Will There Ever Be an End to All Wars?

November 26, 2025

Is going to war a biological necessity in order to pursue feuds against those whom we dislike? Or could it just be a regrettable invention imposed by sociological inevitability? Will there ever be an end to all wars? Joseph Mazur explores the issues around these difficult questions.

When wasteful war shall statues overturn,

And broils root out the work of masonry,

Nor Mars his sword nor war’s quick fire shall burn

The living record of your memory.

– William Shakespeare: Excerpt from
“Not marble nor the gilded monuments”
(Sonnet 55)

Why do we think the world is in a bleak and dark place? If we study war, we should know that from the time of the Trojan War (yes, there was a nonfictional war going at or near the time when Homer wrote an epic poem about a violent war including gods, victims. and victors) to the end of the bloodiest wars of the twentieth century, the world has never been as peaceful is it is today. Hey, you say, what about the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan? They are so bloody and cruel. Those are wars we know from a wide range of media outlets that highlight those wars. Yes, they are brutal and ugly. They are wars we watch in real time and, by watching, we feel uncomfortable because we are seeing our own species killing our own species. And there are plenty of ongoing armed conflicts to choose from – 48 and counting. But when we assess the long historical list of wars, we find that the number of deaths from combat is enormous compared with those that are ongoing today. Though the numbers are high, the number killed in wars and conflicts is continuously dropping. When the number of civilian deaths from three wars in this century has passed 71,200 in Gaza, over 13,883 in Ukraine, and over 3,384 in Darfur, we sense those numbers to be high; however, compared to wars before 1945, they are not.^[1] They are far too high for this century, a century that brings us together through instant human communication connections. At the dawn of this century, humans have come closer to each other than ever before. Besides witnessing live news reports from battlefields that make us numb to killing, there are also concerns about high death numbers, since we are far more attached to each other than we have been for centuries. Though our geographical coordinates are far apart, our online news, music, film, and information communication connections are closer than ever.

Though the numbers are high, the number killed in wars and conflicts is continuously dropping.

Something happened after the deaths of Hitler and Stalin that turned the world out of the darkness of brutal violence in war and peace into a bright possibility that rational nations – at least in the most highly developed countries – are shifting from being barbarous to humane, not fully humane but at least more humane than ever before. The present constant daily news shows widespread suffering and deaths from homicides, explosions, political nastiness, and the gruesome pictures of wars, so we tend to think the world is shifting from being humane to barbarous. When we study the history of barbarism from ancient human societies to the present day, we begin to see how far we have come from slavery, pogroms, lynchings, human sacrifice, death penalties, execution by torture, genocide, known political assassinations, confrontations with human rights violations, and war brutality. Er… hold on… we still have slavery and human trafficking, but none sanctioned as they were before by responsible governments. All those horrors of humanity that shaped the history of our existence are now publicly and governmentally condemned, at least by the advanced countries, even those under authoritarian rule.

According to Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University, “Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth.” ^[2] He began his article in the New Republic in 2007 with an example of how far we have come from the sadism of the 16th century, when cat burning was a popular form of entertainment in Paris. He quotes the British and Polish historian Norman Davies, saying, “[T]he spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized.” We don’t do cat-burning anymore in advanced countries, and it would be unthinkable in most of the world, at least not with kings and queens laughing at roasting felines.

The word “probably” is used by Pinker to pitch a moment of acceptance to his point. It may be misleading, because the number of wars is now close to 48, higher than ever, because weapons can be quickly and easily sold and shipped to almost any group with purchasing power. The number of wars does not translate into the number of violent actions nor the number of deaths. We kill in large numbers, yes, but those numbers do not compete with the history of war-related deaths, century by century. The decline of violence over long stretches of history is valid when we consider the pre-World War II long list of wars and violent actions; however, numerous counter-studies disagree and call Pinker’s view an exaggeration. ^[3]

Pinker’s article was published 18 years ago, since when much has changed. Still, think of the violence and discord that our parents and grandparents lived through in the past century – world hunger during the great depression, violent race- and religion-inspired segregations, the damaged reputations caused under McCarthyism (such as my father’s), and a world war that was responsible for an estimated 70 to 85 million deaths (not counting the Korean and Vietnam Wars).

Approximate World Totals from 1939 - 1945 — *Approximate World Totals from 1939 – 1945*

Go back one more century, and war violence is not much better. Approximately 37- 45 million people died fighting in wars, not including civilians. ^[4] There is no accuracy for these numbers, but given a million more or less, it is an indication that past wars had high death numbers.

Wars of the 19th Century
Jason Lyall, “Project Mars”^[5]

With these numbers that we see before us, we must ask the question: who are we as humans who didn’t mind burning cats in the 16th century, and yet we now kill our own species without physically seeing who we kill? In the 17th century, 5 to 8 million people died during the Thirty Years’ War from starvation and disease. It is impossible to compare past or future wars to the atrocities of the 18th century, when death numbers were astounding for civilians because of the slave trade and revolutionary wars. Several million Africans died in transport. Add the slave trade to the casualties attributed to the American and French revolutionary wars, the many wars of succession and insurrections, and the number of deaths for that century appears to be close to 18 million. By such casualty numbers, we must wonder who we are and why we are so vicious.

Who are we and where did we come from?

I saw them behaving in… dark, aggressive, brutal ways, even a kind of primitive war. Therefore, I believe that aggression is innate. And we’re born with a tendency to become aggressive, just as chimps are. Chimps see a stranger from a neighboring community, and they get all excited, and their hair stands out, and they reach out and touch another, and they’ve got these faces of anger and fear, and it catches, and the others catch that feeling that this one male has had, and they all become aggressive. So, it’s contagious.

– Jane Goodall, in Famous Last Words

Who were the creatures behaving in dark, aggressive, brutal ways? Why, chimpanzees, of course. But those chimps share 98.7 per cent of DNA with us, and so, Goodall says, we humans have propensities of aggressive, brutal behavior. Just like chimps, we forcefully protect our territory by fighting. “Well,” she says, “we get, interestingly, two types of alphas. One does it all by aggression. And because they’re strong and they fight, they don’t last very long. Others do it by using their brains, like a young male will only challenge a higher-ranking one if his friend, often his brother, is with him. And… you know, they last much, much longer.” ^[6]

Human aggressiveness is not a recent swerve from a state of being dovish, though the evidence of chimp behavior is documented in Goodall’s papers. In a previous TWFR article, I included two military historians who agreed with Goodall – William Hovgaard and Friedrich Adams Julius von Bernhardi. Hovgaard was an academic, whereas von Bernhardi was a Prussian general. “War is a biological phenomenon,” Hovgaard wrote, “being part of the struggle for existence common to all organic beings in the wild state of nature.” He saw war as an instinct for control over defending and controlling resources and lands that provide the subjectively best possible living conditions. Von Bernhardi wrote that war “is a biological necessity … the natural law, upon which all the laws of Nature rest, the law of the struggle for existence.” ^[7] He felt that the primordial impulse would always be with us, along with the good, bad, and acceptable human urges that brought us to this stage of existence. Within the question of biological necessity, though, there would be a group of necessities emanating from points of evolutionary struggle for either survival or ambitions of power that drives the lust for territorial expansions.

The cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead had a different angle. In her article “Warfare Is Only An Invention—Not A Biological Necessity,” she begins by asking the question, “Is war a biological necessity, a sociological inevitability, or just a bad invention?” But soon she answers that war is simply an invention, like “writing, marriage, cooking our food instead of eating it raw, trial by jury or burial of the dead, and so on.” ^[8] As a cultural anthropologist, she knew so much more clearly than we do that not all cultures bury their dead, and that there are cultures that know no war. Her example is the Inuit, amiable people with no characteristics of warfare aggressiveness, even when they are faced with hunger and threats of annihilation. To take another example, consider the pygmy people, hunters and gatherers of the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean, or Australian Aboriginals who search the desert outback for water holes, wanderers with no permanent homes. Like the Inuit, they are not mild or weak, and though many are troubled and tempestuous, as a culture, they do not fight wars. Yet if we look for wars among indigenous peoples, especially those like the Inuit who in the past owned no land, you might find rare and short defensive wars. Mead brings evidence that war is an invention based on examples witnessed 85 years ago that have significantly changed, but her point remains, for it is timeless. If war is a cultural invention, it has the potential to disappear, to be replaced by alternative inventions in favor of turning armed conflicts into sympathetic, constructive treaties.

The moral equivalent of war^[9]

Whenever we ask questions about how wars start and end, a new question arises: why is it that every time one war ends, another begins? Some leaders must calculate the odds of the inevitable surrender versus victory and calibrate the cost and price of infrastructure destruction and the morals of killing and wounding. Without expectations, and mistakes that are sometimes uncorrectable or uncontrollable, or plans for closing a war, the planners should plan not to start. That puts the above questions squarely within the moral principles and ethical dilemmas of societal behavior. Now, please do not take that as a naïve position suggesting that leaders balance moral and ethical decisions before going to war.

Whenever we ask questions about how wars start and end, a new question arises: why is it that every time one war ends, another begins?

They should. Some do, but most don’t. Yet some know that the goals of war are to balance arguments with concessions and settlements that bring peace and prosperity to both sides. “Otherwise,” as I wrote in my previous TWFR article, “we will always be at war with one another; of the 195 countries that share the resources of this one planet, some will be winners that eventually become losers, and losers that later become winners in a cycle of power changes that continues until the sun becomes a white dwarf.” ^[10]

From natural greed to habitual hostility

Is the inevitability of frequent, persistent wars in any way connected to human genetic systems of ambition or a cultural invention? Or is it simply a psychological mind growth that starts from biological survival instincts – acquisition of food or shelter – that move to aggressive tactics for material gain and then to habitual hostility? Acquiring food and shelter emboldens the notion of wealth, and that wealth ultimately emboldens one in the search for power. Along the mind-growth journey, hunting for food turned into growing selfish desires. Some humans take that path; most do not. But soldiers are those with mind growth that turn to serve, and some of them turn to lead. A duke is by ilk, heritage, and position one who needs an army to secure his dukedom, for there are always neighboring princes who never have enough territory or resources to be satisfied. And so, the power grows and, hence, so do armies.

Mead told us that all cultural inventions have evolutionary roots, whether they involve abrasive solutions to conflicts or concessionary resolutions to arguments. That does not mean that some wars are predetermined and inevitable. There are some allies that are so linked to each other that war between them would never be accepted, though “never” is a strong word. Recall that at the turn of the 19^th century, many of the sovereigns of 17 European states were cousins and semi-allies, and yet some fought against each other in 1914. It’s hard to imagine the US invading Canada, Denmark invading Norway, or Spain invading Portugal, though any one of those aggressions could happen.

For the answer to the title question, we should know how international wars start. The answer is simple and not so simple: when one nation, in dispute with another, cannot resolve counter-issues through compromises, or detente breaks, war is the answer. The not-so-simple answer is that sometimes disputes are rather ambitious contests of power that do not yield to resolution. Looking back over the centuries, kings, dukes, and mad, overconfident leaders had only bellicose solutions to unsolvable problems. Armed conflicts were their answer. And so, some wars started through psychopathic opportunism and others through a cockiness of previous war achievements. In past centuries, high-ranking soldiers saw advances in war as a social celebration of heroism with a chance of acceptance in nobility; if they survived the battlefield without losing a limb, they could go to formal balls wearing stripes, medals, epaulets, and uniforms of splendid colors to show glory that spurred longing for more wars.

War is a gamble but, unlike chancing games where losers are compelled to gamble again in more risky ways, the suffering of defeat is so destructive that either revenge (as was the case of Germany in 1933 or the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001) brings on another chance at war or one of the parties becomes pacifist (as was the case of Japan after WWII following the dishonor of its defeat).

Accidents and misunderstandings

Aside from the common causes of war, there is the question of miscalculations, misunderstandings, and accidents that arise either on the battlefield or in preparation for armed conflict. Without clear communications with potential enemies, an accident, such as might arise from US and China war-exercises close to the Taiwan Strait, could lead to war.

We are at a crossroads of international law that, for me, brings in an imagined scenario, along with the hope that a US war with a neighboring country will not happen. In February 2025, just a month into his second term in office as president, Donald Trump said, “I’d like to see Canada become our 51st state.” That’s a somewhat benign comment because it will never happen. Trump uses such provocative comments as diversions from the critical news of his catastrophic policies. But then, just a month later, he linked that statement to another: “We need [Greenland] really for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it.” Trump sees only cooperation or conflict. “One way or the other, we’re going to get it.” We have not heard much about that threat lately, likely because he is so busy destroying his own country with tariffs, ending foreign aid, attacking climate science, health security, and foreign aid, deportations of people seeking better lives, autocratic restrictions on free speech, and blundering into a military action against neighbors in the Caribbean and the Pacific by murdering Venezuelans and Colombians. Will Trump take Greenland by force? Will he militarily attack Venezuela and Colombia as a foil for taking over other places closer to home after trying to end far-away wars? “One war ends for another to start” has been the principal military wisdom for millennia. So, we must imagine and reason the sanity of stopping wars in Europe and the Middle East and insanely attacking neighbors, drug trafficking or not, that have not threatened the security of the United States.

The US now has over 750 military bases in 80 countries and territories, 38 of which are in Europe alone. With that “level of military supremacy and its secure international order, it has prevented explosive conquests and national border skirmishes that could threaten the realignments of states and territories.” If we dig for a reason why the US has so many bases, we come to the wishful thinking of deterrence, a notion that has been positive for 80 years. However, the war in Ukraine has set a new precedent: Russia is trying to upset the balance of power in Europe. If the West accedes to the transfer of the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine as Putin wishes, deterrence will end – then what? I suspect the possible next step would be to go for more. The Donbas is not enough. Soon after concessions, we should be watching what will happen to Moldova, a relatively small independent country that is not a member of NATO. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are members, but that does not mean Putin will not try to go after one of those smallish states. Nuclear powers might be deterrents, but they could also be timid and rational enough to calculate the odds and calibrate the cost of how far they would go to test the balance of concessions of territory over a nuclear winter. The American political scientist John Joseph Mearsheimer, a proponent of the “offensive realism school of analysis of world affairs,” tells us that most great powers act rationally and are “likely to react violently to perceived threats to their security.” ^[11] Mearsheimer claims that NATO is to blame for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “NATO’s expansion into Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, including its overtures to Ukraine,” is the cause of the war in Ukraine. That might happen; however, the flip of that claim is that those Eastern Bloc states – living through 45 years under Soviet control – courted NATO for protection, believing that non-NATO members would not survive their independence.

Deterrence can become the problem. Not every leader comes with military smartness. That is why smart leaders have advisors who spend their time devoted to analysis of military futures for ending wars, not perpetuating them.

The US National Defense budget for 2026 is expected to be over a trillion dollars, so the Pentagon could modernize weapon systems, missile defense, F-47, and the B-21 bombers. It follows a trend of budget boosting. Such escalating expenses are the basics of why wars can be blamed on the institution of military spending and war preparation. The entire world’s annual military budget is over $2 trillion. With that amount of expense dedicated to death and destruction, the economy pots for humanitarian resources that could serve the needs of the world are drained. With budgets expressed in numbers having 12 zeros, the lure of war becomes immeasurable, so war itself becomes, perhaps not inevitable, but surely boosted by a tailwind that thrusts the decree to go to war closer to the brink.

Stronger than the tailwinds against humanitarian needs, there are the gale forces of arms production, sales, and trade from people and companies that benefit from wars, the arms dealers, manufacturers, politicians, and public investors. Wars are driven partly because profitable weapons industries have a powerful influence. The industries themselves do not encourage the start of wars, but their profits and shareholders, some with lobbying power, do. When military agencies are pumped with unfathomable funds, the temptation is to buy weapons. Once those weapons are stocked, there is a push to use them, because the drivers of arms dealing – very influential people – want to show off their products in battlefield performance.

Once those weapons are stocked, there is a push to use them, because the drivers of arms dealing want to show off their products in battlefield performance.

Do some leaders have a propensity for aggression and thereby have a need to thrash their opponents, or are they simply part of a hawkish human culture? It is a difficult question that has a weak answer. Some people and corporations favor toughness in disputes, others in compromises, and still others bicker in greed, religion, orthodoxy, ideology, or simply revenge. When it comes to self-defense, there is no choice other than bargaining or fighting. Or is it simply the madness of nature? To that, there is no straightforward answer.

So, will there ever be a time when there are no more wars?

Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,

And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.

—Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Excerpt of “Locksley Hall”

Two answers. Both are frightening.

At some point, individual geopolitical economies will implode, leaving a few dominant nations or perhaps just one. We see this happening now, with China and the US in a technology race, and we can be sure that others will attempt to either move in that direction or become dependent on the winners. Referring to that race, Vladimir Putin in 2017 asserted, “The one who becomes the leader in this sphere [AI] will be the ruler of the world,” to which Elon Musk retorted, “AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization.”^[12] Essentially, there will be one or very few independent governments without the need for aggression against other powers. Surely those governments (or the sole winning one) will be deeply totalitarian with a need to control its civilians through surveillance and lockdowns. China already has over a billion surveillance cameras – one for every 2.4 citizens – installed on streets, offices, and housing complexes. ^[13]

With that security, China, like most other authoritarian countries, does have a relatively small civil unrest problem, but nothing like so many other countries without such a massive, dense social surveillance climate. In a race for allies that could support threats for the sake of deterrents after building a massive army that every other country, including the United States, will be frightened of, it aims to alter the control of technology by its AI superiority, control, and dominance of 17 rare-earth minerals. This is not hyperbole. We do not know how the technology race will turn out, but several distinguished political historians, economists, fiction writers, scientists, diverse characters, and even US presidents believe that global governance of a universal state living in uninterrupted peace is inevitable.^[14] Is that fantasy or omen?

Such a warning would put us in a Huxleyan world that accepts the kind of citizen custody that ignores rights and mandates the silence of wishes. There is no doubt that such a revised social contract will be hard to accept. Any global government will eventually become a hegemonic kleptocracy, unless the highly unlikely happens: a philosopher king takes the throne. Highly unlikely? Yes, anyone with virtue, truth, knowledge, reason, and justice, benevolently caring for civilian well-being, someone insulated with high integrity and honesty, would not take a job that torments one with the wisdom that power leads to corruption. History lists dead benevolent leaders, a list so small that the odds of another appearing are no better than that of a messiah.

We are now in a situation of having nine countries possessing nuclear weapons. In the next half-century, that number will grow. Moreover, there will be rogue states and terrorist groups that will gain possession of some lower-grade nuclear weapons, bought or stolen. Suppose that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a treaty aiming to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is not fully ratified by all nuclear states. Suppose nuclear weapons spread. What then are the risks concerning deliberate attacks or miscalculations, and accidents?

Effects of a nuclear_war
Future_of_Life_Institute ^[15]

The Hibakusha help us to describe the indescribable, to think the unthinkable, and to somehow grasp the incomprehensible pain and suffering caused by nuclear weapons. ^[16]

– Jorgen Watne Frydnes, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, referring to the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo’s global impact through sharing their story of the atomic bombing.

Either by accident or by the power of an insane leader, a nuclear bomb will be used again. “Someday, we will wake to the news that half a million people in one city will either be dead or severely burned, causing anger that will surely turn to revenge. And what will be the plan? To quickly retaliate against the retaliator and jump into the chaos of the moment?” ^[17] A 2010 simulation experiment estimates that after a nuclear war, a global climate disorientation will happen and last at least five years, likely nine. If such a war gets out of control, two years later, the number of fatalities from radiation exposure and the number of civilians starving would wipe out most of the world population: “Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery, and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection.” ^[18]

A stop-and-think moment ^[19]

Graph showing how The Doomsday Clock's minutes to midnight changed throughout the years. — *Graph showing how The Doomsday Clock’s minutes to midnight changed throughout the years.*
*Public Domain*

Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. ^[20]

– Excerpt from President John F. Kennedy’s address before the United Nations General Assembly, September 25, 1961.

Listen to the whole speech by clicking here.

At the time of Kennedy’s warning, the Doomsday Clock, set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, was showing 7 minutes from midnight. Today it is at 89 seconds to midnight. That clock is a metaphorical prediction, based on collected nuclear-advanced information that warns about the possible nuclear threats to global existence. The smallest atomic war will bring enormous destruction to life and infrastructure, but any nuclear war will undoubtedly escalate to unintended devastating consequences that could cause billions – not millions – of deaths and casualties, along with famine and a sunless black winter that will cool the earth enough to hinder habitation and likely procreation.

What then? Likely, after the cycle of warfare madness ends, if enough humans remain alive, there will be a chance to reboot civilization with a wiser, more experientially suffered understanding of how war devastates humanity. Then, for that short, short time before humans inevitably again fall into the cycle of aping Goodall’s chimp contagious dark aggression, there will be no wars.

Go to top

About the Author

Joseph Mazur is an Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Emerson College’s Marlboro Institute for Liberal Arts & Interdisciplinary Studies. He is a recipient of fellowships from the Guggenheim, Bogliasco, and Rockefeller Foundations, and the author of eight acclaimed popular nonfiction books. His latest book is The Clock Mirage: Our Myth of Measured Time (Yale).

Notes

^[1]Estimates vary widely but the information I give comes from the Human Rights Office of the United Nations High Commissioner.

https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/Number-of-civilians-killed-and-injured-in-Ukraine-reaches-three-year-monthly-high-in-July-2025-UN-human-rights-monitors-say#:~:text=The%20HRMMU%20also%20says%20that:%20*%20**July,**Aerial%20bombs**%2067%20killed%20and%20209%20injured

^[2] https://newrepublic.com/article/77728/history-violence

^[3] Arquilla, John. December 3, 2012. Rational Security The Big Kill.Sorry, Steven Pinker, the world isn’t getting less violent. Foreign Policy

^[4] Bastian Herre, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, and Max Roser (2024) – “War and Peace” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

^[5] Jason Lyall, Project Mars (2020) – with major processing by Our World in Data. “Civil wars” [dataset]. Jason Lyall, “Project Mars” [original data].

^[6] Famous Last Words (Netflix Original); An interview with Brad Fulchuk, American television writer.

^[7] Barbara W. Tuchman, The Guns of August (Toronto: Presidio Press, 2004) p. 12-13.

^[8] Margaret Mead’s article was initially published in 1940 in the American Anthropological Association by Asia Vol. 40 Issue 8, pp 402-405 (which I could not find), but the full piece is now available in: Richard K. Betts, Conflict After the Cold War (New York: Routledge, 2005) pp. 244-48.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Conflict_After_the_Cold_War/QNSPCgAAQBAJhl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Warfare+Is+Only+an+Invention%E2%80%94Not+a+Biological+Necessity%22&pg=PA244&printsec=frontcover

^[9] https://constitution.org/2-Authors/wj/meow.htm

^[10] Enter the URL here for the latest TWFR article that I had submitted “Diplomacy’s Narrow Bridges To Peace.”

^[11] https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf

^[12] https://hir.harvard.edu/artificial-intelligence-china-and-the-international-stage/

^[13] https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-billion-surveillance-cameras-forecast-to-be-watching-within-two-years-11575565402

^[14] Alexander Wendt, “Why a World State Is Inevitable,” European Journal of International Relations 9, no. 4 (2003), pp. 491–542.

^[15]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/3/33/How_would_a_nuclear_war_between_Russia_and_the_US_affect_you_personally%3F_-_Future_of_Life_Institute.webm/How_would_a_nuclear_war_between_Russia_and_the_US_affect_you_personally%3F_-_Future_of_Life_Institute.webm.480p.vp9.webm

^[16] https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/press/press-releases/press-release#:~:text=The%20Hibakusha%20help%20us%20to,war%20in%20nearly%2080%20years

^[17] https://worldfinancialreview.com/nuclear-weapons-are-they-deterrents-goads-or-risks/#_edn1

^[18] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0

DOI:10.1038/S43016-022-00573-0

^[19] https://worldfinancialreview.com/nuclear-weapons-a-last-try-for-abolition-before-it-is-too-late/#_edn26

^[20] https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/united-nations-19610925

Vaping in 2025: A New Standard for Quality, Safety, and User Experience

November 26, 2025

The vaping industry in 2025 reflects a remarkable transition from a trend-driven niche to a stable and professional sector grounded in technology, safety, and user satisfaction. Over the past decade, vaping has steadily evolved, guided by both consumer awareness and technological innovation. This year marks a turning point, where the focus has shifted entirely toward refining the experience, improving standards, and prioritizing long-term trust between manufacturers and consumers.

One of the key factors influencing this transformation is the growing dominance of nicotine salts. Compared to traditional freebase nicotine, this formulation provides smoother vapor, faster absorption, and a more natural satisfaction that closely resembles traditional smoking. Its chemistry allows for a lower pH level, reducing irritation and enabling users to enjoy higher nicotine concentrations without harshness. As a result, nicotine salts have redefined expectations and paved the way for smaller, more efficient pod systems that deliver consistency and ease of use.

The modern vaper in 2025 is better informed and more selective. Instead of impulsive purchases, consumers now seek verified information, lab-tested products, and clear ingredient transparency. This demand has encouraged companies to adopt stricter manufacturing protocols and publish independent quality certifications. The industry has effectively matured, moving beyond flashy marketing toward accountability and evidence-based performance.

Technology remains the driving force behind this progress. Advanced chipsets inside today’s devices automatically regulate voltage, temperature, and airflow to ensure a balanced vapor output. Some systems even monitor puff frequency and adjust settings dynamically to optimize flavor and longevity. Battery improvements have also played a major role—charging times are shorter, capacities are larger, and overall efficiency has reached unprecedented levels. Together, these innovations make vaping more reliable and predictable than ever before.

Regulatory evolution has had a major impact as well. Across the European Union and other developed markets, the introduction of unified safety standards has raised the bar for compliance. Every stage of production—from ingredient sourcing to packaging—must now meet traceability and labeling requirements. This ensures that consumers can make informed choices and trust the authenticity of the products they use. Rather than stifling the market, these regulations have actually strengthened it, rewarding companies that value integrity over shortcuts.

Sustainability is another defining theme of 2025. As environmental concerns grow, the shift away from disposable vapes toward refillable systems has accelerated. Manufacturers are adopting recyclable materials, biodegradable packaging, and modular designs that extend the lifespan of devices. Many brands have introduced return or recycling programs to minimize waste and encourage responsible use. This eco-conscious direction not only benefits the planet but also appeals to a generation of consumers who value ethics as much as performance.

The rise of specialized online retailers has further supported this responsible transformation. Instead of unverified third-party listings, consumers now turn to curated stores offering tested and certified products. Trusted platforms like VapeVibe exemplify this new approach, combining product expertise with transparency and customer support. Their focus on compliance and authenticity represents the standard that the modern vaping industry is striving to maintain globally.

Flavor innovation continues to evolve in parallel with technology. Rather than producing excessive sweetness or artificial notes, today’s e-liquids aim for balance and realism. The use of nicotine salts enhances this precision by preserving flavor profiles even at lower wattages, allowing subtle nuances to emerge. This development caters to a mature audience that values refined, natural-tasting experiences rather than novelty.

Looking ahead, the next frontier of vaping lies in personalization and data integration. Smart devices capable of tracking consumption and providing tailored feedback are already being tested. Artificial intelligence and connected apps could soon enable users to control nicotine intake with greater precision, making vaping safer and more efficient.

In conclusion, vaping in 2025 represents a sophisticated ecosystem built on science, transparency, and responsibility. The popularity of nicotine salts, combined with advancements in sustainability, technology, and regulation, has set a new global benchmark. The industry’s direction is clear: toward refinement, reliability, and respect for the consumer. The result is a more sustainable, informed, and forward-looking market that continues to evolve with purpose rather than hype.

Go to top

The Tragic Cost of Negligence: How Car and Construction Site Accidents Erode America’s Economic and Moral Foundation

November 26, 2025

The True Cost of Negligence in Accidents Across America

By O’Brien & Zehnder Law Firm

Most often, people leave home for work or travel unaware that a single moment of negligence could drastically change their lives in an instant. Catastrophic car crashes and construction site accidents are not only human tragedies that come with expensive hospitalizations—they are unfortunate events whose impacts resonate significantly with families, workplaces, communities, and the country’s economy. We have witnessed cases firsthand where a single collision or job-site fall left survivors unable to return to their previous line of work, forcing their households to adjust to sudden income loss and lifelong care needs.

While policymakers often discuss safety in terms of regulation and compliance, the deeper reality is that they still fall short of tackling the far-reaching consequences of these preventable incidents—most notably how they drain productivity, destabilize households, and strain the public systems. This article seeks to frame car and construction accidents not just as safety failures but as a national economic liability that demands coordinated, as well as preventive and justice-oriented reform.

A Growing Crisis of Preventable Injuries

In recent years, we have observed a troubling persistence of preventable injuries across the US. National statistics indicate that just last year—in 2024—car accident-related incidents killed more than 36,000 individuals, which translates to 110 fatalities per one million people. Meanwhile, in 2022, the Bureau of Labor Statistics tallied almost one in five workplace deaths in the construction industry, wherein 38.4% were associated with a trip or slip-and-fall.

These statistics are not just mere numbers—they underline the deadly cost of existing gaps in safety awareness and risk management. Even when victims are fortunate enough to survive, their lives may still be severely impacted. Whether on the highway or a job site, those who make it through usually suffer injuries like orthopedic trauma, whiplash, traumatic brain injuries, nerve damage, internal bleeding, or multiple fractures that demand extensive treatment and rehabilitation. Consequently, many deal with chronic pain, reduced mobility, disfigurement, cognitive impairment, or other psychological disorders, which impact their day-to-day survival. This trend suggests a critical need to strengthen education, training, and proactive preventive measures to reduce the frequency as well as the severity of these tragedies.

When Catastrophic Accidents Lead to Household Fallout

When catastrophic injuries or wrongful deaths occur, the impact reaches far beyond the hospital—it also affects almost all aspects of a household, particularly as these events often lead to unexpected financial burdens. The latest Economic Well-Being Report has already indicated that about 37% of Americans struggle to shoulder a $400 emergency expense, which suggests that a large chunk of the population struggles when confronted by sudden challenges. In that context, the financial toll of a severe accident—which frequently requires months or even years of expensive rehabilitation, home modifications, and ongoing medical care—can drive many families to the brink of collapse.

The financial toll of a severe accident—which frequently requires months or even years of expensive rehabilitation, home modifications, and ongoing medical care—can drive many families to the brink of collapse.

In most cases we have handled, the loss of a primary income is often the first blow. For instance, a construction worker or a car driver who suffers paralysis after a fall or collision may definitely lose wages during a specific period. Yet beyond this, they may also face long-term financial security issues as missed mortgage payments, as well as drained savings and unpaid medical bills, begin to accumulate. At the same time, spouses or family members may step into caregiving roles to take care of their recuperating loved one. Unfortunately, this may force them to surrender their career or reduce work hours, which further narrows the household’s income stream. Also aggravating this problem are insurance policies that deny coverage for home modifications, mobility equipment, or extended in-home care.

Over time, these pressures do not just strain households—they also erode community stability. When affected families are left with no other choice but to drain their savings or take on debt, they also reduce their spending power and increase their reliance on public assistance, thereby weakening their local economy. At this point, one family’s tragedy can escalate into a shared economic burden.

The Economic Repercussions of Catastrophic Accidents

Besides their human toll, catastrophic injuries likewise carry drastic economic consequences that span across various sectors and communities. This is because when workers or motorists are suddenly removed from the labor force after getting injured, productivity drops, household spending declines, and worse, local economies begin to feel the strain. As per the 2023 report posted by the National Safety Council (NSC), motor-vehicle crashes alone cost the US economy as much as $513.8 billion. This amount accounted for lost wages, administrative and legal fees, property damage, medical expenses that are usually drawn from employees’ health insurance, and employers’ uninsured costs. In the same year, work injuries—including those construction-related—also added roughly $176.5 billion, much of which was absorbed by foregone revenues and hospital expenses.

The rippling effects of these accidents are unmistakable. Permanent disability or death erases years of potential earnings, reduces tax contributions, and increases dependence on public aid. And for industries like construction and manufacturing—where skilled labor drives local commerce—a single serious accident can trigger a domino effect as project delays, cost overruns, and employment disruptions affect their operations.

The Strain on Public Health and Emergency Systems

We have seen how every catastrophic accident sets off a chain of consequences that burdens the nation’s healthcare infrastructure. Based on the latest count, at least 5.1 million motor vehicle-related injuries were medically consulted in 2023, while 260,000 individuals were harmed in construction site accidents. These figures illustrate not only the scale of human suffering but also the financial weight shouldered by hospitals, insurers, and public health systems alike.

This issue has been particularly evident in rural and semi-urban communities where trauma units and rehabilitation facilities are very limited. In such areas, patients are usually transported long distances just to receive proper treatment; however, such situations typically result in higher medical costs and delayed care. This strain is also compounded by insufficient trauma surgeons, critical care nurses, and rehabilitation specialists. In fact, each time we work with trauma facilities in these regions, we witness how overextended staff and inadequate resources make recovery more challenging for patients and their families. To cope with this, healthcare providers are often forced to divert their funding and attention from preventive programs to crisis response. And though such a move provides temporary relief to their exhausted workforce, this shift can drive an increase in medical expenses for everyone and worsen inequities in our healthcare system.

Shifting Pressure on the Insurance System

Car and construction accidents continue to place mounting pressure on regional insurance systems. In areas with particularly high incident rates or where employers or individuals have a history of frequent claims, premiums for health, disability, and workers’ compensation coverage often grow steeply. Such an escalation consequently yields financial stress affecting businesses—especially smaller firms—as it limits their capability to expand, hire additional staff, or invest in safety upgrades. True to this, nearly one-third of small businesses discontinued their employee health coverage from one year to the next, mainly due to the skyrocketing cost of insurance premiums.

Meanwhile, insurers have tightened claim standards, which leads to more frequent claim denials and settlement offers that fall short of covering the actual costs of recovery. When this occurs, the financial burden automatically shifts to those who should not absorb it. Families are forced to deplete savings to pay medical bills, while public programs as well as healthcare systems are likewise compelled to cover emergency care, long-term rehabilitation, and several other uncompensated costs. As a result, such situations create a collective financial strain—further exacerbating inequality and undermining trust in institutions meant to provide protection.

Building Resilient Communities After Catastrophic Injuries

Communities that successfully navigate the aftermath of catastrophic injuries do so not by chance but through deliberate and purposeful strategies. They invest in infrastructure and workplace safety as well as strong safety nets for affected families. Although these initiatives require upfront resources, they yield long-term benefits through reduced healthcare costs, stronger workforce productivity, and the ability to attract businesses and maintain economic stability.

Legal advocacy is also a central element in this ecosystem of resilience. In handling cases involving catastrophic injuries, we could attest how personal injury and wrongful death litigation hold negligent parties accountable—whether the harm comes from a reckless driver, a construction contractor cutting corners, or an insurer denying rightful claims. This is because when families secure fair compensation, the money flows back into the local economy as they can already support medical care, caregiving, and housing needs. At the same time, the settlements and verdicts they achieve send a strong message to businesses and industries that negligence carries real consequences.

Making Safety a Policy and Economic Priority

The path forward strongly requires a fundamental shift in how we view safety. As such, we should recognize this matter as a vital economic investment and not just a mere regulatory obligation. By doing so, we can prevent more car and construction accidents and eventually save billions in healthcare costs, preserve workforce capacity, and maintain the stability of families and communities. At this point, policymakers have a critical role to play, particularly in coordinating efforts across transportation, labor, and healthcare sectors to establish a unified framework for injury prevention.

Ultimately, prioritizing human life is the most rational economic policy of all. This is especially true given that the cost of negligence is not only limited to immediate injuries or fatalities—it also undermines household stability, diminishes workforce productivity, and strains public services. By integrating safety into economic planning and policy design, governments and communities can reduce preventable injuries, protect families, and strengthen the resilience of industries.

Safeguarding Financial Stability After Catastrophic Injuries

The truth is that recovering financially from severe accidents or wrongful deaths often hinges on having the right legal guidance. Without proper representation, families can face significant financial strain, especially when insurance companies undervalue claims or refuse coverage for long-term care.

So, if you or a loved one suffers injuries in a catastrophic car crash or construction site accident, seeking assistance from experienced personal injury attorneys is crucial. They can help navigate complex claims as well as negotiate fair settlements needed for ongoing medical care, intensive rehabilitation, necessary home modifications, and even compensation for missed earnings. Essentially, with the proper legal support, families have a greater chance of securing financial stability—all while focusing on recovery and managing other long-term challenges following these life-altering events.

Go to top

About the Author

O’Brien & Zehnder Law Firm has been advocating for accident injury and wrongful death victims in Elk Grove and nearby Sacramento County communities for the past 26 years. Led by award-winning attorneys John O’Brien and Grant Zehnder, the firm combines compassionate client support with aggressive legal representation to secure full compensation for medical care as well as lost wages and other long-term recovery needs.

The Ecocide of Gaza

November 26, 2025

By Dan Steinbock

In the past two years, Israeli obliteration has turned Gaza into an uninhabitable death zone. What is less known, however, is that this is the effect of decades of deliberate ecocide – and of the West’s purposeful efforts to undermine both genocide and ecocide legislation.

The final step of the broadest possible genocide is ecocide; that is, the intentional destruction of the environment necessary for the support of human life.

Ecocide, in turn, is directly related to the decimation of the reproduction of culture that Raphael Lemkin, the pioneer of the Genocide Convention, associated with the concept of “cultural genocide.”

Gaza is a textbook case.

The long legal effort to suppress ecocide

In The Obliteration Doctrine, I show in painful detail how Lemkin had to compromise this idea. While he got strong support from the countries of the Global South, the former colonial powers, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, undermined Lemkin’s quest. Consequently, the current Genocide Convention is just a mutilated torso of the original idea.

Ever since Olof Palme, the Swedish prime minister, accused the United States of ecocide at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, war has often seen as the primary cause of ecocide, along with over-exploitation of natural resources and industrial disasters.

War has often seen as the primary cause of ecocide, along with over-exploitation of natural resources and industrial disasters.

In environmental law, ecocide (from ancient Greek oikos ‘home’ and Latin caedere ‘to kill’) connotes the destruction of the environment by humans. It has often been associated with genocide. In effect, in the late 1990s ecocide in peacetime was to have been included in the Rome Statute. However, it was deleted due to objections by the United Kingdom, France, and the United States; that is, by the former colonial powers. Such censure would not have surprised Lemkin who knew well that these powers did not want to pay for their crimes in the world court. Nonetheless, as a result, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes no provision for the crime of ecocide in peacetime, only in wartime.

Just months before October 7, 2023, the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide defined it as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

The decades-long ecocide in Gaza

Well before October 7, 2023, the Gaza Strip had progressively been isolated from the West Bank and the outside world overall, while being subjected to repeated Israeli military incursions – over three decades, in parallel with the Madrid and Oslo peace talks.

In terms of environmental damage, deterioration had worsened since 2014, when the clearing and bulldozing of agricultural and residential lands by the Israeli military close to the eastern border of Gaza had been coupled with the unannounced aerial spraying of crop-killing herbicides. These illicit practices not only destroyed entire swaths of formerly arable land along the border fence but also crops and farmlands hundreds of meters deep into Palestinian territory, resulting in the loss of livelihoods for Gazan farmers.

In a historical view, such massive bombardment went back to the early days of the Cold War, when the United States dropped bombs on North Korean dams to flood crops and induce starvation among civilians. To compound the same effect, irrigation systems were attacked on the ground. The difference is that in Gaza the geographic scope of destruction was far narrower than in Korea, but the decimation far more effective, intensive and lethal.

Colonial violence and environmental warfare

From the beginning, “environmental warfare in Gaza” has been marked by colonial violence. It has been an inherent part of the Palestinian expulsions and Israeli occupation since the late 1940s.

Furthermore, the destruction is central to the Obliteration Doctrine of the Israeli military, which was initiated in Lebanon in the late 2000s and perfected in Gaza in 2023-25. In that sense, the Nakba has also a lesser-known environmental dimension, “the complete transformation of the environment, the weather, the soil, the loss of the indigenous climate, the vegetation, the skies. The Nakba is a process of colonially imposed vulnerability to climate change.”

Even at the eve of October 7, World Bank analysts warned that in the West Bank and Gaza, drivers of fragility, development constraints, and vulnerability to climate change were closely interconnected, thanks to decades of the fragmentation of land, restrictions on the movement of people and goods, recurrent episodes of violent conflict, persistent political and policy uncertainty, and the lack of sovereign control over critical natural resources.

As the net effect of the Gaza War, widespread damages to built-up areas from the use of explosive weapons have resulted in direct impacts on water services and in millions of tons of debris, toxic waste and destroyed agricultural lands. This has led to the outbreak of communicable diseases from poor water, health and sanitation conditions, combined with the risk of exposure to a range of additional hazardous materials and the collapse of environmental governance.

The death zone

Hence, the damage to water infrastructure and widescale urban destruction in combination with a severely degraded healthcare system; all of which posed a long-lasting threat to both public health and livelihoods.

The future that awaited Palestinians at the end of the hostilities was a Gaza turned into an “uninhabitable death war zone.”

By late April 2024, Israel’s obliteration of Gaza had already created 37m tonnes of debris. That amounts to an average of 300kg of rubble per square meter of land in the Gaza Strip. Worse, much of these piles and heaps of debris and wreckage were laced with unexploded bombs, which could take up to 15 years of extensive work to remove, assuming the availability of 100 trucks on a daily basis.

Taking into consideration the fact that on average about 10 percent of weapons failed to detonate when fired, huge demining teams would be warranted for years. The longer the war continued, the longer would the clearance take at its end.

During the first two months of Israel’s assault on Gaza, the projected emissions from there exceeded the annual emissions of 20 individual countries and territories.

Indeed, the total emissions increased to more than those of over 33 individual countries and territories when the war infrastructure built by both Israel and Hamas is included, such as Hamas’s tunnel network and Israel’s protective fence or “Iron Wall.” In that light, the carbon costs of reconstructing Gaza are likely to prove huge.

Rebuilding emissions

Effectively, rebuilding Gaza will result in a total annual emissions figure higher than that of over 130 countries, putting them on a par with that of New Zealand.

The overwhelming majority of the 281,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide (CO2) generated in the first two months of hostilities can be traced to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza.

Almost half the total carbon emissions were down to U.S. cargo planes flying military supplies to Israel. By contrast, Hamas rockets fired into Israel in the same period generated 713 MT of CO₂, which is equivalent to 300 MT of coal. There was no symmetry in war machinery.

The initial brutal offensive by Hamas was overwhelmed by Israel’s obliteration of what used to be Gaza. Worse, these estimates are highly conservative because they are based on just two months of the war that had already endured three times longer by June 2024.

More importantly, the actual carbon footprint could prove five to eight times higher, when emissions from the entire war supply chain were included.

Furthermore, what has happened in Gaza won’t stay in Gaza. Even the perpetrators cannot avoid their own poison.

Spillovers of ecocide

The overall cost for rebuilding Gaza is estimated to be tens of billions of dollars over decades, with some projections reaching as high as $70 billion.

The actual carbon footprint could prove five to eight times higher, when emissions from the entire war supply chain were included.

The obliteration of Gaza has inflicted severe and potentially irreversible environmental damage, including widespread contamination of water, soil, and air with toxic substances, the collapse of critical infrastructure, and massive carbon emissions.

The effects of this environmental catastrophe are likely to mimic those of past conflicts involving widespread environmental destruction – for instance, U.S. deployment of Agent Orange in Vietnam – which in one form or another will likely be felt by Israeli citizens for years or decades to come.

In the foreseeable future, these key impacts on Israel may include public health crises, water contamination, adverse agricultural and economic effects, rising contribution into climate change, not to mention the security concerns that will ensue from the deliberate creation of an uninhabitable environment in Gaza.

As Israeli environmental groups warned already a decade ago, the untreated sewage from Gaza that has flowed into the Mediterranean Sea is a ticking time bomb. Following the obliteration of Gaza, the destruction of wastewater treatment facilities creates a significant risk of infectious diseases, even cholera, that could spread along the coast. Additionally, the potential contamination of shared coastal aquifers with seawater, heavy metals, and chemicals poses a long-term threat to Israel’s freshwater supplies.

The inconvenient truth is that water contamination, like ecocide, knows no borders.

The original version was published by Informed Comment (US) on November 25, 2025.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr Dan Steinbock The author of The Obliteration Doctrine (2025) and The Fall of Israel (2024), Dr Dan Steinbock, an expert of the multipolar world, is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/ For the books and related commentaries, see https://www.differencegroup.net/new-books

Why Collaboration Beats Competition in Gen AI Initiatives for Associations

November 26, 2025

By Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

In the race to leverage the transformative potential of Generative AI (Gen AI), associations often face a familiar challenge: internal competition. Chapters, committees, and departments may vie to showcase their AI advancements, driven by metrics, recognition, or the desire to lead innovation. While competition can inspire individual excellence, it can hinder the broader, mission-aligned progress that associations require to effectively serve their members. The Gen AI revolution demands collaboration—sharing insights, breaking down silos, and innovating collectively to overcome challenges, address risks, and leverage opportunities.

The Pitfalls of Internal Competition for Gen AI Initiatives

The instinct to compete is common within associations. Volunteer leaders and staff may feel pressure to outperform others, deliver impactful results, or claim ownership of innovations. While this drive can occasionally lead to breakthroughs, it often has unintended consequences in the Gen AI context.

Gen AI thrives on iterative learning and experimentation. Not all experiments succeed, but failures can offer valuable lessons.

Gen AI thrives on iterative learning and experimentation. Not all experiments succeed, but failures can offer valuable lessons. Unfortunately, a culture of competition discourages teams from sharing their setbacks. For fear of losing credibility or support, teams may avoid discussing mistakes, depriving others of opportunities to learn and innovate more effectively.

Moreover, internal silos foster inefficiency. In one professional association for which I consulted, two chapters independently developed Gen AI-driven event planning tools. Neither group was aware of the other’s efforts due to a competitive, siloed culture. This duplication wasted time and resources, and the lack of collaboration prevented the creation of a unified model that could have delivered far greater insights. Ultimately, the association needed to undertake significant culture change and relationship-building work initiatives to foster better cross-functional cooperation as part of their AI strategy.

Collaboration Unlocks the Full Potential of Gen AI Initiatives

The key to unlocking Gen AI’s transformative potential lies in collaboration. By bringing together diverse perspectives from chapters, committees, and staff, associations can develop richer, more innovative solutions than isolated efforts can achieve.

For example, a national healthcare association of about 20 staff struggled with inconsistent member engagement across its regional chapters. As a consultant, I introduced a collaborative approach that brought together chapter leaders, the IT team, and the membership committee.

Pooling data from event attendance, member surveys, and digital interactions, they developed a Gen AI-powered engagement strategy. The AI system identified patterns that allowed chapters to tailor programming and outreach more effectively, resulting in a 25% increase in member retention and a 30% boost in event participation within a year. The breakthrough wasn’t just in the technology—it stemmed from the collective expertise and coordinated effort of the entire organization.

The Building Blocks of Collaboration

To foster a culture of collaboration, associations must create intentional structures and processes. Effective collaboration requires more than goodwill; it depends on clear frameworks and supportive leadership.

1. Establish Knowledge-Sharing Platforms

Creating formal opportunities for knowledge exchange is critical. Innovation forums, cross-functional task forces, or regular Gen AI summits can enable teams to share experiments, insights, and challenges. For instance, a state-level engineering association I advised introduced quarterly “AI Innovation Rounds.” During these sessions, chapters presented their ongoing projects, such as using AI to streamline certification renewals or improve conference scheduling. These forums not only sparked new ideas but also encouraged chapters to adopt each other’s successful practices, creating efficiencies that saved the association time and resources.

2. Use Collaborative Tools and Technologies

Collaboration tools like Slack, Microsoft Teams, or project management platforms can facilitate seamless communication across geographically dispersed teams. These tools enable real-time updates, data sharing, and brainstorming, breaking down barriers to cooperation.

In one association dedicated to urban planning, a Gen AI-driven tool was used to analyze zoning regulation data for member training resources. Using Trello, the training and advocacy teams coordinated their efforts, merging insights from their respective projects. The result was a unified resource hub that increased member satisfaction scores by 20% and streamlined the staff’s workflow.

3. Foster Leadership That Champions Collaboration

Leadership plays a pivotal role in cultivating collaboration. Recognizing and rewarding cross-functional efforts can shift the organizational mindset from competition to collective success. Awards for collaborative achievements or public recognition for teamwork send a strong message about the value of working together.

One financial association I worked with introduced a “Collaborative Innovation” award. The first recipients were a partnership between the policy and membership teams who developed a Gen AI-powered advocacy tracker. This tool allowed members to monitor legislative changes relevant to their field in real time, boosting member engagement by 35%.

Overcoming Resistance to Collaboration

Despite its benefits, fostering collaboration can be challenging. Teams accustomed to working independently may resist sharing their projects or fear losing control over their contributions. Associations can address these concerns by embedding collaboration into their workflows from the outset.

When launching Gen AI initiatives, leaders should design cross-functional teams that draw on diverse skills and perspectives. This approach not only produces stronger solutions but also normalizes collaboration as a standard operating procedure. For example, a legal association developing a Gen AI-powered research assistant included representatives from their continuing education committee, their IT staff, and member volunteers. By working together, they created a resource that met a broad spectrum of member needs while fostering a sense of shared ownership.

Additionally, leaders must clearly communicate the value of collaboration. Highlighting successful examples and emphasizing tangible benefits—such as faster project completion, reduced costs, or improved member satisfaction—can build organizational buy-in.

Collaboration does more than enhance individual Gen AI initiatives; it creates lasting organizational value. Shared knowledge becomes an evolving repository of insights and best practices, enabling future teams to build on prior successes. This collective intelligence accelerates innovation cycles and improves outcomes over time.

Collaboration does more than enhance individual Gen AI initiatives; it creates lasting organizational value.

Collaboration also enhances agility. In the fast-evolving Gen AI landscape, associations with strong collaborative cultures are better equipped to adapt to new challenges and opportunities. They can pivot quickly, leveraging their collective expertise to remain at the forefront of their profession’s needs.

Conclusion

The Gen AI revolution requires a shift in mindset for associations. While internal competition may have its place in some contexts, the demands of Gen AI call for a collaborative approach. By breaking down silos, fostering knowledge-sharing, and celebrating teamwork, associations can unlock the full potential of this transformative technology. Collaboration isn’t just a best practice for Gen AI—it’s a strategic advantage. Associations that embrace collaboration will not only advance their missions but also strengthen their ability to serve members and elevate their professions.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky PhD, serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams. He was named “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times for helping leaders overcome frustrations with Generative AI. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.

Understanding the Difference Between Owning Gold and Trading Gold

November 25, 2025

In an age of constant speculation, many investors rarely pause to ask a fundamental question: Do I truly own gold, or am I simply trading it? While the distinction may appear subtle, it often determines whether wealth is preserved for the long term or exposed to market volatility.

The Illusion of Ownership

Modern markets have made gold exposure remarkably easy. Through mobile apps, ETFs, and derivatives, many people believe they “own” gold — when in reality, they hold only a financial instrument tied to its price. Exposure is not the same as possession. Wealth that can be affected by counterparty defaults, platform outages, or market instability remains vulnerable to the very risks investors hope to avoid.

This shift is reflected in global trends. According to the World Gold Council, worldwide gold demand reached nearly 4,900 tons in 2023, the highest level in more than a decade. At the same time, gold ETFs saw net outflows, indicating a move away from paper-based claims and toward physical holdings.

Ownership That Outlasts Systems

Physical gold offers a form of permanence that trading products cannot. It can be securely stored, insured, and independently audited, providing verifiable evidence of ownership. Unlike digital assets or financial instruments dependent on third-party infrastructure, physical gold remains independent of banks, algorithms, or political decisions.

Institutional investors and family offices are increasingly recognizing this value. Many have increased allocations to physical gold as a safeguard against systemic risks, economic uncertainty, and currency devaluation.

From Price Movements to Preservation

Short-term traders often focus on price changes, while long-term owners value gold for its stability and purchasing power. Gold’s enduring strength lies not in its volatility but in its ability to preserve wealth across economic cycles. Central banks, among the world’s most disciplined investors, demonstrated this approach clearly by acquiring more than 1,000 tons of gold in 2023 — a decision driven by long-term security rather than speculation.

A Framework for Long-Term Security

Responsible gold ownership involves proper storage, transparent audits, and adherence to compliance standards. These measures help ensure that the asset retains its value over time and remains protected across generations. This structured approach highlights the difference between owning a physical asset and merely holding exposure to its price.

The Enduring Value of Tangibility

There is lasting reassurance in possessing wealth that does not rely on servers, networks, or market sentiment. Tangible gold offers stability and independence that financial instruments cannot replicate. While trading gold may generate short-term gains, owning it preserves value across decades — a principle recognized by long-term investors, central banks, and financial institutions worldwide.

Go to top

5 Translation Mistakes That Can Sink Your USCIS Application (and How to Avoid Them)

November 25, 2025

Applying for a U.S. visa or green card is stressful enough without worrying about whether your documents are translated correctly. Immigration officers at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) are strict about document requirements.

One small mistake with your visa translation can lead to delays, requests for evidence, or even outright rejection.

If you’re submitting birth certificates, marriage licenses, academic transcripts, or financial documents from another country, certified translations are a must. Let’s explore the most common pitfalls people face when translating their documents for USCIS – and how you can avoid them.

Why Translations Matter in Immigration Applications

Every document you submit to USCIS that isn’t in English must be accompanied by a complete certified translation. This includes personal records like birth or marriage certificates, as well as legal or financial paperwork. A certified translation confirms that the translator is competent in both languages and that the translation is accurate and complete.

Skipping this requirement or cutting corners can cost you time, money, and sometimes the chance to secure your visa.

Mistake 1: Using Free Online Translation Tools

It’s tempting to copy-paste your document into an online tool. While machine translations can be useful for casual use, they are not acceptable for immigration purposes.

Why?

They often mistranslate legal terms or names.
They can miss context, leading to inaccurate translations.
They don’t provide certification, which USCIS requires.

How to avoid it: Always use a professional translation service that offers certified translations specifically for immigration documents.

Mistake 2: Submitting Incomplete Translations

USCIS requires a complete translation of every word in your document. This includes:

Stamps
Signatures
Seals
Marginal notes

Leaving anything out, even if it seems unimportant, could cause USCIS to question the validity of your application.

How to avoid it: Double-check that every visible part of your document is translated. A professional service will ensure no detail is missed.

Mistake 3: Forgetting the Certificate of Accuracy

A translation isn’t enough on its own. USCIS requires a signed certificate of translation accuracy, which states:

The translator is competent in both languages.
The translation is complete and accurate.

Without this certificate, your documents may be rejected even if the translation itself is perfect.

How to avoid it: Choose a translation provider that always delivers a certificate of accuracy with each translated document.

Mistake 4: Using Translators Without Immigration Experience

Not all translators understand the strict requirements for immigration. An academic translator or a bilingual friend might be fluent, but if they’re unfamiliar with USCIS rules, they can make small mistakes with formatting, terminology, or certification.

How to avoid it: Work with professionals who specialize in visa translation and certified translations for immigration. They know how USCIS reviews documents and can anticipate potential issues.

Mistake 5: Waiting Until the Last Minute

Immigration processes come with strict deadlines. Leaving translations to the last minute can create unnecessary stress – and rushed translations increase the chance of mistakes.

How to avoid it: Start gathering and translating your documents early. Many services offer expedited options, but it’s always better to plan ahead.

Best Practices for Visa Translation Success

To make sure your USCIS application goes smoothly:

Use certified translations for every non-English document.
Verify that a certificate of accuracy is included.
Ensure the translation is complete, including seals and notes.
Choose a provider experienced in immigration translations.
Plan ahead to avoid unnecessary delays.

FAQs About Certified Translations for USCIS

Do I need certified translations for every non-English document?

Yes. USCIS requires certified translations for all documents not written in English.

Can I translate my own documents if I’m fluent?

No. Self-translations are not accepted. The translator must be a separate qualified individual.

What is the difference between notarized and certified translations?

Certified translations include a signed certificate of accuracy. Some institutions may also request notarization, but for USCIS, certification is the key requirement.

How long do certified translations take?

It depends on the length and complexity of your documents. Many providers, including Certling, offer both standard and expedited services.

Where to Get Certified Translations

When dealing with immigration paperwork, accuracy and compliance are non-negotiable. That’s why working with a trusted service matters.

At Certling, we provide certified translations for visa and immigration documents such as birth certificates, marriage licenses, academic records, and more. Our translations come with a certificate of accuracy and are accepted by USCIS, UKVI, IRCC, and other immigration authorities worldwide.

Final Thoughts

Your immigration journey is too important to be derailed by a translation mistake. By avoiding common pitfalls like incomplete translations, missing certificates, or using unqualified translators, you can give USCIS exactly what it requires – and move one step closer to approval.

Whether you’re applying for a student visa, family reunification, or permanent residency, certified translations are an essential part of the process. Choose wisely, plan ahead, and avoid the mistakes that could sink your application.

Go to top

US Job Growth Rebounds but Rising Unemployment Signals Cooling Labor Market

November 24, 2025

A long-delayed US employment report delivered a mixed signal for the economy, showing stronger hiring in September but also the highest unemployment rate in nearly four years.

The United States added 119,000 jobs last month, far outpacing economists’ expectations of 50,000 positions, according to FactSet. However, the unemployment rate climbed to 4.3 percent, reflecting a labor market losing momentum as tariffs, persistent inflation and high interest rates continue to weigh on economic activity.

The report, postponed seven weeks because of the federal shutdown, revealed that earlier figures were even weaker than previously thought. August’s modest gain of 22,000 jobs was revised to a loss of 4,000, while July’s estimate was cut by another 7,000 positions.

Health care and social assistance remained the strongest engine of hiring, adding 57,100 jobs and accounting for nearly half of the month’s total gains. Leisure and hospitality followed with 47,000 new positions, boosted by warmer-than-usual weather. Losses surfaced in transportation and warehousing, which shed 25,300 jobs, as well as temporary help services and manufacturing.

Despite the September uptick, overall job growth remains on track for its weakest year since the pandemic and, before that, the Great Financial Crisis. Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Credit Union, said the broader picture shows a labor market struggling to regain momentum. “The job market was really weak in the summer, and it didn’t improve much in September,” she said, noting that average monthly gains over the past four months have hovered in the low 40,000s.

The rising unemployment rate was driven primarily by more Americans entering the labor force and seeking work rather than a surge in layoffs. Still, the tightness of opportunities is evident. BLS data shows it now takes job seekers an average of six months to find a position. Continuing unemployment claims reached 1.974 million in early November, a four-year high, even as initial claims remained historically low at 220,000.

Economists describe the environment as a “low-hire, low-fire” labor market, one that may be shifting toward a more concerning “no-hire, start-to-fire” trend as more industries begin cutting staff.

The uneven data complicates the Federal Reserve’s next interest rate decision. Kathy Bostjancic, chief economist at Nationwide, said the September report “could throw cold water” on expectations for another rate cut at the Fed’s December meeting. The rebound in hiring, she noted, reduces the urgency for further monetary easing.

Because of the shutdown, September’s numbers will be the most current full snapshot available when the Fed meets on December 10. Updated October and November figures will not be released until the following week, leaving policymakers to weigh an incomplete and uncertain picture of the labor market.

Related Readings:

Trump Ousts Labor Statistics Chief as Fed Sees Weak Job Market

Fed Officials Signal Growing Concern Over Weakening U.S. Job Market

Breaking Barriers: Black and Latina Women Lead the Charge in Labor Unions

Go to top

The Costs of the Philippines’ Lost Decades

November 24, 2025

By Dan Steinbock

In the past four decades, the Philippines may have lost up to $1 trillion in critical junctures. In the future, such losses are no longer viable.

Recently, former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) director general Karl Kendrick Chua said that the Philippines is standing at a “critical juncture” that could determine whether the country finally attains sustained high growth or once again falls into a cycle of lost opportunities.

Speaking during a Makati Business Club briefing, Chua, who now serves as a managing director at Ayala Corp., noted that depending on the policy crafted, the results have been varied. “You have years where the critical juncture led to economic recession or depression. There are years where it led to economic growth,” he added.

Although flood-control corruption is an old challenge, the present crisis associated with it – assuming the critics are right – moved to a new level after 2022.

The current economic position of the Philippines is the effect of several critical junctures where policy choices either accelerated or derailed long-term development. For example, Chua noted that if the country had avoided the 1983 debt crisis and the 1997–2003 fiscal crisis, per capita income today could have matched or even exceeded Thailand’s. “These crises wiped out decades of growth,” Chua said.

To understand the magnitudes involved, it is instructive to go beyond these remarks. So, let’s take a closer look at these past losses and the more recent ones.

Debt, fiscal and corruption crises

Starting in 1983, the debt crisis penalized the Philippine GDP for a decade.

Let’s assume that the economic trends that had prevailed prior to the crisis would have prevailed without a crisis. In this view, it was only after the early 1990s, that the Philippines GDP first got to level where it had first been 10 years before. In economic terms, the debt crisis was a lost decade.

Adding the cumulative losses, it cost the economy over $152 billion.

What about the fiscal crisis?

Starting in the mid-1990s, this crisis penalized the GDP until 2011. Again, let’s assume that the economic trend that had prevailed before the fiscal crisis would have prevailed without a crisis. In this view, it was only in the early 2010s that the Philippines GDP got to the level where it had first been almost two decades before.

Adding the cumulative losses, it cost the economy over $630 billion – over four times more than the prior crisis.

Although flood-control corruption is an old challenge, the present crisis associated with it – assuming the critics are right – moved to a new level after 2022. In that case, assuming the present trends prevail, it could penalize the GDP by more than $191 billion by 2028.

Notice that in the case of the debt and fiscal crises, we have historical economic data that allows us to test counterfactuals. Whereas in the case of the flood-control corruption, we are comparing economic performances in the Duterte years (2016-2022) and in the projected Marcos Jr. years (2022-28), in order to assess the economic value of missed opportunities.

The Costs of Three Crises
GDP, current prices; in billions of U.S. dollars
Source: IMF/WEO, author

Losses of almost $1 trillion in four decades

In a current project, I am examining the economic development of most world economies from the 19^th century up to 2050. The kind of losses that the Philippines has suffered are typical to conflict-prone nations, but somewhat unique in countries that should benefit from peacetime conditions.

The lost opportunities and economic value associated with these crises indicate that in the past 45 years or so, the Philippine GDP has under-performed far more often than it has engaged in more optimal growth.

That translates to missed opportunities of massive magnitude, in light of the size of the economy. All things considered, these losses could amount to more than $970 billion.

Overcoming misguided and self-interested economic policies that serve the few at the expense of the many is vital in a nation, where poverty and food security is the nightmare of every second household.

Pressing need for development and smart diplomacy

According to public surveys, the national priority issues are topped by the need to control the rise in prices of basic goods and services (48%) and fighting corruption (31%). Other major concerns are also domestic featuring affordable food (31%), improving wages (27%), and reducing poverty (23%).

The country should insist on its national interest, but that interest should be defined by the needs of the many, not by the priorities of the few.

These are all pressing domestic, bread-and-butter issues. And yet, although foreign policy issues represent a fraction in popular national priorities, much of the country’s policy attention and resources have been allocated to precisely such priorities.

Of course, the country should insist on its national interest, but that interest should be defined by the needs of the many, not by the priorities of the few. And that should mean focus on inflation control, corruption, food security, rising wages and poverty reduction.

Most Southeast Asian nations have elevated their economic fortunes by accelerated economic development and smart regional diplomacy. There is no reason why the Philippines couldn’t or shouldn’t do the same.

Most Filipinos would certainly agree.

The original version was published by The Manila Times on November 24, 2025.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net

Employee Feedback Emerges As The Real Driver Behind Effective Gen AI At Work

November 24, 2025

By Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

The rapid evolution of generative AI (Gen AI) tools has revolutionized organizational operations, presenting unique challenges that require continuous adaptation. Unlike traditional software systems that remain relatively static post-deployment, Gen AI tools demand frequent updates and refinements to align with changing user needs, workflows, and organizational goals.

This dynamic nature necessitates robust, continuous feedback mechanisms to ensure these tools remain effective, user-friendly, and aligned with real-world demands.

Organizations must prioritize creating an environment where feedback flows freely, enabling iterative learning and improvement.

Establishing Diverse Gen AI Feedback Channels

Fostering a feedback-rich culture begins with acknowledging that no single method of gathering feedback works for everyone. Employees differ in their comfort levels and preferences for sharing their thoughts.

To accommodate these differences, organizations should implement a multi-channel feedback strategy, including surveys, focus groups, interactive workshops, and informal check-ins.

Fostering a feedback-rich culture begins with acknowledging that no single method of gathering feedback works for everyone.

Surveys are effective for capturing quantitative insights on user satisfaction, tool usability, and perceived value. A combination of closed-ended and open-ended questions can provide both measurable data and nuanced perspectives.

For instance, a survey might ask employees to rate their satisfaction with a specific Gen AI tool feature on a scale, followed by an open-ended prompt to elaborate on any challenges they’ve experienced.

Focus groups and town halls add a qualitative dimension to the feedback process, enabling in-depth discussions about the tools’ impact on workflows. Town halls offer an open meeting format, while focus groups should be conducted by external facilitators with the expectation of privacy for employee comments.

These collaborative sessions can reveal deeper issues, such as frustrations caused by a tool’s inability to handle unique cases.

For example, in a recent focus group I ran for a retail company, employees shared that while a Gen AI tool successfully automated product descriptions, it struggled with brand-specific nuances. This insight led to targeted updates that improved the tool’s contextual understanding, enhancing overall user satisfaction.

Leveraging Gen AI Feedback Mechanisms

Feedback should not only be collected periodically but also captured dynamically through real-time mechanisms. Digital platforms like internal forums, dedicated feedback apps, or embedded feedback options within the tools themselves make it easy for employees to share their experiences immediately.

For instance, a “Provide Feedback” button integrated into an AI tool’s interface allows users to report issues, suggest improvements, or share positive experiences as they occur. This immediacy ensures that feedback is both timely and relevant.

While collecting feedback is vital, acting on it and closing the loop is equally important. Employees are more likely to engage in feedback initiatives if they see tangible outcomes from their input. Organizations can demonstrate the value of feedback by regularly sharing updates on improvements made based on employee suggestions.

For example, updates can be communicated through company newsletters, internal blogs, or town hall meetings. Highlighting specific changes — such as a reduction in response time for an AI customer service tool due to employee feedback — builds trust and reinforces the importance of employee contributions.

In a consulting engagement with a manufacturing firm, showcasing how feedback led to better predictive maintenance algorithms significantly boosted participation in subsequent feedback initiatives.

With the volume of feedback that Gen AI tools often generate, organizations can leverage data analytics to identify patterns, prioritize action, and manage risks. Advanced analytics help categorize feedback based on factors like frequency, severity, and impact on workflows.

For instance, if multiple teams report that a tool’s recommendation system is producing irrelevant suggestions, analytics can help pinpoint whether the issue stems from outdated training data, insufficient customization options, or another root cause.

Addressing high-priority issues quickly ensures that tools remain functional and user-friendly.

Reinforcing a Gen AI Feedback-Driven Culture

Implementing feedback-based improvements is only the beginning. Organizations must track the effectiveness of these changes over time using clearly defined key performance indicators (KPIs). Relevant KPIs might include user adoption rates, time savings, error reductions, or overall satisfaction scores.

A financial services company that integrated Gen AI for client communications saw a significant increase in adoption rates after addressing employee feedback about complex navigation. By simplifying the tool’s interface and training materials, they improved usability and achieved their desired KPIs.

Regular monitoring ensures that the tools evolve in line with user expectations and organizational goals.

Encouraging feedback on Gen AI tools contributes to a broader culture of engagement and continuous improvement.

Encouraging feedback on Gen AI tools contributes to a broader culture of engagement and continuous improvement. When employees feel that their voices are valued, they become more invested in the organization’s success. This sense of ownership not only enhances job satisfaction but also fosters innovation.

Recognition plays a key role in reinforcing this culture. Acknowledging employees who provide actionable insights — through awards, public appreciation, or professional development opportunities — encourages others to contribute.

For example, an IT services firm recognized a team member whose feedback led to streamlining an AI-driven ticketing system, significantly improving resolution times. Such initiatives underline the organization’s commitment to collaboration and continuous learning.

Client Case Study: Enhancing Gen AI Integration in a Mid-Sized Retail Company

As a consultant specializing in Gen AI integration, I collaborated with a mid-sized retail company aiming to enhance their customer service operations through Gen AI tools.

The company had implemented a Gen AI-driven chatbot to handle customer inquiries but faced challenges with user satisfaction and engagement, leading them to hire me to help out.

Approach:

Establishing Feedback Channels: We introduced multiple feedback mechanisms, including post-interaction surveys, focus groups with customer service representatives, and an internal platform for real-time feedback.
Real-Time Feedback Integration: A “Provide Feedback” feature was embedded directly into the chatbot interface, allowing customers and employees to submit immediate reactions and suggestions.
Data Analytics Utilization: Leveraging advanced analytics, we categorized feedback to identify common issues, such as the chatbot’s inability to handle specific queries or its tone during interactions.
Closing the Loop: Regular updates were communicated to the staff, highlighting improvements made based on their feedback, fostering a sense of ownership and collaboration.

Outcome:

Improved User Satisfaction: By addressing the identified issues, the chatbot’s accuracy and responsiveness improved, leading to a 25% increase in customer satisfaction scores.
Enhanced Employee Engagement: Employees felt their insights were valued, resulting in increased participation in feedback initiatives and a more cohesive approach to continuous improvement.
Operational Efficiency: The refined Gen AI tool reduced the average handling time for customer inquiries by 30%, allowing staff to focus on more complex tasks.

This case exemplifies how a structured approach to feedback can significantly enhance the integration and effectiveness of Gen AI tools within an organization.

Conclusion

The successful integration of Gen AI tools hinges on their ability to adapt to user needs and organizational dynamics. Establishing robust feedback loops ensures that these tools remain relevant, effective, and user-friendly.

By employing diverse feedback channels, leveraging real-time mechanisms, closing the loop, and using analytics to prioritize actions, organizations can continuously refine their AI solutions.

Beyond operational improvements, fostering a culture of feedback has far-reaching benefits, from increased employee engagement to enhanced innovation. Companies that embrace this approach will not only maximize the value of their Gen AI investments but also empower their teams to drive transformative change.

Go to top

About the Author

1...414243...1,125 Page 42 of 1,125

FOLLOW US!

EDITOR'S PICK OF THE WEEK

CFO's new mandate. CFO explaining the presentation

The Performance and Transformation Orchestrator: The CFO’s New Mandate in the Age of AI

Anglea 0

By Terence Tse CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value. A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...