The World Economic Forum’s 20th edition of its Global Risks Report, released today, provides a sobering look at the future of our planet. With escalating geopolitical, societal, technological, and environmental crises converging, the report reveals a global landscape that is increasingly divided and fragile. While economic risks have taken a backseat this year, they remain closely intertwined with other challenges, especially those related to the environment.

Environmental Risks: Dominating the Long-Term Outlook

Environmental concerns have taken centre stage in this year’s report, with extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse topping the list of risks expected to pose the greatest threats in the coming decade. The World Economic Forum’s experts surveyed noted that these environmental challenges are expected to not only increase in frequency but also in intensity.

“From conflicts to climate change, we are facing interconnected crises that demand coordinated, collective action,” said Mark Elsner, Head of the Global Risks Initiative at the World Economic Forum. This interconnectedness underscores the urgency of addressing environmental risks not just as isolated threats, but as part of a broader system of global instability.

Extreme weather events, already a top concern for both short-term and long-term risks, are becoming more prevalent, with devastating impacts on communities, economies, and ecosystems around the world. As climate patterns shift and the intensity of storms, floods, and droughts escalates, the pressure on vulnerable populations will intensify.

Beyond extreme weather, the report also highlights the increasingly dire consequences of biodiversity loss, the collapse of ecosystems, and the depletion of natural resources. These environmental degradations are not only harmful to wildlife but threaten to disrupt entire food and water systems, destabilizing nations and exacerbating existing societal tensions.

Pollution, another environmental risk, is perceived as a significant challenge, with its presence in both the short-term and long-term risk categories signaling a growing recognition of its damaging effects on human health and the planet’s ecosystems. Air, water, and land pollution, stemming from industrial processes and unchecked waste, continue to pose long-lasting threats to environmental and public health.

A Fractured Global Landscape

The report also paints a stark picture of geopolitical and societal divisions, signaling a period of intense global instability. Over half of the respondents predict instability within the next two years, fueled by rising geopolitical tensions, societal polarization, and erosion of trust in governing institutions. This instability is further exacerbated by the growing challenges posed by environmental risks.

Mirek Dušek, Managing Director at the World Economic Forum, stressed the impact of these divisions: “Rising geopolitical tensions and a fracturing of trust are driving the global risk landscape.” He added that this breakdown in global cooperation presents an urgent need for collaboration and resilience to prevent further vulnerabilities from compounding.

Environmental risks, intertwined with geopolitical and technological challenges, could trigger a cascade of negative effects, particularly as nations grapple with resource shortages and the growing costs of climate-related disasters. This “fractured” global order, marked by competition among powers, risks undermining efforts to tackle these pressing environmental threats.

The Need for Global Cooperation

The 2025 report presents an alarming vision for the future, with nearly two-thirds of experts predicting a turbulent global landscape by 2035. Many worry that the mechanisms for international collaboration will come under increasing strain as nations struggle to address escalating environmental and societal risks.

However, amid these challenges, the report offers a message of hope: the need for coordinated action. “The consequences of inaction could be felt for generations to come,” warns Elsner. In this context, leaders have an urgent responsibility to prioritize global cooperation. Effective dialogue, trust-building, and the strengthening of international relationships are crucial for fostering resilience in the face of mounting environmental threats.

While the current geopolitical landscape might be fractured, the report makes it clear that turning inward and focusing solely on national interests is not a viable solution. The complexity and interconnectedness of global risks require renewed efforts to collaborate and address the environmental challenges head-on. Only through global cooperation can the world hope to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, protect vital ecosystems, and ensure a sustainable and inclusive future for all.

A Decisive Decade

As we move deeper into the 2020s, the stakes are higher than ever. The coming decade will be a critical period for decision-making. Will leaders rise to the challenge of navigating a fractured global order, or will the world be consumed by escalating risks? The answer lies in the collective ability to foster cooperation, prioritize environmental sustainability, and rebuild trust among nations.

The Global Risks Report serves as a powerful reminder that environmental risks are not isolated challenges; they are deeply interconnected with societal, geopolitical, and economic instability. How the world responds to these pressing issues in the coming years will determine the stability and resilience of future generations.

The Indian Institute of Science (IISc), today a global leader in scientific research, and India’s top-ranked higher education institution, owes its origin to a confluence of visionary ideas and unwavering dedication to national progress. While the name of eminent industrialist Jamsetji Tata often stands at the forefront of the institute’s establishment, two lesser-known figures played pivotal roles in shaping its foundations: Swami Vivekananda, a revolutionary Indian spiritual leader the world has ever seen, and his most loyal disciple Sister Nivedita. Their influence not only propelled the institution’s creation but also laid the groundwork for India’s self-reliance in science and technology.

The Visionary Dialogue: Swami Vivekananda and Jamsetji Tata

In the summer of 1893, two individuals—both from vastly different walks of life—found themselves sharing a ship journey from Japan to Canada. One was Swami Vivekananda, a 30-year-old monk, unknown to the world but filled with boundless energy and deep wisdom; the other was Jamsetji Tata, a prominent industrialist with a forward-thinking vision for India’s economic future. Their discussions during this journey would have a profound impact on the future of Indian science.

Swami Vivekananda, a leader whose brilliance and eloquence were so exceptional that even a Western leader could not come close to him at that time, passionately spoke of India’s potential to transition from merely trading raw materials to manufacturing its own goods. He emphasized the need for scientific and technological education to fulfill the country’s needs and help it become self-sufficient. He envisioned India not just as a land of spirituality, but as a land of innovation, equipped to face the challenges of a rapidly modernizing world.

Tata, already an influential figure in India’s industrial landscape, was deeply moved by Vivekananda’s ideas. Although the monk’s vision was far-reaching and idealistic, Tata recognized its importance and resolved to act upon it. This was the beginning of Tata’s long-standing commitment to the advancement of science in India.

Tata sought Vivekananda’s guidance to create a place where India’s spiritual ascetics could devote themselves to the advancement of science and technology.

The Seed of an Institution: Tata’s Pledge and Vivekananda’s Guidance

In 1898, five years after their first meeting, Tata wrote to Swami Vivekananda, after the latter’s much-celebrated and adored foreign trips that rocked the West, recalling their conversation on the ship. In his letter, Tata spoke of his vision for a research institute that would combine scientific research with the development of India’s humanistic traditions. Tata committed a substantial sum—200,000 pounds sterling (about INR 30 lakh at the time)—to establish a research institute that would focus on solving problems related to tropical diseases, Indian history, and the nation’s neglected scientific fields. Tata sought Vivekananda’s guidance to create a place where India’s spiritual ascetics could devote themselves to the advancement of science and technology.

“I trust you remember me as a fellow-traveller on your voyage from Japan to Chicago. I very much recall at this moment your views on the growth of the ascetic spirit in India, and the duty, not of destroying, but of diverting it into useful channels.

I recall these ideas in connection with my scheme of a Research Institute of Science for India, of which you have doubtless heard or read. It seems to me that no better use can be made of the ascetic spirit than the establishment of monasteries or residential halls for men dominated by this spirit, where they should live with ordinary decency, and devote their lives to the cultivation of sciences – natural and humanistic. I am of opinion that if such a crusade in favour of an asceticism of this kind were undertaken by a competent leader, it would greatly help asceticism, science, and the good name of our common country; and I know not who would make a more fitting general of such a campaign than Vivekananda,” Tata wrote in the letter.

In his reply letter, Vivekananda said (which was published in the April 1899 issue of Prabuddha Bharata, a monthly magazine started by Vivekananda), “We are not aware if any project at once so opportune and so far-reaching in its beneficent effects was ever mooted in India, as that of the post-graduate research university of Mr. Tata. The scheme grasps the vital point of weakness in our national well-being with a clearness of vision and tightness of grip, the masterliness of which is only equalled by the munificence of the gift with which it is ushered to the public.

It is needless to go into the details of Mr. Tata’s scheme here. Every one of our readers must have read Mr. Padsha’s lucid exposition of them. We shall try to simply state here the underlying principle of it. If India is to live and prosper and if there is to be an Indian nation which will have its place in the ranks of the great nations of the world, the food question must be solved first of all. And in these days of keen competition, it can only be solved by letting the light of modern science penetrate every pore of the two giant feeders of mankind: agriculture and commerce.”

While Swami Vivekananda could not directly lead the initiative due to his responsibilities with his monastic order, he wholeheartedly supported Tata’s vision. He encouraged his disciples to take the project forward, though he could not dedicate his time to its realization.

Sister Nivedita: A Tireless Advocate for Science and Self-Reliance

Swami Vivekananda’s disciple, Sister Nivedita, emerged as a crucial figure in the realization of Tata’s vision. Nivedita, who was deeply committed to India’s intellectual and cultural revival, took it upon herself to champion the cause of the research institute. Her writings in various English-language newspapers were instrumental in rallying public support for the project. In 1899, Nivedita wrote:

“We are not aware if any project is at once so opportune and so far-reaching in its beneficent effects as that of the Post-Graduate Research University of Mr. Tata. The scheme grasps the vital point of weakness in our national well-being with a clearness of vision and tightness of grip.”

Her powerful advocacy helped keep the vision alive despite challenges from the British colonial administration. Nivedita’s activism, coupled with her close relationship with prominent international thinkers, played a significant role in generating support for Tata’s ambitious plan.

Resistance and Struggle: The British Roadblocks

Despite Tata’s substantial pledge and Nivedita’s advocacy, the British establishment was initially unsupportive of the idea. When Tata presented the idea to Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India, Curzon dismissed it as unfeasible. He doubted that Indians had the capacity for scientific research and questioned whether an institute focused on both science and humanities could succeed. Even after Tata met the Viceroy’s skepticism with steadfast commitment, the project was stalled.

The British colonial officials’ resistance continued when Sir William Ramsay, a well-known scientist, was appointed to inquire into Tata’s proposal. Ramsay, though a Nobel laureate in Chemistry, failed to transcend colonial biases. He rejected the idea, citing the improbability of blending scientific research with humanities. Despite the setbacks, Sister Nivedita refused to let the vision fade. While in London, she lobbied influential figures such as William James, the renowned American philosopher, and Patrick Geddes, a Scottish intellectual. Their advocacy bolstered the project’s credibility, with James even emphasizing that the institution should be managed entirely on national lines, free from government control.

The Final Approval: The Indian Institute of Science

Tragedy struck when Jamsetji Tata passed away in 1904, two years after Swami Vivekananda’s death. However, Tata’s dream was eventually realized after his death, when Lord Minto, the Viceroy who succeeded Lord Curzon, finally approved the proposal in 1909. The institute was originally intended to be located in Bombay, but it was ultimately established in Bangalore, thanks to the generous gift of 370 acres from the Maharaja of Mysore, Krishnaraj Wadiyar, who had been a devoted disciple of Vivekananda. His father H.H. Chamaraja Wadiyar, had been a staunch follower of Vivekananda and was greatly involved in sending him to the West.

The institute went on to become the intellectual backbone for a host of specialized institutions in India, including the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the Indian Institutes of Technology.

Unrecognized Contributions: The Role of Swami Vivekananda and Sister Nivedita

While Jamsetji Tata’s name is forever associated with the IISc, the contributions of Swami Vivekananda and Sister Nivedita are often overlooked. Vivekananda’s ideas on channeling India’s spiritual energy towards practical, scientific advancement laid the ideological foundation for the institute. Sister Nivedita’s tireless advocacy ensured that Tata’s vision remained alive, even in the face of intense opposition.

Today, the IISc stands as a testament to the dreams of these extraordinary individuals—visionaries who understood the critical link between scientific progress and national self-reliance. While the world remembers Tata for his industrial foresight, it is important to recognize the role played by Vivekananda and Nivedita in laying the intellectual and spiritual groundwork for what would become India’s premier scientific institution. Their legacy continues to inspire generations of scientists, educators, and thinkers in India and beyond.

The ideas of Swami Vivekananda were clear and unwavering. Freedom and reason were their essence. That was reflected in the case of the IISc. He consistently taught the eternal principles of Dharma, and that was their core. In the verse “Yukthiyuktham vachograhhyam balaadapi shukaadapi, Ayukthamaapi na graahhyam saakshaadapi Brihaspathe”, lies the foundation of Indian epistemology. Rational matters can be accepted from anyone, even from a child or a parrot. However, irrational ideas, no matter how great the person who presents them, must not be accepted. This stands in opposition to all forms of blind belief. Therefore, a philosophy based on authoritarianism cannot claim to be the legacy of Swami Vivekananda. Neither can a dogmatic “Ism” rooted in a singular intellect be aligned with his vision. Swami believed that freedom is the soul of India and indeed, of humans. Its dependence is solely on itself.

Have you ever noticed the razors used in barbershops? Each time a customer wants a shave, the barber inserts a new blade into the razor. A shop serving fifty customers a day will need fifty blades daily. The razor remains the same, but the blades are frequently replaced. The initial investment in the razor is small and long-lasting, while the consumption of blades is high due to their frequent replacement.

In the early 20th century, King Camp Gillette introduced the “Gillette” brand. Gillette razors, with disposable blades, entered the market, allowing consumers to shave at home. The razors were priced very low, but the blades carried a higher price tag.

Once a consumer buys a Gillette razor, they will continue buying the blades. Instead of throwing away the razor, they’ll buy compatible blades. Only Gillette blades fit Gillette razors. Other brands’ blades won’t work, and patents prevent imitation. Through razor sales, the company ensures continuous blade sales.

This business strategy is known as the “Razor and Blades” model, where the primary product is sold at a low price to encourage the purchase of consumables, which are the actual source of profit. Any loss or lack of profit from the primary product is offset by the ongoing sales of consumables, ensuring high, consistent profits.

Rockefeller did not expect profit from the lamps themselves, but rather from the increased demand for kerosene

This approach is similar to the “Bait and Hook” strategy, where the initial product is offered cheaply or for free to draw customers in. The company’s real goal is the sale of related consumables. For instance, consumers might happily buy an inkjet printer at a low price, but the company’s profit comes from the recurring sales of ink cartridges.

When John D. Rockefeller, owner of Standard Oil in America, expanded his business to China, he distributed millions of kerosene lamps either for free or at a low cost to promote kerosene consumption and increase sales. Rockefeller did not expect profit from the lamps themselves, but rather from the increased demand for kerosene.

The initial products (e.g., razors, inkjet printers, kerosene lamps) are merely the bait. The strategy is to draw in consumers, with the goal being the sale of consumables, which generates the profit in business. Entrepreneurs can apply this strategy in marketing to achieve profitability.