The Age of Madness

The Age of Madness

April 29, 2026

Titles like The Age of Uncertainty and The Age of Unreason are not new. Authors such as Galbraith have used them before. Whether “The Age of Madness” is original, I do not know. But it does feel appropriate.

I am not referring to the madness of the day. Nor to simple nonsense. I am referring to decisions of such scale and consequence that they demand deep thinking — and where that thinking increasingly seems absent.

We see, for example, a President of the United States contemplating or engaging in military action against a country like Iran, with nearly 90 million inhabitants, without a clearly articulated end goal visible to the outside world. Closer to home, we see Prime Ministers of Curaçao and Sint Maarten speaking about far-reaching institutional changes, such as restructuring or even splitting a central bank, without a broadly developed and publicly shared strategy.

At the same time, Curaçao continues to pursue the ambition of attracting one million tourists per year, while more and more questions are being raised about whether the island’s carrying capacity — physical, ecological, and social — has already been exceeded. Here too, the end goal appears insufficiently thought through: growth as an objective in itself, without a clear perspective on limits and consequences.

The pattern is troubling: act first, think later — if at all.

Our capacity to think has not suddenly disappeared, but it is eroding. We think less, think less deeply, and think less ahead. Ideas are no longer tested but expressed and acted upon almost immediately. The first thought that comes to mind increasingly prevails over the best possible thought.

At the same time, artificial intelligence is developing rapidly. AI can analyze, structure, and generate alternatives in ways that are becoming harder for many people to match. Yet instead of using AI as a tool to enhance our thinking, we seem to be allowing it to replace it.

Therein lies a paradox. As AI becomes better at thinking, our own capacity to think continues to erode. And what is not used, weakens.

As I finish writing this, I am reminded of a video a friend once sent me about our future with AI. The optimistic scenarios — where humans and technology reinforce each other — seem increasingly unlikely. It is becoming more plausible that we gradually hand over the act of thinking itself.

The question is not whether AI will think. It already does.

The question is whether we will continue to do so.

Miguel Goede