That is where the humanities matter.

With humanities, you can understand

The problem with the current STEM story is not that it is wrong. It is that it is incomplete. STEM gives us powerful tools for solving technical problems. But many of the problems now facing the world are not merely technical. They are social, ethical, cultural, political and deeply human.

Artificial intelligence is the clearest example. AI can generate text, images, music, code, forecasts, summaries and decisions at astonishing speed. It can automate tasks, accelerate research and transform education, health, business and government. But AI also forces us to ask older, deeper questions:

These are not simply engineering questions. They are humanities questions. They require philosophy, history, sociology, politics, literature, ethics, communication, cultural studies, education, anthropology and the arts. They require people who can interpret, critique, listen, argue, contextualise and imagine. They require humans who know how to be human.

When AI becomes infrastructure, judgement becomes scarce

This is not a theoretical concern. We are watching AI and frontier technology move from the laboratory into the commanding heights of capital markets. SpaceX is moving towards what has been reported as a historic public offering. OpenAI has confidentially filed for a US IPO, with Reuters reporting that it may target a valuation of up to US$1 trillion. Anthropic has also confidentially filed, after a funding round reported at a valuation of US$965 billion (Reuters, 2026).

Whatever one thinks of the precise valuations, the signal is clear. AI and frontier technology are no longer specialist sectors. They are becoming civilisational infrastructure. When companies of this scale shape communication, knowledge, education, labour, defence, transport, energy and public reasoning, the question cannot be left to engineers, investors and platform owners alone.

UNESCO has made this point clearly. Its guidance on generative AI in education calls for the development of human capacity within a human-centred vision of technology, and its digital education work explicitly prioritises human agency, critical thinking and ethics among students and teachers (UNESCO, 2023; UNESCO, 2026). That sounds very much like the humanities.

The chosen ones myth

There is a quiet assumption running through much of the future-of-work conversation: that science, maths, engineering and technology graduates are the chosen ones. They are the ones who will build the future. They are the ones who will survive automation. They are the ones who will understand the systems. They are the ones who will matter.

But that is a dangerously narrow view of what the AI-powered world requires. Yes, we need technical skill. But we also need critical thinking. We need ethical reasoning. We need cultural intelligence. We need historical memory. We need social imagination. We need the capacity to communicate across difference and disagreement.

The quiet contradiction in Australian higher education

This is why Australia's treatment of the humanities in higher education remains so short-sighted. We say we want students prepared for an AI-powered world. We say we want critical thinkers, ethical leaders, agile communicators and citizens able to navigate misinformation, social fragmentation and technological disruption.

Yet under the continuing shadow of the Job-ready Graduates reforms, many humanities, society, culture and communications subjects remain among the most expensive student contribution categories.

If we genuinely believe the future requires critical thinking, civic reasoning and ethical technological development, then humanities education should not be treated as a private indulgence. It should be recognised as national capability.

A lesson from Ghana

This is one reason the Ashesi University story in Ghana is so powerful. As I discussed in the earlier post on Ashesi, its model does not begin by forcing students into narrow professional pipelines. It combines professional preparation with a broader intellectual foundation.

Ashesi's curriculum has been described as pairing a rigorous liberal arts core with undergraduate programmes in fields such as computer science, business, law and engineering. Its humanities and social sciences work includes leadership, ethics, African studies, language and communication, community service and Giving Voice to Values (Ashesi University, 2026). A World Bank case study describes how Ashesi's first two years were designed to include calculus and physics alongside economics, social science theory, writing and African studies, including history, literature, art and music. Students were also expected to learn through discussion, research, writing and presentations, while participating in leadership seminars, internships and community service (World Bank, 2020).

The scientists we need now

As someone who has spent time in the AI deep end, I do not think the future belongs only to those who can build the technology. The scientists we need now are those who can navigate the coming AI wave with a voice that stands up for being human.

We need scientists who can think critically about their own tools. We need engineers who can understand social consequences. We need technologists who can explain complexity without hiding behind jargon. We need data scientists who can ask where the data came from, who is missing from it, and what harm can be done when numbers are treated as neutral. We need AI developers who can ask not only whether a model works, but whether it should be used.

And we need humanities scholars, teachers, writers, artists, philosophers and communicators who are willing to enter the technological conversation rather than stand outside it. The future does not need STEM versus humanities. It needs a better version of both.

A stem-cell reboot of STEM

Perhaps what CSIRO should do next is a kind of stem-cell reboot of STEM. Not a rejection of STEM. A regeneration of it. A version of STEM founded not only on technical competence, but also on critical thinking, reason, ethics and community. A version of STEM that does not treat humanities as decorative or secondary. A version of STEM that recognises that every technology enters a human world.

Every algorithm shapes behaviour. Every platform changes relationships. Every automation redistributes power. Every scientific breakthrough raises questions of access, justice, trust and meaning.

The humanities are not the opposite of science

One of the great mistakes in education is to treat STEM and humanities as opposing tribes. STEM is framed as practical, rigorous and future-focused. Humanities are framed as interesting, expressive and perhaps personally enriching, but less useful. This is wrong.

The humanities are rigorous. They train students to read carefully, question assumptions, evaluate evidence, understand context, build arguments and recognise complexity. They teach people to notice what is being said, what is being left unsaid, who is speaking, who is silenced, and why it matters.

Roy Casagranda has argued that critical thinking is not a decorative educational extra, but a foundation for societies capable of renewal (Casagranda, 2025). Timothy Snyder's work makes a parallel democratic point: societies remain free not simply through institutions, but through truth, historical memory, public language, factuality and solidarity (Snyder, 2017; Snyder, 2024). That is not a soft skill. That is disciplined human judgement — and in an AI-powered world, it may become one of the most valuable capabilities we have.

When answers are automated, questions matter more

Generative AI has changed the status of answers. For a long time, education rewarded students for producing answers: essays, reports, calculations, summaries, explanations and presentations. Now machines can produce many of those outputs instantly. That does not make learning irrelevant. It makes the quality of human questioning more important.

These are precisely the habits of mind the humanities have always cultivated.

Sure, with STEM you can

So yes: with STEM you can. But with humanities, you can understand. You can understand people. You can understand power. You can understand culture. You can understand truth claims. You can understand history. You can understand ethical consequences. You can understand why the most efficient solution is not always the most human one.

And perhaps most importantly, you can understand that the future should not be something handed down by those with the most technical power. It should be something discussed, questioned, challenged and shaped by all of us.