What can we expect in human affairs in the future? When we look at current sociological and psychological issues, we see many things. In this article, I will discuss three that I consider important. Namely, the effects of the Uncertainty of the future and the possibility of war, the development of Automation technologies, and the change in the internal dynamics of gender Identity on us…
This text reads three separate headings linked to the same psychological axis: as uncertainty increases, the mind’s sense of ‘agency’ weakens and meaning production becomes more fragile. The possibility of war magnifies threats from the outside world, while automation shifts the ground of work and identity; gender debates, meanwhile, generate new tensions in the realm of recognition and belonging. Together, the three make the need for ‘controllability’ and ‘consistency’ most visible in mental health.
The Uncertainty Of The Future And The Possibility Of War
The Economist magazine’s “The World Ahead 2025” issue was widely discussed in the middle of the year. This is because the cover of this issue, published at the beginning of the year, symbolically depicted predictions for the year, and most of these predictions came true. It should be noted that this type of cover reading is always open to retrospective interpretation and that symbols allow for different readings; nevertheless, the common themes of the covers serve as a good mirror of the collective concerns of the period.
Now, the images of war, technology, loss of power, and control brought together on The Economist’s 2026 cover actually point to a single main question: How long can the human mind endure living in constant uncertainty? Psychologically, uncertainty is more debilitating than a concrete danger. This is because the possibility of war creates a threat file that remains constantly open in the individual’s mind; the expectation of a catastrophe that is always possible but whose timing is unknown keeps the nervous system in a state of chronic alarm.
Over time, this increases anxiety disorders, distractibility, and reluctance to invest in the future. Since the human mind is built on predictability, even the loss of control by global powers deepens the feeling that “nothing is safe.” This feeling feeds feelings of helplessness and meaninglessness, especially among the younger generation. Even if a person works, makes plans, or adapts, they are not sure if the future will respond.
The images of medicine, syringes, and technology frequently seen on the cover suggest that coping with emotional burdens is increasingly left to external interventions rather than internal resources. Individuals living under uncertainty turn to ways of suppressing or regulating their emotions rather than creating meaning. Artificial intelligence and robot figures reinforce the perception that control is moving away from humans, increasing alienation.
Ultimately, the human mind is drawn into a distant, weary, and defensive position towards both the outside world and its own future. This picture shows that psychological destruction had already occurred even before the war actually began. At this point, uncertainty is no longer confined to ‘external’ threats; as the organization of daily life rapidly changes, anxiety shifts to a more internal and persistent ground. The transformation of work, production, and decision-making processes renegotiates the routines in which the mind finds security.
Artificial Intelligence And Automation Developments
Artificial intelligence and automation challenge the human mind primarily along two axes: attention and meaning. As McKinsey’s article “Information or Wisdom?” emphasizes, what is scarce today is not data but the capacity to discern; while algorithms infinitely increase the flow of information, the mind’s ability to select and digest it is reaching a bottleneck. This fuels chronic mental noise, restlessness, and what is described as “anxious momentum,” a state of constantly rushing around while actually losing direction (McKinsey & Company, 2023).
A report on the future of work predicts that by 2030, approximately one-third of working hours could be replaced by automation, forcing millions of people to change careers. This is not just an economic issue; it directly affects one’s sense of identity. For many people, the question “What do you do?” is a shadow of the question “Who are you?” When the role of work is dissolved, the mind is confronted with feelings of uncertainty, worthlessness, and displacement. For those in low-paying, repetitive jobs, this transition can feel more like a threat of exclusion than an opportunity for empowerment, triggering a mix of anxiety, anger, and despair (McKinsey Global Institute, 2023).
The findings of the “Brave New (Business) World” reveal that behind the mass resignations lie feelings of invisibility, lack of belonging, and burnout among managers. People are looking for more than just a job; they are seeking psychological refuge: places where they feel valued, can set boundaries, and experience autonomy. In the age of artificial intelligence, the mind simultaneously carries the anxiety of “losing my place” in the face of automation and the hope of “building a more meaningful and autonomous life.”
What is decisive here is not so much the external technological transformation as whether practices that strengthen attention, awareness, and ethical compass internally—such as meditation, pausing to reflect, and setting boundaries—are used or not. In this way, the mind can move beyond being an object swept along by the flow and retain the possibility of becoming a subject that uses technology (McKinsey & Company, 2021).
The shift in job roles is not merely an economic issue; it also affects the sphere of social recognition on which the question “who am I” is based. Therefore, it is possible to think of identity debates not as separate from the topics of technology and uncertainty, but as another facet of the same mental burden.
Changing Dynamics In Gender Identities
This heading is not intended to spark a “culture war” debate; rather, it aims to show how the issue of how identity is constructed and recognized intersects with mental resilience, particularly in the digital environment.
Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity invites us to think of gender not as a fixed characteristic one possesses, but as something that is constantly performed. According to Butler, gender is not a “name” but an “action”; that is, it is related to doing, not being. This approach, particularly in Gender Trouble and the earlier text Performative Acts and Gender Constitution, is based on the idea that gender is not a natural essence derived from a biological foundation. Gender only comes into being through actions that are repeated over time, socially recognized, and regulated.
Butler draws here on J. L. Austin’s concept of “performative utterances.” Just as saying “I promise” does not describe a situation but directly performs an action, gender does not have a reality independent of the behaviors that express it. Clothing style, use of the body, gestures, ways of speaking, and forms of relating produce gender itself. Therefore, gender is not the expression of an internal essence, but a reality effect created by repeated practices.
In this context, Butler also rejects the idea that gender is a “choice.” This is because it is impossible to assume that an autonomous subject capable of making choices existed before gender. The subject itself emerges precisely through these gendered actions. The body is not a passive carrier of this process; it is a field of possibilities that is historically, culturally, and politically signified. Which actions are coded as “normal” and which as “deviant” is determined more by power relations than by individual preferences.
Therefore, the performativity of gender does not separate individual experience from its political context. The personal is always political; because every singular action reproduces or potentially disrupts the existing gender regime. Although Butler’s approach is open to criticism, particularly in discussions of trans identities and gender dysphoria, it has provided a powerful platform for contemporary thought by demonstrating that gender is not an immutable destiny but a historically constructed arrangement.
Conclusion
Uncertainty, automation, and transformations in the field of identity appear different; however, psychologically, they exert pressure from the same place: the mind’s need to foresee the future, to feel effective in its own actions, and to be recognized relationally. Where these three needs are weakened, anxiety increases, attention becomes divided, and despair is more easily organized.
From a mental health perspective, the fundamental goal may be to manage the flow of information within manageable limits, create small but real areas of control, and anchor the sense of recognition and belonging not solely in performance but in sustainable relationships.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things With Words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519–531.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. New York, NY: Routledge.
McKinsey & Company. (2023). Information vs. Wisdom.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2023). A New Future of Work.
McKinsey & Company. (2021). The Brave New Business World.
The Economist. (2025). The World Ahead 2026. London, UK.