The Age of Overwhelm
The feeling is now familiar, a low-grade hum of anxiety that accompanies the morning scroll. A headline announces another record-shattering heatwave, the image of a cracked riverbed searing itself onto the mind. A swipe reveals a new regional conflict flaring, its geopolitical tremors felt thousands of miles away. Another swipe: a breathtaking breakthrough in artificial intelligence that promises to remake society, followed immediately by a stark report on rising global inequality. The screen glows with a seemingly endless and disconnected series of emergencies, a cascade of crises that feels both urgent and utterly overwhelming. It is the defining zeitgeist of our time: the age of everything, everywhere, all at once.
This sense of being besieged by a chaotic volley of misfortunes is not a personal failing or a trick of perception. It is, as historian Adam Tooze puts it, a collective experience.1 And that experience has a name: the ‘polycrisis’. This is not simply a new buzzword for a difficult time. It is a powerful analytical framework that allows us to make sense of the chaos, to see the hidden architecture connecting the disparate calamities that fill our screens. The core of the concept, first introduced by French philosopher Edgar Morin in the 1990s and later popularized in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, is that our crises are not merely happening simultaneously by coincidence.2 They are causally entangled. They interact, amplify, and feed on one another, producing outcomes far more severe than the sum of their individual parts.1 A global polycrisis occurs, as analysts at the Cascade Institute define it, “when crises in multiple global systems become causally entangled in ways that significantly degrade humanity’s prospects”.5
This is a crucial distinction. To speak of a “perfect storm” is to imply a temporary convergence of bad luck, a meteorological anomaly that will eventually pass.7 The polycrisis, in contrast, points to a new, durable state of global instability, one rooted in the deep structural interconnections of our globalized systems—our economies, ecologies, and technologies.2 A shock in one domain, whether a pandemic, a financial crash, or a climate disaster, no longer remains contained. It cascades through the entire system, triggering and worsening other crises in a chain reaction.8
Of course, the term is not without its critics. Some dismiss it as an elite “buzzword” that can obscure specific, actionable problems by creating a sense of paralyzing complexity.2 Others rightly point out its Eurocentric undertones, noting that for much of the Global South, the experience of multiple, interlocking crises shaped by colonial history and global inequality is not a recent phenomenon but a centuries-long reality.2
These critiques are valid, yet they do not diminish the term’s primary utility. The most powerful function of the polycrisis concept is not merely descriptive, but psychological and strategic. It re-frames our collective experience. The feeling of being overwhelmed by a random series of misfortunes is paralyzing. It encourages a reactive, piecemeal approach—lurching from one fire to the next without ever addressing the source of the inferno. By naming the experience and identifying the underlying structure of entanglement, the polycrisis framework transforms our understanding. It shifts our perception from an unmanageable series of separate emergencies into a single, comprehensible (though immensely complex) systemic challenge. This narrative shift is the essential first step toward a solution. It forces us to stop looking for isolated fixes and start searching for systemic “polysolutions”—interventions that can address multiple crises at once.8 The story we tell ourselves about our reality fundamentally shapes our ability to act within it.
To navigate this new reality, we first need a map of the territory. The table below outlines the primary domains of our contemporary polycrisis, their key manifestations, and—most critically—the causal entanglements that bind them into a formidable, interconnected whole.
| Crisis Domain | Key Manifestations | Causal Entanglements / Amplifiers |
| Ecological | Climate tipping points, biodiversity collapse, resource scarcity, industrial agriculture impacts. | Fossil fuel economy drives climate change, which exacerbates resource scarcity and conflict. Industrial agriculture destroys biodiversity, reducing ecosystem resilience to climate shocks. |
| Geopolitical | Record number of inter-state and intra-state conflicts, erosion of global cooperation, great power competition. | Geopolitical tensions hinder cooperation on global challenges like climate and pandemics. Resource scarcity (food, water, energy) acts as a conflict multiplier. |
| Socio-Economic | Rising income/wealth inequality, gender inequality, corporate domination, erosion of monetary systems. | Economic insecurity fuels political polarization and erodes social trust. Corporate lobbying weakens democratic oversight and environmental regulation. |
| Political | Erosion of democratic norms, rise of authoritarianism, systemic misinformation, loss of public trust. | Social media algorithms amplify polarization and misinformation, undermining democratic discourse. Economic inequality translates into unequal political influence, further eroding trust. |
| Technological | AI-driven job displacement, algorithmic bias, social media addiction, risk of AGI/Singularity, robotics. | AI accelerates all other crises (e.g., autonomous weapons, misinformation). Tech billionaires wield para-state power, bypassing democratic accountability. |
| Health | Risk of future pandemics, global mental health crisis, separation from nature. | Biodiversity loss increases zoonotic disease risk. Social media addiction and eco-anxiety contribute to the mental health crisis. |
The Planetary Emergency: A Biosphere at the Brink
The foundation of the polycrisis is physical. Before any social or political system can function, it must exist within a stable biophysical reality. For all of human history, that stability has been a given. It is a given no longer. We are systematically dismantling our planet’s life-support systems, breaching critical planetary boundaries through a global economic model that is fundamentally at war with the natural world.
The Feverish Earth: Tipping into a New State
The scientific consensus is no longer a matter of debate but of terrifying clarity. The Earth’s climate system is approaching a series of critical thresholds, or tipping points, which, if crossed, could trigger rapid, irreversible, and catastrophic changes.10 These are not distant possibilities; recent assessments find that exceeding just 1.5°C of global warming—a threshold we are on track to cross between 2026 and 2042—risks triggering several of these cascades.10
The potential consequences are planetary in scale. The collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could lock in meters of sea-level rise, inundating coastal cities for millennia.10 The weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a vital system of ocean currents that redistributes heat around the globe, has already slowed by 15% in the last 50 years and is at its weakest in 1,600 years.10 Its collapse would radically alter weather patterns, potentially reducing rainfall in the Sahel, weakening Asia’s summer monsoon, and bringing more extreme winter storms to Europe.10 The Amazon rainforest, the planet’s lungs, risks turning into a savanna, releasing billions of tons of carbon. Coral reefs, cradles of marine biodiversity, face mass die-offs. This is the non-negotiable physical reality that underpins every other crisis we face.
The Carbon Engine: Our Global Fossil Fuel Addiction
The primary driver of this planetary fever is the engine of our modern world: the fossil fuel system. Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than at any point in human existence, rising by more than 10% in just two decades.11 The central battleground of the 21st century is therefore the energy transition, a struggle defined by a profound contradiction at the heart of our global energy outlook.
On one hand, the world’s most authoritative energy body, the International Energy Agency (IEA), has stated unequivocally that to meet the 1.5°C climate target, there can be no investment in new oil and gas projects.12 On the other hand, recent IEA draft reports, reportedly influenced by political pressure, have walked back these forecasts, suggesting that demand for both oil and gas is likely to keep growing for decades, with oil consumption potentially reaching 114 million barrels per day by 2050.15 This is not a simple forecasting error; it is a reflection of the immense political power and structural inertia of the incumbent fossil fuel industry. While global investment in clean energy is now set to reach $2.2 trillion in 2025, double the $1.1 trillion going to fossil fuels, the momentum is not yet decisive.17 Spending on coal supply, particularly in China and India, continues to rise.17
The $28 Trillion Gamble: Stranded Assets and Financial Instability
This battle over the energy transition is inextricably linked to the stability of the global financial system. To meet climate goals, studies suggest that 60-80% of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground, becoming “unburnable”.18 These reserves, currently valued on the balance sheets of the world’s largest corporations, would become “stranded assets”—economically worthless.19
The scale of this risk is staggering. The potential loss of revenue for the fossil fuel industry is estimated at $28 trillion over the next two decades.18 The current financial narrative, which focuses narrowly on direct loans to the fossil fuel sector, “largely underestimates potential stranding losses”.19 The risk extends across the entire economy, threatening banks, investment funds, and sovereign wealth funds with a sudden, disorderly revaluation of assets that could trigger a systemic financial crisis.20
The Great Unravelling: Biodiversity Collapse and the Industrial Food System
The ecological crisis extends far beyond carbon. A parallel and equally devastating unraveling is occurring in the biosphere. The 2019 Global Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) delivered a shocking verdict: human activity is threatening 1 million plant and animal species with extinction.22 This includes 40% of amphibians, over a third of marine mammals, and a third of reef-building corals.23
This is not merely an aesthetic or moral tragedy; it is a critical failure of our planetary life-support systems. The global biomass of wild mammals has plummeted by 82% since 1970.22 In their place, humans and the livestock we raise to feed ourselves now constitute an astonishing 96% of all mammalian biomass on Earth.23 The primary driver of this “great unraveling” is human land use, with industrial agriculture chief among the culprits.23 Our global agrifood systems are responsible for 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and have pushed humanity beyond six of the nine recognized planetary boundaries.24 This system is locked into a dangerous trajectory. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook projects that global agricultural production will expand by another 14% by 2034, driving a 6% increase in direct GHG emissions from the sector.25
The ecological dimension of the polycrisis thus reveals a profound and terrifying logic. Our global economic operating system, predicated on perpetual growth and the externalization of environmental costs, is systematically destroying the biophysical foundation upon which it depends. This is not a flaw in the system; it is a core feature. The pursuit of economic growth, measured by GDP, directly fuels the fossil fuel industry and the expansion of industrial agriculture. These activities, in turn, drive climate change and biodiversity loss, degrading the “natural capital”—a stable climate, clean water, healthy soils, pollination—that all economic activity relies upon. The consequences of this degradation, from climate-related disasters to food system failures and the systemic financial risk of stranded assets, then circle back to threaten the stability of the very economic systems that caused the damage. The IPBES report explicitly calls for a move away from GDP as a key metric for economic health, noting that the unaccounted-for costs of nature-degrading economic activity amount to an estimated $10-25 trillion annually.22 The system is caught in a self-reinforcing doom loop. The logic that drives it—short-term profit maximization and externalized costs—is the same logic that ensures its eventual unraveling. The crisis is not just that we are damaging the environment; it is that our economic model is structurally incapable of stopping itself from doing so, making it inherently self-terminating over the long run.
The Fracturing of the Polis: Democracy, Division, and Digital Dominance
As the planet’s life-support systems fray, so too does the fabric of our societies. The second major domain of the polycrisis is the steady decay of our political and social structures. A global democratic recession, rising conflict, soaring inequality, and the capture of the state by corporate power are all converging. Fueling this fragmentation is a new and unprecedented force: the rise of a “tech oligarchy” that controls the digital infrastructure of modern life and wields the algorithmic tools of mass persuasion.
The Long Democratic Recession
The data paints a bleak picture. According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2025 report, global freedom has declined for the 19th consecutive year.28 In 2024, sixty countries saw their scores for political rights and civil liberties deteriorate, while only 34 improved.28 This democratic decay manifests in various forms: the indefinite postponement of elections in Ukraine under the duress of war 29; the slide into “no-holds-barred authoritarianism” in El Salvador; and the brutal repression of opposition in Venezuela.28 Even in long-established democracies like the United States, democratic institutions have suffered significant erosion in recent years, strained by rising political polarization, partisan pressure on the electoral process, and growing extremism.30
(see our articles Democracy in the Balance: A 21st-Century Audit and A Gathering Storm for Global Freedom: Democracy Under Threat)
A World at War (With Itself)
The erosion of democratic norms is happening in parallel with a surge in global violence. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) recorded a historic high of 61 active state-based conflicts in 2024, the highest number since 1946.31 The world is now experiencing the highest level of violence since the Second World War.32 The war in Ukraine remains the world’s deadliest conflict, with an estimated 76,000 battle-related deaths in 2024 alone.31 Beyond formal warfare, targeted violence against civilians is also on the rise, increasing by 31% in 2024.31 Conflicts in Sudan, Gaza, Haiti, and the Sahel are creating devastating humanitarian crises, displacing millions and pushing entire populations toward famine.33
The Widening Gulfs: Social and Gender Inequality
This political instability is both a cause and a consequence of deep, underlying social fractures. The United Nations’ 2025 World Social Report finds that staggering levels of inequality and rising economic insecurity are eroding social trust and destabilizing societies worldwide.35 Two-thirds of the global population now live in countries where income inequality is growing.36 More than a third of the world’s people live on between $2.15 and $6.85 a day, where a single misfortune—a failed crop, a medical bill—can push a family into extreme poverty.36
Gender inequality remains one of the most persistent and damaging of these divides. The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Gender Gap Report projects that at the current rate of progress, it will take another 123 years to achieve full gender parity globally.37 The largest gaps persist in the realms of power and money. It will take an estimated 135 years to close the Economic Participation and Opportunity gap, and a staggering 162 years to close the Political Empowerment gap.37 This slow progress is compounded by a tangible backlash against women’s rights, which UN Women has identified in nearly one in four countries.38
(see our article From Inequality to Equity: A Roadmap for Gender Justice)
The Corporate Capture of the State
A key mechanism for translating economic inequality into political decay is the systemic influence of corporate power. In the United States alone, federal lobbying spending reached $4.44 billion in 2024, with powerful industries like pharmaceuticals, technology, and energy deploying armies of lobbyists to shape legislation in their favor.39 This dynamic is supercharged by the “revolving door,” a constant flow of personnel between government regulatory bodies and the industries they are meant to oversee, which leads to regulatory capture and policies that consistently prioritize corporate profits over the public good.39 This process, visible to the public, breeds cynicism and erodes trust in democratic institutions, creating a vicious cycle of disengagement and further capture.39
The New Sovereigns: The Rise of the Tech Oligarchy
In recent years, however, a new and qualitatively different form of power has emerged, one that goes far beyond traditional lobbying. A small handful of tech billionaires are no longer just seeking to influence the state; they are beginning to assume its core functions, controlling the essential infrastructure of modern society and exercising a form of unaccountable, private sovereignty.40
The examples are as stark as they are unprecedented. When Elon Musk unilaterally decided to deny the Ukrainian military’s request to activate his Starlink satellite internet service over Crimea, he was not merely running a company; he was making a sovereign decision that directly influenced the course of an international war, a power traditionally reserved for nation-states.42 When Mark Zuckerberg alters Meta’s content moderation policies in response to a US election, his decision shapes the information ecosystem for billions of people globally, a regulatory function that dwarfs that of any single government.42 When Amazon founder Jeff Bezos interferes in the editorial direction of The Washington Post, one of the world’s most influential newspapers, he is wielding direct power over the democratic “fourth estate”.42
The Algorithmic Engine of Division
This new power is amplified by a technological mechanism of unparalleled potency: the social media algorithm. Platforms are not neutral public squares; they are meticulously engineered “attention economies.” Their business model relies on maximizing user engagement, and they achieve this through “addictive design”.43 Features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and personalized content feeds are designed to exploit human behavioral psychology, creating dopamine-driven reward loops that are analogous to those found in gambling and substance addiction.43
Crucially, these AI-driven algorithms are not optimized for truth, nuance, or social cohesion. They are optimized for engagement, and the data shows that emotionally charged, polarizing, and often false content generates the most engagement.46 One analysis found that Facebook’s algorithm promoted misinformation sources at rates 64% higher than factual ones.46 This creates a toxic information environment characterized by echo chambers and filter bubbles, which accelerates political polarization, fuels radicalization, and systematically degrades the shared reality upon which democratic discourse depends.47
What we are witnessing is a fundamental transfer of sovereign power. Core functions traditionally held by the democratic nation-state—control over critical communications infrastructure, the regulation of public speech, and even decisions of war and peace—are being privatized. They are being transferred to a small, unaccountable oligarchy of tech billionaires. This represents a qualitative shift from the historical model of corporate lobbying. Lobbying seeks to influence the state; the tech oligarchy is, in some domains, beginning to replace the state, becoming para-state actors who operate “beyond the reach of accountability”.40 This transfer of power is profoundly anti-democratic. The decisions of a state are, at least in theory, subject to elections, legal challenges, and public oversight. The decisions of a tech CEO are subject only to their personal ideology or the demands of shareholder value. The democratic recession, therefore, is not just a story of decay within nations; it is a story of the hollowing out of the nation-state itself, as its sovereign powers are siphoned off by a new and formidable type of private, technological authority.
(see our articles The Algorithmic Mirror: AI, Bias, and the Fight for a More Equitable Future and Contested Authority: How Evidence Shapes AI Ethics Debates)
The Ghost in the Machine: AI as Accelerant and Existential Threat
Looming over every other aspect of the polycrisis is the specter of artificial intelligence. AI is not merely another crisis to be added to the list; it is a unique, meta-level force. It acts as a “foundational amplifier,” a universal solvent that has the potential to accelerate every other crisis while simultaneously introducing novel and existential risks of its own.48 Its arrival marks a fundamental shift in the nature of our global challenges.
The Great Restructuring: AI’s Impact on Work and Wealth
The most immediate and tangible impact of AI is the restructuring of global labor markets. Reports from the World Economic Forum, the OECD, and McKinsey converge on a dual-edged reality.49 On one side, AI’s potential for automation is immense. One estimate suggests that generative AI could expose approximately 300 million full-time jobs worldwide to automation.52 Across OECD countries, occupations at the highest risk of automation account for about 28% of all jobs.53
On the other side, AI is also a powerful engine of job creation and productivity. While 85 million jobs could be displaced by 2025, 97 million new roles could emerge in fields like AI development, data analysis, and cybersecurity.50 The long-term productivity gains from AI could add as much as $4.4 trillion to the global economy annually.54
This transformation, however, will not be equitable. It is set to dramatically exacerbate existing inequalities. A 2025 PwC report found that workers with specialist AI skills already command a wage premium of 56% over their peers in the same occupation.55 This creates a stark “skill polarization,” where high-skilled workers reap the benefits while low-skilled workers in automatable roles face displacement and wage stagnation.52 This dynamic also has a clear gender dimension, with one analysis predicting that women’s occupations in high-income countries are disproportionately vulnerable to automation.52
Racing Toward the Apex: The Singularity Timeline
Beyond the immediate economic disruption lies a far more profound and uncertain prospect: the development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)—an AI with human-level cognitive abilities across a wide range of tasks—and the subsequent possibility of a “Technological Singularity,” a point of runaway technological growth.
The timeline for this arrival is one of the most consequential and fiercely debated questions of our time. Mainstream surveys of AI researchers have historically produced median forecasts for AGI in the 2040 to 2061 range.56 However, the explosive progress in large language models since 2022 has dramatically shortened these timelines for many. A growing and influential chorus of tech leaders and AI pioneers now believe AGI is imminent. Figures like Elon Musk (Tesla, X), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have all made predictions for AGI arriving between 2026 and 2030.56 Renowned futurist Ray Kurzweil has notably revised his long-standing prediction for the Singularity from 2045 down to 2032.56 This profound uncertainty and the high-stakes race between a handful of powerful corporations it has triggered are, in themselves, a major source of global instability.
The Universal Solvent: AI as a Polycrisis Multiplier
The true significance of AI within the polycrisis framework is its role as a universal accelerant. It is a technology that pours fuel on every other fire.
- Ecological Crisis: AI can be used to optimize energy grids and model climate change with greater accuracy. However, the immense computational power required to train and run frontier AI models is also driving a massive surge in energy demand from data centers, creating new strains on electrical grids and complicating the green transition.48
- Geopolitical Crisis: The advent of lethal autonomous weapons systems (“slaughterbots”) threatens to revolutionize warfare, lowering the threshold for conflict and creating terrifying scenarios of rapid, machine-speed escalation. AI also enables new frontiers of cyberwarfare and unprecedented tools for state surveillance and social control.
- Socio-Political Crisis: AI supercharges the creation and dissemination of misinformation. The ability to generate convincing deepfake videos, audio, and text at scale makes the algorithmic degradation of our information ecosystem exponentially worse.44 Personalized propaganda, tailored to exploit an individual’s psychological vulnerabilities, becomes a trivial task, threatening to render democratic discourse impossible.
- Economic Crisis: The development of AI concentrates immense economic power and intellectual property into the hands of the very few companies and individuals who control the foundational models. This will turbocharge the trends of inequality and corporate dominance, further entrenching the power of the tech oligarchy.
The introduction of powerful, general-purpose AI into the global system is more than just an accelerant; it acts as a catalyst that fundamentally changes the nature of the polycrisis itself. It marks a “phase transition,” shifting the global system from being merely complicated to being truly complex. A complicated system, like a jet engine, has many interconnected parts, but their interactions are governed by fixed, knowable rules. A complex system, like a rainforest or a human brain, is composed of adaptive agents whose interactions create emergent behaviors that cannot be predicted simply by analyzing the parts in isolation.
Before the rise of advanced AI, the polycrisis was already highly interconnected and complicated. One could trace the causal links: fossil fuel emissions lead to climate change, which leads to crop failures, which leads to migration, which leads to political instability. However, AI introduces a new type of actor into this system: an autonomous, learning, decision-making agent—or, more likely, millions of them.48 These “agentic AI” systems are not static components; they learn, adapt, and pursue goals. When these agents are deployed at scale into our economic, political, and military systems, the interactions are no longer linear or easily predictable. The system begins to exhibit emergent, unpredictable behavior. Interacting AI-driven trading algorithms could trigger a financial crash in ways no human can foresee. Competing military AIs could autonomously escalate a minor skirmish into a full-blown war in a matter of minutes. The nature of risk itself changes, moving from calculated probability to radical uncertainty. The fierce debate over the Singularity timeline is a proxy for this new reality: we are building and deploying systems whose ultimate capabilities we do not understand. AI’s true impact is not just to make existing problems worse or faster; it is to inject a profound and destabilizing unpredictability into the entire global system, making the polycrisis exponentially harder to understand, predict, and govern.
The Human Response: A Species at a Crossroads
Faced with this great entanglement of interconnected threats, the ultimate question becomes one of agency. Does humanity possess the wisdom, capability, and collective will to navigate the polycrisis? Or are we structurally incapable of cooperating at the scale required, doomed by our own short-term incentives to preside over a slow-motion collapse? Our history is conflicted, offering both inspiring precedents for cooperation and sobering lessons in collective failure.
Echoes of Cooperation: When We Got It Right
To believe that large-scale, transformative global cooperation is possible is not an act of naive faith; it is an observation of historical fact. Even at the height of the Cold War, a period of maximum geopolitical division and existential nuclear threat, the world’s two opposing superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, found common ground. Recognizing the shared threat of infectious disease, they collaborated on the global campaigns to eradicate smallpox and polio.58 This remarkable achievement demonstrates a crucial principle: a clear and present danger, acknowledged by all parties, can override even the most entrenched ideological rivalries.
This is not an isolated example. The post-World War II era saw the creation of a suite of international institutions, including the United Nations, designed to foster global cooperation and prevent a recurrence of global conflict.60 The Montreal Protocol of 1987 stands as a landmark success in which the international community came together to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, effectively healing a hole in our planet’s protective shield.59 Ambitious scientific collaborations like the Human Genome Project and the International Space Station further prove our capacity to work together on complex, long-term goals.59 These successes provide a template: science-led diagnosis, followed by multilateral political action.
The Logic of Failure: A Game Theory Perspective
If we are capable of such cooperation, then why has a coherent response to the largest challenge of all—climate change—remained so elusive? Game theory, a branch of applied mathematics that analyzes interdependent decision-making, provides a powerful and bleakly rational explanation.63
The problem of climate change can be modeled as a multi-player version of the classic “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” often referred to as the “Tragedy of the Commons”.63 The logic is as follows: A stable climate is a global public good. Every nation benefits from it, regardless of whether they contributed to its preservation. For any individual nation, the most rational short-term strategy is to “defect”—that is, to continue polluting to maximize its own economic growth. If other nations cooperate and cut their emissions, the defecting nation gets the benefit of a healing climate without bearing any of the economic cost. It gets a “free ride”.63 If other nations also defect and continue to pollute, the nation is still better off having polluted itself, rather than being the lone “sucker” who sacrificed its economy for no discernible global benefit.
Because this logic applies to every nation, the inevitable outcome is that all players, acting in their own rational self-interest, choose to defect. The result is a collectively irrational and catastrophic outcome: the collapse of the shared resource, the climate.65 This game-theoretic structure explains the persistent free-rider problem that has plagued international environmental agreements for decades and why they so often result in weak, non-binding commitments that fall far short of what science demands.63
Designing a Better Game: Mechanisms for Cooperation
Yet, game theory does not only diagnose the problem; it also points toward potential solutions. If the current “game” is rigged for failure, the answer is to change the rules of the game to alter the players’ incentives.64
One such mechanism involves conditional commitments, which transform the logic from “I will act” to “I will act if you act”.64 This helps to build trust and overcome the fear of being taken advantage of. The structure of the Paris Agreement, with its system of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that are publicly declared and periodically reviewed, can be seen as a large-scale attempt to implement this principle. Another approach is to establish minimum participation thresholds for treaties to enter into force, as was done with the Paris Agreement.63 This changes the nature of the game from a Prisoner’s Dilemma to a “Stag Hunt” or coordination game. In this scenario, the greatest payoff comes from all players coordinating on the cooperative outcome (collectively “hunting the stag”), making cooperation the most rational strategy for everyone, provided they trust others to do the same.63
The fundamental obstacle to solving the polycrisis, then, is not a lack of technology, resources, or even good will. It is a structural failure rooted in a profound mismatch of timescales and incentives. The successful cooperative efforts of the past, like eradicating smallpox, tended to address clear and immediate threats with identifiable solutions (like a vaccine) that offered relatively quick and visible payoffs.58 The core challenges of the polycrisis, particularly the ecological dimensions, operate on a completely different timeline. They are characterized by long time lags, diffuse and complex causality, and non-linear dynamics like tipping points. The most devastating impacts of the carbon we emit today will be felt not next year, but decades and centuries from now.66
Our dominant civilizational systems, however, are optimized for the short term. Corporate success is measured in quarterly earnings reports. Political success is determined by the next election cycle, typically two to four years away. The logic of game theory demonstrates with mathematical precision how these short-term, rational calculations lead directly to long-term, collective disaster.63 We are attempting to solve a hundred-year, exponential problem using four-year political cycles and three-month financial cycles. The incentive structure of our civilization is dangerously misaligned with its biophysical reality. The polycrisis is a temporal and structural problem before it is a technical one. The ultimate challenge is not simply to invent a new gadget, but to redesign our core institutions—our economic metrics, our governance models, our legal frameworks—to see further and act wiser.
Navigating the Polycrisis: Pathways to a Viable Future
The diagnosis is stark. We are living through a great entanglement, a convergence of ecological breakdown, geopolitical fragmentation, social decay, and exponential technological change that together constitute a single, systemic threat to humanity’s prospects. The biosphere is unraveling, our societies are fracturing, and a powerful new form of artificial intelligence is poised to accelerate every dimension of the crisis. Our own incentive structures seem hardwired for collective failure. To succumb to despair in the face of such a challenge would be understandable. It would also be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The path forward is narrow and treacherous, but it is not yet closed.
Beyond Silver Bullets: Polysolutions and Positive Tipping Points
The sheer complexity of the polycrisis renders simplistic, silver-bullet solutions obsolete. The idea that a single technological fix—be it carbon capture, nuclear fusion, or even a benevolent AGI—will rescue us is a dangerous fantasy. Instead, a viable response must be as interconnected as the crisis itself. This requires a shift in thinking toward two key concepts: ‘polysolutions’ and ‘positive tipping points’.
A polysolution is a strategic intervention that addresses multiple facets of the polycrisis simultaneously.8 Consider, for example, a global push to transition from industrial agriculture to regenerative farming practices. This single shift would not only slash greenhouse gas emissions and sequester vast amounts of carbon in the soil (addressing the climate crisis), but it would also help restore biodiversity, improve soil health and water retention (combating resource scarcity), and enhance food security and the economic resilience of rural communities (tackling socio-economic inequality).
Similarly, we must learn to identify and trigger positive tipping points—small interventions that can set off a self-sustaining cascade of beneficial change.68 We are already seeing this in the energy sector. Strategic government policies and mandates for renewable energy have helped drive down the cost of solar and wind power exponentially. Lower costs accelerate adoption by the private sector, which in turn creates larger markets and further economies of scale, driving costs down even more. This virtuous cycle has the potential to rapidly displace fossil fuels far faster than linear projections would suggest.68 The goal is not to solve every problem at once, but to find these strategic leverage points where a concerted push can tip a whole system onto a more sustainable trajectory.
A Sober Assessment of Probabilities
What is the likelihood of humanity successfully implementing such a strategy? A sober analysis, informed by our conflicted history and the unforgiving logic of game theory, suggests that a single, top-down, fully cooperative global consensus—a “Kumbaya moment” where all nations suddenly agree to act in the collective interest—is highly improbable in the short term. The forces of geopolitical rivalry, national interest, and the short-term incentive structures that dominate our politics and economics remain too powerful.
This does not, however, mean that progress is impossible. The path forward is more likely to be a messy, fragmented, and multi-level process. It will be driven not by a single global treaty, but by “coalitions of the willing”—alliances of forward-thinking nations, innovative cities, responsible corporations, and mobilized civil society movements. These coalitions can act as laboratories, pioneering and scaling polysolutions in key sectors like energy, food, and technology, and working to trigger the positive tipping points that can make systemic change both possible and profitable.
The Ultimate Choice: Reframing Our Purpose
Ultimately, the polycrisis is forcing a civilization-level reckoning. It is laying bare the fundamental unsustainability of our dominant paradigm: the pursuit of endless material growth on a finite planet, the valuation of short-term profit over long-term resilience, and the elevation of individual gain over collective well-being.
This article cannot offer a definitive prediction of our future. It can only frame the fundamental choice that now confronts us. The crises are converging, the stakes are existential, and the time is short. The question is no longer whether our current path is sustainable—it is demonstrably not. The question is whether we, as a species, can muster the collective intelligence, institutional creativity, and moral courage to change course. Can we transition from a system that maximizes profit to one that prioritizes planetary health? From a culture of consumption to a culture of stewardship? From a fractured collection of competing interests to a global community capable of recognizing its shared fate? The answer we forge in the coming years will define the future of humanity on this planet.
Download a .pdf copy of The Great Entanglement: Navigating Humanity’s Polycrisis at the Dawn of the AI Age with my compliments. This article was AI assisted, so you know the drill, check to see that all is to your satisfaction before replication. – Kevin Parker Site Publisher
Bibliography
Aldrich, D. P., et al. (2024). Understanding polycrisis: Definitions, applications, and responses. Global Sustainability. 8
Aquilina, M., et al. (2025). Cryptocurrencies and decentralised finance: functions and financial stability implications. BIS Papers, No. 156. Bank for International Settlements. 70
Bank for International Settlements. (2025). BIS Annual Economic Report 2025. 71
Brennan Center for Justice. (2025). Money in Politics Roundup: October 2025. 72
Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. (2019). IPBES Report on Biodiversity Loss. Sustainability Horizons. 22
Caritas Australia. (n.d.). Explainer: What is the polycrisis? 73
Cascade Institute. (2022). What is a global polycrisis? 5
Cascade Institute. (2024). Introduction to Polycrisis Analysis. 75
Cascade Institute. (n.d.). Polycrisis. 6
Council on Foreign Relations. (2025). Conflicts to Watch in 2025. 76
Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). Global Conflict Tracker. 34
Davies, S., et al. (2025). Organized violence 1989–2024, and the challenges of identifying civilian victims. Journal of Peace Research. 31
Freedom House. (2025). Freedom in the World 2025. 28
Future Earth. (2025). Future Earth experts contribute to two new landmark IPBES reports. 26
Global Tipping Points. (n.d.). Global Tipping Points Report 2025. 68
Homer-Dixon, T., & Rockström, J. (2022). From perfect storms to polycrises. Global Sustainability. 7
Hsu, S. (2013). A Game Theoretic Model of International Climate Negotiations. N.Y.U. Environmental Law Journal, 19, 14. 66
Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities. (2024). From Stranded Assets to Assets-at-Risk. 19
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (n.d.). Reports. 79
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2024). Nexus Assessment Report. 27
International Crisis Group. (2025). 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2025. 33
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2025). Global Energy Review 2025. 83
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2025). World Energy Investment 2025. 17
International Energy Agency (IEA). (n.d.). The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions. 14
International Monetary Fund. (2025). Finance & Development, September 2025. 85
Lawrence, M., Janzwood, S., & Homer-Dixon, T. (2022). What is a global polycrisis? Cascade Institute Discussion Paper. 5
Lawrence, M., et al. (2024). Global polycrisis: The causal mechanisms of crisis entanglement. Global Sustainability. 7
Morin, E., & Kern, A. B. (1999). Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Millennium. Hampton Press. 2
OECD & FAO. (2025). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025-2034. 25
Pan American Health Organization / World Health Organization. (2025). World Health Assembly adopts historic Pandemic Agreement. 88
Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School. (2025). Addictive Algorithms and the Digital Fairness Act. 43
Schaaf, J. (2025). From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe. The ECB Blog. 89
Tech Policy Press. (2025). The Coming Age of Tech Trillionaires and the Challenge to Democracy. 40
Tech Policy Press. (2025). Tech Oligarchy Imperils Democratic Information Flows. 42
Tooze, A. (2022). Shutdown: How Covid Shook the World’s Economy. Viking. 9
United Nations. (n.d.). Climate Change Reports. 11
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2025). World Social Report 2025. 35
United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre. (2024). IPBES Nexus Assessment. 27
UN Women. (2025). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot 2025. 90
Uppsala University. (2025). UCDP: Sharp increase in conflicts and wars. 31
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 23
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Polycrisis. 2
Wood, P. J. (2011). Climate change and game theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219, 153-170. 64
World Bank. (2025). Food Security Update. 91
World Bank. (2025). Global Economic Prospects, June 2025. 92
World Economic Forum. (2023). Polycrisis: Adam Tooze explains. 1
World Economic Forum. (2025). Future of Jobs Report 2025. 49
World Economic Forum. (2025). Global Gender Gap Report 2025. 37
World Health Organization. (2025). The changing face of pandemic risk. 95
World Health Organization. (2025). WHO releases new reports and estimates highlighting urgent gaps in mental health. 96