WAAS/EXTRA Working Group, Michael Marien
Director of Research, July 15, 2025
This brief overview is designed for 1) initial learners; 2) those who know something about X-risk and want a deeper view, and 3) specialists who know a lot about some risks but seek a broader view, in that this multi-disciplinary global challenge concerns many definitions and rapidly evolving outlooks. Updates to this overview will be made, and readers are invited to suggest additions, deletions, and other revisions.
Existential Threats and Risks are Growing
Concern with threats and risks (heretofore X-risks) is not new. Still, it is growing in all major categories: nuclear war, climate change, pollution, health, AI, etc., due to four recent global shocks: the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, and the re-election of Donald Trump as US President. To cite three very different sources: the “Doomsday Clock” of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Jan 2025) is now at 89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been. The annual Global Risks Report of the World Economic Forum in Davos ranks 32 risks in the next two years and ten years, and warns of “a deteriorating global outlook.” The Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community (Feb 2024) sees “an increasingly fragile global order.” (But the shorter 2025 version, reflecting Trump 2.0, ignores much of the 2024 report.)
Two Elephants in the Room—and More?
Nuclear war has been at the head of many lists since weapons were detonated over Japan in 1945. Risks are growing with more nuclear nations, more powerful weapons and means of delivery, and increasing tensions between nations. But climate change is now the more obvious “elephant in the room,” due to more frequent heat waves, storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires in recent years, with 2024 as the warmest year on record. Artificial intelligence, which emerged in 2022 for better and for worse, could potentially be the largest elephant in the room in only a few years, as big US technology firms and several nations (notably China) are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in a race to develop Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), where machines think for themselves. Many experts fear that AGI without sufficient guardrails will be available in a few years. There are also fears about biotechnology enabled by AI, pandemics (notably from mutation of H5N1 bird flu), pollution, climate tipping points, and six of the nine planetary boundaries already surpassed.
Doom for Whom? Inequitable Risks in Space and Time
Limiting the study of X-risks to doom or catastrophe for all of humanity ignores whose existence will be affected first. Nuclear weapons, of course, can affect everyone. But climate change has grave consequences for some countries more than others, and for women, children, poor people, outdoor workers, the disabled, indigenous people, and those living in countries that are already hot and getting hotter. In addition to spatial distinctions, young people should be far more concerned than older people, because their expected multi-decade lifespans are threatened far more than seniors with only a decade or so ahead.
Different Terminology
“Risks” are cited far more often than “threats” (a concern of military and intelligence communities), but overlap in some reports. They are also expressed as “challenges”, “catastrophes,” “global catastrophes,” “global shocks,” and “disruptions on the horizon.” Threats and risks are future-oriented, in contrast to the present-oriented “polycrisis”. All are compound concepts, in contrast to more frequent thinking on single X-risk issues such as climate, biodiversity, AI, etc.
Different Timelines
Nuclear extinction is quick, near-total, and well-understood. Climate impacts are scattered, varied, and not total. Many adverse effects of AI are suggested, and may be slow or fast, depending on whether it enables military decisions. Climate tipping points could take decades to appear, and impacts could lead to local or regional extinction. A pandemic may take a year to travel worldwide and several years to subside. Natural catastrophes such as an asteroid or a major volcanic explosion are instant, but rare; asteroids can be anticipated, but the latter generally cannot.
Different Probabilities
A nuclear attack or accident could happen at any time; the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has lasted for nearly 80 years, but appears less trustworthy in the following decades. Climate change is inevitable, but the question is how much and how soon. Tipping points also appear confident, but also with questions of how soon. Major natural calamities (earthquakes, supervolcano eruptions, solar flares, asteroid impacts) are possible, but cannot be predicted. The sixth extinction of species is underway, but how many species and when is also unclear, as well as the impacts on humans.
Different Remedies—and Headwinds
Many other actions are being taken or could be taken, ranging from broad normative agendas such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and many specific actions to mitigate climate change or adapt, preserve species, ensure adequate food and water, etc. Unfortunately, there are headwinds: vested interests, disinformation, rising costs, denial, infoglut, lack of funding, immediate national concerns, fear of global government, and hopelessness. Adding to this fragmentation are more than 80 organizations involved with EXTRA thinking in some way.
Combine X-Risk Negativity with Positive Trends and Proposals
In a world where many are already suffering from “eco-anxiety”, focus on X-risks can be depressing and subject to being ignored as “doom-mongering”. It is also about future years and decades. Thus, they are easily dismissed as “speculative.” To offset this necessary gloom, X-risks should be paired with positive thinking about the SDGs and/or Human Security for All (HS4A), a potential complementary or successor focus to the SDG Agenda 2030, which will not be met. Emphasis should also be given to cost/benefit analysis and redirecting finance to high-priority action for reducing risks and adaptation.
Engage Sustainability Programs in Universities and Schools
Focusing on X-risks promotes sustainability thinking and action. There are numerous organizations and programs to promote sustainability in education, including some 53 PhD programs in 40 institutions (see SSG QuickLook). These programs are likely to expand their horizons to consider the urgency of X-risks.
Lifelong Learning for Needed Transformations
Any transformation to sustainability and greater security will require learning new ideas over the next decades—with AI, or despite it—a challenge for all age groups. Youth groups, particularly when allied, can press for more relevant academic programs and change the minds of adults who resist 21st-century realities. A monthly EXTRA Update Newsletter covering critical new books, articles, and—mainly–reports will be distributed to various organizations and interested individuals.
Human extinction or a major global catastrophe is neither inevitable nor impossible. In the next 15 years, this will likely occur due to AGI without adequate guardrails. Without major positive transformations, it is probable that in the following 30 years (2040-2070), most likely due to climate tipping points, exceeding planetary boundaries, major wars, and/or unbound AGI.
Suggestions are welcome at extra@worldacademy.org
What Is Needed Most in Risk Reporting?
WAAS/EXTRA Working Group, Michael Marien
Director of Research, Sept 23, 2025
A noteworthy comment was made near the end of the remarkable six-part Netflix documentary series, “Life on Our Planet.” A mere five minutes or so of the final episode were devoted to current global trends regarding population, urbanization, climate, pollution, and other related issues. Morgan Freeman, the moderator, admitted that these trends may lead to human extinction, but noted that ours is the first species to know what is happening and could do something about it. This is profoundly true. And profoundly misleading, because there are dozens of possible causes for the demise of all or a significant part of humanity, and hundreds of organizations providing explanations of single causes, as well as occasional overviews, and numerous proposals to prevent or mitigate disaster. Can a new UN report stand above the others and make a difference?
INTRODUCTION
The title of the first EXTRA webinar on September 18 was “What is the Significance of the New UN Risk Report”? United Nations Global Risk Report 2024 (July 2025, 28p) appears at first glance to offer significant insight into what is happening and what to do about it, underscored by the opening statement in the Preface by Secretary-General Guterres that “We are at a defining moment for humanity…in a year marked by converging global crises.”
The UN report does offer much to consider, but is this first edition significant? “Significance” has many meanings to many people, and will be explored below. A second and more important question is what changes could make the next edition, promised in late 2026, more significant? This, too, will be considered. A still more important question, What is Needed Most in Risk Reporting?, considers how to overcome our fragmented understandings.
THE UN RISK REPORT—AND ITS COMPETITOR
The significance of the UN report depends on the definition of “significance” and how readers respond to it. Have busy readers/users seen all or part of it? What features add to one’s understanding? What policies and actions new to the reader are suggested? What actions have been taken as a result of the report? These questions can be informed by a questionnaire sent to the 1,100 contributors and others on the UN mailing list.
Getting a better grip on “significance” is one problem that can be addressed. Another is that there is a worthy competitor, The Global Risks Report (Jan 2025, 102p), published annually for the past 20 years by the World Economic Forum in Davos. Although seen primarily as a meeting place for business elites, the WEF report sticks to assessing risks that should concern all leaders and citizens, and gives no hint of a pro-business orientation.
The UN “Global Risk Report” and the WEF “Global Risks Report” have similar titles and also similar methodology. The UN report surveys “more than 1,100 stakeholders in 136 countries, with representatives of “government, industry, civil society, and academia.” The WEF report surveys “more than 900 global leaders across academia, business, government, international organizations, and civil society” plus 100 thematic experts including risk specialists.
The basic results are also quite similar. The UN ranks 28 risks (the top three are climate change inaction, large-scale pollution, and mis- and dis-information). The WEF report ranks 32 risks in the next two years (the top three are mis- and disinformation, extreme weather, and state-backed armed conflict).
Looking into the near future, the UN ranks risks for the next 1-7 years (top three are AI and frontier technology, a pandemic, and cybersecurity breakdown), and the next 8-15 years (top three are a pandemic, geoengineering disaster, and supply chain collapse). The WEF ranks risks for the next 10 years (top three are extreme weather, biodiversity/ecosystem collapse, and critical change to the Earth system). The WEF also has extensive analysis of 2025 risks (titled “A World of Growing Divisions” and of 2035 risks (titled “The Point of No Return”).
The UN ranks the most important risks by location of respondent (top 10 risks in 7 geographic areas). The WEF ranks risks by six age groups and five stakeholder groups. Both the UN and WEF offer “spaghetti charts” of risk interactions. See the UN’s “Network Map of Global Risks” (Fig.5) and compare with the WEF’s “Global Risks Landscape” (p.9), which uses straight-line connections (uncooked spaghetti) instead of curved lines.
There are, of course, some differences. The UN report analyses top 10 risks by connection strength, risks we are least prepared for (space-based event, cybersecurity breakdown, mis- and dis-information), the most critical global vulnerabilities (Fig 8 map), most effective actions to reduce risks (multi-government action, government and civil society, and an excellent list of 13 barriers to better global risk management (weak governance, lack of political consensus and trust, poor risk priorities, poor information, strong resistance, etc.)
Concludes with four future scenarios (breakdown, status quo progress, breakthrough) based on a continuum of cooperation, “The Path Forward” (strengthen the UN to address risks and respond to complex global shocks), and three Annexes (risk definitions, survey methodology, and scenario methodology).
In addition to an extensive analysis of individual risks, the WEF report has a very useful Appendix D (pp.93-96) on Risk Governance, showing how top risks can be addressed by R&D, national and local entities, development assistance, financial instruments, corporate strategies (e.g., labor shortages, supply chains), and multi-stakeholder engagement. An important addition to this list on page 33 shows the top risks that treaties and agreements can address.
WHAT CHANGES CAN MAKE THE UN REPORT MORE SIGNIFICANT?
The above-mentioned similarities between the UN and the WEF reports cannot be dismissed. I will politely assume that the similarities are coincidental. Others may think otherwise. It is thus imperative for the authors of the next UN report to at least mention the WEF report, which has been published for 20 years, and, in my opinion, is the better choice, at least for now, for anyone who wishes an extensive and thoughtful risk overview. Better still, however, some form of cooperation between the UN and WEF might be feasible and productive.
As for changes in the next UN report, the aforementioned questionnaire sent out to readers/users should supply many good suggestions for additions, deletions, and format changes. My personal suggestion is to delete the four scenarios that are overly simplified; there are simply too many near-term possibilities for good and bad developments, and this should be stressed.
Another suggestion is to add reviews or at least some mention of relevant reports from other UN agencies such as the UN Environment Program, the UN Development Program, the UN Office of Disaster Risk Reduction, and the UN Economic and Social Council and perhaps even from NGOs with much to say about threats, risks, and governance (see EXTRA Info Hub, ”Top 20 Recent Reports” and EXTRA DIRECTORY to some 200 recent reports, books and articles).
WHAT IS NEEDED MOST IN RISK REPORTING?
Broad global surveys of major groups that rank risks are certainly valuable. But it is important to mention that the EXTRA InfoHub is quite different from these surveys. It surveys, selects, and annotates recent literature: mostly reports (which get far too little attention) but also some books and journal articles. These items are grouped into five major categories (Overviews such as the UN and WER risks reports), Planet, People, Security and Sustainability, and by 33 keywords under these categories, e.g., climate, biodiversity, oceans, migration, AI, finance, etc.
The most obvious lesson from looking at these reports, books, and articles is fragmentation between some 100 organizations and many hundreds of individuals concerned with threats and risks. Four major gaps can be identified:
Ideally, all of these gaps between insular “silos” should be bridged, but priority should be given to getting the message out continuously, in various ways, to the major media in each country. Some criteria:
No single book or report can cover all needed actions, but some reports can cover several concerns in a readable and authoritative fashion, notably The New Global Possible: Rebuilding Optimism in the Age of Climate Crisis (Disruption Books, Sept 2025, 332p), by Ani Dasgupta, President and CEO of the World Resources Institute, with chapters on how countries can collaborate, how technology can innovate for good, the limits of voluntary action by business, land rights as the foundation for justice, cities as laboratories for change, a new growth story for the economy, and orchestrating change for good.
# # # # #
