The world after the coronavirus: for Harari we will never be the same

The biggest crisis of our generation 

Humankind is facing a global crisis. Perhaps the greatest crisis of our generation. The decisions of the people and governments of the coming weeks will shape the future world. Not just our healthcare systems, but also the economy, politics and culture. We must act quickly and decisively. We must also consider the long-term consequences of our actions. When choosing between alternatives, we must investigate not only how to overcome the immediate threat, but also what world we want to live in once the storm has passed. Yes, the storm will pass, humanity will survive, most of us will still be alive — but we will inhabit a different world. 

Many immediate emergency measures will become something lasting. This is the nature of emergencies. They accelerate historical processes. Decisions that in normal times would take years to make are made in a matter of hours. Budding, and even dangerous, technologies are activated, because the risks of doing nothing are greater and something has to be done. Whole countries are guinea pigs in large-scale social experiments. What happens when everyone works from home and only communicates remotely? What happens when entire schools and universities go online? In normal times, governments, businesses and school boards would never have agreed to conduct such experiments. But these are not anything but normal times. 

In this time of crisis, we are faced with two particularly important choices. The first is between totalitarian surveillance and citizen empowerment. The second is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. 

Watch yourself within 

To stop the epidemic, entire populations must comply with certain precepts. There are essentially two ways to achieve this. One 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 control everyone continuously and perpetually. 

Fifty years ago, the KGB could not tail 240 million Soviet citizens 24 hours a day, nor could it hope to effectively process all the data it collected. The KGB relied on real-life agents and analysts and could not have an agent shadow every citizen. But now governments can rely on ubiquitous sensors and sophisticated algorithms instead of flesh-and-blood spies. 

In their battle against the pandemic, several governments have already used the new surveillance tools. The most striking case is that of China. By continuously monitoring people's smartphones, using hundreds of millions of face-recognizing cameras, and forcing people to check and report body temperature and medical conditions, Chinese authorities can not only quickly identify suspected virus carriers, but also trace their movements and identify anyone who came into contact with them. Some mobile applications warn citizens of their proximity to infected patients. 

This type of technology is not limited to just the Far East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently authorized the Israel Security Agency to use surveillance technology, normally aimed at fighting terrorists, to track coronavirus patients. When the competent parliamentary subcommittee refused to authorize the measure, Netanyahu nevertheless approved it with an "emergency decree". 

One could argue that there is nothing new in any of this. In recent years, both governments and companies have used increasingly sophisticated technologies to track, monitor and manipulate people. Yet if we are not careful, the epidemic could mark an important watershed in the history of surveillance. Not only because it could legitimize the use of mass surveillance tools in countries that have so far rejected them, but even more because it means a worrying shift from external "over the skin" to internal "under the skin" surveillance 

Until now, when your finger touched the smartphone screen to click on a link, the government wanted to know exactly what you were clicking on. But with the coronavirus, the focus has shifted. Now the government wants to know the temperature of the finger and the blood pressure of the touch. 

The dessert of emergency (emergency puddings) 

One of the problems we face in understanding surveillance is that none of us know exactly how we are being watched and what might happen in the next few years. Surveillance technology is developing by leaps and bounds, and what seemed pure science fiction 10 years ago is archeology today. Imagine a government that requires every citizen to wear a biometric wristband that monitors body temperature and heart rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data will be stored and analyzed by government algorithms. The algorithms will know if you're sick before you even know it, and they'll also know where you've been and who you've met. The chain of contagion could be drastically shortened and even eliminated completely. Such a system could halt the epidemic within days. Sounds great, right? 

But there is a flip side. And on the flip side, this system would legitimize a terrifying new surveillance system. If you know, for example, that if a person clicks on a Fox News link rather than one on CNN, that may say something about their political views and perhaps even their personality. But if you can check the body temperature, blood pressure and heart rate of someone watching a video clip, you can tell if the content is causing hilarity, emotion or irritation. 

It is important to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological phenomena like fever and cough. The same technology that identifies coughs could also recognize laughter. If corporations and governments start collecting our biometric data massively, they can get to know us much better than we know ourselves and can therefore not only guess our feelings, but also manipulate them so they can sell us anything they want — whether it's whether it is a product or a politician. Biometric tracking makes 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 hear a speech from the Great Leader and the bracelet catches signs of dissent, you're doomed. 

Sure, one could, understandably, adopt biometric surveillance as a temporary measure during a state of emergency. Once the emergency is over, it should be suspended. But temporary measures have the bad habit of lasting over time, especially since, on the horizon, there is always a new emergency lurking. My home country of Israel, for example, declared a state of emergency during the 1948 War of Independence, introducing a variety of temporary measures, from press censorship and land confiscation to special regulations for of desserts (I kid you not). The War of Independence is long over, but Israel has never declared an end to the state of emergency and hasn't abolished many of the "temporary" measures of 1948 (the emergency dessert decree was eventually mercifully abolished in 2011). 

Even when coronavirus infections are zero, some data-hungry governments may want to maintain biometric surveillance systems because they fear a second wave of coronavirus, or because there is a new strain of Ebola evolving in central Africa, or because… you get the idea, don't you?. 

There has been a big battle over privacy in recent years. The coronavirus crisis could be the turning point of this battle. Because when people are given the choice between privacy and health, they choose health. 

The soap police 

Asking people to choose between privacy and health is the source of the matter. Because this is a false choice. We can and should have both privacy and health. We can choose to protect our health and stop the coronavirus epidemic without the need for totalitarian surveillance systems, but rather by holding citizens accountable. In recent weeks, the most successful efforts to contain the coronavirus outbreak have come from South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. While these countries have made use of tracking apps, they have relied more on extensive testing, responsible self-monitoring, and the willing cooperation of a well-informed public. 

Centralized monitoring and exemplary punishments aren't the only way to get people to abide by the rules. When people are informed of scientific facts, and when people trust the public authorities' story, citizens can do the right thing even without Big Brother watching over their shoulders. A motivated and well-informed population is usually much more decisive and effective than an oppressed and ignorant population. 

Consider, for example, washing your hands with soap. Washing hands with soap has been one of the greatest advances in human hygiene. This simple action saves millions of lives every year. Even if we take it for granted, it wasn't until the XNUMXth century that scientists discovered the importance of washing hands with soap. Previously, even doctors and nurses would go from one surgery to another without washing their hands. Today, billions of people wash their hands daily, not because they are afraid of the "soap police", but because they understand the importance of doing so. I wash my hands with soap because I've heard of viruses and bacteria, I understand that these little organisms cause disease and I know that soap can kill them. 

But to achieve that level of membership and cooperation, trust is needed. People must trust science, public authorities and the media. In recent years, irresponsible politicians have deliberately undermined trust in science, public authorities and the media. Now these same irresponsible politicians may be tempted to take the path of authoritarianism, arguing that people cannot be trusted to do the right thing. 

Trust that has been undermined for years cannot be rebuilt overnight. But these are not normal times. In a time of crisis like this, even minds can change in the blink of an eye. There may be heated arguments between relatives, but when some emergency arises, one suddenly discovers that there is a hidden fund of trust and friendship and one rushes to help one another. 

Instead of building a surveillance regime, it is not too late to restore people's trust in science, public authorities and the media. New technologies can also be used, but these technologies should empower citizens. I'm in favor of monitoring body temperature and blood pressure, but this data shouldn't be used to create a hyper-present surveillance system. Rather, these data should enable people to make more informed choices including how to judge government action. 

If I could monitor my medical condition around the clock, I would know not only if I am a health hazard to other people, but also what habits are contributing to my health. And if I could access and analyze reliable statistics on the spread of the coronavirus, I would be able to judge whether the government is telling me the truth and putting the right policies in place to fight the epidemic. Whenever surveillance is discussed, 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 therefore an important test of citizenship. In the days to come, each of us should be able to trust scientific data and health experts rather than baseless conspiracy theories and political opportunists. 

If we don't make the right choice, we could end up seeing our most precious freedoms go up in smoke, with the excuse that this is the only way to safeguard our health. 

We need a comprehensive plan 

The second important choice we face is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. Both the epidemic and the resulting economic crisis are global problems. They can only be solved effectively with global cooperation. 

First, to defeat the virus we need to share information globally. This is man's great advantage over viruses. A coronavirus in China and a coronavirus in the United States cannot exchange advice on how to infect humans. But China can teach the United States many important lessons about coronaviruses and how to deal with them. What an Italian doctor discovers in Milan in the early morning could save lives in Tehran in the evening. When the British government hesitates between different policies, it can feel Koreans have faced a similar dilemma before. But for that to happen, we need a spirit of global cooperation and trust. 

Countries should be willing to share information openly and humbly seek advice. They should be able to trust the data and insights they receive. There is also a need for a global effort to produce and share medical equipment, especially testing kits and breathing machines. Instead every country trying to get them locally and hoard whatever equipment they can grab. A coordinated global effort could dramatically speed up the production of lifesaving kits and ensure they are distributed more fairly. Just as countries nationalize key industries during a war, mankind's war against coronavirus requires "humanizing" crucial production lines. A rich country with few cases of coronavirus should be willing to send valuable equipment to a poorer country with many cases, trusting that if and when it needs it, other countries will come to its aid. 

Such a global system for pooling medical personnel could be considered. Currently less affected countries could send medical personnel to the most affected regions of the world, both to help them in their time of need and to gain valuable experience. If the epicenter of the epidemic shifts later, help could start flowing in the opposite direction. 

Global cooperation is also vital on the economic front. Given the global nature of the economy and supply system, if each government operates in complete disregard for the others, the result will be chaos and a deepening crisis. We need a comprehensive action plan and we need it fast. 

Another requirement is reaching a global agreement on the movement of people. The suspension of all international movements for months will cause enormous difficulties and hinder the war against the coronavirus. Countries must cooperate to allow at least a minimum of essential travel to cross borders. These are movements of scientists, doctors, journalists, politicians, businessmen. This can only be done with a global agreement on the pre-screening of travelers by their home country. If you know that only carefully screened passengers travel on a plane, you are more willing to accept them in your country. 

Unfortunately, now, countries do none of this. A collective paralysis has hit the international community. There seems to be no more adults in the room. One would have expected to see an emergency meeting of world leaders already weeks ago to work out a joint action plan. G7 leaders only managed to arrange a video conference this week, and it didn't lead to any plans. 

In previous global crises — such as the 2008 financial crisis and the 2014 Ebola outbreak — the United States assumed the role of world leader. But the current US administration has abdicated its leadership role. He made it very clear that he cares about America's security far more than the future of humanity. 

This administration has abandoned even its closest allies. When she banned all travel from the EU, she didn't bother to give the EU any notice, let alone consult with the EU about this drastic measure. He scandalized Germany by apparently offering $1 billion to a German pharmaceutical company to buy monopoly rights to a new Covid-19 vaccine. Even if the current administration did eventually change course and come up with a comprehensive plan of action, few would follow a leader who never takes responsibility, never admits mistakes, and habitually takes all the credit for himself while leaving all blame others. 

If the vacuum left by the United States is not filled by other countries, not only will it be much more difficult 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 humanity understand the grave danger posed by global disunity. 

Humanity must make a choice. Will we take the path of disunity or will we adopt the path of global solidarity? If we choose disunity, this will not only prolong the crisis, but will likely lead to 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 may attack humanity throughout the XNUMXst century.