Trump’s “Excellent Health” and the Problem with POTUS47 Presidential Medicine

Presidential medical disclosures are always political documents. They are tightly managed, selectively released, and historically unreliable. Under Donald Trump, that credibility problem is even worse: we have a documented pattern of exaggerated claims and outright fabrication around his health, including a doctor admitting that Trump dictated his own glowing 2015–16 letter about being the “healthiest individual ever elected.” doctorzebra.com

So when MedPage Today offers a reassuring “year in review” of Trump’s health, it’s not just summarizing neutral facts. It’s amplifying a narrative built on partial, politically filtered information.

This post looks at what the MedPage piece says, and then compares it with what’s actually visible in public and in the broader reporting.

---

What MedPage Says

The MedPage Today article essentially makes these points:

• Trump, nearly 80, has had two workups at Walter Reed this year (including an MRI), but nothing “concerning” was found.

• He’s been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency (CVI), a common vein condition that causes leg swelling, and his hand bruising is attributed to frequent handshakes and long-term aspirin use. Reuters

• His annual physical reportedly shows well-controlled hypertension and otherwise “excellent health.”

• He has taken the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) three times (2018 and twice this year) and claims perfect scores every time.

• Two geriatric experts quoted by MedPage say that:

  • His fatigue and occasional dozing off are normal for someone his age with a heavy schedule.

  • His energy and ability to “run things on the fly” suggest preserved cognitive function.

  • They see “no evidence” of dementia based on public appearances.

• One expert explicitly contrasts Trump favorably with Joe Biden, arguing that Biden has shown clearer attention and focus problems, while Trump has “always” been bombastic, so his behavior doesn’t look like a change.

In short: the article portrays Trump as an unusually vigorous near-octogenarian whose visible issues are routine aging, not signs of serious decline.

---

Problem #1: This White House Has Lied About His Health Before

The foundation is already cracked. We know Trump’s camp has falsified health information in the past:

• Trump’s longtime physician Harold Bornstein later admitted that Trump himself dictated the famously over-the-top 2015 letter about his “astonishingly excellent” health and “extraordinary” lab results. doctorzebra.com

• Recent White House and physician statements continue the same pattern: he is in “excellent” or “exceptional” health, with golf victories cited as evidence, and every cognitive test characterized as “perfect.” New York Post

When your baseline is fabricated press-release medicine, any article that simply builds on those releases without visible skepticism is starting from a compromised record.

---

Problem #2: Chronic Venous Insufficiency Is Common – But the Spin Matters

MedPage and other outlets correctly note that chronic venous insufficiency is common in older adults and often manageable with compression, leg elevation, and activity. PBS

Fair enough.

But then the White House repeatedly uses that benign diagnosis to explain away visible signs (leg swelling, bruises) while insisting Trump is otherwise in “excellent health” and not in discomfort. Reuters

Independent medical sources point out important nuances that get glossed over:

• CVI is indeed common, but it is progressive and can lead to serious complications (ulcers, skin breakdown) if not managed well. Scientific American

• Bruising on the hands is not a typical symptom of CVI. Experts note that it is more plausibly related to long-term high-dose aspirin and fragile skin. Scientific American

That doesn’t mean Trump is secretly dying. It does mean the “nothing to see here” tone is unwarranted, especially in light of his long-term, self-directed aspirin regimen that a cardiologist openly called “medically unsound” for someone his age. New York Post

---

Problem #3: Cognitive Tests as Political Theater

MedPage leans on Trump’s repeated MoCA tests and self-reported perfect scores as reassurance.

But several facts undercut that comfort:

• The MoCA is a screening tool for cognitive impairment, not an IQ test or a demonstration of superior intellect. It’s designed to catch obvious problems, not subtle decline.

• Trump himself routinely misrepresents it as a “very hard IQ test” in public, bragging about “acing” it and challenging critics to take it, which neurologists and reporters have repeatedly noted is a misunderstanding of what the test is. People.com

• Repeating the same or similar cognitive screening multiple times and boasting about it is unusual behavior in itself, especially when weaponized as a political talking point.

The key point: a clean MoCA does not mean “no issues.” It just means he cleared a fairly coarse screen at the time he took it.

---

Problem #4: “He Looks Fine on TV” Is Not a Diagnosis

MedPage’s quoted experts are working only from public appearances. They explicitly have no access to Trump’s actual medical record or a direct exam. That already limits what they can say.

Meanwhile, a growing body of public evidence is at least concerning:

• Trump’s speeches have drawn mainstream coverage for rambling, looping thought patterns and difficulty staying on a coherent track, with PBS noting that his rhetoric has raised serious questions about possible mental decline. PBS

• There are multiple documented episodes of slurred speech (famously at the 2017 Jerusalem speech closing line, among others), which the White House has alternately attributed to “dry mouth” or dental issues. Quartz/ABC News

• High-visibility gaffes (“Yo-Semites” for Yosemite, struggles with common words like “acetaminophen,” etc.) have been widely reported and analyzed, not just mocked. The Economic Times

• In 2025 alone, major outlets have chronicled a pattern of Trump nodding off in meetings and public events, and a visible tightening of his schedule—fewer public appearances, shorter days—framed explicitly as a response to concerns about his stamina. Vanity Fair/Politico

• One recent computational linguistics study found a notable shift in Trump’s language patterns after the 2024 shooting, suggesting a measurable cognitive change, even if not diagnostic by itself. PsyPost - Psychology News

Again: none of this proves dementia. But it absolutely contradicts the idea that there is “no evidence” of any cognitive change. There is evidence. The debate is over what it means.

At minimum, the reality is contested enough that categorical reassurance is not justified.

---

Problem #5: Activity Level ≠ Cognitive Health

MedPage’s experts repeatedly point to Trump’s “remarkable schedule,” travel, and ability to crash into meetings and run them as evidence that he cannot have dementia.

That is a very low bar.

• Many people with early cognitive decline can remain highly functional in familiar routines, especially with staff support, teleprompters, and curated events.

• Conversely, people with serious underlying conditions sometimes maintain outward productivity until they suddenly don’t. History is full of leaders whose health was far worse than the public realized while they kept up demanding schedules.

When a White House also admits it has shortened his days and reduced his visibility, “he keeps a busy schedule” becomes even weaker as a reassurance. Politico

---

Problem #6: The Asymmetry with Biden Coverage

One of the more striking parts of the MedPage piece is the favorable comparison to Joe Biden: Biden’s visible lapses and the disastrous debate are cited as worrisome, while Trump is portrayed as essentially unchanged.

It’s true that serious reporting has now documented a sustained and systemic effort to downplay Biden’s decline, and that his debate performance in 2024 was a genuine turning point. New York Post

But that’s exactly why Trump’s situation deserves at least the same level of scrutiny:

• If Biden’s team’s spin on his health was rightly called out, Trump’s team’s spin—backed by an even longer record of embellished and fabricated health claims—must be interrogated just as aggressively. TIME

• Treating Trump’s MoCA brags and glowing Walter Reed summaries as more trustworthy, when we already know some past health letters were literally dictated by him, is indefensible.

You don’t fix one partisan health cover-up by accepting a different partisan health narrative at face value.

---

So What Do We Actually Know?

Putting it all together:

• Trump has a real, common condition (chronic venous insufficiency) that explains some visible leg swelling but not all of his symptoms. PBS/Scientific American

• He has a long-term, unusually high-dose aspirin habit likely contributing to bruising, which experts have criticized as bad practice for a man his age. New York Post

• He has repeatedly taken a basic cognitive screen and uses it as a political prop, while mischaracterizing what it measures. New York Post

• There is abundant public footage and reporting of slurred speech, odd phrasing, confusion, and dozing, as well as a visible tightening of his schedule—enough to make concern reasonable, even if we can’t diagnose him from afar. TIME/PBS/Quartz

• His health disclosures come from a political operation with a proven track record of exaggeration and dishonesty around his medical status. doctorzebra.com/The Guardian

Given that, the cautious, reality-based conclusion is:

We do not have enough reliable information to say Trump is either “fine” or “failing.” What we do have is enough contradictory evidence, and enough reason to distrust official spin, that reassuring profiles like MedPage’s should be read as glosses on a political narrative — not as medical truth.

If the press has finally learned to be skeptical of sanitized health stories about one president, it has to apply that lesson consistently. The public deserves honest, critical coverage of Trump’s health too, not just another round of “perfect exam, perfect test” headlines that we’ve seen before and already know we cannot simply take at face value.

Since we cannot go off of officially supplied medical information about our president, we have to look at it in the face of publicly available observation and information.

Since we cannot rely on officially supplied medical information about our president—given its history of political filtering, exaggeration, and selective disclosure—we are left to assess his health through publicly observable behavior, credible reporting, and independently verifiable information. 

That does not mean diagnosing from afar; it means refusing to accept curated narratives at face value and acknowledging that transparency, accountability, and honesty matter when a head of state’s capacity to serve is at stake.

When we step back and look only at what has been plainly visible — Trump’s repeated slurred speech, erratic and looping delivery, moments of confusion, physical stiffness and swelling, public episodes of fatigue, and his own fixation on constantly “proving” his cognitive strength — the picture is not reassuring. 

Without assigning a diagnosis or predicting outcomes, a reasonable conclusion is unavoidable: his health is not the picture of effortless vigor his team insists it is, and there are legitimate signs of decline that deserve honest scrutiny rather than spin. 

In a democracy, the public has the right to clear, truthful information about the condition of the person seeking to wield extraordinary power, and the gap between Trump’s rhetoric and observable reality remains deeply concerning.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

A Book I Couldn’t Finish – And How It Taught Me About Truth, Authority, and Conspiracy Thinking

I was raised with a deep respect for books. That came from my grandmother, who believed that reading wasn’t just entertainment; but was also a moral act. 

She told me early on: 

“Before you start a book, consider it carefully, because you are committing to finish it.”

And I honored that. Through a lifetime of reading far above average, I’ve left only a handful of books in my lifetime, unfinished. Literally, four or five. When I do, it isn’t casual. It means a trust has been broken.

One of those rare unfinished books was General William Westmoreland’s memoir, A Soldier Reports, written after his military career to explain, justify, and defend his role in the Vietnam War. When I picked it up in the late 1970s, I fully intended to finish it. I respected the office, the burden of command, the enormity of history pressing down on him. I gave him enormous leeway. I was open to nuance, rationalization, defensiveness. Trauma does that to a writer; I understood.

But as I read deeper, something in my mind shifted.

It wasn’t that I disagreed with him. Disagreement is natural. It wasn’t even that he tried to justify his choices; every leader does that to some extent. What disturbed me, and ultimately stopped me, was when his narrative drifted away from reality itself.

As I'm writing this I'm watching a documentary on Netflix, COVER-UP.  I'm about 30 minutes into it and the reporter says: "The whole army ran on body count. You measure success by how many kills you have. Westmoreland needed numbers. And so how do you get the kind of body count you want? You had to go into places like My-Lai and tell them that everybody there is a Viet Cong. Kill everybody."

That's, madness.

He's talking about the My-Lai Massacre incident where soldier slaughter an entire village of civilians, including children. I remember when it happened and it had massive news coverage. But not until this journalist tracked the story down. Fascinating documentary so far. 

I had read widely. Since I was young, and I was at the time in the USAF with a secret security clearance. I knew the historical record, the reporting, the complexities, the moral ambiguities. Yet near the latter part of the book, I watched Westmoreland confidently build a world where facts bent to ideology, where uncomfortable truths were replaced with explanatory fantasies, where victory had been possible if only others hadn’t betrayed it, misunderstood it, distorted it. It wasn’t analysis anymore; it was an alternate psychological universe. Even in my early 20s I could recognize something wrong in a very well-seasoned soldier, and a General, with war experience, had jumped the shark.

And that was when I learned something essential about conspiracy thinking.

For notes on Conspiracy Theories:

Guide to researching conspiracy theories and mystery topics (University of Minnesota LibGuide)

For more approachable, practical guidance for (easy to use for a general audience):

PBS NewsHour Classroom: Conspiracy Theory and misinformation resources

It does not always come from the fringe. It does not always look like insanity. Sometimes it comes dressed in medals, authority, dignity, reputation, and the steady voice of a man who believes completely in his own story. Sometimes it comes not from delusion, but from the human need to protect pride, identity, ego, and worldview from collapse. Sometimes it isn’t born of madness at all, but of refusal.

That realization stayed with me. I didn’t finish the book. That decision wasn’t rebellion against authority; it was loyalty to reality.

I also didn't buy what he was selling. In researching his beliefs I came across the concept of conspiracy theory and rather than leap right down into that rabbit hole of a conspiracy itself, I studied the concept of conspiracy theory itself. And that, is the primary difference I see between those seemingly inured to falling victim to it and so many misguided conspiracy theorists, today. 

Beyond knowledge and critical thinking, what really protects people from falling into conspiracy belief is the human foundation beneath their thinking. People who feel connected to real communities, who have purpose, emotional resilience, and a sense of belonging grounded in everyday life are far less likely to need conspiratorial narratives to make sense of the world. 

Conspiracies thrive where trust collapses, where loneliness or alienation take hold, and where ego needs validation through “secret truth” identities. Humility, the ability to tolerate uncertainty, engagement with art and meaningful work, exposure to different people and ideas—these create an anchor in lived reality. When our emotional, social, and existential needs are met in healthy ways, the seductive pull of grand, simplifying falsehoods loses much of its power.

And it is important to acknowledge something honestly: conspiracies do exist. History has proven that powerful people and institutions sometimes lie, coordinate in secret, and abuse authority. But real conspiracies are rarely the omnipotent, world-controlling forces many people imagine. They tend to be smaller, messier, driven by greed, incompetence, or short-term advantage, and they almost always collapse eventually. 

Secrets leak. People talk. Evidence surfaces. The larger and more elaborate a supposed conspiracy is, the less likely it is to survive reality. Healthy skepticism means questioning power while remaining grounded in evidence, not surrendering to fantasy.

Do not buy into a conspiracy until you understand where it came from, what it is actually claiming, and what you are really embracing beyond its surface idea. Many of these narratives are interconnected; one belief leads to another, and before you realize it, you are deep in a rabbit hole of manufactured nonsense. That is how we ended up with Trumpism, MaGA culture, and a whole ecosystem of unstable, shape-shifting “belief communities” built on anything but reality.

From Catholicism to Critical Reverence

I grew up Catholic. I served as head altar boy. I lived inside ritual, authority, certainty, and sacred structures. Eventually, I stepped away from that faith — not out of bitterness, but because my relationship to truth demanded it. I found myself resonating more with a Buddhist orientation toward life. Not ritual. Not cosmology. Not metaphysics. But clarity. Awareness. Responsibility for one’s own mind. A quiet reverence for reality.

Yet I never lost the sense of reverence itself. It didn’t disappear; it transformed.

Today, I hold books and musical instruments in a near-sacred category — not religiously sacred, but existentially meaningful. They represent the best of human engagement with the world.

Books are minds speaking across time. They demand honesty. They deserve sincerity. They are not disposable. Reading is an ethical act.

Musical instruments are vessels of human expression. They require care, discipline, devotion, humility. You don’t treat a violin or a guitar like a tool. You treat it like a responsibility — a conduit to something deeply human.

I don’t bow to these things. I respect them.

---

Reality as a Moral Commitment

In my life, I have come to believe this:
Reality deserves loyalty.

Not institutions. Not ideologies. Not powerful men writing history in their own image. A person can be decorated, intelligent, influential, and still build castles out of narrative rather than truth. Authority does not guarantee accuracy. Sincerity does not guarantee honesty.

That Westmoreland book was where this lesson crystallized for me.

It taught me that conspiracy thinking is sometimes just wounded certainty evolving into mythology. It showed me that some narratives aren’t created to illuminate the world, but to protect the self. It reminded me that reverence should never be for image or status — only for truth, creation, and honest engagement with life.

And it reminded me of my grandmother’s wisdom. Consider a book before you start it. Commit to finishing it. But if finishing it requires betraying reality, then set it down. Respect isn’t obedience; sometimes it is knowing when to walk away.

That book tried to ask me for reverence without truth.
And I couldn’t give it.

Instead, I saved my reverence for the things that deserve it:
facts, reality, music, literature, human integrity… and the lifelong discipline of staying awake to what is real.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

When Conservatism Makes Sense — and When It Holds Us Back

On this anniversary of Donald Trump's January 6th, 2021 insurgency in refusing to leave office as POTUS45, we still have, we again have, that clown in office. Sigh. Give me a break...how is such a clod brain President of the United States, ever, or AGAIN? Now we've enabled him yet again in his this time, foolishly invading another country? Unbelievable. 

World is less safe after US action in Venezuela, says UN Human Rights Office

OK...

I have long held a simple but deeply considered belief, conservatism is simply wrong-minded. That's never been more supported than today, under Donald Trump and whatever the hell this/his GOP is anymore.

Conservatism is most valuable in times of danger, but in times of strength, stability, and prosperity, progress — sometimes bold progress — is what truly moves societies forward.

That belief is not about partisan sorting or emotional preference. It comes from philosophy, history, and watching what actually happens when societies choose fear over possibility, or recklessness over stability. Understanding the difference matters, especially in an era where the word “conservative” is too often used as a costume for something far more chaotic and destructive than traditional conservatism ever intended to be.

So let’s slow the noise. Let’s talk about what conservatism is supposed to be, where it genuinely shines, where progressive governance excels, and why the right approach depends not only on ideology — but on the moment we are living in.

---

Conservatism Was Built as a Philosophy of Caution

Traditional conservatism — the intellectual kind associated with Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott, Russell Kirk, and others — was never about rage politics, enemies lists, or constant cultural warfare. It was about prudence.

Traditional conservatism says:

• Human institutions are fragile

• Social orders take generations to build

• Fast, sweeping change risks unintended harm

• Stability is a moral good

Conservative thinking performs its best work during unsteady times:

• when institutions are threatened

• when social cohesion is fraying

• when economic foundations feel shaky

• when the primary danger is collapse rather than stagnation

In those circumstances, slowing down can be wisdom.
Restraint can be virtue.
Continuity can literally save civilizations.

There is real dignity in the idea that not every moment demands upheaval.

---

But Prosperity Requires More Than Holding Still

There is another truth political conservatives often ignore:

Societies do not grow simply by preserving themselves. They grow by daring.

When a nation is strong — when it has capacity, confidence, economic strength, and resilient institutions — excessive caution becomes paralysis. Conservatism in a time of prosperity can quietly transform into something less virtuous:

• a defense of entrenched privilege

• a fear of modernization

• a refusal to expand rights

• a distrust of creativity and change

In other words, it stops being about “stability” and becomes about keeping others from advancing too.

History is full of examples of moments where progress didn’t destroy a society — it renewed it:

• Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal rebuilt economic stability and dignity

• Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society made rights real rather than theoretical

• Postwar Europe rebuilt modern social democracies blending capitalism and social protection

• Civil rights expansions did not break the United States — they fulfilled it more fully

Each of these required risk. Each required the belief that improvement is worth trying for. Progressivism, at its best, is not reckless revolution. It is the conviction that we should keep building a better society while we can — not freeze time out of fear.

---

Risk Tolerance Is the Real Difference

Strip away the slogans and tribal loyalties and political philosophy eventually comes down to one fundamental question:

How much risk are we willing to accept in pursuit of improvement?

Conservatism answers:
Not much. Stability matters more than improvement. Human systems break easily.

Progressivism answers:
Some risk is necessary. Human systems stagnate without reform.

The truth is not that one is always right and the other always wrong. The truth is that each is situationally wise. Healthy societies need:

• conservative instincts to keep us from blowing ourselves up

• progressive instincts to keep us from falling asleep in our comfort

But context matters.

---

When Conservatism Stops Being Conservatism

There is an additional complication in our moment: much of what calls itself “conservatism” today — especially in its MaGA form — has abandoned conservatism’s core principles entirely.

Traditional conservatism valued:

• institutions

• constitutional constraints

• civic responsibility

• moral character

• measured change

MaGA politics often values:

• disruption for its own sake

• loyalty to leaders over loyalty to law

• grievance instead of civic duty

• chaos disguised as “strength”

• rejection of expertise, tradition, and restraint

That is not conservatism. It is populist reaction, opportunism, and frequently authoritarian sympathy wrapped in conservative language. Conservatives used to see themselves as guardians of democracy. Today too many embrace rhetoric that treats democracy as legitimate only when their side wins.

So when critics argue against “conservatism,” they often are not arguing against prudence or stability. They are arguing against a movement pretending to be conservative while actively attacking the very institutional and moral principles conservatism was built to protect.

---

A Healthy Society Needs Forward Motion — and a Steady Hand

The idea I keep returning to is simple:

Conservatism works best when danger threatens collapse.
Progress works best when strength allows ambition.

Neither philosophy is evil. Neither is inherently superior in all times. But a society that forgets how to adapt dies slowly. And a society that abandons stability destroys itself quickly.

The goal should never be permanent revolutionary fever or permanent stagnation. It should be balance — with the wisdom to recognize when we need stability most, and when we should dare to build something better while we are strong enough to do so.

The tragedy of our modern politics is that we treat this as a permanent war rather than an ongoing conversation about timing, context, and responsibility.

The future belongs not to those who cling terrified to the past, and not to those who tear down merely for joy, but to those who understand that preservation and progress are not enemies.

They are tools.
And wise societies know when to use each one.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Next Technology Revolution Must Start Now: Beyond Silicon and Beyond Lithium

If you trace enough NASA careers, aerospace engineers, deep-tech innovators, and advanced research scientists back to childhood, you eventually end up in the same place:

Sitting in front of a television watching Star Trek.

Before I get started:

CES 2026 is officially underway! Stay up to date with the latest announcements, product reveals, and show floor highlights:

🔗 Live updates from Tom’s Guide 🔗 In-depth coverage from Wired

Okay then...

People don’t always say it out loud, but it’s true. Star Trek didn’t just entertain an era — it inspired one. The communicator shaped early thinking around mobile devices. Shipboard computers helped normalize the idea of talking to intelligent machines. Replicator concepts pointed minds toward automated manufacturing and 3D printing. Tricorder-like medical tools shaped portable diagnostics.

The image above is of Spock with a phaser because it was his use of a phaser battery to power a downed shuttle craft on his episode of "his first command", that inspired me to wait for decades for a more powerful battery. Also, I spoke to Leonard Nimoy in the 1960s with my younger brother when he was with Shatner at a Jerry Lewis Telethon and mom called to donate money and talk with "Capt. Kirk", but he was so desired for a phone call we got "Spock". Which was still amazing, and over time, even more so.

Here are some well-documented names of astronauts and NASA professionals who have publicly said Star Trek influenced or inspired them when they were young:

• Dr. Mae Jemison – First Black woman in space; has repeatedly credited Star Trek (and Nichelle Nichols’ Lt. Uhura) as a major inspiration. She later even appeared on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

• Mike Fincke – NASA astronaut; lifelong Trek fan who has openly said the show inspired him to dream of space. He later appeared in an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise.

• Chris Hadfield – Though Canadian Space Agency, he trained and worked extensively with NASA and has said Star Trek helped shape his love of space as a child.

• Terry Virts – NASA astronaut who has talked about growing up with Star Trek and the role science fiction played in pushing him toward space.

• Scott Kelly – NASA astronaut who has spoken about being influenced by science fiction growing up, including Trek’s depiction of exploration.

• Bobak Ferdowsi – NASA/JPL “Mohawk Guy,” Curiosity mission engineer; has credited Star Trek and science fiction as early motivators for getting into space engineering.

• Charlie Bolden – Former NASA Administrator has discussed how shows like Star Trek expanded cultural vision and made space careers feel possible for future generations.

Meanwhile, Stargate came later and influenced a different kind of thinking: power density. ZPMs (Zero Point Modules) were fictional, but the underlying idea was rational — civilization changes when energy stops being a constraint.

Stargate SG-1: Colonel (later General) Jack O’Neill with character Sam / Samantha "Sam" Carter (Amanda Tapping), with ZPM

Science fiction never “tricked” anyone into believing fantasy. It gave engineers permission to imagine boldly and ask harder questions of physics.

And in 2026, that mindset matters more than ever.

Because two of the most important technologies humanity relies on — silicon computing and lithium energy storage — are running out of road.

---

Silicon Has Been Brilliant. It Is Also Finite.

Moore’s Law carried us for six decades. It didn’t just make computers faster. It made them cheaper, smaller, and everywhere. It fueled economic growth and reshaped civilization.

But physics has limits.

Transistors are now so small that we are brushing atomic boundaries. Heat and quantum tunneling are no longer theoretical hurdles; they are daily engineering reality. Fabrication complexity and cost keep climbing. The industry responded brilliantly with:

• chip stacking

• massive parallelization

• domain-specific accelerators

• architectural optimization

Those are ingenious — but they are extensions, not the next era.

If we want another leap, it will not come from squeezing silicon harder. It will come from thinking differently:

• Photonic processors that compute with light

• Spin-based and quantum-inspired effects instead of charge movement

• Neuromorphic architectures modeled after biological brains rather than calculators

• Graphene and 2D materials that surpass silicon’s physical constraints

• Quantum computing — not for everyday laptops, but for chemistry, cryptography, physics, and problem domains previously unsolvable

Progress does not come from worshiping yesterday’s miracle. It comes from graduating from it.

---

Batteries Changed the World — But They Won’t Take Us Far Enough

Parallel to the silicon story is the quiet plateau of lithium-ion batteries. A couple of years ago a futurist was being interviewed and when asked what the next big revolution needed was he said: batteries. And then explained what I'm saying here. We need a massive revolution in battery tech but far beyond where most of us are thinking today.

Batteries have enabled laptops, smartphones, wireless everything, and electric vehicles. They reshaped energy strategy. They made portable computing possible. They are one of the most important technologies ever built.

But like silicon, they have theoretical ceilings — and we are getting close.

Incremental gains remain, but they will not power the century ahead.

If humanity expects:

• resilient global energy grids

• serious renewable storage

• large-scale electrification

• aviation and transportation breakthroughs

• automation at planetary scale

• meaningful space capability

then we need new energy storage thinking, not just better lithium.

Viable pathways already exist:

• solid-state batteries — safer, denser, transformative

• lithium-sulfur — potentially massive energy density increases

• metal-air systems — extraordinary theoretical capacity

• sodium-ion — cheaper, more abundant, geopolitically stable

• graphene supercapacitors — nearly instantaneous charging paired with endurance

• advanced nuclear micro-generation where appropriate

• and yes, increasingly realistically, fusion as real infrastructure rather than fantasy

This is not a shortage of science.
It is a shortage of commitment.

---

This Isn’t About Fantasy. It’s About Will, Effort, Desire.

Star Trek didn’t make people foolish.
It made them ambitious.

It helped shape NASA. It helped shape entire technology sectors. It inspired generations of problem-solvers who refused to accept “good enough.”

And for those of us who grew up in that era, the message landed deeply. Many of us have been waiting since the 1960s for:

• a battery breakthrough that unlocks a different kind of world, and

• a computing paradigm that doesn’t just extend Moore’s Law, but surpasses it in a completely different direction

We have waited patiently, believing — correctly — that physics still offers headroom.

The barrier is not imagination.
The barrier is hesitation.

---

2026 Should Be the Year We Stop Hesitating

Silicon gave us the digital age.
Lithium gave us the mobile and electric age.

But the next era of human capability will belong to new architectures of computing and new architectures of energy.

That doesn’t require fantasy.
It requires courage, investment, and the willingness to think the way we once did — when we believed new frontiers were worth pursuing simply because they defined the horizon of what was possible.

Many of us have been waiting since the ’60s for that next leap.

And what about magnets? 

Because they may quietly be one of the most important keys to the next era of technology. From spintronics that could replace silicon logic, to magnetic brain-like chips that run AI with almost no heat, to fusion reactors and superconducting energy storage that could redefine global power, magnets are no longer just for motors and hard drives. They are shaping the future of computing, energy, and possibility itself — and most people don’t even know it yet.

It's time to build it. To conceive it and built it all. 

I'll leave you with this on batteries: 

The development of next-generation energy storage: an interview with Zaiping Guo, and this on computing: Blocking out the noise: An interview with a quantum computing expert - CEO and cofounder of Alice & Bob, Théau Peronnin, shares his insights into the value of quantum computing and what companies can do to prepare for its arrival.

Excelsior! Right?

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT