n********t
发帖数: 21 | 1 http://www.ft.com/content/19d90308-6858-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75
Yuval Noah Harari: the world after coronavirus | Free to read
This storm will pass. But the choices we make now could change our lives for
years to come
Yuval Noah Harari MARCH 20 2020
Be the first to know about every new Coronavirus story
Humankind is now facing a global crisis. Perhaps the biggest crisis of our
generation. The decisions people and governments take in the next few weeks
will probably shape the world for years to come. They will shape not just
our healthcare systems but also our economy, politics and culture. We
must act quickly and decisively. We should also take into account the long-
term consequences of our actions. When choosing between alternatives,
we should ask ourselves not only how to overcome the immediate threat, but
also what kind of world we will inhabit once the storm passes. Yes, the
storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive —
but we will inhabit a different world.
Many short-term emergency measures will become a fixture of life. That is
the nature of emergencies. They fast-forward historical processes. Decisions
that in normal times could take years of deliberation are passed in a
matter of hours. Immature and even dangerous technologies are pressed into
service, because the risks of doing nothing are bigger. Entire countries
serve as guinea-pigs in large-scale social experiments. What happens when
everybody works from home and communicates only at a distance? What happens
when entire schools and universities go online? In normal times, governments
, businesses and educational boards would never agree to conduct such
experiments. But these aren’t normal times.
In this time of crisis, we face two particularly important choices. The
first is between totalitarian surveillance and citizen empowerment. The
second is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity.
Under-the-skin surveillance
In order to stop the epidemic, entire populations need to comply with
certain guidelines. There are two main ways of achieving this. One method is
for the government to monitor people, and punish those who break the rules.
Today, for the first time in human history, technology makes it possible to
monitor everyone all the time. Fifty years ago, the KGB couldn’t follow
240m Soviet citizens 24 hours a day, nor could the KGB hope to effectively
process all the information gathered. The KGB relied on human agents and
analysts, and it just couldn’t place a human agent to follow every citizen.
But now governments can rely on ubiquitous sensors and powerful algorithms
instead of flesh-and-blood spooks.
The Colosseum in Rome
Piazza Beato Roberto in Pescara © Graziano Panfili
In their battle against the coronavirus epidemic several governments have
already deployed the new surveillance tools. The most notable case is China.
By closely monitoring people’s smartphones, making use of hundreds of
millions of face-recognising cameras, and obliging people to check and
report their body temperature and medical condition, the Chinese authorities
can not only quickly identify suspected coronavirus carriers, but also
track their movements and identify anyone they came into contact with. A
range of mobile apps warn citizens about their proximity to infected
patients.
About the photography
The images accompanying this article are taken from webcams overlooking the
deserted streets of Italy, found and manipulated by Graziano Panfili, a
photographer living under lockdown
This kind of technology is not limited to east Asia. Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu of Israel recently authorised the Israel Security Agency to
deploy surveillance technology normally reserved for battling terrorists to
track coronavirus patients. When the relevant parliamentary subcommittee
refused to authorise the measure, Netanyahu rammed it through with an “
emergency decree”.
You might argue that there is nothing new about all this. In recent years
both governments and corporations have been using ever more sophisticated
technologies to track, monitor and manipulate people. Yet if we are not
careful, the epidemic might nevertheless mark an important watershed in
the history of surveillance. Not only because it might normalise the
deployment of mass surveillance tools in countries that have so far rejected
them, but even more so because it signifies a dramatic transition from “
over the skin” to “under the skin” surveillance.
Hitherto, when your finger touched the screen of your smartphone and clicked
on a link, the government wanted to know what exactly your finger was
clicking on. But with coronavirus, the focus of interest shifts. Now the
government wants to know the temperature of your finger and the blood-
pressure under its skin.
The emergency pudding
One of the problems we face in working out where we stand on surveillance is
that none of us know exactly how we are being surveilled, and what the
coming years might bring. Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck
speed, and what seemed science-fiction 10 years ago is today old news. As a
thought experiment, consider a hypothetical government that demands that
every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and
heart-rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analysed by
government algorithms. The algorithms will know that you are sick even
before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you
have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even
cut altogether. Such a system could arguably stop the epidemic in its tracks
within days. Sounds wonderful, right?
The downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy to a terrifying
new surveillance system. If you know, for example, that I clicked on a Fox
News link rather than a CNN link, that can teach you something about my
political views and perhaps even my personality. But if you can monitor what
happens to my body temperature, blood pressure and heart-rate as I watch
the video clip, you can learn what makes me laugh, what makes me cry, and
what makes me really, really angry.
It is crucial to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological
phenomena just like fever and a cough. The same technology that identifies
coughs could also identify laughs. If corporations and governments start
harvesting our biometric data en masse, they can get to know us far better
than we know ourselves, and they can then not just predict our feelings but
also manipulate our feelings and sell us anything they want — be it a
product or a politician. Biometric monitoring would make Cambridge Analytica
’s data hacking tactics look like something from the Stone Age. Imagine
North Korea in 2030, when every citizen has to wear a biometric bracelet 24
hours a day. If you listen to a speech by the Great Leader and the bracelet
picks up the tell-tale signs of anger, you are done for.
Veduta della Casa Universitaria in Lodi © Graziano Panfili
Spiaggia di Porto San Giorgio, Mare Adriatico © Graziano Panfili
You could, of course, make the case for biometric surveillance as a
temporary measure taken during a state of emergency. It would go away once
the emergency is over. But temporary measures have a nasty habit of
outlasting emergencies, especially as there is always a new emergency
lurking on the horizon. My home country of Israel, for example, declared a
state of emergency during its 1948 War of Independence, which justified a
range of temporary measures from press censorship and land confiscation to
special regulations for making pudding (I kid you not). The War of
Independence has long been won, but Israel never declared the emergency over
, and has failed to abolish many of the “temporary” measures of 1948 (the
emergency pudding decree was mercifully abolished in 2011).
Even when infections from coronavirus are down to zero, some data-hungry
governments could argue they needed to keep the biometric surveillance
systems in place because they fear a second wave of coronavirus, or because
there is a new Ebola strain evolving in central Africa, or because .&#
8202;. . you get the idea. A big battle has been raging in
recent years over our privacy. The coronavirus crisis could be the battle’s
tipping point. For when people are given a choice between privacy and
health, they will usually choose health.
The soap police
Asking people to choose between privacy and health is, in fact, the very
root of the problem. Because this is a false choice. We can and should enjoy
both privacy and health. We can choose to protect our health and stop the
coronavirus epidemic not by instituting totalitarian surveillance regimes,
but rather by empowering citizens. In recent weeks, some of the most
successful efforts to contain the coronavirus epidemic were orchestrated by
South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. While these countries have made some use
of tracking applications, they have relied far more on extensive testing, on
honest reporting, and on the willing co-operation of a well-informed public
.
Centralised monitoring and harsh punishments aren’t the only way to make
people comply with beneficial guidelines. When people are told the
scientific facts, and when people trust public authorities to tell them
these facts, citizens can do the right thing even without a Big Brother
watching over their shoulders. A self-motivated and well-informed population
is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed, ignorant
population.
Consider, for example, washing your hands with soap. This has been one of
the greatest advances ever in human hygiene. This simple action saves
millions of lives every year. While we take it for granted, it was only in
the 19th century that scientists discovered the importance of washing hands
with soap. Previously, even doctors and nurses proceeded from one surgical
operation to the next without washing their hands. Today billions of people
daily wash their hands, not because they are afraid of the soap police, but
rather because they understand the facts. I wash my hands with soap because
I have heard of viruses and bacteria, I understand that these tiny organisms
cause diseases, and I know that soap can remove them.
The Royal Palace of Caserta © Graziano Panfili
Lungomare di Forte dei Marmi, in Versilia © Graziano Panfili
But to achieve such a level of compliance and co-operation, you need trust.
People need to trust science, to trust public authorities, and to trust the
media. Over the past few years, irresponsible politicians have deliberately
undermined trust in science, in public authorities and in the media. Now
these same irresponsible politicians might be tempted to take the high road
to authoritarianism, arguing that you just cannot trust the public to do the
right thing.
Normally, trust that has been eroded for years cannot be rebuilt overnight.
But these are not normal times. In a moment of crisis, minds too can change
quickly. You can have bitter arguments with your siblings for years, but
when some emergency occurs, you suddenly discover a hidden reservoir of
trust and amity, and you rush to help one another. Instead of building a
surveillance regime, it is not too late to rebuild people’s trust in
science, in public authorities and in the media. We should definitely make
use of new technologies too, but these technologies should empower
citizens. I am all in favour of monitoring my body temperature and blood
pressure, but that data should not be used to create an all-powerful
government. Rather, that data should enable me to make more informed
personal choices, and also to hold government accountable for its
decisions.
If I could track my own medical condition 24 hours a day, I would learn not
only whether I have become a health hazard to other people, but also which
habits contribute to my health. And if I could access and analyse reliable
statistics on the spread of coronavirus, I would be able to judge whether
the government is telling me the truth and whether it is adopting the right
policies to combat the epidemic. Whenever people talk about surveillance,
remember that the same surveillance technology can usually be used not only
by governments to monitor individuals — but also by individuals to monitor
governments.
The coronavirus epidemic is thus a major test of citizenship. In the days
ahead, each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and healthcare
experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and self-serving politicians. If
we fail to make the right choice, we might find ourselves signing away our
most precious freedoms, thinking that this is the only way to safeguard our
health.
We need a global plan
The second important choice we confront is between nationalist isolation and
global solidarity. Both the epidemic itself and the resulting economic
crisis are global problems. They can be solved effectively only by global co
-operation.
First and foremost, in order to defeat the virus we need to share
information globally. That’s the big advantage of humans over viruses. A
coronavirus in China and a coronavirus in the US cannot swap tips about how
to infect humans. But China can teach the US many valuable lessons about
coronavirus and how to deal with it. What an Italian doctor discovers in
Milan in the early morning might well save lives in Tehran by evening. When
the UK government hesitates between several policies, it can get advice from
the Koreans who have already faced a similar dilemma a month ago. But for
this to happen, we need a spirit of global co-operation and trust.
In the days ahead, each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and
healthcare experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and self-serving
politicians
Countries should be willing to share information openly and humbly seek
advice, and should be able to trust the data and the insights they receive.
We also need a global effort to produce and distribute medical equipment,
most notably testing kits and respiratory machines. Instead of every country
trying to do it locally and hoarding whatever equipment it can get, a co-
ordinated global effort could greatly accelerate production and make sure&#
160;life-saving equipment is distributed more fairly. Just as countries
nationalise key industries during a war, the human war against coronavirus
may require us to “humanise” the crucial production lines. A rich country
with few coronavirus cases should be willing to send precious equipment to a
poorer country with many cases, trusting that if and when it subsequently
needs help, other countries will come to its assistance.
We might consider a similar global effort to pool medical personnel.
Countries currently less affected could send medical staff to the worst
-hit regions of the world, both in order to help them in their hour of need,
and in order to gain valuable experience. If later on the focus of the
epidemic shifts, help could start flowing in the opposite direction.
Global co-operation is vitally needed on the economic front too. Given the
global nature of the economy and of supply chains, if each government does
its own thing in complete disregard of the others, the result will be chaos
and a deepening crisis. We need a global plan of action, and we need it fast
.
Another requirement is reaching a global agreement on travel.
Suspending all international travel for months will cause tremendous
hardships, and hamper the war against coronavirus. Countries need to co
-operate in order to allow at least a trickle of essential travellers to
continue crossing borders: scientists, doctors, journalists, politicians,
businesspeople. This can be done by reaching a global agreement on the pre-
screening of travellers by their home country. If you know that only
carefully screened travellers were allowed on a plane, you would be more
willing to accept them into your country.
The Duomo in Florence © Graziano Panfili
Torre San Giovanni, in Lecce © Graziano Panfili
Unfortunately, at present countries hardly do any of these things. A
collective paralysis has gripped the international community. There seem to
be no adults in the room. One would have expected to see already weeks ago
an emergency meeting of global leaders to come up with a common plan of
action. The G7 leaders managed to organise a videoconference only this week,
and it did not result in any such plan.
In previous global crises — such as the 2008 financial crisis and the 2014
Ebola epidemic — the US assumed the role of global leader. But
the current US administration has abdicated the job of leader. It has made
it very clear that it cares about the greatness of America far more
than about the future of humanity.
This administration has abandoned even its closest allies. When it banned
all travel from the EU, it didn’t bother to give the EU so much as an
advance notice — let alone consult with the EU about that drastic measure.
It has scandalised Germany by allegedly offering $1bn to a German
pharmaceutical company to buy monopoly rights to a new Covid-19 vaccine.
Even if the current administration eventually changes tack and comes up with
a global plan of action, few would follow a leader who never takes
responsibility, who never admits mistakes, and who routinely takes all the
credit for himself while leaving all the blame to others.
If the void left by the US isn’t filled by other countries, not only
will it be much harder to stop the current epidemic, but its legacy will
continue to poison international relations for years to come. Yet every
crisis is also an opportunity. We must hope that the current epidemic will
help humankind realise the acute danger posed by global disunity.
Humanity needs to make a choice. Will we travel down the route of disunity,
or will we adopt the path of global solidarity? If we choose disunity, this
will not only prolong the crisis, but will probably result in even
worse catastrophes in the future. If we choose global solidarity, it will be
a victory not only against the coronavirus, but against all future
epidemics and crises that might assail humankind in the 21st century.
Yuval Noah Harari is author of ‘Sapiens’, ‘Homo Deus’ and ‘21 Lessons
for the 21st Century’
Copyright © Yuval Noah Harari 2020 |
|
