1. Introduction
In the 21st century, marked by deepening globalization and accelerating technological revolutions, humanity faces unprecedented, multiple and intertwined existential crises. These include the risks of uncontrolled artificial intelligence, the ethical dilemmas of synthetic biology, the specter of war from nuclear proliferation, and the ecological crisis of climate change, collectively pushing humanity to a “crossroads of survival or extinction.” In his work Saving Humanity (Hu, 2007a), Hu Jiaqi unequivocally states: “Human civilization has entered a ‘High-Risk Era’. The pace of technological advancement far exceeds the development of governance capabilities. Without timely global coordinated action, human extinction will cease to be alarmist rhetoric and become a probable event.”
As a scholar with over forty years of dedicated research into humanity’s future, Hu Jiaqi transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. He examines the fate of humanity through an interdisciplinary lens, systematically constructing a framework of “crisis cognition—theoretical solutions—advocacy for practical action.” Furthermore, he has devoted his life to transforming the idea of “saving humanity” from a conceptual consensus into a social movement. Uniquely, he has pursued a dual-track path: building a leading enterprise in his industry while authoring over 4 million words of academic work, embodying a rare synergy of “practice and theory.”
Hu Jiaqi’s entire research on human issues begins with two fundamental perspectives. First, from the standpoint of humanity’s overall survival, he argues that if science and technology continue to develop recklessly at this pace, they will soon lead to the physical extinction of humanity. Second, from the perspective of universal human happiness, he contends that while science and technology have brought immense material wealth, they have failed to deliver widespread happiness to humanity. His theoretical framework is rooted in human nature. He believes that humans are a distinct species—neither gods nor immortals—and possess a unique human nature. This nature can be guided but cannot be fundamentally altered. Any social system designed in defiance of human nature is bound to fail. Based on this, he formulates three guiding principles for his research: the Principle of Maximum Value, the Principle of Justice, and the Principle of Far-sightedness (Hu, 2007b). With these three principles as his foundation, he seeks to address the following issues: first, ensuring the holistic survival of humanity; second, achieving universal human well-being; and third, resolving other issues that arise from these two primary concerns.
This paper, based on Hu Jiaqi’s core works such as Saving Humanity, The Greatest Problem, and On Human Extinction (Hu, 2007d, 2008), integrates insights from the operational practices of his Humanitas Ark (Humanitas Ark, 2025), international exchange cases, and his persistent advocacy through letters to world leaders. By conducting a comprehensive analysis of his saving humanity initiative alongside comparative analysis with other global governance philosophies (Harvey, 2006; Nussbaum, 2016), this paper aims to deconstruct his action framework. The goal is to offer novel intellectual resources and practical insights for addressing global crises.
2. The Contemporary Context of Hu Jiaqi’s Saving Humanity Initiative: Perceiving Existential Crises in the High-Risk Era
2.1. Technological Alienation: From “Engine of Civilizational
Progress” to “Source of Existential Threat”
Hu Jiaqi points out that the existential crisis humanity currently faces is, in essence, the product of “technological alienation.” Before the industrial era, human crises mostly stemmed from external factors like natural disasters and disease. However, in the modern age, while rapid technological advancement has become a core driver of civilizational progress, it has simultaneously spawned the means for humanity’s self-destruction. He analyzes in On Human Extinction: “Technology is a double-edged sword. When technological development reaches a certain stage, its destructive power will surpass humanity’s control capabilities. The emergence of high-risk technology means the consequence of such ‘loss of control’ escalates from localized disasters to human extinction.”
Hu Jiaqi focuses on three categories of high-risk technology: 1) Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, whose proliferation directly threatens human survival. 2) Artificial Intelligence, where research into strong AI could lead to machines breaking free from human control, resulting in an “intelligence rebellion.” 3) Synthetic Biology, where artificially designed pathogens could trigger a global pandemic, and the misuse of gene-editing technology could corrupt the human gene pool. He emphasizes in The Greatest Problem: “The common features of these high-risk technologies are ‘low cost, high destructiveness, and easy proliferation.’ They could potentially be mastered by any individual or small group, creating an ‘uncontrollable force of destruction.’”
2.2. Governance Failure: The Inherent Conflict between National
Sovereignty and Global Crises
Hu Jiaqi believes the greatest obstacle to addressing crises is the fundamental contradiction between the “globally integrated nature of crises” and the “decentralized nature of national governance.” Traditional governance models, centered on national sovereignty, lead nations to formulate policies based on their own interests, making global coordination difficult. He writes in Saving Humanity: “In the era of globalization, the system of national sovereignty has become an ‘institutional obstacle’ to tackling global crises. Faced with cross-border high-risk technological threats, the ‘self-preservation policies’ of individual nations often result in a ‘prisoner’s dilemma,’ ultimately harming humanity’s collective interest.” (Wang, 2003)
Taking global climate governance as an example, although the Paris Agreement established an emissions reduction consensus, some nations have withdrawn from or underperformed the accord to protect economic interests, hindering the achievement of global targets. In formulating ethical norms for AI, nations struggle to establish unified control standards due to competitive technological considerations, leaving high-risk R&D in a “state of normlessness.” Hu Jiaqi argues that this governance failure rooted in “national centrism” traps humanity in a state of “collective inaction” in the face of crises. The persistence of this dilemma directly leads to crises spiraling out of control.
2.3. Cognitive Gap: Human Indifference and Misjudgment
regarding Existential Crises
Hu Jiaqi posits that a prerequisite for saving humanity is to establish a “consensus on crisis.” However, there is currently a widespread cognitive gap concerning existential threats. On one hand, some lack sufficient awareness of the risks posed by high-risk technology, equating technological progress with civilizational advancement while overlooking its potential for destruction. On the other hand, a larger segment falls prey to “optimistic misjudgment,” believing humanity can always solve crises through technological innovation, thereby neglecting their potential “irreversibility.” He warns in On Human Extinction: “Human optimism stems from historical experience—past crises were always resolved through technological or institutional innovation. However, the crises posed by high-risk technology are of an ‘extinction-level’ magnitude. Once they occur, there will be no opportunity for trial, error, or remedy.”
The root of this cognitive gap lies in human “short-sightedness” and “collective blindness.” Hu Jiaqi notes that human decision-making is often based on short-term interests. The “long-term” and “latent” nature of existential crises makes them a difficult priority. Furthermore, in an age of information overload, entertaining and fragmented content dominates public attention, marginalizing serious discourse on existential threats. Therefore, awakening humanity’s crisis consciousness has become the primary mission of Hu Jiaqi’s saving humanity initiative.
3. The Theoretical Core of Hu Jiaqi’s Saving Humanity Initiative: Value Reconstruction and Logical Framework Centered on “The Holistic Survival of Humanity Overrides All”
3.1. Core Value: Elevating from “Individual/National Interests” to “Humanity’s Holistic Interest”
Hu Jiaqi’s saving humanity initiative is grounded in the core value of “the supremacy of humanity’s holistic interest,” transcending the traditional hierarchy of “individual interest—national interest.” In Volume II of Saving Humanity (The Path for Humanity) (Hu, 2007c), he emphasizes: “In the face of existential crises, national interests, ethnic interests, and personal interests must all be subordinated to the holistic interest of humanity, for without the continuation of humanity, all parochial interests lose their meaning.” This value reconstruction forms the cornerstone of his theoretical system and the core logic of his advocacy.
Hu Jiaqi argues that humanity’s “group identity” must evolve from “national identity” to “human identity.” While the nation-state was the core unit of group identity in traditional societies, the crises of the globalization era transcend borders, necessitating a foundation of identity based on the “holistic interest of humanity.” He explicitly stated in public speeches: “Humanity needs to forge a new consensus in values—that we are all ‘humans,’ not merely ‘citizens of a specific country.’ Only upon this identity can globally coordinated action for salvation be built.” (Nussbaum, 2016)
3.2. Theoretical Logic: The Trinity Framework of
“Crisis-Governance-Order”
Hu Jiaqi’s saving humanity initiative constructs a clear theoretical chain of “crisis diagnosis-governance deficit-order reconstruction”:
Crisis Diagnosis: Loss of control over high-risk technology is the primary existential crisis facing humanity, characterized by “irreversibility” and “extinction-level” risk.
Governance Deficit: The fragmented governance model centered on national sovereignty is incapable of addressing global crises, resulting in governance failure.
Order Reconstruction: It is imperative to establish a “global unified regime,” constructing a “new order for humanity’s future” to achieve global coordinated governance (World Economic Forum, 2025).
The core of this logical chain is the direct correspondence between “problem-solution.” Hu Jiaqi states unequivocally in Saving Humanity: “Humanity’s existential crisis stems from the contradiction between ‘borderless technology’ and ‘bordered governance.’ The only solution is ‘borderless governance,’ namely, establishing a global governance system that transcends national sovereignty.” This theoretical logic moves beyond the traditional crisis-response model of “treating the symptoms but not the disease,” targeting the institutional roots of the problem to form a systematic solution.
3.3. Methodology: Integrating Dialectical Thinking with Empirical Analysis
Hu Jiaqi’s theoretical construction consistently adheres to a methodology combining “dialectical analysis” and “empirical substantiation.” In analyzing issues like political systems, technological development, and human behavior, he avoids both binary value judgments and abstract theoretical deductions, instead employing dialectical analysis supported by historical cases and empirical data.
For instance, when evaluating centralized versus decentralized systems, he acknowledges the high executive efficiency of centralized systems while critiquing their irregular power transitions; he recognizes the orderliness of decentralized systems while pointing out their inefficiency and policy volatility, ultimately proposing a “balanced centralized-decentralized” model for a global regime. When analyzing high-risk technological threats, he cites numerous R&D cases and historical disasters (e.g., the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the COVID-19 pandemic) for empirical support, lending strong real-world persuasiveness to his crisis perception. This methodology ensures his theory possesses both academic depth and practical explanatory power.
4. The Core Proposition of Hu Jiaqi’s Saving Humanity Initiative: The Pathway to Constructing a Global Unified Regime
4.1. Core Objective: Establishing a Global Unified Regime with
“Balanced Centralization and Decentralization”
Hu Jiaqi explicitly states that the only viable path to saving humanity is establishing a “global unified regime.” This regime is not a traditional “global centralized empire” but a novel system of global governance characterized by “balanced centralization and decentralization.” Its defining features are clearly outlined in his Saving Humanity series:
Delineation of Authority: The global regime possesses supreme decision-making and executive power over global issues, including the control of high-risk technology, global security, and climate change. Regional and local matters remain under local autonomous governance, preserving cultural diversity and fostering local innovative vitality.
Generation of Authority: The core governing bodies of the global regime would be formed through “global citizen elections,” adhering to the principles of openness, fairness, and justice to guarantee the participation and oversight rights of global citizens.
Checks and Balances: A system of checks and balances would be established, separating global legislative, executive, and judicial powers to prevent abuse of authority. Independent oversight bodies would also be instituted to ensure the regime’s decisions align with the holistic interests of humanity.
Governing Principles: The core governing principles would be “survival first, fairness and justice, coordination and efficiency,” moving beyond national centrism to achieve the rational allocation of global resources.
Hu Jiaqi emphasizes that the core value of a global unified regime lies in “transcending the limitations of national sovereignty to achieve globally coordinated governance.” In his 11th Open Letter to Leaders of Mankind (Hu, 2025a), he stressed: “Only by establishing a global unified regime can we formulate unified control standards for high-risk technology, pool global resources to tackle climate change, avert conflicts and wars between nations, and fundamentally eliminate humanity’s existential crises.”
4.2. Pathway of Construction: A “Gradual Pathway” of Three-Phase
Progression
Hu Jiaqi posits that the construction of a global unified regime is not an overnight endeavor but a long-term, gradual process requiring progression through two phases: “Strengthening Global Governance Mechanisms” and “Establishing the Global Unified Regime.”
1) Phase One, Strengthening Global Governance Mechanisms: Empower existing global governance institutions like the United Nations. Establish unified global bodies for high-risk technology control, climate change governance, and global security. Formulate unified global laws and regulations, progressively achieving the “institutionalization of global governance.” For example, establish a “Global Technology Control Committee” to oversee the unified global approval and regulation of R&D in high-risk technologies like AI and synthetic biology.
2) Phase Two, Establishing the Global Unified Regime: On the foundation of matured global governance mechanisms, formally establish the global unified regime through means such as a global citizen referendum, achieving the “institutional unification of global governance.” At this stage, the nation-state as a traditional governance unit would gradually recede, leading to a governance structure of “global integration” for humanity.
Hu Jiaqi emphasizes in Saving Humanity: “A gradual pathway is key to avoiding global upheaval. Building a global unified regime must respect the historical, cultural, and developmental differences among nations, achieving a smooth transition through consensus-building and shared benefits, not through coercive imposition.”
4.3. Supporting Measures: Technology Control, Value
Reconstruction, and Education Universalization
To ensure the construction and effective operation of the global unified regime, Hu Jiaqi proposes three key supporting measures:
1) “Tiered Control” of High-Risk Technology: Categorize technologies into “high-risk, conventional, and beneficial technologies.” Apply a “resolute restriction” system to high-risk technologies. Conventional technologies require careful evaluation, while beneficial technologies should be fully encouraged and disseminated to enhance the quality of human life. He emphasizes in On Human Extinction: “Technology control is not about indiscriminately halting technological development but about ‘regulating technological progress,’ ensuring technology serves human survival and well-being, not human destruction.”
2) Reconstruction of Human Values: Through global cultural dissemination, media advocacy, and educational guidance, build a consensus on the value that “the holistic survival of humanity overrides all.” Foster values of “human identity” and “survival first,” and discard ideologies detrimental to global cooperation, such as national centrism, extreme nationalism, and extreme religious fundamentalism.
3) Universalization of Global Citizen Education: Integrate “cognition of human existential crises,” “knowledge of global governance,” and the idea of a “peaceful, friendly, equitably prosperous, and non-competitive society” into the global education system (NetEase News Client, 2025). Cultivate citizens’ global perspective and sense of responsibility from the basic education stage, laying a solid societal foundation for the establishment of the global unified regime.
5. The Practical Pathway of Hu Jiaqi’s Saving Humanity Initiative: From Theory Dissemination to Global Mobilization
5.1. Theory Construction and Publication Dissemination
For over four decades, Hu Jiaqi has dedicated himself to the construction and dissemination of the ideology for saving humanity. He has successively published a series of works, including Saving Humanity, The Greatest Problem, On Human Extinction, and Saving Humanity (Selected Edition), forming a complete theoretical system. Some of these works have been translated into English, Russian, and other languages for global distribution (Hu, 2018, 2020). The first edition of Saving Humanity, published in 2007, has been acclaimed as “a book highly likely to alter the course of human history” and praised as “an encyclopedia encompassing human scientific knowledge and a manifesto of the era articulating humanity’s ideal society.” (Information Administrator of Mentougou District Committee of the Beijing Municipal CPPCC, 2016)
Hu Jiaqi believes that, regardless of the approach taken or the number of strategic steps involved, the only ultimate solution to fundamentally resolve the dilemma of technological risks is to achieve the grand unification of humanity and reconstruct societal structures, thereby firmly taking control of the trajectory of technological development. He argues that throughout human history, the sole hard constraint preventing political entities from expanding indefinitely has been the limitations imposed by inadequate transportation and communication infrastructure, which rendered large territories ungovernable. Today, however, modern transportation and communication technologies have already interconnected the world into a single “global village,” meaning the material prerequisites for the Great Unification of humanity are now in place—what is still lacking is merely a shared consensus (Hu, 2007c). For this reason, he has spent decades passionately advocating and tirelessly promoting a global awakening movement aimed at uniting all humankind.
Consequently, beyond publishing books, Hu Jiaqi extensively disseminates his ideas through channels such as his personal website, academic journals, and book seminars. He has published numerous academic papers, speech videos, and interview transcripts on his “Hu Jiaqi Website” and the “Humanitas Ark” official site, accumulating over hundreds of millions of visits. He has participated multiple times in international academic conferences like global governance symposiums, presenting his ideas and proposals for saving humanity to scholars and politicians worldwide. For nearly two decades, he has also publicly issued over a dozen Open Letters to Leaders of Mankind, sounding warnings and appeals, with the total number of letters distributed reaching one million (Hu, 2025b).
5.2. The Operational Mechanism and Practical Outcomes of
“Humanitas Ark”
To more effectively promote global awareness and enlightenment, Hu Jiaqi founded the “Save Human Action Organization” in December 2018 (renamed “Humanitas Ark” in January 2025). Registered in the United States, this organization is a politically neutral, non-governmental international organization that complies with the laws of all countries. By 2025, it had amassed over 13 million members and supporters, spanning 255 countries and regions worldwide, forming an extensive civil society action network (Humanitas Ark, 2025).
Its operational mechanism features a clear hierarchical structure:
1) Supreme Authority: The Global Members’ Congress, safeguarding the democratic participation rights of all members.
2) Highest Decision-Making Body: The Council, responsible for core organizational strategy and major decision-making.
3) Daily Management Body: The Secretariat, coordinating daily operations and managing global branch coordination.
4) Grassroots Units: Member Cells, serving as the core units for localized implementation, conducting local advocacy and mobilization.
5) Auxiliary System: Various honorary positions are established, inviting globally influential individuals to participate, thereby expanding the organization’s credibility and influence.
Humanitas Ark operates through a model of “Global Outreach + Local Implementation.” On one hand, it disseminates crisis awareness and solutions globally via its official website, social media platforms, etc. On the other hand, relying on grassroots Member Cells, it organizes activities such as thematic lectures, public awareness campaigns, and youth initiatives in various countries, translating ideas into localized action.
5.3. Cases of International Exchange and Policy Advocacy
Hu Jiaqi actively engages in international exchanges, promoting the translation of his ideas into policy recommendations and global consensus:
1) Engagement with Political Leaders and Envoys: He has visited dozens of foreign embassies in China, engaging in in-depth communication with various political leaders and envoys. Slovak Ambassador to China Dušan Bella once called specifically to express support for his ideas. Ambassadors from many countries have expressed willingness to cooperate via letters and calls. Some foreign diplomats have accepted special appointment invitations from his organization, becoming important bridges for disseminating these ideas.
2) Dialogue with Academia and Industry: He has engaged in intellectual exchanges with top scholars such as Nobel Chemistry Laureate Jacques Dubochet, Gregory Winter (Master of Trinity College, Cambridge), economist Yew-Kwang Ng, and the late physicist Stephen Hawking. Hawking’s warning that “artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race” resonates with Hu Jiaqi’s propositions.
3) Open Letter Advocacy: Since 2007, he has written over ten times to national leaders, renowned entrepreneurs, scientists, and media figures, calling for attention to existential crises and the establishment of a global cooperation mechanism. The total number of letters sent exceeds 1 million (including 850,000 emails and 250,000 paper letters, with over 10,000 books mailed along with the letters). As of 2025, thousands have responded in support, including several Nobel laureates and prominent scholars.
6. Comparative Analysis of Hu Jiaqi’s Theory with Other Global Governance Thoughts
6.1. Comparison with Eco-Marxism
Eco-Marxism focuses on the destruction of the ecological environment by the “logic of capital,” attributing the root of global crises to the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system. It advocates for overturning capitalism and establishing eco-socialism to achieve human liberation. Hu Jiaqi’s theory shows significant differences:
1) Different Understanding of Crisis Roots: Hu Jiaqi identifies the loss of control over high-risk technologies as the core crisis, believing it is not inherently linked to social systems. Both capitalist and socialist countries face the same technological risks—whether it’s the US’s AI arms race or the Chernobyl nuclear disaster during the Soviet era, both attest to the cross-systemic nature of technological risk (Hu, 2008).
2) Different Solution Pathways: Eco-Marxism emphasizes institutional revolution, advocating for breaking the capital-dominated global order through class struggle. Hu Jiaqi advocates for an incremental construction of a “global polity beyond institutional differences,” not involving the overthrow of specific systems, but focusing more on the coordination of global governance mechanisms. He believes capitalist and socialist countries can cooperate based on a “survival consensus” to participate in global governance.
3) Different Core Objectives: Eco-Marxism balances ecological protection and social fairness, pursuing the “free and all-round development of human beings.” Hu Jiaqi prioritizes “the holistic survival of humankind,” also emphasizing “the universal well-being of humankind.” He considers survival the prerequisite for well-being; only by first averting extinction risks can the pursuit of universal human well-being follow.
6.2. Comparison with Cosmopolitanism
Cosmopolitanism takes the “human community” as its core value, advocating for breaking national boundaries to achieve global citizenship identity and universal justice (Nussbaum, 2016). Its essence is “global unity at the value level.” While sharing a common lineage, Hu Jiaqi’s theory has fundamental differences:
1) Different Theoretical Focus: Cosmopolitanism emphasizes “value and ethical reconstruction,” stressing the cultivation of global citizenship consciousness through cultural exchange and moral education. Hu Jiaqi emphasizes “institutional and mechanism construction,” believing that value consensus alone cannot address substantive crises; it is necessary to establish a global governance body with enforcement power (Hu, 2007c).
2) Different Practical Paths: Cosmopolitanism advocates for advancement through soft approaches like education and cultural dissemination, lacking specific institutional designs. Hu Jiaqi proposes a two-stage, concrete path of “strengthening global governance-global unified polity,” combining feasibility and operability.
3) Different Conceptions of Power: Cosmopolitanism opposes any form of global centralization of power, emphasizing pluralistic governance. Hu Jiaqi advocates for a “balance between centralization and decentralization,” arguing that global issues require centralized governance, while regional and local issues maintain pluralistic autonomy. This avoids the inefficiency of decentralization and prevents the tyranny of over-centralization.
6.3. Theoretical Uniqueness: A Survival-First Institutional
Coordination Plan
Through comparison, it is evident that Hu Jiaqi’s theory transcends the “institutional revolution” framework of Eco-Marxism and addresses the “emphasis on value over institutions” shortcoming of Cosmopolitanism. Its uniqueness is reflected in:
1) Accuracy in Crisis Identification: It identifies the loss of control over high-risk technologies as the “existential-level” core crisis, pinpointing the most urgent threat humanity faces in the era of globalization. This goes beyond traditional global governance thoughts’ focus on “gradual crises” like ecology and poverty.
2) Systematic Nature of the Solution: It constructs a complete system of “value reconstruction-institutional design-practical path.” It proposes the value consensus of “the overall interests of humankind,” designs the institutional framework of a “global unified polity,” and outlines an incremental advancement path, forming a closed loop.
3) Inclusiveness of Governance Logic: It abandons ideological opposition, advocating for cooperation between capitalist and socialist countries based on a survival consensus. It balances global coordination with local autonomy, possessing stronger practical adaptability.
7. Practical Challenges and Future Prospects of Hu Jiaqi’s “Save Humanity” Action
7.2. Future Prospects: Consensus Building and Action
Breakthroughs Driven by Crisis
Despite numerous challenges, Hu Jiaqi remains optimistic about the future of the “Save Humanity” action. He believes that as existential crises become increasingly apparent, “crisis-driven pressure” will become the core driver for consensus building and action breakthroughs:
1) Warning Role of Crisis Events: The frequent occurrence of events like AI ethics scandals, global pandemics, and extreme climate events will gradually make humanity realize “the consistency of individual interests, national interests, and human interests,” pushing countries from “confrontation” towards “coordination.” For example, the global spread of COVID-19 prompted cooperation among countries in vaccine development and prevention policies, providing a practical model for global collaborative governance.
2) Rise of the Younger Generation: The younger generation, growing up in the era of globalization, possesses a stronger global perspective and sense of responsibility, serving as the core bearers of “human identity.” As they gradually become the backbone of social governance, they will push the global governance system towards greater fairness, coordination, and efficiency.
3) Driven by Civil Society Forces: Global mobilization efforts by civil society organizations such as the “Humanitas Ark” are generating significant social pressure, compelling governments worldwide to prioritize existential crises and engage in global collaboration. As of 2025, the “Humanitas Ark” has established branches in 255 countries and regions globally, with over 13 million supporters. Its advocacy on issues such as “high-risk technology governance” and “fostering a shared human identity” is gradually gaining prominence as a global public concern.
At the conclusion of Saving Humanity, Hu Jiaqi writes: “Saving humanity is a great and arduous endeavor, requiring long-term, unwavering efforts in awareness and enlightenment. However, as long as we can forge a consensus on the crisis and persist in coordinated action, we will undoubtedly pave the way for a sustainable and bright future for humanity.” This sense of mission—“taking the fate of humanity as one’s own responsibility”—and the steadfast belief in long-term action are at the core of the appeal of his efforts to save humanity.
8. Conclusion
Hu Jiaqi’s campaign to save humanity represents a profound response to the existential crises facing humankind and a bold reimagining of the global governance system. Centered on the core principle that “The holistic survival of humanity overrides all”, it advocates for a “global unified governance” as the solution and adopts a “gradualist approach” as its practical pathway, forming a comprehensive system that integrates theoretical depth with practical feasibility. When contrasted with global governance frameworks such as eco-Marxism and cosmopolitanism, its distinctiveness and real-world applicability become even more evident—it not only accurately identifies the core crisis of uncontrolled high-risk technologies but also proposes an institutional coordination framework that transcends ideological divisions.
Despite facing numerous practical challenges, including conflicts of national interests and divergences in perspectives, the principles embedded in this initiative—such as the supremacy of humanity’s collective well-being, the governance wisdom of balancing centralization and decentralization, and the pragmatic strategy of incremental reform—offer critical intellectual resources and actionable insights for addressing global crises. The global mobilization efforts of the “Humanitas Ark” further demonstrate the vital role civil society can play in fostering global consensus.
In an era marked by the rapid advancement of high-risk technologies and escalating existential threats, Hu Jiaqi’s campaign to save humanity holds not only significant theoretical value but also profound real-world relevance. It serves as a reminder that humanity must transcend the limitations of state-centered paradigms and forge a value-based consensus centered on “the holistic survival and universal well-being of humanity.” It urges us to break free from the constraints of traditional governance models and explore new pathways for global collaborative governance. Most importantly, it calls for immediate action—transforming the vision of “saving humanity” from a conceptual consensus into tangible practice. Only in this way can humanity avert the risk of extinction in this “high-risk era” and achieve the sustainable development of civilization.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.