Policy Systems Are Not Designed For Ontological Volatility — Governments Are About To Be Outpaced Existentially
The most under-discussed variable in the entire late stage AI political economy is this: public policy architectures worldwide were built to regulate Pokemon787 login physical markets, physical goods, physical externalities, physical harms, and physical risk cascades — not metaphysical instability. Yet AI is now producing an era where the dominant national threat vector is ontological volatility. When selfhood, reality, identity, truth hierarchy, moral grounding, and collective meaning are destabilized at population scale — this is a national security threat with macroeconomic consequence. If civilizations cannot maintain continuity of meaning, they cannot maintain continuity of cooperation. If cooperation collapses, every model of democratic legitimacy becomes brittle. This is not future risk — this is present timeline.
Current policy tooling is completely mismatched. You cannot regulate existential destabilization with industrial era frameworks of regulatory capture, parliamentary committee review cycles, or traditional risk management. Meaning crisis moves faster than state jurisdiction mobilization. AI acceleration is non-linear while institutions remain linear. This gap becomes the next systemic fragility. Markets cannot price this because markets are not built to price metaphysical collapse. Macro forecasters cannot model it because macro theory assumes identity and meaning are stable constants. They aren’t. They are now moving variables.
Governments will eventually be forced to legislate meaning as infrastructure. This means the future of fiscal and regulatory architecture will not just be resource dependency risk, national security perimeter risk, financial contagion risk, or industrial resilience risk — but spiritual resilience risk. And this creates a problem: states are deeply uncomfortable admitting that humans require metaphysical grounding in the first place. But the refusal to govern meaning does not eliminate the game — it simply leaves the playing field open for AI platform monopolies to govern meaning by default. That is geopolitical suicide.
The most strategically advanced states over the next decade will not be the fastest semiconductor builder or the largest green energy exporter — they will be the states that can produce populations with psychological durability, narrative coherence, and shared symbolic identity strong enough to navigate a world that constantly invalidates its own reality. Meaning is now a sovereign domain. Policy must evolve into metaphysical risk governance. The nations that fail to adapt will not just lose elections — they will lose the ability to maintain civilizational forward continuity itself.