On the results of the international foresight session in the period May 20-June 08, 2024
The Global Predicate command
Our team decided to focus on building a model for the development of globality. We believe that it is our duty, as young researchers, not to give a hopeful map of the future journey, but in measured tones, in a certain form, to give a general understanding of the routes that we, as a civilization, can follow during the expedition called “Deglobalization”.
We have defined the following terms: Globality, globalization, glocalization, deglobalization, bipolarity, multipolarity and unipolarity. 
Globality is a stage in the development of human civilization, which has a characteristic universality of development processes, the universality of the world economy, politics and socio-cultural processes.
Globalization is the process of developing a certain model of globality, as a rule, promoted by a global hegemon - the world center.
Glocalization is a process of reaction to this model of globality, the moment of the beginning of the formation of multipolarity and new contenders for hegemony. 
Deglobalization is a process of radical reaction, an attempt to dismantle the model of globality on the part of the established contenders for hegemony, the moment of formation of bipolarity between the old world center from the periphery supporting it and the semi-periphery striving to take the place of the hegemon along with the periphery supporting it.
Multipolarity is the moment of the development of globality, in which there is no total domination of the hegemon over the rest of the subjects in the system, while several leaders in certain regions of the planet are observed in the system.
The processes that have arisen in world politics now are not the personal desire of any individual or an accident. In these processes, one can observe the pattern of the development of globalization. It is the relationship between the countries of the world center, semi-periphery and periphery, within the framework of the processes of globalization, glocalization and deglobalization that form a unipolar, multipolar and bipolar system of globality, respectively. 
Based on the found pattern of development of the global world, our team has collected 5 variants of this development for the next 25 years, that is, until 2050. 
The first option is the victory of the old hegemon due to new methods of managing the system and technological advantage, maintaining its dominance. 
The second option is the victory of the old hegemon, but the continuation of multipolarity, the absence of complete dominance of the old hegemon after the confrontation. 
The third option is the option of conscious politicians. In this case, politicians suddenly realize for themselves the horror of the processes of which they are the drivers, and seek to change the global system. 
The fourth option is the victory of the new hegemon, the establishment of a unipolar world. 
It is worth saying that after the victory of the hegemon, those countries supporting him, after the victory of the new model of globality, may try to intercept his title from the new hegemon. 
The fifth option is Localization or the crisis of the “New Age”. In this case, there is a total degradation of all spheres of human life, the support of old infrastructure links becomes impossible and the global system collapses back into the local system. Such an option is possible at the beginning of a full-scale nuclear war and is similar in consequences to the “Crisis of the Bronze Age”. 
Why are all the possible options mostly negative for us? After all, when the hegemon changes to another person, the very essence of the relationship between states does not change. Even with the victory of the new hegemon in the absence of serious damage to the potential of our civilization, the chance of subsequent deglobalization has the same probability as the current deglobalization. In other words, there is a definite reason for the emergence of such relations between states, such socio-economic crises. Such a reason, in our opinion, is the very essence of the socio-economic model. Indeed, in a system where competition and exploitation of the weak in the economy are the norm, international relations will also develop in this paradigm. This system is not aimed at human welfare, it is aimed at making a profit. 
Our team proposes to create a new socio-economic system based on common interests, needs, economy, social structure and culture. The community model is a more progressive model, as it increases the survival of humanity as a civilization. The more adaptable the system is, the more margin it has for modernization and safety margin, the longer and better it will exist.
It is necessary to abandon the model of non-equivalent exchange. A unified system should be aimed primarily at the benefit of people and the highest value of this system is not profit, but progress. We must all abandon excessive consumption, due to the balanced development of all people and the solution of global contradictions of society. A person must move on to the next epoch, otherwise changes will crush him and leave him on the sidelines of universal development.
Thank you for the invitation to participate in the project.

***

The team's work on the project was organically divided into three blocks.
The first block is online meetings.
At the first meeting, a general acquaintance and a brief definition of the way of work were held.
At the second meeting, three key points for further work were almost completely fixed. (1) The team has defined its working title "Global Predicate". The name was a discussion for the team for some time, attempts were made to find other bright and defiant names, but in the end, by a general vote two weeks later, everyone agreed on the name. (2) The team has chosen guidelines for their work, determining that the main topic will be the consideration of several options that will be the transition between the current processes of randomness and instability into the next major stage of building a new stability. The topic was chosen because the next steps are more or less visible, and the consequences on the horizon will be visible after overcoming the intermediate period. the team immediately understood that the topic included the results of the work of all other teams. (3) the team has been formed – 4 people who have reached the end of the project. Although several other participants joined the online meetings for a couple more, they did not join the conversation, did not introduce themselves and then completely self-excluded from any work.
At the third meeting, the team determined the roles of the participants. 

Klim Tsurankov is the leader. He took on the role of a key presentation and keeping all the work in the topic.
Maria Sitnikova is a historian. She took on the role of providing historical material on all issues that arose in the course of work.
 Francisco Ruiz Hernandez is a practitioner. He took on the role of providing legal comments and further analytics on the current state of the global peace system 
Andrey Khovansky is a critic. He took on the role of a methodologist, commentator, and assessor of work progress. He provided the team with information on all issues that arose. 
Rachel Ashley Florimel Lloyd is a tutor.
Online meetings were not counted, but more than 6 and less than 10 were held. Let's assume that there were 8 online meetings. At the meetings, the team considered different trips and options on their topic. Have been analyzed:
• previous works of the Horizon 2100 project
• the methodology of strategic forecasting
• Foresight methodology from ASI, Foresight-100
• Work structure
• topics of the ontology of work and the selection of correct definitions
• Several different approaches to assessing the historical aspect of globalism
• the process of the genesis of the global world
• theory of technological structures
• formats for describing the landscape of 2100
• we have brought together 16 blocks according to which it makes sense to describe the year 2100
• package of works on the ESG agenda
• The system of international relations and their change over time
• options for Globalization 4.0 and the system of international relations (in this campaign)
• WTO expertise on international development
• several video lectures by famous futurists (including Pereslegin)
As a result, by the end of the first block, the team had a complete work plan and presentation, a partial text description of the work, and a framework presentation. It is important to note that the team reviewed a significant amount of information and was ready to moderate its topics depending on the tasks of the project.
In the transition to the second block, the whole team participated in the dating training from Olaf Hauer. 
The second block is full–time work at the boiling point of the Polytechnic.
On the second block, the team was joined by experts: Farah Suheil and Syzdykova Zhibek Saparbekovna. The experts offered their own vision of the content. 
However, the experts agreed that the task of the youth project was to independently inform the team of their vision and did not have a critical impact on the content. Nevertheless, a number of aspects were taken into account and introduced into the work and further into the presentation.
The entire block was devoted to correcting the speech, mainly in terms of reducing the text, and forming the presentation.
It is important to note the connection of Ruslan Rifkatovich Talipov to the team, who provided significant assistance in reducing the presentation to the form that was further presented. 
In the final presentations, the team left its best young part, dividing the presentation between the participants approximately equally.
In this state, the team took 1st place in the interim vote of experts.
The third block is the day at the SPIEF.
The first part of the morning was devoted to the presentation runs. Taking into account the structure of the presentation and the personal characteristics of the speakers, it was decided to reformat the order of the presentation. The team shortened the text of the speech, clearly defined the slides and the text for them for Maria Sitnikova and Francisco Hernandez, allocating more time for Klim Tsurankov, which made it easier for him to operate with the text of his speech, which led to a better presentation of the entire outcome of the team's work.
The second part, the speech, took place in the presence of the audience and the presidium. The performance was clear, easy, consistent, spectacular, without failures, with observance of the established rules. At the same time, the team received the most questions, which they successfully answered.
At the end, the team took a general photo.

Files:

• GlobalPredict_Presentation.pptx