The future will be shaped either by rupture or by constructed feasibility. The shift to the adjacent possible of the necessary is the difference between leaving reparameterisation to shock, and taking responsibility for designing it.

The operative question changes accordingly: not “what can we deliver next without destabilising the now?” but “what must become adjacent if reality’s requirements are to be met?”

What we lack is not information. It is conversion capacity : mechanisms that translate necessity into executable feasibility without triggering built-life defence into collapse or backlash.

This is why each posture hardens. The necessary treats delivery as inadequate. Delivery treats necessity as impossible. Built-life defence treats both as threats to the conditions of security. As the gap widens, coordination degrades and the politics becomes less about compromise and more about veto.

The key point is structural: the possible is produced . Feasibility is an artefact of liability regimes, budget cycles, procurement law, evidence standards, electoral incentives, media tolerance, professional risk, and incumbent power. What is called realism is often compatibility with the present’s authorising machinery.

Its coercion appears when defence of a life becomes defence of a system—when continuity for some is maintained by externalising risk onto others, by mistaking compounding advantage for virtue, or by using institutional control to prevent necessity from becoming speakable.

I keep seeing the same conflict replay across domains—housing, climate, AI, public services. It isn’t primarily a disagreement about policies. It is a collision between three postures that each claim to be the only serious relationship to reality: defending the built life , delivering the possible , and insisting on the necessary .