World

In 2025, the rapid acceleration of artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer just expanding digital capabilities, it is reshaping the physical infrastructure that underpins the global economy. Data centres are becoming “AI factories,” designed for unprecedented computational intensity and continuous, large-scale workloads. Nearly 11,800 facilities were operating worldwide by 2024, with an increasing share built or retrofitted to power AI-grade computing. This shift has triggered a structural rise in energy consumption, placing extraordinary pressure on land, water, electricity systems, and financially straining grids and supply chains worldwide.   The defining constraint on the future of AI is no longer hardware or algorithms, it is energy. Without a rapid global shift to renewable and clean power, AI data centres will collide with resource shortages, grid instability, and economic risk, threatening the very growth they are meant to enable. As AI becomes foundational across industries, the challenge is no longer whether data centres will expand, but whether the world can generate enough clean power to sustain them. With demand already outpacing conventional grid capacity in major regions, energy availability not technological innovation will determine global competitiveness in the AI era.  

For most of modern history, political systems have been built around the assumption that human beings, rather than territory, rulers, or abstract notions of progress, are the central subjects of governance. Laws, economies, and institutions have been justified, at least in theory, by their obligation to protect human life, manage conflict, and improve collective wellbeing over time. Even when unevenly applied, this principle imposed an ethical constraint on power, requiring political authority to answer, however imperfectly, to human needs and consent.   Today, that assumption is rapidly eroding. A small group of technology elites increasingly speak and act as if humanity itself is provisional, a stage to be surpassed rather than a condition to be preserved. This belief is no longer confined to speculative philosophy. It is shaping how AI is built, how labour is governed, how inequality is rationalised, and how long-term political authority is imagined. The result is not merely a clash of ideas, but an emerging institutional crisis, in which decisions affecting billions are guided by a worldview that has never been democratically endorsed.

During the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) has shifted from being an academic curiosity, becoming a driving force for reshaping economies worldwide. What once felt like speculative capabilities including machines generating code and automating complex workflows as well as optimizing global logistics and producing creative content, now became deployable tools on a larger scale across industries. AI’s rapid adoption raises several key questions among policymakers, economists and business leaders, most notably whether AI can contribute to the growth of national economic growth, and under what conditions do these gains materialize?   Macroeconomic models and strong empirical evidence suggest a positive outcome, however with notable limitations. AI, as a general-purpose technology, has more to offer than just efficiency improvements, it also functions as a key driver of innovation, productivity enhancement and transformation tool of economic structures. AI visibility and adoption have grown substantially, especially with the emergence of generative AI technologies such as exemplified ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot. This growth establishes AI as a valuable source of information and data, benefiting both firms and the border national economy, provided that this widespread adoption is backed and supported by a strong infrastructure and an adequate human capital, prepared to complement these technologies.

AI is reshaping international competition in ways that governments are only beginning to understand. The spread of AI-enabled cyber operations has created a new landscape in which intrusions unfold rapidly, cross borders with ease, and often leave behind little that can be reliably attributed to a specific actor. States now find themselves navigating an environment where responsibility is increasingly difficult to establish, and where strategic judgement becomes far more fragile.   While espionage and covert action have always operated in murky territory, the introduction of AI into these practices has accelerated the pace of events and weakened the signals that national security officials have traditionally relied upon. This shift demands sustained attention, not only because the technology is advancing quickly, but also because the risks associated with misinterpretation and unintended escalation are becoming sharper.

Governments are increasingly concerned about the realistic but AI-generated images, audio, and videos. Such deepfakes cause widespread misinformation and, in some cases, harm national security by endangering public trust in institutions and elections, as well as inciting political violence. On the other hand, the general public and digital platform users can’t differentiate between AI-generated fake and real content, causing misinformation, polarisation, and the commodification of private data by large tech companies. Accordingly, the rapid movements of deepfakes drive the need to act to set the environment for the new reality.   Relying on tech companies to mitigate misinformation is highly challenging, as these companies face the problem of regulating deepfake content due to its wide accessibility through numerous companies. Therefore, regulating such content by one company will certainly decrease its profit, as users will shift to another supplier. Additionally, these companies financially benefit from publishing advertisements on misinformation websites unintentionally. Hence, there is a pressing need for an outside source to force regulations and strategies to mitigate the proliferation of online misinformation.

Artificial intelligence systems and data centres have increasingly become an integral part of modern day society. A KPMG survey focused on AI use found that 66% of respondents use AI for work and personal reasons, of which 38% of respondents claim to use AI on a daily or weekly basis and 28% use it semi-regularly. According to these results, a majority of the respondents rely on AI to carry out day to day functions whether it be for work, study, or personal reasons. Moreover, the reliance on AI has been extended to governments, global financial systems, and states, as these entities rely on AI systems to improve efficiency and speed of services provided. This shows how AI has become integrated into the fabric of global society.   Now imagine one day all AI systems and programs cease to function. While the chances of such an event happening are low, it is not impossible and the consequences of being overly reliant on AI systems can be devastating. The consequences of a global AI shutdown will impact the global economy as well as global geopolitics, which could lead to trillions disappearing from the stock market and national security disasters across the globe.

The United States dollar (USD) prominence as the main global reserve currency can be attributed to the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, which created a new international monetary order and directly linked major world currencies to the USD, which was itself pegged to gold at $35 per ounce. The USD quickly emerged as the primary medium of exchange for most commodity trades and international financial transactions as a result of this agreement, which concentrated trust and liquidity around the currency. In 1971, the Nixon Shock occurred when the United States (U.S.) ended direct USD–gold convertibility, weakening the USD. However, the scope and depth of U.S. financial markets and the petrodollar system - which mandated that oil exports be invoiced and paid in USD- made it incontrovertible, giving the U.S. “the exorbitant privilege”, as economist Valéry Giscard d’Estaing described it, of having substantial control over global monetary policy while financing trade and budget deficits.   It’s crucial to weigh this against factors that continue to uphold the USD’s hegemony though. The unmatched stability liquidity and depth of U.S. financial markets continue to attract global investors worldwide, preserving the USD’s position as the favored reserve asset. Since international trade, finance, and investment infrastructures are still heavily USD-centric, it is also challenging for alternative currencies to quickly replace the USD due to the vast global network effect that has been developed over decades. Moreover, the USD’s status as a “safe-haven” asset persists, particularly during periods of global uncertainty, sustaining demand.   Yet, this hegemonic status is now challenged structurally in ways increasingly understood as de-dollarization- that is, the deliberate reduction of the share of the USD in global trade invoicing, reserve holdings, and payment systems. Debates on the durability of U.S. monetary leadership have been ongoing for decades, but a number of forces have turned de-dollarization from an abstract concept into a global trend since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. That crisis exposed systemic vulnerabilities within USD-dependent financial networks, underscoring how U.S. monetary policy and financial shocks can transmit worldwide in destabilizing ways—especially across Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs).   This postwar order is increasingly under structural pressure from geopolitical fragmentation, rising U.S. debt, sanctions overreach, and the emergence of alternative payment systems. These pressures could lead to two different scenarios for the U.S. economy in a post-dollar world: a sudden collapse due to financial instability and inflation, or a gradual decline with persistently higher borrowing costs and the steady erosion of fiscal and geopolitical leverage. The latter is more likely but still represents a structural shift that redefines the balance of global economic power.

The race for global dominance is no longer fought over land, oil, or military might, it is rapidly unfolding in the realm of data. Across the world, governments are fortifying their digital borders, investing in surveillance technologies, and rewriting laws to claim ownership over the information flowing through their networks.   What emerges is a contest not for territory but for control over the data that defines modern life, who produces it, who stores it, and who decides how it is used. This silent power race is redrawing the global order, creating new hierarchies of influence built on algorithms and infrastructure rather than armies. As states weaponise information, the battle for sovereignty is shifting from physical borders to the digital terrain of human behaviour.

The global world order is based on a solid, yet fragile foundation. While it is solid for being intact for decades with systems and organisations built around it, its fragility stems from the inability to predict the reason that will one day blow it up. Nuclear weapons constitute a cornerstone in this world order; those who possess the fatal weapon, “the nuclear bomb,” among other capabilities, are the ones who dictate the rules of the game. What is important to ask now is: with the huge advancements in science taking place every day, will nuclear weapons become obsolete?   Scientists have discovered ways of genome editing by which cells negatively affected by ionized radiation can be detected, repaired, and even engineered to become immune to radiation entirely. This raises profound uncertainties about the future. If the destructive power of nuclear weapons can be neutralized at the biological level, the foundation of nuclear dominance may begin to erode. This leaves us facing a series of difficult questions. Would the traditional leverage of nuclear powers still hold? If weapons of mass destruction (WMD) lose their strategic value, will a new form of deterrence take shape, or will the very concept of deterrence fade? Who might emerge as the next global power, and by what tools or technologies will influence be asserted? And perhaps most importantly: would today’s nuclear states allow such a transformation, or resist it fiercely to preserve their status?

Simulation technology is witnessing a profound transformation with the emergence of Digital Cognitive Twins (DCTs), the next generation of Traditional Digital Twins (DTs). These advanced systems go beyond conventional monitoring functions, integrating sophisticated AI models, particularly machine learning networks and natural language processing (NLP) techniques.   This convergence grants DCTs complex capabilities, enabling them to perform autonomous decision-making, conduct real-time self-optimisation, and develop predictive and anticipatory mechanisms. As a result, this technology is reshaping key sectors across multiple domains. In Industry 4.0, it enhances the efficiency and resilience of logistical supply chains; in urban governance, it enables the intelligent management of resources with exceptional accuracy; and in the healthcare sector, it accelerates the adoption of precision medicine tailored to the individual.   The exceptional performance of these systems depends on their ability to absorb and aggregate vast datasets, comprising thousands of variables for a single individual. These datasets extend well beyond the conventional boundaries of personal information, encompassing biometric inputs, genomic data, clinical records, and continuous monitoring of behavioural and psychological patterns derived from digital interactions.   This aggregation produces human simulation models of exceptional fidelity, a defining feature that places this technology squarely within the dual-use domain. While these models promise vast societal benefits, the compromise or seizure of these composite data repositories would constitute a catastrophic national security threat: the harm arising from the exposure of citizens’ data would be strategic, permanent, and irreparable.   The gravest risk lies in the possibility that state or non-state actors might exploit these datasets. Whereas past influence operations—most notably the disinformation campaigns of the last decade—targeted broad audiences, behavioural models derived from integrated digital-transformation processes enable bespoke cognitive-warfare interventions at the level of individuals or small groups. This capability transcends conventional geopolitical forecasting, enabling real-time prediction of societal behaviour.   At the core of the threat is the capacity to selectively manipulate these datasets or even fabricate synthetic records to engineer a pretext for intervention. By corrupting cognitive models, an adversary can simulate a manufactured state of public unrest, precipitate mass psychological collapse, or stage apparent systemic institutional failure—thereby manufacturing a spurious justification for political, economic or security interventions.

In a world where reproduction no longer requires bond, lineage, or even parents, humanity has severed its oldest bond: the family. By 2070, governments no longer wait for couples to conceive, they manufacture life in humming factories of glass and steel, raising entire generations in artificial wombs. Children emerge without mothers or fathers, only the state and its machines.   Embryo Futures: Life Without Eggs or Sperm, a story from AHRC’s Futures Imagined series, envisions a tomorrow where population decline is met not with reform but with replacement. At once a tale of survival and of loss, it asks what becomes of identity, belonging, and love when society decides that human roots are optional.   Futures Imagined is a publication exploring emerging trends through imaginative forecasting. Rather than relying on strict methodologies, this piece invites AHRC writers to creatively narrate a possible future reality shaped by current developments.

The worldwide rise of semaglutide—a marketed formulation under different names, most notably Ozempic—is occurring rapidly and in various ways. Since its initial approval for type 2 diabetes, Semaglutide has quickly adapted to drive changes in personal health behaviours, market dynamics, and healthcare policy priorities. The drug operates through a complex mechanism that alters the body’s appetite and metabolism, leading to the transformation. As a result, there is a widening divergence between its regulatory objective and a growing use as a weight loss tool.   The disconnect is not just clinical but a systemic coming together of prevalent cultural norms, insurance structures, pharmaceutical supply chains and global consumer trends. The increasing use of Semaglutide across different social classes and countries gives rise to important political economy challenges regarding the price of the therapy, access to it and the sustainability of national health systems.   This analysis examines semaglutide’s disruptive evolution from a drug invention to a global public health tool. The analysis focuses on the situation in the United States (U.S.), but it also examines future possibilities where affordability and scale could make the drug essential in combating obesity and metabolic disease.