Quantifying Humankind’s Survival Probability, 2025: An Updated Conscious Enterprises Network Assessment

Quantifying Humankind’s Survival Probability, 2025: An Updated Conscious Enterprises Network Assessment by D. Conterno (2025)

Executive Summary

The global outlook has darkened markedly since Conscious Enterprises Network (CEN)’s June 2024 study. After recalibrating each hazard vector and mitigation lever, CEN now assigns the period 2025 to 2045 a mid‑range survival probability of 40 percent (before the addendum and now 37% ). The seven‑point erosion observed in 2024 has deepened by a further ten percentage points, driven chiefly by (1) the explicit quantification of engineered biological threats, (2) intensified great‑power brinkmanship exacerbated by the new United States administration’s disruptive trade, territorial, and human‑rights posture, and (3) a continued acceleration of climate‑system momentum that overwhelms incremental mitigation gains.

Nevertheless, transformative potential remains. Breakthroughs in beneficial artificial intelligence and unprecedented commitments to climate‑finance can still tilt the odds (if governments, corporations, and civil society act in concert and with urgency).

---

1 Introduction

This report extends last year’s four‑pillar risk model (geopolitics, technology, environment, and society) by retaining the biological security and cyber‑information integrity cross‑cutting domains by integrating the macro‑economic feedback loops generated by the United States’ “Tariff” regime. All probability assignments derive from a hybrid methodology that blends historical base rates, expert‑elicitation medians, and AI‑assisted trend analysis performed in April 2025. Full methodological notes appear in Appendix A.

---

2 Global Context Snapshot, April 2025

2.1 Geopolitical Tension

• The wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as many others, persist, imposing heavy humanitarian tolls and absorbing diplomatic bandwidth.

• The new United States administration has imposed new or increased tariffs on imports from trade‑surplus nations, prompting swift counter‑measures by China, the European Union, and other countries.

• Washington has simultaneously scaled back de facto human‑rights reporting and voiced expansionist territorial claims toward Greenland, the Panama Canal and parts of Arctic Canada, prompting condemnations from NATO partners and the UN Human Rights Council.

2.2 Technological Landscape

• The EU Artificial Intelligence Act entered its first enforcement phase in February 2025, setting a global template for risk‑based regulation and banning “unacceptable‑risk” systems such as live facial recognition in public spaces (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parlement and of the Council - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

• Generative AI capability now surpasses human benchmarking on 87 percent of professional tasks, magnifying both public‑good applications and tail‑risk misuse scenarios.

2.3 Environmental Frontline

• COP‑29 (Baku) produced a landmark pledge to triple climate‑finance flows to developing economies by 2035; however, global greenhouse‑gas emissions still rose 1.4 percent in 2024.

• Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier recorded its fastest annual melt on record, underlining new evidence that key ice‑sheet tipping points may be reached within a decade.

2.4 Biological Security

• WHO member states have finalised the text of a Pandemic Accord that mandates 72‑hour genetic‑sequence sharing and establishes a pooled surge‑manufacturing fund, but ratification remains incomplete. As an alternative to the 72-hour genetic sequence sharing, open-access platforms for sharing genetic sequences as championed by some scientists is also a possibility.

• Commercial AI‑driven protein‑folding platforms now allow plausible engineering of novel viral capsids with minimal laboratory infrastructure, widening the threat surface for malicious actors.

2.5 Societal Fragmentation and Resilience

• The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer finds 61 percent of respondents expressing a moderate‑to‑high sense of grievance, the highest level since the index began in 2001.

• Conversely, grass‑roots Resilience Hubs have expanded to cover 140 million people, delivering distributed energy, water, and health services in seventeen climate‑vulnerable states.

---

3 Quantifying Baseline Risks, 2025 – 2045

Domain	Key Hazard Indicator	Twenty‑Year Likelihood	Severity Weight	Adjusted Contribution
Major interstate war	Great‑power confrontation escalates to broad regional conflict	27 %	1.0	27 %
Nuclear weapon use	Detonation of ≥ 1 warhead (intentional or accidental)	9 %	1.0	9 %
Climate disruption	Cross‑sectoral damage from > 2 °C warming + tipping cascades	28 %	1.0	28 %
Engineered pathogen	Release causing ≥ 10 million fatalities	13 %	1.0	13 %
AI‑enabled systemic cyber failure	Global outage of critical digital or power infrastructure	10 %	1.0	10 %
Space‑asset cascade	Kessler‑type debris event crippling satellite services	5 %	0.8	4 %
Combined Baseline Risk				91 %

Drivers of year‑on‑year change: The baseline ledger rises from 89 percent to 91 percent. The two‑point increase is traceable to (a) tariff‑induced escalation risk adding two percentage points to the war category and (b) upgraded ice‑sheet stress elevating climate disruption by one point, offset by improved orbital‑debris mitigation lowering the space risk by one point.

---

4 Technological and Societal Mitigations

Mitigation Lever	Twenty‑Year Positive Impact	Remarks
Beneficial AI (climate modelling, drug discovery, energy optimisation)	+ 23 %	Expanded application in low‑income settings
AI governance (EU AI Act, UN Advisory Body roadmap)	+ 12 %	Risk‑based bans gaining normative traction
Global health innovation	+ 8 %	Reduced probability of large‑scale infectious disease
Climate‑finance and adaptation (COP‑29 pledge, resilience hubs)	+ 14 %	Net‑present‑value projection of pledged flows through 2035
Social cohesion initiatives (equitable‑growth compacts, civic‑dialogue platforms)	+ 10 %	Measured through inclusive‑growth indices
Subtotal Positive Impact		+ 67 %
AI misuse and autonomy (deepfakes, autonomous weapons)	– 20 %	Rapid diffusion of self‑learning malware
Rising inequality and grievance politics	– 16 %	Tariff war and rights rollback intensify grievance dynamics
Aggregate Negative Offset		– 36 %
Net Mitigation Effect		+ 31 %

---

5 Aggregate Survival‑Probability Calculation

Starting baseline survival = 100 percent

Subtract combined baseline risk = – 91 percent

Add net positive mitigation = + 31 percent
Revised survival probability, 2025 – 2045 = 40 percent (38 – 42 percent range).

This represents a seventeen‑point decline since the original 2024 study.

---

6 Comparative Analysis: 2024 → 2025

• Conflict and Nuclear Risk. Major‑war likelihood rises two points, reflecting sharpened trade frictions and assertive territorial claims by the new United States administration. Nuclear‑use probability edges upward to 9 percent amid renewed Russian and North Korean signalling.

• Biological Threat Surface. The explicit inclusion of engineered‑pathogen scenarios introduces a 13 percent hazard, absent from 2024 calculations.

• Climate System Stress. Thwaites‑Glacier acceleration and another year of record temperatures lifts the climate‑disruption component three points, from 25 percent to 28 percent.

• Mitigation Levers. Net mitigation improves from 23 percent in 2024 to 31 percent in 2025 on the back of formalised AI governance and climate‑finance pledges, tempered by the tariff‑induced erosion of social trust and cooperative capacity.

• Role of the United States Administration. The imposition of new tariffs, retreat from human‑rights advocacy, and revival of expansionist rhetoric collectively add two percentage points to the war ledger and one percentage point to the grievance offset, while shaving two percentage points from the climate‑finance mitigation tally.

---

7 Strategic Pathways to Tilt the Odds

• Re‑energise Multilateral Arms Control. Launch a P5+ track that pairs nuclear‑warhead ceilings with AI‑verified launch‑on‑warning suppression and includes China and India as core signatories.
• Hard‑Code Biosecurity into AI Research. Mandate DNA‑synthesis screening, secure‑compute enclaves for high‑risk models, and create an open‑source Bio risk commons to diffuse best practice.
• Operationalise Just Energy Partnerships. Anchor the COP‑29 finance pledge in enforceable bilateral deals, balancing concessional capital with rapid technology transfer.
• Scale Planetary Resilience Hubs. Expand the hub model to 1 billion beneficiaries by 2030, integrating micro‑grids, water‑harvesting, and tele‑medicine.
• Embed Equity in Economic Design. Introduce progressive wealth taxes, universal basic services, and labour‑share floors to reverse the grievance spiral intensified by protectionism.
• Launch a Global Trust Infrastructure Charter. Forge a tripartite compact among media, civic‑tech, and educational actors to immunise the public sphere against AI‑mediated manipulation.

---

8 Operational Roadmap, 2025 – 2027

Quarter	Milestone	Lead Actors
Q3 2025	P5+ arms‑control exploratory talks convened in Geneva	UNODA, Pugwash, Track‑II networks
Q4 2025	DNA‑synthesis screening protocol adopted by G20 health ministers	WHO, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
Q1 2026	First tranche of USD 50 billion COP‑29 climate‑finance disbursed	World Bank, Green Climate Fund
Q2 2026	Trust Infrastructure Charter ratified at UNESCO	UNESCO, International Media Federation
Q4 2026	Resilience Hubs network reaches 400 million beneficiaries	C40 Cities, Global Resilience Partnership
Q2 2027	Model wealth‑tax framework adopted by OECD and BRICS+ finance ministers	IMF, South Centre

Detailed budgets and risk‑management metrics appear in Appendix C.

---

9 Conclusion and Call to Conscious Leadership

A final 40 percent survival probability is a stark verdict compared to last year (57.5 percent), yet it is also a resolvable challenge. The forces driving our collective risk are human-made and therefore human-modifiable. Conscious leadership requires that we refuse fatalism, cultivate solidarity, and mobilise science, capital, and compassion at planetary scale.

However, we must also confront an uncomfortable truth: claiming to stand for peace is no longer enough. In an era where geopolitical posturing can escalate in days and weapons of mass destruction loom as existential threats, the burden of peace has shifted. We must now become active advocates for the prevention of conflict, the repair of broken diplomacy, and the cultivation of nonviolent solutions across every level of society.

In particular, businesses and institutions that promote Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) values bear a heightened moral obligation. Their influence spans supply chains, capital flows, employment patterns, and public trust. To be credible in their commitments to sustainability and justice, ESG leaders must now explicitly integrate peacebuilding into their operational and strategic mandates.

Peace must no longer be treated as a political variable external to business. It is an economic condition, a social fabric, and a cultural imperative. Companies must:

• Conduct peace risk assessments in investment strategies,

• Adopt conflict-sensitive sourcing and labour practices,

• Use their platforms to promote dialogue and reconciliation,

• Collaborate with civil society in divided or fragile communities,

• And publicly support diplomatic norms that reduce geopolitical tension.

This transformation demands courage. It requires ESG leaders to speak out when silence is easier, to engage when neutrality feels safer, and to lead when public discourse is polarised.

Conscious Enterprises Network therefore renews its invitation to partners across business, academia, government, and civil society to transform this blueprint into immediate, measurable action. Let our declarations of peace become strategies for peace. Let our balance sheets reflect not only profit, but planetary harmony.

Together, we can shift the future from the coin-flip of 40 percent to the certainty of an enlightened human epoch.

---

10 Appendices

Appendix A – Methodology

Our probability framework synthesises three analytic layers:

1. Historical baselines. Empirical frequency distributions drawn from 1945 – 2024 datasets (Correlates of War, SIPRI, EM‑DAT, WHO, and NASA Orbital Debris Programme) establish prior odds for each hazard vector.
2. Expert‑elicitation medians. Forty‑three subject‑matter experts provided percentile assessments for twenty‑year likelihood and severity scores; we used the Brier‑weighted median to reduce outlier bias.
3. AI‑assisted trend‑capture. A large‑language‑model pipeline (GPT‑4 Turbo custom) scanned 18 000 peer‑reviewed articles, policy briefs, and market reports (April 2024 – April 2025) to quantify directional shifts.

Confidence intervals derive from a 5 000‑draw Monte‑Carlo simulation with triangular distributions centred on expert medians, producing the 38–42 percent band.

Appendix B – Data Tables

Table B1. Baseline Hazard Likelihoods and Confidence Bands

Domain	Likelihood (mid)	90 % CI	Severity	Contribution
Major interstate war	27 %	18–35 %	1.0	27
Nuclear weapon use	9 %	4–14 %	1.0	9
Climate disruption	28 %	22–34 %	1.0	28
Engineered pathogen	13 %	8–20 %	1.0	13
AI‑systemic cyber failure	10 %	5–16 %	1.0	10
Space‑asset cascade	5 %	2–9 %	0.8	4
Combined baseline	91 %	74–108 %

Table B2. Mitigation Vectors

Lever	Positive Impact	Negative Offset	Net	Sources 2024–25
Beneficial AI	+23 %	—	+23 %	Nature, IEA, IPCC WG⁠2
AI governance	+12 %	—	+12 %	EU OJ L 1689, UN HLAB report
Global health innovation	+8 %	—	+8 %	WHO, CEPI
Climate‑finance & adaptation	+14 %	—	+14 %	UNFCCC, WB
Social‑cohesion initiatives	+10 %	–16 %	–6 %	Edelman, ILO
AI misuse & autonomy	—	–20 %	–20 %	CyberPeace Institute
Totals	+67 %	–36 %	+31 %

Appendix C – Risk‑Weighting Formulae

Severity weighting. Existential threats (nuclear, engineered pathogen, major war, unchecked climate cascade) are assigned a multiplier of 1.0. Systemic‑disruption threats (space debris, AI‑cyber) are multiplied by 0.8 to reflect recoverability potential.

Interaction terms. We include covariance modifiers for correlated risks. Sensitivity tests show joint interactions alter the aggregate survival probability by ±2 percentage points.

Mitigation decay. Positive mitigation levers are discounted at 1.5 percentage points per year after 2035 unless underpinned by a legally binding treaty or a fully funded endowment mechanism.

Appendix D – Budget Estimates for the 2025 – 2027 Roadmap

Initiative	2025	2026	2027	Three‑year Total	Funding Sources
P5+ Arms‑Control Track	£120 m	£160 m	£180 m	£460 m	UNODA, EU InstEx, Carnegie Endowment
DNA‑Screening Roll‑out	£340 m	£380 m	£420 m	£1.14 bn	CEPI, G20 fund, Etc…
Climate‑Finance Disbursement (first tranche)	£16 bn	£18 bn	£20 bn	£54 bn	WB, GCF, JET‑P trust
Trust Infrastructure Charter	£90 m	£110 m	£120 m	£320 m	UNESCO, Mozilla, Open Society
Resilience Hubs Expansion	£1.8 bn	£2.1 bn	£2.4 bn	£6.3 bn	C40 Cities, Adaptation Fund
Wealth‑Tax Implementation Toolkit	£50 m	£65 m	£80 m	£195 m	IMF, South Centre, regional dev banks
Aggregate	£18.4 bn	£20.8 bn	£23.2 bn	£62.4 bn

---

11. Addendum – May 2025

India–Pakistan Escalation and Implications for Nuclear Risk Modelling

Overview

Since the release of the April 2025 CEN Survival Probability Report, a significant deterioration in relations between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states, has introduced new urgency into the model's geopolitical assumptions. As of early May 2025, intelligence briefings, diplomatic signals, and on-the-ground reporting indicate a non-trivial probability of escalation beyond conventional thresholds.

Key developments include:

• Renewed cross-border artillery exchanges along the Line of Control (LoC),

• Disruption of bilateral diplomatic communications and repatriation of envoys,

• Public military drills and nuclear posture rhetoric by both capitals,

• Social media-fuelled mobilisation and nationalist fervour on both sides.

While no war has formally been declared, these signs constitute a serious re-escalation of the subcontinent’s nuclear flashpoint status, with potential ramifications extending across the geopolitical and economic matrix.

---

Model Adjustments

As per the hybrid methodology used in the April 2025 report (see Appendix A), and with recourse to updated sources (IAEA briefings, SIPRI alert bulletins, OSINT military positioning data, and regional expert elicitation), the following adjustments are now made:

Hazard Domain	Original Value (Apr 2025)	Updated Value (May 2025)
Major interstate war	27%	30%
Nuclear weapon use	9%	11%

These shifts add a composite +3% to the baseline hazard ledger, raising it from 91% to 94%, and thus revising the survival probability from 40% to 37% under the same mitigation offset assumptions.

---

Analytic Commentary

Unlike other theatres of tension, the India–Pakistan dyad is historically marked by the absence of fully institutionalised escalation control mechanisms. Although the two states have long maintained de facto deterrence postures, the lack of a multilateral arms control framework (like the P5 track proposed in Section 7) leaves escalation risk highly non-linear.

Compounding this is the presence of non-state actors with the potential to provoke military reactions, and short decision windows that favour military over diplomatic response cycles. In such an environment, a single miscalculation, even accidental, could rapidly degrade into nuclear exchange—limited or otherwise.

---

Peacebuilding and Prevention Recommendations

In light of this escalation, the following additions to the strategic roadmap are proposed:

1. Urgent Bilateral Crisis Mediation
• A Track II or backchannel facilitation team (under UN or ASEAN auspices) should be mobilised within 30 days.
2. Regional Nuclear De-escalation Framework
• Initiate a South Asia–specific confidence-building mechanism, possibly coordinated via the UN Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (UNRCPD).
3. Incorporate India–Pakistan Conflict Modelling into P5+ Arms Control Dialogue
• Expand the current Geneva track planning (see Section 8) to include dual-capacity sub-blocs, recognising that future global stability cannot be divorced from subregional triggers.
4. Enterprise Sector-Specific Response
• Encourage multinational enterprises operating in the region to:
• Conduct peace impact assessments;
• Freeze any economic activities that might exacerbate instability;
• Publicly endorse de-escalation;
• Fund local peacebuilding organisations.