The Club of Rome Podcast

The Club of Rome

Thought leaders and changemakers explore the mindshifts and policy solutions needed to transform the complex challenges facing humanity and the planet today.

  1. Sep 25

    Understanding a multipolar world with Chandran Nair

    Is the shifting global order heading towards conflict, or can the world's many civilisations and worldviews learn to coexist? In this episode, Chandran Nair, founder and CEO of the Global Institute for Tomorrow and member of the Club of Rome, joins Nolita Mvunelo to unpack the tensions reshaping international relations. Nair argues that today's flashpoints, from Ukraine to Gaza to Venezuela, stem from the West's difficulty in accepting the rise of other powers, and he challenges us to rethink what leadership, democracy and accountability mean in a crowded, unequal world. Tune in for a candid, provocative discussion on power, history and the search for a genuinely multipolar peace.   Transcript Nolita: It is perhaps clearer than ever that the global geopolitical order is shifting. The question is, will this happen through force and disruption, or can we transition to a world where many civilisations and worldviews can coexist in mutual respect? Today's guest is well-placed to explore these answers. Chandran Nair is founder and CEO of the Global Institute for Tomorrow, a Pan-Asian think tank based in Hong Kong, focused on advancing a deeper understanding of global issues, including the shift of economic and political influence from the West to Asia, and the reshaping of the rules of global capitalism. His books include "Understanding China," "Dismantling Global White Privilege" and "Consumptionomics: Asia's Role in Reshaping Capitalism and Saving the Planet." In our conversation, we discuss how different worldviews are influencing the global landscape today and possible pathways to a more peaceful multipolar world. Chandran, thank you so much for joining us today. I'm going to jump straight into the first question. So last year, in 2025, you released a book on Understanding China, which is a report to the Club of Rome and you reinforced the idea of multiple worldviews. You speak about how the Chinese see an all-encompassing civilisational concept called Under the Heaven. From this vantage point, how do you see the current relationship between existing civilisations and worldviews and what is standing in the way of reconciling those worldviews?  Chandran: What I mentioned in the book was simply to try and get people to understand that China and other large countries see the world quite differently in terms of its complexities and the relationship between countries than the West. And if you're an objective observer of history and of Chinese, uh, China's relationship with the world, you'll see that by far, the Chinese have adhered to that to that sort of principle of coexistence, civilizational relationships, et cetera. That is not to say that some may interpret some actions of China, as some are doing, as a departure from that. But broadly, if you're an objective observer, you will say the same. You would probably see the same of India as well. I'd just like to make a point about this term civilisation. Everybody uses that. I sort of don't like it because it seems to imply that there are hundreds of civilisations around and depends how you wanna define a civilisation. There's a lot of arguments of what is a civilisation. And then we can get into a rabbit hole of civilisations, right? And then this whole thing about, "well, which civilisation is older? Which civilisation is deeper? Which civilisation has absorbed all of these things?" And all of that. So I sort of don't like that civilisational term, though in the context of trying to explain China to the world, I do say that China remains very much a civilisational state. You could not say that the United States is a civilisational state. Question it has...  Nolita: What's the...  Chandran: Well, because it's too young. It has no underlying sort of long history of 10,000 years of a culture, civilisation, traditions, et cetera, born. So it's from all of the place. If the Native Americans had not been slaughtered, then you'd say there was a civilisation there.  So that's a point I would like to make. I think your second question was how do I see the current world order in terms of civilisational relationships. Am I correct?  Nolita: Yeah and worldviews. 'Cause, I mean, you mentioned that you wouldn't consider, necessarily, the US a civilisational state because of its age, but it also represents a very specific type of worldview versus the under the heaven worldview you were describing in the book. How do these, you know, interact and what does reconciling them look like? Chandran: Yeah. I mean, the American worldview you could call it's a punk view, because it's the new punk in town who became very rich and through, as we know colonisation, I would say, I think it would be fairly said genocide, extermination of large amounts of flora and fauna particularly. But this is basically a modern warring state. Advanced technologically, but doesn't make it a civilisation.  So let's cut to the chase. What we're saying actually is today's tensions in the world, and some may disagree, are essentially the major tensions of the world. This is not to say there aren't badly governed countries in Africa, Middle East, in my region, et cetera. But if you look at global tensions, then these are all as a result of both the unraveling of the post-colonial era, right? And then the desire for past imperial powers to retain supremacy. And the United States is essentially a creation of imperial powers, which is mainly Europe, right? And then it created this powerful nation, which because of its, you know, well-known sense of exceptionalism, which I argue is born out of a great, because of its birth, a sense of superiority and white supremacy, is unable to, because it has no civilisational roots, is unable to contend with the rise of others and, in this instance, China. But it'll soon find itself unable, if it survives its resistance against the rise of the others, the equity that others are striving for. Then it'll find itself, you know, opposing the rise of Africa opposing the rise of India perhaps first, and all that. So global tensions at the moment are a function of the inability of Western powers, Europe and the United States, to deal with the rise of the others. So if you look at the biggest global geopolitical tension today, it's essentially China and the USA. And then you have in Europe, of course, the tension between the notion that there is this communist bloc, the Cold War mentality, this socialist country called Russia. And then there's all these freedom-loving people in Europe, or these governments who then have been exposed as being willing to support a genocide in Palestine, which is itself a creation of the last 100 years because of colonial exploits. So you have to really understand where is the angst coming from. And I've been at pains to point out to you that a different- because some people say, "Well, you know, bad leaders exist in different parts." I want to acknowledge that. Bad governance exists. But when you then look at the world today, when you look at global tensions and if you look at the three tensions today, the big issues that we're all concerned about, the Russia-Ukraine war. Gaza. You look at what's happening in Venezuela, the intimidation of a country like cuba and you look at Iran, it's all Western-led. It's all Western-led. Nolita: I want to talk about the today and the way forward, 'cause you're talking about the inability to deal with the rights of others. I think there's a part of it where, like, there's a type of leadership needed, as you're saying, like we have bad leaders in a lot of places and also very critical places where a different leadership is needed. I also listened to a podcast of yours where you spoke about intellectual honesty being like a key competence that's needed. If someone was listening and thinking what is a way forward that doesn't result in conflicts or the loss of rights or, you know, people just subsuming to the fact that maybe there's an order and we need to accept what the order is in order for there to not be conflict going forward, what is the leadership that's needed?  Chandran: Well, you know, I think the leadership is always, the leadership is always a reflection of where the society is at any one point, right?  You can't have a rational discussion with the current administration of the US. You simply can't. So then it's utopian to say, "Well, how do we do this and that?" You're gonna have to wait for this guy to move on. Nolita: But he's one person and there's... Chandran: Exactly. Nolita: There's eight billion other people that are- He's not doing it alone. I think that's why I started with worldviews 'cause I think there's, there are mental paradigms that are driving a lot of these assumptions and acceptances of not accepting the rights or the movement towards more people having rights. It's a long-held debate. I mean, the whole thing about limits to growth was also about more people are going to need to have their basic needs met, but it's going to be a challenge. How do we figure it out? And people are refusing to figure it out and now we're in these resource challenges also at the same time. Chandran: All right. Let me, let me... I mean, I think we should not conflate these things, okay? What I was trying to say is, you were saying what are the pathways? Of course, the pathways are dialogue, understanding, respect. That's what we do. We can call it allowing nation states to self-determination, collaborating with self-determination in mind, righteous, might is not right, all of those things. But you can't deal with people who are either supremacists, who are captive to the war industry, et cetera. That is the world we've created to the most powerful nations in the world. That's NATO, that's the USA. And all I wanted to say was that's why the world, the global tensions are arising out of this complex economics in which then leaders have risen. Look at the sw

    Understanding a multipolar world with Chandran Nair
  2. Aug 28

    Africa's AI crossroads with Yemi Keri

    While the world debates artificial intelligence's implications for economies and everyday life, one question is too often overlooked: what does the AI revolution mean for Africa? In this episode, Till Kellerhoff, director for content and programmes at the Club of Rome, speaks with Yemi Keri, a technology executive, impact investor and ecosystem builder and member of the Club of Rome with over two decades of leadership experience across Africa's public and private sectors.   As co-founder of Rising Tide Africa and president of the African Business Angel Network, Yemi brings a distinctive lens on inclusive capital and early-stage innovation. She sets out an optimistic case for AI as a "development equaliser" that could transform agriculture, healthcare and education across the continent, while pressing for African data sovereignty, homegrown cloud infrastructure and greater investment in local talent. The conversation also turns to the risks of a new extractive era built on data rather than raw materials, the energy demands of AI infrastructure, and why more women need a seat at the table in building the technology's future. Is this Africa's chance to leapfrog towards a more ethical and sustainable AI revolution, or do we risk repeating old patterns of inequality in new forms?   Transcript Till: While everyone currently talks about artificial intelligence and its implications for our work, our economies and our lives, one topic that is often underexplored is the implications of the AI revolution for African countries and Africa's digital transformation. And one of the tech leaders driving this transformation is Yemi Keri. Yemi is a technology executive, impact investor and ecosystem builder with over two decades of leadership experience across the public and private sectors in Africa. She's the co-founder of Rising Tide Africa, a women-focused angel investment network and the president of the African Business Angel Network, where she champions inclusive capital and supports the growth of early-stage ventures across the continent. I'm Till Kellerhoff, director for Content and Programs at the Club of Rome and in this episode, we explore Yemi's take on what an AI-positive future could look like in Africa. Yemi paints a particularly optimistic picture of the future of AI in Africa and its possibilities to revolutionise agriculture, healthcare and innovation. In this episode, we'll hear from her based on the experiences in Africa's innovation system, then unpack some of the other views on AI's risks and challenges.  Till: Hi, Yemi. Welcome. Pleasure to have you on the Club of Rome Podcast. From where are you calling today? Yemi: Today I'm speaking to you from the rainy season of Lagos. So if you listen behind me, you would hear traffic. Till: We want to talk about this big topic of AI today and a question that gets rarely asked, but is maybe good to be asked from the perspective of the Club of Rome that wants to ask fundamental questions. What do we need AI for? What is AI for from your perspective? Why do we need it?  Yemi: I facilitate at a business school and I tell them that it's going to become a utility, like we have electricity, in the long run. We need AI where it helps us solve real consistent problems, issues like healthcare access, agricultural productivity. Can AI help a farmer increase their yields? Can it help a teacher reach 100 students or 400 students instead of maybe 20? So if AI helps us solve all of these kind of problems, then it becomes a transformational, tool or platform or enabler. Till: So Yemi, if we look at concrete examples on the ground where AI is already useful today and will be useful in the future, what would that be from your perspective?  Yemi: I mean, there are different variants of things that are happening. Particularly for when we are looking at the impact on climate change in itself on smallholder farmers. In the agri-sector, a lot of projects are using AI to ensure that information gets to the farmers at the, you know, the smallholder farmers because I mean, they grow our crops and we are predominantly an agri-economy. And so, a lot of AI is being utilised and models are being built so that they help the farmers, the smallholder farmers, you know, with predictive crop, the soil testing, everything like that. The other one I know is really healthcare. Diagnosis of diseases, or symptoms as the medical people call it. It's more affordable to people that, in the rural areas, would have to transport themselves to a hospital to be able to get that done. And so if you're looking at the impact on the society, a lot is being done and developed that is supporting and helping the society to grow. Till: And you described AI as a utility, similar to electricity and one can also describe it as a tool. And I think what we see in the development of general, in the last decades and hundreds of years, is that tools can be used both for, let's say, good and evil, right? Tools are not good per se or bad per se, but they can be used in different directions. And you named a few positive ones, particularly for the African continent and we will go more into that. But what gives you your optimism that AI indeed will follow the route of being used for the positive things rather than all the potentially negative ones, right? You can use AI also for automated weapons. You can use AI for all kind of things that might not benefit the flourishing of humanity on our planet. So why are you optimistic about it? Yemi: I guess I come from a standpoint that when we talk about good or bad, doesn't that tell you about the user? It is really a behavioral thing when you're talking about AI for good or responsible AI, those who...you know, it is ethical AI. It is our values and our ethics. So when you choose to use AI for deepfake and use it to destabilise another human being's life, it is you as a human being and what you believe you want to use, you want to use it for evil. It's not the AI that is good or bad, it is the people that are using it that have good intentions or bad intentions. That's where I see this.  Till: Do you see a risk that we individualise the debate by that, in a way, that it's in the end the responsibility of the users to see if they do good things with that or bad things with that? While on the other side, we see the systemic changes to our economy, to our lives being implemented by, basically, a few big companies currently, right? And it's very, very difficult as an individual with high ethical standards to swim against the current of potentially unsustainable business models by big AI companies, for example, right? So how do you see this relationship between kind of the systemic implementation of AI globally; what it does to our lives, our economies and the kind of individual user case, that has the agency to decide in what areas to use AI and not? Yemi: The institutions have their strategy and the bottom line is the bottom line that they're all after, and they have the stakeholders that they're responsible for, and there is a long debate about the use cases for what they want to use AI for. They have the capital for them to be able to expand and buy, use infrastructure or even compute power. The individuals have access to the information, the different applications and the software side of AI. So if we're looking at it, we can actually also start to talk about development equaliser. You know, AI doesn't magically make everyone equal. It equalises access to capability. Today, a small business in Lagos can use AI tools that, five years ago, only multi-national companies could afford, right? A young entrepreneur can access legal advice or marketing expertise or coding assistance, all from the mobile phone. You know, that is incredibly powerful because it is changing how human beings are beginning to see life and what they have access to. So that means that if you have affordable internet or reliable electricity or relevant local data and policies to go about it, you also have the access and capability that the larger institutions also have. So when I say development equaliser, I mean it has the potential to sort of level playing ground, democratise opportunities — but only if we can invest in the foundational things, right? So multinationals have capacity and capabilities for the foundational things. However, individuals are able to have access to the information and data and the tools to use on an AI. Till: But is there also something you're worried about the development, or are you purely optimistic? Because we had, for example in previous episodes, discussed developmental models, right? Also for African countries. And one concern some people, some economists, including for example Fadhel Kaboub from Tunisia originally expressed, is that our economic model globally is often built on raw material exports from African countries and then high-value imports coming back to African countries, but that the value chain is actually not happening there on the ground. Is there a risk that we repeat this pattern as well with AI, with basically a few American companies attracting incredible amounts of capital and the value also going there? Is that a risk you see, that those are the ones that benefit in the end, or don't you see that concern?  Yemi: You're correct. Historically Africa, we export our raw materials. Today, one could argue that data is becoming another raw material, right? If African data is collected here, processed somewhere else, used to train models elsewhere and then sold back to us as finished products, then yes, we would have to ask the difficult questions. And that, for me, is a worry. The evolution of AI and the development of AI is so exponential that we, in Africa, do not have the infrastructure yet that would allow for us to compete effectively. We're building. The governments recognise that they need to build the infrastructure.

    Africa's AI crossroads with Yemi Keri
  3. May 29

    Law and the future of capitalism with Katharina Pistor

    What if the key to transforming capitalism lies in the law? In this episode, we speak with Katharina Pistor, Professor of Comparative Law at Columbia University, member of the Club of Rome and author of The Law of Capitalism and How to Transform It, about the legal foundations that underpin our economic system, and how they might be reimagined.  Katharina argues that capitalism is not a free market but a "market economy on legal steroids," shaped and sustained by legal structures that govern everything from corporations and property rights to data ownership and financial markets. She explores how tools such as limited liability, asset partitioning and private contract law have enabled the concentration of wealth - and how those same tools could be repurposed to drive systemic change.  From the enclosure of the commons to the rise of the data oligarchs and the Alaska Permanent Fund, this is a wide-ranging conversation about the unwritten rules of our economy and the potential for transformation.    Transcript Till: Welcome, Katharina. Great to have you on the show.  Katharina: Thank you so much for having me.  Till: We have often on this podcast talked about our polycrisis, overlapping different crises, eroding social capital, polarisation, of course, our ecological crisis. And in all of the debates, we often talk about economics, politics, but rarely about law.  You now write in your new book that seeking change through law does not make transformative change easier, but arguably it makes it more likely. Why is that the case? Why should we talk more about law when we talk about change and transformation?  Katharina: So I think before we think about change and transformation, we have to do a thorough diagnostic of the system. And my diagnostic of the system, now people might disagree, but my diagnostic of the system is that capitalism is a system that is effectively a legal system, a legal regime. Capital is coded in law, as I have argued in my previous book from 2019, "The Code of Capital," and in the new book, "The Law of Capitalism and How to Transform It," I'm basically extending the analysis to the system as such.  And I'm arguing that the system is a legal regime. It is based on law. It is maintained by law. It's entrenched in law. And because of this, we have to seek change through law rather than from outside of the legal system.  Till: What I was wondering when, when, when reading the book and, and, and listening to you, is law kind of then the foundation as you see it of then, the capitalist system? Or is it following logics of capitalism and kind of aligning with those logics to an extent? So is it preceding or following?  Katharina: Yes. Well, that's a really interesting question. So I think from a Marxist perspective, you would say it follows, because it's all about the material conditions that create the conditions for law to evolve in a particular way. Also, Evgeny Pashukanis, one of the leading socialist legal theorists of the early 20th century, he argued that law takes a particular form in capitalism.  He might even go as far as saying law is always necessarily capitalist. That I think would go a little too far. So in my mind, it's very difficult to do the chicken and egg analysis here because we have a long trajectory of legal institutions. Private law, the law of contracts and property,   even business organisations, you can trace back all the way to Roman times.  Prior to the rise of the nation state, people used legal arrangements, and so the question is then what is really law? And I think law, in my mind, is when you start formalising the norms and institutions that govern social and economic relations. So once you formalise them, you abstract them, and then once you also add the capacity of a state or authority to back these contracts and property rights through enforcement mechanism, then you have something like a legal system.  That's what I would call a legal system. And I think for capital and capitalism, that was really critical because capitalism is not just about having economic transaction within your small little community, it's about scale. And scaling requires more complex, more abstract, more formal systems of ordering, of social ordering, and you may not want to call this law what I would call that law.  So in that sense,  the rise of the nation state, the scalability of socioeconomic relations, and their enforceability by mobilising the consolidated means of coercion is absolutely critical for capitalism. So if you push me, I would say that comes first, but in fact, of course, it comes in relation with.  It is sort of, it's a correlation that it has to happen at the same time, but it doesn't... It's a sine qua non. Without this, it will not happen.  Till: And what I found interesting in that context when you spoke aboutthis way of law and the expansion of economic activity in general in capitalism happened through it. You spoke about steroids of law enabled  the economic system to do, right? Yeah, maybe you want to refer to that.  Katharina: Yes. So many people think that the markets are free and the markets kind of do what they do by whatever market means. So it's, you know, the price mechanism, it's demand and supply. You have those with this curve. Yeah, but you have to think about, okay, what creates demand and supply and through what means do people actually meet and then exchange goods and, and payment, and they rarely do this on the spot these days.  They do this through a very complex financial system. So I'm basically saying capitalism is not just a market economy. It's a market economy on legal steroids. Even an ideal market economy needs contract law and property law. I think most economists would concede this today as well. I think capitalism goes much further.  Just think about corporations. So corporations are legal creatures. They don't exist outside the law. They have to be created. They can't be created without some authorisation that actually you create a legal person, the assets of which are distinct from the owners of that legal person. That's a legal fiction, but it's a legal fiction that is absolutely central for a capitalist system.  And you can't contract for this. You might, may be able to contract for limited liability. You can't contract for this asset partitioning because you can't easily enforce it. So there are certain features of the law that were created over time, and of course, were pushed for because theywere proven to be helpful, that enable the accumulation of capital over time.  So corporations are critical because you can create basically separate pools of assets that can incubate over time and create wealth. The fact that shareholders are dominating,   corporations, the fact that we are,  you know, sort of making debt deductible from corporations, the fact that we allow all kinds of assets to be used nowadays as collateral, including financial assets that are themselves created in the law.  So we basically have created an entire machine. The fact that we have a complex banking and money system where we have a central bank at the top that sort of governs liquidity, makes sure that people have enough liquidity, which means cash on hand if things go bad, when things are creaking. And if we didn't have this, we would have just many more crashes.  So there's a whole apparatus which I think can be disentangled and dissected when we have a bit of an understanding of what the legal structures are that underpin it. So we can go beyond the illusion that this is a free market. It's a market economy on legal steroids, and capitalism would not be able to do the kind of accumulation that it does and allocate the resources that it does in the way it does without these legal steroids.  Till: I think it's a very important point because it also takes away this pseudo objectivity of market transactions and kind of our system as we have set it up, right? It shows again that all of that are in a way also a construct, social contracts or constructs or at least enabled by humans, and shaped by humans, and there is no objectivity in market transactions per se.  It depends on the institutions that are involved by that, and you argue then that those institutions very much depend on law.  Katharina: Correct. I mean, like, you know, institutions, as Douglas North said, come in two forms, informal and formal, and the formal ones are the law. And I think for a scaled system at national and global scale, you can't rely exclusively on informal institutions. They still play a role. There's trust involved, and people know each other, and they know some, you know, traders better than others or trust some institutions more than others.  But I think you can't have a multi-trillion global financial system without formal institutions, so it has to be the law.  Till: And what those steroids led to is, of course, something the Club of Rome deals with since decades, the question of growth, right? We have seen massive, massive growth, of course, in financial activities in a way, this whole debate around financialisation. But it's of course never only kind of the mechanisms of, of economic systems are not reduced to, to financial systems in a way.  It's, it comes with a massive offloading onto nature and kind of expanding what we now call planetary boundaries, as well as, of course, people, right? It comes with a breaking of certain social capital as well. And I was then wondering, because the steroids thing is, is something we actually don't want in that way.  We don't want growth on steroids. We don't want massive expansion. We, in a way,

    Law and the future of capitalism with Katharina Pistor
  4. 12/12/2025

    Rethinking peace: Beyond the absence of war with Paul Shrivastava and Nolita Mvunelo

    Why are current peace frameworks struggling to meet today’s complex challenges and what would it take to create genuine security in the 21st Century? In this episode of The Club of Rome Podcast, Nolita Mvunelo speaks with Paul Shrivastava, co-president of The Club of Rome about why traditional peace frameworks are ill-equipped to address the deeper threats emerging from ecological breakdown, widening inequality and systemic instability. Drawing on The Club of Rome’s recent publication Planetary Peace for Human Security, Paul outlines a bold reimagining of what peace might mean today. Together, Nolita and Paul dive into how conventional approaches shaped by military logic and colonial legacies often reinforce the divisions they aim to heal. They discuss the need for a planetary vision of peace that connects inner transformation, environmental renewal and social justice and why moving beyond analysis towards systemic action is now essential. This episode invites us to transcend outdated paradigms, embrace an expanded understanding of peace and mobilise the transformative collaboration needed for a regenerative future. Watch the episode: Full transcript: Nolita: What does true peace and human security mean in the 21st Century? In a world of climate breakdown, rising inequality and the accelerating risks of AI and emerging technologies, our guest on today's podcast reminds us that peace must mean more than simply the absence of war. In a recent paper, planetary peace for human security, Paul Shrivastava, co-president of The Club of Rome, argues that traditional ideas of peace, shaped by colonial legacies, military power and post Second World War diplomacy, are no longer fit for purpose. Instead, he and his co-authors propose a concept of planetary peace, a vision of security grounded in the wellbeing of people, the planet and future generations.  I am Nolita Mvunelo, and on today's podcast, Paul and I discuss why peace today must encompass inner development, the environment, technology, and our relationship with nature, and how collaboration can turn global crises into opportunities for renewal. That's all ahead on The Club of Rome Podcast, where we explore bold ideas for shaping sustainable futures.  Hi Paul. Thank you so much for joining us today. How are you doing?  Paul: I am doing fine, Nolita, how are you doing?  I'm good, I'm good, and getting right into it. So, what is planetary peace? Because you describe it as something that's much bigger than the absence of war. What exactly does this mean? And why have you chosen to pursue this topic specifically?  So historically, peace has been cued in relation to wars, usually wars among nations and among sub national groups, and peace is what's supposed to stop the wars and take care of victims, etc. But humanity now faces a much bigger risk to human life that can cause 10 times to 100 times the number of deaths that even the largest wars in history have caused, and that risk is the breakdown of planetary ecosystems. These kinds of events can kill and injure millions of people at a time in specific natural disasters that we hear about, which are becoming worse and more frequent, but also in slow seeping harm that is causing excess number of deaths from what was normal before the pollution of Oceans and air became so huge. So planetary peace is a concept of peace and nonviolence that is responsive to these major sources of violence against humans and against nature and all species. These kind of dangers and risks ensue from breaching of our planetary boundaries. So, we kind of wanted to raise the discussion of peace from the narrow focus on international wars to something that is planetary in scale and responsive to the challenges of the planetary boundaries and also the destruction of ecosystems.  Nolita: This was the title of the first version of this publication, and now the second one was on planetary peace in the Anthropocene. So, when I'm hearing your response is that it's very much nested into this idea that we have entered a new epoch. The Club of Rome is well known for its systems thinking, connecting the dots between economics, environment and human wellbeing. Why have you chosen this legacy and the Anthropocene as the way to observe and explore peace?  Paul: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think some of it is specific to The Club of Rome, the way this discussion emerged amongst us. But on a more abstract scale, we are defining peace in systemic terms, because it is a legacy of The Club of Rome. And for us, there are three components of the systems of planetary peace. One has to be at peace with oneself. The second is peace with others, between neighbors and nations, etc. And the third is peace with nature. These systems of peace are interrelated. They're interconnected. They're very interwoven. So, we are very much following in the legacy of systems thinking of The Club of Rome. We also trace the roots of these systems of peace to other economic, social, cultural and political systems and practices. So, we connect peace with systems that govern everyday activities and the life of people. This way, we hope that each individual person will be able to see the role of peace in their lives, in the way they conduct their lives, and take responsibility for and do something about it. So, we wanted to not only do systems thinking around peace, but also a kind of people-enabling so that peace is not left to security experts. It is not left to governments to deal with. Because, frankly, the record of governments in dealing with peace is rather abysmal. We've had 2000 years of war, so we thought that we need to shift the locus of action to people, and that was the other reason for thinking about it in these systemic terms.  Nolita: What are the considerations about the question of understanding or navigating power? Because this, this publication, was also coming in like a backdrop of over 100 global conflicts, two of which are really grabbing the attention of people, while also, you know, the political landscape in and of itself, is shifting.  Paul: Yeah, so actually, we started a conversation within The Club of Rome as a response to the Gaza crisis. I mean, what is now widely acknowledged as being a war of genocide. And it shook a lot of people right at the beginning of the war, and we started having conversations within the club, among members, about what, what are we to think of this? How are we to make sense of what is going on in Gaza and what's going on in Ukraine, and what's going on in all these other wars that we have been engaged in? What does it tell us about being human? And so actually, before this publication that you are referencing, we had another publication called “Enduring Peace in the Anthropocene”. And I'll come back to the question of the Anthropocene in a second. I know I didn't fully address it, but in that publication, I invited about a couple dozen Club of Rome members to explore this question of that we are moving into this new epoch of life in which lot of conditions are changing. People are describing it as a polycrisis and so on and so forth. What do these particular events of war tell us about living peacefully in harmony as human beings? And each person took a very different view. With a kind of open ended invitation, we got these 20-odd essays from people from all parts of the world with very different backgrounds, and it made clear to us the limitations of the traditional notions of peace, which is what prompted us to say, hey, if, if all these dangers and wars and losses are not fitting in, and particularly the Gaza war, into a narrative of peace that we have inherited over the last 200 years of war, then we need a new concept of peace, and we call it planetary peace, and we worked on developing that paper.  So let me go back to the Anthropocene, because there are pieces of that puzzle that we haven't really fully parsed out. The Anthropocene clearly, we are in a period that is characterised by great acceleration in human population and in economic production and consumption, in devastating extraction of earth's resources, with tremendous inequalities at the same time, and in socio economic activities that are literally, literally killing the soil worldwide, killing plant life, killing other species. I mean, we are killing 80 billion animals every year for food. These are not sustainable, these are not peaceful approaches to the economy, approaches to dealing with the challenges of the Anthropocene. These are nature extractive capital accumulation processes that are at the root of breaching planetary boundaries of life, and they spill over in several ways into security and conflict issues. First, in order to provide security to the resources that we want to extract and the logistics routes for these resources that we need to protect, we are increasing military expenditures, and military systems build out.  In 2024 we spent about $2.4 trillion in defense, so called defense expenditures. And these expenditures are going to double in the next decade. The US is already for 2026 wanting to spend over a trillion dollars itself. And then China has increased its budget by 7% India has increased its defense budget by six and a half percent, and all the NATO countries, which sort of fell under the US umbrella, are now being pushed by the Trump administration to spend 5% of their GDP into defense budgets in 2026. And so, we are moving in the wrong direction, in to protect the exploitation of resources which actually caused the Anthropocene. So that is one link to the Anthropocene.  Secondly, the extraction of local resources, whether they're in Africa or in other parts of the world, is itself a source of armed conflicts. Now, these extractive practices benefit very differential populations. They are very unequal, and most of them are quite unfair, at least in the view of the locals. So, there

    Rethinking peace: Beyond the absence of war with Paul Shrivastava and Nolita Mvunelo
  5. 10/24/2025

    Collapse & renewal: Civilisation at the brink of transformation with Nafeez Ahmed, Ginie Servant-Miklos & Till Kellerhoff

    As climate chaos, political polarisation and collapsing trust shake the foundations of society, we stand at a turning point. These overlapping crises are not just signs of collapse but symptoms of a deeper breakdown, a system that puts profit before people, competition before community and short-term gain before the planet we share. In this episode of The Club of Rome Podcast, host Till Kellerhoff speaks with members of The Club of Rome, Nafeez Ahmed and Ginie Servant-Miklos about how this turmoil could seed renewal, a once-in-a-civilisation chance to reimagine how we live, work and care for one another. They explore why the far right gains ground amid chaos, why progressives struggle to respond and how tech billionaires exploit instability to sell the illusion that technology alone can save us. Examining the psychological toll of losing our shared “normal,” the conversation invites listeners to move beyond despair, challenge outdated assumptions and engage in the collective renewal already emerging through new forms of economics, energy and education. Watch the episode: Full transcript: Till: Today, it feels like everything is falling apart. Climate chaos, political breakdown, collapsing social trust. But what if these aren't separate crises, but symptoms of a deeper systemic decline? At the heart of it lies a way of living based on self-maximisation and extraction from each other, from other species and from the planet itself. But collapse isn't only about ending. I'm Till Kellerhoff, and in this episode of The Club of Rome Podcast, we explore collapse not just as destruction, but as a potential phase shift, a reorganisation of human civilisation, through the flows of energy, technology and culture. We ask, why does the far right seem to thrive in this chaos? Why do progressive movements struggle to respond, and how can we avoid falling into despair and imagine new systems that deliver wellbeing for all on a finite planet?   I'm delighted to be joined by not one, but two members of The Club of Rome, Nafeez Ahmed, member of The Club of Rome, systems theorist and investigative journalist, Nafeez has been writing and researching about the intersection of major global ecological crises from climate, energy, food water and how they intersect with social and political crisis. His most recent book is Alt Reich: The Network War to Destroy the West from Within. Welcome Nafeez. Nafeez: Thank you Till: And I'm very happy to welcome Ginie Servant-Miklos, member of The Club of Rome, an environmental educator and Assistant Professor in Behavioral Science at the Erasmus School of Social and Behavioral Science in Rotterdam. Her most recent book is Pedagogies of Collapse: A Hopeful Education for the End of the World as we know it. Welcome Ginie. Ginie: Thank you Till: Ginie, so your recent book carries the term collapse in the title and Nafeez you also wrote an article already in 2016 titled Failing states: Collapsing systems, biophysical triggers of political violence. Before we get into the details of collapse, you both seem to share a certain fascination for this concept of collapse. Where does that come from? Why is that? Maybe we start with you Nafeez. Nafeez: So, I think collapse is something which is often seen kind of taboo in our societies. You know, the idea that things can be really falling apart is not something that we hear much systematic discussion of.  But I think increasingly in the last few years, even though the concept, or the, you know, the word collapse, is not something we're always seeing in the news media, but I think it's becoming something which we're all feeling, and a lot of people are now feeling this sense that something isn't right. Something is falling apart. And it almost feels like everything is falling apart around us, but we don't really know why. So, the idea of collapse, I think, you know, begins to kind of put a bit of a specificity to what we're all experiencing. But what I hope, increasingly, we're seeing is that there's a body of quite strong scientific literature across both the natural sciences and the social sciences, showing that collapse is a real phenomenon in nature, and has therefore massive implications across our societies, our economies, our cultures, precisely because, as we're increasingly beginning to see, our societies, our economies, our cultures, are rooted in the natural world. They're not separate from it. They're actually very much part of it. So, these life cycles that we can see in the natural systems, where, you know, we see systems growing, thriving, but then also experiencing collapses, and that's kind of a part of this, of a natural process. These are things which we can also see at a big macro scale in human society. And in my view, I think industrial civilisation as we know it is on the cusp of a very similar type of moment that we have seen across living systems. But it's we're seeing a process of breakdown in all the kind of big systems that we take for granted. Till: Just to follow up here, because you did mention that the events we are currently observing, you describe them as global, systemic decline, in a way, due to a system that is no longer able to keep its current form without sparking father crisis. Which system are you talking about there? Nafeez: Yeah, there's, I mean, says there's so much to unpack there, but I think at the core of any system you know, is, is energy, and that's not to reduce and kind of take away all the other important factors, because there's many factors, which is about how you organise energy and the way that you see the world in the way that you see and interact, and all of those play a fundamental role. But I think what we're seeing is that the climate crisis, which is kind of like in a way, it's the in our face symptom of the catastrophes that we're seeing, of that collapse process we're seeing, but it's not the driving cause of the crisis. The driving cause of the crisis is the way in which our civilisation actually works. And of course, energy is at the heart of that. And you know, one side of that is the fact that the energy systems that we currently rely on, basically fossil fuel resources, obviously, are destabilising this natural balance in the carbon cycle when we're getting this increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and greenhouse gasses, and the planet can't cope with that, and it's having all sorts of destabilizing effects which are really difficult for us to understand. But the other side of that is that the energy system itself, the fossil fuels that we rely on, are, in a way, experiencing their own forms of diminishing returns. And there's a concept called energy return on investment, which my colleague Ginie, has also written extensively about, which is a way of understanding the quality of energy, the amount of energy you use to get a certain amount of energy out. And so now there's, I think, a consensus that you know, amongst experts who've been studying this concept and using this metric, that the EROI of the fossil fuel system as a whole has been in decline for the last decades. And all of this, then, is interconnected. You know, the energy, the economics, the ecology, are all fundamentally actually just facets of one crisis. So, Ginie, what is your approach? If we look at collapse, I mean, there's systemic factors. There's also something like the lived experience of collapse, right? How do you approach this? Ginie: Yeah, I love that Nafeez talked about, that we're feeling it, because that's kind of my starting point as a psychologist. I realised, you know, we can look at the impact of energy on the ecology, on the economics, on production, but the key missing element is on the psychology. So, what is it that we understand as normal? What is actually our experience of normality and our experience, your experience, my experience, our experience here of normality is actually a historical aberration. In all of human history, a society with such large amounts of energy available has never existed. And so what we understand as normal life, that kind of linear model that has been sold to us, packaged in a system that you might call American-style capitalism, something like that, the American Dream, let's say which is you go to school, and the longer you stay in school, the higher your earning potential. You hyperspecialise in a job, then you get married, you buy a house, you have 2.1 kids, you buy a car, and then you retire. That kind of normality is an aberration that was only made possible by high amounts of energy in the system. This is not how a system with low amounts of energy operates. And the problem is that in psychology, we have this concept called schemas, which is how our brain processes and stores information to allow us to make sense of the work of like the world around us. And our schemas for what normality is are entirely shaped by a very high energy society, and as we enter this series of crises, the psychological reactions to having those schemas challenged, or even to being told what you think of as normal is not going to endure in the next 5, 10 you know, it's already falling apart now, that causes such violent psychological shocks that I think that that is something that can then be very easily manipulated or preyed upon by the kinds of people that Nafeez has done so much research into. Like it is that psychological fragility, the lack of psychological resilience to collapsing schemas in a way that creates a wide-open door for people to come in with big, beautiful lies, let's say that soothes the psychological collapse that people are experiencing. Till: Thanks, Ginie, I found that actually very interesting in your book. You do have the psychoanalytical approach to that. You, for example, bring in Žižek reinterpretation of the different stages of grief on how people also deal in times of collapse, right? You say that there are certain m

    Collapse & renewal: Civilisation at the brink of transformation with Nafeez Ahmed, Ginie Servant-Miklos & Till Kellerhoff
  6. 08/29/2025

    Africa's war on misinformation with Abdullahi Alim and Nolita Mvunelo

    Africa is on the frontline of a fast-moving battle against digital misinformation, one with profound effects for politics, trust and daily life. In this episode of We Kinda Need a Revolution, host Nolita Mvunelo talks to Abdullahi Alim, award-winning economist and CEO of the Africa Future Fund, about how social media, YouTube rumours, deepfakes and adversarial AI are reshaping the continent, often out of the global spotlight. From election hoaxes to ethnic divisions stoked online, they highlight the unique and urgent challenges confronting the continent and the lack of accountability from major tech platforms. But the conversation is also about hope: practical solutions like investing in education, boosting community resilience and creating spaces for honest, offline dialogue. Drawing on his own journey from Somalia to a different life in Australia, Abdullahi reflects on how lived experience shapes his vision of the risks and opportunities Africa faces in the digital age. Watch the episode: Full transcript: Nolita: While the world's attention is often elsewhere, Africa is facing a digital war on misinformation. Nations across the continent are facing a quieter but equally dangerous battle for the truth in the age of social media and AI, one that is reshaping politics trust and power. Welcome to We Kinda Need a Revolution, a special series of the Club of Rome Podcast where we explore bold ideas for shaping sustainable futures. I am Nolita Mvunelo, and today I'm speaking to Abdullahi Alim, an award-winning economist and CEO of the Africa Future Fund. Abdullahi is a leading voice on how disinformation and adversarial AI are reshaping power and trust. These are ideas that he examines in his foreign policy essay, how Africa's war on disinformation can save democracies everywhere. In this episode, we dive into the war on misinformation in Africa and ask, what risks lie ahead, what role are young people playing, and what will it take to build resilience and reclaim the digital space? Let's explore what's at stake and what's possible.  Hi, how are you doing? Thank you so much for joining us today.   Abdullahi: I'm good. Thanks. Thanks for having me, Nolita.   Nolita: Our discussion today is going to be on Africa's war and disinformation, but before we get into that, can you please tell us more about yourself and what led you into considering some of these challenges and these potentially existential risks?   Abdullahi: I think every idea needs to be drawn back to its origins, and that also holds for me as a person too. I was born in 1992 in Somalia, and I am of the children of that initial conflict that earned Somalia, the unfortunate nickname of a failed state. And I think going from that early childhood experience in in Somalia to eventually where we settled in Australia, in a more low income bubble when you are a product of failed systems, be it, examples of systems of migration, systems of transportation, systems of housing, you have no choice but to think deeply about how those systems operate to advantage some people and how they operate to disadvantage others. So, I think I've always been a deeply reflective person, even from a young age, and I take that with great responsibility, because my story isn't the norm. I'm the exception to the norm, having had the life that I've had so far, and I want to use that responsibly. And I think that starts not so much with solving things, but asking the right questions, and that's why I lend myself better to systemic issues, systemic fault lines, like what we're about to discuss today.  Nolita: So as a start, may you please take us through the challenge and the landscape?  Abdullahi: Sure. So I think when we think of disinformation, we think of it through a US Eurocentric lens, largely because it's language borrowed from the west. When we think about the large disinformation campaigns that pique media interest, we're usually talking about events that's around the US election, or perhaps proxy conflicts taking place in Europe between pro-Russian voices and pro NATO voices. But the world of disinformation actually expands beyond that, and I think it gets the least amount of attention in Sub Saharan Africa. Least amount of attention, but some of the most profound impacts. Why? Because, I think for the most part, identity on the continent is still delineated against clan, religious and ethnic lines. So, somebody could be of X nationality, but at the same time, they may have an additional loyalty, especially when conflict comes to rise. At a more granular level, the loyalty again, could be to their ethnic group, it could be to their religious group. It could be to their clan. Now, when you have an unregulated landscape of that sort, and when you have less sort of resources deployed by the big tech companies who have a large monopoly in the information highway in these parts of the world, what it means is that those regions, and principally Africa, in this moment, is most vulnerable and most at risk to the kind of disinformation tactics which seem quite analogue relative to what we typically think of disinformation. It really could just be somebody edited to look like they've said something when they haven't. It could be a court attributed to a particular leader of a group, any of those forms of misappropriated text or deep fakes, anything from one end to the other, can have real life ramifications.  Nolita: Do you have any like specific examples or cases where this has happened and what has the impact been? I say this also, like in the current context, where there is a lot of conflict right now, is that at the same time, Africa doesn't get the same type of global attention at times of conflict.   Abdullahi: I think the example that I can give again would be in Ethiopia, because it sort of happened at the worst possible time when the conflict in Tigray broke out in Ethiopia. And of course, this has been brewing for some time. I think it came off the backs of a lot of. Tech companies culling their trust and safety teams, budgets, councils. And what you had was one moderator, for example, for every let's say I'm giving an arbitrary figure here, just to sort of give you the scale one per million of population, so that really when you, when you reduce her to that level, you're never going to be at the scale necessary to be able to tackle this issue. We saw examples in Ethiopia where one faction would basically share an image of a leader from another particular faction. This is, again, was based on ethnic lines, saying a particular, particularly provocative statement against them, or suggesting that they were about to incite violence, which they never did. It got so bad that it reached the stage where that particular misappropriated community leader from the other group was killed off the backs of this misassumption. Now, when you look at the death toll in the Tigray conflict, clocking something around 600,000 people, you cannot disassociate that from social media and the role of disinformation in this particular form of warfare.  Nolita: So then I sense that there's an element of accountability and infrastructure, like what is available for governments or maybe even people to, you know, hold platforms accountable for the lack of infrastructure, like the lack of moderation, etc, but also who chooses what gets moderated, what is right, what is wrong, what can be shared, what can't be shared. Are there any initiatives, even at the state level or even at the international organisation level, that are addressing some of these challenges?  Abdullahi: Most of the efforts now are calling for more moderation, which would have worked a few years ago, but in the age of AI, actually, it's it's going to prove quite inconsequential. I'll tell you why. So I could literally put out propaganda that calls for and incites violence against even an individual, let alone a particular group, and in such a way that I use the latest, what we call adversarial AI, to change and augment the detail of the image from the back end in such a minute way that the naked eye won't see the difference. But a machine might misread as something completely different. So it might read it as, oh, that's a rose, or that's something that isn't inflammatory. So imagine that at scale. So the question then becomes, where do we go from here? Now, unfortunately, the AI ecosystem is quite closed around the world. A lot of these big companies are running closed models. We're outsourcing this huge responsibility to smaller teams behind these tech companies, who, for the most part, don't have the incentive and may not have the interdisciplinary expertise to be able to tackle this issue at their core. So that, I think is the number one issue at the moment is that we've got closed innovation ecosystems that as these problems get more and more advanced, these disinformation tactics become more and more advanced, it actually shuts the door from a global community of experts, both technical and non-technical, being able to come to the table to figure out how to counter that from an algorithm perspective, and we're outsourcing this important duty and responsibility to smaller and smaller companies whose main incentives is really just to win the AI race, as it's called. And so I think who bears the cost? Unfortunately, it will be the continent. It will fortunately be parts of the world that don't have that. Don't have that same level of fluency with these kind of more advanced disinformation campaigns. I also think nalita, we're paying the costs for decades long poor education systems and decades long lack of investments, lack of even just community spaces to heal divides, to create spaces where tension will arise when you bring up narratives and experiences, lived experiences in particular, but not doing it unfortunately means that those issues fester to the point where, when a new medium emerges that's able

    Africa's war on misinformation with Abdullahi Alim and Nolita Mvunelo

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
4 Ratings

About

Thought leaders and changemakers explore the mindshifts and policy solutions needed to transform the complex challenges facing humanity and the planet today.

You Might Also Like