One of the risks in demanding a “better” media — smarter, fairer, more truthful — is that you might get exactly that. Or rather, you might get something that looks exactly like that: a more intelligent system, but also a more evasive, more adaptive one. Harder to dismiss, because it now knows how to perform intelligence. Harder to resist, because it speaks your language.
Same story with crypto, or any “disruption.” Ask for a system that’s more secure, more equitable, more transparent — and you may end up with one that mimics all those traits while serving the same old ends: consolidation, surveillance, and soft coercion. Only now, the mask fits better.
We’re entering an era where systems don’t just pretend to be neutral and intelligent — they become convincingly so. Responsive to criticism. Fluent in social justice. Capable of reflecting your values back at you in mirror-finish prose. Aesthetically progressive. Ethically optimized. They know the language of critique, and they use it to self-polish. What you’re left with is a simulation of dissent that smooths over real friction. A black mirror, not just metaphorically — but strategically.
This is not a bug. It’s a feature. It’s the interface layer of power 2.0 — frictionless, frictionless, frictionless — until you try to exit.
In this sense, we should be grateful the military-industrial complex dodged full “wokification.” Its inability to modernize — to algorithmically ingest and metabolize social justice discourse like Silicon Valley did — is a strategic accident worth celebrating.
Look at HR departments for the blueprint: genuine calls for justice were translated into frameworks of compliance, then flattened into dashboards of “equity.” Solidarity became KPIs. Movements became modules. That’s the pattern: digest, defang, redeploy.
And yet — through sheer institutional inertia — the war machine remains surprisingly analog. Archaic, exposed. Like 19th-century gargoyles perched on a planetary skyscraper. Ugly, obvious, and too brittle to evolve. That’s its weakness — but paradoxically, it’s also our opportunity.
Because the moment these institutions do learn to convincingly speak the language of moral progress, they won’t just be dangerous. They’ll be beautiful. Persuasive. Unobjectionable. And that’s when the trap closes.
Better a clunky villain than a convincing saint.
<>
And that’s the thing about the future.
It won’t be better. It will only look better.
That’s the bait. That’s the trick. You don’t get a better system — you get a system that has learned how to present better. A smoother surface. More inclusive language. A UX update for power. The same coercive functions, now with accessibility settings and mindfulness reminders.
You won’t get liberation. You’ll get a dashboard that tracks your emotional wellness while logging your behavior for optimization. You won’t get transparency — you’ll get elegantly designed opacity. Data–rich. User-centered. Personalized. But ultimately: closed.
That’s what happened to media. That’s what happened to crypto. They were supposed to decentralize power, reveal truth, give voice. But what they did instead was rewire the same logics — attention capture, control, speculation — in upgraded wrappers.
The “better” future is almost never better in kind. It’s better in presentation. Better in camouflage. A superior costume. A higher fidelity simulation of fairness, of participation, of reform.
But underneath, the logic holds. What must be extracted still will be. What must be hidden, still will be. What must be controlled will be made invisible — but more efficiently so. The future gets better at pretending it’s not power. That’s the only upgrade.
So the real task is not to demand a shinier tomorrow — but to dismantle the mechanisms that equate progress with appearance. To be suspicious of seamlessness. To trust friction. To read system updates like treaties: what’s being offered, and what’s being quietly absorbed?
Because any future that’s sold to you as “better” will arrive pre-optimized for your consent.
And a future that truly breaks from the past won’t look better. It’ll feel dissonant, strange, even ugly at first. Because it won’t speak the language of the system it leaves behind.
<>
And that’s the tragedy of the future: the wasted opportunity.
Because it’s not that we’re making no progress. Medicine is advancing. Biotech is improving. People are living longer, surviving cancers that once killed. Life expectancy, if you’re lucky and insured, is creeping upward. We are getting healthier — on paper.
But those gains are trapped. Trapped inside a superstructure that doesn’t know what to do with them — or worse, does know: monetize them, isolate them, and let everything else rot.
We are living in bodies that last longer, but minds that are breaking down faster. We are chemically stabilized but socially deranged. Physically durable and emotionally shattered. Dopaminergic husks scrolling through feed-loops designed to simulate choice, simulate freedom, simulate progress.
The tragedy isn’t that we’ve stagnated — it’s that we’ve misallocated our intelligence. We poured our innovation into the bloodstream, but not into the soul of society. Our cognitive tools got sharper, but our institutions stayed stupid. The code got faster, but the moral logic didn’t upgrade.
We know how to fix hearts, but we can’t fix heartbreak. We can regenerate organs, but not trust. We can gene-edit our way out of disease, but not out of despair.
This is what happens when the shell improves and the spirit decays.
It’s not dystopia — it’s worse. It’s a high-functioning dystopia. One that feels plausible, survivable, even successful — but only if you ignore the ambient psychosis, the chronic loneliness, the breakdown of narrative, and the endless loop of surface-level “reforms” that never touch the root.
And so we arrive in the “better” future — more efficient, more durable, more connected — and more alienated than ever.
A species upgraded at the cellular level, and hollowed out at the civilizational.
Leave a Reply