Four Voices, Four Futures: What 2035 May Hold

Jakkie Cilliers: The world of 2035 will be much changed from today. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping are unlikely to still be Presidents. Russia is likely to face significant turmoil, instability, and even changes in its foreign policy orientation upon the end of Putin’s near-imperial reign. Whichever, the policies and approaches pursued by these three leaders during their time in power will still resonate. That would likely result in a significantly diminished US internationally (possibly internally even more divided and violent than it is today), and a more powerful China, which would then likely have wrestled Taiwan into full submission. 

The future of Europe is less clear. The 2025 US National Security Strategy is explicit in its intention for a populist US administration to support right-wing parties in the EU, with uncertain outcomes. By then, the war in Ukraine will likely have been over for some time, reducing its unifying effect on key countries. Having discovered that the English Channel is narrower than the North Atlantic under Trump, the UK may have rejoined the EU, but it is unclear whether the Union will be more or less unified than it is today. Economically, Europe's economic growth will largely be determined by the extent to which it allows inward migration, a situation not dissimilar to the US, though the latter has higher birth rates and is less affected by clamping down on the infusion of additional labor and new skills. As a result, EU growth rates will likely be more than a percentage point below that of the US, and the latter will be less than half that of China.

The Chinese economy is expected to surpass the US in size by 2034 (it's already larger in purchasing power terms). 2035 is therefore a world in which China’s global weight is significantly larger than it is today, although its population, which peaked in 2021, will continue its steady decline in size. Chinese income levels will, however, remain less than a third of US averages. My sense is that the US, after Trump, will walk back from its current destructive behavior, but the damage caused will be long-lasting with the result that it will be China, not the US, who most likely to determine the future of a rules-based world. Still rules-based, although priorities will change, such as moving away from a focus on human rights and democracy towards non-interference or engagement on domestic governance.

Europe could emerge as the swing region in all of this. Although its power and influence is in decline, its role as core element in a broad partnership opposed to the mercantile approach of the US and authoritarian China will determine its global standing and influence.

By 2035 Africa will, for more than a decade, have recorded more rapid growth than any other region as it starts to approach its demographic window of opportunity. It is the next large emerging market that by then, will constitute the largest free trade agreement in the world. As its median age increases, violence will be declined, governance will have improved meaning that the continent will be much more stable and attract significantly more investment. 
A strong and reliable African partnership with Europe, India and others in the Global South can serve as a geopolitical counterweight to the US and China. Although it is inevitable that this will not be an exclusive club, with many additional relationships with countries in Asia and South America. Europe, India, and Africa can work together to promote multilateralism, reform global governance, and build equitable partnerships, though it will inevitably be a rocky road.
About the author

Rana Dajani: As I look toward 2035, I see a world still unsettled but more awake. The global systems that once claimed to guarantee order continue to fracture, exposing a reality shaped by power rather than justice. The belief that the old world order could be fixed has faded, creating space to imagine something new. As an evolutionary biologist, I view the future through deep time. Disruption is not failure; it is how societies evolve. What matters now is how we adapt, and whether we do so with ethics and purpose.

My hope lies with young people. They are globally connected, morally clear, and unwilling to quietly inherit injustice. Technology amplifies their voices, showing that ideas rooted in values travel faster than fear or force. I believe the world of tomorrow will not be built through obedience to broken systems, but through imagination and local action. Communities rebuilding themselves, even under extreme conditions, remind me that change begins from the ground up. As Audre Lorde warned, unjust systems cannot be dismantled with the same tools that created them.
Places that have endured siege, sanctions and genocide Gaza, Yemen, Iran continue to teach us about resilience, dignity, and self-reliance. They redefine strength as persistence, not domination. By 2035, education and science are transforming. AI is freeing humans from repetitive labor, making creativity central again. Knowledge production is no longer monopolized by the Global North; intellectual sovereignty is growing across the Global South.
I now see clearly that humanity and nature are not binary. Climate change, racism, authoritarianism, and genocide are interconnected, like underground mycelia. None can be solved alone. Through the initative "We Love Reading," I witness how stories nurture agency and changemakers. Change is slow, but silence is no longer an option. The future depends on what we choose to challenge, and what we refuse to accept as normal. 
About the author

King-Wa Fu: The Economist coined the term Sloponomics in its October 2025 issue. The magazine not only highlighted the troubling low quality of Internet clogging AI generated images and videos, but also maintained its neoliberal tone in championing the economic opportunities for superstar entertainers and big tech companies. However, what worries me most is that the media outlet, which has long embraced old school journalism, overlooks the real impact on the news business.
The news industry is concerned that audiences cannot distinguish authentic news content from increasingly realistic AI generated images and videos. During the recent Iranian protests, deep faked news spread widely amid the country's Internet blackout, leaving the international public confused when reliable fact checking by journalists became impossible.
Apparently, we cannot stop the advance of technology, and our focus turns to education. AI literacy is a buzzword in higher education, at least in my working institution. AI literacy has become our school’s mandatory class for every student since last year. But can young people learn from AI lectures to distinguish fact from fiction?

I conducted an experiment to assess people’s AI literacy and detection ability. We recruited a group of college students to complete a self reported AI literacy measure, a GenAI detection knowledge test, and a video authenticity assessment task. Participants judged multiple randomly assigned videos of various genres and subjects, which were a mix of AI generated and authentic news stories. Our preliminary results showed that only 48 % correctly identified AI generated news, while 67 % accurately recognized authentic news. Worryingly, many participants with good AI knowledge and high literacy scores were even skeptical of genuine news content. In today’s murky media environment, people growingly question reality.
About the author

Farhana Yamin: A decade from now, the climate conversation will no longer be about whether the USA was right or wrong to reject climate science and multilateralism but about how quickly the rest of the world stood up to create a new world order that can truly protect people and ecosystems by accelerating a just transition to renewables so everyone benefits from cleaner, more resilient and equitable economies. 
The ferocious attack on international legal rules and global institutions, backed by military interventions to extract more fossil fuels and minerals, will be seen for what it is: a desperate last-ditch attempt by corrupt elites whose fortunes have been amassed by centuries of extraction and abuse of human rights, underpinned by 300 years of cheap fossil fuels. Waging war may be good for capitalism and elites because wars generate GDP growth, diminish political freedom and enable the media and military to be controlled in the name of national security. But it's bad for ordinary people whose loved ones are killed and for our already imperiled planet which cannot bear more physical destruction of its biodiversity, waters and soils.  

Signs of resistance and renewal are already here. 2026 will cement the understanding that the renewables revolution is no longer a niche trend but a structural shift reshaping the energy landscape. Across the globe, solar, wind, and other clean energy sources are widening their lead in new capacity additions, with a persistent cost advantage over new fossil generation, threatening the old elites and the dollar economy which has dominated global trade since 1945. In many markets, utility-scale solar and onshore wind are now among the cheapest sources of new electricity, and bids for renewable projects routinely beat those for fossil fuels. This shift is not only about cleaner energy:  it is about democratizing energy access and lifting billions out of energy and resource poverty. Distributed solar, microgrids, and community renewable projects are already empowering households and local businesses, reducing energy poverty and strengthening local resilience. 
 

Please note that the views and opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent the official positions of the Robert Bosch Stiftung.