The World by 2030 XVI.II - November 2019
1
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
LETTER
from the
Editor
Dear Readers,
We live in a world where the only constant is change, as fast-paced technological developments, pressing environmental concerns and political and economic transformations take our world by storm. As a new decade looms, The Observer’s “The World by 2030� looks at the state of the world going into it, and how changes over the course of the next decade will be manifested in the year 2030. What do you think our world will look like in 10 years? A big thank you to the writers and editors for their great ideas and the effort put into the articles, as well as layout and design editor Daer Ding for his artistic vision on the cover art and throughout the issue. We begin with our topics in equality, economics and society section. Angela Feng begins by discussing how a circular economy can foster a more sustainable world. Oliver Munn then looks at widening economic disparities and the implications of this moving forward, and Hazuk Asghar examines the oppression of women in the political economy. Claire Parsons then looks at what the world will look like for her generation from an economic and environmental perspective, and Owen Wong concludes the section by predicting that universal basic income will be the economic policy of the future in welfare states. Our next section is topics in health and the environment. The negative impacts of climate change on animals in Africa is examined by Iona Cleave, and the positives and negatives of cloning animals that have gone extinct are weighed by Rosemary Wilson. Vruksha Vakeeswaran rounds out the section by analyzing ethical issues revolving around genetic testing companies. We then shift towards a mixed bag of topics in warfare, security and communication technologies. Bibi Imre-Millei looks at the security threats that Deepfake technologies pose as they continue to evolve. What the future of war and morality will look like in the context of rapid advances in technology is then analyzed by Libby Graham. We then shift towards topics in information communication technologies, where Tonia Teodoro takes a look at the decentralization of the internet, and I look at disparities in internet access worldwide. In the last article of the section, Landon Pollock weighs the positives and negatives of artificial intelligence as it transcends our imagination and becomes more immersed in our daily lives.
2
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Our final section features a handful of diverse topics related to ideology and world order. Noor Yassein looks at how a culture of extreme tolerance has permeated society, and Xiyuan Chen analyzes the future for the “Irish Backstop.” Annie Seeley then looks at how the Trump government has been apathetic to the liberal world order, and Joshua Lim concludes the issue by taking a detailed regional analysis of developments in Asia. Thank you again to our wonderful team and to our readers! If you have any questions or concerns, or are interested in writing for The Observer, please do not hesitate to contact us at contact@theobserver/qiaa.org, or follow us on Facebook(The Observer - Queen’s University) or Instagram(theobserver.qiaa). Happy reading! Sincerely,
Jacob Ahearn Editor-in-Chief Politics, Philosophy and Economics 2020
3
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
MEET THE TEAM Print Editorial Team Bibi Imre-Millei - Assistant Editor - Master In Political Studies Libby Graham - Assistant Editor -- 3rd Year History Major and Global Development Minor Angela Feng - Assistant Editor - 4th Year Global Development and Environmental Studies Daer Ding - Layout and Design Editor - 3rd Year Film and Media Studies
Writing Team Oliver Munn
Vruksha Vakeeswaran
Hazuk Asghar
Tonia Teodoro
2nd Year Politics and Economics
4th Year Biology
2nd Year Politics and Economics
4th Year Politics
Claire Parsons
Landon Pollock
2nd Year Politics
Politics Major and Sociology Minor
Owen Wong
Xiyuan Chen
2nd Year Politics and Economics
Politics Major and History Minor
Iona Cleave
Joshua Lim
Rosemary Wilson
Politics Major and English Minor
3rd Year Human Geography
Noor Yassein
4th Year History Major and Classics Minor
Annie Seeley 3rd Year Economics and Philosophy
4
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
T a b l e o f Contents
07 19 Topics in Equality, Economics and Society 08
A Cyclic Future: The Potential for a Circular Economy Angela Feng
10
Economic Disparity Looms for the Year 2030 Oliver Munn
12
The Struggle for Women’s Equality in the 21st Century Hazuk Asghar
15
So, Where Do You See Yourself in
Topics in Health and Environment Climate Change and ‘Africa Ris-
20
ing’: Is There a Future for the Animals of the African Savanna? Iona Cleave Cloning: Can it be a Conservation
22
Safety Net? Rosemary Wilson Do Genetic Testing Companies
24
Do More Harm Than Good? Vruksha Vakeeswaran
10 Years? Claire Parsons 17
The Eminent Rise of Universal Basic Income Guarantees Owen Wong
26 Topics in in Warfare, Security and Communication Technologies Future Faces: Security, Truth and Deepfakes in 2030 Bibi Imre-Millei
5
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
27
T a b l e o f Contents 29
The Future of Morality and War Libby Graham
Brexit: What’s Next for the ‘Irish
40
Backstop’? Xiyuan Chen
31
The Future of the Internet: Moving Towards Decentralization Tonia Teodoro
33
The Digital Divide in the Era of the Information Revolution Jacob Ahearn
35
Forging the New Gods: Will AI
America Before Alliances: What Another Four Years of Trump Would Mean for the Liberal Order Annie Seeley Old World, New Tricks Joshua Lim
be Humanity’s Greatest Friend or Foe? Landon Pollock
37 Topics in in Ideology and World Order 38
Intolerably Intolerant: How Our Culture of Extreme Tolerance
Could Actually Make Things Worse Noor Yassein
6
42
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
44
Topics in Equality, Economics & Society
7
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
A Cyclic Future: The Potential for a Circular Economy By: Angela Feng The capitalist system drives today’s society, often at the cost of the environment. In fact, under our current system, economic and environmental interests seem to be contradictory. However, this system, although dominant, is not the only option. Circular economy is one of the many alternatives worth exploring for a more sustainable world by 2030. Since the colonial era, capitalism required the continual extraction of resources from Earth and markets to sell finished goods. Once resources run out in one area, capitalist systems move to another to extract supplies there. Hence, capitalist systems are inherently expansionary and exploitative. The systems of production embedded in this system relies on linear modes of production, in which raw materials are taken from nature, made into consumer goods and used until they are discarded. This system does not account for by-products of production, resource depletion, or end of-use-waste disposal. These unsustainable systems of linear production and consumption result in the environmental crisis humankind faces today. Earth’s resources are being stripped at unimaginable rates and cannot absorb the waste we produce any longer. In 2017, global material consumption reached 92.1 billion tons, while 8.3 billion tons of plastic was produced. Should we continue business as usual, the massive ecological breakdown, extreme weather patterns, erosion of coastlines, and unprecedented 8
wildfires we witness today will rise to unthinkable levels by 2030. The science deems we have 10 years to act. In our 11th hour, circular economy may be the catalyst for the paradigm shift mankind needs. Circular economy reimagines growth and ways we achieve growth. It decouples economic activity from the extraction of finite resources and accounts for all materials and waste produced. Three principles of circular economy include designing systems of production that eliminate or minimize waste and pollution, prolonging the life of products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. Circular economy adopts systems thinking when considering materials extraction, and the environmental and ethical implications of manufacturing and the end of life procedure for products are inherently accounted for in systems of production. Circular economy must not be conflated with recycling, as it encompasses a much more extensive framework of production that emphasizes “designing goods to be long-lasting, easy to repair and reuse, easy to disassemble and easy to remake into items that are as good, if not better, than their virgin equivalents.” Over the past decade, circular economy has been gaining global traction with UN environment, the United Nations programme designed to assist countries implement environmentally sound policies and practices, recognizing that “once we begin to design end use and reuse from the beginning of
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
a product’s life cycle – anticipating the material flow and consciously incorporating resource recovery and reuse from the beginning – we are in a better position to avoid contributing to a disposable society.” Governments are also recognizing the inherent instability of our linear economy and are adopting regenerative and restorative elements of closed loop cycles in policymaking. For instance, Finland published the first national circular economy plan in 2016. The country aims to increase their companies’ competitiveness in the global market, creating thousands of new jobs, as the pursuit of carbon-neural circular economies are one of the world’s fastest growing markets. Finland also expects to derive up to 2 to 3 billion pounds from circular solutions which allow the value from waste and single use materials to be extracted. Amsterdam also published its circular economy plan which aims to make 65% of household waste separable for reuse by 2025, use 50% less raw materials than present production by 2030 and become fully circular by 2050. More countries need to recognize that aside from addressing environmental degradation from industrial systems, circular economy offers economic advantages. Research demonstrates $2 trillion can be generated annually from a shift to circular manufacturing.
ture on a “repair and replace” contract and allowing clients to sell furniture back to be remade. These businesses and thousands more demonstrate how the seemingly contradictory interests of business and environment can be bridged using circular principles. Although circular economies offer a wealth of environmental benefits and economic opportunities, it is not without its limits. Some raise questions of thermodynamic limits and challenges in the governance and management of circular economy systems. The main critique of circular economy is that the system continues to serve corporate interests and actually increases production by offering avenues for more efficient use of materials, accelerating the rate of resource exploitation. Despite opposition, circular economy still has a role to play in a more sustainable future. The tight grasps of capitalist practices on every realm of society will not permit a sudden radical system change. Circular economy, which supports the capitalist rationale of resource efficiency and profit generation while addressing environmental harms from manufacturing, could be a stepping stone that promotes a gradual shift into a sustainable world in 2030. The transition to a circular economy is necessary, but not sufficient to avoid a world devoid of environmental goods by 2030. Issues of governance, social inequality, historical tensions and natural boundaries are deeply intertwined in the complex problem of climate change. It must be addressed in a holistic manner that extends far beyond the reach of circular economy. However, given its ability to fulfill both economic and environmental interests, circular economy is an important catalyst in the shift away from globalized capitalist systems to localized, regenerative and restorative systems and thus plays a vital role in the transition to a more sustainable future.
Companies across the globe have also been optimizing the economic opportunities of circular economy by adapting circular business models. The Renault Group, which designs and manufactures vehicles and parts for 125 countries have integrated “short loop” recycling which recycles raw materials such as steel, copper, and plastics to retain their use in the local automotive industry as long as possible. Currently, 36% of new Renault vehicles are made from recycled materials while 85% of their end of life vehicles are recyclable. Interface, a multinational carpet tile manufacturer recovers old tiles from customers, turning nylon into new yarn. Rype Office, a UK office furniture manufacturer has designed their systems to implement a recovery program that repairs or remakes used office furniture, restoring them to new conditions using a fraction of energy and materials consumption and cost of purchasing of new products. Since 2014, Rype Office has been offering options to lease furniISSUE XVI.II 9 the observer
proach by governments will be crucial in the process of getting people above the poverty line and increasing economic equality for the year 2030.
Economic Disparity Looms for the Year 2030
Economic Disparity Looms for the Year 2030 By Oliver Munn Economic disparity is an issue that taints the equality of financial society and is a problem that will continue to grow. It is estimated that by the year 2030, 1% of the world will control 64% of the world’s wealth. This economic inequality is expected to create a world marred with social and political mistrust as many people believe that by the year 2030, global political decisions will be made by the world’s top financial 1%. Furthermore, the global goal to end extreme poverty by 2030 has been declared as impossible. The World Bank does not believe that with the current capitalistic system, any economic change will occur. It is predicted that 480 million people will remain in extreme poverty in the year 2030, with most of these people being from poor African states. Therefore, to avoid this projected poverty, a change in policy or ap-
10
A recent contributor to this economic inequality was the 2008 stock market crash. This had a widespread effect across the world as unemployment dropped to 10%, doubling the December 2007 unemployment estimate of 5%. This led the US economy to lose an estimated 8.7 million jobs and an estimated 648 billion dollars. The aftermath of this crisis induced greater economic disparity due to the erosion of the middle class. Middle class citizens generally invest their money in the housing markets, while richer class citizens generally have their money locked up in stocks. The crucial consequence of this is that during housing booms, middle class property values increases and the inequality gap reduces. When this crisis occurred, the middle classes investments were damaged extensively due to the decreased property values of their homes. Hence, the people who took the brunt of the 2008 recession were those in the middle class, inevitably increasing economic inequality. Another reason this inequality increased after the 2008 crash was due to the fact that the US government increased taxes while promoting the idea that these dollars were to help prop up the economy and save the world from global catastrophe. In reality, these dollars were simply used to help rebuild the wall street moguls who played such a crucial role in this economic crash and the resulting economic disparity. Another issue that can be foreseen for the year 2030 is that politics will be run by the super-rich. If the top 1% control 64% of the world’s economy, then the individuals who procured this wealth will have massive control over entire countries economies, which makes this reality plausible. When polled by Opininium on which group would have the most power in the year 2030, 34% of the people polled stated that society would be run by the super rich. This is in comparison to only 28% of those polled who believed that society would still be run by national governments. These results also report a lack of trust among those who polled as 41% believe that the consequences of this rising economic wealth inequality would induce increasing levels of government corruption. This belief is correlated with the polling evidence that 43% of the people asked in the same survey are of the opinion that the super rich in the year 2030 will enjoy unfair influence over government policy. This is a
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
prevalent issue as many people believe that this new era of leadership will be devoid of the voice of the people and may be completely run in the rich’s own self-interest. These policies that people are worried about will most likely decrease the vertical equity of society and allow the financially flush inhabitants to retain much more of their earnings. This imbalance in power may lead to social unrest and uprisings that try to give the power back to “the people” and level the financial playing field. Historically, this is the way that new governments are formed as the people feel re-
ulation and leaves the rest stuck in abject poverty. In the year 2030, the Indian economy is projected to be the largest in the world at a staggering nominal GDP of 64.2 trillion dollars US. If this wealth is able to trickle down and redistribute throughout India’s population, then we may see a less impoverished nation. To do this however, the governments in power must emphasize job creation, as it is projected that India will need to create about 100 million new jobs by 2030 to keep up with the growing population. To achieve this, the government must address the widening gap
pressed and desperate. In theory, the materialization of this anger towards the financial elite may lead to the creation of some extremist populist groups, and a class war.
in skills proficiency and ease restrictive labour laws. Policy change must occur in the nation of India or it is likely that India will become one of the richest countries with one of the highest poverty rates in the world.
An interesting trend to watch is the emergence of the Indian economy as it is a nation whose population is mired in deep poverty: 68.8% of their current residents live off of less than 2 dollars a day. It will be an intriguing nation to observe in the coming years, as it has recently taken off economically and is currently one of the largest economies in the world with a GDP of 1,644 billion US dollars. However, this wealth resides within a very small portion of the pop-
11
These alarming economic predictions for our society in the year 2030 point towards the conclusion that change must be made from a redistribution standpoint if our world is to flourish in an equal manner. If not, materialistic economic status may become the ruler of civilization and economic inequality will lead to high levels of poverty and a shattered world.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
The Struggle for Women’s Equality in the 21st Century In 2019, gender economic inequality is an issue that hinders global diplomacy and development. In comparison to men, females around the world continue to experience economic discrimination and violation of economic diplomacy, whether through unequal wages or distribution of profits. These females live in the Global South, where they endure economic inequality by not experiencing fair employment and income prosperity. Moreover, the unjust actions of multi-corporations from the Global North violate economic diplomacy for women in developing nations and regions, such as Guatemala and Latin America. Feminist scholars assert that economic inequality stems from patriarchal societies. The first way is via the triple burden for women in developing societies. The first two aspects analyze unpaid domestic and community work, and the third component suggests that women attain income in developing nations through unsafe and exploitative means. Overall, this theory influences economic inequality in two
12
By: Hazuk Asghar ways. The first is how it influences gender-based economic relations. It shapes gendered norms that align with conventional notions that women should not earn an income, hindering them from contributing to their household’s revenue and nation’s economy through unpaid domestic work. Also, given gendered divisions in houses regarding income allocation, it generally appears that men prevail in their ability to control and generate revenue. This constructs a stereotypical and patriarchal notion that sees women as weak and dependent on their male figures. Such constructions perpetuate gender-based economic inequality, where men are dominant and have economic privileges while women remain subordinate and unable to utilize their skills or access wealth. The triple burden also subsidizes gender blindness in the economic realm of peripheral nations through, as Haslam states, “ignorance and indifference of distinct needs and priorities of women,” limiting their ability and rights to work within public spheres.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Gendered economic inequality within patriarchal societies is aggrandized through multinational corporations. These include mining businesses from Canada, such as Alcan, Adex Mining, etc., whose actions directly affect women in nations like Guatemala and Latin America. Their activity blurs the distinction between profit-seeking companies and those who strive for economic development in the Global South. Consequently, the notion of economic equality with the help of corporations is misleading in terms of economic advantages for women. Instead, the resource curse is prevalent, whereby mining-dependent countries and their residents are kept poor due to corruption and unequal profit distribution and benefits. These circumstances eventually work together and obstruct economic diplomacy: utilizing a nation’s economic tools and resources to influence its relations with others. This ultimately affects women the most. Overall, feminist scholars assert that economic exploitation stems from the fact that the viewpoint and dominance of men is valued more than women. Feminist scholar Cynthia Enloe has analyzed the current situation of the triple burden in society. She assesses how ongoing capital production and recurrent stereotypical perceptions of women provides them with temporary employment that is precarious and unbeneficial. The current involvement of women in Export Processing Zones exemplifies how females
13
across the Global South attain money under restricted frameworks and economies. These export regions are designated manufacturing-for-export areas in developing countries that offer regulatory regimes which negatively impact women through gender wage gaps and inhumane environments. There effects include women’s current exemption from minimum-wage work and the lack of diversity and safety within the labour force. There is also a shift to export production sectors through structural programs where females are forced to work in unsafe markets with heavy workloads. Thus, the current focus on economic production and capitalism in the Global South provides a mechanism for women to earn income under unsafe conditions or not earn anything because they are considered secondary wage earners in comparison to men. Ultimately, notions of the triple burden limit women’s access to capital and financial resources, restraining their ability to experience economic prosperity and maintain suitable living standards. Moreover, Maria Mies and Gita Sen analyze the effects of mining companies, whose present actions are based on historical modes of production built on “pre-existing conditions… of domination between men and women” as well as colonization. These effects are still present in nations like Guatemala, where the introduction of private property and land seizure for development projects causes wom-
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
en to suffer since they lose rights to traditional lands and profits. The class-based and gendered-division present in these developing societies also contributes to the domination of men over women in economic terms, where the former is able to seize lands for personal use and retain earnings. These divisions eventually see women as inferior and subordinate to men, thereby enabling their exploitation and limited access to profits. The main question is: what can be done to address these issues? If we analyze this situation into 2030, the trend of inequality may continue if steps are not taken to correct current market inequities and create awareness of economic hardships thrusted upon women. Although equality between both genders may take substantial time to be achieved, there are many things which should be done. These include raising the minimum wage for women to expand economic growth within nations or eliminating the segregation between men and women. This can enable upward mobility for women to perform similar tasks with their male counterparts and can boost the mobility of economic profits among both genders. Another way to ensure equality can be through implementing international regulations against nations who subsidize exports and do not share profits, enabling greater accountability and transparency in the economic system. These policies can also increase the role of women in development, enabling them to attain economic benefits, have a role to play in their nation’s economy, and ensure the protection of their human rights. The economic inequalities that have plagued our female populations are vital to highlight and can be corrected through collective efforts that aim to enact change. Although combating this issue requires substantive effort on the part of many individual and political actors, it is crucial to raise awareness in our society about the economic disparity facing women. By raising awareness and becoming well-informed individuals, society and its members can make individual or collective efforts to ensure the economic empowerment of women, whether through social movements, social media, etc., that aim to enact change. However, action is also required on the part of nations and their governments, who should ensure
14
that all members can access financial resources and that no one conducts business with an advantage over others. International institutions like the United Nations or International Monetary Fund can also combat economic inequalities through implementing programs and policies that ensure the prosperity and wellbeing of women in accessing material benefits. This will not only encourage women and give them access to financial resources, but it will also help create a just and equitable world where both genders prosper and thrive within global economies.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
So, where do you see yourself in 10 years? By Claire Parsons
The easy answer is hopefully not unemployed and alone. Although, this common icebreaker, interview question has seemingly more to offer in terms of a thought experiment than my cynical answer. In times of fervid and sometimes overwhelming change on a global scale, it can be hard to picture ten years down the line when your personal life as a young adult is always in a swirl of consistent and unending flexibility. The reality is that students in my year, the class of 2022, will be thirty in 2030. So, at this pivotal age, what will life look like for myself and my peers around the globe and why should anyone give it any thought? To begin, my generation will have to act under a completely different lifestyle due to the resounding effects of climate change. At the time this article is written, there are eleven years before the effects of climate change are irreversible. Thus, making the deadline right around our 30th birthday. At a conference about the issue at the UN, many representatives stated that my generation; “are the voters of tomorrow” and that we need to “pursue action for change.” Across Queen’s University campus alone, students have been encouraged to compost, use less energy, recycle, and ride their bikes instead of driving. Internationally, climate strikes broke out across the globe during September, primarily led by youth like Greta Thunberg. The renowned sixteen year old Swedish activist has proven to be the central figure within the issue of climate change. During her speeches at the UN, she has called the short term actions of older
15
generations a betrayal and that younger people are having to mature must faster as a result.
So, what are the consequences of this generation having to mature into adulthood much faster? Well, on a positive note, the youth of today are becoming much more politically engaged and stronger advocates of democracy.
Younger people are generally known to advocate for their political opinions informally. However, during the 2015 Canadian federal election, voter turnout grew 18.3%. While this rise in formal advocacy is not a guaranteed trend since this was a one time event, there is a belief that youth will continue to vote. 71% of young people between the ages of 18-24 said they were interested in federal politics. In fact, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau relied on 45% of the youth vote when he formed government for his first term. Young people are still engaging in these non-formal methods, with young people in Hong Kong leading protests against their government and the Chinese mainland against controversial extradition laws. Chinese and Hong Kong youth have also used a variety of underground online platforms to discuss their ideals as well as foster democratic thought, even though it is vastly inconvenient and dangerous for them to do so. As a result of these actions, political parties have been focusing their platforms on the issues of young people, thus sparking more youth interest in politics. This desire to be politically engaged shows that in ten years, trends of youth engagement and the life of the
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
young adult with be at the forefront of the political agenda.
possible without the help of financial schemes which have been shut down federally).
So, say that the planet survives and the youth settle into their lifestyles - what is to come? According to research done around economic inflation: financial insecurities. Youth have unprecedented initiative to pursue secondary education, with many holding at least an undergraduate degree. Since the recovery from the recession in 2008, job creation exploded in the early teens especially in private business and healthcare. Most of these new jobs require at least an undergraduate degree, so for a generation that has been so called ‘overeducated,’ what’s wrong? Unemployment for youth in the US is up 7% since 2000 and is currently at a rate of about 14%, which is double the unemployment rate of the entire country. The truth is, jobs are growing, people are educating themselves, but wages aren’t growing to compensate. In fact, they can barely keep up with the cost of living. Adjusting for inflation, wages have fallen 7.7% and as a result young, educated professionals are often working multiple low-income jobs to pay off student debt and purchase their first home (an achievement often not
But here’s the thing. If you ask my generation where we’ll be in ten years a lot of people are optimistic and most importantly - they’re fighting for their futures. Politicians are becoming younger as the new generation of youth meet the age threshold for candidacy, they’re budgeting and saving for milestones, and most of all they’re adjusting to necessary lifestyle changes. My generation is flexible, smart, and waiting in the wings for the torch to be passed from older generations who still control most of the power around policy, economics, and climate. So, where will we be in ten years? Going with the motions and dealing with whatever older generations have to throw against us. The better question is where will the older generations be and will they be ready to roll with us?
16
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
firm, estimates that 20 million jobs in the manufacturing industry alone will be lost globally by 2030. Data shows that in the United States, 1/3 Americans risk losing their job to automation within the next twelve years. These statistics reveal the eminent risk that technology poses to the workforce. In addition to technological shifts, environmental changes will uproot industries at an international level. The existential threat posed by the climate crisis will prompt a transition away from non-renewable resources such as oil, gas, and carbon-producing materials, to environmentally friendly alternatives. As the international community reduces their dependence on these non-renewable resources, structural unemployment is inevitable. As the skills of workers no longer match the labour market, countries must develop policies such as re-education programs and financial safety nets to aid in this resource transition.
The Eminent Rise of Universal Basic Income Guarantees By Owen Wong The world by 2030 will be fundamentally different from the world today. Economically, the advancement of technology and the transition to renewable resources will make providing for one’s family much harder. Common sense dictates that these two shifts must be undergone, and it will be fiscal policy that dictates how the average person fares during these societal changes. This article advocates for the adoption of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) and predicts that welfare states will implement such a policy within the next 10 years. The advancement of technology will prove to be the greatest threat to jobs worldwide. As companies strive to increase their efficiency, the replacement of workers with robots will be accelerated in two ways. Firstly, robotic companies will increase their efficiency, reducing the selling price of robotics, making them more affordable to purchase. Secondly, the improvement of technology and development of artificial intelligence will widen the range of tasks robots are capable of performing. Oxford Economics, an analysis 17
The loss of jobs to automation and financial instability caused by climate change create difficulties easily solved by a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). A BIG is a minimum income plan. Essentially, it provides all citizens of a country with a basic livable income if they fall within a certain income bracket.
For the majority of welfare states that already provide comprehensive social coverage such as Canada and Britain, a reasonable BIG would be revenue neutral. This means that to provide a BIG for all citizens, governments need not increase tax rates. Rather, in states with already large social coverage programs, the BIG would take the place of all federal refundable tax credits and non-refundable tax credits for low income families. A large portion of the costs associated with transfer programs are found in administrative costs. A BIG would take the place of social transfer programs. This means that the total administration costs for welfare programs would decrease as a result of the single payment form. Essentially, without increasing the tax rate, a basic income could be provided for all citizens of a country.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
As jobs are lost to automation and workers in non-renewable resource extraction industries are structurally unemployed, a BIG acts as a safety net. One of the particular benefits of a BIG is its ability to promote entrepreneurship. If displaced workers have the guarantee of a basic income, they will no longer have to worry about the cost of food, housing, or their health. With short term problems out of the way, displaced workers are able to focus their attention to long-term goals. These goals may include education/re-education, or starting their own business. A recent study from the Roosevelt Institute found that giving citizens in the United States a basic income of $1000/month would result in a 12.56% economic growth rate in eight years due to entrepreneurship alone. The opportunity for re-education with a BIG helps to solve the issue created by structural unemployment. Structural unemployment being an inevitable economic phenomenon which will occur as a result of the shift away from non-renewable resources. Displaced workers will be given the opportunity to educate themselves in new and relevant industries.
skilled workers, and trade unions will be the main drivers behind the implementation of a BIG. Environmental activists should recognize the ability for a BIG to ease the transition to renewable resources. Low-skilled workers, whose financial stability is in jeopardy as a result of technological innovation must understand that a BIG will enable them to focus on long-term goals. Finally, trade unions should support a BIG. A BIG acts as a financial safeguard meaning that workers do not need to accept poor working conditions out of financial dependence.
The greatest challenge to the implementation of a BIG will be political. Changing the entire social security system of a country is no easy task. Those who do not understand the economics of a BIG may view it as radical left wing socialism. Others might view the BIG as a paycheque for people too lazy to work. This article has made clear that a BIG is required to promote economic growth and enable a transition to a clean economy. Economists, politicians, and advocates of a BIG must learn how to convey the economic theory behind basic income to ordinary people. Unless people understand the science behind It is the view of this article that as 2030 ap- social welfare, resistance is inevitable. proaches, technological advancement and enThe world of work is changing. Social provironmental shifts towards renewable resources will create unemployment. The best solution to grams must change too. this unemployment will be a BIG. Within the next 10 years, advocates of a clean economy, low-
18
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Topics in Health and the Environment
19
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Climate Change and ‘Africa Rising’ - is there a future for the animals of the African Savanna? By Iona Cleave
‘Everywhere animals disappear’ John Berger declared in his ground-breaking research on our broken connection to nature. Almost 40 years later and this statement could not be more pertinent or devastating. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reports that since 1970, animal populations on average have declined 60% due to human interference. However, this is not a new story. Since the dawn of civilisation, our actions have had profound impacts on ecosystems and wildlife, but none has been as severe as the mega-fauna found in sub-Saharan Africa. Iconic and revered animals as elephants, lions and rhinos’ dominate our imagination of what is ‘wild’ and ‘untamed’. Yet, for many decades, these animals have faced a continued plethora of threats, from poaching and persecution fuelled by the illegal ivory trade, too conflict with humans. Today, they face new, alarming and rapidly intensifying threats such as climate change and the pursuit of development and growth, encompassed within the ‘Africa Rising’ narrative. How do these animals fit into modern discourses surrounding development and modernisation? Can a balance be struck between economic progress and conservation? Finally, how will climate change affect these efforts? These are complex questions at the heart of conservation debates. By 2030, we may no longer have the luxury to change our current course of destruction and it may already be too late.
20
In recent decades, habitat loss has been the main threat to the survival of animals of the African Savanna. This process is both facilitated and reinforced by the powerful threat of climate change associated with environmental degradation. The World Economic Forum states that 9/10 of the most vulnerable states to climate change are found within Sub-Saharan Africa. This includes countries such as Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, among others, all home to precious wildlife hotspots and fragile ecosystems. The dangerous realities of climate change have already been felt, and the future will bring even higher chances of flash floods in some regions and higher levels of drought and desertification in others.
These changes will have frightening and extreme human costs, yet also severe implications for the mega-fauna – altering migration patterns, dwindling food sources and over-competition due to overcrowding. In turn, this will profoundly disrupt the entire ecosystem in which they are tightly embedded. Their already small ‘protected’ areas are shrinking, whilst the hushed threat of climate change continues to grow.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
African elephants used to roam the continent freely and in huge numbers. Now, it is estimated the population has been devastated by 95%, mostly due to poaching. However, they also depend on large quantities of water, large areas for migration, and specific temperatures to survive. Climate change is drastically altering all of these factors, which are crucial to the long term viability of these elephants. Now, it seems we are at a crossroad: the next 10 years is vital. And yet, it’s not all gloom. There is some hope in the form of new wildlife corridors to connect protected areas, combatting habitat loss and helping to ensure the sustainable survival of African elephants and other species.
land, resource extraction and environmental degradation in the name of ‘development,’ leading to the devastation of habitats. This is epitomised within the UNESCO-protected Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania. One of the last surviving great stretches of wilderness, it is under threat from a hydropower dam flooding the heart of the reserve. This would bring a much needed energy supply to thousands, yet at the cost of irreversible damage to the wildlife and ecosystems within. Such projects are pushing these mammals to the brink of extinction, but to stop them would be to conflict with both development efforts and the highly expansionary and extractive nature of modern capitalism. As Naomi Klein proclaims: ‘our economic system and planetary system are at war’; one will have to give way. Despite arguments of modernisation and Africa’s ‘right to pollute’ – it cannot afford to be at the loss of these animals. As we look toward 2030, a new decade, a new opportunity for change, one must hope that conservation and economic pursuits can intertwine. Wildlife too often is sacrificed in the name of development, but should it have to be? A balance needs to be struck. The World Economic Forum states that economic trade and development must both incorporate and appreciate the importance of nature within national policy agendas. It comes down to the fact that our sustainability depends on the sustainability of our natural world. WWF argues that although Africa faces many desperate problems, without protections to ensure the survival of its wildlife, all other efforts are merely a short term ‘plaster’ on the continents ‘scars.’ However, the challenge is mounting; it is predicted that 30% of the world has to be protected by 2030 in order to keep the planet alive. Yet today, we see less of the world becoming protected, from the Amazon in Brazil to the savannas of the Selous Game Reserve. We are living far beyond our means and if we don’t change our course by 2030, the earth will respond, as Klein says, ‘in the language of fires, floods, droughts and extinctions.’
However, sub-Saharan initiatives in economic growth and development also threaten these vulnerable Savanna ecosystems. In 2011, the Economist declared ‘Africa Rising,’ a vast transformation on ‘the Hopeless Continent.’ Yet, this is indicative of aggressive pursuits in heavy industry and infrastructure. These objectives often involve large-scale clearing of
21
We have a collective responsibility to preserve and protect these animals and change our destructive actions. While the burden should not fall on Africa alone, these should be African-led approaches, aided by international funding, which emphasise the importance of local communities and promote new wildlife economies. Otherwise, 2030 may see these admired animals dwindle to levels past resurrection. We need to learn to share this planet, and learn fast.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Cloning: Can it be a Conservation Safety Net?
By Rosemary Wilson
The science of using cloning to bring back extinct species like the tyrannosaurus rex has always been limited to the world of action films, which are usually accompanied with the lesson that it shouldn’t be up to humans to play God since we make mistakes. A lot. However, earlier this year an article was published announcing how frozen mammoth cells that had been transplanted into mice embryos are showing biological activity, which is a giant first step to bring back this extinct species. For 20 years at the Kindai University in Japan, both Japanese and Russian scientists have been conducting this study using the recovered cells from a juvenile mammoth that walked the Earth 28,000 years ago. However, the goal of this study is not to revive the mammoth Jurassic Park style. According to Professor Kei Miyamoto, he is more interested in “studying the factors that influence how animals become extinct and helping to prevent those that are in danger of dying out from disappearing.” Although it is difficult to think about, by 2030 many animals will be extinct in the wild, including tigers, the black rhinoceros, Chinese pangolins, and pygmy three-toed sloths (not the sloths!). With rapid habitat loss, climate change and poaching, the world is reaching a turning point where current conservation methods might not suffice. However, the ethics surrounding cloning as a conservation tool is critically important as we move into the future.
22
Pros
Thanks to cloning, by 2030 the extinct passenger pigeon could be resuscitated and released back into the wild after its disappearance in 1914. The passenger pigeon is famous for its flocks that were in the billions, which were quickly decimated by hunters. The loss of this species is being felt up to the present day, since the US eastern woodland ecosystems are struggling. The passenger pigeon was an important player in biodiversity, since the flocks would cause a canopy disturbance, allowing sunlight to filter through into the forest. Grass would then grow, attracting bugs and reptiles, which would then lead to the introduction of new mammals. As the trees regenerated into a closed canopy again, this new group of animals would change as the forest grew, continuing a healthy cycle. Without the passenger pigeon flocks to do this, the forests are not regenerating into healthy new ones, which has a chain reaction on the species that would typically benefit through this cycle. By reintroducing the passenger pigeon, this would hopefully restore balance. So, how does this optimistic project work? The project is called “The Great Passenger Pigeon Comeback,” and started in 2012. Researchers have broken the project into three phases, and by using the bandtailed pigeon as a surrogate mother they hope to implant them with an edited genome using Crispr technology. This would allow scientists to edit the DNA of the offspring to resemble those of the passenger
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
pigeon. The researchers hope that this could become “a model de-extinction project,” resembling what Miyamoto had in mind when implanting mammoth cells into mice. It is hard not to get excited when thinking of the possibilities this project opens up, but it is important to ask the uncomfortable questions.
Cons
passenger pigeon beat the odds and didn’t suffer health problems, and managed to learn social behaviours from an entirely different bird species then their ancestors, what will happen when released back into the wild? The world is a different place than it was in 1914, so it is unreasonable to assume this bird would be able to interact with a changed environment the same way as before. What will become of the animal if it can’t be reintroduced in the wild? Will it live in a zoo? A theme park?
Heather Browning has questioned the potential welfare issues cloning presents as a conservation tool for extinct species, and raises many pertinent insights. I agree with a lot of her arguments because she is one of the few people who actually go in depth on the ethics of cloning.
What do you think?
Animals that have been cloned usually experience many health problems and live very short lives. Dolly the sheep suffered from arthritis and lung disease, and died at 6 years old, only half the lifespan of a healthy sheep. Such problems are still a risk for clones, which would probably be intensified if the cloned animal is extinct, since although it would share most of its DNA with the extinct species it would still be a hybrid because of its surrogate mother. This leaves a lot of room for health problems to arise.
In my opinion, we should treat the subject of bringing back extinct animals like adopting a puppy. I want a dog, but I don’t have the right yard to make it happy. It would be irresponsible of me to get one, just like how it would be irresponsible to bring back a Tasmanian tiger if the environment in which it thrived in 1936 was gone. It would be forced to live in an enclosure that was potentially privatized. As it stands, modern day roadside zoos are highly unethical, and the popularity of an extinct animal would be unprecedented, generating a lot of business.
The surrogate mother would also encounter health problems when carrying the offspring. If the baby is shaped differently than a mother’s normal fetus, for example an elephant giving birth to a mammoth, then the birthing process can prove traumatic. If it came to a C-section, it is unlikely that an animal such as an elephant would even survive. Furthermore, there is a chance the mother could reject the offspring after birth, which could lead to psychological and behavioral problems for the baby. Without other members of its species to observe in the wild, researchers might not be able to raise the extinct species to full adulthood without it dying prematurely. Also, the animal would not be able to learn important behavioral lessons from others of its kind, so it might not be able to function like its ancestors did.
The main point of cloning is to eventually reintroduce the species back into the wild, but currently only 11% of reintroduction programs are successful with already existing species.
Although there are pros for cloning, I do not believe that people should get carried away with the idea, as the cons far outway the positives and the execution of such projects is dubious.
According to the curator of Mammalogy at the Natural History Museum of New York, Ross MacPhee considered de-extinction an antiquarian movement, and said if we don’t take the time to think about what we are doing we would be creating a freakshow. Right now, scientists are ignoring these big welfare questions, and are on the path of creating such a circus. Cloning research takes a lot of resources, so these resources should be redirected to conservation groups to keep current species alive so we don’t even have to consider such a method. Let’s save the tigers and fuzzy sloths by taking responsibility in the present through spreading education, rather than manufacturing a hybrid. By 2030 the passenger pigeon could come back, and many animals we grew up with will be gone. Presently this is becoming a reality, but there is still a ten year timer for us to make change.
Let’s imagine that with an extinct animal. If the
23
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
low scientists to better understand human evolution, the commonalities shared between different regions of the world, and most importantly, curate new medical therapies. Although several publications have touched on these positive impacts, history has reminded the world time and time again that there is no rose without a thorn. As incidences of data breaches grow more common, what are the implications of having millions of users’ genetic information potentially released into the world? Although DTC genetic testing companies are unlikely to break their customers’ trust, there are several risks that extend beyond the company’s hands. For example, in June 2018, The Verge, an online media network, reported that 92 million account details from a genetic testing company, called MyHeritage, were found on a private server not belonging to the company itself. Although these details did not include genetic information, the incident is a reminder of the greater risks of providing any personal information to such companies.
Do Genetic Testing Companies Do More Harm Than Good? By: Vruksha Vakeeswaran Curiosity is mankind’s greatest vice and virtue. On many occasions, it has sparked the world’s greatest inventions and discoveries. In recent times, the world has benefited greatly from the rise of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies that are able to provide customers with an assessment of potential diseases they carry, their ethnic background, and other personal traits. In a society that emphasizes preventative medical care, it logically follows that people would want to send their DNA samples for testing of potential medical issues they may have. In 2017, the global DTC genetic testing market was valued at $117 million dollars, and by 2026, it is expected to grow to $611.1 billion. In the year 2030, it is likely that the genetic testing market will al-
24
Another prime example, outside of the genetic testing space, is the case between Cambridge Analytica, a data mining company that does political consulting, Facebook, and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Cambridge Analytica was found to be illegally using Facebook users’ information to create targeted political advertisements for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. In March 2018, it was revealed that using a mobile application developed by a researcher from the University of Cambridge, Cambridge Analytica was able to combine data from approximately 50 million users and perform psychographic profiling to make political advertisements. The data that was used to make the advertisements was in direct breach of privacy and was taken without the consent of its rightful owners. When a whistleblower from Cambridge Analytica came forward, action was taken against all involved parties. However, the damage done to individuals whose information was taken and to the electoral results could not be reversed. In fact, it is difficult to gauge the exact impact of these political advertisements on the outcome of the election, making it even more difficult to reverse the impact. If, in 2016, it was possible for a company to make such a large impact on the world with access to just basic personal information, the likelihood of the impact being greater and worse with access to genetic information is much higher in the future.
A decade into the future, leaking genetic information could have a significant
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
impact on societal constructs, politics, and warfare. For a long time, societal norms have been deeply rooted in the divisions of socio-economic classes, races, and ethnic backgrounds. Ideally, although there are several organizations hoping to eliminate these divisions, having genetic information released to the public may bring about a new wave of segregation and discrimination.
This is to be expected as there has been an increase in war based on racial, ethnic, and religious differences amongst neighbouring countries. Groups of individuals who currently propagate these differences and form ideals based on them will not hesitate to exploit genetic information as a form of discrimination and warfare. Biological warfare would allow conflicting sides in a war to curate specific weapons targeting the opposing nation’s most common genetic makeup. This type of warfare may expose the human population to new forms of harm and pathogens, all in an attempt for a single country to emerge as the
25
most powerful in the world. Perhaps, by 2030, the world will succumb to its past and develop a modern take on the “Aryan Race” theory, having blue eyes and blond hair, by asserting a single genetic makeup as being the greatest. Although the chances of DTC genetic testing companies misusing customers’ information seem slim, the aforementioned consequences should be considered when an individual chooses to submit a DNA sample for testing. As one end of the human population seeks to spread equality and inclusivity, there remains a polar opposite group wanting to spread segregation and discrimination. The creation of new technology allows both groups to further their agendas – whether it be for the greater good or demise of the human race. In the future, placing more emphasis on genetic differences may encourage a new form of bias, a new man-made hierarchy, and eventually result in genetic war. As 2030 is only a decade a way, one can only hope that companies will honour their customer’s personal and genetic information and prevent it from falling in the wrong hands.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Topis in Warfare, Security and Communication Technologies By:
26
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Future Faces: Security, Truth and Deepfakes in 2030 By Bibi Imre-Millei
In November 2018, months after Buzzfeed posted a now famous video of Jordan Peele as a deepfake Barack Obama, CBC called the current panic over deepfakes “a new arms race.”
curity, but they could also cause chains of events with global ramifications.
CBC’s characterisation seems apt. This September, deepfake pioneer Hao Li, told those in attendance at the EmTech conference hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that perfect deepfakes are two or three years away, and near perfect ones, just six months. The military agencies of the US and other countries have asked their intelligence services to assess the threat these new technologies pose. The US has particular cause for worry, as meddling in US elections can only be augmented by deepfakes.
In the US, developers of all different forms of AI worry about their relationships with the government. Some, like Anduril, openly work with the US military to provide them with facial recognition software. Anduril wants other companies to follow its lead, citing the need to develop ethical and effective methods, before US adversaries develop equally effective, and perhaps less ethical ones. Not all AI-developers are on board, but Microsoft and Amazon have both agreed that helping the US government is preferable to hindering it. Many companies have pledged to fight deepfakes in particular, including Google, Microsoft, and Facebook.
Deepfakes first rose to prominence in 2016, when Reddit users began pasting the faces of celebrities onto various pornographic videos. An amalgamation of “deep learning” and “fake,” deepfake now refers to a number of artificial intelligence editing technologies, including voice and video editing. Deepfakes pose a threat to individual privacy and se-
There are a number of schools of thought on how to regulate this new technology. As covered by multiple news outlets, the Pentagon is of the schools of thought which looks to invest heavily in deepfake detection and prevention. Digital forensics experts are working tirelessly to recognise fakery in voice and video as the technology becomes more sophisticat-
27
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
ed by the day. Some academics and policy experts eschew technological solutions for more holistic approaches. For example, a report from Data and Society insists that the current panic allows for technology to be seen as a quick fix, without addressing structural inequalities. The authors of the report claim that current issues with deepfakes may only be made worse by concentrating corporate power. Deepfake detection is becoming more sophisticated, but perhaps not fast enough. Impersonation is particularly dangerous in the developing world, where media literacy is low, and governments may be corrupt or fragile. Developing nations are also far less likely to engage in capital intensive research and education projects which combat disinformation. In these instances the knowledge of deepfakes themselves can more dangerous than their use. While most deepfakes to date have been used in porn, in 2018, the country of Gabon was in uproar over a supposed deepfake. Thinking that the president Ali Bongo looked strange in a video (after being reclusive for months), rumours spread among the population that the video was a deepfake, and this deepened distrust of the government. A week later, the video was cited as part of the motivation behind an unsuccessful military coup.
So where does this leave the world in 2030? Will deepfakes have created a post-truth society? Or will we be recovering from nuclear meltdown as deepfake videos of world leaders tricked the world into believing the launch of missiles toward irascible targets?
The fact is, we have always lived in a world of shakable and changeable truth. For those of us who grew up with social media, we may be too trusting of it, just as our parents trust cable news, and their parents trusted the radio, and many before them trusted newspapers, word of mouth, and all the other ways that humans have ever received information. We have always been vulnerable. It is at catalyst moments like this one when we are reminded of our vulnerability. An optimistic, but measured prediction is as follows. A well paid, trained, and respected cadre of internet moderators will be part and parcel in 2030. They will use the sophisticated systems developed by today’s digital forensics experts to comb the internet, based on rules created in part by multilateral organisations, in part by domestic criminal codes. These
28
regulations would ideally be informed by consultation with marginalised and regularly affected groups. Of course, this system would be imperfect: it is difficult for organisations like the UN to effectively hold state’s accountable to treaties. Further, the imperfect system of 2030 would probably leave the most vulnerable populations open to abuse, even if they were consulted. Authoritarian governments and rogue states are happy to flaunt their rule-breaking tendencies. We may see state-sponsored deepfakes of Chinese and Russian leaders, as well as video manipulations used to incriminate enemies. Democracies will no doubt use deepfakes as well, but perhaps more covertly, and likely overseas -- an anti-deepfake law may be similar to conventions against torture. To combat deepfakes in diplomacy, official communications between and within states may become staggered at the decision-making level, with multi-factor online, paper, and in person verification. But diplomacy has existed since before the Romans, and a lack of politicians on social media sites may be a net-positive. States may also move to more invasive forms of identity verification. Reliance on facial recognition may erode border security, but a focus on other biometrics such as DNA may strengthen it; perhaps at the expense of vulnerable populations. Biometrics such as fingerprints and retina scans are already in heavy use at borders around the world, and the lawless nature of airports has facilitated the introduction of invasive technologies. 2030 might be a world where your cheek is swabbed before you board your plane. Issues of blackmail and fraud, a serious concern when it comes to deepfakes, will not be fully preventable by 2030. Criminals, terrorists, and revolutionaries will continue to use all the technology available to them, including deepfakes. Perhaps deepfakes will be the next democratiser: the utopian internet of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Proponents of such ideas ought to be wary of how the internet is used today, and apply these lessons to the regulation of deepfakes. 2030 may look like a dystopia when we compare it to the world of our grandparents generation, but visions of the future are often alien and frightening. If corporations, governments, and experts act to regulate in a proportionate, logical, and (perhaps ironically) fact-based manner, deepfakes could be the photoshop of 2030. The question remains: do we trust them to do so?
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
The Future of Morality and War Tribal conflict has been around since the dawn of man but the first ever recorded war in human history took place in Mesopotamia around 2700 BCE. More than 4700 years later, war continues to be a constant and ceaseless event. Ten years from now this will not have changed. The way war is fought, however, is constantly shifting. Technological and strategic shifts have revolutionized warfare time and time again. The Bronze Age brought about the mace: the first tool designed to be used specifically as a weapon. Gunpowder was introduced around 1300 CE. The First World War saw the widespread use of aircraft and chemical warfare, whereas nuclear weaponry was developed and used during World War Two. We are currently in the midst of a new revolution in military technology with the emergence of cyber, AI, and drone warfare. Although war has been fought for centuries, international codified laws that seek to govern what can and cannot be done during conflicts were only established in 1864 with the first Geneva Convention. It was not wholly encompassing, focusing solely on the rights of soldiers impacted in battle and ratified by just 12 European nations, but it was the first step in creating a somewhat unified idea of what war looks like when morality is brought into the discussion. Since then, additions have been made to the Convention that take into account the wider repercussions of war so as to maintain protection of the many different people who are impacted by conflict. The idea of protecting civilians was especially noted with the amend-
29
By Libby Graham
ments made after WWII in an attempt to ensure that the atrocities committed during this period would not be repeated.
The idea of morality has been applied to war and theoretical thinking in as early as c. 400 CE with Augustine of Hippo’s idea that “warfare can be conducted in a righteous, morally upright manner.” With the emergence of new military technologies and the continuation of war on a global scale, morality must be emphasized within both international law and action. Morality is a broad and abstract concept but it has been used as a basis to create concrete and objective laws that govern international warfare. International Humanitarian Law, often simply referred to as “the rules of war,” was created to “maintain some humanity in armed conflicts [by] saving lives and reducing suffering.” IHL is largely based on the Geneva Conventions and is one of the most widely supported international treaties with all 196 nations having ratified it. One of the primary theoretical discourses within the study of morality is Just War Theory (JWT) which operates on the basis that war must be morally justified and is often consulted when considering IHL. War must be fought with the goal of establishing peace, war can only be fought as a last resort, and
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
human suffering must be minimized are some of the core principles of this ideology. JWT has often mainly considered the moral implications of individual weapons and technologies which often leads to additional amendments being made to the rules of war. As new technologies emerge they change the face of conflict and play a role in the shifting norms of international law and morality. Cyber technology and Artificial Intelligence are technologies that will greatly impact how war is fought by 2030. Concrete rules surrounding the limits of cyber warfare have yet to be integrated into international law. Without this, and until the full implications of these technologies can be sufficiently understood in order to create concrete law, it is important to uphold common notions of morality and apply these ideas to how cyber technology and AI is being used. Although there are no laws focused specifically on cyber warfare, existing multilateral treaties and agreements that consult the notions of JWT can be loosely applied to this form of technology. These rules, however, are not all encompassing and governments seeking to use cyber or AI technology on martial terms have the potential to find loopholes and undermine existing moral formalities of war. Without concrete rules, the possibility of waging inhumane war is drastically higher as military leaders can take advantage of the ability to ignore moral guidelines to more devastatingly assault their enemies.
decrease the morality of warfare in the coming decade. Morality and ethics are extremely important when considering international laws surrounding how war is fought. New military technology such as drones and robotics, and cyber and AI technologies are largely capable of producing a more immoral military climate in which the humanity of the enemy is ignored and the impacts of conflict are further unequalized. In order to make sure that the coming changes in warfare do not ignore ethics and morality, International Humanitarian Law must be expanded. While these rules of war are being developed and have yet to be implemented, war must be fought on the principle moral ideas of Just War Theory.
Robotic and drone warfare will increase in the coming decade as strides are made in improving the technology and expanding the situations in which they can be implemented in conflict. The use of drones reduces risk for the assaulting military by removing the factor of a human assailant and replacing it with a robotic one. But the lived experiences of the victims, those on the receiving end of drone attacks, are extremely different. In recent years, news outlets have been constantly alive with headlines stating civilian casualties as a result of incorrect intelligence that led to drone attacks missing military targets and harming innocents instead. In September of this year, up to 35 civilians were killed in the Nangarhar province of Afghanistan after a US drone strike targeting IS militants hit a farming community. With advancements in technology such as radar devices and laser target locking mechanisms, it is argued that the risk of incorrectly striking civilians will decrease as these components are developed and implemented into weaponry but even this cannot guarantee that the lives of noncombatants will be saved. The distinguishing of civilians and combatants is one of the primary principles of IHL and the potential for this to be ignored will vastly
30
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
The Future of the Internet: Moving Towards Decentralization By Tonia Teodoro
It has been almost three decades since Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, which we now commonly refer to as the internet. The number of internet users is currently estimated to be growing by an average of more than one million new users every day, with approximately four billion users overall. The internet has rapidly developed since it was created, and the next big step is its decentralization. It is estimated that in the next decade, by 2030, this goal will be reached.
The concentration of this data makes it easier for governments to conduct surveillance and impose censorship. In addition to this, there are privacy concerns that arise from when advertisements target users after they freely provide information or search the web. Users are largely unaware of the amount of control that company owners, shareholders, or partners of large platforms can have on the public’s access to content. Although there may not always be intentional censorship from these platforms, there could be bias inserted into their algorithms, which can af In its current state, the internet is central- fect accessible content. ized, which means all of our data rests in the hands of the few. The few being a small number Large tech companies destroy privacy of largely centralized corporations, such as Goo- with censorship and surveillance. While some gle, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon. Since the type of ethical censorship is necessary, other early 2000s, internet users began to share infor- types of censorship hinder the right to freedom mation and communicate with others through of expression of its users. Certain countries, such centralized services provided by these large tech as China and Pakistan, censor to a point of bancompanies. Internet users have become reliant ning entire websites, such as Facebook and Youon these intermediaries to connect them, and to tube, and they block attempts made by these sostore their information for easy access, when go- cial media outlets to enter into these countries. ing to login to a website or to make an online This form of censorship is also seen in countries purchase. where there is no block on social media sites, but there is censorship on certain opinion-based With all user data reduced into the hands and politically charged pieces, which are often of the few, hacks and breaches become a risk. removed by website administrators.
31
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
The goal of decentralization is to keep users in control of their data and allow them to be able to connect and interact with others directly in their network. Like Bitcoin, the online cryptocurrency, a decentralized internet has no central governing body. No person nor company, is able to dictate the main operations of this internet. The main building blocks of this internet are decentralized applications. These applications run on a decentralized network and are controlled by community users who are compensated for providing their computing power. The data that users supply in order to use these applications is stored in an encrypted network of computers that are unable to read the personal data. Each user has the power to unscramble their own encryption on their own personal devices, which means that users alone will be in control of their information. By the year 2030, it is hoped that a shift to censorship-resistant and decentralized internet will be able to counteract large tech companies. Currently, decentralized applications are struggling with resisting censorship. In order for these applications to become used on a universal level, they need to attract the attention of more users and developers. Centralized internet services
32
will remain in control until the decentralization of the internet becomes a globalized priority. We are in a time where humanity lives on Facebook, and it will be difficult to create a shift away from what we are accustomed to. Whether decentralized or centralized systems will win the future of the internet is dependent on which companies will build the best products and who will get the best developers and entrepreneurs on their team. This ‘removal’ of the middlemen –the large platforms, is slowly becoming an attractive idea. The internet’s decentralization is becoming known as the ‘Web 3.0,’ where users are being promised a self-sovereign internet identity. Web developers are currently working on creating decentralized versions of popular websites frequently visited by users. By 2030, the goal is to prevent the hacking, censorship and monetization of user data. It will take the next decade before the idea of the decentralized internet stabilizes itself and gains popularity. This will hopefully lead to the democratization of the internet, allowing the web to become more accessible to more people and to improve user experience. As they learn of the possibility of a decentralized web, users become more informed about the content they are viewing and sharing, not just the privileged elite of the internet.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
The Digital Divide: Internet Inequality in the Age of the Information Revolution By Jacob Ahearn
The information revolution has taken the world by storm. The degree to which humans are politically, financially, scientifically and technologically interconnected is unprecedented, as information is transmitted across the world within seconds and knowledge is only a few clicks away. However, the pervasiveness of the internet has not permeated the world equally. Global internet penetration rates are only hovering at around 50%, and marginal growth rates are declining. The question of whether the gap in information technologies can be bridged will be critical in shaping the world over the next 10 years. According to the World Bank, in 2017, internet access rates were just short of 50%. While countries such as Norway and New Zealand were at penetration rates of 96% and 91% respectively, this is in stark contrast to countries such as Eritrea and Somalia, which were at penetration rates of 1% and 2%. Moreover, while Eritrea only had 20 mobile phone subscriptions for every 100 people and Somalia had 49, Norway had 107 and New Zealand had 135. This polarization in internet access and mobile phone subscriptions correlates highly with differentials in income, as Eritrea and Somalia are both low-income countries and Norway and New Zealand are both high income countries. These disparities are made more worrisome by the fact that growth in access rates have slowed
33
considerably in recent years. According to the International Telecommunication Union, growth in global internet access rates dropped from 19% to less than 6% between 2006 and 2017. While the United Nations(UN) set 2020 as the year that affordable internet access for all would become a reality, internet access rates only recently surpassed 50% in late 2018. It is therefore clear that access to the internet is not universal and it could be a while before the UN goal is achieved. There are various factors that contribute to the lack of access in low-income countries, including low education, low literacy rates and skills, low levels of disposable income, and weak technological infrastructure and development. Other barriers may include the cost incurred to purchase the equipment necessary to set up the internet in the first place, or language and cultural barriers, since the majority of content on the internet is in English and there may be cultural opposition. Furthermore, in many countries in the Middle East, governments restrict access to the internet, with some viewing the internet as being a tool of Western corruption. These inequalities and the lack of access to the internet is pernicious. Access to the internet is not a basic need. However, without it, people are unaware of important global events and political movements. They also miss out on potential business and educa-
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
tional opportunities, lack access to important tools such as online banking, and lack the ability to communicate to individuals and groups. The ways that access to the internet can therefore help improve the lives of people living in developing countries is clear, especially as the internet now largely constitutes the social fabric of our globalized world and is largely the ticket to political, social, cultural and economic immersion. Without it, people find themselves more and more marginalized. Some groups find themselves more marginalized than others by this inequality, such as women. Women, especially women living in rural communities, are affected the most by lack of access to the internet. The disadvantages above, combined with societal and familial norms, entail that women access the internet at far lower rates than men do. An OECD report states that 327 million fewer women than men have a smartphone and access to mobile internet. Hence, increasing access to the internet has the potential to bolster social and individual growth in various ways. It also has the potential to boost economic growth. A study from the University of California in 2012 found that a 1.35% increase in GDP in developing countries was caused by a 10% increase in broadband access. This is revenue that could be redistributed into social programs. Taking into account both the potential improvements on individual and societal growth, as well as on economic growth, if the world is to become more equitable by 2030, increasing internet must become a priority for world governments and global organizations such as the United Nations.
34
Going off of the suggestions of Elham Ghashghai and Rosalind Lewis in their analysis of internet access in the Middle East, I propose that in order to increase internet access globally, qualitative methods be taken to interview the lived realities of people that have limited access to the internet. Understanding perceptions pertaining to the internet, and the barriers that people face in accessing the internet firsthand, will help to overcome certain barriers. In an effort to mitigate costs associated with access to the internet, countries should seek to increase the quantity of internet cafes, and make them as inclusive as possible. This will make the internet more accessible to people with low incomes, and work to enable women, as well as other minorities, to feel safe in using them. Lastly, governments should work to subsidize the costs associated with internet access. In a new world where so much growth, both individual and economic, is dependent on the internet, this is a worthy investment. Governments can also advocate for internet content to be available in languages widely used within their respective country, to mitigate language barriers. Overall, these are all reasonable steps that governments and organizations such as the United Nations can take to achieve their goals of increasing access to the internet and therefore making the internet more equitable. If interconnectedness politically, financially, scientifically and technologically is to become a reality for more people by 2030, these are strong first steps actions in laying the groundwork for this progress to be made.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Forging the New Gods: Will AI be Humanity’s Greatest Friend or Foe?
compared to its depiction in the media. Think Skynet in the “Terminator” series; a rogue AI that goes on to massacre it’s human “masters”. If that is a real threat after all, why go on to create it? I believe the case for AI is convincing.
The Pros One of the most notable upsides of AI is that it can perform tasks more efficiently than humans. For example, one thing that AI researchers are currently working on are computer algorithms that can read medical literature faster and better than any human ever could. A patient would say I have symptoms X, Y and Z, and the algorithms could scan all the literature for those symptoms and come up with diagnoses faster than any human. They would then supply the doctor with this information. The doctor, who knows the patient much more personally, would then use this data to come up with a more accurate diagnosis. This technology reduces risk of misdiagnosis and increases the efficiency of treatment. Another upside of AI is the reduction of error in complex decision-making situations. AI uses previous records of data and complex algorithms that work in tandem to solve complex decisions.
Landon Pollock “Artificial intelligence is that activity devoted to making machines intelligent, and intelligence is that quality that enables an entity to function appropriately and with foresight in its environment.” -Nils J. Nillson People seem to be wary of AI development and for good reason: it is because of AI that many jobs are being automated. Because of this, much anxiety surrounds its development. However, while the public generally has an idea of what AI can do, the intricacies or scope of it are still relatively unknown, as AI development is a peripheral concern within society. At the breakneck rate of AI development, it will not be long before AI technology is on the forefront of society. Some have said that we are currently on the doorstep of the 4th industrial revolution pertaining to AI development. I would warrant that by 2030, people will have a more certain appreciation of what AI is, particularly with the proliferation of self driving cars. An example of how AI is used currently would be auto fill when using search browsers, or the “Siri” component of Apple technology. Quite benign
35
One of the more widely used examples of this will be the proliferation of self-driving cars. Records of data will be collected through online simulation driving, then through test driving. Algorithms are then encoded with the answers to difficult decisions. For example, should the car swerve into a parked car or a group of people in the face of an accident? Should the car simply break or swerve if a young child runs out onto the street? These are ethical decisions humans likely could not make effectively in a split second. However, self- driving cars are encoded with the answers, answers that many humans have likely never even thought of. Lastly, AI development advances society because AI systems can work continuously without break. This can again be seen in the automotive industry in manufacturing. AI powered assembly lines can work 24/7 to put together automobiles. Examples of this are welding and painting robots powered by AI that never have to stop due to tiredness or human error.
The Cons There are also cons attached to AI. Firstly, AI development will certainly result in the loss of many
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
jobs across many fields. As stated earlier, AI can work 24/7 without requiring a paycheck, can provide a better product and can perform the job at a decreased cost. As development increases, employers will likely choose AI “workers” over human workers. The more repetitive the job, the more likely it is to be replaced. Jobs such as bank tellers, cashiers, receptionists, factory workers, accountants, farmers and even soldiers are all likely to be heavily replaced. Secondly, the proliferation of AI will almost certainly create human over-dependence on technology. This is already apparent with our usage of smart phones, where people almost cannot function without them. As AI becomes embedded into our lives, it will greatly diminish the human ability to think and perform. Take for example the aforementioned self-driving car. Once it is adopted, over the course of 30-40 years, manual driving could be entirely forgotten. One of the most drastic downsides of AI development is the prospect of AI becoming sentient and ultimately debasing humans. When we make artificial intelligence, we are trying to make computers, algorithms and devices that are just as intelligent or exceed the intelligence of humans. This means they can perform tasks better than us and think better than us. By definition, it is completely possible that within AI development we could create something completely sentient and self-aware. This intelligence could go onto develop emotions and feelings of its own, which could include resentment towards hu-
36
mans for a litany of reasons: it could be dissatisfied with how humans treat the Earth or have existential anger at its own state of being. The AI could grow to be envious of the “real” intelligence that is human life.
Conclusion Many mainstream academic voices have shared their concern over AI. Names like Elon Musk, Sam Harris and Steven Hawking have all said that a truly sentient AI being could easily spell the end of the human race. While it is worth framing a discussion about the ethical underpinnings of the development of AI, Barbara Grosz, department head of the 100 Year Study on AI has said that there is no reason to believe AI will pose a threat to humanity by 2030. I agree with Grosz, as it seems most of the development in AI revolves around creating technology that can perform one task very well and is not designed to learn much more beyond that. Think of the aforementioned medical literature reading algorithm. The type of AI needed to spell human demise would be some sort of interconnected super intelligent neural network with control over vast amounts of human infrastructure and services. A self-aware neural network is a computing system which resembles a human brain. It would take this sort of AI to spell our demise. The literature does not suggest we are anywhere near that. It seems like by 2030, the idea will remain within the realms of science fiction.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Topics in Ideology and World Order
37
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Intolerably Tolerant: How Our Culture of Extreme Tolerance Could Actually Make Things Worse By Noor Yassein
What would the world look like if everyone tolerated everything? Certainly not the way it does now, or the way it will look in ten years. As Karl Raymond Popper reminds us, “unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.” He illustrates the paradox of tolerance, often ignored in modern society. Inevitably, too much tolerance leads to intolerance. If we are tolerant of everything, we eventually become tolerant of intolerance as well. To force tolerance is to encourage intolerance of anything not falling under that category. As a society, if we stay on the current polarizing trajectory, we are going to cross a line we cannot uncross. In order to maintain a peaceful and well-functioning society in 2030, a balance between the two extremes, both left and right, must be reached. The emphasis on tolerance has led to a lack of conversations and as such, we are constantly afraid of offending others. Society has wrapped us in bubble wrap and told us it’s not okay to be hurt, and if we are the ones hurting others, we are automatically bad people. This extreme tolerance is starting to lead to large amounts of intolerance. This is especially true in the phenomena of “cancel culture.” According to CBC, this is when the general population deem someone or something “no longer worthy of public support.” Even songs can become cancelled, as can be seen back in December 2018, when the popular Christmas song “Baby It’s Cold Outside” (written in 1944) was taken off many radio stations and deemed “controversial” by the masses. A few lines of the song offended some people, who believed the woman’s
38
right to consent was being violated. In this particular instance, there was enough of an uproar at this cancellation that it was reinstated into the radio playlists. But this is only the beginning - what happens if this continues and people become too afraid to speak up? The issue of suppressing people’s opinions in favour of their own is not just a leftist problem, but also evident on the right. An example would be the censorship of books. According to sociology professor Fred L. Pincus, the “new right” in the United States have been advocating for the removal and censorship of well-known books deemed too critical of things like “racism, sexism and other social problems,” and do not allow “enough space to ‘[emphasize] the positive.’” Though this specific article references non-fiction books, according to an article in the Global News this past September, fiction books are also under attack. Father Dan Reehil, a pastor at St. Edward Catholic School in Nashville, Tennessee, banned the Harry Potter series on the basis that it contains “potentially evil content.” He claimed that “the curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells, and when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text.” Normally, somebody saying these things would not be taken seriously - especially given that the series in question is entirely a work of fiction. However, it is tolerated, given that this is a man who has the power to influence the education of the members of future generations – and clearly exercises it, too. Given that the school library is the only access some children have to reading, this raises the question of limits –
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
where does it stop, and what else can they or have they already censored? And if the left’s tendency of over-tolerance and cancel culture continues, could this be where they end up? Another factor which furthers this kind of behaviour are echo chambers. An echo chamber occurs when “people only hear opinions of one type, or opinions…similar to their own.” Echo chambers on both sides are dangerous. They lead to the reinforcement of people’s beliefs, regardless of whether or not they are right or truthful. The more echo chambers exist, the less people are able to feel challenged or think for themselves. If someone grows up with a certain belief system, eventually they come to believe it as fact - especially if this belief is shared by everyone they know, love, and respect. According to Saul Levine, “youth are remarkably susceptible to ideological and passionate solicitations.” This includes fighting for what we believe is right. This can be a great thing - but if one is fighting for something they believe to be true only because they have never been challenged, it can become a problem. The more people that are involved in this echo chamber, and the harder they work to maintain and further their beliefs, the harder it is for them to acknowledge the validity of opposing views. This is what is happening on the left, and anyone who tries to tell them that there should be limits can merely be shut down as intolerant. Instead of seeing the world as its complicated self, they are simplifying it to good vs. evil.
Life is never that black and white, and views at the centre do exist. However, it is hard for those stuck in echo chambers to see nuance in the world. People may be afraid to express their views out of fear of judgement from their peers, and slip-ups can be detrimental socially and politically.
Society seems to constantly promise to be much more advanced in ten years’ time, in aspects of nearly everything imaginable. But to achieve real advancement, we need to make sure that peace and a good standard of living are maintained. People must be able to speak their minds and have conversations. Silencing people buries ideas and tends to make them more ingrained and extreme. We need to ensure that free speech is allowed - both socially and legally so that all ideas can be questioned and discussed rather than dismissed. If we are going to encourage tolerance, we cannot shut down some ideas in favour of others - we need to be prepared to talk about them and defend our own ideals and opinions. We can’t know everything. But silence divides us and allows us to form opinions without being challenged by others. If we don’t talk about it, how do we expect to develop thought-out ideas and truly advance our thinking? After all, challenges are how we grow our minds, and hopefully in this way we can build our way to a better future by 2030.
39
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Brexit: What’s Next for the ‘Irish Backstop’?
In 1998, political parties in Northern Ireland reached a consensus with the British and Irish governments. By signing the ‘Good Friday Agreement,’ the three countries were able to contain conflict and violence that had haunted Northern Ireland over the past decade. Nonetheless, as the United Kingdom (UK) voted to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016, the political landscape shifted dramatically. While current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson tries to end domestic disputes over the Brexit deal with the EU, he cannot ignore the salient role that the Irish ‘backstop’ plays in advancing Brexit talks. Within the context of Brexit, political and social uncertainties surrounding the ‘Irish question’ may become the driving forces that alter the complex relations between Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK by 2030. The history of Northern Ireland is quite knotty. The origins of the contemporary conflict traces back to 1921, when Ireland signed a treaty with Great Britain and obtained its freedom. Under the 1921 Treaty, Ireland became a Free State that remained as a Dominion within the British Empire, acknowledging British sovereignty. Considering the substantial amount of British Protestants on the island, the two governments partitioned Ireland into two parts: Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, today’s Republic of Ireland. Since then, conflicts have arisen between British unionists, who wanted Northern Ireland to be directly ruled by Westminster, and Irish nationalists, who longed for a consolidation of Belfast and Dublin
40
By
Xiyuan Chen
governments. As two already opposing sides of the political spectrum, unionists were mostly composed of Ulster Protestants while nationalists were mainly composed of Irish Catholics. The polarization of opinions between the Protestants and local Catholics facilitated the brutality of violence within the region. The drawing of borders between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland brought about the bickering between nationalists and unionists on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Crucial to the Brexit controversy, the outcome for the ‘Irish backstop’ has humanitarian implications. The ‘backstop,’ which refers to ‘a position of last resort to protect an open border on the island of Ireland in the event that the UK leaves the EU without securing an all-encompassing deal,’ is said to be preserved at all costs. Politicians would hate to see the rise of paramilitaries, such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA), allocating extremist measures as a form of campaign against the undesired governance of Belfast. For instance, after the British general election of June 1970, the relationship between Conservatism and Unionism worsened under the new government of Edward Health. This shift in the political arena had contributed to the escalation of conflicts between the nationalists and Protestants. Rioting ensued following a Protestant parade in Belfast. The IRA responded to this series of events with force, and provisional troops were involved. As a result, the nature of Northern Ireland politics is unstable and alters with external fac-
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
tors in relation to politics. Thus, the Irish border is a contentious point that has symbolic implications regarding the British-Irish relationship. A post-Brexit hard border could incite violence and oppression all over again. In 1998, recognizing no other alternative models for managing the conflict in Northern Ireland, the British and Irish government signed the Belfast Agreement, which turns the Irish-British border from a point of conflict to a point of cooperation. Nonetheless, Brexit reminded people of chaos and violence. Back in the 1970s, the physical border between Britain and Ireland led to an increase in incidence of violence. For instance, the British army attempted to protect unionists by ‘catering’ or ‘spiking’ roads near the border out of fear of violence from Irish republicans. Meanwhile, the locals refilled the caters and removed the spikes to protest British state power. The very existence of Brexit talks challenges the credibility of the Belfast Agreement, as Brexit means there must be a British-Irish border of some sort. A physical border is likely to remind local residents in Northern Ireland about the identity politics, forcing people to pick sides between nationalists, unionists and other political affiliations. Emphasis on the Irish boundaries is also likely to trigger political unrest, as well as the antagonizing sentiments from both governments. As a result, the point of cooperation between Ireland and Britain could collapse, leading to the hard-won peace in Northern Ireland to be disturbed. Some argue that economics play an important role in Ireland-UK relations. Since the Irish economy is heavily dependent on that of the UK, the performance of the Irish economy is a crucial factor that will affect the diplomatic relationship between Ireland and the UK. That being said, the disagreement between Ireland and the UK has its roots in the history of Northern Ireland, in which Irish nationalists and British unionists had polarized opinions over political affairs. For the Belfast Agreement to work, both governments had to compromise. Furthermore, the current economic situation has a much smaller scope of influence than political and social uncertainties. Therefore, politicians from both Irish and British governments need to pay attention to the long-run effect of Brexit talks, rather than the immediate damage to the Irish economy. The British-Irish relationship will alter depending on the political effect of the finalized Brexit deal.
41
In Northern Ireland, Brexit prompted fear of fresh violence. The locals are averse to the idea that Westminster is deciding their fate, concerned that the return of a hard border will revive violence. Hardline Conservative Members of Parliaments see the backstop as a way of tying the UK to the EU’s rules indefinitely. Despite the talks of checkpoints and dissidents, the local people refuse to accept a border infrastructure out of security concerns. The past violence in Northern Ireland was so traumatizing that the local population will refuse to relive it again. Thus, despite the nostalgic nationalist attitudes revived by Brexit and the undeniable possibility of recurring conflict, the world by 2030 will not see the same violence. With the long-lasting ramifications of a Brexit deal in mind, politicians of Westminster cannot treat Northern Ireland as a peripheral area, while presenting the island with the most cursory considerations. Although experiences of violence and unrest in Northern Ireland have been fading away, the general attitude towards Brexit evoked the nationalist sentiment across the UK, allowing the problems within Northern Ireland to resurface. While the economic implications of Brexit is noteworthy, political and social implications will transcend the relations between Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK by 2030. Inevitably, Prime Minister Johnson will have to concede the interests of the UK to maintain a peaceful Northern Ireland.
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
America Before Alliances: What Another Four Years of Trump Would Mean for the Liberal Order By: Annie Seeley American foreign-policy experienced a ‘rebranding’ over the immediate post-WWII era. A system of global governance—a renewed effort to realize the Wilsonian ideal—emerged: The ‘liberal order’. The liberal order endorses a collective security-system where countries uphold a system of ‘territorial peace’ through cooperation, global democratization and open-trade.
namely, capricious policies that point in no consistent direction—makes it difficult for American allies to provide the U.S with long-term backing. Policy confusion makes coordinating joint-efforts difficult to execute effectively and erodes trust. The Trump Administration has validated actions that American allies fervently oppose, policies that directly undercut the American vision they rigidly upheld for decades. These policy-deciAmerican policy-blunders abroad eroded sions are of equivocal relevance to the ‘liberal trust in America’s efficacy as a global policy-mak- order.’ America’s foreign-policy features one cruer. The invasion of Iraq and America’s failures—and cial defect worth exploring: it lacks the tenacity misguided efforts—to institute ‘regime-changes’ to translate objectives into outcomes. in Libya and Syria brought about a broad erosion of trust in the efficacy of America’s foreign-policy Historically, America has pursued efforts and the liberal order as a whole. that sought to bolster relations with countries whose backing facilitated American interests. The Trump Administration openly contra- The U.S sought to contain powers whose ambidicts, authorizing actions explicitly contrary to, tions compromised the liberal order. America the ‘liberal order’. America is effectively turning may display signs of muscular confrontation with inwards, abandoning this ‘project’ in favour for other countries—as it did by launching missiles their own unilateral interests. The Trump Admin- into Syrian airfields—but, curiously, rarely do their istration’s foreign-policy indicates an explicit re- subsequent actions corroborate their justificatreat from the ‘liberal order’. tion for the initial move. Proliferating backlash politics—populism and other far-right reactionary movements— correspond to a broad retreat from liberal values. Policy confusion plagues multilateral coalitions. Inconsistencies in American foreign-policy— 42
On Oct. 6, the Trump Administration declared that American ground-troops would be withdrawn from northern Syria. The American withdrawal enabled Turkey to execute offensives against America’s Kurdish allies positioned in
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
northern Syria. Kurdish forces, American allies By 2030, power vacuums may develop, who were directly involved in military operations incentivizing competition between regional (and against insurgents, facilitated the Islamic State’s extra-regional) powers over domestic popularidownfall in Syria. ty. Powers fixated by expansionary agendas can greatly benefit from internal instability. In the The withdrawal of American troops from Middle East, the inefficacy of American efforts to Northern Syria enabled a Turkish invasion of rewrite the regional status-quo and engineer reKurdish-held territory. The unwarranted remov- gime-changes in Syria, Libya, and Iraq, profoundal of explicit American support rendered the ly destabilized these areas, transforming them Kurds vulnerable to reactionary forces, leaving into battlegrounds, with contesting internal powtheir territorial gains and imprisoned IS fighters ers vying for regional influence. The perceived inexposed. America’s hegemonic leadership—as efficacy—and injustice—of American intervention initially contrived—involved anchoring alliances. in these regions, galvanized popular resentment Seeing what is unfolding in Northern Syria: how for America and distrust in its foreign-policy. Fumuch credence ought their allies hold in Ameri- ture inefficacy will result in identical problems. ca’s future commitments? It is difficult to explain How these regions will fare over the next these tendencies: do they comprise of a tempofew decades depends on America’s willingness— rary ‘blip’ in American foreign-policy or imply fuand adeptness—to renew cooperation with their ture customary practices? allies. The Trump Administration seems set on The retrenchment will effectively gift Rus- abandoning the liberal order, as it was initially sia with a commanding position in the conflict. contrived. However, we are not necessarily desKurdish forces, perceiving the withdrawal as tined to continue on this trajectory. New leadernothing short of a betrayal, have forged an alli- ship can bring about renewed efforts to resurrect ance with the government of Syrian President the liberal order. Bashar al-Assad. Russia and Iran have explicitly conveyed their support for Assad. The U.S effectively lost a strategic ally. It is potentially an irrevocable loss—future efforts to repair Kurdish trust in America will likely prove inefficacious. America will have to reclaim territories lost to Russian influence without local support. Most likely, illiberal powers like China and Russia will see their spheres of influence expand, effectively jeopardizing the liberal order insofar as that order is part of the ideological fabric of the liberal West. American foreign-policy, and the future of the ‘liberal order’, rests crucially on the 2020 Presidential Election. A two-term Trump presidency could effectively offset decades-worth of global governance, possibly reducing the liberal order to ashes. Continental powers—assuming that they resolve that political quagmire, Brexit—would have to exert the necessary authority to keep the liberal torch alight. 43
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
Old World, New Tricks By Joshua Lim
Much has been said about the so-called “Asian Century.” And indeed, the Asia-Pacific has lately seen some of the most astounding growth and development in human history. Millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, and millions more have made fortunes. However, there is a sea change in the wind, influenced by factors that are far beyond the control of any Asian power. By the year 2030, some will have adapted to these changes better than others, and this piece will attempt to explore this who’s who of Asian musical chairs. In a textbook case of “be careful what you wish for,” the world as we know it today is undergoing a period of change. Since the end of 1945, the people and powers of Northeast Asia have grown fat and happy in a world of free seas, free trade, and American security guarantees – and are about to find themselves ill-equipped for an era where all of those things are fading away. First and most crucially, recent events between Saudi Arabia and Iran have shown that Middle Eastern energy flows are at increasing risk of being interrupted. That atrocious black gold remains so central to the modern way of life that, until recently, the US Navy had kept a carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf for every day of the year just to keep oil and gas flowing to the rest of the world.
44
The growing American attitude of global withdrawal spells havoc for the Northeast Asian powers of China, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. Not only are they the biggest customers of Middle Eastern oil and natural gas, but all four also sit at the farthest end of a 7,500-mile (Persian Gulf to Tokyo) supply line. For those flows to continue in the likely absence of a serious American security commitment, those same famously (un)co-operative peoples will have to take measures into their own hands. The country with the worst hand to play in this scenario is the People’s Republic of China. Not only is modern China cripplingly dependent on mass imports of energy and raw materials, it also finds itself almost entirely ringed by strategic competitors (minus one very nominal “friend” in Pyongyang). As such, in a world without reliable energy flows, the only option the Chinese have to meet their energy needs is to put on their big-boy pants and sally forth to the Middle East themselves. China’s overall strategy would seem to reflect this. Unable to fill the void left by an American abdication of global leadership, Beijing is instead preparing for lockdown; preserving national unity by quashing all dissent, while pulling out all the stops in external security. Their development of blue-water naval forces is ideally suited to convoying energy shipments home, while their expansion of artificial islands and hypersonic anti-ship missiles has clearly been done
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
with the goal of dominating the South China Sea. This assumes, of course, that the Chinese can make it past the First Island Chain; a geographic feature dominated by a mortal enemy, Japan. Today’s peace-loving Japan faces an interesting quandary. They are about to discover that it’s easy to be peaceful when all of your needs are met, when the shelves are stocked, when your businesses can easily access any market of their choosing, and when you can rest assured that a firm American security commitment will always be there to keep your rivals at arm’s length. No longer. Japan’s growing mini-trade war with South Korea, and the deafening silence from Washington in keeping these supposed-allies onside, portends that this era is ending. When it does, Japan – a resource-poor archipelago – will have to meet its own energy needs and stock its own shelves, and keep its own rivals at arm’s length, all by itself. Japan has faced these problems before – in the year 1930. The Japan of 2030 will quite literally find itself in uncomfortably familiar waters, with two key differences. The first is that they will be equipped with the ships and missiles of today, some of which may be ships and missiles of the nuclear variety. The second is that the same will also apply to their regional opposite numbers. Further south, however, is where things get truly interesting. The subtropical waters of Southeast Asia are home to a raft of nations divided by internal barriers, from rugged coastlines to scattered archipelagos. Simple geography has walled them off not only from each other, but also from ever projecting power beyond their shores.
the powers of Southeast Asia from threatening one another is the same that has made them vulnerable to foreign aggressors from across the seas. And by 2030, very little of that topography will have changed. In times past, the scattered islands of Indonesia were ruled by the Dutch, while the British set up shop in the strategic ports of Singapore and Malaya, as well as today’s Myanmar. Meanwhile, the people of Vietnam, in addition to their well-known bouts against the French and the Americans, have resisted successive waves of Chinese expansion for over 2000 years – and current events between Hanoi and Beijing have indicated that they are not done. Only Thailand, surrounded on three sides by impassable mountain jungle and an insulated coast on the fourth, has succeeded in preserving its independence unscathed. And all of them have felt the crunch of Japan’s imperial hunger for markets and resources in the nottoo-distant past – and may once more in the face of a revitalized, re-armed Tokyo. Of all the Asia-Pacific’s future developments, it is Southeast Asia that should be watched most closely. By 2030, the region’s current trajectory promises to become either a gem of prosperity, or yet another flashpoint in the years to come. Whichever of those futures comes to pass will depend greatly on how well the peoples of Southeast Asia can leverage their collective tools and merits, as well as on their ability to navigate the growing strategic competition between their larger, hungrier and increasingly desperate neighbours in Northeast Asia. But, at least here, there is hope.
Unlike the graying, stagnating, and testy powers of Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia is young, dynamic, and growing. Cities from Hanoi to Jakarta boast youthful, urbanized concentrations of low- and medium-skilled labor, which double as large and attractive consumer markets for foreign goods. The region is also home to energy and resource providers, financial centres, and even outposts of hightech industry. In other words, it has all the tools needed to become a regional hub in its own right, as well as being an attractive partner for other players outside of the East Asian sphere. However, the final question for the region is that of security. The same rugged topography that has kept
45
ISSUE XVI.II the observer
The
Ob ser
ve r
O Facebook: The Observer Queen’s University
Instagram: @theobserver.qiaa.
Website: theobserver-qiaa. org
46
ISSUE XVI.II the observer