Politics

When you take a step back and view this from a 30,000-foot perspective, I try to highlight the role of civilians in conflict. Officials, especially those in power controlling militaries or governments, often want to shape the narrative, to spin you to their story. But when you speak to civilians in the midst of war, they share more about the personal impact on their lives, and I think my audience and readers can connect more deeply with those voices.

Fox News Correspondent and International Reporter

I've learned that people exist on a spectrum, and that's something many observers don't like to acknowledge. But it's a reality across all the wars we cover, on all sides of every conflict. No one thinks exactly the same; some people hold very hawkish views on certain issues while being less so on others.

Fox News Correspondent and International Reporter

While a quantum computer could certainly cause significant economic and social disruption if used to break encryption, it does not pose the same kind of direct, physical threat to humanity as nuclear weapons. The situation is somewhat mitigated by the existence of quantum-resistant or post-quantum cryptographic schemes.

Theoretical computer scientist specializing in quantum computing and computational complexity

I felt that civil discourse in America was breaking down, with people splitting into two warring ideological camps. Meanwhile, the real issues we face are far more subtle, nuanced, and complex. I believed society needed what I call a contempt-free zone.

I think there was a moment around 2009 to 2011 when states got caught off guard a little. They didn't realise social media had the potential it did. And then I think it didn't take very long for authoritarian regimes to get smart and realise they could actually use these tools to stay in power.

In my book, the reason I call figures like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., red leviathans is that they're actually serving a role that's necessary in a modern progressive revolution: they're the ones who say what is revolutionary and what isn't. Because it turns out that's not an easy question to answer.

The moment that really stuck with me was during the Egyptian revolution of 2011. Before Mubarak steps down, he turned the internet off for five days. And that was kind of a moment where it was like, wow—actually, in this hyper-technological world we live in, states can control it in ways they couldn't control printing presses or other forms of written technology as easily.

I think it was recognising that revolution was, in a way, the original problem of political thought. But in fact, constitutionalism is a Greek answer to the problem of revolution. You want to avoid revolution? Then you need to design a constitution in a certain way—so that it's balanced and less likely to be overturned by revolution.

There was really a sense that humanity had already reached its peak, and so the question wasn't what comes next that's better, but rather how to prevent decline and loss. If you had a good state—or even just an okay one—your main concern was to keep it, to stop it from falling apart. Because there wasn't anything better you could reasonably expect.

We must always remember, in the West as democracies, that we have to do this within the character of a free society. That will hopefully always be what separates us from them: that we defend ourselves, but we do so within the character of a free society.

The idea that Google or Meta weren't American companies was a fiction they liked to tell themselves. It just simply wasn't true. And I'll tell you why: physically, their servers are in actual places.

So Manchester and Sheffield had to apply to Transport for London for money to allocate to their bus routes. This is so comically bizarre that if you put it in a novel it would seem too silly. But that's how it is. The power is amazingly concentrated in Whitehall with a few very clever technocrats who go into it as their first job.

Economist specializing in poverty, conflict, and development in Africa

Milton Friedman had a postulate about this. He got a Nobel Prize and all the rest of it, very fancy. But as soon as you interrogate this postulate, it's manifestly rubbish. The postulate was that capital would move into a region hit by an adverse shock. So, Sheffield's steel industry collapses. 'Oh well,' says Milton Friedman, 'that means wages are cheaper, property is cheaper, and so capital will move in.' Which sounds fine until you think about it for more than two minutes.

Economist specializing in poverty, conflict, and development in Africa

The old diplomatic model where only representatives of states have a formal role cannot work in today's world. We need open, democratic platforms that allow everyone to participate – it could be a young activist or a business leader, it could be a scientist or an indigenous leader.

Former President of Iceland (1996-2016)

We must remember that about one-quarter of the planet is under the control of the indigenous communities of Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Arctic. Quite frankly, we will never be able to deal with the challenges of the 21st century unless we engage and empower indigenous communities around the world.

Former President of Iceland (1996-2016)

The ice is neither left nor right, it is neither Republican nor Democrat, it is simply melting. The consequences of the sea ice melting are enormous and will be felt everywhere from Texas to China.

Former President of Iceland (1996-2016)