C-ANPROM/EUC/NON/0052 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Takeda * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around and industrial policy agenda, including the Pharma Package, Biotech Act, Life Sciences Strategy, and related digital and innovation frameworks. More information here

General Nick Carter is the former UK chief of defense staff 2018–2021 and a board member of Apolitical. Robyn Scott is CEO and co-founder of Apolitical. It is often claimed that the birth of the printing press heralded the start of the modern era, allowing ideas from the scientific revolution to spread. But does that give us the whole picture? For writer Yuval Noah Harari, for example, the evolution is far more complicated, as he argues that the printing press unleashed two centuries of conspiracy theories and fake news as well, leading to grotesque behavior like witch trials. And when the revolution in scientific and philosophical thought did eventually take place some 200 years later, it was only after our institutions were able to earn the trust of populations. Simply put, we aren’t good at rapid adaptation in times of peace — which is a lesson our leaders and institutions should keep in mind today. The technology-driven disruption of information we’re currently experiencing in the form of artificial intelligence also has the power to undermine our democracies before it can be harnessed to bolster them. And with a host of powerful new technologies on the horizon, we’re only at the start of the disruption to come. Emerging technologies will alter the global power balance, and they will do so faster than we realize. This technological tsunami comes at a time when the world is already remarkably unstable. The bipolar stability of the Cold War is a thing of the past; history has not, in fact, ended. Rather, the world has become multipolar, characterized by stiff competition between great powers and an openly hostile group of authoritarian countries set on undermining the liberal international order. We’re also increasingly seeing newly assertive countries — such as India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia — which have the political and economic clout to be multi-aligned, choosing whichever camp might best suit their national interests. And as the recent BRICS summit in Kazan demonstrated, China — with Russia’s support — wants more say in how the world is organized. All of this is then overlaid with a complex array of non-state actors, wielding significant influence via their technological or financial heft. For example, a decade ago, who would have thought an individual like Elon Musk could play such a significant role in geopolitics? His influence — a testament to his wealth as well as his development and control of critical technologies — is indicative of the immense disruption these technologies threaten. The growing pace of technological change is making the challenge more dynamic every day. Meanwhile, generative AI has begun elevating technology to an “agent” that can be wielded without a human in the loop. Yet, the foundations of generative AI’s jaw-dropping capabilities remain shaky — it is, after all, trained on our colossal global stash of information, which is characterized by some reliable facts sitting atop a huge, unreliable core of bits and bytes. For some new technologies, the “emerging” tag already seems dated, as it’s possible to simply order some of this sci-fi future on Amazon. For just $129, one can now buy a CRISPR gene editing kit that could, in the wrong hands, be exploited to meddle with eugenics. Bioterrorism is the obvious civilization-threatening risk here, but it’s just one of many. Of course, as with almost all powerful emerging technologies, the benefits of synthetic biology are compelling too: Bacteria that gobble carbon dioxide, crops that thrive in deserts, lab-grown meats that can feed a hungry world . . . The benefits of these technologies make them irresistible both to the market and to our desire for healthier, wealthier societies. Their attraction has turned them into a juggernaut that’s almost impossible to control. They’ve also become crucial to the global competition between the free world and our malign authoritarian rivals. And it is the victors of this competition who will be able to determine our future. Lab-grown meats can feed a hungry world. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images A pressing example of this — perhaps less than a decade away — is quantum computing, which will enable us to solve impossible mathematical problems. However, it will also bestow decisive advantage to those seeking to undermine the values of the free world. In a post-encryption world, much of what was secret will no longer be so. Similarly, controversy and security risks surround the field of geo-engineering, which includes solar radiation management — where the sun’s rays are deflected from the earth. While the concept sounds radical, it’s a technology that may offer a critical contingency plan as the climate crisis intensifies. Yet, it also comes with many dangers, not least the potential for unilateral action by a desperate state in the grips of climate change’s most extreme effects. Finally, while artificial wombs have already successfully grown sheep, estimates vary on when we’ll be able to grow humans — though some say it may only be a decade from now. This will undoubtedly be transformative for would-be parents who currently have to rely on surrogates. But what about a nation in demographic collapse? What sort of moral landscape would govern states that want to grow children? Or dictators who want to grow cannon fodder for their armies? Moreover, we may not even be growing humans as we know them. Mind-machine integration has already begun in earnest, and brain-computer interfaces are no longer confined to science fiction. Most prominently, Neuralink Corp — one of Musk’s ventures — is actively developing and testing implantable devices that could allow humans to directly control computers or prosthetics with their brains. If successful, this means major brain damage could be curable — but we could also be looking at remotely monitored and controlled humans. If our future on this planet seems like a sci-fi film though, space is even more so. The burgeoning space industry is currently worth over $500 billion annually and is projected to reach $1.8 trillion by 2035. But while the 2020 Artemis Accords seek to regulate life and business in space, they have yet to be signed by China (the world’s second-largest spacefaring nation), Russia or India. And how does Musk’s ambitions for SpaceX to build a sustainable colony on Mars — with its own governance — fit into all this? Governments need to start preparing and reforming. Keeping up with the evolution of all this technological change, let alone channeling it, is enormously challenging, particularly when very few public sector leaders are even really aware of these critical emerging technologies. Currently, such discussions in government are typically confined to a few niche teams and backroom wonks. Thus, part of the solution is talent and capability. Apolitical’s research shows that globally, only 65 percent of public servants have received any guidance on AI, and 85 percent haven’t received any training. This AI knowledge gap has to be filled. Governments also need to stand back and examine the bigger picture. The public sector and its institutions need up-skilling not only in AI but in all critical future technologies. And, crucially, our institutions need reform as well. This requires real leadership, but it is possible: We’re in a time of crisis, and it is in times of crisis that real change can be achieved. Collectively, emerging technologies are creating an unstable world, where we don’t clearly understand what national security looks like. Reform will require imagination and energy, as well as unpopular decisions. But the first duty of any government is to protect its population. And when our leaders confront these emerging technologies — which they must — it will be clear that they lie at the heart of national security, for better or worse.