Feeding the Future in the Shadow of the Hippopotamuses.

This article is excerpted from the book Le Déméter 2025 – Nourrir 2050 : de la fiction à la réalité (IRIS Éditions, 2025), edited by Sébastien Abis.

---

Sometimes, to remember the future, we must understand when to pause at a pivotal year: 2025 certainly invites us to do so, even though we might argue that visibility into the future and its variations is currently quite limited. To attempt to characterize the state of the contemporary world, we must observe the dominance of the present moment, betting on the power of unprecedented metaphorical concepts to grasp its peculiarities. Let us take this bet, so that we may move forward along the preordained thread of the coming years, because one strategic constant awaits us: nourishment.

The Geopolitical Time of Hippos

Despite promises of a less excessive century and widespread commitments to development for all, the assessment of the first quarter is more than enough to raise doubts. Inter-social and international pacification is failing to gain ground globally, inequalities of all kinds persist or are once again deepening, and while planetary limits are well known[1], the overall course of the world is such that efforts to slow down specific unsustainable dynamics struggle to counteract the unbearable. We must continue mitigation efforts but also fully embrace the necessity of managing the inevitable: adaptation. While these considerations primarily apply to climate and future living conditions on Earth, we must not underestimate the geopolitical ruptures currently unfolding. In this realm, too, change is accelerating. Everything is speeding up, everything is interwoven, everything is colliding – within this volatile sphere of international relations.

It is the age of the hippos: fierce, fast, polygamous. After the butterfly effect of the 1990s – when events could ripple across countries or sectors months later, especially as globalization was championed alongside its corollary of narrative surpluses, embodied in the expression “global village” – the early 21st century was marked by American hyperpower and its hubris, as well as the spectacular resurgence of China.

For China, whose ravenous appetite became undeniable after the 2008 global financial crisis, the goal was to assert its ambitions in an unapologetic yet controlled manner. Keeping a close watch on Beijing’s internal dynamics – seizing the reins of global power without ever losing grip on domestic stability – was paired with heightened vigilance over the world’s growing awareness of planetary limits.

The question then arose: what metaphor best captures Sino-globalization? A pachyderm in a porcelain world.

This geopolitical era faded with the arrival of Covid-19, a pandemic originating in China, which trapped most of the global population in a single phone call. At the end of this vast collective emotion, with its terribly heterogeneous realities, the geopolitical shift is brutal. Economic volatility and political paralysis, inflation of the cost of living, shocks to sovereignty, national selfishness, and uninhibited aspirations, wars of yesterday reemerging, conflicts intensifying or budding, climate conditions spiraling out of control, human despair and violence undermining trust, artificial intelligence thriving at a time when doubts about the benefits of democracy grow and populisms stir the storm. The list could be longer, all of these troubles giving the impression of navigating through a thick fog. We are now in the age of the hippos. Since the sky is heavy and the mist dense, let’s take a detour through the floodplains and marshes.

If we adhere to its Greek etymology, our hippos appear rather peaceful. Calm in their stillness, contemplative in their fixed gazes, they exude an air of benign serenity rather than aggression. Despite their long canines – lethal weapons that would deter even the boldest dental surgeon – we often feel a certain affection for this semi-aquatic mammal. This is not to say it should not be protected, but human suffering should never take precedence over animal well-being. Yet the hippo, though seemingly endearing, is also to be feared – unpredictable and fiercely protective when its movements are disturbed or its territory violated. Weighing several tons and stretching multiple meters, it stands out not only for its sheer size but above all for its extreme unpredictability. It is terrifyingly fierce. While it claims fewer human lives than the infamous mosquito or even the supposedly friendly dog, this “water horse” is still a top predator. It moves with surprising speed – at velocities comparable to an elite athlete, despite its massive weight – and possesses an arsenal of formidable survival tools: remarkable lung capacity, skin naturally resistant to external threats such as sunlight, insects, and parasites, the ability to hold its breath underwater for extended periods, and an anatomy akin to a submarine. With eyes, nostrils, and ears positioned like a discreet periscope above the water’s surface while the rest of its sleek, dark body remains submerged, it is as elusive as it is imposing.

We could go on describing this giant, whose charm is perhaps more imagined than real. But one final and essential element must be added to our zoopolitical puzzle: the hippo is polygamous. The dominant, phallocentric male enjoys the company of two to three dozen females, and it is not uncommon for two males to engage in brutal battles over mating rights – sometimes to the death. A surprising mammal, full of contradictions: humans either poach it or admire its massive frame; its placid demeanor in water conceals its violent potential; it will not hesitate to unleash its tusks at the slightest provocation – and despite being primarily herbivorous, it sometimes even eats meat.

Let’s return to geopolitics and the state of the world – a world we recognize as nervous and brutal. What contemporary parallels can we draw with these fierce, fast, and polygamous hippos? Intensification, acceleration, and multi-alignment define the behavior of dominant actors, as well as those seeking dominance by leveraging a vast array of tools and strategies. International and inter-social relations are tightening. The law of the strongest is reclaiming its voice. The spirit of revenge is taking hold, and the most successful coalitions are those built on resentment – never a good sign[2].

Respect for rules is no longer the only path. Radicalism surges where freedoms are lost. The defense of interests takes precedence over coexistence. The language of international relations now skews toward distrust: precautionary, protectionist, transactional. Everything has a price. Nothing is entirely new[3], except that economic offensives are becoming sharper, more diverse, and more aggressive. And this tendency is no longer confined to states. Major digital corporations, with their vast multi-channel reach, have amassed such power that they are now key players on the geopolitical stage – both present and future[4]. As 2025 begins, it is tempting to see “Elon Trump” as the embodiment of this unpredictable, often disruptive, sometimes insulting dynamic that is increasingly shaping the grammar of human and international relations.

These relationships keep accelerating. The more time passes, the more solutions we are offered to save time – yet we keep searching for more, as if we are constantly chasing after it. Are we being overtaken by the acceleration of the world and its structural transformations? The hierarchy of power is evolving faster than expected[5], vulnerabilities are emerging in some places, and new forces are revealing themselves elsewhere. The fragility of life persists, yet some are contemplating transhumanism as a means to conquer death. Meanwhile, geography and climate – once our guiding compasses – are now confounding us. We brace ourselves on a volcano.

To save the planet, drastic adjustments must be made immediately to steer the inevitable transitions toward long-term sustainability. But in this era of green transition, will we choose sobriety, or will old rivalries resurface? The risk is high that it will be perceived as a luxury concern of the wealthy – worse, that it will be bearable only for a privileged few or imposed by force. Let us not assume that the only new class struggle will be environmental. Geoengineering hints at future conflicts: stealing clouds from one’s neighbor to ensure rain falls on one’s own land will not be a technology accessible to all, and this techno-solutionism will have profound consequences for global climatic balances. The geopolitical map of nations racing to dominate this field should not be overlooked[6]. This is just one example of the many new fragmentations in a world shaped by unequal access to scientific power – often with military origins. Many contemporary geopolitical tensions share this underlying dynamic, such as the increasingly intense competition for microprocessors, exposing the strategic maneuvers of multiple powers and the conflicts they generate[7].

Fierceness, velocity – but also polygamy, as we said of our formidable hippos. The same applies to international relations, where the concept of multi-alignment has become fashionable to describe nations that prioritize their essential needs above all else, openly embracing strategic pragmatism through multidirectional foreign policies. The number of partners is irrelevant, as is whether these partners are allies or adversaries in turn – pragmatism reigns supreme. Thus, the diversification of relationships and their heterogeneity expands: circumstantial, contingent, performative, temporary, recyclable, disposable – or methodical, tactical, and shrewd. The goal is not to please or to build long-term alliances; rather, relationships are seen as means to an end, and preferably a swift one.

The logic of rigid blocs is dissolving. Alliances are increasingly ephemeral. Infidelity is no longer hidden; it is openly embraced. Affinities may exist, but they remain precarious. In the age of hippos – marked by instability and hardness—one must be strong, agile, resilient, but also intuitive, committed, and detached. In other words, one must master one’s own destiny – and de-risk all relationships.

For Europe, Stick Your Head in the Sand, Partner Up More, or Disappear

To question Europe’s role in this destabilizing sequence, we might propose the idea of “multi-hippopolarity.” This concept refers to the ability – or lack thereof – of both state and private actors to balance their polished support for multilateralism (cooperation) with the reality of multipolarity (competition). How can they manage tensions or navigate conflicts in this environment? This also involves practicing “hippo-diplomacy” – developing a narrative that balances values and interests to influence current and future strategic affairs. It’s about forging eclectic relationships without being their sole driver, all while acknowledging that commitments will no longer be formally respected. Combining multi-hippopolarity and hippo-diplomacy could lead to “reversed hippo-thermia,” where a rapid and brutal geopolitical escalation could occur, causing the planet’s fever to rise. One certainty remains: if there’s no “planet B” for climate change, there’s also no backup in case of social or international overheating. This presents the main challenge of the century: to invest in sustainability, we cannot afford to go into the red.

Let’s hypothesize: should the European Union (EU) ignore the deep global transformations unfolding and stick its head in the sand like an ostrich? Or should it gradually grow stronger, becoming more adaptable to this new reality?[8] Should it slow down at this crucial crossroads, where some are even considering going backward?

In this whirlwind of strategic changes, Europe’s democracies are undeniably shaken. They are unaccustomed, or no longer accustomed, to dealing with unpredictability, aggression, and speed. Some of Europe’s strengths – like cooperation – are being undermined by the collapse of compromise[9], political disinformation, and the emotional volatility of the moment. Europe is hearing the drums of war at its borders and is rediscovering the shadow of conflict[10]. In this context, even the slightest shock is hard to absorb. Our democracies, wary of risk, struggle to provide a clear future path, even as many people around the world still see Europe as a beacon for the long term. But even here, the movements are multipolar. South Africa hosts as many African migrants as all EU countries combined. India’s population is growing due to the displacement of its neighbors seeking refuge from insecurity. The world is in motion, yet we are building more walls – both physical and intangible – focusing more on the problems rather than their causes. The short-term imperative dominates.

Europe wonders: does it still have a place in this turbulent world? How can it nourish its trajectory toward 2050? Should it abandon its Green Pact, which was once seen as the grand vision? Can it develop sustainable competitiveness without strengthening geopolitical integration, or at least strategic autonomy – something that might only happen if EU member states become even more collective in the future? Europe has immense power in its statistics but often lacks the ability to communicate its vision. Take, for example, its reindustrialization efforts, which have barely begun and may end up taking place elsewhere, like in the United States – where conditions are more favorable and agile. Meanwhile, Europe remains sluggish, disillusioned, and detached, like a tired hippopotamus, once dominant or at least thinking it was[11], doing little to improve its fate on the world stage.

If Europe is sailing forward, it might still face disintegration due to misalignment with other global powers, especially if its modest ambitions are hampered by a lack of resources, incoherent policies, regulatory excesses that limit energy use, and strategic myopia—believing the best way to regain control is by weakening the unity of European states. The mantra has shifted: “Together to go far, but alone to go fast.” The current geopolitical trend leans toward individualism rather than collective futures. Europe’s tragedy is not failing to stand up to others; it may become its own worst enemy by forgetting the political resurgence of the second half of the 20th century, rushing, at breakneck speed, into its darkest history. If our democracies and alliances falter, Europe’s robust agricultural and food systems will collapse. Perhaps this process has already begun, wrongly named, adding to the misery of the world. This is where we must transition to the inevitable.

Feeding Cannot Wait

The inevitable is that we must feed ourselves. The unmanageable issue is whether everyone will be able to do so. On one hand, there’s the unavoidable, vital need for food; on the other, there are questions about how we will produce enough tomorrow in a world of potential instability. This paradox – the universal, unchanged need for food versus the technical, climatic, and geopolitical obstacles – has led to new territorial ambitions. Boundaries must be redrawn or conquered; behaviors are increasingly transcending established norms of international relations. At the global table, two major forces are at play: the fervor of history and the revenge of geography.

In 2025, who can predict where the world is headed? Strategic unpredictability has become so profound that our ability to see beyond the horizon is severely clouded. We are left questioning the very perspective we once relied upon to guide our actions. How can we possibly project ourselves to 2050, a date halfway between the year 2000 and the middle of the century? The acceleration of global transformations has made predictions blind. Combined with the societal panic of daily life’s urgency, we could view this moment as survivors of an overwhelming wave – the Covid-19 pandemic being the powerful catalyst. But we can also challenge this short-term tyranny, which often comes with limited geographical vision. To look ahead, we must keep our feet on the ground, confronting tomorrow and the present, but not abandoning the future and the grand trajectory. We must understand that the complexity of today and tomorrow requires a blend of experience and reflection to navigate. In other words, we must cultivate the avalanche of interdependencies that will guide us forward.

However, the current international and inter-social dynamics revolve around hardening, forcing, competing. Exaggeration, insult, and mockery have become part of the grammar of global relations. For Europe, which has long believed itself immune to such violence and has been viewed as a humanitarian beacon, this shift is a violent one. When everything is in flux, we must hold on to the invariants. When the horizon is unclear, we must stand firm in our convictions. The issues surrounding agriculture and food security intersect with these broader recommendations. And what applies to the small European peninsula applies to the global archipelago: to feed the world in 2050, we must not forget the fundamentals. The population will continue to grow, reaching 9.7 billion people by 2050 – nearly 20% more than in 2025. By mid-century, eating habits will evolve as they always have, with medical and technological innovations playing a role. However, two major risks must be watched: the first, a growing divide between those focused on feeding individuals versus feeding everyone; the second, the persistence of chronic or temporary famines in the coming decades, which will have long-term consequences, especially for children’s development[12].

Feeding the world without food security is nonsensical. Without farmers, aquaculturists, and fishermen, food production would be impossible. Science, industries, and logistics are essential to sustaining these value chains. Can we seriously expect to move forward without addressing food and agriculture’s crucial role?[13] It’s not the only priority, but it is an unwavering one. It involves geopolitical and environmental stakes on all continents, though with different conditions. On food challenges, fiction must not ignore agricultural realities[14]: limited water and land resources, contested energy sources, unstable climates, and health risks. Science and agronomy will be called upon to save us. The ocean will be seen as a potential solution for desalinating water and providing fish. Biomass will fuel a circular economy, requiring more “energiculturists.” Logistics will be even more crucial to ensure nothing is wasted. Key routes – land, sea, space – will take on greater significance.

As the metaphor of the hippo suggests, many are working hard to secure food, but perilous duels lie ahead. Will food-related conflicts emerge, whether locally, regionally, or globally? The world spends $2.5 trillion annually on military defense – how much of that could be directed toward food security? Likely much more than what’s invested in sustainable and healthy agriculture. This is a tragic illustration of a combative world – fighting not to move forward collectively but to survive separately.

Ferocity, speed, polygamy: in the face of such strategic appetites, where does thoughtful frugality take us? Under the shadow of the hippos, geopolitical, economic, and social forces are reshaping the world, fueling ambitions for 2050. These decisions, investments, and priorities will strongly influence global food security. For Europe, remembering the future means acting now for 2050, preparing with the necessary intelligence and tools to navigate its own path without isolating itself from the world around it. The danger lies in failing to project a clear future and, most importantly, not moving toward a different horizon. Otherwise, the immediacy of today will cloud our vision. The obligation is clear: never downgrade what guarantees our security – food. Feeding cannot wait, today and tomorrow.

---

[1] Sandrine Dixson-Declève et al., Earth for all/Terre pour tous. Nouveau rapport au Club de Rome (Arles : Actes Sud, 2023).

[2] Amin Maalouf, Le naufrage des civilisations (Paris : Grasset, 2019).

[3] Ali Laïdi, Histoire mondiale du protectionnisme (Paris : Passés composés, 2022).

[4] Kai-Fu Lee, AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order (Boston : Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018).

[5] Thomas Gomart, L’accélération de l’histoire. Les nœuds géostratégiques d’un monde hors de contrôle (Paris : Tallandier, 2024).

[6] Marine de Guglielmo Weber and Rémi Noyon, Le grand retournement. Comment la géo-ingénierie infiltre les politiques climatiques (Paris : Les Liens qui Libèrent, 2024).

[7] Chris Miller, Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology (New York : Simon & Schuster, 2022).

[8] Enrico Letta, Faire l’Europe dans un monde de brutes (Paris : Fayard, 2017).

[9] Laurent Berger and Jean Viard, Pour une société du compromis (La Tour-d’Aigues : L’Aube, 2024).

[10] Pascal Boniface, Guerre en Ukraine, l’onde de choc géopolitique (Paris : Eyrolles, 2023).

[11] Sébastien Abis, « Europe, globally alone », in Sébastien Abis (dir.), Le Déméter 2024. Mondes agricoles : cultiver la paix en temps de guerre (Paris : Club DEMETER – IRIS Éditions) : 15-22.

[12] « How to raise the world’s IQ », The Economist, 13 juillet 2024.

[13] See Vincent Chatelier, Martin Pidoux, Thierry Pouch and Marine Raffray (dir.), Politiques agricoles. Théories, histoires, réformes et expériences (Paris : Classiques Garnier, coll. « Bibliothèque de l’économiste », 2025 [to be published]) ; Philippe Ducroquet et Jean-Paul Charvet, Atlas de l’alimentation et des politiques agricoles. Comment nourrir la planète en 2050 ? (Paris : Éditions du Rocher, 2024) ; Julien Denormandie and Erik Orsenna, Nourrir sans dévaster. Petit précis de mondialisation – VII (Paris : Flammarion, 2024) ; and Sébastien Abis, Veut-on nourrir le monde ? Franchir l’Everest alimentaire en 2050 (Paris : Armand Colin, 2024).

[14] Liam Fox, The Coming Storm. Why Water Will Write the 21st Century (Hull : Biteback Publishing, 2024).