Nuclear Arms Controls, Will AI Make Humans extinct and is University Worth It?

Artificial intelligence systems are advancing at a scary pace and being deployed across the economy, government and the military. Alongside immediate concerns such as bias, misinformation and job disruption, a growing debate has emerged among researchers, policymakers and tech leaders about long-term or “existential” risks. The idea that highly advanced or misaligned AI systems could one day cause catastrophic harm to humanity. Governments and international bodies are beginning to respond through safety research funding, proposed regulation and global coordination, while a survey of top AI researchers found that they believed there was a 10% chance that AI would cause an existential catastrophe.

What’s Been Said:

Critics of AI- Centre for AI Safety, Vox, Future of Life Institute
AI could eventually exceed human capabilities across critical domains, and even low-probability risks deserve serious attention given the scale of potential harm. Critics stress the need for early investment in AI safety, alignment research and international governance before systems become too powerful to control. Prominent scientists and industry figures argue that waiting for clear danger signals would be irresponsible, comparing AI risk planning to nuclear or biosecurity safeguards.

Supporters of AI- Wired, Science Media Centre, Guardian Tech Analysis
Critics of the existential threat framing argue this narrative distracts from real, present harms like bias, discrimination, privacy violations, misinformation and economic disruption. Some experts say talking about super-intelligent AI wiping out humanity is speculative and fuels panic rather than practical policy, focusing attention away from concrete regulatory needs today. Others maintain that humans remain in control of AI and that existing and emerging regulatory frameworks can manage risks without overhyping distant doomsday scenarios. Some critics from the research community and industry say that exaggerating existential threat scares the public and risks misallocating resources away from immediate challenges.

The debate matters because it shapes policy, funding, regulation and public trust around one of the most transformative technologies in history. If existential risks are prioritised, governments may push harder on safety research, oversight and international treaties; if critics prevail, regulation may focus more on immediate social and economic harms. How this balance is struck will influence innovation, civil liberties, global competition and long-term human security, and mistakes in either direction could have lasting consequences.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START)- the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia- has expired as of February 2026 after reaching its deadline without a replacement deal or extension. The treaty had limited each side to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and a capped number of delivery systems, and included verification measures such as data exchanges and inspections. Although Russia suspended its participation in 2023 and both sides had largely stopped inspections, the formal expiration now removes the last legally binding constraints on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. With no new agreement in place, the legal requirement for limits and verification has lapsed, raising strategic uncertainty and serious fears of a second arms race.

Critic’s Framing - Sky News, Reuters, Chatham House Commentary
Critics warn that the expiration marks a dangerous turning point in global security with real risks of a renewed nuclear arms race and increased instability. Arms control advocates argue that without binding limits, both Russia and the United States could expand or upload more warheads, develop new strategic delivery systems without transparency, and resume practices that make miscalculation more likely. They also contend that losing formal verification measures undermines confidence-building and makes future diplomacy harder. Many see the lapse as a breakdown in decades-long efforts to manage nuclear competition and reduce existential risk.

Supporter’s Framing- Chatham House Insights, Russian Statements
Some analysts and officials frame the expiration as an opportunity to rethink nuclear strategy and adapt to contemporary geopolitical realities. From this perspective, the old treaty was already weakened by suspended inspections and limited scope (not covering non-strategic weapons or new technologies), and its expiry could spur new negotiations that include other nuclear powers such as China. Supporters of this view argue that future arms control frameworks might be broader and more relevant to current threats and strategic balances, potentially leading to more stable arrangements if all sides engage constructively.

The lapse of the New START treaty is significant because it ends formal, enforceable limits on the two largest nuclear arsenals in history, removing transparency and verification mechanisms that helped constrain nuclear competition for decades. This raises risks of a new arms race, strategic miscalculation, and erosion of longstanding norms around nuclear restraint. How the United States, Russia and other nuclear states respond, whether through new agreements, unilateral caps, or competitive buildup, will shape global security dynamics, nuclear stability, and the prospects for future non-proliferation efforts.

The UK student loan repayment system is under fresh strain and political scrutiny after the Chancellor’s Budget (Nov 2025) froze the Plan 2 repayment threshold, the income level at which graduates begin repaying, at roughly £29,385 from April 2027 for three years instead of rising with wages or inflation. Because earnings typically grow over time, the freeze effectively pushes more graduates into repayment sooner and increases their lifetime payments, even though thresholds continue to protect the lowest earners and loans are written off after a set period. Meanwhile, the number of borrowers with very high debt (e.g., over £100,000) has risen sharply, and many graduates report higher monthly repayments and cost-of-living pressures.

Critic’s Response - GB News, Martin Lewis, Sky News
Critics argue the government’s approach places significant financial strain on graduates, especially mid-income earners who may now begin repaying sooner and pay more over time. Organisations like the National Union of Students say the system is “not working for anyone,” warning the freeze effectively increases repayments relative to earnings and pushes the burden onto young workers who face high living costs and stagnating wages. Independent analysts, such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), call the freeze a “tax rise by stealth” on graduates and caution that prolonged freezes could shift repayment costs unfairly toward borrowers compared with taxpayer funding. Commentators like Martin Lewis argue the government is breaking the spirit of the original loan contract promises, saddling a generation with debt they cannot easily escape. Students are further frustrated by the fact that interest rates are set way above inflation rates.

Supporter’s Response - Government Statements, BBC/LBC Reeves Commentary
Supporters of the current system, including the government ,defend the freeze and broader rules by saying the loan framework remains fair and income-contingent: repayments only start once earnings are above the threshold, and many borrowers will never fully repay before write-off. The Chancellor maintains that aligning repayment responsibilities with ability to pay, and ensuring “higher education beneficiaries contribute,” is reasonable, while protecting low-income graduates from undue burden. Proponents also argue the system helps sustain higher education funding and fiscal sustainability amid wider public spending pressures, and that increased repayments from those who can afford them help reduce the overall cost to taxpayers.

This matters because student loan repayments are now a major financial issue for millions of people entering the workforce, affecting disposable incomes, saving and home ownership prospects at a time of high living costs and inflationary pressures. The political backlash, from student unions, public figures, and widespread debate on social media, highlights how repayments are shaping voter sentiment and could influence future elections. Economically, the policy alters how the cost of higher education is shared between individuals and the state, with potential long-term effects on labour mobility, inequality, and public finances. How the government responds to criticism, and whether thresholds are re-indexed to earnings in future budgets, will shape the finances and opportunities of a generation of graduates.

The Baseline: