Pattern Recognition vs. Pattern Lock-In

The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 cast a long shadow. France, humiliated and burning for revenge. Germany, rising and certain it had to strike first to stay on top. Every decision, every alliance, every military maneuver was shaped by one core belief: another war wasn’t just possible—it was inevitable.

And when folks believe something is inevitable, they stop trying to prevent it.

Germany wrote the Schlieffen Plan years before the first shots were fired. Not as a backup plan. Not as a last resort. As the script. It wasn’t a question of if war would come, but when. France and Russia were the presumed enemies, Belgium the collateral damage, and millions of lives were the price of a war that no one truly tried to stop.

Diplomacy became a game. Treaties became a tool for positioning. Leaders became actors playing a role they believed had already been written. So when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, when tensions rose, no one pulled the brakes. They followed the pattern. They marched forward. Right into World War 1.

And that’s the danger of pattern lock-in.

We see something happen once, twice, three times, and suddenly we stop questioning it. We start believing it’s the natural order. We mistake habit for destiny. We accept that this is just how the world works.

But history isn’t a loop. It’s a series of choices.

Climate collapse? Not inevitable. Oligarchy? Not inevitable. War? Not inevitable. These things don’t happen because they must. They happen because people in power convince themselves (and us) that they must. And when we believe them, when we accept the pattern, we let it play out.

The only way to stop a pattern is to name it, challenge it, refuse to follow the script. The only way to change the future is to stop assuming it’s already written.

Because the past doesn’t dictate the future. Unless we let it.