Peter Thiel

Posted on by

Working to Put AI in Charge

Posted on by

Trump The Technocrat Releases ‘America’s AI Action Plan’

Patrick Wood's avatar
PATRICK WOOD

The White House has just released its official policy document, America’s AI Action Plan, defining the future of AI development. Admittedly, Trump doesn’t have any real understanding of AI, but he has totally caved in to the Technocrats he appointed in the first place. Indeed, Technocracy is being forced down our throats whether we want it or not.

The first pillar of America’s AI Action Plan focuses on removing regulatory barriers and eliminating unnecessary review processes. Superficially, this appears as a push against bureaucratic inertia, but in reality, it amounts to an explicit transfer of authority from elected bodies to expert committees and interagency working groups.

The second pillar includes a comprehensive scheme for AI literacy and workforce retraining. At first glance, investment in skill development and rapid-response training may appear benevolent. Yet the Plan prescribes a narrowly defined set of competencies—data labeling, model auditing, grid operations—determined by federal projections of industrial demand. Such top-down workforce engineering tracks precisely with technocratic ideology, which regards citizens as variables in an optimization problem. Rather than empowering individuals to shape their own vocational paths, the Plan channels labor into predetermined slots within a digital economy overseen by experts.

The third pillar of the report extends the domestic technocratic agent to the world. By exporting American AI frameworks, hardware standards, and regulatory templates to allies, the Plan seeks to cement a global regime of expert rule.

The last item on the last page of the Plan contains real paydirt for Technocracy and Transhumanism:

AI will unlock nearly limitless potential in biology: cures for new diseases, novel industrial use cases, and more. At the same time, it could create new pathways for malicious actors to synthesize harmful pathogens and other biomolecules. The solution to this problem is a multi-tiered approach designed to screen for malicious actors, along with new tools and infrastructure for more effective screening. [Remember nose swabs for COVID screening? – Ed.] As these tools, policies, and enforcement mechanisms mature, it will be essential to work with allies and partners to ensure international adoption.

Recommended Policy Actions

  • Require all institutions receiving Federal funding for scientific research to use nucleic acid synthesis tools and synthesis providers that have robust nucleic acid sequence screening and customer verification procedures. Create enforcement mechanisms for this requirement rather than relying on voluntary attestation.
  • Led by OSTP, convene government and industry actors to develop a mechanism to facilitate data sharing between nucleic acid synthesis providers to screen for potentially fraudulent or malicious customers.
  • Build, maintain, and update as necessary national security-related AI evaluations through collaboration between CAISI at DOC, national security agencies, and relevant research institutions.

Therefore, DNA screening will become commonplace across government agencies.

Who Wrote This Technocratic Screed, Anyway

Not surprisingly, the report’s lead authors are listed as Michael Kratsios and David Sacks, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio included as an official with clout.

Michael Kratsios, Technocrat

Currently, Kratsios is listed as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. In the first Trump Administration, he served as the Chief Technology Officer (CTO). Appointed in August 2019 at age 33, he was the youngest person ever to hold the federal CTO position.

In this role, he led the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s efforts to advance emerging technologies—most notably artificial intelligence, 5G wireless networks, quantum computing, and data privacy—across the federal government. He coordinated interagency AI initiatives, helped develop the American AI Initiative, and convened industry, academic, and civil-society stakeholders to guide national technology policy.

David O. Sacks, Technocrat

Sacks is listed as Special Advisor for AI and Crypto. He was a co-founder and the first Chief Operating Officer (COO) of PayPal, alongside Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. As such he was a prominent member of the so-called “PayPal Mafia.” He is heavily invested in the AI industry through his company, Craft Ventures.

Sacks’ authority is questionable. He was originally listed as a “Special Advisor to the President” under a protocol that ran for 133 days, which has long expired. On this report, his title has changed to “Special Advisor for AI and Crypto.” I conducted an exhaustive search to determine that David Sacks has no current position with any government entity and is, therefore, a private citizen. So, what is his name doing on this report?

Apparently, Sacks is self-appointed to be the “Crypto and AI Czar”. Yes, self-appointed. Today’s arch-Technocrats are so sure of themselves that they don’t need official appointment to assert themselves.

from:    https://patrickwood.substack.com/p/trump-the-technocrat-releases-americas?publication_id=721283&post_id=169068711&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Technocracy Here, Technocracy There

Posted on by

Technocracy Rising: All The President’s Men

February 23, 2025 Technocracy.news 2

Patrick Wood of Technocracy.news wrote an article using artificial intelligence for a report on people who were appointed in 2025 by Trump and are considered technocrats. The shared objectives of the technocrats are AI supremacy, cryptocurrency normalization and federal privatization. The AI program concluded, “As these technocrats consolidate power, the long-term implications for regulatory integrity and public trust in governance remain deeply uncertain.”

.

The article is behind a paywall , but the audio version may be accessed here. Patrick Wood wrote this article using Perplexity.ai using a feature called Deep Research. It scoured hundreds of sources to analyze his prompt to list all of the people from the tech sector who are considered technocrats and were appointed by Trump in 2025. This included members of the ‘PayPal Mafia’ that is a group of former PayPal employees and founders who have since founded and/or developed additional technology companies based in Silicon Valley, such as Tesla, Inc., LinkedIn, Palantir Technologies, SpaceX, Affirm, Slide, Kiva, YouTube, Yelp, and Yammer.

AI reported that that the shared objectives of the technocrats are AI supremacy, cryptocurrency normalization and federal privatization. The Silicon Valley technocrats in advisory positions share a vision centered on deregulation, technological dominance and the restructuring of federal institutions to align with Libertarian-leaning tech industry priorities.

AI listed the following names of tech advocates surrounding Trump: Michael Kratsios, David Sacks, Sriram Krishnan, Bo Hines, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, Peter Thiel (who mentored VP JD Vance), Mark Andreessen, Joe Lonsdale, Ken Howery, Luke Nosek, Blake Masters, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, Emil Michael, Russell Vaught and Brendan Kerr.

The AI program concluded, “As these technocrats consolidate power, the long-term implications for regulatory integrity and public trust in governance remain deeply uncertain.”

Click here for audio link

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/02/technocracy-rising-all-the-presidents-men/?__cf_chl_tk=WaDrivj8HaxtXD.ztbb5iUOVM2hJUw1ibbAIJmhhclY-1740424229-1.0.1.1-qk0QQLKoZyJJZ6JqrlQI.wz8V54bCl3ehr9KOOVxoGY

Digital Earth Twin = Real Trouble for All

Posted on by

‘Digital Twin’ Of Earth Being Created To Predict The Future, Micro-Manage Everything

AUGUST 2, 2024

You can run, but you can not hide. The humongous new AI data centers, satellite networks, ground sensors, cell phones, and all the data on earth will combine to create a “Skynet” scenario to control everything, and all life forms. Driven by a lust to get to “net-zero”, this will far exceed anything related to climate change.

This simulation of satellites has now largely been fulfilled, but plans for more launches are in the works. This blanket of surveillance will monitor every square inch of the planet as systems are layered on. As the industry graphic above depicts, the payload for Technocrats lie in the “interventions.” — Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood

By: Frost & Symons via Euronews

How do you know when a small-scale farmer in Africa, Latin America or Asia has sufficiently adapted to longer droughts or shifts in traditional monsoon seasons?

The complexity of this question means it is often left unanswered, with funding for such adaptation in developing countries dropping to around just a quarter of total climate finance provided by developed countries.

Delegates gathering at the Bonn Climate Change Conference to prepare for this year’s UN climate talks will be anticipating such questions, with COP29 already dubbed the “finance COP”.

In Baku, Azerbaijan, later this year, countries are expected to discuss a new climate finance deal after reaching the target of $100 billion (€93.2bn) a year in finance for developing countries two years later than agreed.

Historically low-emitting countries across much of the Global South desperately need more financial support to improve their climate defences across key sectors such as agriculture.

Less than 1% of international climate finance was spent helping smallholder farmers adapt to climate change in 2021, with many forced to spend up to 40% of their own incomes to cope with floods, droughts and crop pests.

However, in addition to more finance, countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America also need ways of measuring adaptation to direct investments more effectively.

The solution that works already exists

While efforts to transition to sustainable agriculture across Europe have sparked protests among farmers this year, adapting to the evolving impacts of climate change is already a matter of survival for those in the Global South.

One emerging solution is an adaptation index, which scores resilience to climate shocks to highlight where finance for climate adaptation is most needed. Such models can quantify levels of adaptation and preparedness, giving policymakers, development agencies, investors, and donors clear guidance on where and how to invest in adaptation finance.

Water scarcity is the most common climate risk for crop farmers in Guatemala and Honduras across the different commodities.

Adaptation indices, developed at a country or commodity level, complement other work to consolidate climate data and research, such as CGIAR’s Africa Agriculture Adaptation Atlas, which provides interactive data insights and forecasts.

This new methodology is already providing actionable insights to direct adaptation funding and have the best chance of increasing the resilience of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities.

Over the past two years, the first-if-its-kind Adaptation Equivalency Index (AEI) has been developed for Guatemala and Honduras by Heifer International, Conservation International and local partners, supported by the Global Environment Facility. Guatemala and Honduras have both ranked among the top 10 countries most affected by climate change over the past decade, with heavy rains, floods, droughts and hurricanes becoming more frequent and affecting agriculture.

The index ranks the adaptation levels of the countries’ major agricultural commodities: spices, cacao and coffee.

Evidence-based investment means tangible impact

What makes this index novel is that it starts off with the farmers themselves, identifying the real-world climate threats that producers are already experiencing and anticipating, as well as their capacity to adapt.

This work has already uncovered the fact that water scarcity is the most common climate risk for crop farmers in Guatemala and Honduras across the different commodities.

Read full story here…

Sourced from Technocracy News & Trends 

from:    https://www.activistpost.com/2024/08/digital-twin-of-earth-being-created-to-predict-the-future-micro-manage-everything.html

 

Think It Over

Posted on by

The Numbered Men

A prescient poem written 50 years ago by Viv Forbes

Patrick Wood

One day while I was driving down the highway in the sun
I sat behind a milk truck just returning from his run.
His sign said “Licensed Vendor” and it made me feel secure
That only numbered milkmen could come knocking on my door.

*********
Then I saw a licensed builder with his number on the door
And a plumber with a permit which was issued by the law.
Then a hawker and publican each with his licence plate
And a licensed money lender with his number on the gate.

*********
I pulled into a café, which was licensed to sell beer
And struck up conversation with a licensed auctioneer.
He’d just been selling forfeit goods to pay the fines imposed
On a maverick hardware dealer whose late trading he’d exposed.

*********
A warm glow spread inside me as I drank a licensed beer
And I pictured the inspectors who called in every year
To check upon the numbered men and safeguard fools like me
Who’d waste their money buying things from men who paid no fee.

*********
I thought of all the union men whose cards protect their job
And dairy men whose quota scheme defends them from the mob.
The teachers who are registered, the chemists with their guilds
And lawyers with their closed cartel which keeps their coffers filled.

*********
As I sat among the numbered men it suddenly occurred
That I was just a cleanskin in a tamed and numbered herd.
Somehow I’d missed the muster when the planner combed the land
And now I was a maverick, a man without a brand.

*********
The numbered men live sheltered lives, their keeper is the State,
Their job depends less on their skills than on their licence plate.
Their future is determined and their charges are prescribed,
And the standards of their conduct are in rules and acts described.

*********
But thank the Lord for mavericks, who don’t fit in the mould,
They help distract the licence-men from getting far too bold.
Without the help of mavericks, the planners would persist
Till we all need applications for a licence to exist.

Viv Forbes
Washpool, Queensland, Australia

from:     Patrick Wood’s The Quickening Report,