The Futures That Just Died
On the paths ending, and the new paths being born.
Welcome! If you found this article, or my recent pieces The Power Law That Shapes Every Strategy and Repricing The Human Experience I invite you to become a free subscriber to get more of my articles on the intersection of strategy and culture.
Every once in a while, there may be a cluster of events that changes the trajectory of culture. We may not know the precise direction we are headed in at that moment, but we can be certain that a number of other possible futures are now off the table.
We’re experiencing a cluster like that right now. A number of reality altering events have happened in an acute period of time, and if you’re a strategist or cultural player, it’s really important to get clear on the futures that just died. If you don’t, you’re going to get your signals mixed and miss what is ahead of us.
I see many brands unaware of the fact that the future they are building for has been deleted. Environmental brands can’t see that our culture has already accepted AI as our hopeful savior. Political-leaning brands are blind to the fact that liberals and leftists are starting to abandon an averaged future. Parenting brands are too terrified to see that a lot of mothers will never be the same again.
Time moves like a tree. At certain moments, whole branches of possible futures get pruned. Futurists often refer to this as a futures cone where branches of possibility collapse after critical events. What seemed inevitable yesterday becomes impossible today. Usually this is described in the domain of tech or public policy, but it’s just as important to apply it to culture as well.
When it comes to culture and the stories we use to define ourselves, a lot of branches have been freshly cut. There are three in particular that I think are worth noting.
Age of Miracles
If you stop and ask yourself why AI has become the de facto mythology of our future, it becomes clear it’s because we’ve incinerated any other possible future that could have been.
As Nate Hagens says, while the spoils of growth have distracted our country (and many others), we've amassed an incredible financial, environmental and cultural debt that has little hope of being replenished. Deep, cavernous holes in both our economic systems and our natural resources. Growth can be a fruitful pursuit for a civilization, but without the foresight to manage our finite inputs, we're running into a dead end where every resource is starting to run dry.
Financial debt we can quantify. Environmental debt we can measure. Cultural debt shows up as eroded trust, hollowed institutions, and a public that no longer believes the system will work for them.
And what do we do when we reach a dead end? We start looking for magical solutions. AI has become exactly that. A marvel just abstract enough that it can fit the shape of any problem we shove it into.
Mythologies usually arise from constraint, not abundance. The AI mythology that we've birthed may look like the promise of prosperity on the surface, but it is born from a sense of imminent scarcity.
AI has the potential to do incredible, wondrous things. I personally have high hopes for it. It may one day save the masses from disease. It may help us harness a near-infinite energy source. It may create a form of prosperity we can’t quite wrap our heads around yet, that may march us toward peace.
But we don’t know if or when that will happen, or if that same power will take us down a much darker road. All we know now is that we have no other choice but to hope it saves us. There is no plan B we're actually pursuing at scale.
This is the hidden desperation behind the AI mythology: the obscured agreement that all other futures are effectively dead to us.
Eco and ethically positioned brands need to recognize what kind of hope they are now competing with. When an abstract, miraculous solution feels more plausible than collective, practical effort, it signals a loss of faith not just in institutions, but in coordinated human action itself. Brands built on narratives of personal responsibility, incremental progress, or individual sacrifice may increasingly feel out of step with how people now imagine salvation.
You are no longer operating in a marketplace of arguments or evidence. You are operating inside a mythology. And mythologies don’t compete on logic.
The 2A Gateway
You may have seen an uptick in leftist and liberal influencers talking about the importance of the Second Amendment and gun rights, some of them even getting critical of the Democrats’ recent gun control efforts. The moment ICE began killing both immigrants and non-immigrants, without accountability, a certain kind of political future started dying.
“2A” has become a social media refrain that’s showing up more and more on liberal and left-leaning feeds. The right to own and carry a gun, in a time that feels especially lawless in America, is a perfect representation of how far apart institutional politics and lived reality have drifted.
In the feed, we see images of faith leaders on the freezing frontlines in Minneapolis, and pastors in California confronting ICE guns pointed at their faces. Right next to that, we see images of Democrats inside carpeted congressional rooms, posting wins for gun control, an issue that for some may feel like a relic from a bygone world. Even influencers like Charles McBryde have questioned the logic of a recent gun control package given the world we are living in.
This is not to say there aren’t vocal and active politicians doing very important things right now - there certainly are people in the party that are risking a lot - but the locus of political agency and storytelling seems to be moving in a different direction.
Gun control and Second Amendment rights are not at odds with one another, but it does feel like the Democratic party and online activists are speaking to two different futures. Spend enough time in either space and you will see these are different conversations happening in different worlds, and although it’s too early to say for sure, it does feel like the door to one of those worlds is closing while the other opens.
It’s noteworthy how quickly this shift has happened, but that’s the nature of dead futures. They change peoples’ beliefs and behaviors fast.
The issue of gun control isn’t going away, but the topic of gun rights and arming oneself is crossing cultural and party lines, and morphing into a very different kind of conversation.
Even brands that claim neutrality are built on assumptions about how change happens, whether that be through reform or institutional legitimacy.
In moments where people stop believing those pathways will protect them, brands anchored to incrementalism can begin to feel naive, disconnected, or irrelevant, regardless of their stated politics.
This shift isn’t about guns. It’s about how people believe power is exercised and defended. And brands, whether they intend to or not, signal which version of that world they believe in.
Mothers Forever Changed
There are a lot of brands built around serving mothers. Parenting brands, education brands, food brands and fashion brands that sell specifically to the women that raise children. I don’t see a single one of them speaking up about the Epstein files, but I assure you many of their users feel like their notion of safety and order has just come crashing down.
A lot of mothers feel very alone in the world right now. They are being forced to see just how much the justice system, social system, medical system and patriarchy brutalize them. It's hard to overstate the horror.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
As awful as it is, many mothers are forcing themselves to see what is actually in these files, because they know they need to have a correct model of the world if they’re going to protect their children. To their own horror, mothers are leaning in.
Listen to the mom community discussions online and you will see the same story repeated - mothers bleed and risk their lives to bring life into this world, only to discover how little the systems around them actually do to protect it. It doesn’t take much social listening to see lot of mothers will never be the same again.
Take a moment to think about that. If you’re talking to mothers, I guarantee your audience is very different today than who they were last week. What it means to protect one’s child has changed. The nature of power and safety has changed. The very definition of motherhood is no longer the same.
Brands that speak to mothers are often built on an implicit promise that the world is fundamentally safe enough to optimize within. When that promise fractures, the emotional contract changes. She has changed her underlying model of the world. If you still speak to her as though her biggest concern is meal planning or screen time, you’ll lose her.
Three futures have died or are beginning to fade. The future where we fix things ourselves. The future where we fight through the system. The future where our children are safe in the world we built.
What replaced them isn’t clear yet. We’re in the space between branches, and most are still building for limbs that have already been cut.
The instinct right now is to wait for clarity, to keep running the playbook until the picture sharpens, and I get that. But clarity isn’t coming anytime soon, and the people you’re trying to reach aren’t waiting for it either. They’re already living in the new world. It’s going to take some bravery to honestly meet them where they are, and to support them.
Exposure For Your Strategic Mind
Therapy for your creative soul.
If you’ve been exploring Exposure Therapy from the edges, let me tell you more.
I’m hosting monthly Live Call + Q&As where I’ll walk you through what the community is, who it’s for, and how it works. It’s a 30m deep dive into the culture, the curriculum, and the energy behind Exposure Therapy.
If you’re curious, come. I’ll tell you everything you need to know.
And if you can’t make it but still have questions, just message me by responding to this email.
No Thank You
Here’s what we’ve been consuming.
The art of saying NO (La Nona Ora): “You are withholding the “smoothness” the regime needs to function. You just have to play the “wrong” anthem until nobody can remember the “right” one. The algorithm can handle dissent. It has absorbed every critique, captured every rebellion, commodified every resistance. What it cannot handle is static. Friction at scale. A million wrong notes played at once.”
Job Hunters Are So Desperate That They’re Paying to Get Recruited (Wall Street Journal): “The reverse-recruiting model is another sign of the mounting challenges for white-collar job seekers. For the first time since the pandemic, there were more unemployed people than open roles as of late 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average job search is now approaching about six months, according to December federal data.”
What our changing attitudes to orcas say about us (Aeon): “Yet perhaps what shapes our perceptions of this apex predator has less to do with scientific findings than with our own shifting cultural priorities. A historical view of our relationship with orcas reveals that they have often served as a Rorschach test for humanity’s conflicted attitudes toward the sea. These creatures evolved to navigate an aquatic and acoustic world that is fundamentally alien to us, so we have long struggled to comprehend their behaviour. The question, then, is not whether we can ever truly know a species so unlike ourselves, but whether we might better understand ourselves through them.”
Information diets are the most overlooked lever in strategy, but it's what my small but mighty team focuses on. They’re the invisible input that determines who breaks new ground and who blends into the crowd. Most teams never think about it, defaulting to the same sources everyone else uses, and getting the same results.
The strongest teams build T-shaped information diets, intentionally broad across topics, with each member going deep in a different domain. To reach differentiated insights, your knowledge graph must touch territories your competitors don’t, going both broader and deeper than they do. This requires delegation and intent, where each person owns a unique vertical of expertise but the horizontal is built collectively.
An effective diet has two stages: gathering and processing.
Gathering is about casting a wider net for novelty, breadth, and depth, finding signals others miss. Each person has their world and goes exploring in it every single day.
Processing is about digesting those signals through discussion, debate, and synthesis so raw information becomes sharp, novel insight. And man, do we have some spirited debates! About religion, psychology, semiotics, taste, art, politics, power, archetypes, science, narrative, ideals, networks, tech and things that don't even have a name yet. I am constantly uncomfortable, tbh 😅
Most teams do the first and skip the second, because the second requires a lot of trust and a lot of humility. The best build a culture around both, because your strategy is only as strong as the quality, diversity, and digestion of your information diet.
If you have that kind of high trust team, or perhaps friends and colleagues or a community of people that may work at different places but act together to create a collective T-Shaped understanding, that's a very special thing.
Protect it. It compounds.
Yours,
I’m Jasmine Bina, and I’m a brand strategist and cultural futurist.
If you love this newsletter and need more:
My private community Exposure Therapy “will open your third eye” (words from the Head of Google Play Partnerships, not mine).
My brand strategy agency Concept Bureau can build your culture-leading brand.
My LinkedIn, Instagram and TikTok where I post my ideas daily.
My public speaking, and how I can be on your stage.
Causal statements, eg lightning causes fire or God causes lightning, are both defined as mythological thought. These may appear to be facts but they're actually the basis for mythology.
We are flooded, drowning in mythological fact, it infects everything. News, history, biography.
Brands built on narratives of personal responsibility, incremental progress, or individual sacrifice may increasingly feel out of step with how people now imagine salvation--- Jasmine Bina, 2026.
I find this observation of yours apt, Jasmine. I understand the concern that ethical brands have about artificial intelligence and its far-reaching consequences. It is in this area that I defer to your comprehensive worldview in cultural futurism, Ms. Bina.
Thank you for this article. I appreciate it a lot.