Four Structural “Frauds”, Risk Premium, and the High-Tech Dilemma

I. Four Structural “Frauds” in Modern Finance

In today’s global financial system, there are four structurally deceptive mechanisms that appear legal and even “rational,” yet systematically transfer wealth, distort prices, and mislead risk perception over the long run.

1. Corporate “Self-Financed Consumption” Fraud

Producers fund users, then sell their own products back to them

Corporations extend credit to consumers through loans, instalments, credit cards, and subsidies, directly or indirectly providing the money that is then used to purchase the company’s own products and services.

On the surface:

• Revenue, profit, and market share keep growing;

• Consumers are locked into long-term debt obligations;

• Capital markets see “high growth + beautiful earnings,” which pushes the share price higher.

In essence, this is a self-reinforcing loop of “using one’s own money to buy one’s own growth”.

It gives the appearance that consumers are paying, while in reality the company is pulling future cash flows into the present through financial engineering, inflating both demand and valuation.



2. Share Buyback Fraud

Companies repurchase their own stock to boost valuation and management pay

Corporations use profits, new debt, or even fresh equity issuance to repurchase their own shares:

• Earnings per share (EPS) rises mechanically;

• The share price climbs on concentrated buying pressure;

• Management stock options and incentive packages are maximized.

When buybacks are not driven by long-term value, but instead prioritize price management and executive cash-outs over real investment, R&D, and employee compensation, they become a structural deception against long-term shareholders and workers:

• Short-term winners: management, major shareholders, speculative capital;

• Long-term payers: late-stage investors, and the R&D and capex budgets that were sacrificed.



3. Global “Consumer–Producer” Structural Fraud

Consumer countries print and lend money, squeezing producer and resource countries’ profit margins

Within the global division of labour:

• A small number of consumer countries hold reserve currencies and financial hubs, allowing them to “print money” at low cost;

• These currencies flow to producer and resource countries via trade deficits, outward investment, and sovereign debt purchases;

• Producer and resource countries carry the burden of manufacturing and supply, yet earn very thin margins and often remain stuck in a triple trap of low value-added, low wages, and high environmental cost.

The net global capital flow is:

from producer and resource countries back into high-return financial assets in consumer countries.

As a result:

• Consumer countries maintain sustained exchange-rate advantages and interest-rate control power;

• Producer countries depend on “financial transfusions” from consumer nations to sustain export-led models, and struggle to accumulate capital and technology;

• The system looks like “free trade + globalization” on the surface, but in reality uses financial and FX structures to lock in an unfair distribution of profits.



4. Sovereign Credit Overdraft Fraud

Consumer countries endlessly pre-spend future tax revenues; their money becomes an unsecured IOU

Consumer-country currencies are backed by “national credit” and “future tax revenues.”

Under persistent fiscal deficits and high welfare commitments:

1. To sustain current consumption and asset prices, governments continuously issue debt, expand central-bank balance sheets, and sell more bonds;

2. As capital from producer and resource countries flows into consumer-country assets, it inflates asset prices and tax bases, making future fiscal prospects appear stronger;

3. In reality, decades of future tax revenue have already been spent multiple times via repeated balance-sheet expansion and borrowing.

Over time, such money evolves into an IOU with little real backing in productive assets or sustainable tax capacity. It relies not on intrinsic value, but on:

• The collective belief of system participants;

• Faith that “the game can go on”;

• And the desire to extract gains from the system before it breaks.



5. The Human-Nature Fraud

Everyone knows there is a problem, yet keeps playing as long as the music plays

All four structural patterns above ultimately depend on a fifth layer: the collusion of human nature.

• Policymakers, corporate executives, institutional investors, and ordinary participants all know that parts of the system are unsustainable;

• Yet as long as prices are rising, returns are increasing, and indices look good, most people choose to “take their share first,” rather than expose the fraud.

In the end, this collective silence becomes a fraud in itself:

people stop asking whether value is real, and focus instead on how long the game can last and who will be the final bag-holder.



II. The Positive Function of Finance: Risk Premium and the Technological Frontier

Beyond these structural risks and “frauds,” it is equally important to acknowledge a different side of the story:

The same credit- and capital-market-based financial system has provided unprecedented funding and risk premia for high-risk technologies and long-cycle innovation projects.

1. Risk Premium as a “Structural Dividend”

In a relatively healthy financial environment, capital markets perform two critical functions:

1. Intertemporal resource allocation

Channel current savings and surplus capital into technological projects with highly uncertain outcomes but enormous potential payoffs (e.g., semiconductors, AI, biotech, clean energy).

2. Risk sharing across participants

Use equity, convertible bonds, options, and other instruments to spread single-project failure risk over many investors, allowing entrepreneurs to “fail multiple times and still try again.”

When these functions operate as intended, the extra return paid to technology innovators—

the portion above the risk-free rate and ordinary industry returns—is the classic risk premium.

From a structural perspective, this acts as a “structural dividend”:

• It does not plunder the real economy;

• It rewards the assumption of genuine uncertainty and supports the creation of new mass–energy–spacetime structures that expand humanity’s productive and survival capacities.



2. Why High-Risk Technology Needs a “Financial Accelerator”

High-risk technology projects typically share three characteristics:

• Massive upfront investment and very long payback periods (10–20 years or more);

• High failure rates and branching technological paths;

• Limited or no stable cash flow in the early and middle stages.

Corporate retained earnings and traditional bank loans alone are rarely sufficient to sustain such projects.

Capital markets therefore act as a “financial accelerator” through:

• Equity financing and multiple funding rounds tied to technological milestones;

• Venture capital and private equity, which inject capital before listing and absorb early-stage trial-and-error risk;

• Secondary-market liquidity, enabling early investors to exit and thus sustaining a long-term “capital–innovation ecosystem.”

Even in the presence of bubbles and speculative excess, we must acknowledge:

without high-risk capital from financial markets, many breakthroughs that reshape industries and human life might never start, or would be delayed for decades.



III. High Tech: Lifeboat or Accelerator?

A Mass-Extinction Perspective

From the perspective of avoiding global biological mass extinction, we must ask:

These high-tech sectors that have been heavily bid up and amplified by capital—

are they, on net, beneficial or harmful to the long-term survival of life on Earth and of humanity?

The point is not to glorify or demonize “technology,” but to build a structural and long-horizon framework for evaluation that can, in principle, be quantified and audited.



1. Technology as an Amplifier, Not an Intrinsic Good

From a structural standpoint, technology is neither inherently good nor evil. It is a mass–energy–spacetime amplifier:

• It can amplify human productive power, observational capacity, and governance capability;

• It can just as easily amplify human misjudgment, greed, and structural injustice.

If the underlying power, incentive, and value structures are distorted, then the stronger the technology,

the faster those distortions are magnified and the higher the risk of “self-destruction.”

Thus, the question “Is high tech good or bad?” cannot be answered by looking at the technology alone.

We must examine which financial and governance structures it is embedded in.



2. Three Classes of Critical Technologies and Their Impact on Extinction Risk

From a mass-extinction risk perspective, we can roughly group today’s heavily financialized high tech into three categories:

1. Survival-supporting technologies (potentially net-positive)

• Clean energy and energy-efficiency technologies

• Food and water security technologies

• Epidemic control and public-health systems

• Climate monitoring, Earth observation, and planetary defense

Under sound governance, these technologies primarily reduce systemic risk and enhance the “resilience” of human civilization.

They arguably deserve strong risk premiums and policy support.

2. Efficiency-and-control technologies (neutral but highly sensitive)

• Big data, platform economies, financial technology, high-frequency trading

• Precision advertising, algorithmic recommendation, social-network governance tools

These can improve resource allocation efficiency, but also entrench monopolies, manipulate public opinion, and deepen social polarization.

Their net impact on extinction risk depends entirely on how political and institutional systems define boundaries and checks.

3. Potentially destructive technologies (must be placed behind red lines)

• Weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and their new variants)

• Uncontrolled artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems

• High-risk bio-engineering and irreversible geo-engineering

Once removed from constraint, these technologies can generate cross-border, irreversible, and hard-to-correct systemic risks—

directly pointing toward mass-extinction-level outcomes and therefore requiring stringent global monitoring and red-line governance.



3. Under Current Financial Structures, the Net Effect of High Tech Is Worsening

Combining this with the “four structural frauds” analysis, several worrying trends emerge in today’s high-tech development:

• Capital tends to chase short-term, story-driven tech narratives, not the basic technologies that directly support Earth’s long-term survivability;

• Many tech companies rely on self-buybacks, platform monopolies, and data lock-in to boost earnings and valuations, without necessarily enhancing society’s resilience;

• Some key technologies (algorithmic weapons, biotechnology, etc.) are being driven by military and geopolitical competition,

with the primary goal of strengthening national or bloc-level advantage rather than reducing extinction risk.

Within this finance–technology coupling, the net-effect curve of high tech is drifting toward the dangerous side:

• On one hand, technology is genuinely improving human productivity and knowledge;

• On the other, it is accelerating resource depletion, environmental degradation, conflict escalation, and social fragmentation.

Making Visible the Damage of Our Own Social Activity

IV. Seeing the Destructive Nature of “Normal” Social Activity

If we truly want to avoid a global biological mass extinction, we must shift our perspective from “catastrophic events” to “everyday structures.”

It is not only war, nuclear accidents, or major pollution disasters that threaten life.

In today’s civilization, a vast amount of seemingly normal social activity—production, consumption, finance, competition, expansion—is continuously impacting and eroding human and non-human life:

• High-energy, high-emission production and logistics quietly reshape the atmosphere, oceans, and ecological balance;

• A growth-at-any-cost consumer culture treats nature as an inexhaustible stock and human bodies and minds as endlessly exploitable “traffic”;

• Short-termist financial structures systematically push risks and costs into the future, onto the vulnerable, and onto silent species;

• Geopolitical competition built on fear and antagonism drives key technologies toward weaponization and automated killing.

Taken individually, these actions look “rational” or “normal.”

Taken together, they form a slow, structural extinction process.

Therefore, we need to help people clearly recognize that:

The crisis does not live only in a handful of extreme events.

It lives in the way our societies operate every single day.

Only when people become aware that:

• Their working patterns, consumption habits, and investment choices are actively shaping this structure;

• Our institutional designs, incentive systems, and definitions of “success” are unintentionally driving living systems toward their limits;

can humanity begin to choose a different path—

from treating Earth as an overdraftable resource,

to treating it as a shared living entity that must be safeguarded;

from asking only “How much can we grow?”

to asking “At what cost, and what do we leave for those who come after us?”

Avoiding mass extinction is not only a question of science and technology.

It is a question of social structure and everyday choices.

One core mission of AEEA is to make this invisible damage visible—

to bring hidden harm into the light, so that a different future can be consciously chosen.

V. Financial Extinction Risks: From Monetary Illusion to Man-Made Disaster

The “four financial frauds” described earlier are, at their core, structural arrangements built around monetary gain.

They create the illusion of prosperity and wealth in the short term, while accumulating massive systemic risks in the long term.

This kind of profit-driven structural deception is deeply harmful to society and to humanity:

• It pulls people into a financially virtual world where numbers look ever better while the real foundations grow weaker;

• It makes our civilization increasingly dependent on expanding debt, rising asset prices, and ever more aggressive narratives and expectations;

• When the illusion finally breaks, the result is not merely an “economic adjustment” but a convergence of crises in employment, social stability, geopolitics, and ecology—

a convergence that can act as a man-made trigger for mass-extinction-scale events.

We should name this clearly as Financial Extinction Risks:

once financial structures lose control, the problem is no longer just who wins or loses money;

it is that, through a chain of transmission, these structures can push human civilization toward irreversible imbalance and collapse.



5.1 How Monetary Illusions Escalate into Extinction-Level Risks

Structurally, the four frauds escalate along three main pathways:

1. Erosion of the real economic base

• Self-financed consumption and buyback games redirect corporate focus from R&D and infrastructure toward earnings optics and stock prices;

• The consumer–producer imbalance leaves key production and resource functions trapped in “low-margin, high-extraction” equilibrium, with little room for sustainable investment;

• Sovereign overdrafts weaken the ability of public finances to support education, healthcare, infrastructure, basic science, and social safety nets.

By the time financial prosperity peaks on the surface, the real mass–energy base of civilization may already be seriously eroded.

2. Erosion of systemic resilience by financialization

• As more capital chases financial returns rather than resilience-building (food, energy, public health, disaster preparedness),

the system’s ability to absorb shocks steadily declines;

• When major external shocks occur (war, pandemics, extreme weather, energy disruptions),

societies and economies are more fragile than at any point in recent history.

3. High tech under distorted incentives moves toward weaponization and loss of control

• Technological development is driven by “who can weaponize and monopolize first,” rather than “who can reduce extinction risk”;

• High-risk technologies (nuclear, biological, AI weapons, geo-engineering) are accelerated by financial incentives and geopolitical competition,

without a matching level of global constraint and audit.

When these three pathways reinforce each other, the financial illusion no longer lives only on balance sheets. It directly drives:

Overloading of resource systems, collapse of ecological systems, polarization of social systems, and loss of control in technological systems—

together forming a genuine extinction-level threat to life on Earth.



5.2 Why This Is an Accelerator, Not Neutral Noise

Many people respond to such concerns by saying:

“Economies are cyclical; finance has bubbles. These are just noise and will self-correct.”

From the AEEA perspective, this view suffers from three critical misunderstandings:

1. Misunderstanding of time scales

• Traditional business cycles run on 5–10 year horizons, whereas ecological degradation, climate shifts, and resource depletion accumulate over 30–100 years;

• If each financial boom–bust cycle accelerates resource overuse and emissions,

then over long horizons these cycles are not random noise—they are directional accelerators.

2. Misunderstanding of spatial scales

• Financial crises seem localized in asset markets and banking systems,

yet their propagation directly affects food supply, energy prices, public services, and political stability, especially in vulnerable countries;

• For the most fragile populations and species, a combined financial–economic crisis can represent a point of no return.

3. Misunderstanding of technological pathways

• Under current structures, high tech is often steered toward financial efficiency, military capability, and commercial dominance,

rather than ecological repair and public resilience;

• Finance does not merely accompany high tech—it shapes which technologies are prioritized, turning technology into a risk multiplier.

For these reasons, Financial Extinction Risks are not just a moral metaphor, but a structural problem that can and should be modeled and measured.



5.3 What Can We Do? Three Paths to Prevent Crisis

Within the joint AEEA and DualTrades framework, “what we can do” can be broken into three actionable layers:

Path 1: Awareness and Disclosure – Making the Structure Visible

• Use research reports, website content, and visual diagrams to make the Four Frauds + Financial Extinction Risks visible;

• Reinterpret current financial structures against the time axis of life on Earth, not just quarterly earnings;

• Explain clearly why these are not minor fluctuations, but a process that can, at certain thresholds, trigger systemic catastrophe.

The goal is not to spread panic, but to:

Shift decision-makers, researchers, and citizens

from focusing solely on short-term returns

to recognizing the underlying structural costs.

Path 2: Tools and Indicators – Turning Critique into Operational Constraints

• Embed structural risk indicators and extinction-risk weights into financial and market tools:

• Sovereign overdraft indices, financial hollowing indices, consumer–producer imbalance indices;

• Indices tracking capital allocation into high-risk technologies;

• Integrate these metrics into risk management, asset allocation, ESG frameworks, and even personal investment tools,

so that “reducing extinction risk” becomes a quantifiable and comparable objective, not just a slogan.

In other words:

make long-term life safety a variable that can enter models and feed back into prices and weights.

Path 3: Structural Reconstruction – Providing Rational Reasons for a Different Path

The “right path” is not an abstract moral appeal; it must be practically feasible and rational. At minimum, it includes:

1. Reorienting finance from extraction to repair and resilience

• Increase capital weightings in survival-supporting technologies (energy, food, water, public health, ecological restoration);

• Reduce structural favoritism toward pure financial engineering and speculative bubbles;

• Disclose, as transparently as possible,

whether an investment portfolio contributes positively or negatively to extinction risk.

2. Rebalancing the ledger between producer and consumer countries

• Acknowledge the real contribution of producer and resource nations in the global system;

• Gradually correct long-standing imbalances of “cheap supply vs. expensive finance” through trade, FX, fiscal, and technology-transfer mechanisms;

• Avoid pushing any region to ecological and social breaking points through chronic exploitation.

3. Establishing global red lines and audit mechanisms for destructive technologies

• Classify nuclear, bio-engineering, irreversible geo-engineering, and uncontrolled AI as global public risk assets;

• Require cross-border transparency and debate for major capital allocations into these fields;

• Encode these risks not only in ethical guidelines, but in international agreements and financial regulation.

This path is “right” not only because it is ethically attractive, but because:

From a long-term risk–return perspective,

a civilization that recognizes and constrains extinction risks

has a higher probability of survival and more stable long-run returns.



5.4 Why This Is Rational Self-Protection, Not Moral Luxury

Finally, it is important to state clearly:

Avoiding mass extinction is not a moral luxury; it is rational self-protection.

• For individuals and institutions, a world repeatedly hit by large-scale financial crises, ecological collapses, and wars is the worst possible business environment.

• For states and civilizations, a trajectory in which finance and technology are continuously pushed toward weaponization and loss of control offers no safe exit for anyone.

Therefore:

Incorporating Financial Extinction Risks into decision-making

is not about abandoning development,

but about preventing the entire development process

from degenerating into a giant bubble game with extinction as its final outcome.

AEEA’s goal is not to shut down the engines of finance and technology,

but to help humanity keep moving forward while gradually turning the steering wheel—

away from monetary illusions that lead toward extinction,

and toward structural designs that genuinely safeguard life.

金融演绎下的“四大骗局”、风险溢价与高科技抉择

一、金融演绎下的“四大骗局”

在当代金融体系中，有四类具有结构性欺骗性的机制，看似合理、甚至合规，却在长期内系统性地转移财富、扭曲价格与风险认知。

1. 企业“自融消费”骗局：

生产方给使用方提供资金，再让对方买自己的产品

企业通过贷款、分期、信用卡、补贴等方式，把资金直接或间接借给消费者，让消费者用这些钱来购买本企业的产品与服务。

在账面上：

• 销售额、利润、市场份额不断上升；

• 消费者被锁进长期还款的债务结构；

• 资本市场看到的是“高增长 + 漂亮财报”，从而推高股价。

本质上，这是一种“用自己的钱买自己的增长”的自我循环：

资金表面上是消费者在付钱，实质上是企业通过金融手段把未来现金流折现为今天的营收，形成虚胖的需求与估值。



2. 股份回购骗局：

公司用现金回购自家股票，抬高估值与管理层收益

公司利用利润、负债甚至再融资获得的资金，大规模回购自己股票：

• 每股收益（EPS）被动提高；

• 股价在需求集中拉升下不断创新高；

• 管理层的股票期权与激励计划收益最大化。

如果这些回购不是出于长期价值判断，而是在缺乏实体投资、研发与员工回报的前提下，优先服务于股价管理和管理层套现，这就演变成一种对中长期股东和员工的结构性欺骗：

• 短期赢家：管理层、大股东、投机资金；

• 长期买单：后来接盘的投资者，以及被牺牲掉的研发和资本开支。



3. 全球“消费国–生产国”结构骗局：

消费国印钱 + 放贷，牺牲生产国与资源国的利润空间

在全球分工体系中：

• 少数消费国掌握储备货币与金融中心地位，可以低成本“印钱”；

• 这些货币通过贸易逆差、对外投资、主权债购买等形式，流向生产国和资源供应国；

• 生产国与资源国承担制造和供给，却只能获得极低利润，甚至长期处在“低附加值–低工资–高环境成本”的三重夹击中。

资金在全球的净流向是：

从生产国、物资供应国回流到高利润的消费国金融资产。

结果是：

• 消费国拥有持续的汇率优势与利率操纵权；

• 生产国只能依靠消费国的“金融输血”维持出口导向模式，难以真正积累资本与技术；

• 整个体系在外观上是“自由贸易 + 全球化”，本质上却是通过金融与汇率结构固化利润分配不公。



4. 主权信用透支骗局：

消费国把未来税收无限透支，其货币逐渐变成“无担保白条”

消费国的货币以“国家信用”和“未来税收”为担保。

但在长期财政赤字和高福利承诺下：

1. 为维持当前消费和金融资产价格，政府不断举债、扩表、发国债；

2. 当生产国、资源国的资金回流到消费国资产市场时，推高了消费国资产价格和税基，看上去税收前景更好；

3. 实际上，未来几十年的税收早已在一次次扩表和举债中被反复透支。

于是，这种货币逐渐变成一种缺乏实物与可持续税收支持的“白条”——它依靠的不是价值支撑，而是：

• 体系参与者的共识；

• 对“这个骗局可以继续下去”的信念；

• 以及在此期间不断从中套利的欲望。



5. 人性骗局：

明知有问题，却乐于参与，只要音乐还在响

上述四类结构，本质上离不开第五层——人性层面的合谋：

• 政策制定者、企业管理层、机构投资者与普通参与者，都知道体系中存在不可持续的部分；

• 但只要价格在上涨，收益在增加，账面和指数在好看，多数人会选择“先赚到自己的那一段”，而不是拆穿骗局。

最终，这种“集体沉默”本身也构成了一种骗局：

大家不再追问“价值是否真实”，而只关心“还能玩多久、轮到谁接最后一棒”。



二、金融的正向功能：风险溢价与科技前沿

在以上结构风险与“骗局”之外，要保持分析的完整性，我们也必须承认：

正是这种以信用和资本市场为核心的金融体系，为高风险科技发展和长周期创新项目，提供了前所未有的资金来源和风险溢价机制。

1. 风险溢价作为“结构红利”

在一个相对健康的金融环境中，资本市场承担两项关键职能：

1. 跨时间的资源配置：

把当下的储蓄与剩余资金，引导到回报高度不确定、但潜在收益巨大的科技项目之中（如半导体、人工智能、生物医药、清洁能源等）。

2. 跨主体的风险分担：

通过股权、可转债、期权等工具，把单个项目的失败风险在众多投资者之间进行分散，使科技创业者能够“失败多次仍有下一次机会”。

在这两项职能发挥作用时，资本市场给科技创新支付的“额外回报”——

即高于无风险利率与普通行业回报的那一部分收益，便是典型的风险溢价（Risk Premium）。

从结构视角看，这是一种与前述“四大骗局”相对的“结构红利”：

• 它不是掠夺实体，而是在承担真实不确定性的前提下，

• 支持新的质能–时空结构被开辟出来，为人类带来新的生产力与生存工具。



2. 高风险科技项目为何需要“金融加速器”

高风险科技往往具有以下特征：

• 投入巨大，回报周期长（10–20 年甚至更久）；

• 失败概率高，技术路线存在分叉；

• 中途往往无法产生稳定现金流。

单靠企业自有资金和传统银行信贷，很难长期支持这类项目。

资本市场通过以下机制，成为科技前沿的“加速器”：

• 股权融资与多轮增发：允许企业在不同发展阶段分批筹资，与技术里程碑挂钩；

• 风险投资与私募股权：在项目尚未进入二级市场前就提前注入资本，承担早期试错成本；

• 二级市场流动性：为早期投资者提供退出渠道，从而形成一个可持续的“资本–创新生态”。

因此，即便在存在结构性泡沫与投机行为的情况下，我们仍然必须看到：

没有金融体系提供的高风险资本，许多改变产业结构与人类生活方式的技术突破，可能根本无法启动，或被大幅推迟。



三、高科技究竟是“救生艇”还是“加速器”？

——从避免地球大灭绝的视角审视

站在“避免地球生物大灭绝”的立场回顾过去几十年的金融与科技狂奔，我们必须反问一句：

这些被金融高度溢价、被资本极度放大的高科技，对地球生物和人类长期生存而言，究竟是净益处，还是净伤害？

我们的立场不是简单赞美或否定“科技”，而是要从结构张量和长周期生存风险出发，给出一套可量化、可审计的判断框架。



1. 科技是放大器，不是价值本身

从结构视角看，科技本身并不是善或恶，而是一种“质能—时空放大器”：

• 它可以放大人类的生产能力、观测能力、治理能力；

• 同样也可以放大人类的错误决策、贪婪冲动和结构性不公。

如果底层的权力结构、利益结构和价值观是扭曲的，那么科技越强，

这种扭曲被放大的速度就越快，走向“自我毁灭”的风险也就越高。

因此，判断“高科技有益还是有害”，不能只看技术本身，而要看它被镶嵌在怎样的金融结构和治理结构之中。



2. 三类关键科技：对大灭绝风险的不同效应

从避免大灭绝的视角，我们可以把当前被金融高度溢价的高科技，大致分为三类：

1. 生存支撑型科技（潜在净正面）

• 清洁能源、节能技术

• 粮食与水资源保障技术

• 疫情防控与公共卫生体系

• 气候监测、地球观测、行星防御等

如果在合理治理之下，这些技术的核心作用是降低系统性风险、提高整个人类文明的“生存韧性”，

理论上应获得足够的风险溢价和政策支持。

2. 效率与控制型科技（中性但高度敏感）

• 大数据、平台经济、金融科技、高频交易系统

• 精准广告、算法推荐、社交网络治理工具

这些技术可以提高资源配置效率，也可以被用来强化垄断、操纵舆论、加剧社会撕裂。

它们对大灭绝风险的影响，取决于政治与制度如何设置边界和制衡。

3. 潜在毁灭型科技（必须纳入红线管理）

• 大规模杀伤性武器（核、生化及其新变种）

• 失控的人工智能、自动化战争系统

• 高风险生物工程、不可逆转的气候地球工程

这些技术一旦脱离约束，很容易形成跨国界、不可逆、难以纠错的系统性风险，

直接指向“大灭绝级别”的后果，必须作为关键监控对象纳入全球治理与风险模型。



3. 在现有金融结构下，高科技的“净效应”正在恶化

结合前文“四大骗局”的分析，我们看到当下高科技的发展存在几个危险趋势：

• 资本更倾向于追逐短期、易讲故事的科技概念，而不是真正面向地球长期生存的基础技术；

• 许多科技公司通过自我回购 + 平台垄断 + 数据封锁放大财报与估值，却未必同步提升全社会的生存韧性；

• 部分关键技术（算法武器、生物技术等）在军事和地缘政治博弈中被推动，

其目标不是降低灭绝风险，而是提高单一国家或集团的优势地位。

在这样的金融—科技耦合结构下，高科技的“净效应曲线”正在偏向危险一侧：

一方面，科技确实提升了人类的生产和认知能力；

另一方面，它也在加速资源透支、环境退化、战争升级与社会极化。

让人类看见自己对生命的冲击

四、看见“社会活动本身”的破坏性

要真正避免地球生物大灭绝，我们必须把视角从“单一事件的灾难”提升到“日常结构的破坏”。

不是只有战争、核事故、大规模污染才会摧毁生命系统。

在当代文明中，大量看似正常的社会活动——生产、消费、金融、竞争与扩张——本身就在持续对人类与其他生命施加冲击：

• 高耗能、高排放的生产与物流体系，在悄无声息中改变大气、海洋与生态平衡；

• 以无限增长为目标的消费文化，把自然系统当作“可无限开采的库存”，把人类身心当作“可无限开发的流量”；

• 以短期收益为核心的金融结构，把风险和成本不断向未来、向弱者、向无声的物种转移；

• 以对立与恐惧为逻辑的地缘政治竞争，使高科技不断向武器化、自动化杀伤方向倾斜。

这些行为每天都在发生，分散开来看似“合理”，叠加起来却形成一个整体性的、慢性的“灭绝进程”。

因此，我们需要让人们清楚地认识到：

危机不是只存在于少数极端事件里，而是存在于我们日常的社会运转方式之中。

只有当人们意识到：

• 自己的工作方式、消费方式、投资方式，正在怎样参与塑造这个结构；

• 现有的制度设计、激励机制、成功标准，如何在无意中推动生命系统走向极限；

人类才有可能主动走向另一条道路——

从“把地球当作可透支的资源”转向“把地球当作需要守护的共同生命体”；

从“只问增长多少”转向“追问代价是什么、留给后代的是什么”。

避免大灭绝，不只是科学技术的问题，更是社会结构与日常选择的问题。

AEEA 的任务之一，就是不断揭示这一点，让看不见的破坏变得可见，让麻木的日常被重新审视。

五、金融灭绝风险：从金钱幻象到人为灾难

前面我们讨论的“四大金融骗局”，本质上都是围绕“金钱利益”的结构性安排：

它们在短期内制造了繁荣和财富幻象，却在长期里积累了巨大的系统性风险。

这种以金钱利益为核心的结构性骗局，对社会和人类都有深远危害：

• 它把人们吸引到一个“金融虚幻”的世界——数字越来越漂亮，实体基础越来越空心；

• 它让文明越来越依赖不断扩大的债务、不断抬高的资产价格、不断放大的故事和预期；

• 当幻象最终破灭时，所引发的往往不是“简单的经济调整”，而是就业、社会稳定、地缘政治、生态系统叠加的多重危机，甚至演化为人为意义上的“大灭绝触发器”。

我们必须把这种风险清晰地命名为：金融灭绝风险（Financial Extinction Risks）——

即：金融结构一旦失控，不只是“财富重分配”的问题，而是可能通过一系列连锁反应，

将人类文明推向不可逆的失衡与崩溃。



5.1 金钱幻象如何演化为灭绝级风险？

从结构角度看，前述“四大骗局”会沿着三条路径，逐步演化为大尺度风险：

1. 实体基础被长期掏空

• 自融消费 + 股份回购，让企业更关心财报和股价，而不是研发、基础设施和长期竞争力；

• 消费国–生产国结构，使关键生产与资源环节长期处于“低利润 + 高消耗”状态，缺乏可持续投资；

• 主权透支，让公共财政越来越难以为教育、医疗、环境、基础科研提供稳定支持。

结果是：当表面的金融繁荣达到顶峰时，真正支撑文明运转的“质能基础”已经被严重削弱。

2. 系统韧性被金融化侵蚀

• 当越来越多的资源投入到“赚金融差价”而不是“提升系统韧性”（粮食安全、能源安全、基础科研、防灾体系），

整个文明的抗冲击能力持续下降；

• 一旦遭遇重大外部冲击（战争、疫情、极端气候、能源中断），

社会和经济结构会比以往任何时候都更脆弱。

3. 高科技在扭曲激励下走向武器化与失控化

• 科技发展被导向“谁先武器化、谁先垄断”的竞赛，而不是“谁先降低灭绝风险”；

• 高风险科技（核、生物、AI 武器、地球工程）在金融激励和地缘博弈驱动下快速推进，

但缺乏等同强度的全球约束与审计机制。

当这三条路径叠加时，“金融幻象”不再只是账面问题，而是直接推动：

资源体系的超载、生态体系的崩塌、社会体系的极化、科技体系的失控，

共同构成了对地球生命的灭绝级威胁。



5.2 为什么这是“加速器”，而不是中性的噪音？

很多人在面对这些问题时，会说一句话：

“经济有周期、金融有泡沫，这些只是噪音，迟早会自我修复。”

但从 AEEA 的视角看，这种看法存在三个致命误判：

1. 时间尺度的误判

• 传统经济周期按 5–10 年计算，而生态退化、气候加剧、资源枯竭往往在 30–100 年尺度上累积；

• 如果每一轮金融泡沫都推动一次“更高强度的资源透支”和“更高强度的排放”，

那么在长周期上，这些并非可忽略的“噪音”，而是有方向的“加速器”。

2. 空间尺度的误判

• 金融危机表面上发生在资产市场和银行体系，

但其连锁传导会直接影响粮食供应、能源价格、公共服务稳定性，

包括发展中国家与脆弱国家的政局与生存条件。

• 对最脆弱的人群和物种而言，一次金融–经济合并危机，可能就是无法恢复的断点。

3. 技术路径的误判

• 在当前结构下，高科技更容易被用于提高金融效率、军事能力和商业垄断，

而不是用于修复生态、增强公共韧性。

• 也就是说，金融泡沫不只是伴随高科技；

它在事实上塑造了“高科技优先发展的方向”，把科技变成风险的倍增器。

因此，金融灭绝风险不是一个“抽象的道德概念”，而是一个可以被建模和度量的现实结构问题。



5.3 我们能做什么：阻止危机爆发的三条路径

在 AEEA 与 DualTrades 的联合框架下，“我们能做什么”至少可以拆成三层行动：

路径一：认知与揭示——让结构问题“被看见”

• 通过研究报告、网站内容、直观图表，把“四大骗局 + 金融灭绝风险”可视化；

• 把目前的金融结构，放到“地球生命时间轴”的视角下重新解读；

• 把“这不是小周期波动，而是累积到一定阈值可能触发系统级灾难”的逻辑讲清楚。

目的不是制造恐慌，而是：

让决策者、研究者和普通公众，

从“只看短期收益”转向“看到背后的结构成本”。

路径二：工具与指标——从批判走向可操作的约束

• 在金融与市场工具中，加入“结构风险指标”和“灭绝风险权重”：

• 主权透支指数，金融空心化指数，消费国–生产国不平衡指数；

• 高风险科技资本配置占比指数；

• 把这些指标接入到风险管理、资产配置、评级、ESG、甚至个人投资工具中，

让“减缓灭绝风险”成为可量化、可比较的目标，而不只是口号。

也就是说：

让“长期生命安全”变成一种可以进入模型、可以反馈到价格和权重的变量。

路径三：结构性重构——为正确道路提供可行理由

所谓“正确的道路”，不是抽象的道德号召，而是有现实可行性和理性激励的一条路。至少包括：

1. 把金融从“掠夺结构”转为“修复与韧性结构”的资金来源

• 提高对生存支撑型科技的资本权重（能源、粮食、水、公共卫生、生态修复）；

• 降低对纯金融工程、投机性泡沫板块的结构性偏爱；

• 以更透明的方式披露：

某项投资组合对“灭绝风险”的贡献是正向还是负向。

2. 重建生产国与消费国的“平衡账本”

• 承认生产国和资源国在全球体系中的真实贡献；

• 在贸易、汇率、税制和技术转移上，逐步修正长期“廉价供给—高价金融”的失衡结构；

• 防止某一方在长期压榨中被推至生态极限和社会崩溃边缘。

3. 为毁灭型科技设定全球红线与审计机制

• 把核武、生物工程、不可逆地球工程、失控 AI 等纳入“全球公共风控资产”；

• 要求任何对这些领域进行重大资本配置的行为，都要纳入跨国透明披露与讨论；

• 把这些风险写入国际协定和金融监管框架，而不是只放在科研伦理文件里。

这条路之所以是“正确的道路”，并不仅仅因为它“高尚”，而是因为：

从长期生存和风险收益比来看，

一个愿意正视灭绝风险、愿意重构金融激励的文明，

拥有更高的生存概率和更稳定的长期回报。



5.4 为什么这条路是理性的选择（而不是道德奢侈品）

最后需要明确的一点是：

避免大灭绝，不是奢侈道德，而是理性自保。

• 从个体和机构角度看：

一个被多次大规模金融危机、生态崩溃、战争冲击的世界，

对任何长期投资者、企业家、科研机构来说，都是最糟糕的“商业环境”。

• 从国家与文明角度看：

如果金融结构持续推动高风险科技走向武器化和失控化，

最终没有任何一方可以“全身而退”。

因此：

把“金融灭绝风险”纳入决策，

不是要放弃发展，而是要避免整个发展过程

变成一场“以灭绝为结局的大型泡沫游戏”。

AEEA 希望做的，并不是关掉金融和科技的引擎，

而是帮助人类在继续前进的同时，

把方向盘从“通往灭绝的金钱幻象”，

缓慢但坚定地，转向“守护生命的结构优化”。