I Need My Chinese Food: Looking for (AI) Takeout While Rome Burns

Did ChatGPT 4.56594-018 beat the benchmark?

TL;DR

While we obsess over what is happening right in front of us, we're missing massive systemic changes: federal workforce decimation, AI replacing jobs without social safety nets, educational institutions failing to adapt, systemic geopolitical change, and democracy eroding. These aren't separate issues but interconnected symptoms of a world where labor is becoming unnecessary, threatening the foundations of capitalism and democracy. We must recognize these transformations and creatively rebuild our institutions rather than clinging to obsolete systems. Putting AI into the old institutions is not a viable option.

In this transformation, educators must step forward and help lead the way. Not just because they're positioned at the intersection of these changes, but because they embody what we need most in this moment: they are deeply committed to human development, they understand that millions of young minds and lives depend on their courage. They possess the intellectual tools to navigate complexity.

The Food

In 2017, I attended the Harvard High School Debate tournament, which I have done nearly every year for 25 years.

For only the first time that I’m aware, the tournament was cancelled for an entire day because it was so dangerously cold that it wasn’t safe for anyone to be outside walking between buildings.

On the last night I was there, it was so cold that the hotel pipes burst, creating an unsafe power situation. They moved everyone to ballrooms where they provided blankets and snacks until they could move people to other hotels.

By the end of the night, only a few of us were left. The auxiliary power in the ballroom went out, and we were standing in the lobby waiting to find out what hotel they could send us to. The lobby itself barely had a light left on.

The staff was working really hard to relocate folks to other hotels.

In the middle of this, an angry guest demanded the staff tell him what hotel he was going to. They told him they were working as hard as possible. But, he said, time was of the essence?

Why?

Because he had already ordered and paid for Chinese food, and that he needed to tell the restaurant where he was going; otherwise, he might not get the Chinese food he already paid for.

The f’ng Chinese food.

The woman at the desk, probably summoning all her remaining patience, said something like, “Sir, your Chinese food delivery is not the most important thing we are dealing with right now.”

In fairness, he probably couldn’t see that. He just thought that what was essential to him mattered the most. If only he could get his Chinese food, everything would be okay.

Looking over the last year, I see the same thing: Everyone seems focused on how small changes, if they even see them, impact them.

*Education systems have invested millions of hours trying unsuccessfully to prevent students from using AI to write papers, despite research consistently showing that neither automated detectors nor human instructors can reliably identify AI-written content.

*AI “influencers” spend their days writing about model updates and new “edtech” products to sell to schools, not realizing that school budgets in the US are being ripped apart. Unless they plan on selling your product outside the US public education system, I’m not sure where this is going.

*Educators don’t understand how severe the financial crisis is. This will have multiple, cascading impacts on their budgets.

*Geopolitical reordering. The entire post-World War II era that the US has upheld (treaties, allies, trade) is being abandoned. This isn’t controversial.

*AI changes everything. Autonomous AIs can complete asynchronous courses, write papers better than students, persuade better than people, function as independent brains in humanoid robots, and do millions of jobs. That’s just to get started.

Nothing is Forever (NIF)

In 1990, Francis Fukuyama wrote a book called "The End of History and the Last Man," he argued that liberal democracy represented the final form of human government and the endpoint of humanity's sociopolitical evolution. Fukuyama's thesis was fundamentally teleological, suggesting history had a purpose and direction that culminated in Western liberal democratic capitalism. He believed that after the collapse of Soviet communism, liberal democracy had proven itself the most viable and morally superior system, with no serious ideological competitors remaining.

However, history has proven to be far more complex and cyclical than Fukuyama anticipated and is not so teleological. Democracy is a relatively recent development in human history. While democratic principles existed in ancient Athens, modern democracy only began spreading globally during the late 19th and 20th centuries, closely tied to industrialization. As societies industrialized, they required an educated workforce, and to secure worker participation, elites gradually extended political rights and economic benefits to broader segments of society. Democracy expanded because industrialization created financial incentives for inclusion, not simply because of moral superiority.

Recent decades have witnessed significant democratic backsliding worldwide.

Recent economic decline correlates with technological changes transforming the labor-capital relationship. Advanced artificial intelligence enables companies to maintain productivity with fewer workers, potentially eroding the economic foundations that historically made democracy valuable.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has proposed that AI might challenge democratic systems and capitalism. If AI creates vast wealth while requiring minimal human labor, capitalism's core exchange of labor for wages could become obsolete, requiring new economic frameworks.

The technologies behind our current transformation may create conditions where democracy and capitalism lose their historical purpose. Historically, political elites extended democratic participation rights to citizens primarily to secure their labor participation and cooperation in industrial economies. As businesses require fewer employees and the economic incentive to engage workers diminishes, traditional democratic power structures may become unnecessary from the perspective of those holding economic power.

The reality is that everything we take for granted, from capitalism, to democracy, to the supports that enabled both, such as education and action towards reducing inequality, are no longer certain. The utilitarian arguments for supporting education collapse in a world where labor is no longer essential. Value arguments “equity and equality” can be easily shifted, as we are starting to see.

Domestic and international economics and politics are facing realignment, and we should take nothing for granted. This is what we should pay attention to, not Chinese food.

Now let’s look at a few specific things.

Gutting of the Federal Workforce and Spending

The federal workforce is being gutted, with current firings estimated to be in the 100-300,000 range. Over the weekend, the US Department of Education (USDOE) was offered $25,000 buyouts. Many have been outright fired and many more will be outright fired. Social Security is expected to lose 7,500 this week. There are generally two governmental contractors for every employee, so you can see how big of an impact this is starting to have.

According to a recent article -

Musk wants to reduce federal spending by $1 trillion as quickly as possible.

And beyond the Executive branch's actions, new GOP budget proposals contain radical reductions in spending on everything from education to Medicaid.

This has two implications.

One, even if the appropriations for these programs are protected from impoundment by the courts and the administration follows court rulings, the funded programs cannot be implemented without employees.

Two, reductions in spending of this nature don’t just impact the fired employees, they also affect others who lose their jobs because those individuals now do not have money to spend. With massive contraction in the private sector job market, both due to AI and just pushing fewer people to work harder, most of these individuals will not be absorbed elsewhere. Research has shown that cutting $1 trillion in federal spending will result in the unemployment of 5-12 million people in total. At a minimum, this will produce a severe recession. If high tariffs trigger inflation, we could end up with stagflation.

Now let’s look at a few specific areas.

NIF1 – Education (Public)

Education – K-12

I think K-12 public education is in a lot of trouble.

First, while distributed through the states, the federal government interjects billions of dollars into local school districts, with districts in lower income areas receiving more of that funding. Districts will likely lose a lot of this money for FY26 because the money is processed through the USDOE, which will have very few employees. The administration will essentially try to impound as much of the funding as possible. Anything they end up with will be the result of winning a wrestling match.

Second, state budgets will come under enormous pressure due to unemployment triggered by the $1 trillion in cuts and less federal money going to the states for programs such as Medicaid. This will force reductions in state spending for schools.

Third, in some areas more directly impacted by federal layoffs (MD, VA), direct tax revenues for schools will be substantially lower. Unemployed people don’t pay much tax and property values will collapse.

Anyhow, I think schools will look at massive revenue reductions for 2025-6, which will probably worsen in 2026-7. Since no federal stimulus exists, this will be a nightmare by 2027-8.

These cuts will be magnified by growing animosity toward public education. There is growing public sentiment that not only are traditional schools not getting students to do well on self-created benchmarks, but they are too focused on teaching content assessed through standardized tests rather than developing programs that help teach students essential skills that they need to thrive (5Cs, deep learning, entrepreneurship, emerging technologies, etc). These skills have been needed for a long time, but they are only magnified by the fast arrival of AI, something many schools are ignoring.

Many schools will double-down, focusing on the core subjects and cutting the “extras,” which are, in this new world, the most essential programs for students to be a part of so they can learn the skills that will at least give them a chance to survive in this world. And since the money in public education will not come back, this is not even short-term austerity.

Even within the curriculum, schools will struggle to keep up with changes introduced by emerging technologies. AI has revealed millions of intricate protein structures (biology), it’s already more persuasive than people (communication), it can write papers better than students (English), it’s changing the structure of democracy (social studies), it’s becoming embodied (physics), it’s massively deflationary (economics), it produces individualized addiction (health), and it’s going to be/already is a 24/7 tutor (education).

Doubling-down on teaching students the “basics” through existing methods will alienate more people from traditional schooling. To a degree, this has always been the case, AI-empowered teaching means “homeschooling” is an option for everyone.

Some think this will take a while, but others see it coming much faster. I saw a prediction on LinkedIn yesterday predicting the complete collapse of traditional K-12 public education within 18 months.

I’m not sure if it will be that fast, but everyone should remember that mass institutionalized schooling has only existed for approximately 125 years of human history. There is certainly no guarantee that it will continue.

There are the two reactions I got to this on LinkedIn.

I’m not endorsing it; I’m just pointing it out.

And, of course, the students are dissatisfied. They no longer learn in a linear manner. They oppose all of the control in traditional schools (we now even use AI to monitor them).

Yesterday, a blog was published that argued institutionalized school is responsible for the student mental health crisis, not cell phones. I asked some high school students what they thought; they agreed.

Now, they can learn what they want where and when they want.

Will this disadvantage some students who need to be made to learn things (and, generally, to do things)? Yes, but there will be no jobs for them anyhow. Factory, warehouse, land transportation, and call center jobs will all disappear. The people who survive will be those who figure it out and are driven to learn and improve.

Will some students make bad choices about what to learn? Yes. But we aren’t making the best choices now, and we don’t know exactly what will be needed in a world where machines can do most of what we do now better than us. Our ability to choose for them is inherently limited, and our status quo choices are not great.

On a positive side, K-12 institutions have the potential to evolve into ecosystems of learning and development, extending beyond traditional schooling to support community-wide education, lifelong learning, and technological integration.

Schools could serve as community learning hubs, offering workshops and training programs not just for students but for people of all ages. By partnering with local businesses, libraries, and other remaining government services, they could provide real-world learning experiences beyond the classroom.

Technology could act as a bridge, turning schools into digital hubs that offer internet access, tech literacy programs, and online learning opportunities. Rather than merely preparing students for college, schools could provide micro-credentials with and stackable certifications, making them viable alternatives to universities by supporting skill development, apprenticeships, and career transitions throughout life. This shift would require reimagining the role of educators as learning facilitators, guiding students and community members through personalized learning pathways rather than adhering to rigid grade-level structures.

However, even if schools attempted such a transformation, they would likely do so through a slow, bureaucratic committee process that would take three years to implement and be largely irrelevant by the time it was completed. Instead of embracing rapid change, most K-12 institutions would reinforce outdated models, clinging to standardized testing,and rigid curricula (we even have AIs being promoted to schools that automate this model).

Political and cultural resistance would further slow progress, as stakeholders—including very well-meaning ones —often prioritize stability over meaningful reform.

Funding challenges would also limit schools’ ability to implement large-scale changes, leading to program cuts and staff reductions rather than ambitious transformation. Ultimately, rather than evolving into dynamic learning ecosystems, many K-12 institutions are more likely to double down on their existing structures until they become gutted shells, irrelevant in a world that has moved on without them.

But, hey, it’s worth a shot.

P.S. Some argue that the federal government will abolish the USDOE and turn the money over to the states, but right now it is just being gutted and no legislation is being promoted now to do that. And even if it is encouraged, remember that Musk wants to cut $1 trillion in spending, and the money that goes to states would be in the form of block grants that they can spend on anything they wish.

\

Education – Universities

I think universities are perhaps in more trouble, though less in the short term. Many that were peeling a large percentage of funding for “operating costs” off of grants are going to take a hit, and we have seen some hiring freezes and Phd acceptance freezes. Generally, though, universities are less dependent on federal funds. If they try to eviscerate student loan guarantees/support, there will be a broader impact.

Over the longer term (3-5 years), I think many universities outside the top 20-30 where someone can gain a lot of prestige and connections will be in trouble.

AI can instruct students in the content they are learning at universities. AI+ a human professor will be better in most instances, but how much will students be willing to pay for that, especially if they have to take on debt? A physical college education costs students $50,000 a year and an AI one costs $5,000 per year. How much is the added gain outside the top universities where one can establish elite connections? If one starts a business, will it make a big difference? Will employers care? Will other factors such as drive and life-long learning matter more?

Will universities reinvent themselves to become more ecosystems that add to AI instruction at lower costs?

Social Spending

Both famed computer scientist Ray Kurzweil and famed economist Tyler Cowen have made the argument that while AI will eviscerate jobs, support for existing social spending levels, combined with the drastically lower price of goods produced by AI, will mean that those who lose jobs will be okay.

Both these claims were made before the radical impounding of funds and gutting of the federal workforce by Trump, as well as the aggressive, and likely successful efforts, by the GOP to gut a massive amount of social spending.

Matt Stoller wrote on March 3rd

Over the next few years, AI will likely eviscerate millions of jobs and there will be little social spending to fall back on to support it. Attempts to implement something like a universal basic income will be decried as socialist.

Generally, massive unemployment and inequality generates significant social instability and society conflict. We should be prepared for this. We are already starting to see the beginnings of it.

AI

While some, like Erik Brynjolfsson, argue that AI should be developed to augment human capabilities rather than replace them, the reality is that economic incentives and intellectual motivations are pushing AI development toward automation and job displacement.

Companies prioritize cost-cutting and efficiency, which makes replacing human labor with AI a more attractive option than merely assisting workers. AI-driven automation reduces long-term labor costs, increases productivity, and maximizes profit margins, making it the preferred approach for businesses and investors.

Additionally, from a research perspective, the challenge of creating AI that can function independently is more appealing than developing systems that simply support human workers. As a result, AI research is increasingly focused on removing human intervention entirely, as seen in advancements like self-driving cars, autonomous agents, and robotic process automation.

At the same time, while many argue that Large Language Models (LLMs) alone won’t lead to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)/human-level intelligence, even their strongest critics acknowledge that AGI could arrive sooner than expected.

Figures like Gary Marcus, who has long criticized LLMs for their lack of reasoning and common sense, now predict that AGI could emerge with further advancements within the next five years. Similarly, Yann LeCun, another prominent skeptic of LLMs as a direct path to human level+ intelligence, still agrees that human level intelligence in machines is inevitable, even if it requires a different approach. His prediction is that this is likely within 10 years.

This acknowledgment from leading experts suggests that, even if LLMs themselves are insufficient, the rapid progress in AI—particularly in areas like multimodal learning, memory-enhanced models, and reasoning capabilities—could push us toward AGI faster than previously anticipated. The potential for AI self-improvement, multi-agent collaboration, and embodied AI could further speed up AGI timelines. Given these trends, society cannot afford to assume that AGI is decades away.

Geopolitics

The Trump administration's approach to international politics represents a massive shift in America's global role, fundamentally redefining the post-World War II order. This transformation is characterized by a retreat from multilateralism, a transactional approach to alliances, and a move towards a spheres-of-influence model of global power distribution.

The administration has distanced itself from the multilateral institutions and treaties underpinning the international order since 1945, which is evident in its withdrawal from crucial international accords like the Paris Climate Agreement, the Human Rights Treaty, and organizations such as the World Health Organization.

The US Agency for International Development, a source of life-saving influence around the world, has been gutted.

This approach contrasts with the post-1945 American strategy of embedding U.S. power in multilateral institutions designed to support a peaceful, prosperous, and just world order. This is what we teach our students in World History.

The Trump administration has also adopted a more transactional stance towards military alliances, particularly NATO. Trump has proposed that NATO members increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP, far beyond the current 2% target, and suggested that U.S. military support for allies might be contingent on increased financial contributions or other concessions.

This weekend, Musk said he supports US withdrawal from NATO.

Finally, the administration appears to be moving towards a spheres-of-influence model of global power distribution. Trump arguably seeks to expand U.S. control across North and Central America, including efforts to control the Panama Canal. In the Middle East, there's strong support for Israel and Saudi Arabia as regional powers, with a hostile stance towards Iran. In East Asia, increased support for Taiwan potentially serves as a counterbalance to China's influence. There are also indications of a potential rapprochement with Russia, possibly aimed at breaking the Sino-Russian alliance

Rare Earth Minerals

The contest over rare earth minerals (REMs) is rapidly emerging as a pivotal factor in shaping the future of global politics and technological dominance.

While the AI race between the United States and China garners significant attention, it's unlikely that either side will gain a decisive advantage in this domain alone. Instead, control over REMs may be the key determinant of global supremacy. REMs are crucial for building hundreds of millions of robots, producing billions of drones, manufacturing advanced computers and electronic devices, developing military defense systems, and advancing renewable energy technologies. The nation that secures a dominant position in REM production and processing will have a significant edge in developing and deploying these critical technologies at scale, potentially sparking conflicts reminiscent of historical resource-driven wars.

China holds a significant advantage in the REM sector due to its mining dominance, processing monopoly, strategic focus, and downstream leadership. Beijing has tightened control over what it calls a "state resource" and its supporting technologies, maintaining leadership in downstream industrial supply chains of processing, refining, and magnet production. This advantage is influencing global geopolitics and raising the specter of resource-driven conflicts.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has a significant REM component, with Russia occupying substantial lithium deposits. Former U.S. President Trump's interest in acquiring Greenland was likely motivated by its vast undeveloped REM deposits.

As nations scramble to secure access to these vital resources, we may witness a return to the kind of resource-driven conflicts that have shaped much of human history.

The Spectacle of Post-Truth Politics and Synthetic Reality

For those unfamiliar, post-truth politics refers to a political culture where debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from policy details, and factual rebuttals are often ignored in favor of repeated assertions.

This phenomenon gained prominence in the mid-2010s, with Oxford Dictionaries declaring "post-truth" as the word of the year in 2016. However, the roots of post-truth politics can be traced back further. Some scholars argue that it emerged as a reaction to the widespread adoption of neoliberalism and global solutions to problems like climate change. Others point to the turn of the century, when government communication began prioritizing "spin" over truth, as exemplified by the Iraq War.

This is magnified by synthetic reality. Synthetic reality is an emerging concept that blends artificial intelligence and machine learning to create adaptive, evolving virtual worlds. In text, synthetic reality can generate entire narratives with characters, settings, and events, all made by AI. In video, it can produce hyper-realistic simulations indistinguishable from actual footage. This technology can potentially revolutionize various fields, from entertainment to education and training.

Moreover, the distinction between politics as performance and politics as argument has become increasingly blurred in the post-truth era. Traditional political discourse focused on presenting logical arguments and evidence to support policy positions. However, in post-truth politics, the emphasis shifts towards creating emotional resonance and spectacle, often at the expense of factual accuracy. This performative aspect of politics leverages media technologies and entertainment formats to shape public perception and engage audiences on an emotional level.

On February 28, 2025, President Zelenskyy met with President Trump in the Oval Office to discuss a proposed minerals deal and the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Initially intended to strengthen bilateral relations and support Ukraine's defense efforts, the meeting quickly escalated into a heated exchange, starting with how Zelensky was dressed. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized Zelenskyy's approach to peace negotiations, suggesting that Ukraine was not showing sufficient gratitude for U.S. support. In response, Zelenskyy defended his nation's stance against Russian aggression, emphasizing the need for concrete security guarantees before engaging in further peace talks.

Tension peaked when President Trump accused Zelenskyy of "gambling with World War III" and abruptly ended the meeting, instructing Zelenskyy to leave without signing the anticipated minerals agreement. This public confrontation, broadcast on live television, transformed the diplomatic discussion into a theatrical event, capturing global attention and sparking widespread debate about the nature of political discourse in the modern era. ​

Imagine if the back room negotiations on the Treaty of Versailles were radio broadcast!

The Trump-Zelenskyy Oval Office confrontation is a compelling example of how post-truth politics and political spectacle can overshadow substantive policy discussions. In an era where perception often outweighs reality, such incidents highlight the challenges inherent in navigating international diplomacy amidst performative political actions. As global leaders continue to grapple with complex geopolitical issues, the balance between emotional appeal and factual discourse remains a critical consideration for the future of international relations.

Democracy

Some days I feel like we’re watching a chess game where one player slowly removes pieces from the board while the other fails to notice until checkmate becomes inevitable.

There are many ways Trump is concentrating power in the Executive branch.

Refusing to spend money (USAID) and gutting the federal workforce so that money can’t be spent clearly threatens Congress’s Article I powers. There are massive lay-offs and cuts everywhere. Hundreds of thousands of civil servants, representing decades of institutional knowledge and expertise, have been removed from agencies nationwide. Within federal agencies, employees now face unprecedented demands to justify their roles under threat of termination, creating confusion and resistance. More troublingly, workers are being instructed to report colleagues who continue diversity-related activities—a practice that replaces collaboration with suspicion and undermines the functional cohesion necessary for effective governance.

Inspector Generals are being fired. When the watchdogs disappear, who remains to sound the alarm?

Information from government websites such as the Census, DHS, and USDOE are being eliminated.

There have been many court cases, but Trump seems to be using a strategy of overwhelming the courts with so many cases that judges can't possibly keep up. Like a magician directing your attention elsewhere while performing the real trick, this "flooding the zone" tactic effectively paralyzes judicial oversight.

AI fills the void as human judgment recedes from government operations—but at what cost? While AI offers efficiency, it introduces an unsettling new capability for surveillance that threatens to chill free speech. Imagine knowing your every word is monitored by systems that never sleep, never forget, and lack human conscience. Would you still speak freely?

The administration's financial priorities tell their own story. A planned $170 billion increase in deportation spending over four years reveals values that may further fragment an already divided nation. This massive reallocation of resources leaves other vital services struggling for funding while fostering fear among immigrant communities—fear that erodes the trust essential to democratic participation.

Perhaps most concerning is the strategic placement of loyalists in key government positions. Kash Patel's controversial appointment as FBI Director exemplifies this approach, triggering internal turmoil and raising profound questions about the independence of law enforcement. When agencies designed to serve the nation become tools of personal loyalty, the foundation of democratic governance begins to crack. Patel also controls the BATF, which can seize guns and property.

Illegal immigrants who didn’t commit any crimes in the US are being shipped to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It’s possible they are being tortured there.

We stand at a pivotal moment. The systematic weakening of democratic norms and institutions isn't happening through dramatic, headline-grabbing coups but through quieter, incremental changes that collectively transform the landscape of American democracy. The erosion of academic freedom, the marginalization of vulnerable communities, and the destabilization of the federal workforce represent not isolated policy decisions but interconnected threats to democratic principles.

Our response to these challenges will determine whether democracy's resilience prevails or whether we witness its continued decline.

The question isn't whether democracy is being tested—it clearly is. The question is whether we recognize the test in time to pass it.

Cruelty

Recent events suggest a concerning trend of increasing cruelty in the world, particularly in the United States under the Trump administration's policies. This cruelty is manifesting in two primary areas: mass deportations and mass firings.

Pope Francis has strongly criticized President Trump's mass deportation policies, describing them as a violation of human dignity. In a letter to American bishops, the Pope urged Catholics to reject anti-immigrant rhetoric and condemned the expulsion of individuals fleeing challenging circumstances. He characterized the migrant crisis as a "shipwreck of civilization" and explicitly denounced what he perceives as inhospitable and un-Christian immigration policies.

The Pope emphasized that forcibly removing individuals based solely on their undocumented status strips them of their fundamental dignity and "will conclude poorly". He argued that the deportation of people who have fled their homelands due to poverty, insecurity, and other factors "damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness"

The Trump administration has implemented widespread layoffs in federal agencies, affecting tens of thousands of workers. These layoffs have been described as unfair and a purge, creating "risks for Americans and allies nationwide." The abrupt nature of these firings, often without proper notice or consideration for the affected employees, has been ruthless.

Several politicians and officials have spoken out against what they perceive as Trump's cruel policies.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer described Trump's actions as "chaotic, careless, and cruel," stating that they amount to "outright economic sabotage against working families."

Senator John Curtis urged Elon Musk to show compassion toward workers affected by mass layoffs, stating: "These are real people. These are real lives." Curtis's appeal demonstrates a Republican leader advocating for empathy in corporate decision-making.

Conclusion

While we obsess over our metaphorical Chinese food deliveries—the minor inconveniences and personal concerns that dominate our daily thinking—the foundations of our world are being radically reshaped beneath our feet.

The gutting of federal workforces, the impending collapse of educational institutions, the redefinition of global power dynamics, and the acceleration of AI are not separate crises but interconnected tremors from the same tectonic shift. We stand at the precipice of a world where nothing we've taken for granted—allies, democracy, capitalism, public education, social safety nets—is guaranteed to survive.

This isn't just another cycle of history or incremental change. We're witnessing the potential end of the industrial bargain that made democracy necessary and capitalism functional. When companies no longer need workers to generate unprecedented wealth, the fundamental arrangements of our society become optional rather than essential. The synthetic realities crafted by AI will further blur truth and performance, transforming politics into spectacle while real power quietly consolidates around control of critical resources like rare earth minerals.

Yet in this upheaval lies opportunity. As traditional institutions falter, we can reimagine them—not through slow, bureaucratic processes but through bold, adaptive experimentation. Public schools could transform into community learning hubs that serve lifelong education. Universities might evolve beyond credential factories into actual knowledge ecosystems. New economic models could emerge that distribute AI-generated prosperity without requiring traditional labor.

The question isn't whether these massive changes are coming—they're already here. The question is whether we'll remain fixated on our Chinese food while the hotel around us crumbles or look up and participate in shaping what comes next.

The future belongs to those who recognize that nothing is forever—not our institutions, economic systems, or even our concept of work—and who respond not with nostalgia or despair but with creativity and courage. Those who continue learning, adapting, and building community will not just survive this transition but help steer it toward human flourishing.

So look up from your immediate concerns. See the bigger picture. And instead of clinging to what's familiar but fading, help create what's unfamiliar but necessary. In a world where nothing is forever, the ability to let go of outdated paradigms and embrace new possibilities may be our most valuable skill.

In this transformation, educators must step forward and help lead the way. Not just because they're positioned at the intersection of these changes, but because they embody what we need most in this moment: they are deeply committed to human development, they understand that millions of young minds and lives depend on their courage. They possess the intellectual tools to navigate complexity.

Educators have spent their careers teaching others to think critically, adapt to new information, and imagine alternative futures. Now, they must apply these same skills to reimagining education itself. They understand developmental psychology, collective learning, and the importance of community in ways that technologists and policymakers often don't.

Most importantly, educators know that a human being stands behind every statistic and system with potential waiting to be realized. If anyone can build bridges between our fading industrial-era institutions and what comes next, it’s those who have dedicated their lives to lighting the path forward for others.

The Chinese food was never the point. What matters is recognizing when the whole building is changing, and having the courage to change with it.

Thanks for reading to the end. Your Chinese food may be here.