The costs of inaction

A dystopian vision of the future of world foresees the devastation of the environment and economy caused by some combination of war and the climate crisis that has resulted from continued high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures. At the pessimistic extreme, humans will fail to direct the technology revolution to avert or mitigate the impact of climate change sufficiently fast to prevent the onset of ecological catastrophe. In such circumstances widespread conflict and war over resources will result in the collapse of the global economy as it has become familiar since the nineteenth century, and possibly even human civilization as we think of it today. Under those conditions, trade and commerce would be subordinated entirely to the ends of those who hold political and military power in their zones of influence, and the capacity of diplomacy to limit conflict would be sharply limited.

Even if we manage to avert the worst effects of failing to address the climate crisis, the failure of our states and societies to make policy and engage in effective diplomacy will expose society to major risks resulting from our inability to manage the evolution of AI and automation and their impact on the global economy. Our failure to address the climate crisis will postpone the advent of an age of abundance, if it does not preclude it altogether. Many resources are likely to become more scarce. Agricultural output, for example, will be restricted by reduced arable land owing to adverse weather and flooding, higher feed costs for livestock, and lower seafood stocks owing to acidification and pollution of the oceans. Competition between states and between global firms for access to resources is likely to encourage governments to raise trade barriers and limit trade to within blocs dominated by single powerful states, as occurred in the 1930s. Webb (2019) argues that the global economy is already at risk of being redivided into two trading and economic spheres: the West versus China and its client states. Trade and resource wars between blocs would bear a significantly heightened risk of erupting into military conflict.