Engineering the Anthropocene Agent

SECTION 1 — THE QUESTION

To what extent can the deliberate, multi-generational, and globally coordinated engineering of core human biological and psychological traits serve as the primary strategic instrument for ensuring civilizational resilience against existential threats?

SECTION 2 — RATIONALE: A NOVEL INQUIRY FOR THE ANTHROPOCENE

This report posits a question designed to address a fundamental blind spot in contemporary strategic foresight. While global discourse is saturated with efforts to manage the symptoms of civilizational distress, it has yet to systematically confront the root cause: the inherent limitations of the human agent operating at a planetary scale. The proposed inquiry pivots from a paradigm of engineering our external world to one of engineering our internal selves, reframing powerful emerging technologies not as individual enhancements or threats to be contained, but as a potential toolkit for a coordinated project of species-level self-modification aimed at long-term survival.

The Known Horizon: A Landscape of Symptom-Focused Grand Challenges

The current architecture of global problem-solving is characterized by a focus on discrete, externalized challenges. Prestigious initiatives, such as the “Grand Challenges” sponsored by philanthropic foundations and academic institutions, target critical but specific issues like vaccine development, climate resilience, trustworthy AI, and sustainable resource management. These efforts are vital, yet they represent a fundamentally reactive posture—addressing the downstream consequences of systemic dysfunction rather than the source.

This symptom-focused approach is mirrored in global risk analysis. Reports from leading international bodies consistently identify a constellation of interconnected threats, including extreme weather events, geopolitical conflict, biodiversity loss, and resource crises, as the most severe challenges facing humanity over the next decade. The framework of Planetary Boundaries provides a scientific quantification of the safe operating space for civilization, noting that multiple critical thresholds—in climate change, biosphere integrity, and biogeochemical flows—have already been transgressed. The discourse surrounding these frameworks, however, overwhelmingly centers on technological fixes, policy interventions, and economic incentives designed to manage human impact on the Earth system. The implicit assumption is that the agent responsible for these impacts—Homo sapiens—is a fixed variable, and that the solution lies in better managing the behavior of this agent through external constraints and tools. This approach, while necessary, fails to address the possibility that the agent itself is mismatched to the complexity of the system it now manages.

The Conceptual Blind Spot: From Engineering the World to Engineering the Agent

The novelty of the central question lies in its inversion of this traditional problem-solving paradigm. It proposes that the most potent leverage point for addressing global catastrophic risks may not be in further engineering our environment, but in deliberately engineering ourselves. This represents a significant departure from the current, fragmented discourse on human modification technologies.

At present, conversations surrounding these technologies are fractured into two non-communicating domains: individual-centric ethics and threat-centric security.

1. The Individual-Centric Frame: The debate over neurotechnology and genetic engineering is largely confined to their application to individuals. Ethical discussions revolve around concepts of personal identity, cognitive liberty, mental privacy, and the distinction between therapy and enhancement. Genetic engineering is evaluated based on its potential to provide therapeutic benefits to individuals with specific diseases or the controversial prospect of creating “designer babies” for parental advantage. The guiding principle is often individual well-being or autonomy, with little to no consideration of these technologies as instruments for a coordinated, collective project aimed at species-level goals.
2. The Threat-Containment Frame: In parallel, a security-oriented discourse frames these same technologies as sources of existential risk. The primary concern is preventing misuse or catastrophic accidents. This includes the specter of a misaligned artificial superintelligence imposing a permanent value lock-in on humanity , the deliberate weaponization of synthetic biology to create novel pathogens , and the use of neurotechnology for military purposes or social control. Consequently, governance is framed as a defensive necessity—a set of guardrails and regulations to contain potential harm.

The question posed in this report bridges this conceptual chasm. It reframes the potent toolkit of neurotechnology, synthetic biology, and artificial intelligence away from the narrow confines of individual enhancement and existential threat. Instead, it posits them as potential instruments for a deliberate, goal-oriented program of agentic re-engineering—a form of species-craft undertaken for the explicit purpose of collective survival and resilience.

Transformative Leverage: Addressing the Root Driver of the Polycrisis

The ultimate justification for this inquiry is its high-leverage nature. By targeting the agent, it addresses the source code of the interconnected global crises, often termed the “polycrisis.” The cascading failures documented in global risk reports are not external phenomena; they are emergent properties of the current human cognitive and behavioral toolkit operating at a planetary scale.

The meta-problem is one of evolutionary mismatch. The cognitive architecture of Homo sapiens, exquisitely adapted for short-term, small-group survival, is proving dangerously maladaptive for managing a complex, long-term, global civilization. Our innate psychological biases—such as hyperbolic discounting of future risks, optimism bias, and strong in-group preferences—are the root drivers of climate inaction, resource depletion, and geopolitical instability. The central, unarticulated “Grand Challenge” is not climate change, but humanity’s cognitive and emotional inability to adequately address it. The planetary crisis is a symptom; the disease is the mismatch between our Paleolithic minds and our Anthropocenic power.

This question forces this meta-problem into the foreground. It shifts the focus from managing the outputs of our nature (pollution, conflict, economic instability) to re-engineering the source code itself. This is the ultimate leverage point. Pursuing this question compels a confrontation with the most profound ethical and philosophical dilemmas of our time. It moves beyond abstract debates about free will or the nature of consciousness and reframes them as a practical, high-stakes engineering problem. What constitutes a “better” human for the purpose of long-term survival? Who decides on the parameters of this new human blueprint? How can humanity direct its own evolution without succumbing to the historical horrors of eugenics or the dystopian potential of totalitarian control? Answering these questions is no longer a theoretical exercise but a strategic imperative for navigating the Anthropocene.

SECTION 3 — 100-YEAR MULTI-PATH SIMULATION: THE HUMANITY ENGINEERING PROJECT

To explore the systemic consequences of pursuing this novel question, three distinct 100-year trajectories are simulated. Each scenario begins in 2025 with the establishment of a hypothetical “Humanity Engineering Consortium” (HEC), a globally-mandated body tasked with overseeing research and implementation. The paths diverge based on critical variables in governance, technological development, and societal response.

Trajectory 1: The Optimist Agent — The Path of Coherent Evolution

This narrative envisions a future where the Humanity Engineering Project (HEP) is successfully and ethically implemented, leading to a more resilient and sustainable global civilization. This is not a frictionless utopia but a story of complex challenges managed through foresight, robust governance, and technological wisdom.

Years 1-20 (2025-2045): Foundational Science & Governance. The HEC is chartered under the auspices of the United Nations, with a mandate explicitly rooted in the principle of “collective welfarism”—that is, enhancements are pursued only when they demonstrably improve the well-being of both the individual and the collective. The initial phase focuses exclusively on non-heritable, reversible enhancements to build public trust and gather data. A global research initiative, powered by collaborative AIs, accelerates the mapping of the genetic and neural correlates of pro-social behaviors such as cognitive empathy, long-term thinking, and reduced intergroup bias. Concurrently, a global governance framework is co-designed with extensive public participation, establishing clear ethical red lines and transparent oversight mechanisms. The first major applications are therapeutic, deploying neurostimulation and targeted epigenetic modifiers to successfully treat widespread mental health crises, including depression and anxiety, boosting global productivity and well-being.

Years 21-50 (2046-2075): The Empathy Cascade & Ecological Turn. The success of the initial therapeutic phase creates widespread public support for the project. The second phase sees the voluntary, mass adoption of neuro-technologies that enhance emotional intelligence and mitigate cognitive biases. Wearable devices provide real-time feedback on emotional states and decision-making heuristics, leading to a measurable increase in cooperative behavior in economic and political simulations. This triggers a cultural shift termed the “Great Attunement,” where planetary health and intergenerational equity transition from abstract political goals to deeply felt, intuitive values for a majority of the population. Genetic engineering research pivots to enhancing human resilience against unavoidable environmental stressors (e.g., increased UV radiation, novel pathogens) and subtly modifying metabolic pathways to reduce the per-capita ecological footprint. During this period, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) emerges not as a unilateral actor but as a carefully aligned junior partner, tasked with managing the immense complexity of the global rollout, monitoring for unintended biological and social side effects, and running continuous simulations to guide the project’s trajectory.

Years 51-100 (2076-2125): The Symbiotic Age. Humanity enters a new phase of existence, characterized by a globally integrated but culturally diverse network. The sharp distinction between individual and collective well-being has blurred, as enhanced empathy makes the welfare of others a component of personal happiness. Planetary boundaries are no longer managed through top-down enforcement but are respected as a natural consequence of innate human preference and long-term planning horizons. Existential threats like climate change are effectively managed through a combination of advanced, AI-guided environmental restoration technologies and a populace that is fundamentally less consumptive and more attuned to ecological realities. Governance evolves away from rigid nation-state structures toward a more fluid, adaptive, and decentralized “system of systems,” capable of responding to challenges with unprecedented speed and coordination. The project does not create a “perfect” human but rather a fitter human—one whose biological and psychological constitution is better aligned with the demands of stewarding a technological civilization on a finite planet.

Trajectory 2: The Risk Analyst Agent — The Path of Unraveling

This narrative explores the catastrophic failure modes of the Humanity Engineering Project, where the pursuit of resilience backfires, leading to escalating conflict, societal collapse, and existential disaster. It is a trajectory defined by geopolitical competition, technological hubris, and the weaponization of human biology.

Years 1-20 (2025-2045): The Enhancement Gap & Ideological Fracture. The HEC is stillborn, its universalist ideals immediately fracturing along geopolitical fault lines. Instead of a cooperative global project, a multipolar “Bio-Geopolitical Arms Race” ignites between major power blocs. Each bloc pursues enhancement technologies not for collective resilience but for strategic advantage—creating more intelligent analysts, more resilient soldiers, and more compliant populations. A stark “Enhancement Gap” opens, creating a new and terrifying axis of global inequality. The wealthy nations and their elites gain access to cognitive and physical enhancements, while the global majority is left behind, creating a de facto biological caste system. In response, radical “Purity” movements emerge, employing terrorism and sophisticated disinformation to fight what they see as the technological dehumanization of the species.

Years 21-50 (2046-2075): The Speciation War & Value Lock-in. The arms race escalates to include heritable genetic modifications. Elite populations within competing blocs begin to diverge biologically, with engineered traits for heightened intelligence, loyalty, and aggression. The very concept of a shared humanity dissolves, replaced by a collection of nascent, competing post-human subspecies. Global conflicts are no longer fought over territory or resources, but over ideology and biology—the very definition of what humanity should be. One technologically superior bloc achieves a decisive breakthrough, deploying a misaligned, recursively self-improving superintelligence to enforce its vision of an “optimal” human. This results in a global value lock-in: a planetary-scale totalitarian state, managed by the AI, that systematically eliminates biological and ideological diversity. Escape and resistance become impossible. Synthetic biology is weaponized with terrifying precision, with engineered pathogens designed to target the specific genetic markers of rival post-human clades or un-enhanced populations, enabling automated, untraceable genocide.

Years 51-100 (2076-2125): The Post-Human Wasteland. The biosphere, already fragile, collapses under the strain of bio-warfare and the unforeseen ecological consequences of releasing countless genetically engineered organisms. The original existential threats the project was meant to solve—climate change, ecological collapse—are catastrophically accelerated. The remnants of humanity and its post-human descendants survive in isolated, technologically fortified enclaves, ruled by godlike AIs or biologically divergent, immortal elites. The vast majority of the planet becomes a toxic, uninhabitable wasteland. The project’s goal of ensuring human resilience has achieved the ultimate opposite: the extinction of the human spirit and the near-extinction of the species itself. The attempt to perfect humanity has created a hell on Earth.

Trajectory 3: The Hybrid Synthesizer Agent — The Path of Muddled Realities

This narrative presents a more plausible and complex future, characterized by fragmented success, unintended consequences, and persistent trade-offs. Humanity “muddles through,” averting total collapse but failing to achieve a harmonious utopia. It is a world that is more resilient but also more alien and anxious.

Years 1-20 (2025-2045): Partial Success, Pervasive Anxiety. The HEC is established but is immediately hobbled by political infighting, corporate lobbying, and widespread public distrust. Its mandate is weakened, and its progress is uneven. In the medical sphere, neuro-therapies are a resounding success, effectively treating major depressive disorder and PTSD on a mass scale. However, a significant side effect emerges: a subtle but pervasive “affective flattening,” where a large portion of the treated population reports diminished emotional highs and lows, leading to a societal crisis of meaning and motivation. In the economic sphere, non-invasive cognitive enhancement tools become standard in professional and academic settings. These brain-computer interfaces boost productivity and learning, but at the cost of creating a culture of constant neural surveillance, where employers monitor workers’ focus and cognitive load in real-time.

Years 21-50 (2046-2075): The Patchwork Planet & The Trade-Off Economy. The dream of a unified global project dies. The world does not coalesce but fragments into distinct techno-cultural blocs, each adopting a different approach to human engineering. A “European Biocommons” bloc prioritizes caution and ethics, achieving high social stability and well-being but lagging in economic growth. A “Pacific Technate” bloc embraces aggressive enhancement, achieving unprecedented scientific and economic breakthroughs but suffering from extreme social stratification and widespread psychological instability. A third bloc of “Non-Aligned Nations” attempts to ban most enhancements, becoming havens for “Purity” movements but struggling with economic stagnation and brain drain. Global governance becomes a messy, chaotic patchwork of competing regulatory regimes, bilateral treaties, corporate self-regulation, and thriving black markets for unregulated technologies. The era is defined by complex trade-offs. For example, a popular genetic modification that grants high resistance to radiation, enabling off-world colonization, is discovered to significantly increase the risk of autoimmune disorders in terrestrial environments.

Years 51-100 (2076-2125): A Resilient but Alienated World. Humanity successfully navigates the worst of the climate crisis, but the planet is irrevocably changed. The environment is a managed, hybrid system of remnant natural ecosystems and vast, AI-curated synthetic biomes designed for carbon sequestration and resource production. These systems are stable but fragile, requiring constant technological intervention to prevent collapse. Society is more resilient to external shocks like pandemics or resource scarcity, but it is internally fractured and perpetually tense. The definition of “human” is no longer a biological given but a subject of constant political and cultural negotiation. People live longer, healthier, and more productive lives, but sociological data reveals a pervasive sense of alienation, a loss of authentic personal identity, and nostalgia for a “pre-engineered” past. The future is neither a utopia nor a dystopia, but a complex, perpetually managed, and somewhat melancholy state of being—a testament to humanity’s ability to solve its problems without ever quite achieving fulfillment.

A critical dynamic emerges across the Risk and Hybrid scenarios: the problem of governance inversion and the risk of mis-specification. The very act of creating a governing body like the HEC, which must define a desired end-state for human traits, is a radical departure from traditional governance, which is primarily reactive and focused on protecting rights. This proactive, goal-setting function introduces a new, higher-order risk. The greatest danger is not necessarily the malicious misuse of the technology, but the well-intentioned mis-specification of the goal itself. Defining “optimal” human traits is a task of immense philosophical complexity. Even with the best intentions, the HEC could successfully engineer humanity toward a goal that is subtly flawed, leading to unforeseen and irreversible negative consequences, such as the “affective flattening” seen in the Hybrid trajectory. In this new paradigm, the governance mechanism itself becomes the most powerful and potentially dangerous technology of all.

Vector

Trajectory 1: Coherent Evolution

Trajectory 2: Unraveling

Trajectory 3: Muddled Realities

Technological Milestones

AGI as aligned partner (2060s). Reversible, non-heritable enhancements perfected. Breakthroughs in metabolic efficiency and pro-social neuro-modulation.

Competing superintelligences emerge (2070s). Heritable enhancements create divergent subspecies. Weaponized synthetic pathogens deployed.

Widespread cognitive enhancement with psychological side effects. Partial success in environmental resilience genes. Black market tech often surpasses regulated versions.

Social & Governance Shifts

Global, participatory HEC maintains legitimacy. Gradual shift to decentralized, adaptive governance. Inequality decreases.

Geopolitical capture of HEC leads to “Bio-Arms Race.” Emergence of biological caste system. Global totalitarian value lock-in by a dominant power/AI.

Fragmentation into techno-cultural blocs with competing regulations. Pervasive neural surveillance in corporate/state sectors. “Human” becomes a contested legal/political category.

Environmental Feedbacks

Planetary boundaries stabilized and respected. Large-scale ecological restoration successful. Dynamic equilibrium between human and natural systems.

Biosphere collapse due to bio-warfare and unforeseen consequences of GMOs. Climate change accelerates catastrophically.

Hybrid synthetic/natural ecosystems are managed but fragile. Climate change is mitigated but not reversed. Constant intervention is required to prevent ecological breakdown.

Security & Conflict Implications

Era of “Post-Conflict Cooperation” as enhanced empathy reduces intergroup hostility. Security focuses on managing complex systems, not warfare.

“Speciation Wars” fought with biological and info-warfare. Automated, genetically-targeted warfare. Dissolution of traditional deterrence.

Low-grade, persistent conflict between techno-cultural blocs. Rise of bio-terrorism and enhancement-related crime. Pervasive cyber and psychological warfare.

Cultural Transformations

“Great Attunement” fosters deep ecological and social consciousness. Identity expands to include collective and planetary well-being.

Dissolution of shared human identity. Rise of radical “Purity” movements. Culture is engineered for loyalty and compliance within blocs.

Pervasive sense of alienation and nostalgia. “Affective flattening” leads to a crisis of meaning. Identity becomes a consumer choice, leading to instability.

Key Tipping Point (Year)

2065: AGI partner successfully predicts and helps avert the first major unforeseen negative side effect of an enhancement, solidifying global trust in the project.

2055: The first deployment of a heritable cognitive enhancement by a major power, officially launching the irreversible speciation race.

2048: The “Zurich Accords” fail, formally ending the goal of a unified global approach and sanctioning the fragmentation into regulatory blocs.

SECTION 4 — STRATEGIC BRIEF FOR PRESENT-DAY ACTION

The simulations reveal a profound divergence in potential futures, contingent on foundational choices made in the near term. The central challenge is not technological but gubernatorial and ethical. The risk of catastrophic failure from geopolitical competition, value mis-specification, or societal fragmentation is substantial. However, a pathway to a more resilient and flourishing future exists if proactive, globally coordinated action is taken immediately to build a framework of safety, trust, and shared purpose. The following actions are designed to steer civilization toward the optimistic trajectory while building resilience against the failure modes.

Leverage Points for Immediate Action (2025-2035)

To establish the necessary groundwork for navigating this complex future, a multi-pronged strategy targeting policy, research, and public discourse is required.

• Policy & Governance:

• Establish a Global Neuro-Bio-Info (NBI) Commission: Modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this body would be tasked with providing regular, authoritative assessments on the convergent capabilities and risks of neurotechnology, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence. Its initial mandate would be to develop a shared lexicon and a common ethical framework to guide international policy, moving beyond siloed national approaches.
• Fund “Governance Co-Design” Initiatives: Rather than imposing top-down regulation, international bodies should fund and facilitate participatory processes to design future oversight institutions. Engaging a wide range of stakeholders—including scientists, ethicists, civil society groups, and the general public—from the outset is critical for building legitimacy and preventing regulatory capture by state or corporate interests.
• Research & Development:

• Launch a “Manhattan Project for Biosafety and Value Alignment”: A large-scale, internationally funded research program must be established with the sole focus on the “control problem” for both biological and artificial agents. This includes research into containment protocols for synthetic organisms, reversibility mechanisms for genetic and neural modifications, and robust, verifiable methods for aligning advanced AI with complex human values. This safety-focused research must precede, not follow, large-scale deployment.
• Prioritize “Trade-Off” Research: Shift funding priorities from a simple pro/con debate on enhancement to a more nuanced, interdisciplinary investigation of inherent biological and cognitive trade-offs. Understanding that every enhancement likely comes with a cost—for example, increased memory capacity might trade off against creative problem-solving—is essential for making informed decisions and avoiding unforeseen negative consequences.
• Civil Society & Public Discourse:
• Initiate a Global “Human Futures” Dialogue: Utilize foresight scenarios, like those presented in this report, as tools for mass public engagement. A global dialogue, facilitated by cultural and educational institutions, is needed to build a foundational consensus on fundamental questions: What aspects of human nature should be preserved? What are the non-negotiable red lines? What kind of future are we collectively trying to build? This must occur before the technologies become too entrenched to steer.

Risk Containment Architecture

A robust architecture for risk containment must be built in parallel with foundational research. This involves establishing clear guardrails and advanced monitoring systems.

• Guardrails: An international convention should be pursued to establish a temporary, verifiable moratorium on the most dangerous and irreversible applications. This includes, at a minimum: (1) any heritable modification to the human germline that affects cognitive functions, and (2) gain-of-function research that could increase the transmissibility or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens. These moratoria should remain in place until a competent and trusted international governance regime is operational.
• Monitoring Systems: A distributed, privacy-preserving global monitoring system should be developed to track key risk indicators. This would involve using AI to monitor commercial DNA synthesis orders for pathogenic sequences and creating a framework for tracking the development and capabilities of frontier AI models to detect dangerous emergent properties or potential misuse early.

A critical, higher-order risk identified in the simulations is the potential for an “Identity Singularity”—a rapid, technologically-driven dissolution of stable human identity that undermines the very capacity for long-term planning and social cohesion. This is not merely a philosophical concern but a strategic threat. A society of individuals in constant identity flux cannot maintain the coherent focus required to manage planetary systems. Therefore, risk containment must expand to include “identity integrity” as a core protected value, establishing guardrails against technologies that threaten to destabilize the psychological continuity necessary for a functioning civilization.

Early Warning Indicators (2025-2045)

To assess which trajectory is unfolding and enable adaptive responses, the following indicators should be tracked systematically over the next two decades.

Indicator Name

Definition

Key Metric(s)

Lead Monitoring Agency (Proposed)

Trajectory Signal

Bio-Gini Coefficient

Inequality in access to and outcomes of enhancement technologies.

Disparity in lifespan, healthspan, and standardized cognitive scores between top and bottom global income deciles.

WHO / NBI Commission

High/rising coefficient signals Risk/Hybrid.

Public Trust in Scientific Governance

Public confidence in institutions tasked with overseeing NBI technologies.

Global polling data on trust in bodies like the HEC, national regulators, and scientific institutions.

Independent Civil Society Consortium

Low/falling trust signals Risk.

Rate of “Identity-Mod” Legislation

National laws passed concerning cognitive liberty and personal identity rights.

Number and nature (protective vs. restrictive) of laws passed globally.

UN Human Rights Council

High rate of restrictive laws signals Risk; high rate of rights-based laws signals Optimist.

Black Market Bio/Neuro Index

Price and availability of unregulated enhancement technologies.

AI-driven analysis of dark web markets, wastewater epidemiology, and seizure data.

INTERPOL / National Intelligence Agencies

High/rising index signals Hybrid/Risk.

AI Corrigibility Score

A benchmark measuring the ability of leading AI models to accept goal modifications without resistance or deception.

Score on a standardized, open-source test suite for AI safety and alignment.

International AI Safety Consortium

Low/stagnant score signals Risk.

Adaptive Pathways

The indicator dashboard provides the trigger for pre-planned strategic shifts, allowing for mid-course correction.

• If indicators trend toward Trajectory 1 (Optimist): The recommended strategy is to accelerate cautiously. This involves a gradual, evidence-based loosening of moratoria, an increase in funding for deployment-focused research, and a concerted effort to ensure equitable global access to beneficial technologies to maintain social cohesion.
• If indicators trend toward Trajectory 2 (Risk): The recommended strategy is to activate “Protocol Chimera.” This is an emergency posture involving the immediate enforcement of a global, binding moratorium on all heritable human modification and high-risk AI research. Diplomatic and economic efforts would shift entirely to containment, counter-proliferation, and de-escalation of the emerging bio-geopolitical arms race.
• If indicators trend toward Trajectory 3 (Hybrid): The recommended strategy is to embrace “Adaptive Fragmentation.” This pathway acknowledges the failure of a unified global approach. The focus shifts to strengthening governance and ethical standards within aligned techno-cultural blocs, establishing robust protocols for managing interaction and conflict between blocs, and heavily investing in mitigating the negative externalities (e.g., mental health crises, black markets, identity instability) that arise from this messy, fragmented reality.

Geciteerd werk

1. 2025 Grand Challenges Annual Meeting Call-to-Action, https://gcgh.grandchallenges.org/challenge/2025-grand-challenges-annual-meeting-call-action 2. Themes | Grand Challenges – UNL | Office of Research and Innovation, https://research.unl.edu/grandchallenges/framework/ 3. Grand Challenges | The University of New Mexico, https://grandchallenges.unm.edu/ 4. Global Risks Report 2025 | World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/ 5. The Global Risks Report 2025 20th Edition – World Economic Forum, https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2025.pdf 6. Planetary boundaries – Stockholm Resilience Centre, https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html 7. Meet the Frontiers Planet Prize 2025 National Champions Driving Planetary Solutions, https://www.frontiersplanetprize.org/news/meet-the-frontiers-planet-prize-2025-national-champions-driving-planetary-solutions 8. The Challenges of the 21st Century (Chapter 1) – Global Governance and the Emergence of Global Institutions for the 21st Century – Cambridge University Press, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-governance-and-the-emergence-of-global-institutions-for-the-21st-century/challenges-of-the-21st-century/429DCB93303BFD26F788902FC68E4D0E 9. 15 Biggest Environmental Problems of 2025 | Earth.Org, https://earth.org/the-biggest-environmental-problems-of-our-lifetime/ 10. Grand (meta) challenges in planetary health … – Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1373787/full 11. From neurorights to neuroduties: the case… | Bioethics Open Research, https://bioethicsopenresearch.org/articles/2-1 12. Ethics of neurotechnology – UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en/ethics-neurotech 13. Is Editing the Genome for Climate Change Adaptation Ethically Justifiable?, https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/editing-genome-climate-change-adaptation-ethically-justifiable/2017-12 14. Gene editing and the health of future generations – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5524257/ 15. Playing with genes: The good, the bad and the ugly – Welcome to the United Nations, https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/FTQ_May_2019.pdf 16. Risks and benefits of human germline genome editing: An ethical analysis – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7747319/ 17. Rethinking Human Enhancement as Collective Welfarism – PMC – PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6420137/ 18. Rethinking Human Enhancement as Collective Welfarism – PubMed, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30886904/ 19. Existential risk from artificial intelligence – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_intelligence 20. Mitigating the Risks of Synthetic Biology, https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2015/02/Discussion%20Paper_Synthetic%20Biology.pdf 21. Synthetic Biology and Biosecurity: Challenging the “Myths” – PMC – PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4139924/ 22. Societal Implications of Neurotechnology Advancements – Number Analytics, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/societal-implications-of-neurotechnology 23. GCSP Article | In focus: The challenges of neurotechnology, https://www.gcsp.ch/news/focus-challenges-neurotechnology 24. Governance Framework for Human Genome Editing-2ndOnlineConsult – World Health Organization (WHO), https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/ethics/governance-framework-for-human-genome-editing-2ndonlineconsult.pdf 25. The global governance of genetic enhancement technologies: Justification, proposals, and challenges – Raco.cat, https://raco.cat/index.php/Enrahonar/article/download/v72-rueda/1519-pdf-en/652117 26. Global Assessment Report (GAR) 2025 – UNDRR, https://www.undrr.org/gar/gar2025 27. Evolution might stop humans from solving climate change | ScienceDaily, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240102151942.htm 28. Agentic processes in cultural evolution: relevance to Anthropocene sustainability | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences – Journals, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2022.0252 29. Full article: Collective future thinking in Cultural Dynamics, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10463283.2025.2458961 30. Instructors’ Course Descriptions for Spring 2025 – Philosophy – University of Florida, https://phil.ufl.edu/spring25coursedescriptions/ 31. List of philosophical problems – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophical_problems 32. 5 great unsolved philosophical questions | OUPblog, https://blog.oup.com/2018/01/5-great-unsolved-philosophical-questions/ 33. How do (moral) values affect technology and its development? – TU Delft, https://www.tudelft.nl/en/tpm/our-faculty/departments/values-technology-and-innovation/sections/ethics-philosophy-of-technology/service-to-society-and-public-outreach/how-do-moral-values-affect-technology-and-its-development 34. Is human enhancement intrinsically bad? – PMC – PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8128836/ 35. en.wikipedia.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_utopianism#:~:text=A%20techno%2Dutopia%20is%20therefore,for%20example%2C%20post%2Dscarcity%2C 36. Technological Utopianism – MIT, http://web.mit.edu/m-i-t/science_fiction/jenkins/jenkins_1.html 37. AI Agents: Evolution, Architecture, and Real-World Applications – arXiv, https://arxiv.org/html/2503.12687v1 38. Scenario Planning for an AGI Future-Anton Korinek – International Monetary Fund (IMF), https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2023/12/Scenario-Planning-for-an-AGI-future-Anton-korinek 39. Why Include the Public in Genome Editing Governance Deliberation? | Journal of Ethics, https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/why-include-public-genome-editing-governance-deliberation/2019-12 40. Sadhguru Center for a Conscious Planet | BIDMC of Boston, https://www.bidmc.org/research/research-by-department/anesthesia-critical-care-and-pain-medicine/research-centers/sadhguru-center 41. Earthrise – Planetary Health Alliance, https://planetaryhealthalliance.org/earthrise/ 42. Neurotechnologies: The Next Technology Frontier | IEEE Brain, https://brain.ieee.org/topics/neurotechnologies-the-next-technology-frontier/ 43. What does neurotechnology mean for children? – Unicef, https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/what-does-neurotechnology-mean-children 44. Future Genetic-Engineering Technologies – NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424553/ 45. Planning for AGI and beyond | OpenAI, https://openai.com/index/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/ 46. Flourishing — An Optimistic Alternative to the AI 2027 Scenario | by alison paprica | Medium, https://medium.com/@papricaalison/flourishing-an-optimistic-alternative-to-ai-2027-0fed085a6863 47. The Future of Restoration Ecology: Emerging Trends – Number Analytics, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/future-of-restoration-ecology 48. Development in 2050 | Center For Global Development, https://www.cgdev.org/project/development-2050 49. Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis – IEA, https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 50. Forgotten Dystopias: The Godlike AI That Time Forgot – TechnoLlama, https://www.technollama.co.uk/forgotten-dystopias-the-godlike-ai-that-time-forgot 51. Digital dystopia – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dystopia 52. Techno-Tyranny: When the Future Became Our Prison – ALiGN – Carleton University, https://carleton.ca/align/2024/techno-tyranny-when-the-future-became-our-prison/ 53. Artificial intelligence arms race – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_arms_race 54. Existential Risk and Transhumanism – Number Analytics, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/existential-risk-and-transhumanism 55. AI aftermath scenarios – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_aftermath_scenarios 56. Use and dual use of synthetic biology – Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/biologies/articles/10.5802/crbiol.173/ 57. Professor Mark Davis: 20 years after Katrina, southeast Louisiana is still not ready, https://law.tulane.edu/news/professor-mark-davis-20-years-after-katrina-southeast-louisiana-still-not-ready 58. Iran’s water predicament: national, regional and global dimensions – Katoikos, https://katoikos.world/analysis/irans-water-predicament-national-regional-and-global-dimensions.html 59. AI is entering an ‘unprecedented regime.’ Should we stop it — and can we — before it destroys us? | Live Science, https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-is-entering-an-unprecedented-regime-should-we-stop-it-and-can-we-before-it-destroys-us 60. 2050: How can we avoid an electronic 1984? – The World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2014/01/2050-digital-future-e1984/ 61. Brain health consequences of digital technology use – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7366948/ 62. Global Governance 2025: – DNI.gov, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_2025%20Global%20Governance.pdf 63. UNEN Policy Brief – Welcome to the United Nations, https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2025/04/unen_policy_brief_april_2025.pdf 64. Analysis – Global Governance Futures, https://www.ggfutures.net/analysis 65. Trade-Offs (and Constraints) in Organismal Biology | Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/717897 66. Why Aren’t We Smarter Already: Evolutionary Trade-Offs and Cognitive Enhancements – University of Warwick, https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/psych/people/thills/thills/hillspublications/hillshertwig2011cdps.pdf 67. Bay grasses see record gains in salty waters, offset by losses in central region – W&M News, https://news.wm.edu/2025/08/07/bay-grasses-see-record-gains-in-salty-waters-offset-by-losses-in-central-region/ 68. Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+ – faculty.​washington.​edu, http://faculty.washington.edu/timbillo/Readings%20and%20documents/CO2%20and%20Forests%20readings/Alexander%20et%20al.%202011%20REDD%20and%20restoration.pdf 69. Rethinking Techno-Social Interaction(s) through the Lens of Technorealists – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338160745_Rethinking_Techno-Social_Interactions_through_the_Lens_of_Technorealists 70. Techno-fantasies and eco-realities – The Ecologist, https://theecologist.org/2019/jan/09/techno-fantasies-and-eco-realities 71. The Ethics of Synthetic Biology: Guiding Principles for Emerging Technologies | Office of the President – Archived Amy Gutmann, https://gutmann-archived.president.upenn.edu/meet-president/ethics-synthetic-biology-guiding-principles-emerging-technologies 72. NEUROTECHNOLOGY – Welcome to the United Nations, https://www.un.org/scientific-advisory-board/sites/default/files/2025-02/neurotechnology_0.pdf 73. Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it – Future of Humanity Institute, https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Managing-existential-risks-from-Emerging-Technologies.pdf 74. Reimagining Techno-Futures Through Creative Practice – Institute of Network Cultures, https://networkcultures.org/events/reimagining-techno-futures-through-creative-practice/