A recent Climatic Change review article reports a remarkable convergence of scientific evidence for a link between climatic events and violent intergroup conflict, thus departing markedly from other contemporary assessments of the empirical literature. This commentary revisits the review in order to understand the discrepancy. We believe the origins of the disagreement can be traced back to the review article's underlying quantitative meta-analysis,

Recent studies discuss the link between climate change and violent conflict, especially for East Africa. While there is extensive literature on the question whether climate change increases the risk of violent conflict onset, not much is known about where a climate-conflict link is most likely to be found. We address this question by analyzing the spatial distribution of the factors commonly associated with a high exposure and vulnerability to climate change, and a high risk of violent conflict onset in Kenya and Uganda. Drawing on recent literature and quantitative data for the period 1998–2008, we develop various specifications of a composite risk index (CRI) with a spatial resolution of half a degree for Kenya and Uganda in the year 2008. A quantitative comparison with conflict data for the year 2008 provides support for the composite risk index. Finally, the composite risk index is contrasted with the findings of three qualitative case studies, which provide mixed support for the index and help to identify its strengths and weaknesses as well as conceptual needs for further quantitative studies on climate change and violent conflict

What: An international group of scientists discussed issues of climate change, land use, and conflict in northern Africa and assessed the implications of interactions between these aspects, providing current research results and identifying knowledge gaps and emerging research questions.

The World We Want to Live In establish a positive coexistence with beings whose intelligence is greater than our own" (Barrat, 2013, p. 267). Barrat has had an unusual impact with his 2013 book 'The Last Invention' , which was one of the triggers for Elon Musk's decision to found Neuralink in 2016, which is expected to build human-machine interface prototypes this year (2021) after a successful trial with a macaque monkey (Musk, 2021;Kelly, 2021). According to Elon Musk, one goal of founding Neuralink is to arm humanity through a symbiotic relationship with digital technology to counter future successful attacks by hostile and powerful AI (Hamilton, 2019).But even if this is classified as science fiction, since reaching the innovation threshold of the technological singularity is highly controversial in terms of the likelihood of its occurrence (from "in a few years" to "never"), there are numerous challenges that the advanced digital developments pose for our daily life. Especially since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic most voices suggest that there is no alternative to the recent technology path.An example of the danger that has been growing for the past few years is the consideration of "The Great Reset": a digital "Singaporeisation" of western democracies, i.e. the destruction of open societies through rampant prohibition policies that pretend to be necessary to implement the UN Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Climate Agreement (SDG 2030, Schwab / Mallert, 2020, WEF, 2020. Good intentions are suggested here (e.g. closing the digital divide, climate protection, diversity). However, the policies proposed are a nightmare smoothie of "1984" and "Brave New World" that would lead to digitally controlled autocratic regimes. These attempts are flanked by illiberal identity policies (cf. Fourest, 2020, Kastner / Susemichel, 2020, Wagenknecht, 2021), that are supposed to define "right action, right speech and right thinking" even in democratic, open societies. Compliance with these is to be digitally monitored and sanctioned in a variety of ways (e.g., higher health insurance contributions for people without smart fitness bracelets). However, such a system would mean that "transparent" people would potentially be constantly monitored in a digital panopticon to see whether they are behaving correctly and appropriately (cf. Chapter 1).On the other hand, digital technologies have become indispensable tools of everyday life for most people around the world and are extremely useful in many ways: they simplify and speed up many tasks, connect people, reduce dangers, create convenience, are fun, and save lives. This makes them an enrichment of human life, especially when they are used for the common good. Fundamental criticism is counterproductive in view of the broad enthusiasm of most people worldwide for their digital access and the vehement demands of those who do not have (sufficient) access and want it. It is us, as citizens, workers, learners, consumers, or patients, who demand barrier-free access to m...

No abstract