SPLIT VISION

Two men.

One is vastly wealthier than the other, though both are immensely rich compared to most.

Despite their respective influence, both domestically and globally, they hold starkly contrasting visions for the future of the world.

One champions free speech; the other, censorship.

One advocates for fewer regulations; the other, for more.

One sees humanity as inherently good; the other views humans as the root of the planet’s problems.

Each wields their wealth to shape political landscapes, backing candidates and parties to cement their ideals in society. Their competing aspirations can be summed up as free-market democracy versus big-government bureaucracy.

Both are utopian in their visions, yet their goals diverge dramatically. One believes humanity’s salvation lies in reaching for the stars, expanding our collective consciousness through interstellar ambition, while the other insists that fixing Earth’s problems here and now must be the only priority.

Paradoxically, the man with his sights set on space is also driving innovations to improve life on Earth. His technological advancements utilize artificial intelligence to assist the neurologically impaired—but his vision flirts with transhumanism, raising fears of a dystopian future straight out of a Norman Spinrad novel.

Meanwhile, the other man seeks to reshape society by imposing restrictions on individual freedoms in the name of environmental sustainability. For him, the survival of the planet takes precedence over personal liberty.

One whispers in the ear of the 47th President-elect of the United States.

The other informs the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his party.

Which vision will ultimately prove better for the West—and the planet—in the 21st century?

Only time will tell.

In the meantime, place your bets.