Future governance and new technologies with the presence of the Shahin Sharghi

Emerging Technologies and the Future of Governance

Mehdi Motaharnia: Can the state operate in a new form globally in future governance?

Sharghi: We don’t really have a state in the true sense. The critics of the system are often the system’s own officials. In many sectors, the head of one branch comments against another part of the system. Whoever controls artificial intelligence governs the entire world. Perhaps the dangerous future is one in which all humans live as slaves to a machine system controlled by a small technocratic elite.

Mehdi Motaharnia: We are robots created by our creator, and we have rebelled against Him.

Sharghi: Humans are the creators of machines, and if there is public awareness, there will be public control. Nothing is more fundamental, worthy, or necessary than education.

Mehdi Motaharnia: We need to increase the dignity coefficient of society and expand the knowledge of the people.

Sharghi: I think we have much more immediate issues that need solving.

Mehdi Motaharnia: You say we live in a time of electricity imbalance, and our president tells people to fan themselves.

Sharghi: Technology will be pioneering and will awaken people, but once awake, the second step will be the basic needs: hunger, heat, thirst.

Mehdi Motaharnia: Will meat be the same price in autumn as it is now? I say no; it will at least double.

Sharghi: If we move two or three years forward and the default conditions aren’t realized but change, what should we do? These issues are not accounted for in the plans. They exist on paper, approved by the parliament and other institutions, but are not implementable. So what kind of planning is this? Let’s move past this question.

In one program, when Mehdi Motaharnia asked about future leadership, I said it’s better to remain silent. We must focus on how the future is built—a future in the 21st century, alongside artificial intelligence, in a space I believe in, even beyond belief: the artificial spirit space is beginning. The AI world initially culminates in what I call the artificial soul. The end times are ahead; the generation of people sitting together today will soon witness other beings: robots that think, fused with AI, approaching humans, and the hybrid cyber-human era will showcase a new generation of individuals.

The modern world is far more complex than the previous one. Today, we use new technologies that enhance our capabilities. Time is no longer just 24 hours. In the past, as a researcher, I had to travel from my city, Kashan, to Tehran, sit in the library of the University of Tehran or the Faculty of Law and Political Science to access resources for my master’s thesis.

Now, with a simple query and a click, we can access many resources. We no longer need to travel or bring Kashan pastries or rosewater to the library. But do today’s youth spend as much time exploring knowledge as before? The world of intellectual exploration has become much easier. I am now speaking on the Simorgh program with Engineer Shahin Sharghi. Engineer Sharghi studied Civil Engineering at Sharif University of Technology. The future of Iran is important to us. Sharghi, currently a PhD candidate in Future Studies, has a sharp mind and has excellently reviewed futures studies. We will talk about the architecture of the future with Shahin Sharghi.

Mehdi Motaharnia: My question relates from structures to systems. We will discuss emerging technologies with Engineer Sharghi. These technologies change hardware-centric infrastructures and, in the future, society will also be affected, shifting toward soft infrastructure. Emerging technologies play a major role—cognitive sciences, IoT, AI—and in this fluidity arising from these technologies, whether in communication or other domains, the global society will transform. I mentioned that we are entering an era of accelerated global dynamics. What is your perspective, considering your expertise in structures, fluidity, and future thinking?

Sharghi: Governance itself is a structure plus rules and traditions—the rules of the game. Games are never uniform and are played with different tools. Old governance progressed with its tools. Just as in construction, materials have evolved—from traditional materials to composite and smart materials—cross-disciplinary consistency emerges. Similarly, in governance, what once determined rules (like swords, horses, and physical power) will now be replaced by new tools. But fundamentally, a system of management must exist to organize human life on Earth or beyond.

Tools will change, rules will change. For example, the blockchain domain initially emerged to operate without centralized trust. Trust is now public, built collectively, verified by universal zeros and ones to determine the central authority. Many said this technology would disrupt the world. Powerful stakeholders tried to influence it, but people went their own way. Bitcoin rose from a few cents to tens of thousands of dollars, showing that public views on governance and rule-making will change. We hope these tools evolve in a direction that fosters a more humane future.

Fluidity in Governance and the Generational Gap

Mehdi Motaharnia: You highlighted an excellent point. I emphasize fluidity, which not only decentralizes but accelerates change. Speed alone is insufficient; we must talk about meaningful acceleration. Decentralization is inevitable. When it occurs, individuals or small groups cannot maintain stability and dynamism. Societies must interact with others. Has our national society grasped this fluidity? How do universities reflect this? Does the education system understand this meaning? Many ridicule concepts like the artificial spirit. Even dynamic thinkers find these terms unfamiliar. I use “dynamic thinker” instead of “intellectual.” Given your experience with universities, professors, and students, how do you assess the current situation?

Sharghi: Unfortunately, there is a gap in society, partly generational, partly cognitive. The gap is between adherence to old methods and attraction to new ones. Generation Z and Alpha are entering the scene, changing rapidly, refusing old ways, highly studious and innovative. But the power structures are rigid. The education system requires major transformation. Even Tapfer criticizes the slow pace of the U.S. system compared to the acceleration of knowledge. In Iran, the gap is even larger. I worry about what Generation Z and Alpha will do when in power. This intersection of power and the new wave could be catastrophic if we are unprepared.

Mehdi Motaharnia: The storm of uncertainty exists in agency, structure, and society. Laziness and complacency hinder readiness. Future-oriented thinking and scenario planning are essential. IoT, AI, and cognitive sciences are active, with algorithms and complex computations observed in AI. Individuals are analyzed and controlled based on these analyses. The surplus of power is not purely human. What is important is whether the future world can have a state separate from this meaning. Can traditional governance continue? In international relations, a state emerges from people, territory, sovereignty, and governance. Do emerging technologies disrupt this? How will future states operate?

Sharghi: Some theorists argue that there is no true state; governance is fragmented. Critics of the system are its officials. Continuity is lacking, which poses a risk. AI is gradually creating profiles for everyone. Whoever controls AI controls the world. Borders become meaningless. Globalization waves failed to unify due to shortcomings, but technology will create new waves. Technologies can embed multiculturalism, allowing people to preserve their cultures in capsule form globally. Emerging technologies will create these conditions.

The Power of Technology and Redefining the State

Mehdi Motaharnia: The world is becoming such that individuals could become “mini-nations.” With AI and technology, everyone can potentially govern themselves. The micro-world enables unprecedented interconnectedness. Borders are fading and will likely disappear. Globalization and nationalist resistance are evolving simultaneously. Technologies accelerate globalization. How will future structures and governance features develop?

Sharghi: This requires reflection, study, and multi-dimensional discussion. In virtual worlds, each person could have a separate world or planet. The digital and physical realms will merge. Predicting this future is challenging. We need collective effort to construct a clearer picture.

Power Architecture and Technocratic Risks

Mehdi Motaharnia: Should power architecture be re-engineered? With what materials—technology, algorithms, humans, or a combination?

Sharghi: Concentration of emerging technologies for control exists within power structures. Without careful planning, humans may become slaves to a machine system controlled by a technocratic elite. But ethically driven frameworks can harness technology equitably for humanity. Education is paramount to ensure awareness and equitable distribution of digital power.

Mehdi Motaharnia: This can shift centralist governance to fluid, efficient governance. If unplanned, humans may fall under technological domination. We need prophets among robots; otherwise, rebellious AI could emerge. Fluid governance must interact with technology. Elements of time, materials, space, and language evolve, creating new governance spaces. Will this space rely on flow, algorithms, or frequencies? In the near future, brainwave communication could replace mobile devices.

Sharghi: As materials and spaces change, a wave-like, fluid, dynamic world emerges. AI may provide different answers each time, reflecting uncertainty. Blockchain demonstrated that governance, rules, and systems could be participatory and digital. Everyone can shape non-material futures collectively.

Mehdi Motaharnia: We approach the concept of invisible, distributed, and smart governance. If we remain passive, we face a new generation of highly complex colonizers—more powerful and aware than prior exploiters. Vocabulary creation is critical; restricting words limits cognition. Should we embed invisible governance within humans, or will AI create it independently?

  Listen without a filter in Castbox
 

Education: The Condition for Survival in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Mehdi Motaharnia: This point can bring a centralist governance closer to a kind of fluid governance and efficient rule. If we cannot plan and create guiding scenarios from now, humans will become slaves under the control of technology, which is not the right path for the humans of the future. When robots come, we must choose prophets among them. We are robots created by our Creator, and we rebelled against Him; likewise, we will create robots that may revolt against their creators tomorrow. If we do not prevent this, we will face a serious problem.

We need fluid governance that can operate in the give-and-take with this technological system. I use four main elements: time, material, space, and language or the subject's literature. Here, I want to discuss material and space as "environment." The current or past governance space had its own specific characteristics, but the new and future space will be different, with different material and environment. Time may remain fixed, and language may not change; they may still employ the same state, governance, and rule, but this space will change. Will this space rely on flow? On algorithms? Which features will be more observable and likely to emerge? Will the future world be a world of frequencies? We will see this fluidity in frequencies, in flows, in algorithms, and in technologies that may, to put it in my terms, even make us abandon conductors and celebrate the “death of the conductor” in media. In a few years, mobile phones may not be necessary, as communications will be established through brain frequencies.

Sharghi: What happens in a space where material or environment changes is that it becomes a world of waves, a fluid, a flowing world. Even algorithms, as they are currently known, may fail. If you ask the AI the same question twice, it will give two different answers, showing its uncertainty.

Mehdi Motaharnia: Systemic thinking must be institutionalized.

Sharghi: Exactly. When blockchain technology appeared years ago, it was not technologically complex, and in terms of productivity, it did not have a major impact. But it changed a mindset: governance, rule-making, and system design could be for all humans. Everyone could participate collectively by controlling the codes and create a system. So, it gave hope that future governance systems could be digital and human-centered with collective participation. It also gave hope that everyone could participate in creating a non-material future and play a role.

Mehdi Motaharnia: We reach an invisible, intelligent, distributed government. This government can either dominate us or serve us; both are possible. If we remain passive and cannot surpass the AI or the flow, in other words, if we are not ahead of time but exist within time and are guided by them, we will face a new generation of colonizers, far more complex and powerful than previous exploiters. We will have dictators far more dominant and alert.

I always say that we need neologism creation. You mentioned that AI can break dominant algorithms and provide two solutions to one question. The key is: what solutions can shape the human mind for future governance and escape this dominance? I have thought about this many times and tried it, and I believe one of the sciences of the future must be neologism creation. If people limit their vocabulary, they come under its control, unless they can be ahead of it. Should we create the invisible government within humans themselves? Since you are familiar with blockchain and AI, or will they form this invisible government from now?

I remember saying that three of these linked together created a new language that allows them to communicate without letting those dependent on producers and creators understand. This is very dangerous. For those who act passively, it becomes difficult. What is your opinion on how we can activate people in this regard? We must plan and educate generations Z, Alpha, and Beta. We must prepare individuals aged 3–30 for this world so that they do not succumb to the dominance of new colonizers.

Sharghi: If you ask me, if in our world or country we could only do one excellent, worthy, and essential thing, what would it be? I would speak of education. Nothing is more necessary, primary, and essential than education. How is it possible to implement and carry out education? Considering the forms of domination, it is our duty, at minimum, to do this. If education flows for Generation Z, for future generations, and the general public, humans will naturally be the creators of machines. Public awareness ensures public control. It is due to ignorance that a few individuals can create digital power and govern the world. But if general awareness exists, there are numerous ways for counteraction and distribution; the foundation is awareness.

Everyday or Future Technology Issues?

Mehdi Motaharnia: Engineering societies speak briefly, put precise propositions together, and conclude quickly. Talking to an engineer about such issues at length is difficult, and I tried to do it; it was an exercise for me.

We must accept that IA, hybrid technologies, and many technological achievements can affect the power structure, not only in Iran but globally, and their impacts on Iran are inevitable. What is your opinion?

Sharghi: I think we have more immediate issues to solve in cultural, social, political matters. Many people have abundant everyday problems and may not focus on technology and the future. People need innovative thinking to address fundamental life questions. I believe Iran’s future will initially be shaped by cultural, social, political, and economic issues, and only later technology comes into play. Technology is influential and always present, but right now, people’s needs are at the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. We must start there.

Technological Acceleration and the Need for a Hybrid Perspective

Mehdi Motaharnia: I agree that the Islamic Republic has a heavy structure that prioritizes many of the issues you mentioned, but the speed of technological impact is so high that it can overshadow them. So, one of my questions was whether the starting point is technology’s effects or cultural-political issues. Your answer clarified part of this. But can we ignore the rapid effects of technology? In Think Tank 12, we considered 12 driving forces.

Technology leads global changes. While I agree with your perspective considering Iran’s current situation and people’s position, I also view it from a different angle and central perspective. We live in a difficult situation; people have immediate issues, and if these overwhelm us, we cannot progress. Thus, future-thinking compels us to adopt a hybrid view. In development theories like Mardanazian’s J-curve, the key is to fix internal issues. Western models came later, Marxists like Lenin introduced imperialism, neo-Marxists emphasized both internal and external issues. But fundamentally, external issues are critical. We were left behind, not backward. Development self-centric theories say when we should have progressed, we failed to align ourselves with global experiences.

The concern is focusing on internal issues contrary to neo-Marxists who emphasized external matters. Currently, our focus is on internal matters. IA is coming, and I believe the AI era is starting soon. Remember the “Death Cube” of languages I mentioned? You saw the reactions. Now, languages and speech across the world can be translated into 60 living languages instantly. Can we talk about cultural similarity, cultural invasion, or interactive structures to learn from other cultures and AI? At my think tank, we continuously discuss this. You are an engineer, so political-social issues matter; I address political-social aspects while recognizing that technology is influential.

I agree with Sharghi’s point about more immediate issues. We live in times of energy imbalance. The president said, “Use your fan to cool yourself.” I intentionally kept my air conditioner off to save electricity for Sistan and Baluchestan residents. People might argue to use more electricity, but I think of children in Sistan, Baluchestan, and Bushehr; life would be hard without electricity. Shouldn’t we have a hybrid perspective? Do you agree?

Sharghi: From your perspective, I agree. Perhaps we can think in feedback loops, like devices influencing each other, one pulls the other forward, and so on.

Interaction Between Biological Needs and Technology

Mehdi Motaharnia: They interact.

Sharghi: Right. Waves of information and technology penetrate everywhere and awaken minds to global happenings. Technology leads and wakes people. But once awake, immediate needs arise: hunger, warmth, water, thirst. Once these needs are met, thinking resumes about future building. So, as you said, this forward-backward dynamic proceeds in a process, influencing each other; driving forces impact society together.

Smartness and Pluralism in Future Governance

Mehdi Motaharnia: Smart structures will expand in societies. Eventually, like past technologies we misused, they will arrive. I remember 1994, when I first received a mobile phone. In the future, cities will be smart. Can they accept centralized governance? Technology promotes pluralism; if we ignore it, can we maintain unity? In my Simorgh school paradigm, I said we must change the paradigm: plurality in unity and unity in plurality. Smart technologies create single-user, knowledge-based identities, and plurality overcomes rigid unity.

If ignored, can plurality be turned into unity? Old structures won’t collapse suddenly. Does current and future governance in Iran consider this? Some say humanities is Western; engineers follow rules. We must integrate engineers and humanities with IA. Your thoughts?

Sharghi: Engineering tends to binary logic and cannot manage the human life spectrum. Motivation to study humanities among engineers increases. Many friends study psychology, cognition, and prepare for this space. Think tanks play a crucial role. Simorgh think tank focuses on future-thinking; think tanks illuminate aspects from various perspectives. Governments cannot provide vast information to people, so think tanks’ role is vital. Networks of think tanks could create a collective defense for people’s future life.

Mehdi Motaharnia: Last year, in the House of Humanities Scholars, we had two monthly sessions; we could not reach many audiences, so we moved to YouTube. Sharghi noted that virtual space dominates this parallel reality. I called it parallel reality in 2011; now it will dominate, influencing future society.

Hence, priority in future governance in Iran is people’s daily issues: can they secure flour in six months? Last year I noted meat prices will double in autumn. Many major issues arise; national currency value fluctuates. Even if agreements happen, expectations rise faster than currency. Infrastructure is unprepared for managing this. Enemies, like in Saudi Arabia, question everything and even make unprecedented accusations.

Sharghi: We can use technology, but focus should be on addressing people’s primary needs first: economy, media, virtual space, environment, natural resources, water. AI helps, but issue prioritization and visualization must be clear to everyone; it provides hope and guidance.

Foresight and Future Studies

Mehdi Motaharnia: Vision writing in future studies must involve public participation. People must feel involved, not just see expensive celebrations. Iran’s 1404 plan lacked scientific foresight. Can a leader alone write a vision? Vision writing needs strategy, tactics, techniques, cosmology, epistemology, nuclear understanding, societal theories, and current realities. Universities rarely teach this. Students now seek comprehension, not certificates. Can future governance rely on this output?

Sharghi: A vision cannot succeed without shared public hope. The 1404 plan lacked foresight and flexibility. Strategic planning exists in management disciplines, but future-oriented planning considers uncertainty and multiple possible futures. Today’s apple may become storage, a cluster system, or something else. Strategic foresight allows adaptation and preparedness. People must feel solutions exist.

Mehdi Motaharnia: Iranians resist imposed solutions and innovate. Past visions, like 1382 and 1404, did not materialize. Future-oriented paradigm thinking, integrating foresight and epistemology, must encourage creativity. Society and youth must have courage to reproduce, innovate, and dream. They should know parallel realities and blockchain.

Engineering future governance requires understanding mobile, fluid environments; otherwise, structures will collapse like castles on sand. Basic survival needs must be met before higher-level civilization.

Indicators for Future Governance Engineering

Mehdi Motaharnia: Considering today’s energy scarcity, what are the three main indicators for engineering future governance?

Sharghi: First, open-access society, providing opportunity, justice, and free information. Second and third follow naturally: competition, political freedom. Open-access society enables further reforms.

Human-Centered, Technology-Centered, or Multi-Faceted Approach?

Mehdi Motaharnia: Data, knowledge, dialogue. Should governance be human-centered, technology-centered, or hybrid?

Sharghi: I view it multi-dimensionally. Using my “Future Cube” method, six perspectives allow us to analyze phenomena, like having six eyes instead of two. Multi-dimensional analysis creates advanced, non-linear governance with interdependent factors.

Message to Youth: Adaptability to Change

Mehdi Motaharnia: One sentence for Iranian youth about future governance?

Sharghi: Keep your mind flexible. Change is the only constant. Edit past thoughts, allow new ideas to flow, apply critical thinking, create new models

The complete file of the conversation between Mahdi Motehernia and Shahin Sharghi.