HuMag Michaelmas 2020 by Wellington College

i s s u e Wellington’s

Humanities Magazine Michaelmas 2020

WELLINGTON’S HUMANITIES MAGAZINE IS HERE! The humanities and social sciences, for centuries, have been consistently overlooked in comparison to the natural sciences not only in schools and other educational institutions but throughout society as a whole. As we enter a time where social ideas and concepts are being increasingly questioned, challenged and changed on a global scale, we felt it was important for Wellington to have a platform to support, reflect and challenge the ideas that are shaping the societies we live in and will live in for the next centuries to come. In a slightly more micro scale, as a school, it's also important to ensure we stress cross interdisciplinarity not only in school courses and curriculum, but also in the academic extension that is so vital to the shaping of the school's academic culture. This magazine, will hopefully, be a tool and voice for the continued exploration of all the humanities and social sciences in a far less isolated environment as they should be. For just that reason, we think having loose requirements for what we discuss and ranging diverse and varied topics is crucial to the aims of this magazine. In this term's issue, we focus on current affairs, history, philosophy, religion, ecology, economics and politics. So if any of those interest you (or you just want to learn something new) read on!

HuMag Issue 01 | Michaelmas 2020 Editorial and Design Team Yash J Locky A Olivia H Charlie T Robbie I

CONTENTS

Rohingya Genocide and Refugee Crisis

Why We’ll Never Find Happiness

Thinking Economically about Covid-19

Can Countries Sacrifice Liberty for Prosperity? Rwanda

What Religion can teach Atheists in the Digital Age

The Paradox of the DRC

Book Reviews

Classics Crossword

Behavioural Econ

The Rohingya Genocide & Refugee Crisis Since 2016, the Myanmar military’s targetted violence and human rights violations against the stateless Rohingya people have led to the persecution and displacement of over 1 million Rohingya refugees, making it one of the worst humanitarian situations in the world. With dozens of countries and organisations like the UN condemning the Burmese government, calling the crisis ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘mass genocide’, the circumstances are only getting worst for the Rohingya as COVID 19 and further problems become exacerbated as time goes on with no solutions.

Origins of the Conflict: The Rohingya people are a Muslim ethnic group who live in the western region of Rakhine in Myanmar, very close to the Bangladeshi border. The Rohingya, despite evidence that their ancestors lived in modern day Rakhine, have been deemed illegal immigrants by the Myanmar government who claim the Rohingyas have crossed over the Bangladesh border illegally. The conflict between the Rohingya and the Burmese people in the most modern sense began in World War 2 when the Rohingya sided with the British, who were ruling Burma at the time whilst the Burmese supported the Japanese invaders, hoping they’d free them from imperial control. It was assumed, once the British won, that the Rohingya would migrate to Bangladesh - but they didn’t. This is the most contemporary reason for why the Burmese people have seen the Rohingya as illegal immigrants but there are others too, each with historical background too deep to go into in this article.

The conflict between the Rohingya and the Burmese people was exacerbated when the country was taken over in 1962 by the military in a coup and a dictatorship was established. Like many dictators, the military ‘junta’ promoted fierce nationalism, emphasising the country’s Buddhist identity in particular. And when the military junta needed a common enemy to unite the country, the Rohingya Muslims were the easy option, and were therefore depicted as a threat. Ever since, there have been numerous attempts on the Rohingya side both to ascertain citizenship and accede to Bangladesh. None have been succesful. There have been

One Million Persecuted

the border of Bangladesh and Myanmar which is home to about 600,000 people making it the biggest refugee camp in the world. The Bangladeshi government have responded very generously, with local villages and families also taking in Rohingyas despite their already very limited resources. But despite the support of Bangladesh, the conditions are still heartbreaking.

several attempts from the Burmese government to drive out the Rohingya too, many of which were brutal and violent. In 1982, the government passed the Citizen Act which recognised 135 ethnic groups; yet the Rohingya, with over a million people, were not recognised, leaving them practically stateless. In 1991 came Operation Clean and Beautiful Nation (yes, it was actually called that) which led to over 250,000 Rohingya fleeing to Bangladesh.

What’s Happening Now Violent outbreaks continue into the 21st century and the event that really kicked off the current crisis took place on August 25, 2017, when the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, a militant Rohingya group, staged an attack on border control police stations which killed 12 officers. The retaliation of the Myanmar military is what the current crisis surrounds. The military’s offensives have led to the expulsion of an estimated 900,000 Rohingya to primarily Bangladesh but also Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia and other neighbouring countries. Over 24,000 people were killed between August 2017 and August 2018 and the violence has not stopped since. Up to 100,000 women and girls have been raped and/or been subject to sexual violence such as sexual slavery in an effort to ethnically cleanse the Rakhine region. Hundreds of villages have been burnt down, 350 of which were burnt between 2017 and 2018 alone.

With an evergrowing population of over half a million stretched over just 13 kilometres (= a population density of 167x Englands’), the overcrowded shelters, built on steep hillsides, are unstable and porous, a serious problem for a region that suffers some of the worst monsoons in the world. Furthermore, food sources are scarce and drinking water is very limited. The camp is also a hotbed for criminal activity and is often exploited to support the local sex and drug trade. These issues combined with local Bangladeshis’ struggling for work due to such an intense increase in competition, has led to the Bangladesh government being forced to heavily restrict the movement of the Rohingya population. The Covid-19 outbreak has made things exponentially worse. Aid agencies, the WHO and countless researchers, from the very beginning of the outbreak, called the refugee camps as home to some of the most vulnerable groups in the world. Due to very poor sanitation, nutrition, limited communication and minimal healthcare resources, the camps were in a terrible position to deal with the inevitable. Lack of PPE, social distancing and real information meant that any attempts to stop the virus were counter-acted by rumours such as Coronavirus not being contagious or that medical workers kill infected patients to stop the spread of the disease. Consistent cyclones and monsoons have only compounded the already pertinent and life-destroying problems.

The situation has also created an immense refugee crisis with the aforementioned 900,000 Rohingya refugees fleeing persecution. The crisis has led to the creation of numerous refugee camps in neighbouring countries experiencing mass influxes. One example is Kutupalong, a refugee camp on

400 Villages Burned

What’s Happening Now Many countries and international bodies have condemned Myanmar for their actions against the Rohingya, calling it genocide and racial cleansing. Amnesty international called one of the refugee camps an 'open-air prison'. In November 2019, The Gambia filed a lawsuit against Myanmar on behalf of the Rohingya with the support of 57 other countries at the UN International Court of Justice. The ICJ, after numerous reports and hearings, voted unanimously to order Myanmar to take 'all measures within its power' to prevent genocide. Aang San Suu Kyi, the country's de facto leader and the leading proponent of Myanmar's democracy movement for over 30 years, personally led the defence team at the ICJ to defend Myanmar's actions denying much of the violence that occurred and justifying any persecution that did happen as a consequence of the initial Rohingya attack.

her fight to democratise Myanmar, yet these recent events have seen her reputation tarnished. Many people initially defended her role due to the immense autonomy and power the military still holds in government but her decision to personally defend Myanmar's actions have cemented her role in the situation. The ICJ's decision was hoped by many to be a turning point for the crisis but very little change has been made since January 2020. Despite the release of two presidential directives by the Myanmar government, the situation has not improved both inside and outside the country and the refugee camps around South-East Asia have faced only worsening conditions.

A winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Suu Kyi was seen as the ultimate beacon of democracy and liberalism in the west for

Aung San Suu Kyi Speaking in Defense of the Myanmar Military & Government’s Actions at the ICJ in 2019

“The situation in Rakhine is complex and not easy to fathom. But one thing surely touches all of us equally: the sufferings of the many innocent people whose lives were torn apart as a consequence of the armed conflicts of 2016 and 2017” 7

Why You Will Never Find happiness My first impressions on living a content life. Over the last few months, there have been many reports about the negative effects which lockdown has had on people’s mental health and happiness. A survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics discovered that 69% of adults said they were worried about the impact COVID-19 was having on their life. Their concerns ranged from uncertainty about the future, to feeling stressed and anxious, to simply being bored. Statistics such as this led me to question what it was about lockdown that made everyone so unhappy, and this in turn led me to question the origin of happiness itself.

‘There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way.’ I thought that this quote by the Buddha would be a good way to start off this article because it roughly sums up, in a rather confusing way at first sight, my views on the search for happiness. I imagine that there are many ways of viewing this particular quote, but personally I interpret it to mean that if you act intentionally in order to influence your happiness in the future, you will fail to find it. Instead, if you focus on yourself and on doing the right thing in the present, you naturally find yourself feeling much happier.

“The constant search for pleasure seems to […] create a repetitive cycle of seeking higher satisfaction.” This attempt to choose to be happy, I think, is a very common mistake due to the hedonistic culture which is particularly present in today’s Western society: this idea that the key to happiness is to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It seems intuitive as all your experiences will be either positive, or have no effect in terms of the enjoyment you receive. However, the constant search for positive affect in our lives causes you to constantly desire luxury because you become less and less satisfied with more basic/natural positive experiences. This is because you grow accustomed to expecting certain luxuries in your life so a return to normality seems like a downgrade. In the same way, the more we experience luxury the less positive affect we receive from our luxurious experiences. Therefore, the constant search for pleasure seems to dilute the positive affect you receive from pleasurable experiences, and to create a repetitive cycle of seeking higher satisfaction.

WANT MORE LUXURY

LUXURY BECOMES NORMALITY

Cycle of pleasure seeking

OBTAIN LUXURY

CONTINUE TO ENJOY LUXURY

A graphic displaying the aforementioned cycle of pleasure seeking. Here we can see how desire for unnecessary pleasure will never lead to satisfaction.

The Three-Fold Division of Desires This explanation can be elaborated upon by referencing the view of Epicurus, the ancient Greek philosopher (and the creator of hedonism rather counterintuitively, but I’ll address that later). He separated desires into the following three categories: 1. Natural and necessary desires such as food and water: these are things which we need in order to live. When our bodies have a shortage of these, they will notify us through feelings of thirst and hunger, and we will always receive satisfaction by fulfilling them.

2. Natural and unnecessary desires such as the desire for luxury food: these are often more luxurious versions of the first division of desires. Epicurus argued that although we should accept these when they are available, we should not expect them.

which is common in the world today actually has less in common with the Epicurean philosophy which I have mentioned, than the philosophy of happiness which I am trying to promote.

3. Unnatural and unnecessary desires such as fame and wealth: these desires are not for physically achievable experiences, but instead for abstract ideas such as societal status. Epicurus warned that these should be avoided as they have no natural limit. Luxuries fit into the second and third types of desire and you must almost always rely on other people, or factors which are not in your control, in order to obtain them. For this reason, it is important that you don’t deliberately seek them, lest you build up an expectation or reliance on them and your happiness becomes compromised once they become unavailable or unattainable - this is the cycle in the diagram to the left, which I described earlier.

A bust of Roman emperor and Stoic, Marcus Aurelius.

But Epicurus was a Hedonist?

Stoic Hedonism

An interesting contradiction in my article so far which you may have noticed is that I seem to be discouraging hedonism by citing the philosophical works of Epicurus, a famed hedonist. I am aware enough of my own shortcomings to accept that this apparent contradiction might be the result of a misinterpretation of Epicurus’ work on my behalf, and therefore my distaste towards hedonism could be ill-founded.

I describe the philosophical theory which I have outlined thus far as ‘stoic hedonism’. Again, this seems oxymoronic as these two schools of thought are diametrically opposed, but I see them as two sides of the same coin: while initially they seem drastically different, they are very closely connected in certain aspects.

However, I would like to offer another perspective: that in this particular area of his philosophy, Epicurus’ interpretation of hedonism is actually quite ascetic, and that the hedonism

The stoic ideologies which I draw upon are those of Marcus Aurelius (above), a stoic who believed that the body has natural and necessary needs just like Epicurus, but also that the mind itself has no other needs except for those it creates.

He described people having soft and hard qualities. Soft qualities are those such as diligence and respect which he encouraged; hard qualities are those such as pride and body image which he discouraged. Similar to Epicurus, he encouraged very little physical possessions or desires beyond the most basic which we need to survive, and he condemned the search for luxurious possessions and socially constructed desires. In addition to Epicurus’ ideas, Aurelius and other stoics promoted the idea that, mentally, one should aspire to exhibit virtues of their choosing in order to be content, as these are self-determined and therefore we don’t rely on others for our happiness. In line with this, he criticized the search for praise from others for the exact same reason: you end up placing the fate of your happiness in the hands of others. A concise way of summarising this reasoning is Andre Gide’s quote, “It is better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved for what you are not”, which shows the clear distinction between being a good person and being viewed as a good person by others.

“It is better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved for what you are not” This idea of attainment of virtues leading one to happiness is not unique to the stoic lifestyle - Buddhists have the eightfold path which outlines which virtues should be upheld in order to live a content life - and taking a moment to disregard the actual thought behind these philosophies, the fact that these two schools of thought arrived at the same conclusion without any connection conveys the strength behind this argument.

How to deal with Sadness My combination of Epicurean and Stoic philosophy, which I claim to have surprisingly compatible views on happiness, begs an obvious question: if these two philosophies approach happiness in such similar ways, why did I bother to mention both? The answer to this is the way in which they deal with sadness. As far as I can tell, Epicurus’ hedonistic viewpoint encourages you to deal with sadness by avoiding it altogether. He reasoned that the bad things in life were easy to avoid: if they were long lasting, the pain was low level; if the pain was high, they would only last a brief time; if they were long lasting and the pain level was high you would happily submit yourself to death. This seems fundamentally flawed, however, as it encourages one to run away from distress, unhappiness etc. all their life, and while this will work in the short term, eventually if it all catches up to them, they will find themselves completely unequipped to deal with any negative emotions. But rather than completely dismissing Epicurus’ thoughts, it would be more productive if you could still ignore unhappiness, but at the same time be able to deal with it. This is possible with the stoic perspective of relying on good virtues for happiness, as whenever you experience sadness you can focus on your morals, and continue to live your life in the most virtuous way possible, with the confidence that it will lead you out of struggle and will make you a better person. It could be argued that there is a subjective element to this in that becoming a better person is not synonymous with becoming a more virtuous person for everybody. However, for this I would briefly like to mention the Aristotelian concept of “eudaimonia”, which roughly translates to a communal sense of peace and contentment. Without delving into the details of virtue ethics, Aristotle argued that to achieve “eudaimonia” was the ideal towards which any community should strive, and that in order to accomplish this ideal, the individual members of the community had to act as virtuously as possible. Therefore, I would like to postulate that, although you may not realise it, becoming more virutuous will make both yourself, and the community around you, more mentally stable and healthy.

Conclusions “Ensuring that your happiness is not determined by others is of capital importance in today’s society.”

Ensuring that your happiness is not determined by others is of capital importance in today’s society. The generally negative impact which lockdown had on mental health shows the extent to which most people’s happiness is derived from social interaction with others. This is evolutionarily understandable, as our hunter-gatherer ancestors would have been safer in groups, however, I would offer that it is time to change this perspective. I mentioned various oppositions to hedonism in the main body of this article, but I feel I did not offer a particularly clear explanation of why reliance on others is unhealthy. The reasoning behind this objection of mine, however, is simple: to place your mental wellbeing in the hands of others, is to place your mental wellbeing out of your own control, therefore, you have no control over your mental health and you cannot ensure your own happiness. I do not mean to say that you should not socialise at all, but rather that you must make sure you are able to find sources of contentness, which you alone can dictate. Hence my support for virtuous living as a generator of happiness, as you have autonomy over the virtue of your actions.

“The key to happiness is to not be led by it.” You should not think about happiness all that much.”

I also feel it is necessary to clarify that, despite the rather bleak title of this piece, I do not hope to insinuate that it is impossible to be happy, but rather that the key to happiness is to not be led by it, and to live a morally good and virtuous life. Quite ironically, this article leads you to the conclusion that you should not think about happiness all that much due to this fact that you cannot influence it directly - instead it ought to almost spontaneously be created, as a by-product of your virtuous living. Finally, although my previous conclusion seems to undermine the entire purpose of this article, I would like to clarify the difference between thinking about happiness, and thinking about how you think about happiness. The former of which, I believe is detrimental to your wellbeing. Thinking about how you think about happiness, however, is an essential exercise in order to be content. I think of it like going for check-ups at the dentist: your teeth are usually healthy, but it is a precautionary measure to catch serious issues early. In the same way, I encourage you to regularly review how your perspective of happiness affects the state of your mental wellbeing.

“Don’t make decisions based

“To place your mental wellbeing in the hands of others, is to place your mental wellbeing out of your own control.”

“I encourage you to regularly review how your perspective of happiness affects the state of your mental wellbeing.”

So, to conclude my conclusions, I urge you: don’t make decisions based on happiness, find your own method of being content and regularly check that you are following it correctly. - Locky A

Thinking Economically about Covid-19 The coronavirus has undoubtedly impacted the world we live in, far more than any of us would have foreseen. I won’t reiterate the high number of casualties, or soaring unemployment rates, as we are all familiar with these dire covid consequences. However, the measures that governments choose to take are crucial to how the world ‘bounces back’ after such a global setback. Returning to normality after an economic halt will surely prove challenging, and the steps taken to do so will impact not only the welfare of society, but the global economy as a whole.

Balancing the virus’s economic consequences When governments take steps to reduce the harmful impact of the virus, the consequences of the measures must be balanced to be rational (i.e. the positive consequences must be greater than or equal to the negatives). Therefore, behind the scenes, governments will need to undertake cost-benefit analysis of public health interventions, in order to justify measures rationally. Firstly, we must recognise the egalitarian considerations of coping strategies. Preventative measures may benefit and harm people differently, with the less well-off being affected worse. Poor social conditions, lack of access to healthcare and more frequent public transpor t use all increase the risk of infection for poorer areas. Moreover, the wealthy are generally able to manage hard times better, with access to savings, credit and support networks. Due to this underlying inequality, governments must seek to ensure that health benefits are fairly distributed. For me, this implies we must take a utilitarian approach to measures - put simply, what measure would benefit the majority? In this way, any specific inequality of a measure is outweighed by its general utility. Secondly, masks, disinfectant and latex gloves may again be overused by anxious individuals and institutions. This will inevitably lead to global shortages of valuable PPE needed for medical purposes. What I’m saying is that many public health measures require individual cooperation in order to be effective. For example, social distancing only works when everyone keeps two metres apart thus decreasing the possibility of spreading. However, many measures share a feature which makes them difficult to implement - they rely on everyday people to follow rules which are tempting to break. In other words, the average person individually stands to lose more from participating than not. This is known as the loss aversion bias, explained by behavioural economists Kahneman and Tversky - ‘losses loom larger than gains’. So, despite the government implementing valuable measures, we as individuals don’t necessarily experience the positive impacts. The epidemiologist Geoffrey Rose called this the

prevention paradox: ‘a preventative measure that brings large benefits to the community but little to each participating individual.’ We saw this paradox in nearly every impact of the initial lockdowns: social distancing, limiting exercise and rationing certain food supplies don’t’ exactly appeal to the individual, but global impact is huge. We are all aware that it has been scientifically proven that social distancing works, so surely society must take the view of philosopher Emmanuel Kant, and argue that it is our moral duty to stay at home. In order to make these measures successful, political leaders must appeal to a sense of public good: ‘wartime spirit’. In this way, measures will prove worthwhile. The big question - who can find a vaccine? Numerous medical bodies, both public sector and private, are racing to find a possible coronavirus vaccine. But it is interesting to consider the motivation to find a vaccine - are they purely motivated by the desire to do good, or is it prestige or profit motivated? Either way, whoever discovers the vaccine first will have a strong market position due to strength from scarcity. High demand and low supply will create huge power. Will governments cooperate? Or intervene to force private companies to share the vaccine and their proprietary knowledge (and therefore their power)? Or will a single organisation hold the cure to months of economic and social damage?

To what extent is immense economic loss worth saving a life? As well as preventative steps and lockdown strategies, it is important for governments to contemplate the level of economic downturn they are willing to allow as a consequence of public health measures. What are we willing to sacrifice economically to save a life? Attaching a price to human life may seem insensitively calculated to say the least, but saving lives is expensive, and is costing our economy masses. The cost of government enforced lockdowns in the UK alone is measured in hundreds of billions of pounds and affects millions of people in the interests of saving ‘only’ thousands. Is trying to preserve every life worth it? Should there be a point where we value widespread economic welfare over limited numbers of human lives?

might oppose this view, in a desperate situation such as this, when letting a small minority of people die might result in a more positive outcome for the majority. Economically, less money would be spent on healthcare and more could be spent on furloughing employees, funding education, and getting businesses back up and running. Do we have to be heartless to put a value on human life? And if doing this is the most moral course of action, what is that value? How many lives must be improved and by how much to justify the complete loss of another? Are our political leaders or economists best placed to make these moral judgements – and if neither, then who?

The late Nobel prize winning economist Thomas Schelling introduced the ‘value of a statistical life’ concept in 1968. He suggested focusing not on the value of a human life, but rather on the value of averting death and reducing its risks. All of us use risk assessment as a way of thinking on a daily basis, as we weigh up small risks of death and decide if they are worth taking. We therefore value averting risks very highly, and so believe the government should too. According to the economist newspaper, the current value of a ‘statistical life’ used by the US Department of Transportation is $10m per person - but what value does that statistic mean? The DoT can achieve this statistic by looking at the risks and pay of various occupations and looking at average costs of health and injury. Of course, this is a lot of money, but then isn’t a human life just as valuable? Here, someone who values sanctity of life would argue that nothing is more important than the preservation and value of life. But an economist

RWANDA: A Rise From Tragedy Should Countries Sacrifice Liberty for Prosperity? As much as the 19th century was Europe’s century and the 20th was America’s, the 21st century has been Asia’s century. With China’s rise to being a global superpower and the likes of Singapore and Hong Kong becoming business hubs, the continent has seen the most development over the past 20 years than practically any other continent. But with both China and Singapore having authoritarian governments, it poses the question: is it ok to sacrifice liberty for prosperity?

The country that epitomises this question and takes into account its consequences on developing countries most is Rwanda. The small sub-Saharan country, which underwent one of the worst genocides in human history in the 1990s, has recovered into a model state, implementing strong social reform as well as environmental consciousness and economic growth all under an authoritarian ruler, Paul Kagame. The Rwandan genocide was the result of years of built up tension between the two ethnic groups of Rwanda, the Hutus, the majority (85%) and traditionally the peasants, and the Tutsis, the aristocratic ruling class. After centuries of German and Belgian colonialism which exacerbated racial tensions and increased the inequality between the two ethnic groups, the country broke out into civil war. Over the course of a 4 year war (1990 - 1994), over one million people were killed, roughly 800,000 of which were killed over a period of just 100 days in 1994. The civil war left a population only 60% of what it was pre 1990, riddled with trauma and pain. The long term effects of murder and war rape such as social isolation, STIs and unwanted pregnancies led to thousands of broken homes, orphans and millions of desperate families, with women, not even able to feed themselves, forced to resort to selfinduced abortions.

A few paragraphs cannot do justice to the intense tragedy that happened in Rwanda, and so I deeply urge you to learn more about it yourself. It’s immensely important that we understand not just the events that shaped the history of specific countries and the impact that colonialism and racial prejudice have had on them. But also, to pay our respect to the families that were torn apart and the innocent lives lost.

But despite the immediate aftermath of the civil war being truly devastating, the country has risen from a state of

utter despair, to one of the fastest developing countries in the world. Rwanda has seen outstanding improvements in both economic and social standards across the country, helping it become a model state for any developing country. Firstly, Rwanda has seen a huge change in the health standards of its people. Life expectancy is

now at 67 years, tied 4th best in Africa and only just below the world average. What

makes that even more outstanding is that 27 years ago, in the peak of the civil war, the average life expectancy was only 26 years. Furthermore, 92% of the country now also have health insurance and the number of citizens dying from disease has gone down significantly. The number of people dying from HIV/AIDS, for example, has gone down 74% since 2007. Life for children has also gotten much better in the subSaharan country. Not only has the child

mortality rate for under 5s gone down by 75% since 1990 (pre-civil war), but 95% of children are enrolled in school as well. Such high attendance rates are also quite clearly

linked with Rwanda’s literacy rate which has gone up from 58% in 1991 to 75% today. Crime has seen a massive downturn as well. There are now only 2.5 murders per 100,000 residents, less than half that of the US and almost 5 times less than

neighbouring country Uganda. Rwanda is now also the second least corrupt country in Africa and 50th in the world. Additionally, the World Bank has put Rwanda in the 48th percentile for political stability and absence of violence and terrorism. Despite this seeming low, it is still 17 percentiles higher than the sub-Saharan average of 31. Rwanda is also becoming one of the most environmentally friendly countries in the world, implementing numerous revolutionary policies to limit the effects of

climate change. This feat is made even more impressive given the astounding rates of growth in the nation. First of all, the country has a had a ban on all

plastic bags and single use plastics since 2008. Instead the country has encouraged people to use reusable bags made of sustainable materials like paper, cloth, banana leaves and papyrus. The country also embarked on an ambitious reforestation project the target of which was to increase forest cover to 30% of the total land area. They achieved this in 2017, 3 years ahead of schedule. Rwanda have also heavily invested in rebuilding national parks. Now, tourists come from all around the world to see the beautiful wildlife and nature Rwanda has made so easy to appreciate. The restoration of wetlands has also been hugely beneficial to the environment.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of Rwanda’s environmental policy however, is the way they’ve managed to create so much financial growth out of investing in the environment. The restoration of national parks has led to a huge increase in tourists, almost doubling expenditures from 2014 to 2015. Since 2016, the country has been generating over $300 million USD each year in revenue due to tourism alone. The restoration of the wetlands has allowed them to increase hydropower production as well and the ban on plastic bags has led to a huge space in the market for entrepreneurs to create reusable bags. But arguably the most impressive way in which Rwanda has tried to battle climate change is the creation of the Green Fund, the largest investment fund solely to support the best public and private projects and ventures that help tackle climate change in Africa. As of 2016, the fund had

mobilised $100 million USD to support eco-friendly ventures. Rwanda has also seen a huge economic upturn. Both the IMF and the World

Bank put the country at 2nd for real GDP growth and that is mostly thanks to Rwanda’s prodigious ambition to become the African business hub. Over the past 20 years, the country has invested heavily in both soft and hard infrastructure; for example, a $300 million convention centre and a 5 star Radisson hotel were built in Kigali, its capital, to appeal to the convention market. Furthermore, the government has also invested heavily into their airline Rwandair which went from a small regional airline to an intercontinental service flying across Africa and to Europe and have announced plans to start flying to Asia and America too. All these factors, as well as over $300 million of foreign investment per year in their recent history has seen Rwanda climb up the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index, where it is now ranked as the 29th easiest country to conduct business in, above the likes of Holland, Switzerland and Japan. All this development has led to previously unimaginable improvement across the country, but at what cost? A powerful criticism is that Rwanda is spending too much money on things like international airlines and convention centres and not enough on its own people. The country is still one of the poorest in the world with a GDP per capita of only £605. But perhaps the biggest

criticism of Rwanda is its almost authoritarian government. The president

since 2003, Paul Kagame, despite leading Rwanda to all the incredible improvements described above, is still an oppressive leader. He has both formally and informally been in power since the end of the civil war (1994) and has had unregulated power and control over the direction he wants to take Rwanda. Some say his severe limits on freedom of speech and freedom of the press are due to ensuring that racial disourse doesn’t take control of the country again and lead to more violence. Others say it’s for nothing bar his personal benefit as he has more control over the population. There have also been reports on Kagame rigging elections. He won the 2017 presidential election by securing 98.8 percent of the vote and has been rumoured to have arranged or coordinated assassinations and disappearances

of his critiques and political opponents. However, due to both a limit on the freedom of the press and the nature of the matter, there is little evidence or formal reporting to prove any serious allegations. The story of Rwanda leads us to one very important (and increasingly relevant) question: can we sacrifice liberty for prosperity? The main arguments to

consider are about what is more to important to an individual, economic prosperity or freedom and liberty.

Some argue one can’t have freedom without economic prosperity and some argue that above all material factors, freedom and autonomy are a human right no one can infringe upon. Another idea to think about is whether or not this kind of authoritarianism is sustainable. There is indeed an argument to be made that long term oppression will lead to a build up of civic unrest and will eventually lead to another violent outbreak, one potentially even more lethal than the civil war. The debate, in all, comes down to 2 key questions. Is some bad excusable for much good? And is Rwanda working for all Rwandans? Much like Singapore and China, two other countries who have secured economic growth through authoritarian measures, Rwanda has traded freedom for affluence; and in the short term, it seems like a relatively positive deal. The country as a whole has advanced significantly and there is little evidence to show that the authoritarian leadership is disliked by the people, most of whom (especially younger people) are actively supportive of it. What makes this an even more important question is that the leadership style of Kagame is becoming more popular across African countries, again especially with younger people. His advocation of equal rights (65% of the Rwandan government are women) and environmental policy make him out to be a leader of the future. Being able to answer this question will help us to learn more about the most efficient ways of social and economic improvement in developing countries and change the way we see humanitarian development across the world.

What can religion teach atheists about happiness in a digital age? In an ever-changing world, society is more diverse than ever before, and in an age of COVID public movements are more unpredictable than ever. However, throughout recent decades, a sharp trend is beginning to emerge; atheism is on the rise. With the 2001 census identifying 41.01 million people as Christian in Great Britain, when contrasted with the 2011 census only identifying 33.2 million, this shows a reduction in Christian numbers by 19.04%. Whichever way you look at it, the public lens is gradually moving away from organised religion in Great Britain.

“A reduction in Christian numbers by 19.04%” With this said, according to Psychology Today, those associated with organised religion are on average happier than those who aren’t. But why? The study identifies a major factor in play — the sense of community religion injects into weekly life. In fact, E. Diener found in his 2002 study that ‘controlling for social relationships eliminates the association between religiosity and well-being’ – in other words, perhaps it is entirely down to the increased social activity of those who participate in religious practices that they are happier. To put into perspective public opinion, religion was ranked as the second most important reported factor in leading a happy by life in a study conducted by YouGov;

“Diagnosable anxiety disorders increased by 20%” The social connection founded between theists was identified as the core reason for an increase in happiness and, as the world moves away from religion, overall mental health and happiness are on the decline. To suggest one causes the other seems a logical leap, yet perhaps rather than one directly causing the other, the rise of atheism may simply indicate the true cause of such a generational problem; the increased disconnect of the digital age. With a study at Newcastle University showing 48 out of 63 participants used their phones at some point in social interactions through a meal – those who did averaging one minute and 15 seconds of screen time every five minutes of interaction – this is evidence enough that as we move towards a society in which we are always ‘connected’, in fact it is truly a rise in social disconnect we are experiencing.

I myself, being an atheist, would not attend church of my own accord as I do not believe in God – however, it is undeniable there are clear benefits to such practices. Perhaps this study alludes to a solution to another emerging trend; the divebomb in mental health of young adults throughout recent years. Between 2007 and 2012 alone, diagnosable anxiety disorders increased by 20%, with depression on the rise and stress levels rocketing. But why is this? Many blame schooling, yet has the school environment changed that much to warrant such a worrying decline in this field?

However, in stark contrast to this ideal of a disconnected generation, perhaps the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way; universities over recent years have seen an unexpected rise in chapel attendance, and a surprisingly, the increase is largely fuelled by increased atheist attendance. So perhaps there is an undercurrent of backlash emerging against society’s movement towards a technological singularity? It is hard to say, yet there is no doubt that at a fundamental level, we as humans require a quota of social interaction often not matched by our day-to-day lives; this shift in university thinking is almost surely an allergic reaction to the trends outlined in this article.

From an atheist perspective, perhaps the moral grounding religion gives you, right or wrong, is enough to warrant such a change in an individual. With a globalised economy, the individual is often lost in such a broad scope; and it may become increasingly hard to truly find a sense of community. According to Ageing and Society, neighbourhood social cohesion was a key reducing factor in depressive symptoms; what conclusions can we draw from this? This finding allows us to peer at the foundational cause of Diener’s study discussed earlier; not only is the social aspect of religious gatherings a major factor in the increase in happiness, but specifically the recurring nature of the gatherings, and with this the recurring set of people.

“Social aspects of religious gatherings are a major factor in the increase of happiness” With these conclusions in mind, it seems only reasonable to now assess why organised religion is on the decline – not only does organised religion give an individual a sense of community, but in itself, religion is community. So with the shift away from person-to-person interactions and away from social gathering, it seems only natural that religion would seem less favourable to a generation which at face value has no need for such an archaic form of interaction as Church. Yet, with this said, one can conclude without hesitation from the studies collected that schoolchildren today would only benefit from such a commodity.

“Humans require a quota of social interaction often not matched by our day-to-day lives” What can be learnt from this in our approach to COVID? It is important to value social connection in a time of lockdowns and decreased social activity, as it has been shown that there is a direct correlation and causation between social activity within a community and happiness. Therefore in a time of isolation, connections must be valued in order to maintain wellbeing. As we move into a new era of accessible and unrelenting information at our fingertips, it seems more than just conjecture that one can assume the disparity in mental health between those with and without religion will only continue to grow within the coming decades as we become increasingly dependent on the social wedge we call technology.

The Paradox of the DRC The Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country that many in the west (or indeed, many of you) will not even know exists, is one the biggest and resource-rich countries in the world. Despite this, its inhabitants are stricken by poverty and underdevelopment (the DRC ranks at 176th in the human development index). The paradox of this ‘rich country of poor people’ raises the question: how could a country with such extensive resources be as poor as the DRC is?

Resources of the DRC: In order to discuss the paradox of the country, I must first outline the resources that the country possesses, given that the country receives so little outside attention comparative to its potential importance. Firstly, the DRC contains over 145 million hectares of forestry, a resource that supports millions of people. Unlike the mineral resources of the country which largely benefits a small cluster of the nation’s elite, forestry directly supports many Congolese people. As well as extensive forestry, agriculture is a key aspect of the Congolese economy, owing to the vast expanse of agricultural land and an ideal growing season. In addition, the DRC contains the second biggest river basin in the world (that of the Congo). Not only does this river system provide a basic transport system (vital in a country lacking infrastructure) but it also contains huge hydroelectric

potential. Finally, the most well-known aspect of the Congo: its mineral wealth. The mineral wealth of the country is estimated to be worth around $24 trillion (however this figure is widely contested). The Congo is home to over 1,100 different types of minerals including diamonds, cobalt, gold and uranium. The extent of this mineral wealth is staggering and as such it would be expected that the DRC would be among the richest countries of the world, yet this wealth has been both a blessing and a curse.

Reasons for underdevelopment:

Conflict has been a recurring theme in the DRC, particularly in the eastern Congo. In this photo government forces are on patrol. However, often the government lacks any sort of control over large swathes of the country and government forces are regularly invovled in exploitation.

One of the reasons for the plight of the Congolese people is that the abundant wealth of the country has invited exploitation from outside sources, as well as from within the country itself. For example, the Congo Free State set up as King Leopold II of Belgium’s private property, was perhaps the most brutal example of colonial rule in Africa, designed to extract as much wealth from the country as possible, with little to no regard for the inhabitants of the Congo. This blatant exploitation, under the guise of ‘civilising the negroes’, obviously had highly negative implications for the Congolese people, from whom the resources were simply stolen or produced through forced labour, with the wealth produced not seen in the Congo. The actions of the Free State are perhaps most aptly described by Joseph Konrad who stated that the country was the site of the ‘vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human conscience’. Even in more modern times, the DRC has been subjected

The mining of minerals such as coltan and wolframite (as in this photo) are essential for the daily income of ordinairy people. Despite this, the majority of the mining that takes place is artisanal and lacks any form of safety regulation, meaning miners often work in poor conditions for long hours. Many of these mines are run or owned by warlords.

to exploitation, from a slew of corrupt dictators to foreign Multi-National mining corporations, the same pattern is evidentonly a small handful of the political and military elite benefits on any meaningful level from the resources of the country. As a result of this, little of the money generated is spent on infrastructure (such as roads and other transport links) that could facilitate enhanced output. Instead, the DRC faces unreliability as a result of poor infrastructure (as well as natural phenomena such as flooding). For example, it is not uncommon for people to suffer from chronic food shortages whilst food rots in nearby villages.

“It is not uncommon for people to starve whilst food rots in nearby villages”

This exploitation is also felt through the form of various militias who mainly operate in the mineral-rich eastern Congo. The abundant mineral wealth helps to ‘finance the instability’ with many mines run by warlords who heavily tax the ordinary miners (known as ‘creuseurs’). The wealth created by this exploitation of innocent Congolese people and the replacement of the state as the middlemen between artisanal miners and the global demand for resources, such as coltan, is then used to fund the purchase of arms. This activity is not able to be stopped by the government as they lack any sort

of central authority, and often government backed forces are themselves involved in these predatory activities. The ability of the government to be a positive force is further undermined by the fact that the majority of mining operations are artisanal, stripping the government of tax opportunities and thus further restricting the government’s ability to improve infrastructure and stability.

These militias are often formed along ethnic lines, and this is another reason why the country is so hindered by violence. This is because the DRC is perhaps one of the best examples of the failure of colonial

line drawing on the continent, whereby European colonial powers indiscriminately divided up the continent between themselves. Over 200 ethnic groups reside in the DRC with many straddling borders with other countries, with the result being a lack of trust in the country’s government and tension between these groups. For example, after the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s, many of the Hutu genocidaires fled into the eastern Congo, followed by Tutsi militias who hunted down and murdered the refugees in retaliation. This then spiraled into ‘Africa’s First World War’, a truly horrific conflict, accompanied by the atrocities of resulting pogroms. This is further complicated by the geopolitics of the region, with disputes with neighbouring countries over access to resources being common. Clashes with Angola and Uganda about the oil reserves in the coasts off central-western Africa and skirmishes over the diamond-rich border area between Congo and Uganda are examples of the fraught relations. This delicate geopolitical situation will only be exacerbated by the effects of climate change, as resources such as water (a resource which the DRC is extremely rich in, with over half the lakes and rivers in Africa) become ever scarcer and the possibility of climate-related wars becomes ever nearer.

to the mining opportunities that the country presents. Although the influence of China is not necessarily a bad thing for the Congo (and could potentially play a role in the DRC’s developement), the DRC’s growing reliance on China as a trading partner and investor has raised concerns. For example, by 2010, 80% of mineral processing plants in Katanga province were owned by Chinese corporations. This dependence, alongside dubious ethical practices by Chinese companies, means that it remains to be seen whether the increasing Chinese influence will be beneficial to the Congolese people. As a result, despite the seemingly paradoxical plight of the DRC, there are, in fact, many reasons why the country has not developed into one of the more prosperous countries of the world. Given the DRC’s criminal colonial legacy combined with the sometimes interlinked vested interests of domestic elites, competitive neighbours, multinational corporations and global superpowers means that it is depressingly likely that in a generation this seemingly paradoxical situation will still be being discussed. - Robbie I

As well as the regional geopolitics, the actions of China in the DRC have drawn criticism from the western world. Ever since the 1960’s (but much more so in the last decade) China has looked to increase its influence in the DRC due

Book Reviews The Autobiohraphy of Malcolm X In a story of pain, passion and struggle, The Autobiography of Malcolm X chronicles the story of an impoverished black boy in Lansing, Michigan, a drug-addicted hustler in the streets of Roxbury and Harlem, a prisoner in Charlestown State Prison, a militant and black nationalist leader of the Nation of Islam, and finally, into a caring, compassionate and loving activist for the integration of races and brotherhood amongst all people. One of the most influential and misunderstood leaders of the 20th century, the work that Malcolm X did for the civil rights movement during and after his life will never be forgotten. Painted as a preacher of race hatred by his critics, X gave the black people of America hope, self-respect, dignity, pride, and fearlessness. In this beautiful story of religious awakening and englightenment, we open our eyes up to a world often unbeknownst to most of us and see in it not just the many evils of the world that continue to hurt millions, but also the roots of some of the most important ideas, movements and voices that inspire hope around the world.

The Undercover Economist - Tim Harford The Undercover Economist brings the power of everyday economics to life. Tim Harford is an economist and journalist who writes the ‘Undercover Economist’ column for the Financial Times. Through this book, the author takes a wider look at the practical ways in which Economics affects our lives, uncovering hidden stories between economic forces that shape our day-to-day lives, often without us knowing it. The book focuses on both the power and complexities of markets; how they can satisfy people’s desires and needs in a way that bureaucrats fail to do, but also their limits, illustrated by the comparison of UK and US healthcare systems. From the supposedly overpriced cost of a takeaway coffee, to why you can’t buy a good used car, Harford’s witty introduction will shed light onto issues that one might have previously dismissed.

Medieval Europe by Chris Wickham Exploring the key events and changes across a roughly 1000 year period from around 500 to 1500, ‘Medieval Europe’ provides a brief yet fascinating overview of an era that is often overlooked or overshadowed by the modern or ancient history that is on offer here at Wellington. Despite its relatively sparse coverage in the syllabus, the changes that took place following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire up until the Reformation were crucial, not only for modern Europe but for most of the world, owing to European colonial expansion following the end of the middle ages. Therefore, one would recommend this book to anyone looking for an introduction to the changing social, economic, and political themes of the medieval period and their impacts on Europe and the wider world.

Classics Crossword

Intro to Behavioural Economics - Behavioural economic theories challenge the assumption of pure rationality in human decisions. - The field mixes insights from psychology into economics. - BE helps to explain why people make apparently irrational decisions. As Economists, we assume that :

But this is not always the case. The economist Rory Sutherland, vice chair of the advertising company, ‘Ogilvy’ states that ‘people seek to maximise their own utility in a world of perfect information’. Given this, we could infer that human’s decisions are not always perfectly rational. The psychologist Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel prize in 2001. His major work is his bestselling book ‘Thinking fast and slow’ which illustrates our so called “cognitive biases” in human behaviour. He makes a distinction between humans and econs.

1. Rational consumers wish to maximise satisfaction/utility from consumption by choosing correctly how to spend their income 2. Producers/firms wish to maximise profits by producing the desired goods/services at lowest costs

Humans

Econs

- Believed by economists as pure rational beings

- Social and emotional - Habitual choices - Satisfice not maximise - Lack patience - Many cognitive biases in their behaviour which can affect the rationality of their decisions

- BUT Kahnemean believes ‘The human os far less a rational calculating machine than an anxious, moralizing, herd like, reciprocaitng, image conscious, storytelling game theorist.’

Behavioural Economics in 10 points 1

Takes on standard economic view of humans being perfectly rational, mathematical machines. Biases can strain decision making.

We are social animals, not self-interested beings like economists assume; we have social preferenes (e.g. we don’t like to see inequality, suffering etc.)

We learn socially. This is known as herd bias; a phenomenon where people rationalise that an action is right as ‘everybody else’ is doing it.

We are motivated by things other than money. Extrinsic factors such as money or success do affect our decisions, but so do intrinsic factors, such as the desire to do good.

We decide quickly. Humans are not always careful thinking, rational beings like standard economists assume; when faced with a lot of information, we often make irrational decisions due to external pressures.

Humans useheuristics (i.e. cognitive shortcuts) simplify decisions, especially under conditions of uncertainty. Daniel Kahneman explained Heuristics in his book ‘Thinking fast and slow’ to represent a process of substituting a difficult question with an easier one. This demonstrates the irregularities in the way we decide.

We are not good at forward planning, and are disproportionally impatient in the short term. This could lead to what is known as present bias and future discounting, where we would rather settle for a smaller product, profit, etc. at that moment, then wait for a larger reward in the future.

Economic theory often neglects individual differences. Emotions and psychological strains are not focused on in standard economics, which is something Behavioural Economics leans towards.

BE opposes macroeconomics when referring to the individual. Macro-economics often lumps together individuals to calculate statistics. However BE states that every person is not the same; people are interacting differently and independently to each other.

BE is useful to policy makers. Scientific discovery is used to calculate consumer behaviour. This is used to formulate economics policies to encourage consumers to behave in a socially desirable way. Thaler and Sunstein’s book ‘Nudge’ explores this concept in more detail. People can use nudges to change behaviour.

Wellington College, Crowthorne Berkshire, RG45 7PU www.wellingtoncollege.org.uk +44 (0)1344 444 000