It is interesting in the first place, as a predicted version of the later development of events. In the report, 2012 was taken as the benchmark for the start of the epidemic, but it started in 2020, so all predicted events should also change by an 8-year difference.
The document was prepared by the experts of the fund together with one of the world’s leading consulting companies, Global Business Network. The report describes 4 scenarios for the development of world events in the near future. Out of these 4 scenarios of the near future, one describes incredibly accurately what is happening in the world now. This scenario described the hypothetical probability of a global pandemic.
“Scenarios for the future of technology and international development”
In 2012, a pandemic broke out that the world had been waiting for years. Unlike the 2009 H1N1 virus, this new strain of flu has become extremely contagious and deadly. Even in countries most prepared for a pandemic, the virus spread rapidly, affecting almost 20 percent of the world population and killing 8 million people in just seven months …
The pandemic has also had a fatal impact on the economy: international mobility of people and goods has dropped to near zero, weakening industries like tourism and disrupting global supply chains. Even within countries, the noisy shops and office buildings were generally empty and stayed that way for months, with no employees or customers.
A pandemic swept the planet, although a disproportionate number of people died mainly in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like a forest fire due to a lack of formal containment protocols.
But even in developed countries, stopping the spread of the virus has become a problem. The initial United States policy of simply recommending that citizens not fly at first was deadly, as they failed to follow the recommendations and accelerated the spread of the virus not only in the United States, but beyond.
However, there were countries where things were much better. It is mainly China. The fast and tough strict quarantine for all citizens imposed by the Chinese government, as well as the almost instantaneous and hermetic closure of the borders, saved millions of lives by stopping the spread of the virus much faster and sooner than in other countries, and then It contributed to the country’s faster recovery after a pandemic.
The Chinese government was not alone in taking extreme measures to protect its citizens from the risk of infection. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world strengthened their authority by introducing a number of restrictions and new rules, from the mandatory use of face masks to controlling body temperature at entrances to public places, such as train stations and supermarkets.
Even after the pandemic began to decline, the authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities did not soften or intensify. The reason for the widespread increase in control by the authorities was protection against impending problems and global problems, from viral pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and increasing poverty and inequality.
At first, such a more controlled world model was widely recognized and even endorsed. Citizens voluntarily relinquished part of their sovereignty and the right to privacy to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater security and stability for themselves.
Furthermore, citizens turned out to be more tolerant and even impatient in terms of strengthening control and supervision, and national leaders had more opportunities to sort things out by the methods and how they deemed it necessary.
In developed countries, improved supervision took several forms: for example, biometric identifiers for all citizens, and stricter regulation of key industries, the stability of which was considered vital to national interests.
In many developed countries, forced consent and approval of a set of new rules and agreements slowly but steadily restored order and, most importantly, economic growth.
However, in developing countries, the story turned out to be much more variable. Strengthening the authority of power here took various forms in various countries and depended on the capabilities and charisma of its leaders.
In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, the economic situation of citizens and the quality of life have improved. But in countries where the leadership sought exclusively to increase their own power, and the elites were irresponsible and used the opportunities available and the increase in power to pursue their own interests at the expense of the rest of the citizens, the situation worsened or even ended in tragedy.
In addition to the above, other problems arose, including a sharp rise in nationalism. A strict system of technological regulation, in fact, prevented innovation, on the one hand, by keeping costs already high, and on the other, by stopping the introduction of new inventions. As a result, a situation arose in which developing countries began to receive from developed countries only those technologies that were considered “best” for them. Meanwhile, countries with more resources and more opportunities began to innovate within their own countries to fill in the gaps on their own.
Meanwhile, in developed countries, greater control and supervision by the authorities has led to a slowdown in business. Partly because governments began to intervene in development and recommend to scientists and companies the areas of research to be carried out. At the same time, the main selection criteria were profitable (for example, developing the product that the market needed) or the so-called correct rates (for example, basic research). The most risky or innovative studies were in an unenviable position and mostly stopped. Furthermore, the research itself was conducted at the expense of states, where budgets allowed, or at the expense of global corporations, leading to significant success, but all the fruits of the work are intellectual property, resulting in
Russia and India have introduced extremely strict internal standards for the control and certification of encryption products and their providers, a category that truly meant all of IT innovations. The United States and the EU, in turn, defended themselves by introducing their national standards, disrupting the development and diffusion of technology worldwide.
In developing countries, acting on behalf of their own national interests often means finding practical alliances that are consistent with those interests, either to gain access to the right resources or to unite to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and subregional alliances have become more structured. Kenya doubled its trade volume with southern and eastern Africa, as association agreements were signed with the countries there. China’s investment in Africa has grown further: agreements were reached with local authorities, which seemed profitable to obtain new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to basic mineral resources or food exports. Interstate relations were reduced mainly to security cooperation.
By 2025, the people seemed to be tired of such powerful control from above and the fact that they allowed leaders and authorities to make decisions for them. Wherever national interests collided with the interests of individual citizens, conflicts began to arise. At first, a single rejection of pressure from above became more organized and coordinated, because disgruntled youth and people who saw their social status and opportunities circumvent them (this applied more heavily to developing countries) led to civil unrest.
In 2026, protesters in Nigeria toppled the government, fed up with entrenched power and nepotism. Even those who liked the great stability and predictability of this world began to feel uncomfortable and constrained due to the many restrictions, strict rules, and stringency of national standards. It was believed that sooner or later something would inevitably disrupt the order that the governments of most countries in the world so enthusiastically established …
