Globalization Is Dead, but Planetarization Has Yet to Be Born

Future historians (if there are any) will wonder why, in the mid-2020s, humans poured unprecedented resources into preparing to fight each other, while neglecting collective action against obvious planetary threats. If there is to be any hope of survival, a new mindset must take hold.

In November 1985, during their first summit in Geneva, US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev slipped away from the official proceedings to speak privately. Only years later did we learn what they discussed. Gorbachev toldthe broadcaster Charlie Rose that Reagan had asked him a startling question: “What would you do if the United States were suddenly attacked by someone from outer space? Would you help us?” Gorbachev replied, “No doubt about it,” to which Reagan responded: “We, too.” Although the two superpowers were locked in a nuclear arms race and staring each other down across Europe, they could still imagine uniting against a common existential threat.

Four decades later, humanity finds itself locked in another arms race. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports that global defense spending reached a record $2.7 trillion in 2024 – an inflation-adjusted increase of 9.4% over the previous year. After nine consecutive years of such spending increases, this surge is unprecedented since the end of the Cold War, with little indication that it will slow. Dozens of countries are expanding their militaries, and more governments are making long-term commitments to boost their defense budgets.

The reasons are many, and some are understandable. In addition to Russia’s war in Ukraine, there are rising tensions in East Asia and the Middle East, as well as vulnerabilities in cyberspace and space. But more fundamentally, this escalation reflects the collapse of globalization as we knew it – meaning a rules-based order anchored in multilateralism, open trade, and international cooperation.

It is easy to forget how different the mood was just a decade ago. In 2015 – the high-water mark for the most recent wave of globalization – world leaders delivered three landmark agreements: the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on development financing, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and the Paris climate agreement. Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Barack Obama shook hands in Washington, signaling – at least to many observers – that a new era of sustainable, inclusive, and resilient globalization was at hand.

But the resulting optimism proved short-lived. Within a few years, trade wars, nationalist and nativist politics, and geopolitical rivalries had undermined the previous consensus. Today, tariffs, subsidies, industrial policies, refugee crises, and the new arms race all attest to a world where cooperation has lost its luster. As the French historian Arnaud Orain argues, the “end of history” thesis has given way to a world once again conceived as finite – as a pie to be divided, rather than expanded. According to this mindset, what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.

But the existential threats that inspired Reagan’s thought experiment are still here, and they are more pressing than ever. Climate change, ecosystem collapse, and widening social inequalities endanger us all. They have been thoroughly documented, their consequences are already visible, and strategies to confront them have been elaborated in countless policy documents and experts’ reports. Yet they are perpetually treated as secondary to the immediate fear of aggression by one’s neighbors or rivals.  

Future historians – if the profession still exists – will wonder why, in the mid-2020s, Homo sapiens poured unprecedented resources into preparing to fight each other, while neglecting collective action against obvious planetary threats. The sums involved are staggering. The nearly $3 trillion devoted annually to defense could cover a significant portion of the investments needed to decarbonize our economies, adapt to climate change, and preserve biodiversity. 

Instead of extending the cooperative logic of globalization to planetary survival, we are re-engineering it with walls, tariffs, and weapons. Call it “barbed-wire globalization.” Humanity will remain interdependent, but relations will be managed not with common institutions but through spheres of influence. Meanwhile, the planet will recede from political consciousness. 

As Sophocles warned, “Evil can sometimes seem good to the one whose mind the gods are leading to ruin.” It is mad to obsess over relative geopolitical power while ignoring the absolute reality of planetary boundaries. If there is to be any hope, we must invent something new: not globalization, but “planetarization” – the recognition that preserving our fragile world is the precondition for everything else. Upcoming gatherings, such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, offer opportunities to advance such a perspective, even after this year’s disappointing negotiations to address plastics in our oceans. But the window is closing. 

Some will argue that the picture is not so bleak, because humanity is living through an extraordinary period of scientific and technological innovation. Given the progress in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, renewable energy, and advanced materials, why not place our trust in human ingenuity to see us through? 

The counterargument is sobering. A century ago, revolutionary discoveries in physics, chemistry, and medicine also promised a golden future, ultimately leading to what the French called the “30 glorious years” after World War II. But before getting there, the world endured a devastating depression, fascism, and a global war waged with those new technologies. The Manhattan Project produced nuclear weapons before the energy contained within the atom had been put to civilian use; the science that gave us modern fertilizer also created chemical weapons. 

Today, AI and other breakthroughs may likewise transform society. But if history is any guide, military applications will outpace civilian uses. As ever, we should “follow the money”: defense budgets dwarf climate investments. The danger is not that the technology will fail, but that it will be harnessed first for conflict, not collective survival. 

Unlike earlier historical turning points, this one offers no second chances. Resources are finite, the carbon budget is shrinking fast, and planetary boundaries are strained. The choice is stark: Globalization can be reorganized into a militarized array of political blocs, where resources are consumed by trade wars, culture wars, and real wars, or we can embrace “planetarization” and start pursuing strategies to survive together with dignity.

---

This article was previously published by Project Syndicate.