“It is an honor to host three influential figures who are spearheading change in the Global South,” remarked Folly Bah Tibault, an Al Jazeera presenter and the moderator of the panel “Humanity’s Next Chapter: Innovation and Impact from the Global South”, during the Doha Forum held in Qatar in December 2025.
The three distinguished guests were Bill Gates, Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad—sister of Qatar’s reigning emir and daughter of the previous one—and Aliko Dangote, one of Africa’s wealthiest individuals. This, in my view, epitomizes what the Doha Forum signifies: a vital intellectual hub in the global economic network that fuels the Machine.
Held annually and organized by the Qatari Foreign Ministry, the Forum unites a diverse array of notable guests and organizations. This year’s lineup featured influential figures such as Bill Gates, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr., Kaja Kallas, Ahmed Al-Shara, Hakan Fidan, Thomas Barrack, and numerous ministers, foreign ministers, and representatives from think tanks and academic institutions.
While the event was largely dominated by pro-Western entities like the Atlantic Council, Foreign Policy, Chatham House, the World Economic Forum, and the Gates Foundation, it also included participants such as Roscongress (Russia), the Center for China and Globalization (China), and various Middle Eastern organizations. This apparent diversity stands in stark contrast to the homogeneous discourse underpinned by a collective endorsement of economic growth as the ultimate goal, with its absence viewed as the source of many global issues.
During an insightful moment within the mentioned panel, Bill Gates discussed how agricultural innovation could transform Africa from a food importer to a food exporter using AI: “By empowering farmers with AI tools that offer insights about their soils and ways to enhance them, as well as introducing new seeds and livestock, we can unlock significant economic potential in this sector.”
The agenda spanned a range of pressing global challenges, covering topics from the Ukraine conflict to the situation in Gaza, from artificial intelligence to public health, and from developmental issues to sustainability.
Here are some of the panel titles, showcasing the breadth of discussion:
- Gulf-EU Relations in the Age of Strategic Isolation
- Iran and the Changing Regional Security Environment
- BRICS, GCC, and Evolving Relations for a Changing Global Order
- Paths to Prosperity in Latin America: The Role of Cross-Regional Diplomacy
- New Transatlantic Ties and the Evolving Global Order
- Competing for the Future: AI’s Role in Economic Transformation and Global Power
- Building Bridges: Migration Management, Economic Integration and Regional Resilience
- The New Wealth of Nations: How Instrumental Capital is Reshaping Geopolitics and Global Finance
However, I found it disappointing—though not entirely unexpected—that there was not a single panel or speaker, regardless of their fame or political stance, who presented truly novel ideas. While groundbreaking concepts are complex and challenging to articulate, it would have been refreshing to encounter perspectives that deviated from the prevailing socioeconomic narrative. There was a noticeable absence of deviant thinking, which, even if flawed, could provide alternative viewpoints. Instead, attendees encountered a narrative that recycled the same old ideas, but in an amplified format.
This raises an important question: what constitutes a fresh perspective, and different from what, specifically?
I contend that even when narratives may appear to contrast—like those of Donald Trump Jr. and Hillary Clinton—there exists a shared faith in the relentless progression of the Machine, described by Paul Kingsnorth as “a convergence of monetary power, state authority, and increasingly coercive technologies” in his book Against the Machine.
This steadfast trajectory forward resembles a desperate leap, as we attempt to resolve our current issues while holding onto the belief that future solutions will emerge. Although humanity is remarkably adept at finding answers, it seems illogical to assume that the very methodologies that led to our current problems can effectively rectify them. That is, in fact, akin to a definition of madness: to persist in the same actions while expecting different results.
Take the multifaceted environmental crisis as an example. The methods we have employed to harness and manage natural resources to sustain a contemporary lifestyle have resulted in pollution and degradation that jeopardize our existence, particularly in terms of health. From microplastic contamination in our oceans affecting fish and, consequently, human health, to extreme weather fluctuations triggered by our interference in natural cycles leading to mass migrations, the consequences are dire.
Another pressing issue is the widespread loss of purpose and meaning, which fosters numerous psychological conditions. The relentless drive to contribute productively to the Machine has strained essential human relationships that foster community and belonging. Consequently, we are left grappling with a sense of profound subjectivity that places undue blame on ourselves for unmet expectations—most likely to occur—pressing us towards consumption as a means of alleviating anxiety. When that fails, we often resort to pharmaceuticals like Prozac.
Regardless of the political dimensions of the environmental crisis or the specifics of our psychological struggles, it is clear that our actions have culminated in our current situation—though the responsibility is shared unevenly. It is the lifestyle that has emerged from the Enlightenment and the industrial revolutions in the West, which has now proliferated globally.
I do not dispute that this evolution has bestowed valuable knowledge and tools that enhance safety and health for many in parts of the world, but we are now grappling with the inertia triggered during that period. Many great thinkers and poets of the past foresaw these repercussions, and Kingsnorth extracted the metaphor of ‘The Machine’ from their insights.
To me, a fundamentally different way of thinking would involve scrutinizing the sacred doctrines that underpin this inertia—especially the notion of progress measured by economic indicators. I highlight this aspect, as it serves as the core rationale driving the relentless advancement of the Machine, not its foundational belief, but the justification for its incessant forward movement. As Kingsnorth articulates:
“This ‘growth’ is the paramount objective of the ‘global economy’ that the Machine has constructed: everything else is secondary. This growth lacks a defined purpose and has no endpoint, perpetually justified by problems—such as poverty and environmental degradation—that were often exacerbated by that very growth but can supposedly only be resolved through more of it. This narrative is sustained by the production and consumption of ‘goods and services,’ the demand for which is carefully engineered by powerful marketing and advertising strategies that manipulate our desires and needs.”
This ‘growth’ is quantified by macroeconomic indicators such as GDP, inflation rates, industrial productivity, and labor market metrics. Such development, viewed as a panacea for most challenges or as a root cause of many issues when absent, is predominantly discussed at events like the Doha Forum. However, this type of growth remains critically unexamined.
The absence of such scrutiny can be attributed to the acceptance of our existing financial system as a near biological inevitability during these types of events. The emergence of banking and fiat currencies has birthed the lifeblood that keeps the Machine operational. Kingsnorth overlooks this essential aspect, which I believe is crucial for alternative thinking: the true essence of the Machine transcends ideology, politics, or spirituality. Instead, it is fundamentally financial in nature. Without growth, the Machine would cease to function.
Is that what we aspire to?
