IN A NUTSHELL Author's Note...From Potsdam to Munich, humanity has achieved extraordinary technological progress and dramatic improvements in life expectancy and knowledge. Yet governance, equity, and ecological stewardship lag. Institutional legitimacy erodes, health inequities persist, and planetary systems degrade. The way forward is clear: humanity must align technology, governance, and justice...
By Juan Garay
Co-Chair of the Sustainable Health Equity Movement (SHEM)
Professor/Researcher of Health Equity, Ethics and Metrics (Spain, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil)
Founder of Valyter Ecovillage (valyter.es)
By the same Author on PEAH: see HERE
From Potsdam 1945 to Munich 2026
Technological Leap and Backward Trends in Global Governance, Inequality, and Planetary Health
Eighty-one years ago, the world gathered at Potsdam, emerging from the devastation of a global war, with a shared vision: rebuild societies, prevent future conflicts, and create institutions to safeguard human rights, peace, and cooperation. At that time, humanity numbered 2.3 billion, global life expectancy was 46 years, and scientific and technological advances were still in their infancy. The moral and institutional ambitions of Potsdam were bold: create a rules-based order where diplomacy, multilateralism, and human dignity could guide global action.
Today, in 2026, the contrast is stark. The Munich Security Conference unfolds in a world of more than 8 billion people, twenty more years of average life expectancy, and unprecedented technological capabilities—artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, advanced medicine, renewable energy, and space exploration. And yet, the institutions that once promised global solidarity, equitable governance, and environmental stewardship have not kept pace. Where Potsdam embodied reconstruction and normative leadership, Munich emphasizes deterrence, military-industrial expansion, and long-term confrontation. Humanity has the tools to solve planetary crises, yet governance, wealth distribution, and moral leadership lag dangerously behind.
Western institutions, long seen as defenders of peace, human rights, and multilateralism, now increasingly prioritize security and strategic influence. Munich 2026 demonstrates that support and attention are selective: strong for Ukraine, limited for crises outside Europe, and sometimes contingent on strategic interests rather than universal rights. Partnerships with authoritarian regimes continue under the guise of energy security, migration control, or industrial competition. For much of the Global South, this selective advocacy signals that moral authority is instrumental rather than universal, eroding trust in Western leadership.
Technological acceleration compounds economic inequality. Automation, AI, and digital platforms concentrate wealth and information power in fewer hands. Today, the top decile holds over 50% of global wealth, and less than 10% of the population controls the dominant financial and media flows that shape trade, consumption, and politics. These inequalities are not abstract—they directly shape health outcomes. SHEM analyses emphasize that inequality is a causal determinant of morbidity and mortality, determining exposure to hazards, access to nutrition, healthcare, and social resilience. Without structural change, widening inequities will deepen health disparities and accelerate intergenerational decline.
Environmental degradation intensifies these challenges. Climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, and ecosystem disruption increasingly drive human health risks. Heat-related mortality rises, vector-borne diseases expand, food insecurity worsens, and pandemics become more likely. Vulnerable populations suffer the most, amplifying inequities. Technology alone cannot offset these ecological-social interactions; governance, justice, and equitable resource distribution are decisive.
SHEM data estimate that roughly 16 million deaths annually are avoidable if inequity were addressed. Counterfactual equity comparisons suggest that life outcomes could match those of the most advantaged populations under sustainable conditions. Distribution-sensitive metrics reveal how averages hide disparities, while universal dignity thresholds—ensuring access to income, nutrition, housing, healthcare, and education—offer a measurable path toward equity. Further details and resources are available at https://www.sustainablehealthequity.org/webnair.
Looking toward the second half of the 21st century, risks compound: widening health disparities, climate-driven displacement, increased epidemic potential, food-system collapse from biodiversity loss, and declining intergenerational wellbeing. Technological capacity is not enough without equitable governance and ecological stewardship.
Global governance structures must adapt. The UN’s legitimacy depends on neutrality and geographic balance, yet its headquarters and Security Council remain concentrated in the West. The veto system allows a handful of states to block action even in mass-atrocity situations, limiting coordinated responses to crises that threaten health, dignity, and planetary stability. Reform is urgently needed: limit veto power in humanitarian emergencies, expand representative membership, introduce supermajority voting, and ultimately end privileges of structural supremacy that allow any single country to dominate global security decisions.
Economic redistribution is equally critical. SHEM modelling suggests that 5–7% of global GDP redirected toward universal dignity thresholds—providing roughly 10 USD PPP per person per day for income, nutrition, housing, healthcare, and education—could secure minimum living standards worldwide. This is modest compared to wealth concentrated above the “hoarding threshold” (~70 USD PPP per person per day) held by less than 10% of the population. Munich 2026 illustrates how security-focused politics continue to protect elite privilege at the expense of universal social protection.
From Potsdam to Munich, humanity has achieved extraordinary technological progress and dramatic improvements in life expectancy and knowledge. Yet governance, equity, and ecological stewardship lag. Institutional legitimacy erodes, health inequities persist, and planetary systems degrade.
The way forward is clear: humanity must align technology, governance, and justice. This requires democratized and geographically balanced governance, economic redistribution sufficient to guarantee universal dignity, and a normative shift from privilege-preserving competition toward cooperative planetary stewardship. Only by integrating these three dimensions can we secure the health and dignity of current and future generations, turning our technological potential into a force for equitable and sustainable global wellbeing.
References
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
World Health Organization. Social determinants of health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Assessment Reports. https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
United Nations Environment Programme. Global Environment Outlook. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook
World Bank. World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
International Monetary Fund. Technology and inequality analyses. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/Inequality
International Labour Organization. World Employment and Social Outlook. https://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso
Sustainable Health Equity Movement (SHEM). Webinar materials on health equity and avoidable burden of inequity. https://www.sustainablehealthequity.org/webnair