The hidden nexus of AI, ecology, and corporate strategy reshaping global governance

Resilience has become a dominant force in global policy, corporate governance, and environmental planning, shaping how societies respond to crises. In a new analysis, Orit Halpern from Technische Universität Dresden dissects the historical and technological roots of this concept, revealing how it now underpins artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructures and geopolitical strategies.

The study, titled "The Geo-Politics of Resilience: On the Historical Convergence Between Ecology, Artificial Intelligence, and Corporate Strategy", published in New Media & Society, argues that resilience has evolved into a powerful framework used to manage uncertainty at planetary scales. It shows how ecological thinking, AI-driven technologies, and corporate agendas have merged to redefine crisis management, governance, and even the logic of survival itself.

How resilience became the dominant logic of crisis management

The research traces resilience to its dual origins in the 1970s: ecological science and neoliberal economics. On one side, the Limits to Growth report of 1972 predicted catastrophic environmental collapse unless global behavior changed, framing the planet as a controllable system. On the other hand, ecologist C.S. Holling introduced the concept of resilience as an ecosystem’s capacity to adapt, focusing on relationships and processes rather than returning to equilibrium. This shift marked a move from viewing crises as anomalies to treating volatility as a natural condition requiring constant adjustment.

Neoliberal economists such as Milton Friedman promoted futures markets as tools to profit from instability, embedding uncertainty into financial models. These two streams converged, fostering a worldview in which change and crisis were not to be eliminated but harnessed. Halpern demonstrates that this framework became the foundation for contemporary governance and corporate strategy, shaping everything from urban planning to supply chain logistics.

At present, resilience is no longer confined to ecology. It serves as the underlying logic for AI-powered platforms, digital twinning projects, and automated decision-making systems. These technologies promise to manage volatility by embedding adaptive capabilities into infrastructure, shifting the focus from prevention to perpetual management.

Why AI and digital twins are central to the resilience paradigm

The author highlights the role of advanced computing in cementing resilience as a geopolitical mandate. Projects such as the European Union’s Destination Earth (DestinE) integrate AI with real-time data streams to create digital replicas of Earth systems. These “digital twins” enable constant monitoring, simulation, and intervention, embodying the belief that technology can mitigate crises even when causes remain unresolved.

Corporate actors have adopted similar strategies. Companies like Nvidia and Honeywell promote AI-driven digital twins as essential tools for optimizing industrial operations and environmental management. These systems transform environments, supply chains, and even populations into data assets, extracting value from continuous surveillance and adaptation. The study argues that this shift effectively naturalizes the idea of “life as a service,” where both human and non-human systems are managed as computational infrastructures.

Crucially, these technologies do more than respond to crises - they shape futures by embedding predictive algorithms into governance and corporate decision-making. Halpern notes that this approach often prioritizes efficiency and optimization over diversity, risking systemic collapse when unexpected disruptions occur. The resilience paradigm, as applied through AI, assumes that adaptability can be automated, blurring the line between technological innovation and political control.

What this means for global politics and corporate power

The convergence of ecology, AI, and corporate strategy has profound geopolitical implications. The study shows how resilience discourse supports the expansion of surveillance infrastructures, legitimizes new forms of territorial control, and enables corporations to profit from volatility. For example, Shell’s scenario planning in the 1970s redefined corporate strategy around adaptation to uncertainty, a practice now automated through AI simulations. These systems monetize risk, turning crises into opportunities for growth.

However, the study warns that resilience, as currently framed, normalizes crisis rather than addressing its root causes. The constant focus on adaptation allows corporations and governments to sidestep structural reforms, maintaining extractive practices while claiming to enhance stability. This logic extends to areas like climate governance, where technological solutions are promoted as substitutes for deeper societal change.

The study also brings into light the political stakes of these technologies. Data-driven infrastructures such as digital twins can be repurposed for surveillance and control, particularly in monitoring migration and biodiversity. While these tools offer potential for scientific collaboration and climate action, they also risk reinforcing power asymmetries, especially between the Global North and South.