Opinion And Debate

Rise of the ‘Killer Robots’

JOEL DAVIS | CONTENT WRITER

In a crisis such as the one we find ourselves embroiled in, the world can sometimes feel as if it is standing still. This is a false perception in many ways, and a dangerous one, imbuing complacency. In our understandable preoccupation with our day-today lives, we have remained blissfully unaware of the ascendancy of a new technology which may become an existential threat to many – Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS).

Autonomy in a machine essentially constitutes any ability to execute its functions without human input. We would recognise this in our everyday lives as AI systems or self-driving cars, but these technologies are being deployed lethally too. Many nations, especially China, Israel, and the USA, employ autonomous defensive systems currently, such as Israel’s Iron Dome defence system which made headlines earlier this year.

Offensive systems are currently being developed around the world under a heavy veil of secrecy. There are few well known examples as a result, but there are insights into the development from instances of autonomous armed drones, or autonomous missiles with nuclear capabilities. LAWS are essentially, as Human Rights Watch and others have termed them, ‘killer robots’.

According to a UN report, the first time a LAW system was identified in combat was in Libya in March 2020. It is unclear whether there were casualties from this incident, a trend with autonomous machines, but it does bring the issue from science fiction into a hard reality. By examining the current US-led drone missions deployed in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Sahel we can see the effects of removing humanity from combat missions. These machines still rely on human consent before making a final strike but have mistakenly killed between 900 and 2000 civilians in the years since they have begun (according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism). The elusive figures tell a story of unaccountability and indiscriminate violence. The startling rise in interest in these new technologies constitutes another even deadlier threat to those living in warzones, and facilitates further democratic backsliding, which has become a de facto theme of this past decade. The political instability that autonomous weapons will culture in the Global South will further set back development and democratisation in these regions. In the countries which are developing these weapons, the rise in autonomy will also inevitably damage the social contract between state and citizen and reduce the need for consent from the population to carry out military intervention. While this may feel like an overwhelming, inevitable danger, we have been here before, and multilateral solutions have presented themselves. The first weapon that could act autonomously of human activity was the land mine, a weapon deemed so destructive it was banned in over one hundred countries following the 1997 Ottawa Treaty. Multilateral solutions to these developments are clearly possible, and to many governments around the world they are desirable – 30 states have already called for a treaty banning LAWS (according to the Future of Life institute). In total, the mention of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems conjures images of extravagant sci-fi plots and futuristic fantasy, but they currently present an emerging and alarming danger for both citizens and governments of the world. These systems must be restricted for the safety and security of all. Regardless of where we find ourselves in our everyday lives, we must remind ourselves, the world will not hold its breath forever, and we will have to face the consequences of our inaction someday.

Continued from front page:

According to The Prison Reform Trust, ‘Women in prison are highly likely to be victims as well as offenders. Over half the women in prison report having suffered domestic violence with 53% of women reporting having experienced emotional, physical, or sexual abuse as a child’. These conditions are further exacerbated by locker room talk and misogyny, which then lead to abuse. Moreover, just as instances of misogyny lead to abuse, causal racism can then influence the justice system as a review led by the MP David Lammy found. People from BAME backgrounds constitute only 14% of the general population in England and Wales but makeup 25% of its prison population due to over-policing in ethnic communities and excessive stop and searches. The excessive number of minorities in these communities then has a domino effect on their wealth as it usually robs households of a stream of income that they would otherwise desperately need.

If marginalised groups are to regain faith in the force, social programs must be funded to handle situations better, and education must be made accessible to all so that smaller instances of misogyny and racism are stamped out before tragedy can strike.

Natural Disasters: A Perpetual Understatement For LEDCs

EMILY RODRIGUES | CONTENT WRITER

With the disparity between the economic status of countries rapidly increasing, natural disasters are without a doubt, an undeniable indication that more effective mitigation strategies in less economically developed countries are required. The lack of monetary stability has proven fatal when preparing less economically developed countries for the consequences of multiple hazards.

Recognisably, the geographical placement of countries can impact the scale and therefore the overall consequences of the natural hazards. Namely, some of the countries prone to these disasters suffer because of how expensive hazard-mitigation strategies are on the national economy. Hazard-mitigation strategies aim to delay, prevent, and avoid hazardous events. Examples of these include land-use zoning, GIS mapping, hazardresistant design, and the diversion of lava flows.

It is interesting to consider how a disaster is defined based on the media and photos. Due to the poor quality infrastructure and ineffective preparation, less economically developed countries are visually, very significantly impacted.

Haiti’s 7.2 magnitude earthquake on the 14th of August resulted in over 2,000 deaths and horrendous levels of infrastructural damage. The national devastation was ultimately worsened by the additional meteorological Tropical Storm Grace. In the case of Haiti, the following establishment of a tropical cyclone established further disruption to basic services such as water and sanitation provided by UNICEF. Some of the most remote areas in the country were provided with limited emergency aid because the roads were not initially accessible due to the considerable infrastructural damages. Haiti’s previous and continued susceptibility to natural disasters such as the 2010 Earthquake and Hurricane Matthew in 2016 has prevented a strengthened line of preventative defence from forming.

Source: Britannica

Due to the considerable lack of funding available to countries like Haiti, which are not only incredibly prone to disasters due to their geographical placement but also the weaknesses within their mitigation strategies, there is a definite struggle for resilience and rebuilding. The implementation of methods to help reduce the impact of disasters is often low in cost with focuses on first aid.

While the lack of attainable aid may at first be attributed to the reduced quantities available, it is imperative to consider the involvement of politics and (the potential for) corruption within governments. Taking into consideration the recent assassination of Haiti’s president, Jovenel Moïse, there were preexisting concerns about governance and the impact on national security and safety. There is significant potential for corruption when aid is distributed in less economically developed countries, but this has been worsened by the pandemic.

The consequential ramifications on human survival result in a cyclical nature of uninterrupted poverty and dereliction. The damage to the country’s infrastructure extends to the agricultural industry with many struggling to feed their families and living in constant famine.

Truly, natural disasters are never purely isolated to the environmental impacts but instead, the periodic catastrophe felt by entire countries.

ETHAN KOSAK-HINE | CONTENT WRITER

Free Will

In the early hours of the morning on 1 August 1966, Charles Whitman - an apparently affable and rational former US marine - drove to his mother’s house before stabbing to her death. Returning home, he killed his wife in the same manner. Later that day, armed with an assortment of rifles, he went to the top of a tall building at the University of Texas where he randomly shot at passers-by, killing 12 people with one more going on to die years later from their injuries.

Shortly after being killed by police, investigators discovered a suicide note left by Whitman before the shooting. "I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts [which] constantly recur, and it requires a tremendous mental effort to concentrate on useful and progressive tasks … After my death, I wish that an autopsy would be performed to see if there is any visible physical disorder.", he wrote. Following the murder of his mother and wife he added, "Maybe research can prevent further tragedies of this type.”

An autopsy was performed on Whitman, revealing a substantial brain tumour pressing on his amygdala, the part of the brain responsible for processing and responding to fearful and threatening stimuli. Whilst there is no way of knowing for sure whether it was the brain tumour that led to the massacre, assuming it was - most people would surely consider it exculpatory? In the case where the tumour entirely explains Whitman's actions, he had no free will in the matter and could not have acted differently. Just as if a person jumps in front of a train before the driver can apply the brakes - none of the blame is assigned to the driver as they could not have acted differently. If Whitman genuinely had no choice over his actions - just like the train driver who couldn't pull the brakes - there are some stark consequences for the justice system. Should sentences ever be truly punitive, or should we be focused purely on rehabilitation of criminals? A murderer without a tumour didn't choose their genetics, upbringing or any other factor that led them to kill either. One might argue that it is the person's free will to choose how they respond to their negative emotions, but this isn't as strong of a rebuttal as it may first seem. We must remember, this person didn't choose their personality type that determines how they would respond to their emotions. At every level, the case for genuine free will seems to disintegrate.

None of this requires us to believe that the worst atrocities are any less abhorrent than we previously thought, just that the individual perpetrator couldn't have acted differently. If you were in their exact situation, same genes, upbringing, and brain chemistry you would have acted the same way. Ultimately, a punitive justice system necessarily assumes free will. Perhaps the justice system needs to steer away from punishing criminals for decisions they never really made and focus on rehabilitation. As Sam Harris puts it, "You can do what you decide to do - but you cannot decide what you will decide to do."

Source: Adobe Stock

Berghain: Expression or Elitism?

DANIEL PEPIN | CONTENT WRITER

With the dismantling of many COVID-19 rules, freedom is slowly being handed back and with it all the excitement of venues reopening. Perhaps the venue most fiercely missed, clubbing has taken a triumph of a return. This coinciding with the start of term time has created a catalyst of club nights out; many of those at Royal Holloway having already traversed the neon-soaked rooms of Atik Windsor. This rejuvenation of bass, booze and bright lights has shined its glow worldwide and fixated on the most recognisable yet elusive clubs in Europe, its name synonymous with exclusivity and expression: Berghain. This techno zenith is a clubbing icon, its reputation legendary; its strict entry policy infamous, and it is at last reopening as a nightclub this October to the jubilation of thousands. For those who aren’t aware of this nightlife epicentre, Berghain is a techno club that emerged from the gay club scene in 90’s Berlin – it resides in the shell of a former German power plant that enjoys cavernous dance halls boasting some of the best modern-techno DJs in the world such as Ben Klock and Marcel Dettmann. Its famed debauchery has become the stuff of legend, the bowels of Berghain hold many secrets. The much-speculated drug prevalence and sex parties certainly contribute to this cult following and this glorification is heightened by Berghain’s strict no photo policy; meaning that whatever depraved activity one undertakes in there can only fade into myth. Berghain is the only club in Berlin to be classified as a government recognised cultural institution rather than a mere entertainment value and it has certainly earned that impressive position.

The much-speculated drug prevalence and sex parties certainly contribute to this cult following and this glorification is heightened by Berghain’s strict no photo policy; meaning that whatever depraved activity one undertakes in there can only fade into myth. Berghain is the only club in Berlin to be classified as a government recognised cultural institution rather than a mere entertainment value and it has certainly earned that impressive position.

Yet, for all its brilliance, Berghain has a quirk: its unyielding entry policy. Sven Marquardt leads the army of bouncers with the power to accept or deny hopeful partygoers and their system is notoriously harsh. There are countless forums and articles, even an app, designed solely to help you get into the club. Some common tips include go in a smaller group, wear black clothing or something “edgy”, only talk in German and if you cannot then talk as little as possible, and know who is playing that night. The list is truly endless and rather meaningless as Marquardt tells GQ that there are no actual ‘set rules’, and it is simply more a feeling of who belongs in Berghain. One can follow every guideline to the letter and be politely asked to step aside once they reach the door. For some, this intense entry policy is alluring and adds to the mystique of this clubbing mecca. However, it cannot help but beg the question of whether this secrecy is actually necessary to the atmosphere of Berghain or is it simply perpetuating elitism in the music scene? Surely, it is this the music that makes Berghain and not the crowd, this fixation of garnering a mass of people that look the part in order to fulfil an onerous criteria seems intrinsically against the spirit of community and shared ecstasy that is so palpable in clubbing. Given Berghain’s unrivalled position they should be at the forefront of this camaraderie and not prolonging the snobbish attitude that is multiplied by their own narcissism. However, it must be said that it is Berghain’s clandestine nature that makes the club so paradoxically inviting and sought after. Would this quintessential idol of debauchery really be the same without it?

Social Justice: Now Trending

AELIYA RAZVI | CONTENT WRITER

Arise in social media has led to an equal rise in awareness for many social issues around the world that were not being covered in mainstream news. This attention fuelled a movement towards more online social activism, activism that could be achieved from the comfort of one’s own home, that was accessible to anyone and that left little excuse for not taking part. This version of activism spread rapidly amongst young people who were living in an ever-growing and rapidly changing digital society. With increased globalisation connecting people more intimately than ever, a certain responsibility seemed to take hold to bring awareness to atrocities around the world that, beforehand, could be ignored due to the simple reality of the situation that ‘nothing could be done’.

However, debates have been lit surrounding this viral activism, with many calling out its temporary and fickle nature. While internet fame brings about awareness on issues and leads to people talking about problems that may not have been even acknowledged beforehand, the causes it spearheads suffer the same fates that many internet trends do: irrelevance as soon as something new comes onto the scene. The internet is fast moving, with internet trends coming and going within the blink of an eye and careers being made and broken down almost simultaneously. While these trends are getting a large amount of attention, it is short and sweet. Consequently, when social justice issues are not resolved quickly or when they require an extended amount of attention and work, that work is not put in and people move on without having done much to resolve the cause. Awareness is a great way to get people talking about an issue and looking for solutions, but it certainly is not the end of our duty towards a cause. Unfortunately, social media activism is it tricks us into thinking it is enough.

This does not mean we should not partake in this kind of activism at all, after all we have seen many of its positive effects in recent years with the attention that was brought to the Black Lives Matter movement and systemic racism after the murder of George Floyd.

Source: pxfuel Similarly, widespread attention was brought to the Palestinian fight for freedom after the videos of forced evictions were shared by hundreds of thousands online. The outpouring of support for these causes helped to bring about a lot of change with Derek Chauvin convicted and Palestinian evictions temporarily halted, but a lot of work is yet to be done. The nature of virality suggests that until another catastrophic and completely degradable action that can be caught on camera is committed, people are not going to continue to fight for these causes when they leave the public sphere. So, what should we do? Research and remember. Continue to show up for these causes, even after people have stopped talking about them. Without prolonged fights, we will be stuck in a cycle where instead of trying to rebuild the structural systems that have allowed for these injustices to take place, we walk away with a surface level understanding of the what we are fighting for and a viral trend that is forgotten in a week.

Boris Johnson Has Declared War on the Young

GEORGE WOODS | OPINION AND DEBATE EDITOR

Boris Johnson’s election victory in 2019 promised a renewal of British life. “A new Britain”, the Prime Minister promised, was going to be ushered in under a Conservative administration. The Coronavirus pandemic put a halt to this promise, and little in Britain can be described as having been improved by the Johnsonian government. This bleak picture of Britain foreshadows an uninspiring future centred on economic stagnation and climate catastrophe. However, a third threat is posed to the future of the United Kingdom which little is being done about: our new Prime Minister’s war on the young.

On the 27th September, the Johnsonian administration proposed an alteration to Student Loan repayment. Currently, those who own over £27,295 pay 9% interest on their loans. The government is proposing to lower this to £20,000, resulting in more young people paying tax in order to fund the social care of the elderly population. Rather than incorporating the young into a golden age for Britain, the Prime Minister has left an already disadvantaged demographic even worse off. More significantly, this proposed change abandons the promise of ‘levelling up’ which was articulated in the Conservative manifesto. Students and graduates from a lower income bracket are going to have to pay more to balance the national books, while those at a higher income bracket have had no change to their taxes. Rather than levelling up, the Prime Minister is levelling down.

The government’s inaction, too, is a manifestation of a disdain for the young. According to Treasury figures, the average house price is £254,624. This is an unreachable sum for the vast majority of young people – especially in the context of rising taxes.

Source: Getty Images

While the elderly population benefitted from a generous housing mark, especially during the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, those who do not have inherited income are doomed to be priced out of the housing ladder. Wholesale reorganisation of the housing market is necessary, and yet that Conservative government is doing nothing. This ineffectualness is leading to an ever-increasing housing crisis which disproportionately damages the young’s prospects. Again, those under 45 are being abandoned in favour of the older generations.

This abandonment, however, is symptomatic of that which brought the government to power: Brexit. Brexit has begun to inhibit young people from travelling and living freely across Europe as their parents were able to. Moreover, their access to schemes which could facilitate cross-continental education, namely Erasmus, was abandoned in order to assert this government’s Brexit credentials. The opportunities of the young were sacrificed on the altar of political grandstanding, and as a result those born after a certain date have been left an ever-more challenging world. The Conservative government was elected on a promise of a new Britain which could move on from the challenges of the 2010s. Instead of building a better future for all, the government has instead left young people to fend for themselves in a society which is rigged to benefit the old.