UNGA 79: Not Your Grandparent’s UN

SUMMIT OF THE FUTURE A TURNING POINT FOR THE GLOBAL GOALS

SDG 16

DEMOCRACIES MUST FIRST LOOK INWARD

SDGS 4&8

REIMAGINING LEARNING, DEGREES, AND CLASSROOMS

SDGS 9&10

PURPOSE AND WISDOM IN THE AGE OF AI

MASTHEAD

CEO & PUBLISHER

ANA C. ROLD

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

SHANE SZARKOWSKI

ART DIRECTOR

MARC GARFIELD

MULTIMEDIA MANAGER

WHITNEY DEVRIES

EDITORS

JEREMY FUGLEBERG

MELISSA METOS

BOOK REVIEWER

JOSHUA HUMINSKI

OPERATIONS COORDINATOR BEKI ADAMS

PHOTOGRAPHER

MARCELLUS MCINTOSH

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

ANDREW M. BEATO FUMBI CHIMA KERSTIN COATES

DANTE A. DISPARTE

SIR IAN FORBES

LISA GABLE

GREG LEBEDEV

ANITA MCBRIDE

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

EILEEN ACKLEY NIKOS ACUÑA

ANDREA BONIME-BLANC

JOHN GABLE

CAMILLE STEWART GLOSTER

JON GREGORY

JAKE HIRSCH-ALLEN

GREGORY HOUSTON TAYLOR KENDAL

JANE MANN

ALEXANDER NICHOLAS

AIDA RIDANOVIC

STACEY ROLLAND

EUAN WILMSHURST

Copyright© by Diplomatic CourierTM and Medauras Global Publishing 2024. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Medauras Global and Diplomatic Courier.

LEGAL NOTICE. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form—except brief excerpts for the purpose of review—without written consent from the publisher and authors. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication; however, the authors, Diplomatic Courier, and Medauras Global make no warranties, express or implied, in regards to the information and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions.

EDITORIAL. The content represents the views of their authors and do not reflect those of the editors and the publishers. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication, however, Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier make no warranties, express or implied in regards to the information, and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions.

CITATIONS & SOURCES. All articles in this special edition have already been or will be published on the Diplomatic Courier website, including relevant hyperlink citations.

PERMISSIONS. This publication cannot be reproduced without the permission of the authors and the publisher. For permissions please email: info@medauras.com with your written request.

ARTWORK. Cover design via AdobeStock. Artwork and design by Marc Garfield for Diplomatic Courier.

How might

you

work with others to help unlock impact at scale?

Tackling the interconnected challenges of climate change and social inequality requires systemic change. By joining forces with other like-minded organizations, we can achieve together what no one organization could achieve alone. Join us on the journey to accelerating progress toward the SDGS. #EYRipples

Welcome

Ana C. Rold CEO & Publisher

“We can’t build a future for our children with a system built for our grandparents,” says UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on the home page of the UN’s Summit of the Future website. For years, critics of the United Nations have argued that the organization is trying to solve 21st century challenges with a mindset from the post-WWII era.

Some of the criticism is certainly warranted. The UN of 79 years ago is not fully equipped to handle an era of exponential technological growth and disruption. It was barely a decade ago that the UN started to truly embrace other stakeholders into solution-making. That wasn’t always the case and the UN wasn’t as welcoming to the private sector and other actors the way it is now. The Sustainable Development Goals’ predecessors— the Millennium Development Goals—were to be solved by member states and ministries. Now, the SDGs are everyone’s business.

The UN has worked hard to bring about reform that is commensurate with our times. But what is needed is transformation. Despite its critics it still endures as the only organization all nations turn to whether we need to air grievances or unite in solidarity in the international arena. No other organization has quite the membership and the convening

power that the UN General Assembly does— even ones that purport to be more powerful. So, despite the warranted criticism about a system that belongs in the past, there is none other that can bring all nations together to produce consensus the way the UN does.

This is why we have been avid followers of UNGA and high-level side events for almost two decades now. This year is even more special because the UN Summit of the future resonates strongly with our future-forward team at both Diplomatic Courier and World in 2050 where we research major trends of our century. Other UN high-level meetings this year have brought us closer than ever to agreeing how to manage the rise of AI without resorting to a race to the bottom. Our own events at the SDG Media Zone at the UN Headquarters will look to advance SDGs 4, 8, 9, 10, and 16.

This September, world leaders will convene to adopt the Pact for the Future, which will include a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations as annexes. Will this be the turning point that will usher a UN that serves our children’s future? The pressure will be on for the world’s foremost organization to prove that on its 79th birthday it is no longer our grandparent’s UN.

United Nations University Knowledge to Transform the World

United Nations University

Photo: Nicholas Doherty/Unsplash

I How the UN’s Summit of the Future could be a turning point for global diplomacy | By: David Steven

SDG 16: peace, justice, and strong institutions 14 I Facing threats, democracies must first look inward By: Jeremy Fugleberg and Shane C. Szarkowski

18 I Toward a new taxonomy on threats to democracy By: Shane C. Szarkowski

22 I Misinformation and hyper division, democracy’s biggest threat and opportunity By: John Gable

26 I Education is key to any strategy to preserve and nurture democracy By: Camille Stewart Gloster

28 I Culture as ideology puts democracy at risk By: Gregory Houston

30 I Democracy under threat: a crisis of confidence By: Jon Gregory 32 I Bolstering resilience in diverse democratic frameworks By: Eileen Ackley

SDGs 4 & 9: quality Education Decent Work and Economic Growth 36 I Teaching learners to thrive now, so they can thrive later By: Melissa Metos and Shane C. Szarkowski

I Reimagining the classroom By: Alexander Nicholas 44 I Despite progress, more to be done on transforming education By: Euan Wilmshurst 46 I Vision easy, implementation tough for education transformation By: Jane Mann 48 I Degrees wane, skills wax By: Jake Hirsch–Allen

I Finance shortfalls, digital divide hinder education transformation By: Aida Ridanovic

SDGs 9 & 10: industry, innovation, and infrastructure reduced inequalities

54 I Healthier digital ecosystems via provenance, transparency By: Melissa Metos and Shane C. Szarkowski

58 I Digital dharma: Toward purpose and wisdom in the age of AI By: Taylor Kendal

62 I Democratize AI by decentralizing the marketplace By: Stacey Rolland

64 I What OpenAI teaches us about fixing the tech culture divide By: Andrea Bonime–Blanc

66 I How universal intelligence unlocks sovereignty and economic growth By: Nikos Acuña

UNGA 79: UN SUMMIT OF THE FUTURE

How the UN’s Summit of the Future could be a turning point for global diplomacy

By David Steven

As part of a monumental effort to reset global cooperation, the United Nations will host hundreds of world leaders, policymakers, experts, and advocates in September at the Summit of the Future. The ultimate goal: To rethink what multilateralism means in a rapidly changing world. Drawing on a new paper he co-authored, UN Foundation Senior Fellow David Steven outlines why—and how—to seize this moment to engage everyday citizens at the UN and beyond.

Choose a country—any country— and you will likely find the same trends: Trust in public institutions is plummeting, wealth inequality is on the rise, and societies are increasingly polarized.

If nothing else, citizens of the world are united behind one grim truth: The status quo is failing us all.

That’s why the stakes for the UN’s Summit of the Future are high. Simultaneously hailed as a once-in-a-generation opportunity and criticized for being the right summit at the wrong time, this high-level event in New York City is expected to produce not one, but three international frameworks: the Pact for the Future (currently available as a zero draft), the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations.

But what can the Summit deliver that will continue to resonate in five to 10 years? Some transformational proposals can easily

be spotted in the working texts of each document. For example, the Emergency Platform, if approved, is likely to play a central role when triggered by the next global shock on the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic or the 2008 economic meltdown.

Other promising developments are more subtle, such as the opportunity to use the Summit as a platform for deepening the engagement of citizens in international cooperation. In its current draft, the Pact for the Future is less ambitious on this topic than the 2030 Agenda or the declaration that marked the UN’s 75th anniversary in 2020.

But as I, along with my co-authors, argue in a new challenge paper, Strengthening Citizen Participation in Global Governance, launched in partnership with Blue Smoke Alliance, the Iswe Foundation, Plataforma CIPÓ, and Southern Voice, there is still time for this to be fixed:

“The zero draft of the Pact promises ‘a new beginning in international cooperation,’ based

THE STAKES FOR THE UN’S SUMMIT OF THE FUTURE ARE

HIGH. SIMULTANEOUSLY HAILED AS A ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION OPPORTUNITY AND CRITICIZED FOR BEING

THE RIGHT SUMMIT AT THE WRONG TIME.

on a foundation of renewed trust between people and the institutions that represent them.

But in a Pact that promises concrete action, there are as yet few practical commitments to increasing engagement. As negotiations continue, member states should take the opportunity provided by the Summit to support and invest in frameworks that take the active participation of citizens onto a new level.

Looking beyond the Summit, the UN’s 80th anniversary, the World Social Summit, the selection of the next Secretary-General, and the replacement of the 2030 Agenda present opportunities to entrench participation.”

We the Peoples 2.0

Citizen engagement is not a new concern for the multilateral system. As its Charter proclaims, the UN was launched in the name of “We the Peoples” and made early attempts to understand what citizens needed from the new institution in the aftermath of World War II. The UN was also ahead of its time in the way it communicated with people about its role as a platform for global cooperation.

More recently, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were informed by a “global conversation” with over 1 million people, while the 75th anniversary of the UN (dubbed UN75) also explored what people want the international system to deliver.

This translated into commitments to engage citizens more effectively within the UN. In the 2030 Agenda, world leaders declared that the SDGs would be successful only if they were “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” They also promised to debate implementation of the UN75 commitments with their citizens as part of a more inclusive approach to multilateralism.

With half the world’s population under the age of 30, leaders have been especially keen to emphasize listening to and working with young people — inviting them, in the words of the 2030 Agenda, to “channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world.”

Avoiding the Seven Sins of Citizen Engagement

Unfortunately, citizen engagement is often poorly executed. In the challenge paper, we explore what happens when the international system reaches out to people in an ad hoc and unstrategic way, identifying what we call the seven sins of citizen participation. Engaging in tokenistic practices, asking questions that are too broad, not giving people a chance to deliberate, and resorting to “benign manipulation” that can push a process toward a preordained end are some of the most common missteps that undermine effective citizen engagement.

We also draw a contrast with the involvement of experts and the private sector. Not only are they engaged far more often (and with more generous budgets), but there has also been impressive institutional innovation to systematize their engagement. Think of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has enabled scientists from around the world to inform climate policy, or the Global Compact, which Kofi Annan set up for businesses when he was UN Secretary-General.

At a time of deep crisis and growing polarization, my co-authors and I believe that this is a time for Member States to be similarly ambitious in making people partners in the international system. As our challenge paper

argues, structures to deepen engagement can build trust as well as inform more farsighted decision-making.

The paper recommends ways in which the international system can get the basics right by using polling more strategically, mobilizing people behind global goals, and enabling a greater diversity of civil society organizations to play a full role in international forums. But this is also a time for innovation, during a period when a deliberative wave has demonstrated new ways of allowing citizens to address complex challenges. Much of the experimentation has been at national and local levels, but the international system is beginning to catch up.

Take the first Global Citizens’ Assembly, which was held ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow known as COP26 and brought together citizens from 49 countries selected by a lottery to ensure they were representative of the global population. UN Secretary-General António Guterres hailed this as “a practical way of showing how we can accelerate action through solidarity and people power.”

From Rhetoric to Reality: Establishing a Global Citizens’ Assembly

In the challenge paper, we argue that next time the Secretary-General or his successor brings together a high-level panel or other

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD ARE UNITED BEHIND ONE GRIM TRUTH: THE STATUS QUO IS FAILING US ALL.

expert body to advise on policy, he should ask a Global Citizens’ Assembly to explore the same set of questions.

For COP26, the core assembly was supported by discussions in community assemblies around the world. This offers a model for the UN’s 80th anniversary in 2025, building on and improving the global conversation held for UN75, and for the World Social Summit that is also planned for next year.

With time and investment, a permanent deliberative body could be established, providing a sustainable and legitimate voice for citizens in global governance. That is most likely to happen if the Pact for the Future strengthens the UN’s commitment to listening to and working with the world’s citizens — and promises to explore new and effective ways of facilitating engagement.

The Summit of the Future would then be remembered for helping to turn the rhetoric about inclusive multilateralism into reality.

About the author: David Steven is a senior fellow at the UN Foundation.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published by the UN Foundation. Republished with permission.

1. Institutions

Image via Adobe Stock.

Facing threats, democracies must first look inward

By Jeremy Fugleberg and Shane C. Szarkowski

This report was compiled from a collective intelligence gathering of World in 2050’s (W2050) Senior Fellows. The meeting took place under the Chatham House Rule, so specific ideas will not be directly attributed to any specific Fellow. W2050 Senior Fellows attending were: Thomas Garrett, Joshua Huminski, Christopher Karwacki, Bernhard Kowatsch, and Ian Ralby. Also present were W2050 Executive Director Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski and Editor Jeremy Fugleberg.

Parthenon in Athens, Greece. Image by Emy Nguyen from Unsplash.

There is much talk globally about the wide range of external pressures that are harming democratic institutions. Yet it can be difficult to discern whether the pain points of democratic institutions are caused by those pressures, or whether they are symptomatic of a broader systemic decline in institutions themselves. Members of W2050’s Senior Fellows Committee on Societal and Governance Institutions met in April to discuss the challenges currently faced by democracy, what is or is not working, and potential steps to take to respond to those threats.

The threats democracies face

This should be a year to celebrate democracy. There are more elections taking place this year than at any point in history, leading to the dubbing of 2024 as a “super election year.” Yet this year also highlights the pressures that democracies face. To be fair, democracy as a concept is by its nature always under some degree of threat, and by extension, so are democracies. Just like any political system in history, it can potentially fall prey to other ideologies. And like all political ideologies, democracy nurtures the seeds of its own destruction. In the case of democracies, they generally include a built–in function of harboring and even platforming dissenters, which can use that platform to take down the system that has sustained them—sometimes with externally fueled support.

Yet this moment in history is a uniquely troubling one, and it comes with a broad range of challenges for democracies. The polycrisis, as it is known, is a conflagration of historic proportions, although opinions differ on what makes it up. Some primary elements include worsening climate change, rising economic inequality, spiking geopolitical tensions including faceoffs between nuclear powers, and the explosion of artificial intelligence. This battery of challenges provides a unique range of pressures on both established and nascent democracies, powering external threats and elevating internal conflicts. In addition, the global spread and density of communication, whether via social media, messaging or news

ELECTIONS AREN’T ENOUGH. DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL IDENTITY NEEDS A REVAMP, A RESTORATION OF SEEING DEMOCRACY IS EMBLEMATIC OF FORM, NOT FUNCTION.

media, has laid bare the shortcomings of democracies, which by design foster access to information that highlights what is working in other political systems, and underlines what is not working within democracies themselves. Combined with extant pressures, this awareness can shift from providing fuel for reform to providing combustion for open conflict and systemic change.

How are democracies reacting?

The tenor and effectiveness of democracies’ responses to these challenges are varied. Some democracies have proven to be sclerotic, unfocused, self–sabotaging, and/ or impotent in the arena of ideas. Others have been more successful in actively resisting these pressures and even championing what makes democracy truly meaningful to those in the polity.

Some established democracies are wallowing, failing to differentiate or prioritize the internal challenges they face, undermining their ability to respond to those challenges. Often populations in democracies are demanding change, fueled by what they see via the global high–information media environment: other countries, other political systems, are more responsive or better at meeting the needs of their citizens.

Others are losing sight of and faith in what democracy even is anymore. The devolution of the definition of democracy from function to form has sapped faith in its power and gives challengers room to undercut it even further. Democracy has for many no longer

become a political ideology crucial to a secure place in international society or crucial to sustain global peace. This kind of definitional erosion has contributed to the erosion of democracy inside numerous countries, such as Guatemala, Pakistan, and Poland. In these states, some political parties seek advantage by setting up barriers to free and fair elections, while still seeking to present themselves as supporters of political systems that are increasingly democratic in form, through the holding of elections, not functionally responsive to their citizens’ needs.

Not all democracies are failing to understand the moment. The Solomon Islands, for example, is a nascent democracy struggling due to strong external pressure from China, as it seeks to strengthen its hand against the United States and its allies in the Indo–Pacific region. Yet this is a cautionary tale, because seeing a problem and being able to build resilience against that problem are not the same. The Solomon Islands can clearly see China’s pressure campaign, but doesn’t itself have the resources to counteract it without much-needed support from democratic allies. Those allies might have the resources to act—and in this case, provide crucial aid to the Islands—but have so far failed to realize the existential nature of the moment.

The main question remains: Are these reactions a harbinger of global democratic decline? Democracies find themselves at a precarious moment. How they respond to the challenges they face in the coming months and years will determine their fate.

Priorities for renewing the resilience of democracy

Build resilience to meet the moment: Guard against internal institutional decline by focusing on systemic weaknesses. Get laser focused on institutional health. Look to good governance principles for a roadmap for mending and strengthening internal institutional responsiveness and accountability—the most important measure of whether a government is working to meet the growing and evolving needs of its citizens.

Repair and refresh what it means to be a democracy: Elections aren’t enough. Democracy as a political identity needs a revamp, a restoration of seeing democracy is emblematic of form, not function. It is simply not sufficient to hold elections, if the democracies lack or dispose of good, responsive governance for its voters.

Reject the false “stability versus democracy” dilemma: Amid the polycrisis, stability can be a powerful goal. Yet stability is not in itself a political system—it is an outcome that can be obtained many different ways—so a “stability versus democracy” framing is false and misleading. Systems that prioritize stability may achieve some appearance of stability, but often only look stable, as they lack the democratic resilience of truly responsive governance.

Inhabit the reality of democracy as a global value: Democracy does not belong to the West. Non-Western democracies are often taking the lead in the global ideological arena and are crucial partners in the battle against the rising tide of authoritarianism.

See, then act: It is not sufficient to only observe where the problems lie; seeing is just a crucial first step. Democracies must also enhance their ability to act on pain points. Less resilient or nascent democracies might have the ability to see and understand existential threats, but don’t have the ability to appropriately respond. Mature democracies who can see an act must take care of their own house but also look to aid less–capable democracies.

About the authors:

Jeremy Fugleberg is an editor at Diplomatic Courier.

Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski is Editor–in–Chief of Diplomatic Courier and the Executive Director of World in 2050.

Where nations connect

Effective diplomacy requires influence and in DC’s international circles no place says influence like the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Whether an economic summit, trade negotiation or a private diplomatic affair, our international trade experts and expansive network of leaders enable embassies and governments to amplify their message and strengthen their impact, locally and globally. Expand your reach. Grow your influence with us.

Toward a new taxonomy on threats to democracy

By Shane C. Szarkowski

Image by Melanie from Pixabay

There’s a general consensus that democracy is in crisis, but there’s no consensus on what that means. What are the threats to democracy? How dangerous are they? Where are they rising?

Helping the future of democracy arrive well

Our conversations about how to address the crisis in democracy often ignore our own assumptions and those of others, and that’s a big blind spot. One purpose of the Future of Democracy Forum (FOD), hosted by Community of Democracies and Diplomatic Courier, was to unpack those assumptions as part of a collective intelligence exercise.

Attendees worked in groups carefully curated to ensure maximum diversity of experience and perspective. Groups included youth, ambassadors, former government officials, private sector leaders, entrepreneurs, military veterans—all united by their desire to see the future of democracy flourish. This created a welcoming space for attendees to unpack and discuss their assumptions about challenges to democracy and get truly unique feedback and alternate perspectives.

After FOD, World in 2050 staff collated those findings to pull out more connections and trends. While we are still producing a report on those findings, we’ve already identified some interesting takeaways. The report itself will be highly visual, because the process was as well. Furthering that theme, the report will also include a mini–digital exhibition— curated with International Arts & Artists— reflecting on democracy at a crossroads, with artist commentary.

Re–examining challenges to democracy, today and beyond

FOD attendees mapped what they considered to be challenges to democracy on a four–quadrant grid,

GROUPS IDENTIFIED MORE INTERNAL CHALLENGES THAN EXTERNAL, BUT WERE MORE WORRIED ABOUT EXTERNAL. NEARLY A THIRD OF EXTERNAL THREATS WERE CLUSTERED IN THE HIGHEST RANKING THREAT CATEGORY.

where the x–axis was a scale of how likely a challenge was to disrupt democracy and the y–axis was a scale of how great an impact that challenge could have on our democratic institutions. Participants also indicated whether they considered this an internal challenge, one within our societies and democratic institutions, or whether it arises externally, one outside of our societies and institutions, for example a bad actor. Here are some of the initial takeaways from the report.

Economic wellbeing was a less acute challenge than we expected. Challenges related to inequality and poverty figured in group conversations. Yet groups tended to cluster these challenges as either being not critically likely to erode our democratic institutions, or as likely to have low–to–moderate impacts.

‘Internal threats’ to democracy largely seem to arise from the citizenry lacking certain ‘competencies of citizenry.’ There were wide–ranging conversations among the groups about failures in education and the need for alternative literacies like civic literacy, societal literacy, and digital literacy to remedy our internal societal ills.

Groups identified more internal challenges than external, but were more worried about external. Nearly a third of external threats were clustered

in the highest ranking threat category. More than double the number of internal threats were identified, but fewer than a quarter of them were mapped to the highest ranking threat category.

The internal–external divide is complicated. Some challenges can be both—consider misinformation. A lot of misinformation is produced by domestic interests pursuing their own ends. A lot also comes from external actors hostile to our democratic institutions. Yet our vulnerability in both cases comes from the same, internal, challenges.

Tech–based challenges were on people’s minds, but not a major source of anxiety. When mapped out, groups largely placed these challenges in the low–to–moderate end of the spectrum in both likelihood and potential impact. This seems to indicate at least guarded optimism that we’re on the right path to solving these challenges.

About the author: Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski is Editor–in–Chief of Diplomatic Courier and the Executive Director of World in 2050.

Editor’s Note: The Future of Democracy Forum was hosted by Community of Democracies and Diplomatic Courier. Convening partners included the Center for International Private Enterprise, the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, International Art & Artists, and William & Mary’s Whole of Government Center of Excellence.

The report was under production at the time of this writing and takeaways are preliminary. You can find the full, final proceedings report online here.

THE WORLD MEETS AT THE WILLARD.

For more details or to make a reservation, please call 202.628.9100 or visit washington.intercontinental.com

D.C’s landmark hotel combines a sense of history and contemporary luxury with worldclass hospitality. Discerning guests from around the world enjoy the legendary Round Robin Bar, classic French fare at Café du Parc and the Willard’s elegant guest rooms and meeting spaces. This hotel was built to impress. In over 170 locations across the globe including HONG KONG • LONDON • NEW

Misinformation and hyper division, democracy’s biggest threat and opportunity

By John Gable

Photo by Dean Oliver from Unsplash.

When you get in a room with leaders across the world and across disciplines, you don’t expect much agreement. But this time, we found a major agreement.

The place: The Future of Democracy Forum at the historic Patterson Mansion in Washington, DC.

The time: The eve of the NATO Leaders Summit in Washington, DC, 8 July 2024.

The people: Co–hosted by Diplomatic Courier and the Community of Democracies with a wide diversity of 50–60 carefully selected leaders and experts from NATO, military, government, academia, NGOs, international orgs, corporations, and technology.

After some background presentations, we broke into eight groups to identify the top threats to democracies around the world, and prioritize them with an eye towards the ones that are the most likely to happen.

Each of the eight groups listed as a top concern, if not the top concern, the social breakdown of our democratic societies internally.

It was not the risk of military action or economic peril or hunger or want or disease or other very real threats. We were all extremely concerned with the breakdown of democratic societies. Not everyone described it the same way, but it all boiled down to that.

Within democracies worldwide, the divisions have gotten so intense that we are losing our ability to work with or tolerate each other. It is not that we disagree, but that I think you are evil because we disagree politically and I won’t work with you even when we agree. The technical name for this is affective polarization.

WITHIN DEMOCRACIES WORLDWIDE, THE DIVISIONS HAVE GOTTEN SO INTENSE THAT WE ARE LOSING OUR ABILITY TO WORK WITH OR TOLERATE EACH OTHER.

Sometimes this breakdown comes internally, either by bad actors or misguided true believers (often from opposing parties). Sometimes it happens by accident, like how our technologies have been used in ways that make us more tribal, less rational, and pit us against each other. Sometimes it is driven by external bad actors—that kind of attack is less risky and potentially more effective than direct military action.

When democracies are weak, dangerous authoritarian groups are free to do what they please. It makes it easier to attack through military action or dishonest diplomacy. Human rights abuses go unopposed. Regimes that cause great suffering more easily profit and grow.

Technology, in its current state (which can be changed), is the latest driver of this. We now communicate and interact in ways that put us into filter bubbles of like–minded people and ideas, training us to be more extreme and suspicious of others. Those people are not just wrong but evil, and we must stop at nothing to stop them.

This is exacerbated by the business models of today’s social media, search engines, news media, and now AI that make more money if you like them, agree with them and click more, driving ad revenue and subscriptions. Politicians use the same formula, often called identity politics, to get contributions and votes.

Pessimists will say that human nature is to be tribal, emotionally reactive and

FOR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES TO FLOURISH,

THEY ARE WELL INFORMED AND APPRECIATIVE OF EACH OTHER, EACH OTHER’S RIGHTS, AND EACH OTHER’S HUMANITY. THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONVERSE, DISAGREE, GET ANGRY, AND FEEL AFFECTION FOR EACH OTHER.

distrustful of other groups. We are wired that way, and these new technologies have become so good at manipulating us that there is not much we can do about it.

Optimists will note that technologies can be used for good or for bad. While humans are wired to be tribal, we are also wired to connect, and technology can be used to increase connection, not reduce it or replace it. Humans yearn for real connection.

Optimists will also point out that education and community have long raised humanity above our most base desires. Healthy democratic communities are not driven by hate, fear, and ignorance, but by concern for each other and hope for a better future.

The current status quo is depriving us of some core human needs. Everyone is feeling this pain. People are pushing back.

This gives us the opportunity to change course.

Regular, average people want connection and a more stable society, and they are

realizing that the way to get there is to get out of hate–inducing filter bubbles.

This is where democracies win. In democratic societies, people are the ultimate authority. For democratic societies to flourish, they are well informed and appreciative of each other, each other’s rights, and each other’s humanity. They have the freedom and opportunity to converse, disagree, get angry, and feel affection for each other.

It’s not always pretty. As Winston Churchill cited (but did not originate), “democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Faced with the worldwide decline in freedom and the suffering, violence and death that are generated by authoritarian regimes, our path is clear.

Peace, safety and wellbeing require democratic systems, and democratic systems require healthy, vibrant democratic societies. A top priority must be to reinvigorate democratic societies everywhere.

About the author: John Gable is Co–founder and CEO of AllSides Technologies, Inc, which combats bias, misinformation and social division to reinvigorate democratic societies.

Education is key to any strategy to preserve and nurture democracy

By Camille Stewart Gloster

Photo by Yan Krukau from Pexels.

Rapidly advancing information and communication technologies have provided economic opportunity, new platforms for civic mobilization, and the dissemination of news and commentary. Yet they are also subject to censorship, surveillance, and exploitation by antidemocratic forces. As we grapple with how to nurture and preserve democracy in the digital age, the discussion often turns to technology’s impact on democratic institutions, collective understanding, communication, and trust. That often means supporting or regulating tech companies to help ensure their impact on essential democratic institutions doesn’t undermine democracy. That is an important area of work as is identifying and mitigating malicious attacks on democracy of all kinds. One area of engagement often overlooked is education.

To empower people to adapt to the changes technology is causing in our societal dynamics and the resulting conflicting priorities, we must invest in evolving education to meet the moment. What are the skills needed? Cyber skills, critical thinking, coping skills, renewed investment in civic education.

Cyber skills. The U.S. 2023 National Cyber Workforce and Education strategy demonstrates that foundational cyber skills must become universal like reading and math. Foundational cyber skills consist of three components:

• Digital literacy: The cognitive and technical skills needed to use information and technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information.

• Computational literacy: The ability to consume information and use applications and systems to: analyze data, draw conclusions, and solve problems; safely, ethically, and securely interact in networked environments; and understand how computing, data, and connectivity affects society.

• Digital resilience: The awareness, skills, agility, and confidence to be empowered users of new technologies and adapt to changing digital skill demands.

Critical Thinking. Critical Thinking is the foundation of science and a liberal democratic society. The skill, for example, is unfortunately not taught well in schools across America. We must invest in teaching critical thinking to enable individuals to participate in democratic life—weighing options, taking alternative views into consideration, and gathering information to make informed and reasoned decisions.

Coping skills. Critical thinking skills must be paired with the ability to adapt and adjust to new information that tests preconceived notions. Equipping citizens to cope with new information that may alter or upend what they believe is critical to effectively navigating an environment where overwhelm and stress from the sheer volume of information are shown to have physical, mental, and emotional impacts on adults and adolescents alike.

Civic education. Reinvigorating civics for all ages is essential in a moment where trust in democratic institutions is waning and attacks on democracy grow. All Americans need to understand the fundamentals of our democratic republic and their role in sustaining it. Teaching civic education in the context of technology provides context that might engage and interest generations of citizens that largely feel disenfranchised and disillusioned.

Education is not a quick fix but an investment in the long–term sustainability of democracy. Whether we’re looking at mature democracies or nascent democracies, adapting education to better equip citizens of all ages to meaningfully engage and develop a sense of civic identity will help nurture and preserve democracy.

About the author: Camille Stewart Gloster is the CEO and Principal for CAS Strategies, LLC and served as the first Deputy National Cyber Director, Technology & Ecosystem Security 2022 to 2024.

Culture as ideology puts democracy at risk

By Gregory Houston

Photo by Patrick Robert Doyle from Unsplash.

The challenges of today’s ‘polycrisis’— economic instability, environmental threats, and geopolitical competition—are unprecedented, and are straining both established and nascent democracies. Historically, bad–acting governments under economic, environmental, geopolitical, and other critical pressures have sought to quell resulting internal dissent, adding further pressure to nascent democracies. Often, they resort to cultural destruction and delegitimization combined with the systemic manipulation of educational systems to undermine social cohesion, collective memory, and critical thinking. We in the U.S. have long felt these tools of democratic suppression and ideological control were too distant, too foreign to take root. Yet especially in a time of polycrisis they can, and will, if we are complacent about our own commitment to democracy.

Cultural destruction and manipulation

Bad–acting governments have long used cultural destruction and manipulation to undermine democratic values and stifle dissent. By erasing cultural heritage through actions such as destroying cultural sites, these actors aim to weaken a population’s collective identity and historical consciousness. This tactic is evident in various authoritarian regimes where tangible and intangible culture is destroyed, and historical narratives rewritten to align with the ruling party’s ideology. This serves not only as a physical erasure of history but also as a psychological tool to demoralize and control the minority.

Manipulation of culture in weaker democracies often extends to media and education systems. Governments can control information flow, censor dissenting voices, and propagate state–approved narratives. This stifles critical thinking, making citizens less likely to question authority. The suppression of academic freedom and a free press are clear indicators of this strategy. By controlling cultural and educational institutions, governments can shape public perception and maintain their grip on power even in times of great instability. Governments of mature democracies can

occasionally be tempted by these tactics too, to varying degrees.

Education and critical thinking as tools of resistance and resilience

In contrast, education and critical thinking are powerful tools to counteract these subversive and suppressive practices. Education is the backbone of an informed population capable of critical analysis and independent thought, one able to recognize and resist manipulation. Critical thinking skills enable citizens to question official narratives, seek out alternative sources of information, and engage in meaningful dialogue about their society’s direction.

Promoting education that emphasizes critical thinking, historical awareness, and media literacy is essential for the health of democracies. Doing so can empower young people to value their history and recognize attempts at manipulation. Additionally, actively supporting independent media and academia ensures a diversity of perspectives is explored and expressed without consequence.

In the U.S., the banning of books and the suppression of expression on college campuses are alarming trends. These actions mirror the tactics of cultural destruction and manipulation used by authoritarian regimes to undermine established systems. Both the left and the right share responsibility for these domestic threats.

To safeguard democracy globally, the U.S. must first safeguard its own. Citizens from across the political spectrum must unite to promote education and diverse cultural exposure. When education, culture, and the arts—the bastions of free thought and critical inquiry—become arenas for ideological battles, the very foundation of the world’s oldest democracy is at risk.

About the author: Gregory Houston is the President and CEO of International Arts & Artists.

Democracy under threat: a crisis of confidence

By Jon Gregory

Photo by Arifur Rahman on Unsplash

Democracy is in a temporary state of decline, but it is not necessarily in a permanent state of decline—nor is it experiencing an existential crisis. Like globalization, democracy has reached maturity. This is a natural outgrowth of the global transition from a bipolar to a unipolar and now a multipolar world. The fact remains that there are dozens more democracies and fewer non–democratic societies in the world than 50 years ago.

What is occurring within the community of democracies is as much a crisis of confidence as it is a decline of democracy.

There is little doubt that democracy is facing an era of significant threats. Externally, the 2009 global recession, the 2020 Covid–19 pandemic, climate change disasters, military conflicts, disinformation, great power politics and the rise of authoritarianism have been or are threats to democracies. Internally, democratic societies are struggling to handle disruptions caused by technology, social media, diversity, political polarization, weak education, lack of opportunity, and income inequality. Both sets of threats are undermining confidence in democracies.

Democracy has been under threat and in decline for over a decade and the trend is concerning. However, beneath the surface are some important variables that put the current situation in perspective. While imperfect and nascent democracies have experienced backsliding, a new class of nations, largely in the global south, have become more free. This year, more than 60 countries representing nearly half the world’s population will hold elections and populations continue to demand human rights and equality, spur young people to become civically engaged, and generate strong election turnout.

Democracies need to promote their built–in advantages. Democracies are more prosperous and have better living

INTERNALLY, DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES ARE STRUGGLING TO HANDLE DISRUPTIONS CAUSED BY TECHNOLOGY, SOCIAL MEDIA, DIVERSITY, POLITICAL POLARIZATION, WEAK EDUCATION, LACK OF OPPORTUNITY, AND INCOME INEQUALITY.

standards than authoritarian regimes— the Group of Seven nations alone hold almost 50% percent of global wealth. By contrast, authoritarian regimes attempt to offer prosperity through efficiency, undermining prosperity in the long–run.

Democratic nations need to demonstrate why they outperform authoritarian governments. This includes protecting individual rights, addressing disruptive factors such as technology, global security, trade and climate change, liberalizing representation in societies by expanding local control, and setting consequences for non–democratic behavior by authoritarian regimes.

In the end, what’s needed is a better explanation of democracy’s value proposition and the key elements of a new social contract with citizens. In doing so, the democracies of the world should gain greater confidence that they can halt the current backsliding and expand the 20th century democracy movement that they helped to create.

About the author: Jon Gregory is Senior Vice President at Yorktown Solutions, a foreign–affairs advisory firm in Washington, DC.

Bolstering resilience in diverse democratic frameworks

By Eileen Ackley

2024 NATO Summit in Washington. Photo courtesy of NATO.

For those of us who follow world news, there’s one alarming theme that is especially prevalent today. Most of us are avid consumers of world news. Whether it be Chinese espionage on U.S. industries and implementing disinformation on our political campaigns, Venezuela’s domestic political corruption, or Russia’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine, all involve democracies under attack. However, there is an essential differentiating factor, discussed at Diplomatic Courier’s recent Future of Democracy Forum (FOD), that often goes unrecognized when identifying international threats. That is, democracies vary in resiliency in ways that correlate with where they fall on the spectrum of mature or nascent development of democratic institutions. As a result of these differentials, nations become more or less susceptible to attack and require varying types of support to bolster democratic resilience.

Notwithstanding periods of domestic instability and international conflict, the U.S. remains a mature democracy, and its institutions remain reassuringly resilient to threats to democracy, both internal and external. Yet resilience isn’t immunity—as former Deputy National Cyber Director for Technology & Ecosystem Security Camille Stewart Gloster warned—technology that was intended to help society has been weaponized by bad or selfish actors in ways that challenges even mature democracies.

How do we protect our democratic institutions against today’s threats?

AllSides CEO John Gable expressed the need to promote civilian education that supports critical thinking skills and mandates digital literacy instruction. In encouraging our democratic values and escaping the political bubble that allows for disinformation and conflict to flourish, mature democracies can cope with the realities of differing opinions and have empathetic collaboration with those around us, countering the agenda

RESILIENCE ISN’T IMMUNITY. TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS INTENDED TO HELP SOCIETY HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED BY SELFISH ACTORS IN WAYS THAT CHALLENGES EVEN MATURE DEMOCRACIES.

of the aggressors who aim to weaken democracy.

Nascent democracies face even more daunting challenges. This is in part because, when confronted with economic challenges and emerging human rights issues, leaders are often incentivized to engage in corrupt authoritarian political behaviors such as unfair elections to protect their power status and avoid political failure. Without the entrenched institutions of mature democracies, there is little to constrain these leaders.

In the face of both sorts of threat, international cooperation can be a saving force.

Multilateral organizations such as NATO have a major role to play in helping build resilience in our democratic institutions. However, these institutions can only meet their potential if they can encourage frank, inclusive dialogue. For instance, young people should be engaged in a meaningful way to ensure solutions proposed today are in step with the values of tomorrow’s leaders.

About the author: Eileen Ackley is a junior studying government at William & Mary and interning at QinetiQ.

2. Education & Work

Teaching learners to thrive now, so they can thrive later

By Melissa Metos and Shane C. Szarkowski

This report was compiled from a collective intelligence gathering of World in 2050’s (W2050) Senior Fellows (Education & Work Committee). The meeting took place under the Chatham House Rule, so specific ideas will not be directly attributed to any specific Fellow. W2050 Senior Fellows and Brain Trust members attending the committee meeting were: Danielle De La Fuente, Euan Wilmshurst, John Goodwin, Dr. Karen Edge, Manjula Dissanayake, and Dr. Noah Sobe. Also present were Diplomatic Courier Editor Melissa Metos and W2050 Executive Director Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski.

Photo by Todd Quackenbush from Unsplash.

Rather than hyper–fixating on the future, consider for a moment: How are we setting students up to thrive now, in ways that will also help them thrive later? And what does it mean to ‘thrive,’ particularly in this time of polycrisis? The answers lie beyond the traditional education model, according to participants in a W2050 Senior Fellows Committee on Education and Work—who met in July to discuss how to overcome access gaps and provide learners the skills they need to thrive in these complicated times.

True accessibility means relationship–based learning

While the problems of our education systems may sometimes involve discrimination, accessibility as a core issue seldom discriminates, geographically speaking. Whether you’re a student in a private school in the EU or a refugee camp in Thailand, classrooms all over the world have an accessibility problem—which is about more than just physical access or simply being allowed to participate. It is also about inclusion—students being safe, heard, and welcome in that environment regardless of background or identity.

In discussing inclusion, our committee members wanted to be very clear that this means being safe and heard, rather than feeling safe and heard. This requires healthy, meaningful student–teacher relationships, so the needs and preferences of the student can be genuinely recognized and cared for. Prioritizing these relationships challenge conventional approaches to ensuring a student has what they need in the classroom—which focus on learning materials and access to technology. Furthermore when a category of students (rather than individual) is recognized to have specific needs not met by the primary education system, often a smaller, separate system will be built—think of refugees. More student–

AN EDUCATION THAT LEGITIMATELY GIVES LEARNERS TOOLS TO HAVE MORE AGENCY AND THRIVE IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT IS AN EDUCATION THAT STUDENTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO WANT.

centered education practices that privilege relationships would solve these problems, within the existing system. Challenges with implementation are two–fold. First, our perception of the teacher’s role in education needs to evolve. Secondly and critically, teachers suffer from a systemic, severe lack of support and training. Professional and personal development—among other things, to help teachers root out their own biases and, in some cases, built–in discrimination—for teachers as well as modernized support not only needs to be funded, but reformed toward more relational, student–centered learning.

The accessibility dilemma is made far worse by the polycrisis. Governments are already under immense strain, which is reflected on their education systems. The migration of displaced people— fleeing from conflict, climate impacts, or extreme poverty—will only make that strain worse. How can we ensure the most vulnerable refugee children have a place to learn where they are safe, heard, and welcome? Equitable, future–ready education systems will need to learn to solve that problem.

An education for these troubled times

Our current education systems aren’t doing a very good job of preparing

CIVIC LITERACY AND CLIMATE LITERACY WILL HELP LEARNERS TO OPERATE AS NATURALLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE CONTEXT OF TODAY’S WORLD, GRANTING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TO SOCIETY.

learners to thrive amid polycrisis. To do so they must not only be resilient to disruptions caused by the polycrisis, but also designed specifically to help students thrive today and tomorrow in a world that is increasingly troubled. A big part of that accessibility will have to do with transferability. With around a billion involuntarily displaced persons around the world, and that number only likely to grow, the number of migrant students whose learning environment has drastically changed will grow as well. How do we assure these students have their needs met—that their academic competencies and gaps be recognized, that their individual needs and preferences be seen, and that they are safe and welcome? The answer is system–level collaboration. While there is no cookie–cutter template for a successful student–centered learning environment, core concepts and strategies are wholly transferable. Thus, collaboration can create more inclusive and effective education systems that empower all students, even the most vulnerable.

Core concepts include social and emotional learning, alternative literacies such as digital literacy and climate literacy, and the critical thinking skills to apply these knowledges to a dynamic, evolving world. Digital literacy gets a special mention here, as EdTech has long

been touted as a way to supercharge education and empower students. Yet exponential technologies can also disrupt learning and marginalize already vulnerable children. Technology has typically disproportionately benefited the upper echelons of society. Teaching digital literacy will give less advantaged learners more intellectual tools to benefit from technology, while also providing them with tools to protect themselves from misinformation online.

An education that legitimately gives learners tools to have more agency and thrive in their environment is an education that students are more likely to want. This along with a relationship–based approach to learning solves another potential access hurdle: the absence of a desire to be in the classroom. By giving learners an environment where they want to be, learning things that empower them and are useful, we can solve for this access problem. This type of education has another benefit—it not only prepares students for the next grade, but prepares students to be healthy individuals and active citizens no matter what personal and professional path they take.

Our education systems today are missing that, they are not empowering us. Changing that requires how we think about education, shifting focus to relationships and building future–ready skill sets.

Priorities for creating accessible, inclusive learning environments

Syllabi for flourishing today and tomorrow: In order to strive for life–long learning, we must create future–ready syllabi with learning objectives that students actually desire—removing intangible barriers to accessibility, including the motive to gain access. Only by first providing what is desired by students can we work on meeting students’ individual needs. In addition to this student–centered learning

approach (where student preferences are taken into real consideration), teaching skills that are particularly relevant today—social and emotional learning, critical thinking, relationship building, and digital literacy—are part of the flourishing process. To update syllabi further, things like civic literacy and climate literacy will help learners to operate as naturally as possible in the context of today’s world, granting them the opportunity to contribute positively to society. Pushing back on the traditional education system, thriving students must be set up to succeed personally and professionally—beyond the four walls of the classroom and that first out–of–school job.

Build a stronger student–teacher relationship: Reorienting the role of the teacher is the first step toward building a stronger student–teacher relationship. Giving teachers these relational responsibilities—seeing them as agents of inclusivity—both shifts and increases their duties, so we need to give them better systemic support. While the type of personal and professional training may vary based on location and the individuality of the teacher, a few things are undebatable: Teachers need to be paid a living wage and be physically healthy (the latter of which necessitates a more manageable workload). Only then can we ideate on the best tools and training that can act as teachers’ assistants to create an accessible learning environment. For example, AI that can observe student behavior and flag hard–to–notice trends in a full classroom like neurodivergence.

Privilege fixing existing systems over creating more specialized sub–systems. Governments and IGOs/NGOs can be tempted, when faced with pockets of learners with needs outside the apparent ‘norm,’ to create more specialized sub–systems. While well–intentioned, this approach is inflexible and unresponsive to changing needs of students. Instead, we need to reform our existing education

TEACHING DIGITAL LITERACY WILL GIVE LESS ADVANTAGED LEARNERS MORE INTELLECTUAL TOOLS TO BENEFIT FROM TECHNOLOGY, WHILE ALSO PROVIDING THEM WITH TOOLS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM MISINFORMATION ONLINE.

systems to be genuinely inclusive—which is about access and safety and sense of welcome, but is also about learning skills and competencies that students desire because they are immediately useful.

Mobile services to ensure geographic and needs–based access: Building more schools is important, but so is making sure that students can get to that school and receive the type of support they need. Mobile services not only bring education services to the learners, making education more easy to geographically access. They also allow the implementation of services that are more tailored to an outlier group of student needs. Refugee children are the most obvious need group here, but in many places around the world, the rural poor and nomadic groups could benefit from mobile services.

About the authors:

Melissa Metos is an editor at Diplomatic Courier.

Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski is Editor–in–Chief of Diplomatic Courier and the Executive Director of World in 2050.

Reimagining the classroom

By Alexander Nicholas

An overcrowded classroom in Nigeria. Photo by Emmanuel Ikwuegbu on Unsplash.

Every child deserves an education that radically empowers them. It’s an outrage that quality education is primarily determined by zip code and income. In low– to middle–income countries, home to 84% of the global population, 70% of children cannot read and understand a simple text by age 10. This foundational learning crisis threatens not only individual futures but also the socio–economic fabric of entire nations, risking $21 trillion in potential lifetime earnings for this generation of students. It has become increasingly clear that we must go beyond simply fixing existing education systems to address the scale of the challenge we face; we must reimagine the notion of a classroom.

Rising Inequality, Digitalization, and Teacher Shortage

Three primary challenges act as headwinds that complicate efforts to reform our education systems and fundamentally reimagining the classroom itself.

Rising inequality. The widening gap between the rich and poor exacerbates educational inequities. According to UNESCO, children from the wealthiest 20% of households are four times more likely to attend school than those from the poorest 20%. Access to quality education is increasingly becoming a privilege of the affluent, leaving millions behind. In many low– to middle–income countries, education systems are underfunded and overburdened, struggling to provide basic literacy and numeracy skills. The impact of this inequality is profound, perpetuating cycles of poverty and limiting opportunities for social mobility.

Digitalization. Digitalization is transforming every facet of our lives, including education. The Covid–19 pandemic accelerated this shift, forcing schools worldwide to adopt online learning platforms. According to the World Economic Forum, global internet

GLOBALLY, SCHOOLS, CLASSROOMS, AND INSTRUCTION LOOK LARGELY THE SAME: THIS IS THE ‘EGG CRATE MODEL,’ OPTIMIZED FOR COST AND SCALE, BUT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR FOUNDATIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT.

usage surged by 30% in 2020 alone, highlighting the potential of digital tools to bridge educational gaps. However, digitalization also presents challenges. Many low– to middle–income countries lack the infrastructure to support widespread digital learning. In sub–Saharan Africa, for example, only 24% of the population has access to the internet. Without significant investment in technology and infrastructure, the digital divide will continue to widen, exacerbating existing educational inequalities.

Teacher shortage. The global teacher shortage further compounds these challenges. According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the world needs 69 million new teachers by 2030 to meet the universal primary and secondary education demand. In many low– to middle–income countries, teacher–to–student ratios exceed 1:40, far above the recommended maximum of 1:25. Overburdened teachers struggle to provide individualized attention and support, hindering student learning and development. Innovative solutions are needed to attract and retain qualified teachers, including better pay, professional development opportunities, and creating pathways for career advancement.

The Path Forward

It’s time to reimagine the classroom. Globally, schools, classrooms, and instruction look largely the same: this is the ‘egg crate model,’ optimized for cost and scale, but counterproductive for foundational skill development. It’s a challenge to adopt innovative solutions in traditional classrooms. We need innovations designed to effectively provide holistic foundational learning for an elementary school with a 1:50 teacher–to–student ratio, moving ≥70% of 4th grade graduates to 100% mastery of foundational skills within a year, most cost–effectively.

Here are five key steps to reimagine the classroom for modern education:

Invest in scalable technology. Ensure all students have access to digital tools and resources that are designed to sustainably scale in low– to middle–income countries. This includes providing devices and internet connectivity and integrating technology into the curriculum.

Personalize learning. Develop solutions focusing on personalized foundational learning rather than personal use. These solutions should be engaging, adaptable, and tailored to meet the diverse needs of learners.

Create inclusive learning spaces. Foster safe and supportive physical and virtual learning environments that promote collaboration and inclusivity. Ensuring that all students have access to quality education requires addressing the vulnerabilities of current learning spaces.

Revamp teacher training. Equip teachers with the skills and knowledge to utilize new technologies and teaching methods. Ongoing professional development should be a cornerstone of educational policy.

THE CHALLENGES FACING GLOBAL EDUCATION TODAY ARE IMMENSE, BUT THEY ARE NOT INSURMOUNTABLE. WE CAN EQUIP THE NEXT GENERATION WITH THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO THRIVE BY REIMAGINING THE CLASSROOM AND ADOPTING A FORWARD THINKING APPROACH.

Promote accountability and evidence–based practices. Implement robust mechanisms to assess the impact of educational interventions and ensure quality. Continuously evaluating and refining these practices will help scale successful initiatives.

The challenges facing global education today are immense, but they are not insurmountable. We can equip the next generation with the tools they need to thrive by reimagining the classroom and adopting a forward thinking approach. It is not just about recovering from the current crisis; it is about building a resilient and equitable education system for the future.

About the author: Dr. Alexander Nicholas is Executive Vice President at XPRIZE.

At Northwestern University’s Roberta Buffett Institute for Global Affairs, we believe that relationships among individuals and institutions—globally and locally—are what generate new knowledge that sparks solutions to global challenges. Learn more at buffett.northwestern.edu.

Despite progress, more to be done on transforming education

By Euan Wilmshurst

Photo by Sam Balye on Unsplash.

Two years on from the Transforming Education Summit (TES), strides toward more inclusive, equitable, and future–ready education systems have been made. However, the journey is far from over, and reflecting on both achievements and challenges is crucial.

Progress Highlights

Accelerated by the COVID–19 pandemic, countries have integrated technology into education systems. Initiatives like the African Union’s Digital Education Strategy have enabled millions of students to access quality education remotely, showing the potential of digital tools to bridge educational divides.

Countries like Finland and Canada are leading the way on inclusive education, implementing policies promoting gender equality, support for students with disabilities, and multicultural education. These efforts align with UNESCO’s principles of inclusivity, inspiring other nations to follow suit.

Education made its debut on the COP28 agenda in Dubai, highlighting the role of education in fostering climate awareness and action among young people. At the recent Schools2030 Global Forum in Bishkek, I saw first hand the progress being made in embedding sustainable practices within educational frameworks. The forum emphasized teacher leadership in promoting climate resilience and integrating climate education in curriculums.

UNESCO and UNICEF launched their first–ever global report on early childhood care and education (ECCE). This report delivers on a commitment from the World Conference on ECCE, where 155 countries pledged to ensure every child gets at least one year of free, compulsory pre–primary education. Since TES, 95% of countries have taken steps on ECCE, up from 40%. Investing in our youngest children brings the greatest social and economic returns.

The role of learning through play continues to gain traction, bolstered by the adoption of a UN–recognized International Day of Play. This

approach fosters critical thinking, creativity, and emotional wellbeing among students.

A major milestone is the global pledge to provide inclusive education for refugees, ensuring they are integrated into national education systems long–term. This commitment is crucial as the number of refugees continues to rise, requiring sustainable and inclusive educational solutions.

Challenges and Sticking Points

Despite advancements, challenges remain. One notable issue is the persistent inequality in education financing. While some nations have increased investment, others struggle with limited budgets, exacerbating disparities. Innovative financing mechanisms and international support are essential to fulfill educational commitments.

A pressing issue is the global teacher crisis, with a shortfall of 44 million teachers worldwide. This shortage impacts the quality of education, particularly in underserved regions. Addressing this crisis requires efforts to recruit, train, and retain teachers. Ongoing professional development is vital to ensure educators are equipped to deliver high quality education.

Looking Forward

To sustain and accelerate progress, a holistic approach addressing both successes and hurdles is imperative. Collaborative efforts, knowledge sharing, and leveraging technology can help overcome existing challenges. As we reflect on progress since the 2022 summit, let us reaffirm our commitment to transforming education for all learners, wherever they are in the world.”

About the author: Euan Wilmshurst is a board level strategic advisor and Non Executive Director with experience spanning a 30 year career, most recently with the LEGO Foundation.

Vision easy, implementation tough for education transformation

By Jane Mann

Photo by Jeswin Thomas on Unsplash

In New York two years ago, I was struck by the unity of vision. Consensus around the need for change in education is not the difficult bit. The challenge? Implementation.

The obstacles in connecting policy to the classroom are considerable, especially amid funding issues. But difficult doesn’t mean impossible. When governments commit to understanding problems in detail, sequencing actions effectively, and keeping accountable to teachers and students—we see them delivering. Governments like Mongolia, where we’ve worked with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science to analyze their education system and create a roadmap for improvement. They are now working on year two of implementing that plan.

The challenges don’t have to be tackled alone and, fortunately, there’s also been increased peer–to–peer collaboration across borders. Programs like the HP Cambridge Partnership for Education EdTech Fellowship create spaces for leaders to share knowledge, to explore evidence, and then apply it in their contexts. This goes hand–in–hand with greater emphasis on local leadership. Overall, there has been more focus on the often forgotten SDG17 (my favorite of the Goals)—the power of partnerships. Education took up more space at COP, the African Union Summit, the World Economic Forum.

But, as we all know, teachers must be at the heart of transformation. As a global community, not only have we not made progress here, but the teacher recruitment and retention crisis is actually worsening. At the 2022 summit, UAE Minister His Excellency Dr Al Falasi said “education is only as good as the teachers providing it.”

One year later at our roundtable, UN Special Envoy Leonardo Garnier said that if an education initiative “isn’t in the classroom, it doesn’t exist”. We must listen to teachers. We must involve

WE FACE AN ESCALATING ISSUE AFFECTING THE ENTIRE AGENDA: GROWING CONFLICT AND DISASTERS. WE MUST INNOVATE SO THAT EMERGENCY RELIEF LAYS THE FOUNDATIONS FOR STRONGER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN THE FUTURE.

teachers. And we must invest in them. We’ve partnered with Learning Possibilities to bring their platform for capturing and disaggregating data together with our approach to system analysis to support governments making this happen.

Finally, we face an escalating issue affecting the entire agenda: growing conflict and disasters. We must innovate so that emergency relief lays the foundations for stronger education systems in the future. Short–term measures no longer suffice in protracted crises.

We cannot ignore the considerable challenges, but we must also hold our feet to the fire of progress. We need to plan, to partner, to push, because inclusive, quality education is the cornerstone of a just and prosperous future for everyone.

About the author: Jane Mann is Managing Director of the Partnership for Education and Director of Education in the International Education Group at Cambridge University Press and Assessment.

Degrees wane, skills wax

By Jake Hirsch–Allen

Photo by Joan Kwamboka on Unsplash.

Four years ago Armin Hopp, Simone Ravaioli, Rolf Reinhardt, and I wrote a piece for the OEB on behalf of the International Council on Badges and Credentials (ICoBC). Looking back, some of the messages highlight one of the most important trends building momentum since UNESCO’s Transforming Education Summit.

Never has there been so much momentum or excitement around the digital recognition of skills and competencies as today. The positive and increasing focus on lifelong learning— instead of batch loaded degrees that feel obsolete shortly after graduation—is a widely recognized, if understated, result of increasingly rapid technological change. As opposed to thousand year old academic institutions, traditions and unions dictating semestered curriculum, open source networks and multinational companies are delivering personalized content based on labor market information that attempts to prepare learners for constantly evolving occupations and competencies. With degrees exacerbating inequality and even creating inequity, the world seems poised to replace paper higher education credentials with digital forms of skills recognition as the ultimate measure of human capital. Educational institutions are defending their value beyond skills and brick–and–mortar place–based learning.

Employers currently rely on degrees to hire more “efficiently.” They rely on the reputation of post–secondaries as a proxy for the quality of the talent and reliability of their skills. But they also exacerbate socioeconomic inequality. Degrees ensure those with access to higher education continue to hire those with the same background but are a blunt and often distorting means to recognize skills or competencies.

WITH DEGREES EXACERBATING INEQUALITY AND EVEN CREATING INEQUITY, THE WORLD SEEMS POISED TO REPLACE PAPER HIGHER EDUCATION CREDENTIALS WITH DIGITAL FORMS OF SKILLS RECOGNITION AS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF HUMAN CAPITAL.

Teachers and learners struggle to effectively recognize and communicate the skills that should be at the core of their education. Students leaving a philosophy class on rhetoric can’t explain on their resume or in an interview that they learned communication, logic, and negotiation.

It is difficult to compare the meaning of credentials across educational institutions, industries, or international boundaries as individuals, employers, and governments struggle to maximize the portability and location of skills.

There is a growing consensus around the digital recognition of skills while reinforcing the trust of accredited education providers. Focusing much more granularly on an individual’s skills is both more fair and, in the long–term, more effective for society.

About the author: Jake HirschAllen is the North America Workforce Development and Higher Ed System Lead at LinkedIn.

Finance shortfalls, digital divide hinder education transformation

By Aida Ridanovic

Photo by Philippe Bout on Unsplash

The transformation of education systems around the world is moving at a disappointingly slow pace. The decreasing budgets for education are not only alarming but also shortsighted. Despite the promises made during UNESCO’s 2022 Transforming Education Summit (TES), the actual progress has been minimal. Teachers’ salaries remain at an all–time low, severely undermining the motivation to become or stay a teacher.

There have been some bright spots, though, that offer hope and guidance. One notable success from the summit is the establishment of the International Financing Facility for Education (IFFEd). This initiative has the potential to mobilize up to $10 billion in funding for lower–middle–income countries over the next few years. Such financial support is crucial for bridging the education funding gap and can help ensure that more children in these regions receive quality education. However, the challenge remains in translating these commitments into effective policies and making sure the funds reach the most disadvantaged students and schools.

Another significant achievement is the Global Youth Initiative, which unites various youth and student networks to support the recommendations of the Youth Declaration. By involving young people directly in shaping educational policies, this initiative ensures that their voices are heard and their needs addressed. Engaging youth in this manner not only empowers the next generation but also fosters a sense of ownership and accountability towards the education system.

Despite these successes, several painful sticking points need urgent attention. A persistent issue is the severe inequality in global education spending. High–income countries spend about $8,000 per student each year, compared to just $50 in low–income countries. This disparity is further exacerbated by national inequalities, where marginalized communities often receive the least funding. To address this imbalance, both national

FOR

MANY STUDENTS AND TEACHERS IN LOW INCOME AREAS, THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION IS OUT OF REACH DUE TO THE LACK OF BASIC DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY.

governments and international donors must prioritize equitable funding and resource allocation.

Furthermore, the envisioned future of education, which includes digital and inclusive classrooms, remains distant for many. While nearly 90% of national commitments emphasize digital learning, significant barriers such as connectivity and digital literacy still exist. For many students and teachers in low income areas, the digital revolution is out of reach due to the lack of basic digital infrastructure and access to technology.

The slow progress in transforming education, coupled with decreasing budgets and inadequate teacher pay, paints a grim picture. Without substantial and fair investment, and a clear vision for the future of education, the goals set by TES will remain unfulfilled promises. The international community must act decisively to address these issues, ensuring that education systems worldwide can provide quality, inclusive, and future ready education for all.

About the author: Aida Ridanovic is an international strategic communications expert with over 20 years of experience in stakeholder engagement, diplomacy, and global project management.

3. AI & the Margins

Healthier digital ecosystems via provenance, transparency

By Melissa Metos and Shane C. Szarkowski

This report was compiled from a collective intelligence gathering of World in 2050’s (W2050) Senior Fellows (Exponential Technologies). The meeting took place under the Chatham House Rule, so specific ideas will not be directly attributed to any specific Fellow. W2050 Senior Fellows and Brain Trust members attending the committee meeting were: Joseph Toscano, Mario Vasilescu, Nikos Acuna, Srujana Kaddevarmuth, and Stacey Rolland. Also present were Diplomatic Courier Editor Melissa Metos and W2050 Executive Director Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski.

Photo by Igor Omilaev from Unsplash.

When we talk about artificial intelligence and societal health today, we are almost always talking about ways AI is being or could be used recklessly or harmfully—and what sort of regulations we should have in place to mitigate those harms. However, we’ve generally paid less attention to how AI can be used actively as a force for the good of societal health. We asked members of W2050’s Senior Fellows cohort and Brain Trust to consider what conditions need to be in place for AI to be used as a tool for societal good.

Our unhealthy relationship with information

The debate surrounding best ways to use artificial intelligence as a tool is widely discussed; though it tends to leap over the imperative conversation of first discovering the constraints hindering the ability to tap into AI as a force for good. To address constraints, a better understanding of the roots of our ‘AI problem’ is necessary, with some committee members viewing it as a call back to social media. During the rapid onset of social media, users and policymakers alike had difficulty placing a value on, and thus assessing, both personal information (plus how it’s used) and the information we consume. It’s become evident that our relationship with information has eroded alongside technological advancement due, in part, to the lack of strong innovation surrounding data provenance— transparent insight into the origin, chain of custody, and changes made to a digital object. Without adequate provenance, there’s little to no transparency—creating a digital landscape ripe for manipulation and “fundamentally reorienting” our relationship with information. Along the way, our trust in expertise and one another decays.

WITHOUT ADEQUATE PROVENANCE, THERE’S LITTLE TO NO TRANSPARENCY—CREATING A DIGITAL LANDSCAPE RIPE FOR MANIPULATION AND “FUNDAMENTALLY REORIENTING” OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH INFORMATION.

Further, this absence of transparency impacts policymakers’ ability to define ‘truth’ and ‘misinformation,’ which, provenance aside, is already a monumental undertaking when information itself has various purposes— anything from persuasion to education. Without bipartisan consensus on such important terminology nor what our information is worth, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify the root of the AI problem and assess risk. Unfortunately, a common response to this difficulty is compulsive mania—the behavioral urge to hastily fix symptoms rather than taking a step back and discovering the true problem. Admittedly, creating such provenance tools, and thus shaping policy, for AI as a source for good is a daunting task.

Bipartisan consensus is particularly difficult in today’s charged environment, but is further complicated by the complexity at issue. As experienced with climate change and the Paris Treaty, with a particularly complex issue clarity (and the attendant will to take action) often comes only as the risks associated with the problem increase. Worse, even if we arrive at a consensus of defining and valuing our information, that doesn’t necessarily lead to creating a more equitable playing field—primarily due to the lack of private sector guardrails

BY TAPPING INTO A FIRST PRINCIPLE

APPROACH,

WE CAN REVISIT THE LESSONS LEARNED (GOOD AND BAD) FROM PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS MISINFORMATION, AND USE THOSE LEARNINGS TO WORK TOWARD

BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS OF AI–RELATED TERMINOLOGY.

and widespread digital literacy. In particular, digital literacy has become increasingly difficult to incentivize when platforms are motivated by the monetization of information which is a slippery slope that leads to too much, albeit low quality, ‘information creation.’ What we are left with are users and policymakers struggling to catch up as the aforementioned barriers reinforce the regulation and user attention problem.

To reorient society, first simplify the problem

Perhaps it’s time to simplify this ‘AI problem;’ take a step back and sit in the stage of discovery for some time to discover the meaning of ‘truth,’ ‘misinformation,’ and the value of information. As many march forward innovation wise, the risk becomes falling into the trap of compulsive mania as they go—hastily putting a bandaid on the symptoms that emerge from AI use rather than delving into the root of the problem. Instead, by tapping into a first principle approach, we can revisit the lessons learned (good and bad) from previous attempts to address misinformation, and use those learnings

to work toward bipartisan consensus of AI–related terminology. Only then can software engineers innovate new solutions like provenance software. This first principles approach is undoubtedly a better alternative than waiting for things to get worse as a way to unveil the root.

In tandem with software, this approach emphasizes the need for accessible education with a focus on digital literacy. This type of education can replace mania and intersects well with provenance software. Accurate provenance software coupled with digital literacy would allow us to work on our currently problematic relationship with information. In fact, incentivizing public engagement with a better understanding of AI and information, is a public good. Even if it doesn’t necessarily lead to a specific policy outcome, it will certainly lead to more open and informed policy debates. For example, on the policy front, some are discussing different tools that would disclose information as being “Generated by AI” to let people decide what they want to see rather than controlling the flow of information. Giving users the power to assess the value of their information and others through provenance software would reorient society by building a healthier, more transparent, digital ecosystem.

Priorities for a healthier digital ecosystem

We don’t have an AI problem; we have an information problem: We need to change how we think about AI and stop treating it as a completely new problem. Instead, we need to recognize that most AI problems are evolutions of challenges around personal data and information we’ve been struggling with since the age of social media. Looking at it this way, we can learn from our past mistakes and improve our relationship with information.

Simplify the problem rather than oversimplifying the solution: By

WE NEED TO BE DEPROGRAMMED. INSTEAD OF FEARING THE VALIDITY OF INFORMATION AND LACKING AN INCENTIVE TO CARE ABOUT VERIFYING PROVENANCE, THERE SHOULD BE A HEALTHY BALANCE OF EDUCATION (DIGITAL LITERACY) AND INCENTIVE STRUCTURES IN PLACE.

embracing first principle thinking we can simplify the problem itself and avoid falling into the all–too familiar trap of compulsive mania which, by nature, simplifies the solution rather than the problem. Getting bipartisan consensus on how we define misinformation, truth, AI-generated, and any other AI–related terminology, is the first step. As one of our committee members articulated, we need to solve information pollution before we can solve pollution.

Innovating a healthier digital ecosystem with digital provenance tools: Once we have consensus on terminology, we can move toward greater transparency by creating accurate digital provenance tools. These tools will allow us to discover the value of our data and assess information on an individual basis. Such a technique involves both complex code and community engagement because even with, for example, check marks verifying information as ‘truth,’ truth will still always be somewhat relative. Thus building a relational model in addition to verifying where the information came from and the quality of it, is key.

Rethink how we frame our digital information infrastructure: Markets incentivize the manipulation of our personal data and other information, while consumers are not incentivized to be good information caretakers. We need to put more effort into exploring alternative incentive structures, perhaps utilizing behavioral economics to incentivize healthier actions. In a way, we need to be deprogrammed. Instead of fearing the validity of information and lacking an incentive to care about verifying provenance, there should be a healthy balance of education (digital literacy) and incentive structures in place so that, whether selfishly or not, the average person cares about what happens to their information and the quality of external information they consume.

About the authors:

Melissa Metos is an editor at Diplomatic Courier.

Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski is Editor–in–Chief of Diplomatic Courier and the Executive Director of World in 2050.

Digital dharma: Toward purpose and wisdom in the age of AI

By Taylor Kendal

Photo by Eddy Billard from Unsplash.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping our world in ways we don’t yet understand, and in turn, we find ourselves at the edge of a new era. And as with all transformative eras, there arises a sweeping moral imperative to ensure that advancements do not widen existing inequities but rather bridge them for the benefit of all humanity, not just a privileged few. In the age of AI, we require Digital Dharma: a harmonizing of technological progress with social equity. This is and has always been at the heart of Learning Economy Foundation (LEF) and the communities and technologies for which we advocate.

Like it or not, the genie is out of the bottle. AI will revolutionize countless aspects of our lives, from education and economics to hospitality and healthcare—but whether the disruption will be more desirable than divisive is undecided. If not scrutinized and carefully managed, AI is sure to perpetuate social inequalities globally. For historically marginalized communities, the digital divide is not merely a gap in access but a crisis of purpose and meaning. The challenge, therefore, is threefold: ensure equitable access to the most powerful digital platforms, provide sufficient education for their safe and effective use, and perhaps most importantly, ensure individuals have a voice in shaping the tools that are in turn shaping society. Doing one while neglecting others is nothing short of a moral failure; one for which we will all feel the repercussions, and perhaps already are.

As an increasingly interdependent species, we would be wise to address this challenge and opportunity head–on. Since inception, LEF and our partners have always seen education as a foundational human right and the cornerstone of progress. Our mission, to create transformative learning and economic systems that promote equity, mobility, privacy, and individual agency to radically improve lives throughout the world, has only gained gravity in the wake of AI. Central to this vision and our pursuit of digital dharma are exciting new open–

AI WILL REVOLUTIONIZE COUNTLESS ASPECTS OF OUR LIVES, FROM EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS TO HOSPITALITY AND HEALTHCARE—BUT WHETHER THE DISRUPTION WILL BE MORE DESIRABLE THAN DIVISIVE IS UNDECIDED.

source tools designed to empower and provide a human–centered foundation for equitable access, literacy and identity.

Equitable access

Radically open and accessible tools, such as LearnCard, are more than just technologies; they represent extensible, democratizing bridges to purpose and opportunity. Collectively, we must respect and empower individuals by providing safe, secure, privacy–respecting platforms for storing and sharing skills, credentials, and achievements. This is especially crucial for marginalized communities, who often face barriers to traditional education and social signaling. In the age of AI, individuals need to see themselves as conductors of their own symphony, with the access and freedom to pursue a life filled with purpose, opportunity, and fulfillment.

Equitable literacy

However, access to technology and credentials is only part of the equation. To truly bridge equity gaps, we must also ensure that individuals have the awareness, knowledge and skills to use and shape these tools to their advantage. In the era of exponential AI and information ubiquity, we need to rethink what is meant by holistic education. Through partnerships grounded in wisdom, accountability and trust, we

“NOT ABOUT US, WITHOUT US”—THIS

IS THE MANTRA FOR ACHIEVING DIGITAL DHARMA IN THE AGE OF EXPONENTIAL AI.

need to envision entirely new programs and paradigms that equip learners with the tools and literacy skills necessary to navigate the complexities of an increasingly uncertain, globally interconnected world.

Equitable identity

Alongside adequate access and literacy, a future in which technology truly serves the whole of humanity must be designed with and for the most marginalized communities. Too often, digital tools are created without considering the unique challenges faced by those seen as “the other,” resulting in “solutions” that benefit the privileged few and perpetuate inequalities. We must relentlessly prioritize inclusive design, ensuring that our technologies are accessible, intuitive, and responsive to the diverse needs of every human on earth. “Not about us, without us”—this is the mantra for achieving digital dharma in the age of exponential AI.

Toward purpose and wisdom

In this context, AI presents both a challenge and an opportunity. On one hand, AI systems can inadvertently reinforce biases, leading to discriminatory outcomes. On the other hand, if designed and deployed thoughtfully, AI has the potential to be a powerful tool for creativity, self–actualization and social good. The journey towards digital dharma is fraught with challenges, but it is also filled with purpose and promise. We must confront the difficult realities of our time, acknowledging that the rapid pace of technological advancement can leave the most vulnerable behind. By harnessing the

power of open, purpose–(not profit–)driven technologies and committing to inclusive design, we can create a future where everyone, regardless of circumstance, has the opportunity to build a life worth living.

While never perfect and always a pursuit, our collective work must be a testament to what is possible when we prioritize equitable access, literacy, and identity in our technological advancements. We have the power to shape the future, not just for the privileged few, but for the unseen many. As we look to the horizon, let us embrace the awe–inspiring potential of AI and exponential progress, while committing to inclusivity, wisdom and shared prosperity.

In the words of Nelson Mandela, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Let us wield this weapon wisely, ensuring that in our pursuit of progress, we do not forget the human lives at the heart of our shared mission. Together, and only together, we can build a future where technology serves as a bridge to opportunity and purpose. This is digital dharma: the active, unwavering pursuit of harmonizing technology with the moral imperative of elevating our shared humanity, creating a world where everyone has the opportunity to arrive and thrive.

About the author: Taylor Kendal is an educator, writer, designer, improviser, community developer, and techno–philosopher. He is the President of Learning Economy Foundation.

Democratize AI by decentralizing the marketplace

By Stacey Rolland

Photo by Desola Lanre-Ologun on Unsplash.

In contrast to the “move fast and break things” ethos that characterized the Web2 internet age, where rapid scale led to tech monopolies and the perpetuation of inequalities, we are now collectively focused on preventing equitability gaps within emerging technologies at these early stages of the new AI revolution. A thriving AI ecosystem requires tools that aren’t just fast and cheap, but an ecosystem thoughtfully shaped in the best interest of all. A major component of this smarter and stronger AI marketplace is the democratization and decentralization of the AI ecosystem itself.

A competitive marketplace encourages constant improvement and diversification of products and services. Studies, including a paper from the Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development (OECD), show that competition policy plays a key role in driving innovation by creating a level playing field and facilitating the entry of new players into markets. Encouraging the democratization of the AI sector is critical, where monopolistic control by a few companies could squash competition, limit consumer choice, and stifle the very innovation that makes AI so promising. A monopolized market could also lead to regulatory capture, in which the few, most powerful entities are able to use their power to influence public policy in their own mold, thus shaping their markets further toward centralization and domination.

Public policymakers can play a significant role in democratizing AI. For example, lowering barriers to entry for innovative start–ups focused on building products aligned with their communities’ needs and values would counterbalance corporate control and current inequalities.

Specific policies to democratize AI include:

• Investing in open–source AI tools and datasets that any organization can use to research and develop AI applications.

LOWERING BARRIERS TO ENTRY FOR INNOVATIVE START–UPS FOCUSED ON BUILDING PRODUCTS ALIGNED WITH THEIR COMMUNITIES’ NEEDS AND VALUES WOULD COUNTERBALANCE CORPORATE CONTROL AND CURRENT INEQUALITIES.

• Enacting data rules that balance responsible AI training with consumer rights and protections to ensure accountability.

• Providing tax incentives, public grants, and computing resources for AI startups and small businesses to level the playing field.

• Incorporating decentralized technologies such as blockchain and distributed data storage to enhance transparency and reduce the risk of centralization.

• Ensuring diverse voices have a seat at the policymaking table to mitigate the risk of laws that favor the few, most powerful.

Policymaking based on the democratization and decentralization of AI can help cultivate a collaborative, competitive, open, and diverse AI marketplace that drives innovation for the public good.

About the author: Stacey Rolland is a leading expert in emerging technology policy and strategy.

What OpenAI teaches us about fixing the tech culture divide

By Andrea Bonime–Blanc

Image by fauxels from Pexels.

As we continue full speed ahead into our exponential tech future, there’s a somewhat alarming but correctable divide among humans on planet earth.

In one corner, we have ‘accelerationists’ (mostly Silicon Valley tech bros and financiers who like to “move fast and break things”). In the other, we have ‘delecerationists’ (diverse international leaders, thinkers and doers, many women and/or people of color more focused on ensuring stakeholder guardrails). This drama plays itself out at every level and in every sector, everywhere.

OpenAI illustrates the point in microcosm. Consider the 5 days of drama at OpenAI in November 2023 when two long standing board members—Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley—were asked to resign after the OpenAI Board first fired and then rehired CEO, Sam Altman. His firing was ostensibly for “not being consistently candid” with the board. But then he was back and the two board members were gone.

What happened next illustrates the accelerationist vs. decelerationist battle further. OpenAI’s former Chief Scientist and co–founder, Ilya Sutskever (the brains behind ChatGPT), had advocated for stricter guardrails and helped to create a super–alignment (safety) team focused on ensuring the safe development of artificial general intelligence. He was the board member who had delivered the firing message to Altman. But as the tide turned and Altman returned, Sutskever was sidelined and so was his super–alignment team. Sutskever left OpenAI to create his own safety first company in late June 2024—Safe Superintelligence. The Economist published point/ counterpoint opinions from OpenAI former and current board members further underscoring this cultural divide.

The first was from the two female board members fired in November 2023 titled

“AI Firms mustn’t Govern Themselves” advocating for heavier regulation of AI. The other article was written by the two male board members who replaced them—Bret Taylor and Larry Summers— in which they argue that OpenAI was a leader in both AI safety and capability. While OpenAI and other firms may still get the balance between invention and safety right, it is an ongoing struggle which this case illustrates in microcosm almost to perfection. It is indeed a battle between those wanting to innovate at all costs and without guardrails and those intent on mitigating known and unknown risks. It is a battle that is waged at every level locally and internationally.

However, in addition to the aggressive for profit ventures looking to make billions on exponential tech, there are also forces arrayed at all levels working hard to raise awareness, develop solutions, and provide examples of how responsible AI can be done.

Check out the following governmental, business, and societal resources: The EU AI Act, The ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics, The Center for Humane Technology, The African Observatory on Responsible AI, The Bletchley Declaration on AI Safety Summit 2023, the U.S. NIST AI Institute, The Future of Life Institute, the OECD. AI Policy Observatory, InterAmerican Development Bank AI Initiative, and the White House Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy AI.

Being an innovator doesn’t exclude being a steward—we can be both innovators and stewards and there are some great examples out there that are doing this like Anthropic, Safe Superalignment, Microsoft AI, and others. Let’s do this!

About the author: Dr. Andrea Bonime-Blanc is the Founder and CEO of GEC Risk Advisory.

How universal intelligence unlocks sovereignty and economic growth

By Nikos Acuña

Photo by Desola Lanre-Ologun on Unsplash.

Technological and economic challenges continue to define the artificial intelligence (AI) era for humanity. At the heart of these challenges lies the necessity for equitable economic growth, providing people with digital agency and data sovereignty, while reducing friction points toward economic growth and prosperity on multiple levels. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 and 9 emphasize the urgency of building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and fostering innovation. Addressing these goals demands a concerted effort to bridge equitability gaps within and surrounding AI. Universal intelligence and digital sovereignty stand as pivotal paradigms in this endeavor.

Promoting equality and economic opportunities

Universal intelligence refers to the seamless integration of human and AI capabilities, creating a collaborative, adaptive, responsive, and meaningful operating system (OS) for society. Harnessing the collective knowledge and capabilities of its users, it would tackle societal challenges through collective problem–solving and innovation while adhering to preferences of each individual. This integration uses software as sovereignty—enhancing individual potential and ensuring that AI tools are designed to serve marginalized groups, thereby preventing the perpetuation of deep–rooted inequalities.

Drawing on previous articles about meaningful AI and universal intelligence, the foundation for the solution encompasses a holistic integration of human and AI intelligence through a dynamic platform and OS—amplifying individual capabilities and mapping individual needs with those of their cohorts, and society at large. By enhancing collective problem–solving and fostering innovation, universal intelligence paves the way for a future in which technology truly serves humanity.

In terms of economic opportunities, the universal OS would allow all users to monetize their data, creating new income streams and promoting inclusive growth. Further, equitable economic models ensure fair compensation for data contributions, distributing benefits among all participants. Universal intelligence drives innovation and economic growth by unlocking new markets and fostering a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem. AI–driven insights optimize resource allocation, enhancing efficiency and scalability for widespread impact and sustainability. This paradigm shift contributes to a more inclusive digital economy.

Digital sovereignty: data ownership and decentralization

Empowering individuals through data ownership ensures control over personal data and digital interactions, enhancing privacy and security. Transitioning to dynamic, open–source protocols fosters a democratic, transparent, user–centric internet, with community governance promoting fairness and inclusivity. High–resolution AI provides personalized recommendations, creating meaningful digital interactions tailored to individual needs.

Rising to the technological shift of our time requires a holistic approach that integrates human and artificial intelligence, champions digital sovereignty, and promotes equitable economic growth. Universal intelligence makes this possible, offering a vision for a future where technology empowers individuals, supports marginalized groups, and drives sustainable, inclusive development.

About the author: Nikos Acuña is a tech entrepreneur, researcher, and award-winning author. He is the cofounder of Dialin and Lyrical AI, and speaks globally about AI’s impact on the future of humanity.