Prime Minister Rajesh Kumar (New Delhi, India):
Sitting in his secured war room, PM Kumar's face was grim. The initial focus on border security and economic stability had vanished. The Seer's latest address, a direct plea for global unity against existential threats, had reshaped the strategic landscape entirely. "This is not about geopolitics anymore," he stated to his closest advisors, his voice low. "This is about humanity's survival. The Chinese earthquake... that will be a test. A horrific test. But if we fail to respond to the Seer's larger call, we are all doomed. We must coordinate. With China, with the U.S., with Europe. Every nation must share data, resources. No more petty rivalries. This entity has forced our hand." His mind raced, considering the immense logistical and diplomatic challenges of unifying a fractured world, especially in the face of such terrifying, short-term predictions.
European Union Leaders (Brussels, Belgium):
Crisis meetings were continuous. The previous dismissals of the Seer's capabilities were replaced by an urgent, almost desperate, need for understanding. "We cannot ignore this," stated the President of the European Commission. "The economic ramifications alone are catastrophic. But the human cost... and the Seer's claim that he cannot fight it alone. This implies a scale of threat that transcends national borders, even continental alliances." Their thoughts turned to public messaging, trying to balance warning with preventing mass panic, and the unprecedented challenge of coordinating international resources on such short notice for a disaster of such scale.
United Nations Secretary-General (New York City, USA):
The UN offices were a hive of frantic activity. The Secretary-General was in constant contact with world leaders. The Seer's call for global unity had validated decades of UN rhetoric, but under the most terrifying possible circumstances. "This is our moment," she told her staff, "to prove humanity's capacity for collective action. If we fail here, the Seer's next prophecy may be our last."
Powerful Business Leaders: Survival Over Profit?
CEO of a Major Logistics Company (Singapore):
His primary concern was the immediate impact on supply chains. "China's manufacturing centers... if that earthquake hits, everything stops. We need alternative routes, alternative production. This isn't just about profit margins anymore; it's about staying operational, ensuring basic goods can still move." His mind raced to contingency plans for mass infrastructure collapse.
Head of a Global Insurance Firm (Zurich, Switzerland):
The numbers were astronomical. Property damage, business interruption, loss of life claims—if the Seer's prediction was accurate, it would trigger the largest payout in history, potentially collapsing entire insurance markets. "We need to re-evaluate every single risk model, every premium, for every natural disaster on the planet," he muttered, "or we'll be bankrupt before the next one hits. This 'unity' the Seer speaks of better include massive, unprecedented international disaster relief funds, because we can't bear this alone." His thoughts shifted from profit to the solvency of his entire industry.
A Prominent Tech Billionaire (Silicon Valley, USA):
His initial thought was about how the Seer had achieved such power. Was it a new form of AI? A quantum leap in computing? But the Seer's admission of needing help shifted his perspective dramatically. "He's not just a threat; he's a potential partner. If his foresight is real, we need to understand how it works. If he can pinpoint these events, perhaps we can develop technologies to mitigate them, to build resilience. This is the biggest scientific challenge humanity has ever faced, and the biggest opportunity to survive."
The world, after absorbing the terrifying certainty of the China earthquake and the Seer's desperate plea, was no longer just afraid. It was bewildered, strategizing, and beginning to grapple with an existential crisis that dwarfed all previous conflicts and concerns. The conversation had changed from "if" to "when," and from "him against us" to "us with him, against the end."