Search the archive.

Therefore, it is necessary to begin a rethinking and strategic transition to the structure of global healthcare, considering that the expansion of healthcare coverage is slowing down around the world, as public spending does not meet the demands of society [22, 23]. Out-of-pocket healthcare costs have been found to cause financial hardship for more than 930 million people and push nearly 90 million into extreme poverty each year, with the worsening of impoverishment rate. If current trends continue, WHO predicts that by 2030, up to 5 billion people will be unable to access or afford healthcare [23, 24]. A human rights-based global approach to health governance would enable lowand middle-income countries to have equitable access to essential resources such as medicines and personal protective equipment regardless of ability to pay, while at the same time obliging high-income countries, the private sector and major donors to contribute a greater share in the financing of health care systems [25, 26].

The devastating impact of COVID-19 has highlighted global vulnerabilities to high-consequence biological events. The international community was woefully unprepared for a pandemic that has led to millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in economic losses, and has upended daily life. However, notwithstanding the severe damage caused by COVID-19, it should be viewed as a warning shot.1 It will not be the last pandemic humanity faces, and the next high-consequence biological event could be as destructive or substantially worse.

We define global catastrophic biological risks (GCBRs) as biological events of tremendous scale that could cause severe damage to human civilization, potentially jeopardizing its long-term survival.2 The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security has also developed a working definition of GCBRs,3 and this term is part of a broader discussion about global catastrophic risks that could arise from a variety of sources, including nuclear war, anthropogenic climate change, and advanced artificial intelligence that has not been sufficiently safeguarded.4,5 GCBRs could be caused by a naturally emerging infectious disease outbreak, an accidental release of a pathogen, or a deliberate attack. Naturally emerging infectious disease outbreaks that can grow into pandemics are likely to increase in frequency due to urbanization, globalization, and environmental degradation, and the world faces an increasing risk of high-consequence biological events resulting from accidental or deliberate misuse of the tools of modern bioscience and biotechnology.6-8 Not all outbreaks or global pandemics will grow to the scale of a GCBR as we define it in this article and as others have defined global catastrophic risks more broadly, because the threshold for this type of event is extremely high.

The multilateralist global system that the United States and the West built after the end of the Second World War was premised on an economically strong United States and West. In 1945, the United States was the only victor that was not completely devastated. World War II had brought the country out of the Great Depression, and the US GDP constituted more than 50 percent of the world’s total. Into the twenty-first century, the members of the Group of Seven (G7) were the world’s political and economic heavyweights. It has only been in the past several years that the collective GDP of the developing world—led by China—has surpassed the developed world’s. Even as non-Western powers grow, it is psychologically hard for the West to think about relinquishing its reins.

Demographically, the West has, for a long time, been in the minority. What’s more recent is the aging of the Western population (analyzed in chapter 2), which is already occurring in Japan and Europe, beginning to squeeze the availability of resources for anything but health, social security, and interest payments on debt. Unless healthcare becomes far more efficient, the US economy will be overburdened with healthcare and pension costs as the “baby boomer” generation ages. Healthcare constitutes a whopping 18 percent of the US GDP—significantly more than is the case for other industrialized countries—without necessarily providing better results.

6. Case Studies of Successful AI-Aided Drug Discovery Efforts

The potential of AI in the context of drug discovery has been demonstrated in several case studies. For example, the successful use of AI to identify novel compounds for the treatment of cancer has recently been reported by Gupta, R., et al. [21]. These authors trained a DL algorithm on a large dataset of known cancer-related compounds and their corresponding biological activity. As an output, novel compounds with high potential for future cancer treatment were obtained, demonstrating the ability of this method to discover new therapeutic candidates. The use of ML to identify small-molecule inhibitors of the protein MEK [22] has recently been described. MEK is also a possible target for the treatment of cancer, but the development of effective inhibitors has been challenging. The ML algorithm was able to identify novel inhibitors for this protein. Another example is the identification of novel inhibitors of beta-secretase (BACE1), a protein involved in the development of Alzheimer’s disease [23] by using an ML algorithm. AI has also been successfully applied in the discovery of new antibiotics [24]. A pioneering ML approach has identified powerful types of antibiotic from a pool of more than 100 million molecules, including one that works against a wide range of bacteria, such as tuberculosis and untreatable bacterial strains [25]. The use of AI in the discovery of drugs to combat COVID-19 has been a promising area of research during the last two years. ML algorithms have been used to analyze large datasets of potential compounds and identify those with the most potential for treating the virus. In some cases, these AI-powered approaches have been able to identify promising drug candidates in a fraction of the time that it would take when using traditional methods [26–31].

5. The Impact of AI on the Drug Discovery Process and Potential Cost Savings

Another key application of AI in drug discovery is the design of novel compounds with specific properties and activities. Traditional methods often rely on the identification and modification of existing compounds, which can be a slow and labor-intensive process. AI-based approaches, on the other hand, can enable the rapid and efficient design of novel compounds with desirable properties and activities. For example, a deep learning (DL) algorithm has recently been trained on a dataset of known drug compounds and their corresponding properties, to propose new therapeutic molecules [10] with desirable characteristics such as solubility and activity, demonstrating the potential of these methods for the rapid and efficient design of new drug candidates. Recently, DeepMind has made a significant contribution to the field of AI research with the development of AlphaFold, a revolutionary software platform for advancing our understanding of biology [19]. It is a powerful algorithm that uses protein sequence data and AI to predict the proteins’ corresponding three-dimensional structures. This advance in structural biology is expected to revolutionize personalized medicine and drug discovery. AlphaFold represents a significant step forward in the use of AI in structural biology and life sciences in general. ML techniques and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are currently being used in the field of de novo drug design to improve efficiency and accuracy. The technique of combining these methodologies is being explored to take advantage of the synergies between them [20]. The use of interpretable machine learning (IML) and DL methods is also contributing to this effort. By leveraging the power of AI and MD, researchers are able to design drugs more effectively and efficiently than ever before.

Rubstein 23, [Adrian Rubstein (CEO of Ax3.Bio, Bioentrepreneur, Biotechnology Advisor), “Redefining drug development: the trailblazing evolution of the pharmaceutical industry,” Labiotech, , accessed 7-4-2024, 11/29/23] Mr.Mr.

For any pharmaceutical company or academic institution, it is a big achievement to advance a drug candidate to phase 1 clinical trials after drug candidates are rigorously optimized at the preclinical stage. However, nine out of ten drug candidates would fail during phase 1, 2, 3 clinical trials and drug approval.

(P&GJ) — While the use of renewables, improved energy efficiency and electric vehicles are areas of focus, oil and natural gas will continue to be in demand for petrochemicals and fueling transportation by land, sea and air.

Greater fossil fuel consumption means more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas (GHG) and its rising levels cause extreme climate events like temperature rise and shift in rainfall/snow patterns. This article addresses the various available technologies used for capturing carbon, reducing CO2 emissions and utilizing the captured carbon for monetization.

---Pretty nutty advantage CPs in here if CCS ends up in an aff

FutureBridge 23, [FutureBridge Net Zero Events (Future Bridge organizes industry-tailored B2B online conferences and virtual summits focused on sustainability-oriented innovation, lowering emissions without compromising efficiency, assisting with energy transition initiatives, embracing the digital era, and developing a green value chain.), “Can Innovation Drive Down the Costs of Carbon Capture?” , accessed 6-27-2024, 11/20/2023] Mr.Mr.

Looking back on the history of life on Earth, the main driver of species’ extinctions have been changes in climate over time that species could not adapt to, even when provided long spans of time to adapt. Given the unnaturally fast rate of global warming climate change now occurring, humans would have to adapt to the rapid loss of habitat and food sources, as well as all the other impacts, at an unprecedentedly fast speed. Adding to concerns regarding our survival as a species, pessimists point out that Homo sapiens are the last of several humanoid species (Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc.) that made Earth their home for millions of years until these prior humanoid species eventually went extinct because they could not adapt to their environment and competition for food.

Why the Concern Now About Our Survival as a Species?

Dent 21, [Dr. Michael Dent (BS in Biology from Davidson College, MD from The Medical University of South Carolina, CEO of HealthLynked, Founder and Former Chairman and CEO of NeoGenomics Laboratories, Co-Founder and Managing Director of InLight Capital Partners, LLC), "Innovation in Carbon Capture Technology," IDTechEx, , accessed 6-27-2024, 4/27/21] Mr.Mr.

Carbon capture technology may be essential for the world to stay within the 2°C warming target outlined by the Paris Agreement. Although the deployment of this technology has begun to pick up in recent years, it is still a long way from the levels of scale-up needed to have a meaningful impact on climate change. Current technology for stripping CO2 from industrial gas streams or directly from the atmosphere remains costly and energy-intensive, and existing carbon capture facilities have struggled with downtime, keeping to CO2 capture targets, and managing costs.

As mentioned before, the United States, almost throughout its history, has imported more petroleum, including refined petroleum products, crude oil, and other liquids, than it has exported. In 2020, this situation changed. According to the Short-TermEnergy Outlook (STEO) of February 2021 provided by the U.S. Energy InformationAdministration (EIA), 2020 was the first year that the United States exported morepetroleum than it imported. However, EIA expects that, mainly due to declines in domestic crude oil production and subsequent increases in crude oil imports, the United States will return to being a net petroleum importer both for 2021 and 2022.

According to EIA’s reports, the growing crude oil imports will subsequently lead to the rise of the net petroleum imports and more than counterbalance the changes in the refined product net trade. Specifically, the Administration expects the augmentation of the net imports of crude oil from their 2020 average of 2.7 mmb/d to 3.7 mmb/d and 4.4 mmb/d in 2021 and 2022 respectively.

A world dominated by totalitarian states would be more incompetent, more war-prone, less cooperative, and more inhibitive of progress than one dominated by democratic states. Our current world is not particularly competent, peaceful, cooperative, or progressive—a totalitarian-dominated world would be worse. It would increase the risk of another collapse and extinction and could shape the future toward less desirable trajectories (Beckstead, 2013). Totalitarian states are incompetent. They are bad at forecasting and dealing with disasters (Caplan, 2008).16 This can be seen most clearly in the great famines of Communist China and the USSR, in which millions died (Applebaum, 2017; Becker, 1996; Dikotter, 2010; Snyder, 2010). In comparison, functioning multiparty democracies rarely, if ever, experience famines (Sen, 2010). “Established autocracies” (or “personal”/“sultanist”) are particularly bad, as there are few checks or restraints on arbitrary rule and the whims and ideology of the single individual, even from other elites (Svolik, 2012). From the inside, the “inner circle” around Mao, Stalin, and Hitler seems incredibly chaotic, with elites strongly incentivized to conceal information and encouraged by the autocrat to squabble and feud—so they are divided (Conquest, 1992; Kershaw, 2008; Zhang & Halliday, 2006). If totalitarian states are worse at addressing social, environmental, and technological problems, then a world dominated by them would likely be worse at responding to risks of collapse and extinction. A world dominated by totalitarian states is more likely to have major wars. States with near-universal adult suffrage rarely (if ever) go to war with one another (Barnhart et al., 2020), so a world dominated by democracies has fewer wars. Miscalculation might be a particular problem for totalitarian states due to personalization and disincentives for accurate information, leading to well-known strategic disasters such as Hitler and Stalin’s blunders in World War II (Bialer, 1970; Noakes & Pridham, 2001), or at a smaller level, Saddam Hussein’s rejection of diplomacy (Atkinson, 1993). War makes collapse and extinction more likely, by raising the chance of weapons of mass destruction being used. Linked to this, totalitarian states are less cooperative than democratic states. While cooperation is possible (Ginsburg, 2020), their internal norms are characterized by paranoia and treachery, and their lack of transparency limits their ability to credibly commit to agreements. This is bad for all risks that require cooperation such as pandemics or climate change (Tomasik, 2015). Finally, continued social and scientific progress is likely to reduce risks of collapse and extinction. Social progress could reduce global inequality and other risk factors. Scientific progress could help address natural risks and climate change (Sandberg, 2018), differentially increase defensive rather than offensive power (Garfinkel & Dafoe, 2019), and solve safety challenges in AI or biotechnology (Russell, 2019). However, as we will now discuss totalitarian states would likely inhibit social progress. A central question from a longtermist perspective is: Which values should shape the future? I would argue that we should prefer it to be shaped by liberal democratic values. This is not to say that the current democracy-dominated world is perfect—far from it. The fate of billions of factory-farmed animals or hundreds of millions of people in extreme poverty makes that abundantly clear. However, democracies have two advantages. First, democracies have space for cosmopolitan values such as human rights, plurality, freedom, and equality. These are better than those that characterize life under totalitarianism: Fear, terror, subjection, and secrecy. Second, they have within themselves the mechanism to allow progress. In the last 100 (or even 50) years, the lives of women, LGBT people, religious minorities, and non-white people have dramatically improved. Our “moral circle” has expanded, and could continue to expand (Singer, 1981). The arc of the moral universe is long, but given the right conditions, it might just bend toward justice (King, 1968). A global society dominated by these values, and with the possibility of improving more, has a better longterm potential. A totalitarian-dominated world, on the other hand, would reduce the space for resistance and progress—distorting the human trajectory. We should be particularly concerned about “bottlenecks” at which values are particularly important—where there is a risk of “locking-in” some particular set of (possibly far from optimal) values. While they are currently far-off, future technologies such as artificial general intelligence, space settlement, life extension (of autocrats), or much better surveillance could enable lock-in (Caplan, 2008).17 Conditional on them avoiding new catastrophes, world orders dominated by totalitarians could be quite long-lasting (Caplan, 2008). Democracies can undermine authoritarian and totalitarian regimes through the following ways: Control, including conquest; contagion through proximity; and consent, promoting receptivity toward democratization (Whitehead, 2001). Democracies can actively undermine these regimes through war, sanctions, hosting rebellious exiles, or sponsoring internal movements. Passively, through contagion, they offer a demonstration that a better, more prosperous life is possible. For example, in the final years of the USSR, ordinary Soviet citizens were able to see that the West had a higher standard of living—more innovation, more choice, and more consumer goods. The elites were able to read books from the outside, and travel—Gorbachev’s contacts and friendships with European politicians may have made him more favorable to social democracy (Brown, 1996). Democracies can undermine the will and capacity of the coercive apparatus (Bellin, 2004). However, in a world not dominated by democracies, all these pressures would be far less. A world in which, say, totalitarian regimes emerged as dominant after World War II (for example if the USA was defeated) could be self-reinforcing and long-lasting, like the self-reinforcing relationship of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia (Orwell, 1949). Orwell’s fictional world is characterized by constant low-grade warfare to justify emergency powers and secure elites, and with shifting alliances of convenience as states bandwagon and balance, thereby preventing any resolution. A totalitarian-dominated world order could be rather robust, perhaps for decades or even centuries. A long-lasting totalitarian-dominated world would extend the period of time humanity would spend with a heightened risk of collapse or extinction, as well as increased potential for distortion of the human trajectory and the possibility that a “lock-in” event may occur. This example illustrates the possibility of a “negative recovery,” resulting in a trajectory with less or no scientific and social progress and a less favorable geopolitical situation, which would threaten the destruction of humanity’s longterm potential.

In this sense, access to sustainable energy supplies is essential for China to maintain its economic development and trajectory in the long-term. (Freeman, 2018). In short, if China did not diversify, it would become increasingly dependent upon fossil fuels, and more vulnerable to price fluctuations and supply interruption. From an energy and economic security standpoint, China cannot continue with business as usual (Tan, 2015).

Ideological security – geopolitical dominance

The multilateralist global system that the United States and the West built after the end of the Second World War was premised on an economically strong United States and West. In 1945, the United States was the only victor that was not completely devastated. World War II had brought the country out of the Great Depression, and the US GDP constituted more than 50 percent of the world’s total. Into the twenty-first century, the members of the Group of Seven (G7) were the world’s political and economic heavyweights. It has only been in the past several years that the collective GDP of the developing world—led by China—has surpassed the developed world’s. Even as non-Western powers grow, it is psychologically hard for the West to think about relinquishing its reins.

Demographically, the West has, for a long time, been in the minority. What’s more recent is the aging of the Western population (analyzed in chapter 2), which is already occurring in Japan and Europe, beginning to squeeze the availability of resources for anything but health, social security, and interest payments on debt. Unless healthcare becomes far more efficient, the US economy will be overburdened with healthcare and pension costs as the “baby boomer” generation ages. Healthcare constitutes a whopping 18 percent of the US GDP—significantly more than is the case for other industrialized countries—without necessarily providing better results.

Furthermore, efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions could further strengthen the U.S. economic hegemony. Countries currently relying on coal, such as China, will be eventually forced to make significant reductions and as a consequence will seek, among other solutions, to replace coal with natural gas.

The U.S. benefit will be strong, although not impregnable or permanent. It is possible that other countries will follow United States’ example and pursue shale gas and oil. Eventually these countries will succeed in developing these resources. However, until then, they will be saddled with long-term contracts for high-cost natural gas supplies which will be delivered as liquefied natural gas. Additionally, many countries, especially those in Europe, will also be stuck with long-term pipeline agreements for natural gas with prices tied to crude oil.

#5: Renewable energy avoids price increases and helps with long-term cost savings

Renewable energy is among the cheapest forms of energy generation and can help businesses reduce their long-term costs. By having a supply from a grid-scale renewable source, manufacturers can avoid future electricity price rises and keep their input costs more predictable. This is because the costs associated with renewable energy tend to remain stable.

Rahman et al. 24, [Arifur Rahman (School of Economics, Lanzhou University), S.M. Woahid Murad (School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Curtin University; Department of Economics, Noakhali Science and Technology University), A.K.M. Mohsin (Logistikum, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria; Supply Chain Intelligence Institute Austria), & Xiaowen Wang (School of Economics, Lanzhou University), “Does renewable energy proactively contribute to mitigating carbonemissions in major fossil fuels consuming countries?” Journal of Cleaner Production, , accessed 7-4-2024, 4/5/24] Mr.Mr.

5. Conclusion, policy implications, and limitations of the study

We are in the midst of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) revolution, with this technology poised to add up to $4.4 trillion to the global economy annually, according to McKinsey. But the race to lead in AI is about more than economic gain; it's about which country's values will shape our future, influencing freedom and openness versus control and surveillance.

Over the last three decades, America has led the global tech revolution, driven by values like free expression and entrepreneurship. These values have not only propelled American companies to the forefront but have also spread democratic principles worldwide. As American-made technology crosses borders, it carries with it the potential to enhance global freedom and democracy, making it crucial for America to maintain its technology leadership, especially in the AI landscape.

Semiconductors—or “computer chips”—lie at the heart of the competition between the United States and China. They are one of the most critical sectors of the modern economy and an irreplaceable input in almost every modern technology, from washing machines to missile guidance systems. For this reason, having reliable and affordable access to semiconductors can shape a country’s economic and military power. China is a prime example. Its meteoric rise over the past 20 years is due mainly to the country’s high concentration of global electronics production. Chinese firms like Huawei and ZTE have led the way in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and 5G technologies.

Over the past several years, the United States has sought to restrict China’s access to semiconductor technologies. Traditionally, Washington only ever limited the export of cutting-edge chips that might have military applications, believing that the United States could “run faster” than China through innovation and free trade. However, after China released its “Made in China” strategy in 2015, concern spread that China’s military and economic power was growing faster than expected and that it was using U.S. commercial technologies to do so. Consequently, the United States needed to “maintain as large of a lead as possible” in semiconductor technologies. This meant restricting sales of advanced semiconductor technologies to Chinese businesses, regardless of their civilian or military applications, and bolstering the domestic semiconductor industry through the $280 billion CHIPS and Science Act.

As China boldly charges forward with massive funding increases for research and development, the United States is retreating on its commitment to science and technology and risks falling behind in the global competitiveness race.

The Chinese government recently announced a massive $52 billion investment in research and development for 2024 — a 10% surge over the previous year that represents the largest percentage increase of any major funding area, including military spending.