This article was first published in Estadão in Brazil on October 17, 2025, under the title “Risco existencial da IA está em como ela afeta nossa liberdade de escolha,” by Bruno Romani. This English translation is provided for informational and non-commercial purposes.
Interview with Roger Spitz — Futurist and CEO of the Disruptive Futures Institute
In recent years, the rapid advance of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised concerns about the risks this technology poses to humanity — often through scenarios that seem taken straight from dystopian science fiction. For the South African futurist Roger Spitz, however, the danger is much subtler and far closer to home: AI’s capacity to affect our freedom of choice.
Spitz is the CEO of the Disruptive Futures Institute, a futurist and, in many ways, a philosopher of technology. His work centers on helping organizations navigate upcoming transformations and reflect on their implications. Yet even for someone whose profession is to look ahead, the present moment has made it harder than ever to be certain about the future.
In this interview with Estadão, Spitz explains how technology makes future scenarios increasingly complex and nonlinear — and argues that it is impossible to entrust machines with the ability to predict or decide the future. During his recent visit to Brazil, he discussed concepts such as techistentialism, metaruptions, and unpredictability, reflecting on how AI and technology more broadly are reshaping the human condition.
What Is “Techistentialism”?
Futurist Roger Spitz explains the concept, which explores the impact of algorithms on the condition of human existence.
You coined the term techistentialism to address the existential implications of technology. How does this concept relate to leaders, governments, and citizens, especially in the era of AI?
Roger Spitz: Techistentialism is a word I invented partly because I’m interested in existentialist philosophy — the kind explored by thinkers like Camus, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard. In their view, decision-making was exclusively human. Our existential condition was to be human in the world.
Techistentialism is like Existentialism 2.0. In the 21st century, human and algorithmic decision-making are no longer separable. Our existential condition is now both human and technological — existence within a technological world.
The key question is how much we allow algorithms to climb the value chain of decision-making — and in which areas they are genuinely effective. This is crucial for the human condition, because existence means shaping one’s own being. In that sense, uncertainty is actually a gift: it means things are not predetermined, and that’s profoundly positive.
The challenge, however, is understanding where algorithms can and cannot help. They are effective in what can be called complicated domains — situations with known unknowns, where things are linear and predictable, and a range of correct answers exist. In such cases, you can rely on experts, and AI can be very powerful. For example, in drug discovery, AI’s large-scale pattern recognition is highly valuable. When problems are linear, predictable, and data-rich, AI can be great — provided it is properly safeguarded.
But then there are complex domains. Here we face unknown unknowns. They are nonlinear and asymmetric, meaning outcomes are disproportionate to inputs. That makes them unpredictable — there are no right answers, and expertise cannot be relied upon.
When we delegate decision-making in these complex, unpredictable domains to machines, two things happen. First, AI cannot predict the unpredictable any better than humans can — there is no data about the future. Second, and perhaps equally important, humans become less skilled and less versatile — losing our ability to interpret, make sense of, and act within complex, emergent environments. Human understanding is a process of discovery, of trial and error.
The danger, from a techistentialist perspective, is that humans start behaving like machines — automating their thinking, losing the capacity for interpretation, discovery, and creativity. For people, decision-makers, companies, and governments alike, it is essential to know the boundary between where AI can truly help and where it cannot.
The Move Toward Complex Domains
AI has long been used in linear domains. But in recent years, it has been moving into complex ones. Is this a permanent trend? Is it necessarily problematic?
There are many things about AI that must be managed and understood, but I wouldn’t say this shift is inherently bad. We face enormously complex global challenges — so why not use machines to help? The problem, though, is twofold.
First, we often delegate decision-making to the exclusion of other approaches. We treat AI as a kind of utopian solution, and in doing so, we risk ignoring alternative paths. Second, the more we rely on AI at the expense of our own thinking, creativity, and innovation, the less capable we become of solving those very challenges ourselves. The right answer is to work both ways — with AI and beyond it.
Take examples like climate change, social inequality, biotechnology — or AI itself. These are dynamic, emergent, nonlinear challenges. They can’t be solved solely by AI, and humanity certainly can’t take its hands off the wheel and hand full control to machines.
The Real Existential Risk
Over the last two years, much of the discussion around AI’s existential risk has focused on science-fiction scenarios. In your view, how might AI pose a real problem for humanity — beyond fiction?
Many narratives — from companies, tech hubs, and the media — are framed in binary terms: either AI saves the world, or it destroys it. I believe the expression “existential risk” has been hijacked to mean only one thing: the risk of human extinction.
But to me, existential risk also refers to the erosion of humanity’s agency and freedom of choice. Anything that restricts our ability to exercise freedom, agency, and choice is an existential threat.
The more dangerous scenario is not the spectacular one, but the subtle one — the “Black Mirror” kind of world that feels so familiar it could be happening today — something tangible, right before us, that we simply ignore.
Our education systems and incentive structures are not aligned with the world we now live in — one where critical thinking, judgment, freedom, agency, and discernment of truth are essential. Learning these skills is as vital as learning a language or mathematics.
Of course, technology always involves risk — sometimes for good, sometimes for harm. There’s a duality in that. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t explore technology. But we must recognize that with some technologies, we could reach an irreversible point — a situation from which it becomes impossible or prohibitively costly to turn back.
On Regulating AI
Should AI be regulated? If so, how?
The short answer is yes — regulation is necessary. But it’s deeply complex. Like any adaptive system, AI cannot be addressed with one-off or isolated point solutions, which may produce unintended or even perverse consequences. Rules can be circumvented; effects can ripple unpredictably.
In complex systems — and technology is one — we cannot rely on linear solutions or expect regulation alone to work. It’s like a pandemic: even if one region or country acts responsibly, the problem persists unless there is cohesive, global coordination.
The challenge today is that we’re shifting from a multilateral to a multipolar world — one defined by conflicting worldviews and irreconcilable interests. Moreover, I’m not sure we truly understand these technologies — even lawmakers. There’s a danger in delegating too much to slow, limited regulatory “machines.” Regulation must be monitored, incentivized, and governed intelligently.
Perhaps we need to reinvent education — to rethink how people understand truth, reality, and their own agency. Some of that may come through regulation, but not all of it. Much must also come from society itself.
Technology and the Multipolar World
Technology plays several roles in this multipolar landscape. First, it lowers the barrier for both state and non-state actors to project influence asymmetrically. A 16-year-old outside Moscow can deploy weapons of mass disinformation. That’s immensely powerful — and maybe part of why elections across the world are increasingly polarized.
Second, as Yuval Noah Harari calls it, there is now a “Silicon Curtain” — a technological parallel to the Cold War’s iron curtain — with rivalries between open- and closed-source models, Silicon Valley, and Chinese tech ecosystems.
Third, many existential risks — like biotechnology and AI — are themselves technological. All of this accelerates multipolarization by empowering actors to amplify their narratives, influence, and worldviews.
The Power of Big Tech
Is there any historical parallel for technology developers holding such immense global power, as we see today with big tech?
That’s a profound question. I’m not a historian, but I read those who study systemic disruption and change. What’s remarkable — and insufficiently emphasized — is that this is the first time humanity faces multiple simultaneous existential risks, each capable of interacting and compounding without a coherent world order to manage them.
Nuclear risk, for example, emerged after World War II. But biotechnology, climate tipping points, and AI are far more recent as existential risks. Each, on its own, can cause catastrophic harm to humanity — even extinction. Unlike an asteroid, these are human-made.
They have all emerged within the last 80 years — and none exist in isolation. In a complex system, they interact, producing cascading effects. That’s an entirely new challenge for humanity.
“Regulating AI Cannot Be About One-Off Solutions,” Says Futurist
Your book Disrupt With Impact: Achieve Business Success in an Unpredictable World focuses on unpredictability and systemic disruption. What has changed since you wrote it?
In one sense, not much — because the book’s foundation is precisely that: change is constant, systemic, and unpredictable. But what’s striking — and somewhat terrifying — is that change is slow until it’s not.
We’re now reaching inflection points in areas that some of us have long been warning about — urging resilience and future preparedness. When you film your house burning in California, you can deny climate change all you want, but your house is still on fire.
When the German chancellor says, “We are not really at war, but we are not at peace either,” referring to drone warfare, you see how hybrid and liminal today’s dynamics have become.
When the rare becomes less rare and the extreme becomes the norm, we must ask whether we can still distinguish between the present and the future we once imagined as distant.
On “Metaruptions”
Every year, we’re flooded with thousands of pages of trend reports and analyses. John Naisbitt coined the term “megatrends” back in the 1980s. The problem is that such approaches extrapolate the past toward the future, assuming trends interact in predictable ways — which gives a false sense of comfort and confidence.
So I coined metaruptions as a provocation: don’t trust what seems understandable or controllable. Instead, ask: What questions should we be asking? What are the second- and third-order implications? What lies beyond what we can currently see?
Preparing for the Unpredictable
Once you start seeing the world differently, it transforms how you prepare and respond. Some of the ideas I speak about today are easier to grasp than they were five years ago — people now recognize that the world is deeply systemic.
The key is to build capacity for future preparedness and resilience. At the Disruptive Futures Institute, we created a model we call the AAA Framework:
Antifragile: building on Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s antifragility, the organization learns and benefits from shocks and disruptions.
Anticipatory: it identifies cascading effects, second- and third-order implications, and seemingly unrelated connections.
Agility: it recognizes that only the present truly exists. You can anticipate, but discovery happens here and now.
In complex, unpredictable systems, there is no instruction manual. It’s a process of discovery. That’s why we need cognitive, strategic, and emergent agility — to amplify what works and to dampen what doesn’t.
Source: Estadão, Brazil — Link / Inovação
Original article by Bruno Romani, October 17, 2025
Interview with Roger Spitz, Futurist and CEO, Disruptive Futures Institute
SPEAKING & MEDIA TOUR IN BRAZIL
The Estadão interview took place in São Paulo during Roger Spitz’s global speaking and media tour across Brazil, where he headlined flagship events including Amcham Talks and MIT Technology Review’s EmTech Summit. This month-long tour built on Spitz’s global momentum from recent series in North America, the UK, Europe, and Asia, and focused on the pressing issues of artificial intelligence, systemic disruption, and the future of global dynamics.
“Brasil sabe desobedecer a regras e é bom desobedecê-las”, diz Roger Spitz, MIT Technology Review
Media Engagements: Conversations on the Futures
During his tour, Spitz participated in over a dozen interviews with leading Brazilian media outlets, including CNN, Estadão, MIT Technology Review, Jovem Pan, Revista The President, and Startupi. These wide-ranging conversations explored central themes from his work at the Disruptive Futures Institute, such as:
The one-year anniversary of his award-winning book, Disrupt With Impact, and its evolving insights.
Emerging developments in AI and frontier technologies drawn from his recent global keynotes.
Practical strategies for navigating systemic disruptions with informed optimism.
His concept of Techistentialism, offering a guide for individuals and organizations to remain relevant in the age of intelligent systems.
His groundbreaking paper, The Future of Risk, and its implications for finance and predictability.
CNN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEWS
Watch Roger Spitz’s full 30 minute live CNN interview recorded in São Paulo (in English):
CNN Brasil Money, “Entrevista Especial com Roger Spitz , CEO do Disruptive Futures Institute”
Spitz, R., and Irajá, V. “Entrevista Especial com Roger Spitz , CEO do Disruptive Futures Institute”. CNN Money Brasil, September 30, 2025.
Spitz, R. “Entramos em mundo multipolar, diz Spitz ao CNN Money”. CNN Money Brasil, October 1, 2025.
IA não vai ajudar em cenários de incerteza, diz Spitz | CNN Morning Call
Disrupção é sistêmica e cria cascata, diz Spitz | CNN Morning Call
DEEP ROOTS IN BRAZIL: A HISTORY OF IMPACT
Roger Spitz and the Disruptive Futures Institute have built a strong presence in Brazil through a history of keynote talks, executive education programs, and strategic foresight advisory. His latest book, Disrupt With Impact, has been a #1 bestseller on Amazon Brazil in multiple categories, and he is a regular columnist for MIT Technology Review Brasil.
This tour builds on a foundation of work with leading Brazilian organizations across the corporate, institutional, and governmental sectors. Key initiatives include:
Board Advisory Roles: Serving as a board member, including for Lux Carbon Standard (LuxCS), Brazil’s first carbon credit certifier.
DFI Nature & Climate Academy: Launching the Brazil Chapter of the DFI’s Nature & Climate Academy, a global hub for sustainable transition strategy. In partnership with LuxCS, this Disruptive Futures Institute chapter focuses on climate foresight, including transforming Brazil’s voluntary carbon markets through innovative, ecosystem-based decarbonization initiatives.
Reimagining Education: Spitz has provided expert testimony for the Education Committee of Brazil’s National Chamber of Deputies (“Comissão de Educação da Câmara dos Deputados”) in Brasilia. He has also delivered keynote talks, learning programs, and thought leadership articles to the leading Brazilian education players such as Bernoulli Educação, Maple Bear Global Schools, Grupo SEB, Porvir, and Teach the Future.
Continued Institutional Collaborations: Spitz has a long history of partnerships with leading entities such as Future Hacker, Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa (IBGC), and StartSe.
His ongoing work in Brazil — where case studies have been featured by the World Economic Forum and Illuminem — reflects a commitment to applying the Disruptive Futures Institute’s global frameworks to local contexts, addressing complex challenges from climate resilience to the future of work and anticipatory governance.
I would point to those who write the contracts that limit our options. How they define the constraints, funnel our choices and options —> freedom.