No second to spare: an urgent agenda for future generations

Earlier this year, the time on the Doomsday Clock was moved to 89 seconds, the closest it has ever been to midnight – a euphemism for the world being perilously close to the precipice of a human made global catastrophe. Initiated by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to signal the risk from nuclear weapons, the Clock is designed to exhort political, military, technology and business leaders to recognize and address potentially existential issues with the seriousness and maturity they deserve.

Over time, as global threats have multiplied, additional risks have been considered. In 2007, reflecting the increasing severity and frequency of climate events, climate change was added, and more recently, the potential misuse of biological sciences and the emergence of disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI).

To give a sense of how far the Clock has moved since its launch – and therefore how close we now are to catastrophe – it was set at seven minutes from midnight in 1947 and 17 minutes from midnight over 30 years ago in 1991 as the threat of nuclear war dissipated.

Below I outline how we arrived at 89 seconds – and what we must now do collectively to reset the clock. I also suggest how a new United Nations Special Envoy for Future Generations can support these efforts: highlighting the consequences of today’s actions (and inactions), shaping conversations, and promoting pathways that secure the rights and interests of those yet to be born.

Accelerated nuclear risks, declining cooperation

On the nuclear front, all the major nuclear-armed States are engaged in modernizing and expanding their nuclear arsenals and capabilities. Each claims the need to do so to ostensibly “restore stability”. As threat perceptions multiply, an arms race is unfolding before our eyes. Meanwhile, nuclear brinkmanship has become acceptable as normal behaviour. The doctrines of many nations project ever lower thresholds for the use of nuclear weapons to enhance deterrence. This risks situations getting out of hand, especially when nuclear armed adversaries are not on talking terms.

Nuclear arms control that had fostered a modicum of stability is on the verge of disappearing. The last standing instrument, the New START treaty, will most likely expire in 2026 after Moscow suspended compliance in 2023 against the backdrop of the still ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Washington too has taken countermeasures in response to Russian actions, and China is showing no inclination to participate in any negotiations on the issue. Rather, its own nuclear arsenal is undergoing an unprecedented expansion.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s ambiguity on extending the United States’ deterrence commitments has prompted non-nuclear weapon States to now consider possessing nuclear weapons, including South Korea and Japan in Asia and Poland and Germany in Europe. As the norm of non-proliferation comes under greater stress, and long-standing concerns over the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programmes persist, there are growing fears of global nuclear dis-order rocking the boat of next year’s Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Post-pandemic health threats

The Covid-19 pandemic drew attention to bio-security issues like never before. But instead of prioritizing human health – as many had hoped once the pandemic subsided – rising geopolitical tensions have persuaded nation States to instead prioritize building military capabilities. The World Health Organization, like many other multilateral institutions, has seen its credibility attacked, and emerging and reemerging infectious diseases continue to threaten the global economy, society and security.

In fact, the risks are being exacerbated by the proliferation of biological laboratories around the world, indicating scientific interest in high-risk biological research, including, in some cases, offensive biological weapons programmes. The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention that governs this space turned 50 years in 2025. But, the lack of verification mechanisms in the treaty continues to create trust issues amongst Member States.

Climate and technology disruptions

Meanwhile, the risks generated by climate change and disruptive technologies, the two other factors that now determine the time on the Doomsday Clock, intersect with bio and nuclear threats. Climate change, for instance, is altering the characteristics of habitats worldwide. Consequently, more animals are carrying diseases, and more insects are spreading them to each other and to humans. In an alarming development, the global average surface air temperature in January-September 2024 touched 1.54 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, exceeding the “defence line” target of 1.5 degrees Celsius that had been accepted in the Paris Agreement.

Extreme weather and climate events continue to severely affect people, both rich and poor, while also negatively impacting ecosystems around the world. The investments for adaptation to climate change impacts remain much lower than needed to avoid the worst impacts.

Finally, AI research and applications continue to accelerate, immune to any governance measures at the global level. As the sophistication of large language models (LLM) lead to generative systems, the risks of disruption are not yet being fully anticipated, particularly the  applications of AI in weapons of war, including potentially, nuclear weapons. Of particular concern are lethal autonomous weapons, which can identify and destroy targets without human intervention. In 2024, there were multiple reports of AI being incorporated into weapon targeting systems in Ukraine and Gaza. As countries scale up their capacity to use AI on the battlefield, the risks of escalation can be expected to grow.

We have also seen AI’s potential to create chaos, disorder and dysfunction in the information ecosystem. Advances in LLM technologies and dramatic improvements in the use of deepfakes could have consequential effects in triggering off anarchic scenarios.

An agenda for future generations

Averting disaster requires several urgent steps simultaneously. The most pertinent is the need to hold on to what we still have in the form of treaties, conventions and norms. For instance, the ceilings on nuclear warheads need to be protected even if the arms control treaty itself may be lost post-2026. The attempt concurrently should be to further reduce the numbers and salience of these weapons. Similarly, the Non-Proliferation Treaty should be preserved despite all its problems. It is a valiant sentinel guarding against proliferation. In today’s environment it would be impossible to craft another such treaty and reach its level of universality. Another norm that needs to be conserved is that of non-use of all weapons of mass destruction. The nuclear taboo needs to be particularly protected at this moment when the "tactical" or "small" use of nuclear weapons is being casually mentioned.

For the retention of existing mechanisms/norms or the creation of new ones, especially for new technologies, nations should prioritize dialogue: initiating difficult conversations, being  prepared to listen to one another, and together, fostering a shared sense of risk. Anticipating shared risks could also emerge from simulation exercises that expose leaders to the potentially disastrous repercussions of the adversarial decisions they make. Nuclear Security Summits made use of this tool to get leaders to recognize the risks to nuclear security. It may be time to convene a series of existential risk reduction summits to sensitize leaders to the dangers we seem to be so casually living with.

One potential convenor is the soon to be appointed United Nations Special Envoy for Future Generations. This new role, envisaged within the UN system to advocate for the interests of generations yet to be born, is expected to help ensure that UN policies and decision-making processes maintain a long-term perspective. Given the risks that future generations are likely to face from the four challenges described above, it should be within the remit of the Envoy to raise awareness about the intergenerational consequences of the decisions we make today – on nuclear, bio, climate change and disruptive technologies.

By encouraging States to consider the consequences of their actions, by shaping conversations and injecting future-oriented perspectives into those conversations, and by offering "custodian" pathways that can nurture and protect the interests of those yet to be born, the Envoy could be pivotal – helping to reset the Doomsday Clock and pull us back from the precipice.