In the Battle Against Coronavirus, Humanity

Lacks Leadership
Ideas
By Yuval Noah Harari
March 15, 2020 6:00 AM EDT
Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher and the bestselling author of Sapiens, Homo Deus and 21
Lessons for the 21st Century.
Many people blame the coronavirus epidemic on globalization, and say that the only way to prevent
more such outbreaks is to de-globalize the world. Build walls, restrict travel, reduce trade. However,
while short-term quarantine is essential to stop epidemics, long-term isolationism will lead to economic
collapse without offering any real protection against infectious diseases. Just the opposite. The real
antidote to epidemic is not segregation, but rather cooperation.
Epidemics killed millions of people long before the current age of globalization. In the 14th century
there were no airplanes and cruise ships, and yet the Black Death spread from East Asia to Western
Europe in little more than a decade. It killed between 75 million and 200 million people – more than a
quarter of the population of Eurasia. In England, four out of ten people died. The city of Florence lost
50,000 of its 100,000 inhabitants.
In March 1520, a single smallpox carrier – Francisco de Eguía – landed in Mexico. At the time, Central
America had no trains, buses or even donkeys. Yet by December a smallpox epidemic devastated the
whole of Central America, killing according to some estimates up to a third of its population.
In 1918 a particularly virulent strain of flu managed to spread within a few months to the remotest
corners of the world. It infected half a billion people – more than a quarter of the human species. It is
estimated that the flu killed 5% of the population of India. On the island of Tahiti 14% died. On Samoa
20%. Altogether the pandemic killed tens of millions of people – and perhaps as high as 100 million –
in less than a year. More than the First World War killed in four years of brutal fighting.
In the century that passed since 1918, humankind became ever more vulnerable to epidemics, due to a
combination of growing populations and better transport. A modern metropolis such as Tokyo or
Mexico City offers pathogens far richer hunting grounds than medieval Florence, and the global
transport network is today far faster than in 1918. A virus can make its way from Paris to Tokyo and
Mexico City in less than 24 hours. We should therefore have expected to live in an infectious hell, with
one deadly plague after another.
However, both the incidence and impact of epidemics have actually gone down dramatically. Despite
horrendous outbreaks such as AIDS and Ebola, in the twenty-first century epidemics kill a far smaller
proportion of humans than in any previous time since the Stone Age. This is because the best defense
humans have against pathogens is not isolation – it is information. Humanity has been winning the war
against epidemics because in the arms race between pathogens and doctors, pathogens rely on blind
mutations while doctors rely on the scientific analysis of information.
An influenza camp, where patients were given "fresh air treatment," in 1918.
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
Winning the War on Pathogens
When the Black Death struck in the 14th century, people had no idea what causes it and what could be
done about it. Until the modern era, humans usually blamed diseases on angry gods, malicious demons
or bad air, and did not even suspect the existence of bacteria and viruses. People believed in angels and
fairies, but they could not imagine that a single drop of water might contain an entire armada of deadly
predators. Therefore when the Black Death or smallpox came to visit, the best thing the authorities
could think of doing was organizing mass prayers to various gods and saints. It didn’t help. Indeed,
when people gathered together for mass prayers, it often caused mass infections.
During the last century, scientists, doctors and nurses throughout the world pooled information and
together managed to understand both the mechanism behind epidemics and the means of countering
them. The theory of evolution explained why and how new diseases erupt and old diseases become
more virulent. Genetics enabled scientists to spy on the pathogens’ own instruction manual. While
medieval people never discovered what caused the Black Death, it took scientists just two weeks to
identify the novel coronavirus, sequence its genome and develop a reliable test to identify infected
people.
Once scientists understood what causes epidemics, it became much easier to fight them. Vaccinations,
antibiotics, improved hygiene, and a much better medical infrastructure have allowed humanity to gain
the upper hand over its invisible predators. In 1967, smallpox still infected 15 million people and killed
2 million of them. But in the following decade a global campaign of smallpox vaccination was so
successful, that in 1979 the World Health Organization declared that humanity had won, and that
smallpox had been completely eradicated. In 2019 not a single person was either infected or killed by
smallpox.
A sparse international departures terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City
on March 7. Days later, as concerns over the coronavirus grew, President Trump announced restrictions
on travelers from Europe.
Spencer Platt—Getty Images
Guard Our Border
What does this history teach us for the current Coronavirus epidemic?
First, it implies that you cannot protect yourself by permanently closing your borders. Remember that
epidemics spread rapidly even in the Middle Ages, long before the age of globalization. So even if you
reduce your global connections to the level of England in 1348 – that still would not be enough. To
really protect yourself through isolation, going medieval won’t do. You would have to go full Stone
Age. Can you do that?
Secondly, history indicates that real protection comes from the sharing of reliable scientific
information, and from global solidarity. When one country is struck by an epidemic, it should be
willing to honestly share information about the outbreak without fear of economic catastrophe – while
other countries should be able to trust that information, and should be willing to extend a helping hand
rather than ostracize the victim. Today, China can teach countries all over the world many important
lessons about coronavirus, but this demands a high level of international trust and cooperation.
International cooperation is needed also for effective quarantine measures. Quarantine and lock-down
are essential for stopping the spread of epidemics. But when countries distrust one another and each
country feels that it is on its own, governments hesitate to take such drastic measures. If you discover
100 coronavirus cases in your country, would you immediately lock down entire cities and regions? To
a large extent, that depends on what you expect from other countries. Locking down your own cities
could lead to economic collapse. If you think that other countries will then come to your help – you
will be more likely to adopt this drastic measure. But if you think that other countries will abandon you,
you would probably hesitate until it is too late.
Perhaps the most important thing people should realize about such epidemics, is that the spread of the
epidemic in any country endangers the entire human species. This is because viruses evolve. Viruses
like the corona originate in animals, such as bats. When they jump to humans, initially the viruses are
ill-adapted to their human hosts. While replicating within humans, the viruses occasionally undergo
mutations. Most mutations are harmless. But every now and then a mutation makes the virus more
infectious or more resistant to the human immune system – and this mutant strain of the virus will then
rapidly spread in the human population. Since a single person might host trillions of virus particles that
undergo constant replication, every infected person gives the virus trillions of new opportunities to
become more adapted to humans. Each human carrier is like a gambling machine that gives the virus
trillions of lottery tickets – and the virus needs to draw just one winning ticket in order to thrive .
This is not mere speculation. Richard Preston’s Crisis in the Red Zone describes exactly such a chain of
events in the 2014 Ebola outbreak. The outbreak began when some Ebola viruses jumped from a bat to
a human. These viruses made people very sick, but they were still adapted to living inside bats more
than to the human body. What turned Ebola from a relatively rare disease into a raging epidemic was a
single mutation in a single gene in one Ebola virus that infected a single human, somewhere in the
Makona area of West Africa. The mutation enabled the mutant Ebola strain – called the Makona strain
– to link to the cholesterol transporters of human cells. Now, instead of cholesterol, the transporters
were pulling Ebola into the cells. This new Makona strain was four times more infectious to humans.
As you read these lines, perhaps a similar mutation is taking place in a single gene in the coronavirus
that infected some person in Tehran, Milan or Wuhan. If this is indeed happening, this is a direct threat
not just to Iranians, Italians or Chinese, but to your life, too. People all over the world share a life-and-
death interest not to give the coronavirus such an opportunity. And that means that we need to protect
every person in every country.
In the 1970s humanity managed to defeat the smallpox virus because all people in all countries were
vaccinated against smallpox. If even one country failed to vaccinate its population, it could have
endangered the whole of humankind, because as long as the smallpox virus existed and evolved
somewhere, it could always spread again everywhere.
In the fight against viruses, humanity needs to closely guard borders. But not the borders between
countries. Rather, it needs to guard the border between the human world and the virus-sphere. Planet
earth is teaming with countless viruses, and new viruses are constantly evolving due to genetic
mutations. The borderline separating this virus-sphere from the human world passes inside the body of
each and every human being. If a dangerous virus manages to penetrate this border anywhere on earth,
it puts the whole human species in danger.
Over the last century, humanity has fortified this border like never before. Modern healthcare systems
have been built to serve as a wall on that border, and nurses, doctors and scientists are the guards who
patrol it and repel intruders. However, long sections of this border have been left woefully exposed.
There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who lack even basic healthcare services.
This endangers all of us. We are used to thinking about health in national terms, but providing better
healthcare for Iranians and Chinese helps protect Israelis and Americans too from epidemics. This
simple truth should be obvious to everyone, but unfortunately it escapes even some of the most
important people in the world.
President Trump leaves the podium after announcing a national emergency during a news conference
about the coronavirus at the White House in Washington, D.C., on March 13.
Alex Brandon—AP
A Leaderless World
Today humanity faces an acute crisis not only due to the coronavirus, but also due to the lack of trust
between humans. To defeat an epidemic, people need to trust scientific experts, citizens need to trust
public authorities, and countries need to trust each other. Over the last few years, irresponsible
politicians have deliberately undermined trust in science, in public authorities and in international
cooperation. As a result, we are now facing this crisis bereft of global leaders that can inspire, organize
and finance a coordinated global response.
During the 2014 Ebola epidemic, the U.S. served as that kind of leader. The U.S. fulfilled a similar role
also during the 2008 financial crisis, when it rallied behind it enough countries to prevent global
economic meltdown. But in recent years the U.S. has resigned its role as global leader. The current U.S.
administration has cut support for international organizations like the World Health Organization, and
has made it very clear to the world that the U.S. no longer has any real friends – it has only interests.
When the coronavirus crisis erupted, the U.S. stayed on the sidelines, and has so far refrained from
taking a leading role. Even if it eventually tries to assume leadership, trust in the current U.S.
administration has been eroded to such an extent, that few countries would be willing to follow it.
Would you follow a leader whose motto is “Me First”?
The void left by the U.S. has not been filled by anyone else. Just the opposite. Xenophobia,
isolationism and distrust now characterize most of the international system. Without trust and global
solidarity we will not be able to stop the coronavirus epidemic, and we are likely to see more such
epidemics in future. But every crisis is also an opportunity. Hopefully the current epidemic will help
humankind realize the acute danger posed by global disunity.
To take one prominent example, the epidemic could be a golden opportunity for the E.U. to regain the
popular support it has lost in recent years. If the more fortunate members of the E.U. swiftly and
generously send money, equipment and medical personnel to help their hardest-hit colleagues, this
would prove the worth of the European ideal better than any number of speeches. If, on the other hand,
each country is left to fend for itself, then the epidemic might sound the death-knell of the union.
In this moment of crisis, the crucial struggle takes place within humanity itself. If this epidemic results
in greater disunity and mistrust among humans, it will be the virus’s greatest victory. When humans
squabble – viruses double. In contrast, if the epidemic results in closer global cooperation, it will be a
victory not only against the coronavirus, but against all future pathogens.
Copyright © Yuval Noah Harari 2020

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
 • Share on twitter (opens new window)
• Share on facebook (opens new window)
• Share on linkedin (opens new window)
•
Yuval Noah Harari
337Print this page
Sign up for our life and arts newsletter
Get a shot of inspiration with the FT Weekend bulletin - the best in life, arts and culture. Delivered
every Saturday morning.

Object 1

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. 
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.
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 . . . 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. 
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 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. 
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

Skip to main contentSkip to navigation

The Guardian - Back to home

Support the Guardian
Available for everyone, funded by readers
Contribute
Subscribe
Search jobs
Sign in
Search
• News
 • Opinion
• Sport
• Culture
• Lifestyle
ShowMore
• Books
• Music
• TV & radio
• Art & design
• Film
• Games
• Classical
• Stage
Science and nature books
Yuval Noah Harari: 'Will coronavirus change
our attitudes to death? Quite the opposite'
A worshipper sits in Westminster Cathedral in central London on 17 March 2020. Photograph: Tolga
Akmen/AFP via Getty Images
Will the coronavirus pandemic return us to more traditional and accepting, attitudes towards dying – or
reinforce our attempts to prolong life?
Yuval Noah Harari
Mon 20 Apr 2020 14.00 BST
Last modified on Wed 1 Jul 2020 17.40 BST
•
•
•
• The modern world has been shaped by the belief that humans can outsmart and defeat death.
That was a revolutionary new attitude. For most of history, humans meekly submitted to death.
Up to the late modern age, most religions and ideologies saw death not only as our inevitable
fate, but as the main source of meaning in life. The most important events of human existence
happened after you exhaled your last breath. Only then did you come to learn the true secrets of
life. Only then did you gain eternal salvation, or suffer everlasting damnation. In a world
without death – and therefore without heaven, hell or reincarnation – religions such as
Christianity, Islam and Hinduism would have made no sense. For most of history the best
human minds were busy giving meaning to death, not trying to defeat it.
The Epic of Gilgamesh, the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice, the Bible, the Qur’an, the Vedas, and
countless other sacred books and tales patiently explained to distressed humans that we die because
God decreed it, or the Cosmos, or Mother Nature, and we had better accept that destiny with humility
and grace. Perhaps someday God would abolish death through a grand metaphysical gesture such as
Christ’s second coming. But orchestrating such cataclysms was clearly above the pay grade of flesh-
and-blood humans.
Then came the scientific revolution. For scientists, death isn’t a divine decree – it is merely a technical
problem. Humans die not because God said so, but because of some technical glitch. The heart stops
pumping blood. Cancer has destroyed the liver. Viruses multiply in the lungs. And what is responsible
for all these technical problems? Other technical problems. The heart stops pumping blood because not
enough oxygen reaches the heart muscle. Cancerous cells spread in the liver because of some chance
genetic mutation. Viruses settled in my lungs because somebody sneezed on the bus. Nothing
metaphysical about it.
 • Joe Coleman from Dublin at Knock Shrine, Co Mayo, May 2010, when he claimed that an
apparition would take place, directly linked to the second coming of Christ on Earth.
Photograph: Julien Behal/PA
And science believes that every technical problem has a technical solution. We don’t need to wait for
Christ’s second coming in order to overcome death. A couple of scientists in a lab can do it. Whereas
traditionally death was the speciality of priests and theologians in black cassocks, now it’s the folks in
white lab coats. If the heart flutters, we can stimulate it with a pacemaker or even transplant a new
heart. If cancer rampages, we can kill it with radiation. If viruses proliferate in the lungs, we can
subdue them with some new medicine.
True, at present we cannot solve all technical problems. But we are working on them. The best human
minds no longer spend their time trying to give meaning to death. Instead, they are busy extending life.
They are investigating the microbiological, physiological and genetic systems responsible for disease
and old age, and developing new medicines and revolutionary treatments.
In their struggle to extend life, humans have been remarkably successful. Over the last two centuries,
average life expectancy has jumped from under 40 years to 72 in the entire world, and to more than 80
in some developed countries. Children in particular have succeeded in escaping death’s clutches. Until
the 20th century, at least a third of children never reached adulthood. Youngsters routinely succumbed
to childhood diseases such as dysentery, measles and smallpox. In 17th-century England, about 150 out
of every 1,000 newborns died during their first year, and only about 700 made it to age 15. Today, only
five out of 1,000 English babies die during their first year, and 993 get to celebrate their 15th birthday.
In the world as a whole, child mortality is down to less than 5%.
Humans have been so successful in our attempt to safeguard and prolong life that our worldview has
changed in a profound way. While traditional religions considered the afterlife as the main source of
meaning, from the 18th century ideologies such as liberalism, socialism and feminism lost all interest
in the afterlife. What, exactly, happens to a communist after he or she dies? What happens to a
capitalist? What happens to a feminist? It is pointless to look for the answer in the writings of Karl
Marx, Adam Smith or Simone de Beauvoir.
The only modern ideology that still awards death a central role is nationalism. In its more poetic and
desperate moments, nationalism promises that whoever dies for the nation will live forever in its
collective memory. Yet this promise is so fuzzy that even most nationalists do not really know what to
make of it. How do you actually “live” in memory? If you are dead, how do you know whether people
remember you or not? Woody Allen was once asked if he hoped to live for ever in the memory of
moviegoers. Allen answered: “I’d rather live on in my apartment.” Even many traditional religions
have switched focus. Instead of promising some heaven in the afterlife, they have begun to put far more
emphasis on what they can do for you in this life.
The only modern ideology that still awards death a central role is nationalism

Will the current pandemic change human attitudes to death? Probably not. Just the opposite. Covid-19
will probably cause us to only double our efforts to protect human lives. For the dominant cultural
reaction to Covid-19 isn’t resignation – it is a mixture of outrage and hope.
When an epidemic erupted in a pre-modern society such as medieval Europe, people of course feared
for their lives and were devastated by the death of loved ones, but the main cultural reaction was one of
resignation. Psychologists might call it “learned helplessness”. People told themselves it was God’s
will – or perhaps divine retribution for the sins of humankind. “God knows best. We wicked humans
deserve it. And you will see, it will all turn out for the best in the end. Don’t worry, good people will
get their reward in heaven. And don’t waste time looking for a medicine. This disease was sent by God
to punish us. Those who think humans can overcome this epidemic by their own ingenuity are merely
adding the sin of vanity to their other crimes. Who are we to thwart God’s plans?”
Attitudes today are the polar opposite. Whenever some disaster kills many people – a train accident, a
high-rise fire, even a hurricane – we tend to view it as a preventable human failure rather than as divine
punishment or an inevitable natural calamity. If the train company didn’t stint on its safety budget, if
the municipality had adopted better fire regulations, and if the government had sent help quicker –
these people could have been saved. In the 21st century, mass death has become an automatic reason
for lawsuits and investigations.
Port Vila, Vanuatu, after Cyclone Pam struck in March 2015. Photograph: Dave Hunt/Getty Images
This is our attitude towards plagues, too. While some religious preachers were quick to describe Aids
as God’s punishment for gay people, modern society mercifully relegated such views to its lunatic
fringes, and these days we generally view the spread of Aids, Ebola and other recent epidemics as
organisational failures. We assume that humankind has the knowledge and tools necessary to curb such
plagues, and if an infectious disease nevertheless gets out of control, it is due to human incompetence
rather than divine anger. Covid-19 is no exception to this rule. The crisis is far from over, yet the blame
game has already begun. Different countries accuse one another. Rival politicians throw responsibility
from one to the other like a hand-grenade without a pin.
Alongside outrage, there is also a tremendous amount of hope. Our heroes aren’t the priests who bury
the dead and excuse the calamity – our heroes are the medics who save lives. And our super-heroes are
those scientists in the laboratories. Just as moviegoers know that Spiderman and Wonder Woman will
eventually defeat the bad guys and save the world, so we are quite sure that within a few months,
perhaps a year, the folks in the labs will come up with effective treatments for Covid-19 and even a
vaccination. Then we’ll show this nasty coronavirus who is the alpha organism on this planet! The
question on the lips of everybody from the White House, through Wall Street all the way to the
balconies of Italy is: “When will the vaccine be ready?” When. Not if.
When the vaccine is indeed ready and the pandemic is over, what will be humanity’s main takeaway?
In all likelihood, it will be that we need to invest even more efforts in protecting human lives. We need
to have more hospitals, more doctors, more nurses. We need to stockpile more respiratory machines,
more protective gear, more testing kits. We need to invest more money in researching unknown
pathogens and developing novel treatments. We should not be caught off guard again.
The crisis is far from over yet the blame game has already begun. Politicians throw
responsibility from one to the other

Some might well argue that this is the wrong lesson, and that the crisis should teach us humility. We
shouldn’t be so sure of our ability to subdue the forces of nature. Many of these naysayers are medieval
holdouts, who preach humility while being 100% certain that they know all the right answers. Some
bigots cannot help themselves – a pastor who leads weekly Bible study for Donald Trump’s cabinet has
argued that this epidemic too is divine punishment for homosexuality. But even most paragons of
tradition nowadays put their trust in science rather than in scripture.
The Catholic church instructs the faithful to stay away from the churches. Israel has closed down its
synagogues. The Islamic Republic of Iran is discouraging people from visiting mosques. Temples and
sects of all kinds have suspended public ceremonies. And all because scientists have made calculations,
and recommended closing down these holy places.
Of course, not everyone who warns us about human hubris dreams of getting medieval. Even scientists
would agree that we should be realistic in our expectations, and that we shouldn’t develop blind faith in
the power of doctors to shield us from all of life’s calamities. While humanity as a whole becomes ever
more powerful, individual people still need to face their fragility. Perhaps in a century or two science
will extend human lives indefinitely, but not yet. With the possible exception of a handful of billionaire
babies, all of us today are going to die one day, and all of us will lose loved ones. We have to own up to
our transience.
An empty mosque in Shahr-e-Ray, south of Tehran, on a Friday in March 2020. Photograph: Ebrahim
Noroozi/AP
For centuries, people used religion as a defence mechanism, believing that they would exist for ever in
the afterlife. Now people sometimes switch to using science as an alternative defence mechanism,
believing that doctors will always save them, and that they will live for ever in their apartment. We
need a balanced approach here. We should trust science to deal with epidemics, but we should still
shoulder the burden of dealing with our individual mortality and transience.
The present crisis might indeed make many individuals more aware of the impermanent nature of
human life and human achievements. Nevertheless, our modern civilisation as a whole will most
probably go in the opposite direction. Reminded of its fragility, it will react by building stronger
defences. When the present crisis is over, I don’t expect we will see a significant increase in the
budgets of philosophy departments. But I bet we will see a massive increase in the budgets of medical
schools and healthcare systems.
And maybe that is the best we can humanly expect. Governments anyhow aren’t very good at
philosophy. It isn’t their domain. Governments really should focus on building better healthcare
systems. It is up to individuals to do better philosophy. Doctors cannot solve the riddle of existence for
us. But they can buy us some more time to grapple with it. What we do with that time is up to us.
**********************************

Homo Deus author Yuval Harari shares

pandemic lessons from past and warnings for
future
• Covid-19 crisis was not inevitable natural disaster but
rather human failure: Harari
• Author says we have science, wisdom and community
in our favour during fight against coronavirus

Linda Lew
+ FOLLOW
Updated: 6:00pm, 1 Apr, 2020
Why you can trust SCMP
Israeli author, historian and professor Yuval Noah Harari. Photo: AFP
Historian Yuval Harari, author of Sapiens and Homo Deus, answers questions from the South China
Morning Post on how the coronavirus pandemic poses unprecedented challenges in biometric
surveillance, governance and global cooperation.
Q: You wrote “if we are indeed bringing famine, plague and war under control …” in Homo
Deus. Given that the spread of the coronavirus pandemic continues unabated, do you still believe
mankind has largely reined in plagues?
We obviously cannot prevent the appearance of new infectious diseases. Pathogens constantly jump
from animals to humans, or undergo mutations that make them more contagious and deadly than
before. However, we do have the power to rein in plagues, and prevent them from killing millions and
from destroying the economy.
We should compare our situation today to that in previous eras. When plagues spread in the pre-modern
era, humans usually had no idea what caused them, and what could be done to stop them. They usually
blamed the plague on angry gods or black magic, and the best thing they could think of doing was hold
mass prayers to the gods – which often led to mass infections. When in the 14th century the Black
Death killed more than a quarter of all people in Asia and Europe, humans never discovered what
caused it. When in the 16th century smallpox and other epidemics killed up to 90 per cent of the native
populations of America, the Aztecs, Maya and Inca had no clue why they were dying in their millions.

In contrast, when the coronavirus epidemic began, it took scientists just two weeks to identify the novel
virus, sequence its genome and develop a reliable test to identify infected people. Doctors are winning
the arms race with pathogens, because pathogens rely on blind mutations, while doctors rely on
information. Countries can send information, experts and equipment to help one another contain the
plague. Governments and banks can work out a common plan to prevent economic collapse.
However, there is one big caveat. The fact that humanity has the power to rein in plagues, does not
mean it always has the wisdom to use that power well. In 2015 I wrote in Homo Deus that “while we
cannot be certain that some new Ebola outbreak or an unknown flu strain won’t sweep across the globe
and kill millions, we will not regard it as an inevitable natural calamity. Rather, we will see it as an
inexcusable human failure and demand the heads of those responsible. … humankind has the
knowledge and tools to prevent plagues, and if an epidemic nevertheless gets out of control, it is due to
human incompetence rather than divine anger.”
I think these words still hold true today. What we are seeing around the world now is not an inevitable
natural disaster. It is a human failure. Irresponsible governments neglected their health care systems,
failed to react on time, and are at present still failing to cooperate effectively on a global level. We have
the power to stop this, but so far we lack the necessary wisdom.
 Object 2

Q: China is attempting to portray its success at controlling the epidemic, saying it has largely
stamped out domestic spread. Are authoritarian regimes, which can enforce lockdowns, better
equipped to deal with pandemics than Western democracies?
Not necessarily. It is easier to deal with an epidemic if you can rely on a self-motivated and well-
informed population than if you have to police an ignorant and suspicious population. Can you make
millions of people wash their hands with soap every day by placing policemen or cameras in their
toilets? That’s very difficult. But if you educate people, and if people trust the information they get,
they can do the right thing on their own initiative.
I learned in school that viruses and bacteria cause disease. I learned that washing my hands with soap
can remove or kill these pathogens. I trust this information. So I wash my hands of my own volition.
And so do billions of other people.
The problem is that in recent years, populist politicians in many countries – including democratic
countries – have deliberately undermined people’s trust in science, in the media, and in public
authorities. Without such trust, people aren’t sure what to do. The solution is not to impose an
authoritarian regime. The solution is to rebuild trust in science, in the media and in public authorities.
Once you have such trust, you can rely on people to do the right thing even without constant
surveillance and fear of punishment.
 Object 3

Q: We’ve seen countries like China using smartphones and apps to collect citizens’ location and
health data to fight the epidemic. Could global pandemics drive the development of a more
biometric state?
Yes, that is a major danger. The coronavirus epidemic might mark an important watershed in the history
of surveillance. First, because it might legitimate and normalise the deployment of mass surveillance
tools in countries that have so far rejected them. Secondly, and even more importantly, it signifies a
dramatic transition from “over the skin” to “under the skin” surveillance. Previously, governments
monitored mainly your actions in the world – where you go, who you meet. Now they become more
interested in what is happening inside your body. In your medical condition, body temperature, blood
pressure. That kind of biometric information can tell the government far more about you than ever
before.
Imagine some totalitarian state in 10 years that requires every citizen to wear a biometric bracelet that
monitors you 24 hours a day. By using our growing understanding of the human body and brain, and
using the immense powers of machine learning, the regime might be able for the first time in history to
know what each and every citizen is feeling each and every moment. If you listen to a speech of the
Great Leader on Television, and the biometric sensors pick up the telltale signs of anger (higher blood
pressure, slight rise in body temperature, increased activity in the amygdala), you’ll be in deep trouble.
You could smile and clap your hands mechanically, but if you are actually angry, the regime will know
that.
Governments might argue that this dystopian scenario has nothing to do with the current measures
being taken to combat Covid-19. These are just temporary measures taken during a state of emergency.
But temporary measures have a nasty habit of outlasting emergencies, especially as there is always a
new emergency lurking on the horizon. Even when coronavirus cases are down to zero, some
governments might argue that they need to keep the new surveillance systems because they fear a
second wave of coronavirus, or because there is a new Ebola strain evolving in central Africa, or
because they want to protect people from seasonal flu. Why stop with halting coronavirus?
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. But asking people to choose between privacy and health is, in fact, the very root of the
problem. This is a false dichotomy. 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 educating and empowering citizens. Remember that when people have a good scientific
education, and when they trust public authorities to tell them the truth, people can do the right thing on
their own initiative.
Q: Some countries, such as the US and those in Europe, were slow to act even though they had
months to prepare while the epidemic raged in China before spreading. What should we learn
from this? 
I hope the main lesson from this epidemic is that people realise that we are all in this together. This
isn’t a Chinese crisis or an Italian crisis, it is a global crisis. People all over the world share the same
experiences, fears and interests. From the virus’s perspective, we are all similar, we are all human prey.
And from the human perspective, as long as the epidemic spreads in any one country, it endangers all
of us, because it can reach all of us. Therefore we need a global plan to fight this epidemic.
A researcher works on virus replication to develop a vaccine against Covid-19, in Brazil. Yuval Harari
says cooperation between nations is crucial at this time. Photo: AFP
Q: Could this pandemic lead countries to reassess globalisation and install more barriers in terms
of borders, trade and culture?
Some people indeed blame the coronavirus epidemic on globalisation, and say that to prevent more
such outbreaks we should de-globalise the world. But this is a complete mistake. Epidemics spread
long before the era of globalisation. In the Middle Ages viruses travelled at the speed of a packhorse,
and in most places they could infect only small towns and villages. Yet plagues such as the Black Death
were far more deadly than today. If you want to defend yourself from epidemics by isolation, you will
have to go back all the way to the Stone Age. This was the last time when humans were free from
epidemics, because back then there were very few humans, with very few connections.
The real antidote to epidemics isn’t isolation and segregation, it is information and cooperation. The big
advantage of humans over viruses is the ability to cooperate effectively. A coronavirus in China and a
coronavirus in the USA cannot swap tips about how to infect humans. But China can teach the USA
many valuable lessons about coronavirus and how to deal with it. More than that, China can actually
send experts and equipment to directly help the USA. The viruses cannot do anything like that.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of leadership, we are not making the most of our ability to cooperate.
Over the last few years, irresponsible politicians in various parts of the world have deliberately
undermined trust in international cooperation. We are now paying the price for that. There seem to be
no adults in the room.
Hopefully, we would soon see more and better cooperation at least in the following five fields:
1. Share reliable information. Countries that have already experienced the epidemic should teach other
countries about it. Data from all over the world should be shared openly and speedily in the effort to
contain the epidemic and develop medicines and vaccines.
2. Coordinate global production and fair distribution of essential medical equipment such as testing
kits, protective gear and respiratory machines. Global coordination can overcome bottlenecks in
production, and can make sure that the equipment goes to the countries that need it most, rather than to
the richest countries.
3. Less-affected countries should send doctors, nurses and experts to the worst-affected countries, both
to help them and to gain valuable experience. The centre of the epidemic keeps shifting. Previously it
was China, now it is Europe, maybe next month it will be the USA and later on Brazil. If Brazil sends
help to Italy today, maybe in two months when Italy recovers and Brazil is in crisis, Italy will repay the
favour.
4. Create a global economic safety net to save the worst-hit countries and sectors. This is particularly
important for poorer countries. Rich countries like the USA, Japan and Germany will be OK. But once
the epidemic spreads to countries in Africa, the Middle East and South America, it could lead there to
complete economic collapse, unless we have a global plan of action in place.
5. Formulate a global agreement on pre-screening of travellers that will allow a trickle of essential
travellers to continue crossing borders. If the origin country carefully screens travellers before they
board a plane, the destination country should feel safe to let them in.

Our Guest
Yuval Noah Harari: “Every crisis is also an
opportunity”
cou_03_20_harari_website_02.jpg

In an interview with the UNESCO Courier, Yuval Noah Harari(link is external), Israeli historian
and author of Sapiens, Homo Deus, and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, analyses what the
consequences of the current coronavirus health crisis are likely to be, and underlines the need for
greater international scientific co-operation and information-sharing between countries.
How is this global health pandemic different from past health crises and what does it tell us?
I am not sure it is the worst global health threat we have faced. The influenza epidemic of 1918-1919
was worse, the AIDS epidemic was probably worse, and pandemics in previous eras were certainly far
worse. As pandemics go, this is actually a mild one. In the early 1980s, if you got AIDS – you died.
The Black Death [the plague that ravaged Europe between 1347 and 1351] killed between a quarter and
half of the affected populations. The 1918 influenza killed more than ten per cent of the entire
population in some countries. In contrast, COVID-19 is killing less than five per cent of those infected,
and unless some dangerous mutation occurs, it is unlikely to kill more than one per cent of the
population of any country.
Moreover, in contrast to previous eras, we now have all the scientific knowledge and technological
tools necessary to overcome this plague. When the Black Death struck, people were completely
helpless. They never discovered what was killing them and what could be done about it. In 1348, the
medical faculty of the University of Paris believed that the epidemic was caused by an astrological
misfortune – namely that “a major conjunction of three planets in Aquarius [caused] a deadly
corruption of the air” (quoted in Rosemary Horrox ed. The Black Death, Manchester University Press,
1994, p. 159).
In contrast, when COVID-19 erupted, it took scientists only two weeks to correctly identify the virus
responsible for the epidemic, sequence its entire genome, and develop reliable tests for the disease. We
know what to do in order to stop the spread of this epidemic. It is likely that within a year or two, we
will also have a vaccine.
However, COVID-19 is not just a health-care crisis. It also results in a huge economic and political
crisis. I am less afraid of the virus than of the inner demons of humankind: hatred, greed and ignorance.
If people blame the epidemic on foreigners and minorities; if greedy businesses care only about their
profits; and if we believe all kinds of conspiracy theories – it will be much harder to overcome this
epidemic, and later on we will live in a world poisoned by this hatred, greed and ignorance. In contrast,
if we react to the epidemic with global solidarity and generosity, and if we trust in science rather than in
conspiracy theories, I am sure we can not only overcome this crisis, but actually come out of it much
stronger.
To what extent could social distancing become the norm? What effect will that have on societies?
For the duration of the crisis, some social distancing is inevitable. The virus spreads by exploiting our
best human instincts. We are social animals. We like contact, especially in hard times. And when
relatives, friends or neighbours are sick, our compassion arises and we want to come and help them.
The virus is using this against us. This is how it spreads. So we need to act from the head rather than
the heart, and despite the difficulties, reduce our level of contact. Whereas the virus is a mindless piece
of genetic information, we humans have a mind, we can analyse the situation rationally, and we can
vary the way we behave. I believe that once the crisis is over, we will not see any long-term effects on
our basic human instincts. We will still be social animals. We will still love contact. We will still come
to help friends and relatives.
Look, for example, at what happened to the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered]
community in the wake of AIDS. It was a terrible epidemic, and gay people were often completely
abandoned by the state, and yet the epidemic did not cause the disintegration of that community. Just
the opposite. Already, at the height of the crisis, LGBT volunteers established many new organizations
to help sick people, to spread reliable information, and to fight for political rights. In the 1990s, after
the worst years of the AIDS epidemic, the LGBT community in many countries was much stronger
than before.
How do you see the state of scientific and information co-operation after the crisis? UNESCO
was created after the Second World War to promote scientific and intellectual co-operation
through the free flow of ideas. Could the "free flow of ideas" and co-operation between countries
be strengthened as a result of the crisis?
Our biggest advantage over the virus is our ability to co-operate effectively. A virus in China and a
virus in the United States 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. More than that – China can actually
send experts and equipment to directly help the US, and the US can similarly help other countries. The
viruses cannot do anything like that.
And of all forms of co-operation, the sharing of information is probably the most important, because
you cannot do anything without accurate information. You cannot develop medicines and vaccines
without reliable information. Indeed, even isolation depends on information. If you don’t understand
how a disease spreads, how can you quarantine people against it?
For example, isolation against AIDS is very different from isolation against COVID-19. To isolate
yourself against AIDS, you need to use a condom while having sex, but there is no problem talking face
to face with an HIV+ person – or shaking their hands and even hugging them. COVID-19 is an entirely
different story. To know how to isolate yourself from a particular epidemic, you first need reliable
information about what causes this epidemic. Is it viruses or bacteria? Is it transmitted through blood or
breath? Does it endanger children or the elderly? Is there just one strain of the virus, or several mutant
strains?    
In recent years, authoritarian and populist politicians have sought not only to block the free flow of
information, but even to undermine the public’s trust in science. Some politicians depicted scientists as
a sinister elite, disconnected from “the people”. These politicians told their followers not to believe
what scientists are saying about climate change, or even about vaccinations. It should now be obvious
to everyone how dangerous such populist messages are. In a time of crisis, we need information to flow
openly, and we need people to trust scientific experts rather than political demagogues.
Fortunately, in the current emergency most people indeed turn to science. The Catholic Church
instructs the faithful to stay away from the churches. Israel has closed down its synagogues. The
Islamic Republic of Iran is punishing people who go to mosques. Temples and sects of all kinds have
suspended public ceremonies. And all because scientists have made some calculations and
recommended closing down these holy places.     
I hope that people will remember the importance of trustworthy scientific information even after this
crisis is over. If we want to enjoy trustworthy scientific information in a time of emergency, we must
invest in it in normal times. Scientific information doesn’t come down from heaven, nor does it spring
from the mind of individual geniuses. It depends on having strong independent institutions like
universities, hospitals and newspapers. Institutions that not only research the truth, but are also free to
tell people the truth, without being afraid of being punished by some authoritarian government. It takes
years to build such institutions. But it is worth it. A society that provides citizens with a good scientific
education, and that is served by strong independent institutions, can deal with an epidemic far better
than a brutal dictatorship that has to constantly police an ignorant population.
For example, how do you make millions of people wash their hands with soap every day? One way to
do it is to place a policeman, or perhaps a camera, in every toilet, and punish people who fail to wash
their hands. Another way is to teach people in school about viruses and bacteria, explain that soap can
remove or kill these pathogens, and then trust people to make up their own minds. What do you think,
which method is more efficient?
How important is it for countries to work together to disseminate reliable information?
Countries need to share trustworthy information not only about narrow medical issues, but also about a
wide range of other issues – from the economic impact of the crisis to the psychological condition of
citizens. Suppose country X is currently debating which kind of lockdown policy to adopt. It has to
take into consideration not only the spread of the disease, but also the economic and psychological
costs of lockdown. Other countries have already faced this dilemma before, and tried different policies.
Instead of acting on the basis of pure speculations and repeating past mistakes, country X can examine
what were the actual consequences of the different policies adopted in China, the Republic of  Korea,
Sweden, Italy and the United Kingdom. It can thereby make better decisions. But only if all these
countries honestly report not just the number of sick and dead people, but also what happened to their
economies and to the mental health of their citizens.
The rise of AI and the need for technical solutions has seen private companies come forward. In
this context, is it still possible to develop global ethical principles and restore international co-
operation?
As private companies get involved, it becomes even more important to craft global ethical principles
and restore international co-operation. Some private companies may be motivated by greed more than
solidarity, so they must be regulated carefully. Even those acting benevolently are not directly
accountable to the public, so it is dangerous to allow them to accumulate too much power.
This is particularly true when talking about surveillance. We are witnessing the creation of new
surveillance systems all over the world, by both governments and corporations. The current crisis might
mark an important watershed in the history of surveillance. First, because it might legitimate and
normalize the deployment of mass surveillance tools in countries that have so far rejected them.
Secondly, and even more importantly, it signifies a dramatic transition from “over the skin” to “under
the skin” surveillance.
Previously, governments and corporations monitored mainly your actions in the world – where you go,
who you meet. Now they have become more interested in what is happening inside your body. In your
medical condition, body temperature, blood pressure. That kind of biometric information can tell
governments and corporations far more about you than ever before.
Could you suggest some ethical principles for how these new surveillance systems can be
regulated?
Ideally, the surveillance system should be operated by a special health-care authority rather than by a
private company or by the security services. The health-care authority should be narrowly focused on
preventing epidemics, and should have no other commercial or political interests. I am particularly
alarmed when I hear people comparing the COVID-19 crisis to war, and calling for the security
services to take over. This isn’t a war. It is a health-care crisis. There are no human enemies to kill. It is
all about taking care of people. The dominant image in war is a soldier with a rifle storming forward.
Now the image in our heads should be a nurse changing bed-sheets in a hospital. Soldiers and nurses
have a very different way of thinking. If you want to put somebody in charge, don’t put a soldier in
charge. Put a nurse. 
The health-care authority should gather the minimum amount of data necessary for the narrow task of
preventing epidemics, and should not share this data with any other governmental body – especially not
the police. Nor should it share the data with private companies. It should make sure that data gathered
about individuals is never used to harm or manipulate these individuals – for example, leading to
people losing their jobs or their insurance. 
The health-care authority may make the data accessible to scientific research, but only if the fruits of
this research are made freely available to humanity, and if any incidental profits are reinvested in
providing people with better health care.
In contrast to all these limitations on data sharing, the individuals themselves should be given as much
control of the data gathered about them. They should be free to examine their personal data and benefit
from it.
Finally, while such surveillance systems would probably be national in character, to really prevent
epidemics, the different health-care authorities would have to co-operate with one another. Since
pathogens don’t respect national borders, unless we combine data from different countries, it will be
difficult to spot and stop epidemics. If national surveillance is done by an independent health-care
authority which is free of political and commercial interests, it would be much easier for such national
authorities to co-operate globally.    
You have spoken of a recent rapid deterioration of trust in the international system. How do you
see the profound changes in multilateral co-operation in the future?
I don’t know what will happen in the future. It depends on the choices we make in the present.
Countries can choose to compete for scarce resources and pursue an egoistic and isolationist policy, or
they could choose to help one another in the spirit of global solidarity. This choice will shape both the
course of the present crisis and the future of the international system for years to come.
I hope countries will choose solidarity and co-operation. We cannot stop this epidemic without close
co-operation between countries all over the world. Even if a particular country succeeds in stopping the
epidemic in its territory for a while, as long as the epidemic continues to spread elsewhere, it might
return everywhere. Even worse, viruses constantly mutate. A mutation in the virus anywhere in the
world might make it more contagious or more deadly, putting in danger all of humankind. The only
way we can really protect ourselves, is by helping to protect all humans.
The same is true of the economic crisis. If every country looks only after its own interests, the result
will be a severe global recession that will hit everyone. Rich countries like the US, Germany and Japan
will muddle through one way or the other. But poorer countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America
might completely collapse. The US can afford a $2 trillion rescue package for its economy. Ecuador,
Nigeria and Pakistan don’t have similar resources. We need a global economic rescue plan.
Unfortunately, so far we don’t see anything like the strong global leadership we need. The US, which
acted as world leader during the 2014 Ebola epidemic and the 2008 financial crisis, has abdicated this
job. The Trump administration has made it very clear that it cares only about the US, and has
abandoned even its closest allies in Western Europe. Even if the US now comes up with some kind of
global plan, who would trust it, and who would follow its lead? Would you follow a leader whose
motto is “Me First”?
But every crisis is also an opportunity. Hopefully the current epidemic will help humankind realize the
acute danger posed by global disunity. If indeed this epidemic eventually results in closer global co-
operation, it will be a victory not only against the coronavirus, but against all the other dangers that
threaten humankind – from climate change to nuclear war.
You speak about how the choices we make now will affect our societies economically, politically
and culturally, for years to come. What are these choices and who will be responsible for making
them?
We are faced with many choices. Not only the choice between nationalistic isolationism and global
solidarity. Another important question is whether people would support the rise of dictators, or would
they insist on dealing with the emergency in a democratic way? When governments spend billions to
help failing businesses, would they save big corporations or small family businesses? As people switch
to working from home and communicating online, will this result in the collapse of organized labour, or
would we see better protection for workers’ rights?
All these are political choices. We must be aware that we are now facing not just a health-care crisis,
but also a political crisis. The media and the citizens should not allow themselves to be completely
distracted by the epidemic. It is of course important to follow the latest news about the sickness itself –
how many people died today? How many people were infected? But it is equally important to pay
attention to politics and to put pressure on politicians to do the right thing. Citizens should pressure
politicians to act in the spirit of global solidarity; to co-operate with other countries rather than blame
them; to distribute funds in a fair way; to preserve democratic checks and balances – even in an
emergency.    
The time to do all that is now. Whoever we elect to government in coming years will not be able to
reverse the decisions that are taken now. If you become president in 2021, it is like coming to a party
when the party is already over and the only thing left to do is wash the dirty dishes. If you become
president in 2021, you will discover that the previous government has already distributed tens of
billions of dollars – and you have a mountain of debts to repay. The previous government has already
restructured the job market – and you cannot start from scratch again. The previous government has
already introduced new surveillance systems – and they cannot be abolished overnight. So don’t wait
till 2021. Monitor what the politicians are doing right now.
The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the author, and not necessarily those
of UNESCO  and do not commit the Organization.