Methodology

This atlas mixes established facts, recent research, scenarios about the future and the opinion of its author. So that they are never confused, every text states what kind of claim it makes and what it rests on.

Levels of evidence

We use the convention of maps: a solid line marks what is certain and a dashed line what is uncertain. The line style always accompanies the name of the level, so it does not depend on color.

Consensus

The evidence is broad and specialists agree. For example, that human activity is warming the planet.

Emerging evidence

There are solid studies, but they are recent or few. The conclusion may change.

Speculative

A reasonable hypothesis that still lacks direct evidence.

Scenario

A possible future built from explicit assumptions. It is not a prediction.

Opinion, kept apart from evidence

When the author gives an opinion, the page says so. Opinions go in a block marked The author’s point of view, with the same yellow dot that marks “you” on the scale ruler. They are never mixed with the data and never change a text’s level of evidence.

Sources

We prioritize official sources (international organizations, scientific agencies, governments) and peer-reviewed papers. Every source is stored with its link, the date we accessed it and, when one exists, an archived copy so the link is not lost.

A text that is not a scenario needs at least one official or peer-reviewed source. Without one, it is not published.

Scenarios and paths

A scenario describes a possible future built from concrete decisions. It always states its assumptions and the signals that would tell us we are heading toward it. In the interactive paths, every decision is labeled ethical, unethical or ambiguous, and we explain the reasoning each time.

Sensitive topics

When we write about weapons, biology or surveillance, we stick to history, social impact, policy and governance. We do not publish procedures, protocols or technical details that could enable harm. These texts go through an extra review before publication.

Ancient knowledge

We separate the archaeological record from popular theories without support. When a myth is widely known, we explain it and show what the evidence says.

Corrections

If a text changes in a meaningful way, we note it at the end with the date and the reason. We do not quietly rewrite the past.

Privacy

This site uses no cookies and no trackers, which is why we never ask for your consent when you arrive.