Bhumics: Polyconflict, Part 2
If the appropriate response to a crisis is 'management,' the appropriate response to a conflict is 'security.' The two have very different logics, even if it appears as if they are responding to the same event.
The Age of Polyconflict: When Security Logic Reshapes Everything
We are witnessing the emergence of a new paradigm that fundamentally alters how we understand and respond to global challenges. While the concept of “polycrisis” has dominated recent discourse about interconnected global problems, a more militarized reality is taking shape: the age of Polyconflict. This shift represents more than semantic evolution—it signals a transformation in how nations approach existential challenges, from climate change to nuclear proliferation, through the lens of security rather than cooperation.
The equation is stark: Polycrisis : Treaty :: Polyconflict : Security. Where polycrisis thinking led us to COP summits and international agreements (however imperfectly honored), polyconflict thinking drives us toward energy security, military preparedness, and strategic autonomy. This isn’t simply about changing rhetoric; it’s about fundamentally different approaches to planetary-scale problems that demand radically different solutions.
The Anthropocene’s Military Origins
The irony runs deep in our current moment. The very systems that allowed us to recognize the Anthropocene—satellites monitoring atmospheric changes, global communication networks tracking environmental data, computational models predicting climate futures—were all byproducts of Cold War military competition. The scientific infrastructure that revealed humanity’s planetary impact emerged from the same geopolitical tensions that brought us to the nuclear brink.
Though geologists ultimately rejected the formal recognition of the Anthropocene as a new epoch in March 2024, the concept has become embedded in mainstream consciousness as shorthand for unprecedented human impact on Earth systems. Yet as we grapple with this reality, we find ourselves returning to the very military logic that enabled our awareness of it in the first place. The bitter irony is complete: we will likely power our next generation of missile launchers with solar panels.
As a complete aside, I have been asking myself how AI can help create new media forms. For the last few weeks, I have been recording my dreams - using this app - and then turning the transcript into an image using Midjourney. Now that Midjourney has video, it’s now possible to animate the dream image into a short 4 second video.
In a different take on this idea (which is why it’s inevitable) Dream Recorder is an open source platform for displaying your dreams by your bedside. We are not that far away from creating an internet of dreams, where I can surf dreams from across the globe. Where are people having nightmares? Where are people happy? We are about to find out soon(ish).
From Climate Crisis to Climate Conflict
The transition from viewing climate change as a crisis requiring global cooperation to seeing it as a source of conflict requiring security responses marks a crucial inflection point. And in doing so, we can add nuclear conflict to climate conflict as another head of the hydra.
In the polyconflict paradigm, climate concerns become subordinated to energy security imperatives. Nations don’t primarily think about carbon footprints or global temperature targets; they think about strategic energy independence, supply chain vulnerabilities, and resource competition. This securitization of climate issues fundamentally changes both the problems we prioritize and the solutions we pursue.
Recent geopolitical events illustrate this shift vividly. Israeli attacks on Iranian infrastructure have sent oil prices soaring, prompting countries worldwide to accelerate their pivot away from fossil fuel dependence—not out of environmental concern, but from security necessity. The energy transition, once framed primarily in terms of climate responsibility, increasingly appears as a matter of national security and economic resilience.
The Dual Logic of Security
Countries could find themselves simultaneously building nuclear weapons and solar farms, both as rational responses to security concerns in an unstable world. The glass appears both half empty and half full: renewable energy deployment accelerates (positive for climate goals), but within a framework of military competition and potential conflict (negative for global stability).
The logic is internally consistent yet globally destabilizing. As nations prioritize energy independence to reduce geopolitical vulnerabilities, they inadvertently contribute to the very fragmentation and competition that makes the world more dangerous. Energy security measures taken by one nation can appear as strategic threats to others, creating security dilemmas that spiral into arms races—both conventional and nuclear.
Nuclear Proliferation in the Solar Age
The nuclear dimension of polyconflict represents perhaps its most dangerous aspect. As traditional security guarantees weaken and great power competition intensifies, nuclear weapons proliferation becomes increasingly likely. Nations facing existential threats—whether from climate impacts, resource scarcity, or military pressure—may view nuclear capabilities as the ultimate insurance policy.
This proliferation occurs alongside, and potentially enabled by, advances in renewable energy technology. Solar panels and wind turbines can power uranium enrichment facilities just as effectively as coal plants, potentially making nuclear weapons programs less detectable and more distributed. The clean energy transition, pursued for security reasons, may inadvertently lower barriers to nuclear proliferation.
This creates a moral and strategic complexity. Should we celebrate renewable energy deployment even when it’s driven by military competition? Can positive climate outcomes justify increased geopolitical instability? The polyconflict framework forces us to grapple with these uncomfortable questions while recognizing that pure motives may be less important than actual outcomes in addressing planetary-scale challenges.
Conclusion
The age of Polyconflict represents a fundamental shift in how humanity approaches its greatest challenges. As we transition from a world organized around crisis management and treaty-making to one driven by security competition and strategic preparation, we must grapple with the implications of this transformation. The future may indeed feature solar-powered missile launchers, but perhaps we can still shape that future to ensure the solar panels outnumber the missiles they power.
