Global Instability

Global Instability

Written on 11 September 2026.

For an ordinary civilian, global instability may first appear as food he can no longer afford, a car he can no longer keep running, or a home that costs too much to heat. He may never see the battlefield. But the conditions of his life can still be changed by the war.

This is mainly what I have in mind when I think about the instability that is emerging. I expect increased automation, digitalization and AI. But I also think we may see increasing poverty, food insecurity and, in the worst affected places, famine. The technology can advance while the supporting structure for an ordinary human life becomes weaker.

A person still needs to eat every day. He needs somewhere to live and some practical ability to get what he needs. He cannot reboot himself, duplicate himself or press a reset button when the arrangements around him stop working.

A war reaching the food store

Energy is one of the basic components that makes ordinary society work. Goods have to be produced and transported. Farmers need machinery, fuel and other inputs. Food has to be processed, stored and delivered. The food store does not create the contents of its shelves.

When I look at conflict involving tankers, shipping routes and energy infrastructure, I see a struggle over something that supports much more than military operations. In that sense, a world war over energy describes an aspect of what concerns me. I mean the international struggle over energy and its consequences, without assuming that every seizure, sanction and attack has the same purpose or legal character.

On 11 September 2026, Reuters reported Brent crude approaching $110 a barrel amid escalating Middle East tensions. The price will move again. What matters here is what expensive or interrupted energy can do to the rest of society.

The pressure can enter at several stages. A farmer pays more to operate his machinery. A producer pays more for processing and packaging. A transport company pays more to deliver the product. Refrigeration and storage have their own energy requirements. Those increases do not simply add up in a fixed proportion, but several parts of the same supply chain can be under pressure together.

And it is broader than crude oil alone. Natural gas is particularly important in conventional ammonia production, which supplies nitrogen fertilizer. The International Energy Agency describes ammonia as the starting point for mineral nitrogen fertilizers and documents the industry's heavy reliance on fossil fuels, especially natural gas. So an energy shock can affect the production of a future harvest as well as the transport of food already produced.

This is how a distant conflict can reach a local civilian. He goes into the same store, but his money buys less. There may be no dramatic event in his town. The change is in what he can still afford to do.

Poverty before empty shelves

A country does not have to run out of food before its people have difficulty eating. The food can be available while becoming too expensive for somebody whose income has not kept up.

Reuters reported on 4 September 2026 that the FAO's international food-price index had reached its highest level since late 2022, with increases across the major food categories. It also remained below the exceptional peak of March 2022. That index does not directly measure a Swedish household's grocery bill. But it is evidence of pressure in the markets from which food supplies ultimately come.

For a person with little money, deterioration can begin with small decisions. He buys less variety. He postpones a repair. He reduces heating or stops making a journey. Each decision may be manageable on its own. Together they can reduce the strength of his whole life.

A repair postponed today can become a larger expense later. Losing transport can make it harder to reach a cheaper shop. A person can become more dependent precisely because he can no longer afford the things that helped him remain independent.

I think this is a more likely first experience for many civilians than suddenly finding themselves surrounded by military robots. The crisis arrives through the household budget and the loss of practical options.

Famine is a more severe outcome than inflation or having less choice. It should not be used as another word for expensive groceries. Whether food insecurity develops into famine depends on the severity and duration of disruption, access to food, incomes, harvests and the response available. An increase in oil prices does not by itself establish that Sweden is heading for famine.

But neither should we dismiss the connection between energy and hunger. In April 2026, Reuters reported a World Bank warning that the Middle East war could drive substantial increases in energy and fertilizer prices, with poorer and heavily indebted countries particularly exposed. People with the smallest margins can be in serious difficulty long before a wealthier country regards the situation as a catastrophe.

Losing the ability to help yourself

Transport is part of this. A car can be a practical means of maintaining a life, especially where distances are long and alternatives are limited.

If somebody has an older car that works and can be repaired, its value to him is what it allows him to do. He can buy food, carry goods and reach places beyond walking distance. A newer vehicle being available on the market does not help if he cannot afford it.

This is why I question a way of thinking that treats replacement as progress without asking whether the owner can manage the replacement. If a policy encourages scrapping a usable car, the civilian question is what happens to the person afterwards. Does he have another affordable means of getting around? Can he maintain it? Does it work for the journeys and conditions he actually faces?

Different vehicles have different advantages and limitations. But the relevant test for somebody with limited money is practical. A technically advanced vehicle that he cannot buy is not a substitute for the working vehicle he already owns.

Without transport, his range of movement can shrink drastically. So can his ability to help himself. Walking in cold weather while carrying supplies is not equivalent to making the same journey in a car. The human body and the distances involved still matter.

A society can describe a change as modernization while the individual experiences it as losing an option that used to work.

More AI does not mean more independence

I do expect AI to become more common in businesses and infrastructure. But I think much of that will reach ordinary people as a service supplied through large providers and existing software companies.

Consider a food store. It wants something that helps with ordering, administration or stock management. It does not necessarily want to become an AI developer. A ready-made service that somebody else maintains may be the practical choice.

Such a service could combine a large general model with smaller specialized models and ordinary software. The customer may not know which company supplies each component. Nor can we identify the underlying model merely because a product is advertised as AI.

My expectation is that many smaller businesses will buy the capability rather than build and maintain the whole system themselves. AI could become like electricity in this respect: something obtained from a provider and incorporated into ordinary operations. That is a comparison about dependence, not a claim that AI and electricity work in the same way.

I have tried local AI myself, and what I tested was not good enough for what I wanted to do. The mistakes and hallucinations mattered. I do not want to spend thousands on a computer just to discover that the result still does not meet my needs.

That does not mean no local model is useful. It means that theoretical availability is not the same as a practical alternative for me. The hardware, time, maintenance and quality of the result all count. A well-funded organization running its own AI project is in a different position from an ordinary person using the computer he already has.

So I do not see open-source AI automatically giving ordinary civilians independence from large providers. Some people will use it successfully. But I expect many others to rely on the services they can afford and that work well enough without becoming another job to maintain.

Cheaper and faster AI may spread widely. That still does not mean food, housing or transport become affordable. An abundance of generated answers is not an abundance of the physical things a person needs.

The machines and the people outside the war

Unmanned vehicles remain relevant because they change the conduct of war. Their uses extend beyond aerial attacks. Ground vehicles have been supplied to Ukraine for transporting goods, evacuating casualties and clearing routes. Underwater vehicles are also being developed for greater endurance and less dependence on nearby crewed support.

Military AI should not be discussed as if only outsiders might want to use it for destructive purposes. States have their own incentives to develop effective military capabilities. The Manhattan Project is a historical example of what a state can mobilize when it regards technological superiority as essential. It does not prove a particular secret AI programme, but the pursuit of military advantage is hardly a new motive.

For civilians in a war zone, drones can be an immediate physical danger. But for a civilian living elsewhere, the more immediate connection may be what the war does to supplies, prices and public resources. The weapon can be unmanned while the consequences are suffered by people who still need food and warmth.

This is why I would keep the battlefield technology in the background of the civilian picture. The central question is how the person continues living when the systems supporting him are disrupted.

A society that functions with less room for people

When I compare the direction of society with the 1980s, part of what I am thinking about is normality. A life in which ordinary arrangements feel dependable, possessions can be kept working, and people have some room to manage their own affairs.

I am not saying that everything was better then. I am asking what happens when technical development is accompanied by a loss of that practical support. More advanced systems do not necessarily mean that an ordinary person has a stronger position within them.

I also wonder about social cohesion. When people are financially pressed and uncertain about their own future, they may have less time, energy or willingness to help somebody else. That is not the only possible response; hardship can also produce generosity. But I think a society in which everyone is struggling to preserve his own position can become colder even while its administrative systems become more sophisticated.

Then there is the question of being expendable. If fewer people are needed to perform important economic functions, will maintaining the conditions of an ordinary human life still receive the same priority?

My concern is that people could increasingly be treated as superfluous to the operation of the system. Their needs continue, but their economic usefulness may no longer give them the same bargaining power. An institution might become more efficient at carrying out its tasks while becoming less responsive to the person who does not fit its procedures.

This is a concern about incentives and priorities, not evidence that every reduction in support comes from one coordinated intention to discard people. Automation does not make neglect inevitable. Its gains could be used to strengthen material security. The question is whether they will be.

And a human being does not become worthless because an employer or an automated system has less use for him. That is precisely the distinction that must not be lost.

The daily need remains

The Bible speaks directly about bodily necessities:

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
— James 2:15–16, KJV

The question is concrete. What does the person actually receive that meets the need of his body? Words about improvement do not warm him or feed him.

I think the same practical question belongs in a discussion of global instability. Can the person still eat properly? Can he keep warm? Can he travel to obtain what he needs? Can he maintain the things that allow him to live without becoming entirely dependent on somebody else's permission or assistance?

That is the civilian picture I see. More automation and more powerful AI may develop alongside more expensive necessities and weaker support for the ordinary individual. Society can continue operating while his own life becomes harder to sustain.

He still has to eat tomorrow, whatever the system has become capable of doing.

References

AI Disclosure: Parts of this page may have been created, edited, or assisted by artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT or other language models). All AI-assisted content is reviewed by a human before publication. For questions, contact the site administrator.