Ask A Genius 1227: How has the world changed since we started working together?
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/27
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has the world changed since we started collaborating in the summer or fall of 2014?
Rick Rosner: Smartphones became mainstream around 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone, though widespread adoption accelerated between 2010 and 2012.
Life still feels normal in some ways, but what we accept as normal today vastly differs from a decade ago. Smartphones and apps dominate our daily lives. Communication has shifted heavily to texting, with most people avoiding phone calls. We’ve also witnessed the decline of newspapers and magazines and a significant reduction in traditional reading habits.
We’re nearing the end of the fifth year of COVID-19. While we no longer consider ourselves in a pandemic, the virus circulates in various forms. Other health threats persist in the background, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and avian influenza (bird flu). The latter has become endemic in parts of North America, affecting poultry, milk supplies, and even pet food. Our awareness of pandemics and infectious diseases is certainly higher than ten years ago.
Meanwhile, global conflicts continue to proliferate. The war in Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza, and the ongoing crisis in Sudan dominate international headlines. Wars in Africa, often overlooked, remain severe. Just recently, a Russian missile reportedly shot down a civilian plane over Azerbaijan. The world feels increasingly polarized and militarized. A decade ago, the global situation seemed more stable under Obama’s presidency. Artificial intelligence (AI) was still a futuristic concept; now, it’s reshaping every aspect of society, with widespread acknowledgment that its disruption is inevitable.
Entertainment habits have shifted as well. Movie theatre attendance has declined as streaming services dominate home entertainment. Societal trends have also changed—fertility rates are dropping, fewer people are engaging in romantic relationships, and political landscapes are moving to the right. Of the 33 national elections held worldwide in 2024, 27—or approximately 82%—resulted in incumbents being replaced, often with more right-leaning politicians. The United Kingdom is an exception, where Labour has returned to power, though public sentiment toward the party remains lukewarm.
The world feels increasingly divided, propagandized, and skeptical of expertise and authority. Modern warfare now heavily incorporates artificial intelligence and drones. While drones are not yet ubiquitous, they are widely used in industries like filmmaking and surveillance. Drone shots, now a staple in movies, are affordable and visually impressive. Recently, reports suggest that the plane shot down over Azerbaijan may have been targeted in an attempt to intercept drones.
Jacobsen: How does AI factor into modern warfare? It’s pervasive, particularly in the form of narrow AI. These systems analyze data, recognize images and objects, and relay live feeds from drones to operators. While “AI” is a broad term, its use in modern conflict focuses on specialized, task-specific applications. Narrow AI has become essential for battlefield intelligence and cultural analysis.
AI’s influence extends beyond warfare, disrupting job markets and reshaping culture globally.
Rosner: People are facing more job insecurity, with shittier jobs and gig jobs, which are inherently exploitative. COVID disrupted education significantly during the lockdowns. Beyond that, AI is messing with people’s ability to write and think. People used to—albeit reluctantly—have to write essays and assignments in school. Now, AI makes it so easy to outsource that work. It’s attacking the development of critical thinking and writing skills.
While perhaps not central to everyone’s lives, AI-generated illustrations are hitting fields like art and illustration hard. There’s a pervasive sense that things are unsettled. Under Obama, the world felt more stable.
Someone even wrote a book—I think it was in 2008, though maybe earlier—called The End of History. It argued that much of the political and social strife of the 20th century was over. Now, though, it feels like disruption and uncertainty have become the new status quo.
Since Trump’s first term, we’ve had some of the weirdest and worst politics in living memory. Most Americans despair of ever returning to a time when politics didn’t demand constant vigilance. What’s it like in Canada? Is there a similar unease?
Jacobsen: Canadian politics is a bit calmer, but there has been a slight rightward shift. However, it’s not entirely unhealthy on certain topics like immigration and housing. There was an overreach—too many people brought in without enough housing being built. Now, both immigrants and non-immigrants are frustrated, which is understandable.
The kind of conservatism gaining traction here is about staying within realistic bounds. If you bring in a certain number of immigrants, you must build a proportional number of houses. It’s common sense. The approach feels less ideological and more practical.
Of course, cultural battles are also happening, but that’s a longer and more complex discussion.
Rosner: Do you think Canadians, in general, feel less jittery than Americans?
Jacobsen: Maybe, but there’s still some tension.
Rosner: Trump has been threatening Canada lately, which adds to the anxiety.
Jacobsen: Yeah, and then there’s that bizarre suggestion about Wayne Gretzky. Trump suggested Gretzky should run for—what was it? Prime Minister? Governor of Canada?
It was absurd. I think Trump was conflating things, like calling Justin Trudeau a governor and saying Gretzky should run for prime minister. If you combine the two, he meant that Gretzky should be the “governor of Canada.” It’s nonsense.
Rosner: Trump probably knows nothing about Gretzky beyond his name recognition from decades ago. Gretzky set those records back in the 1980s and 1990s. What does Trump even know about hockey?
Jacobsen: Honestly, not much. But Gretzky is beloved. That part, at least, makes sense. And Trump is trying to get into Trudeau’s head, and he likely will.
Rosner: I mean, yeah, Gretzky was my hero, too.
Jacobsen: But bringing him into modern politics? That’s just absurd. What else? I had one more thought, but I’m not sure. Is that enough on that? Or should we move on?
Jacobsen: I think that’s plenty. Unless you want to shift topics?
Rosner: Oh, right, one more addendum. How much of the unsettledness and constant change we’re experiencing is a temporary blip due to current events rather than an overall trend? America feels chaotic, and it’s tempting to generalize that the future will always be chaotic. But we’re overgeneralizing.
Hypercomplexity, when relative to a cognitive system, can seem like chaos even if it’s highly ordered. Still, 20% to 30% of this feeling of chaos might be the temporary barrage of nonsense coming from Trump and his crew. If we could replay the 21st century repeatedly, how much would historical accidents, like Fox News gaining influence, play into temporary chaos?
For instance, if Fox News hadn’t gained such a foothold, would 20% of American adults still be as susceptible to misinformation? Would America, as a whole, feel less chaotic? Or is something like Fox News inevitable—a power structure using propaganda and social media to amplify chaos? Similarly, would we face different challenges if Putin weren’t in power?
There’s also the debate between the great man theory of history, which says that individual leaders significantly change the course of history and the opposing view that history has its momentum, placing people into roles based on circumstance. People argue that if a streetcar had hit Einstein, Poincaré would’ve discovered relativity within a year.
So, is our current chaos due to particularly bad actors, like Trump or Putin, lucking into power? Or would most 21st centuries, if replayed, look similar—with different bad actors filling those roles? I’m guessing America’s “asshole index” is higher than usual right now, largely because of a few individuals getting lucky.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 