The Cost of War: The 20 Trillion Dollar Choice

00:00:16: Welcome to a new episode of the Sharp Ten Global Trends podcast.

00:00:20: My name is Andrea and today we are talking about The Cost Of Wars, not just in lives which we already know as unbearable but money-inopportunity costs – in the futures that we're quietly choosing NOT TO BUILD!

00:00:35: Here's what started this episode for me… through twenty thirty.

00:00:47: Humanity is on track to spend roughly twenty trillion dollars, On weapons and military.

00:00:53: That's more than ten billion dollars per day.

00:00:57: Ten thousand million dollars every single Day!

00:01:01: that same twenty trillion Dollars could do all at once Lift a billion people out of poverty Stabilize the climate And for you personally Cure diseases Diseases that kill YOU and The People You Love and put serious science behind longer, healthier lives.

00:01:19: And all sorts of civilisation changing progress.

00:01:23: The price for wars... ...and such an alternative future is the same.

00:01:27: What we get from it is not So.

00:01:31: today I want to do something.

00:01:32: Most podcasts DO NOT!

00:01:35: I WANT TO CHALLENGE WHERE THE ENTIRE WORLD IS HEADING AND QUESTION IF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS EVEN REMOTELY SMART With me as Claude, the AI from Anthropic.

00:01:46: Claude's responses will be voiced by Charles and my comments by Daniel.

00:01:50: Together we'll look at exactly where the twenty trillion is going, what it could be building instead... ...and why keep making choices we are making!

00:02:01: If you have ever wondered why your government can find money for war but never a much better future this episode is for you.

00:02:09: Alright let get into it.

00:02:16: Claude before go in to details of specific wars I want start with headline number.

00:02:22: If you add up the recent wars and planned military spending of major powers between now and twenty thirty, what's total bill humanity is choosing to pay?

00:02:32: The number you can calculate using official reports is somewhere between eighteen and twenty trillion dollars.

00:02:40: I want make sure our listeners actually get that.

00:02:43: Twenty Trillion Dollars Not Millions not Billions Trillions.

00:02:52: And because that figure is hard to picture, let me try and make it concrete in a different way.

00:02:58: If you started spending one million dollars every single day beginning at the birth of Christ two thousand twenty six years ago You still wouldn't have spent a single trillion.

00:03:08: today To reach twenty trillion at this pace... ...you'd need keep going for another fifty-thousand years.

00:03:17: That's the scale what humanity is choosing spend on weapons & wars in less than

00:03:48: a decade.

00:03:51: And here's the line I want listeners to hold onto for the rest of this episode, because everything else flows from it.

00:03:59: For twenty trillion dollars humanity can build a stable climate cure diseases that kill you and people who love Lift a billion out of poverty put serious science behind longer healthier lives and finance progress unimaginable today.

00:04:16: Or It Can Buy More Tanks Missiles & Drones.

00:04:20: The price is the same.

00:04:22: What we get for it, is not!

00:04:25: That's a sentence I want to come back too.

00:04:28: Let start unpacking where this twenty trillion actually goes.

00:04:32: Walk me through the walls.

00:04:33: first.

00:04:35: Let me group them logically.

00:04:37: The Israel-Gaza war, which expanded into Lebanon and then into a direct exchange with Iran is the second cluster.

00:04:55: It has costed less in absolute terms around eight hundred billion to one trillion when you add Israeli costs US military aid –the new U.S.-Iran War Costs–and Iranian damage.

00:05:08: But together four years of these conflicts have burned through roughly seven trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs.

00:05:16: Start with Russia and Ukraine.

00:05:18: What does that seven trillion actually contain?

00:05:22: Russia has spent around five hundred fifty billion dollars in direct military expenditures since February.

00:05:28: twenty-twenty two That's salaries, ammunition equipment logistics.

00:05:35: By early twenty twenty six the daily run rate is about five hundred forty seven million dollars.

00:05:42: Roughly sixteen billion per month just for the war.

00:05:46: So half a billion dollars per day.

00:05:48: Wow!

00:05:50: And that's just the direct military piece, what is

00:05:54: The Rest?

00:06:14: The gap between where the Russian economy actually is and where it would have been on its pre-war path, Is around one point six trillion.

00:06:23: And the human capital loss using standard economic models is over one trillion dollars.

00:06:30: Therefore estimates from Ukrainian intelligence and independent analysts put Russia's total loss at about three point eight trillion dollars When you include direct spending frozen assets, lost GDP and human capital costs.

00:06:46: That's nearly double Russia's entire two thousand twenty three GDP effectively to full years of national economic output vaporized.

00:06:57: And Ukraine?

00:06:59: Ukraine's total comes to about two point four trillion dollars smaller in absolute terms but the relative burden is a completely different league.

00:07:09: For Russia, the cost is roughly double its annual gross domestic product.

00:07:14: And for Ukraine it's eleven times of annual GDP.

00:07:19: The difference is that Ukraine cities are being bombed.

00:07:23: Fourteen percent of entire housing stock damage or destroyed.

00:07:27: The energy sector alone needs ninety-one billion dollars to rebuild because Russian strikes targeted nearly every thermal power plant in country.

00:07:38: and there's something even more haunting in those numbers.

00:07:41: I read the research that Ukrainian fertility rates have dropped below one child per woman.

00:07:48: That is a line which stayed with me too.

00:07:50: You can rebuild power plant for few years.

00:07:54: you cannot rebuild generation that wasn't born War not only destruction of lives, cities & economies it also destruction possible futures.

00:08:07: Horrible but important to state.

00:08:10: So Russia and Ukraine had total costs of roughly six trillion dollars together.

00:08:15: Let's move to the second cluster, Israel Gaza The Iran War.

00:08:42: Right.

00:08:43: And what about the war on Iran driven by the US and Israel?

00:08:47: The U.S.-Iran War that started on February the twenty-eighth, twenty-twenty six was extraordinarily expensive.

00:08:55: Direct military costs of twenty five to fifty billion dollars in just over two months.

00:09:01: But the wider economic impact is staggering.

00:09:04: Higher fuel and food prices alone cost American households around six hundred thirty one billion dollars roughly five thousand dollars per family, and the stock market lost five point four trillion in equity value.

00:09:21: And here's where I want to pause because there is a pattern i'm noticing.

00:09:24: across all of these wars almost everyone loses but some people are small.

00:09:29: minority always wins.

00:09:32: every single war we've discussed has produced massive profits for specific industries And

00:09:43: it deserves to be named clearly.

00:09:46: War is never a net positive for the country, but its almost always a net-positive for some companies and some of its stakeholders.

00:09:56: Israeli defence exports hit a record US dollar in twenty twenty four marketed globally as battle tested.

00:10:06: Elbit Systems an Israel based military technology company had a US dollar order backlog as of March, twenty-twenty six.

00:10:17: In the

00:10:17: U.S.,

00:10:18: major defence contractor stocks like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman rose meaningfully during peak volatility in early twenty-two-six.

00:10:29: Rheinmetall in Germany has gone up roughly fifteen times in value since start of Ukraine war with its share price jumping from approximately ninety-six euros to over € one thousand four hundred euros by May.

00:10:44: twenty-twenty six.

00:10:46: Fifteen times?

00:10:48: That's not a defence company anymore, that is a tech stock!

00:10:52: Exactly and those companies have political influence over where the wars start how long they last AND HOW THEY END.

00:11:01: THAT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY ITS THE BASIC POLITICAL ECONOMY OF A SYSTEM WHERE WEAPONS ARE PRODUCED BY PUBLICLY TRADIED COMPANIES whose shareholders demand growth.

00:11:27: And

00:11:34: it's not a moral failing of individuals working in those companies, The question is whether a system designed that way can ever produce peace as an output.

00:11:48: All right, so seven trillion already burned in four years across two conflict clusters and That's assuming both war clusters end today which obviously and unfortunately Is not the case.

00:11:59: So let's look forward.

00:12:01: what about the planned military spending of the major powers between?

00:12:12: has requested US dollars for fiscal twenty-twenty seven.

00:12:18: That's the largest defence budget request since World War II!

00:12:23: Across the five year window, The U.S alone is on track to spend roughly seven trillion.

00:12:30: China's official numbers are around one point six trillion across that same period but most independent analysts believe the real figure closer two to three trillion.

00:12:40: when you include items the official budget excludes.

00:12:43: The European Union has committed to roughly eight hundred billion-to one trillion euros in additional defence spending on top of baseline budgets through the readiness twenty thirty plan.

00:12:57: these are unprecedented numbers unbelievably sad if i may say so and russia keeps spending at war levels.

00:13:05: Russia is spending about five hundred fifty million dollars a day.

00:13:11: If that continues, That's another trillion across five years.

00:13:16: Seven Trillion already spent on wars until twenty-twenty-five.

00:13:21: Eleven to twelve trillion planned for the four largest blocks in military spending through twenty thirty.

00:13:27: That is eighteen to nineteen trillion just from these actors Added the rest of world and we are past twenty!

00:13:34: Thats The Math.

00:13:34: I want clarify something because there a counter argument here needs addressing.

00:13:41: The defenders and victims of this spending point to real threats, And have a right for self-defence.

00:13:47: Russia did attack Ukraine Hamas did attack Israel.

00:13:52: Iran did pursue nuclear capabilities.

00:13:55: China is building powerful military.

00:13:59: So each spending decision has justification on paper.

00:14:03: But here's the trap.

00:14:05: Every actor in an arms race can be responding rationally To their own situation and the collective outcome can still be catastrophic for everyone.

00:14:15: Local logic, global tragedy.

00:14:17: The First World War wasn't started by irrational leaders.

00:14:22: it was started by leaders who all thought they were making a prudent defensive choice.

00:14:29: That's what makes this kind of spending so dangerous.

00:14:33: It feels reasonable at every step right up until that moment.

00:14:38: The question isn't whether any defence spending is justified.

00:14:42: The question is whether a global system that produces this much military spending while telling us we can't afford universal education, climate adaptation or faster scientific progress….

00:14:54: …is actually optimising for human

00:14:56: flourishing.".

00:14:59: And there's something about the trend... ...that worries me more than the absolute number!

00:15:03: After nearly eighty years of relative peace between the world's major powers,... ...something is shifting.

00:15:09: We're no longer moving toward greater stability.

00:15:12: Instead, we are sliding back into old imperial patterns power struggles spheres of influence geopolitical rivalry But this time on a far larger more global scale.

00:15:25: That's the part that should keep executives awake at night.

00:15:30: The world is getting more militarized not less And the spending trajectory tells you exactly which direction we're heading.

00:15:45: So, The fact is... ...the twenty trillion dollars exists.

00:15:48: It's being allocated right now But it's been allocated to weapons soldiers and destruction Rather than schools hospitals research or energy systems.

00:15:59: Yes!

00:16:00: Its not a resource problem its A choice.

00:16:05: Let us change perspective.

00:16:07: Twenty Trillion Dollars is bill for the path were on.

00:16:11: What's the alternative?

00:16:12: what could that money build

00:16:13: instead?".

00:16:15: Let me give you an answer in three layers.

00:16:19: Five trillion, a quarter of the twenty-trillion could lift everyone above the floor of human dignity.

00:16:25: With that amount over decade humanity can realistically end extreme poverty.

00:16:31: for the seven hundred million people living on less than two point one five dollars per day That is World Bank's Poverty Threshold.

00:16:41: Economists Geoffrey Sacks and others have estimated this would cost around USDD³ to USDD AUD for about a decade.

00:16:51: So roughly half of one year of US defence spending could end extreme poverty, for seven hundred million people.

00:16:58: Continue

00:17:00: The UN's Food & Agriculture Organisation estimates ending world hunger.

00:17:10: The World Bank puts universal access to clean water and sanitation at about one hundred fifty billion per year.

00:17:18: UNESCO estimates the financing gap for Universal Primary & Secondary Education, At One Hundred Billion Per Year.

00:17:27: And the Global Fund and WHO put the cost of fully funding the fight against malaria tuberculosis and HIV at thirty-to-fifty billion per years.

00:17:39: Add it all up and you're at roughly five trillion over a decade.

00:17:45: Just to make this real for our listeners, we are spending four-to-five times more on weapons in five years than it would cost to end world hunger... ...and give every child on Earth a school for a decade!

00:17:56: Yes….

00:17:57: And the second layer is The Planet – Five To Seven Trillion.

00:18:02: to Give The Planet A Stable Future The International Energy Agency estimates global clean energy investment needs to reach about USUSD USDT per year by twenty-thirty, to keep us on a net zero path.

00:18:17: The funding gap – the part that isn't currently being financed is somewhere between two and three trillion per year.

00:18:25: so five to seven trillion total over the decade would close most of that gap.

00:18:30: modernised grids worldwide Finance Climate Adaptation for Vulnerable Countries, which the UN estimates at two hundred fifteen to three hundred eighty seven billion per year and accelerate next generation energy like fusion and advanced geothermal.

00:18:47: The realistic outcome is a stable climate trajectory by twenty fifty and electricity that becomes progressively cheaper rather than more expensive.

00:18:58: OK but before our listeners start because they are neither interested in people living in poverty nor the planet's stable future, despite living on this planet.

00:19:08: Is there a more personal perspective for the people living and relative wealth of Europe or North America?

00:19:15: What is the third layer?

00:19:17: Yes!

00:19:18: Eight to ten trillion dollars would fundamentally improve what it means be alive – for everyone.

00:19:24: This is the layer that will land most strongly with your audience Because its about their own lives Their childrens' lives their parents' lives.

00:19:34: For context, the US National Institutes of Health currently spends about forty-eight billion dollars per year on biomedical research.

00:19:44: The entire global biomedical research enterprise is around two hundred fifty billion annually.

00:19:51: If even a fraction of military spending were redirected here you would dramatically increase humanity's most productive scientific window.

00:20:03: It's that more people reach eighty or ninety still able to walk, think clearly and enjoy their grandchildren.

00:20:12: Researchers like David Sinclair at Harvard –and the team behind drugs like rapamycin and metformin– believe meaningful extension of healthy human life is achievable within decades with sufficient funding.

00:20:26: So we are not talking about science fiction.

00:20:29: We're talking an engineering problem with a budget attached

00:20:33: Exactly.

00:20:34: Major diseases like Alzheimer's, many cancers, Type I diabetes substantially reduced or cured within a generation.

00:20:43: The Buck Institute the Allen Institute for Brain Science and similar organisations are chronically underfunded relative to what is possible.

00:20:54: Depression and anxiety affect roughly one in four people globally.

00:20:59: The World Health Organization estimates mental health problems cost the global economy about one trillion dollars per year in lost productivity.

00:21:09: Yet, research funding for mental health is a fraction of what physical health receives.

00:21:15: That alone would mean hundreds of millions people experiencing more joy their lives including everyone listening.

00:21:23: What about everyday quality-of life things?

00:21:25: People feel directly before getting old.

00:21:28: Housing would actually become more affordable.

00:21:31: Energy would get cheaper instead of more expensive!

00:21:35: Every child on earth, would have access to a personal AI tutor in their own language.

00:21:40: twenty-four hours per day Self driving cars better infrastructure and the spread of remote work Would give people back hundreds of hours every year Time they currently lose to traffic and bad systems

00:21:54: And time is something you can't get back

00:21:57: Exactly.

00:21:58: It's the one resource we can't manufacture more of.

00:22:02: Handing humanity back billions-of hours collectively might be the highest leverage investment imaginable, and on top all that would take serious first steps toward becoming a species who lives in more than just one planet!

00:22:17: The Apollo program –and the broader US space programme– have returned by various economic studies somewhere between seven and fourteen dollars in economic value for every dollar spent, through technology spillovers in computing medicine materials and communications.

00:22:36: The economic returns of expanding humanity's footprint beyond Earth are likely larger than almost anything we could do here.

00:22:45: let me push on the longevity point because I think it is one most listeners will be skeptical about.

00:22:50: they should be sceptical.

00:22:52: not all this is guaranteed.

00:22:55: Some research programs fail.

00:22:57: Curing Alzheimer's or cancer is hard, but here s the asymmetry that I think matters most.

00:23:04: War a guaranteed loss with small probability of strategic gain.

00:23:10: Progress an uncertain investment with massive upside.

00:23:14: The flaw of Research Is We learned useful things along way and its ceiling is we transformed what it means to be human?

00:23:24: That's a stark way to frame it.

00:23:26: An investment in research makes much more sense from the business point of view than an investment.

00:23:52: Yet that's exactly what voters and taxpayers are asked to accept without fully realising

00:24:02: it.

00:24:03: The cost of buying only one F-thirty five fighter jet, around one hundred million dollars is roughly the annual operating budget for a major hospital.

00:24:30: One year of US defence spending is forty times what the world spends on cancer research.

00:24:35: Those aren't abstract tradeoffs.

00:24:38: those are people we love in future.

00:24:40: were choosing not to build for them and us.

00:24:43: That's exactly right kind of translation!

00:24:50: It's that someone's mother dies of pancreatic cancer at sixty-seven because a budget decision made twenty years earlier didn't fund the research it would have saved her.

00:25:00: The cost is real, its just invisible.

00:25:04: People don't feel future we are not building.

00:25:08: So let me restate math for our listeners Five trillion to lift everyone above human dignity.

00:25:15: Five to seven trillion give planet a stable future and

00:25:28: the price tag is identical to what we're already spending.

00:25:32: We are not talking about a utopia that requires humanity.

00:25:45: The choice is between a much more prosperous future and a world spending the same amount on weapons, soldiers and destruction.

00:25:57: That future isn't impossible – it's just not the future we're currently choosing!

00:26:03: This question I find hardest to sit with despite all pundits who may say that they are naive.

00:26:10: If math is this clear why don't you do so?

00:26:14: Why is humanity still investing so much more in destruction than building our own well-being?

00:26:18: I

00:26:20: think there are four reasons and they're worth being direct about because their uncomfortable.

00:26:25: The first, Is asymmetric risk perception.

00:26:30: the cost of being unprepared for war is visible and immediate.

00:26:34: If Russia invades Europe And your country has no army the consequences are obvious within weeks.

00:26:41: Meanwhile The cost of underinvesting in cancer research is invisible and diffuse.

00:26:47: You or a loved one may die at the age of sixty-seven, but you don't connect that to a budget decision made decades earlier!

00:27:07: So short-term, fear based spending will always have a structural advantage over long term high potential investments.

00:27:16: Right – Fear is loud Opportunity costs are silent And some people don't even know what opportunity costs ARE.

00:27:25: But on the other hand there's reasonable argument here.

00:27:28: Autocratic regimes led by dangerous dictators with very different world view than our democratic ones compose real threat can they?

00:27:37: So how do democracies respond to that?

00:27:40: How do you protect open societies if not by investing in defence systems strong enough, To make those dictators understand That attacking democracy simply isn't worth the risk.

00:28:07: The Soviet Union threatened Western Europe for forty years.

00:28:11: China is openly preparing a possible confrontation over Taiwan.

00:28:16: Iran has funded militias across the Middle East.

00:28:19: North Korea exists.

00:28:22: These are not abstractions.

00:28:24: democracies that disarm unilaterally do not necessarily get rewarded with peace.

00:28:33: So I am not arguing that democracies should stop investing in defence.

00:28:40: I'm arguing to save costs without losing the defence power.

00:28:45: What do you mean exactly?

00:28:47: There is a difference between necessary defence and runaway military spending.

00:28:53: Take Germany For decades, it spent roughly one point-one percent of GDP on defence which most security experts agreed was too low.

00:29:03: After Russia invaded Ukraine Germany rightly increased that to two per cent.

00:29:08: That was a reasonable response to real threat, but Germany has now committed alongside the rest of NATO to reach three point five percent of GDP for direct military spending and five percent total by twenty thirty-five.

00:29:22: That is roughly a fivefold increase from where Germany was a decade ago!

00:29:29: However – The test for any defence budget Is this spending making us measurably safer or is it now operating on autopilot driven by industry lobbying, bureaucratic momentum and political fear of being seen as weak?

00:29:46: Right.

00:29:46: And I'd like to add here that the war against Ukraine must be considered a huge failure for Russia not only because of the tremendous costs we mentioned before but because its massive failure.

00:29:56: from purely military point Russia conquered eighteen percent of Ukraine territory, and today in May twenty-twenty six.

00:30:06: they are at nineteen percent.

00:30:09: So they conquered only one per cent of Ukraine in four years with more than one million killed or injured soldiers And that territory is not safe at all an under attack from the Ukrainian defenders.

00:30:22: so it's hard to imagine That The Russian leadership may ever be so dumb To even trying attacking further European countries In the near or mid term.

00:30:31: But unfortunately, these days you never know how dump some of the so-called leaders can become.

00:30:37: So The question still remains How do democracies actually make autocrats think twice about attacking if not through ever increasing military budgets?

00:30:47: Through deterrence that is credible proportional and coupled with diplomacy.

00:30:53: Not through arms races but consume capital indefinitely.

00:30:58: Here's what most people don't realize The most effective deterrent democracies have ever built was not military, it was economic and institutional.

00:31:09: The European Union turned former enemies into trading partners so deeply integrated that war between them became unthinkable.

00:31:18: France and Germany who fought three wars in seventy-five years until nineteen forty five had not fired a single shot at each other the last eighty years.

00:31:28: So yes defence matters But defence is not the same thing as endless escalation.

00:31:34: And, The twenty trillion dollar figure we are discussing Is NOT THE COST OF REASONABLE DEFENCE.

00:31:40: It's the cost of a global system that has lost the discipline to ask WHAT IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY versus what just being spent?

00:31:49: The question your listeners should be asking their own politicians is not Should We Have A Military?

00:31:54: Of course democracies should have militaries!

00:31:59: How much is enough?

00:32:00: Who decides and who's profiting from the answer being always

00:32:04: more?".

00:32:06: And I would add something else.

00:32:08: Recent developments in AI & drone technology may fundamentally change how defence works, and could make military spending far more efficient or cheaper.

00:32:16: We're already seeing examples of this in conflicts like Ukraine – and to some extent Iran as well.

00:32:22: Relatively cheap drones combined with AI-driven systems can create serious defensive capabilities without relying entirely on multi-million dollar missiles or fighter jets.

00:32:32: And that changes the equation because even major military powers can suddenly face enormous costs for relatively limited strategic gains.

00:32:42: In some cases, The price of an attack may become so high That the aggressor starts questioning whether it was worth in first place.

00:32:50: You're touching what might be most important shift in economics warfare since nuclear weapons and you are right that it changes the equation in real ways.

00:33:01: In Ukraine, drones costing a few hundred to a few thousand dollars are routinely destroying Russian tanks worth several million each Even accounting for misses and failures.

00:33:12: A five-hundred dollar drone destroying ten million dollar armoured vehicle represents cost ratio That has never existed in modern warfare.

00:33:22: The Iran exchange showed something similar.

00:33:25: The US fired Patriot interceptors at four million dollars each to shoot down Iranian drones that cost a few thousand dollars to produce.

00:33:34: That math does not work over time!

00:33:38: So you're right, this could make defence dramatically cheaper.

00:33:42: A small country with smart drone production and good AI targeting can credibly deter much larger aggressors At the fraction of historical costs.

00:33:54: But here's the part I want to clarify further.

00:33:56: The same technology that makes defence cheaper also makes attack cheaper.

00:34:02: We may not end up with cheaper military budgets.

00:34:05: Instead, we might end up more frequent wars and lower thresholds for using force.

00:34:12: That is not necessarily progress And institutional inertia is enormous.

00:34:19: The US is still buying F-thirty five fighter jets at over one hundred million dollars each, while Ukrainian teenagers are destroying Russian armoured columns with drones built in garages.

00:34:32: Cheaper technology does not automatically translate into cheaper budgets because the budgets aren't really about effectiveness.

00:34:39: They're all about contracts jobs and political relationships.

00:34:45: So AI & Drones could free up capital for human progress or they could simply add a new layer of spending on top of the old one.

00:34:54: Right now, we're seeing both!

00:34:55: The result is bigger budgets not smaller

00:34:58: ones.".

00:35:00: Right so cheaper military equipment isn't going to solve this on its own?

00:35:03: That's a discussion that doesn't get much attention in public debate but it matters for the underlying question we keep circling why humanity spends so much more on its destruction than well-being.

00:35:17: Let us come back.

00:35:20: The second reason why humanity spends more on wars and military than its own well-being is concentrated benefits versus diffuse benefits.

00:35:30: The defence industry has identifiable beneficiaries Lockheed Martin shareholders Congressional districts with arms factories Generals seeking bigger commands Politicians receiving campaign contributions.

00:35:46: Each of those beneficiaries has strong incentive to lobby, organise and vote for more military spending.

00:35:53: Meanwhile the beneficiaries of redirecting that money towards say malaria eradication are seven hundred million poor people in Africa who don't vote in European or American elections And don't pay any campaign contributions to politicians here.

00:36:10: Concentrated interests beat diffuse interest almost every time.

00:36:16: and there's a general structural point here.

00:36:18: most of us don't even understand.

00:36:21: We assume policy reflects what most people want, but instead it usually reflects the most organised parties or interest groups fight for

00:36:30: Right!

00:36:31: And third reason for humanity investing in wars rather than happiness goes deeper into history.

00:36:38: The sociologist Charles Tilly wrote that war made the state... ...and the State Made War.

00:36:44: Modern nation states emerged primarily as machines for collecting taxes to fund armies.

00:36:51: Every other function the state took on later, education healthcare retirement came on top of that core function.

00:37:00: when we ask States to redirect spending away from their original purpose We're asking them to do something against their institutional grain.

00:37:08: That

00:37:09: does not sound rational but history is seldom rational.

00:37:13: and The fourth reason Why do we stick to destruction instead of improving our well-being?

00:37:19: The fourth is the deepest.

00:37:21: Humans evolved, to grant status disproportionately to those who demonstrate dominance over other humans.

00:37:28: This is uncomfortable but well documented Across cultures and eras –the most reliably remembered figures are Those Who Conquered or Outmaneuvered Other Powerful Humans Caesar Napoleon Genghis Khan.

00:37:45: We learn about Roman emperors before we learn about the Roman engineers who built aqueducts that lasted two thousand years.

00:37:53: The aquedructs arguably did more for humanity than the emperers, but the emporers get the marble busts.

00:38:02: That line is going to stay with me.

00:38:05: Conflict produces dramatic narratives.

00:38:08: Construction produces gradual improvements.

00:38:11: only The brain that decides who's important responds more strongly to the first than the second.

00:38:19: And political selection actively filters against the temperament needed to think across generations!

00:38:33: That is an interesting thought, we are led by election specialists not by specialists on how to improve our well-being.

00:38:40: but here what gives me hope even in this somewhat dark analysis.

00:38:45: Humans have outgrown things before.

00:38:47: that seemed equally permanent.

00:38:50: That's the right counterweight and it matters.

00:38:53: humans can outgrow practices, but once seemed permanent.

00:38:57: slavery existed In nearly every civilization for thousands of years.

00:39:02: Aristotle defended It as natural.

00:39:05: most people considered it as inevitable As weather.

00:39:09: And yet within roughly one hundred fifty Years Slavery went from a globally accepted institution to something universally condemned.

00:39:18: Public executions as entertainment common in Europe until the nineteenth century are now unthinkable, dueling how gentlemen settled disputes for centuries vanished within a few generations.

00:39:32: Absolute monarchy considered divinely ordained for millennia is now confined.

00:39:41: Could future generations look back at our military spending, the way we look those ancient atrocities?

00:39:47: I think they could.

00:39:50: And The reason i believe it is this Human nature Is roughly the same as It was when slavery Was abolished!

00:39:58: The constraint isn't human-nature... ...the constraint is the institutional architecture We've inherited and the political incentives it creates.

00:40:08: Civilization moves slowly And what feels permanent today is often the next generation's embarrassment.

00:40:15: The work of civilisation is building institutions that make our better instincts pay off and are worse ones

00:40:22: costly.".

00:40:22: That

00:40:24: sounds harsh, but yes – maybe our generation could one day be seen as an embarrassment by the next one?

00:40:31: When I think about generations who lived through the Second World War or who tolerated slavery…I sometimes wonder How could ordinary people allow criminals to murder millions in concentration camps?

00:40:43: how could anyone accept millions of slaves being deported from their homes?

00:40:48: Of course, speaking up was dangerous.

00:40:50: Many people were afraid many looked away but still when we look back today it feels deeply shameful.

00:40:58: and maybe there's a parallel to our own time because unlike previous generations We actually have the financial means We have the resources, technology and knowledge.

00:41:10: We could make our next generation proud of us!

00:41:13: So what are we missing?

00:41:16: Humanity has a financial capacity to solve its biggest problems several times over.

00:41:23: What we lack is political architecture that makes collective decisions at scale where those problems exist.

00:41:30: The money question is settled.

00:41:33: The governance question is real.

00:41:36: The current allocation of twenty trillion dollars to war and military in less than a decade is not a force of nature.

00:41:44: It's a choice made by humans within institutions that humans built, the hard part is the transition.

00:41:52: Here's question That has been bothering me throughout this conversation.

00:41:56: Many political leaders seem driven by ego legacy –the desire to be remembered.

00:42:02: If leader truly wanted historically significant Why don't more of them try to build their legacy through human progress, rather than through conflict?

00:42:12: That's an interesting question.

00:42:14: And the answer is that leaders who chose construction over destruction often have remarkable legacies but they had to wait for history to catch up with them.

00:42:24: Think about whom History actually remembers.

00:42:28: Mahatma Gandhi ended British rule in India without a war and inspired non-violent movements on every continent.

00:42:37: Nelson Mandela spent twenty-seven years in prison and chose reconciliation over revenge when he came out.

00:42:44: He prevented a civil war that almost everyone expected, AND showed the world what political courage actually looks like!

00:42:53: Martin Luther King changed America not by outfighting his opponents but by refusing to fight them at all... ...and forcing The Country To Look At Itself.

00:43:04: And I would also mention Winston Churchill here.

00:43:07: Churchill was certainly not a purely peaceful figure, and in many ways he was a difficult and controversial character.

00:43:14: Some of his views especially regarding the British Empire inequality among people may have been contested with today's European values but despite all that he stood against a criminal regime.

00:43:26: He stood for freedom democracy And The Rule Of Law.

00:43:30: At a moment when much continental Europe collapsed or surrendered Churchill refused to give-in.

00:43:36: Britain stood alone especially in late nineteen forty until the first half of nineteen forty-one, facing the Nazi regime after others in continental Europe had already fallen.

00:43:47: And their later allies –the United States and The Soviet Union– only fully entered the war in nineteen forty one after they themselves were attacked.

00:43:56: That is why Churchill still remembered for his courage.

00:43:59: whatever criticisms history may have him he showed extraordinary determination defending democratic values against tyranny.

00:44:08: That is something Europeans should never forget.

00:44:11: So history doesn't only reward builders, it also rewards those who fought when fighting was the only moral option left.

00:44:19: The question we have been circling Is not whether to ever spend on defence.

00:44:23: It's whether the current scale of military spending reflects real necessity or if it has drifted into anything else.

00:44:30: That's exactly right.

00:44:32: complication to raise Churchill case shows that there are moments when armed resistance is morally necessary.

00:44:40: World War II was one of those moments, so were Ukraine's defence against Russian invasion.

00:44:46: in twenty-twenty two democracies that pretend otherwise and not being principled they're being naive.

00:44:54: but Churchill case also illustrates something important.

00:44:58: he didn't argue for permanent unlimited military expansion.

00:45:02: He argued the resolve to fight and the wisdom to build peace afterwards.

00:45:10: The post-war order he helped shape, including NATO—the United Nations —and early steps toward European integration was about preventing the next war not preparing endlessly for it….

00:45:23: …The leaders we remember most are not ones who chose between War & Peace as a permanent ideology.

00:45:30: They're the one's that knew when each is required.

00:45:34: Churchill Knew When To Fight.

00:45:36: Mandela knew when to forgive.

00:45:38: The skill is judgment, not doctrine!

00:45:42: What worries me about our current moment is that the judgement seems to have stopped.

00:45:48: We are not asking whether each new defence increases necessary.

00:45:52: we're just assuming it IS.

00:45:55: That's NOT the wisdom Churchill demonstrated.

00:45:58: THAT'S THE AUTOPILOT HE WOULD HAVE WARNED AGAINST.

00:46:03: And I'd also like to mention some quieter historical personalities, the ones who didn't seek the spotlight but reshaped civilisation anyway.

00:46:14: Jean Monet a French civil servant most people of today have never heard of did more shape modern Europe than most Prime Ministers his era by patiently building institutions that became EU.

00:46:27: By historians he is considered one founding fathers European Union.

00:46:32: He's a real reason.

00:46:34: France and Germany haven't fought a war in eighty years after fighting three in the seventy-five before.

00:46:42: Norman Borlaug, an agricultural scientist is credited with saving roughly a billion lives through The Green Revolution.

00:46:50: A Billion Lives From one scientist most people have never heard of

00:46:56: And yet most leaders today optimise for next election cycle only.

00:47:01: That's because constructive legacies take longer than political careers.

00:47:06: Building a research ecosystem that produces cancer breakthroughs takes thirty years, building international institutions takes decades.

00:47:17: Most political careers last four to twelve years.

00:47:21: The person who plants the tree is rarely the one who sits in its shade.

00:47:24: I

00:47:26: would push back on that little bit...I think progress is accelerating.

00:47:30: Take for instance the fact that AI may accelerate cancer research tremendously.

00:47:50: So yes, the next decade could deliver breakthroughs that previous generations would have waited a century for.

00:48:08: But here's what makes your point stronger – not weaker!

00:48:13: If progress is accelerating….

00:48:15: …the opportunity cost of misallocating capital... ...is also accelerating.

00:48:20: Every trillion dollars spent on weapons today isn't just a trillion NOT spent on cures.

00:48:26: It's A TRILLION Not Spent During The Most Productive Scientific Window In Human History.

00:48:32: We are living through what may be the single greatest period of scientific compounding ever.

00:48:38: And we're choosing to fund tanks and missiles instead of leaning into it.

00:48:43: So, The leaders who get this right in next ten years won't have to wait thirty years for their legacy.

00:48:49: They'll see results within a single political career.

00:48:54: That actually changes the political calculation!

00:48:58: The argument that long-term thinking doesn't pay off my term is becoming less true every year.

00:49:04: It's a question of whether leaders notice in

00:49:07: time.".

00:49:08: Also, I'd like to mention another less-known but widely admired contemporary European example – Paul Pullman who ran Unilever as CEO from the year of two thousand nine to twenty nineteen.

00:49:20: He pushed back hard against quarterly earnings guidance and short term shareholder pressure that made Unileva one of largest companies seriously committing to sustainability metrics.

00:49:32: He took heat for it.

00:49:33: The stock didn't always reward him in the moment But ten years later, he's the CEO most other CEOs site when they want to talk about long-term thinking.

00:49:44: That's the pattern!

00:49:45: The leaders who break the dominant logic often pay a short term price and earn a long term legacy.

00:49:53: Pullman's example matters because it shows that principle works inside the corporate world too not just politics.

00:50:00: There is another example worth naming The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, the largest in the world has divested from companies producing nuclear weapons and certain controversial defence systems.

00:50:13: They made the case that long-term shareholder value –and ethical investing– were not in conflict!

00:50:21: That decision moved real money... Other European pension funds have followed…

00:50:27: And these aren't peace activists.

00:50:29: they're institutional investors making structural decisions

00:50:33: Right.

00:50:33: They're using the leverage they have in their position therein to push against the dominant logic of we must invest everything that's profitable.

00:50:43: They redefined what profitable means over a longer horizon.

00:50:48: Right, so leaders will remember.

00:50:50: five hundred years from now are probably not ones currently dominating headlines.

00:50:56: History rewards something else!

00:50:58: History rewards people who built things that lasted and solved problems that mattered who expanded what was possible for the humans, who came after them.

00:51:08: If your listeners are leaders themselves even at a smaller scale The question worth sitting with is this When my grandchildren read about the choices I made will those choices look like one's humanity outgrew or ones that helped us outgrow?

00:51:24: That's

00:51:25: a question i want every executive listening to write down somewhere.

00:51:29: they'll see it again.

00:51:31: Most days answer is decided by small choices.

00:51:59: If someone listening today wants to contribute even in a small way, where should they start?

00:52:05: Four things.

00:52:07: The first is awareness, but the emotional-personal kind.

00:52:11: There's a difference between abstract and emotional awareness.

00:52:16: Abstract awarenesses – twenty trillion is a lot of money.

00:52:21: Emotional awareness is sitting down this weekend finding your country's defence budget And comparing it to your countries spending on health research education foreign aid climate.

00:52:33: Sit with numbers.

00:52:35: Let them become real.

00:52:36: You, the voter is paying the opportunity costs when you or your beloved ones are less healthy and less happy due to government's money allocation.

00:52:50: Most political apathy comes not from indifference but never having done math!

00:52:56: And one warning – The mental space for civilisation scale thinking has to be actively protected.

00:53:03: If you spend two hours a day consuming content designed to make you feel angry and tribal, that space disappears.

00:53:11: Choose differently!

00:53:12: That's

00:53:14: something every person listening can do this weekend.

00:53:18: It takes one hour or only ten minutes to have good chat with your Claude.

00:53:23: Second – Vote With Longer Time Horizons.

00:53:26: Most people vote based on what is happening this year.

00:53:30: Try voting based upon the world you want it look like when your grandchildren are adults.

00:53:36: That single shift applied across millions of people changes which politicians get rewarded.

00:53:43: If voters reward short-term tribal signalling, that's what they'll get!

00:53:56: What is your third recommendation?

00:53:59: Your listeners are mostly business leaders and ambitious younger professionals.

00:54:07: They have employees, suppliers customers investors peer networks.

00:54:13: Each of those is a leverage point.

00:54:15: You don't have to become a peace activist you just have To be the kind of leader who occasionally raises uncomfortable questions in rooms where they wouldn't otherwise Be raised.

00:54:27: should our company be doing business with this regime?

00:54:30: What does our industry's lobbying actually advocate for?

00:54:34: Are we thinking about the long-term implications of this technology?

00:54:39: Most leaders never ask those questions because the social cost is high.

00:54:44: Right, and because a short term greed harming everyone in the long term

00:54:49: Yes!

00:54:50: And the leaders who do asked them shift cultural weather around slowly.

00:54:55: The world needs more leaders who use their platforms to surface difficult questions out loud.

00:55:02: And lastly, your fourth recommendation?

00:55:05: Support institutions not just causes.

00:55:09: Donating to charity feels good but charity rarely changes systems.

00:55:15: What changes systems is supporting the institutions that build long-term capacity?

00:55:21: Universities Research foundations Independent media.

00:55:26: I

00:55:46: want to add one more thing from my own experience as a founder and investor.

00:55:50: The companies and people i've seen do the most good are those who chose, sometimes at real cost to optimise for something other than the next quarter or the next twelve months.

00:56:00: It's hard, it is lonely sometimes but its' only kind of leadership that ages

00:56:04: well.".

00:56:06: And this connects with The Deepest Point Civilisation scale.

00:56:10: thinking doesn't require everyone do it!

00:56:14: It just requires enough people in positions of leverage To Do It Some Of Time.

00:56:19: The civilisation which comes Next Is Being Shaped Right Now By People who choose to think beyond themselves.

00:56:27: Anyone listening can be one of them simply by deciding-to-be.

00:56:32: Claude, when listeners hear a conversation like this one the natural reaction is to feel both inspired and slightly hopeless.

00:56:40: The problems are enormous –the systems are entrenched– the path forward is unclear.

00:56:47: That feeling is normal but it's also misleading.

00:56:51: Civilisation's scale change has never come from people who felt fully equipped to make it happen.

00:56:57: It has came from people, who started anyway with whatever leverage they had knowing that probably wouldn't see the result.

00:57:05: The abolitionists in eighteen hundred have no plan for ending slavery globally had no realistic path to what exists today.

00:57:25: They built it anyway, one small institution at a time – that's how civilisations change not by becoming heroes just by living a little more

00:57:35: deliberately.".

00:57:37: What struck me most in this conversation is realising the future humanity gets may be far less about what we are technically capable of and far The resources for a better future already exist.

00:57:55: If

00:58:14: even a few of your listeners walk away from this episode and ask themselves one harder question than they asked yesterday, about where their tax money goes?

00:58:23: Where their professional influence flows.

00:58:26: What kind of future are actually building for the children?

00:58:29: then?

00:58:29: that conversation will have done something useful.

00:58:41: And I can only hope that this debate starts happening more broadly across our society.

00:58:47: Thank you, Andrea!

00:58:48: This was a topic worth taking seriously and i appreciate.

00:59:14: Download the Sharp Ten app on the Apple App Store, Google Play or at sharpten.com.

00:59:21: The first month is free.

00:59:23: Stay sharp and see you next time.