These are the world’s greatest threats in 2021
We look back at a year ravaged by a global pandemic, economic downturn, political turmoil and the ever-worsening climate crisis.
20 January, 2021
Luis Ascui/Getty Images
Billions are at risk of missing out on the digital leap forward, as growing disparities challenge the social fabric.
<p>
In the medium-term, the global economy will be threatened by the knock-on effects of the coronavirus crisis, while geopolitical stability will be critically fragile over the next 5 to 10 years. Environmental risks continue to threaten: they remain top risks by likelihood and impact in this year's survey.
</p><p>
<a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021" target="_blank">The Global Risks Report 2021</a> is the 16th edition of the Forum's annual analysis and looks back at a year ravaged by a global pandemic, economic downturn, political turmoil and the ever-worsening climate crisis. The report explores how countries and businesses can act in the face of these risks.
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, one of the big changes between this year and last, in terms of risks, has been brought about by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. The risk posed by infectious diseases is now ranked at number one, while in 2020 it came in 10th place.
</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTUwMzcyMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MjA4NzMyOX0.KJBlcw3i4ZS6alcYghvT0cPjzcZwScPkkbB-6450pJE/img.jpg?width=980" id="030c0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3d069bd85c60fdb0f185dbac6aa49f41" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="787" data-height="643" />
Image: Global Risks Report 2021
<h3>Widespread effects</h3><p>"The immediate human and economic costs of COVID-19 are severe," the report says. "They threaten to scale back years of progress on reducing global poverty and inequality and further damage social cohesion and global cooperation."</p><p>For those reasons, the pandemic demonstrates why infectious diseases hits the top of the impact list. Not only has COVID-19 led to widespread loss of life, it is holding back economic development in some of the poorest parts of the world, while amplifying wealth inequalities across the globe.</p><p>At the same time, there are concerns the fight against the pandemic is taking resources away from other critical health challenges - including a <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/charts-covid19-malnutrition-educaion-mental-health-children-world/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">disruption to measles vaccination programmes</a>.</p><h3><img src="https://assets.weforum.org/editor/Y1-45gAUa8m52QhRrAN6BFYV4dayfBU70XBpOaiJV5U.PNG" alt="Global Risks Network 2021"></h3><h3>Climate concerns</h3><p>But despite the inescapable fallout from COVID-19, it is climate-related matters that make up the bulk of this year's risk list, which the report describes as "an existential threat to humanity." Despite a drop in carbon emissions caused by lockdowns and disruption to international trade and travel, there are concerns that as economies start to recover, emissions will soar.</p><p>The 2021 risks report draws upon data and insights from a wide array of respondents via the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Perception Survey. The survey was completed by over 650 members of the Forum's diverse leadership communities.</p><p>One of those communities is the Global Shapers – the Forum's network of young people driving dialogue, action and change. For them, climate-related risks are seen as "the most likely and most impactful long-term risks." They also sound a note of caution about the dangers of "youth disillusionment" around the world.</p><p>"They see personal risks as immediate threats, macro risks in the medium term and fundamental geopolitical risks in the long term," the report says.</p><p>Among the short-term threats, which are likely to come to fruition within the next two years, are infectious diseases, livelihood crises, digital inequality and youth disillusionment.</p><p>As for medium-term risks in next three-to-five years, the Global Shapers identified asset bubble bursts, IT infrastructure breakdown, price instability and debt crises.</p><p>In the longer term, the community voiced concerns about weapons of mass destruction, state collapse, biodiversity loss and adverse technological advances.</p>
<h3>Countering risks</h3><p>Alongside the risks listed, the report reflects on responses to COVID-19 to draw lessons that could bolster global resilience.</p><p>These include formulating analytical frameworks, creating new forms of partnership and building trust through clear and consistent communication.</p><p>It also includes recommendations to help countries and businesses act, rather than react, in the face of risks.</p><p>The Forum's upcoming virtual <a href="https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Davos Agenda</a> event will bring together global leaders to discuss how to advance the principles, policies and partnerships needed to do this.</p><p>Reprinted with permission of the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.weforum.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer">World Economic Forum</a>. Read the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/world-greatest-threats-2021/" rel="noopener noreferrer">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
This is your brain on political arguments
Debating is cognitively taxing but also important for the health of a democracy—provided it's face-to-face.
18 January, 2021
Credit: Zach Gibson/AFP via Getty Images
- New research at Yale identifies the brain regions that are affected when you're in disagreeable conversations.
- Talking with someone you agree with harmonizes brain regions and is less energetically taxing.
- The research involves face-to-face dialogues, not conversations on social media.
<p>You probably know the feeling: a rush of heat that assaults your entire body; your fingertips and forehead suffering fiery consequences of conflict; restrictions around your chest and throat; quickened breath, as if your lungs can no longer draw in the required oxygen; ears on alert, biding time for a break in your opponent's rhetoric to let loose the torrent of thoughts crowding your brain.</p><p>Of course, not everyone is an opponent. You likely know the opposite as well: the cool excitement of agreeableness, when the words in your head are returned to you from another being as in a mirror; unconscious head shaking as your sense of righteousness is validated; the warm exuberance of easy dialogue with a fellow tribe member. </p><p>In a digital age in which physical contact seems foreign and long past, we might have forgotten what it's like to agree—or debate—with someone in person. Pandemics are temporary, while societies are—well, nothing is forever, but we've outlived diseases before. According to <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2020.606397/full" target="_blank">new research from Yale University</a>, published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, disagreeing with someone takes up a lot of brain real estate, while finding a compatriot is a much less cognitively taxing endeavor. </p><p>For this study, researchers gathered 38 adults to ask their feelings on contentious topics like same-sex marriage and cannabis legalization. They then matched each volunteer with people who either agreed or disagreed. Every subject had their brain scanned with functional near-infrared spectroscopy during these face-to-face discussions, during which time they were given a total of 90 seconds to discuss a topic in 15-second increments. </p>
There are two kinds of identity politics. One is good. The other, very bad. | Jonathan Haidt
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6f0e52833af5d35adab591bb92d79f8e"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l-_yIhW9Ias?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Unsurprisingly, harmonious synchronization of brain states occurred when volunteers agreed, similar to <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322764116_Creativity_and_Flow_in_Surgery_Music_and_Cooking_An_Interview_with_Neuroscientist_Charles_Limb" target="_blank">group flow</a>—the coordination of brain waves that hip-hop and jazz musicians (among others) experience when performing together. Coordination exceeds the social, into the neurological. As the team writes, "talking during agreement was characterized by increased activity in a social and attention network including right supramarginal gyrus, bilateral frontal eye-fields, and left frontopolar regions."</p><p>This contrasts with argumentative behavior, in which "the frontoparietal system including bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left supramarginal gyrus, angular gyrus, and superior temporal gyrus showed increased activity while talking during disagreement."</p><p>Senior author Joy Hirsch notes that our brain is essentially a social processing network. The evolutionary success of humans is thanks to our ability to coordinate. Dissonance is exhausting. Overall, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210113090938.htm" target="_blank">she says</a>, "it just takes a lot more brain real estate to disagree than to agree," comparing arguments to a symphony orchestra playing different music. </p><p>As the team notes, language, visual, and social systems are all dynamically intertwined inside of our brain. For most of history, yelling at one another in comment sections was impossible. Arguments had to occur the old-fashioned way: while staring at the source of your discontent. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ4MTA2NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1ODM2NTkyNX0.qyJE0yJtEBMEOnvx6qXH6S739-1hHOxc94tN9aGAmqM/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C46%2C0%2C46&height=700" id="66c2a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7bfa8033f2ffe6034e688942b4e92f4f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />
People of the "left-wing" side yell at a Trump supporter during a "Demand Free Speech" rally on Freedom Plaza on July 6, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Credit: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images
<p>Leading us to an interesting question: do the same brain regions fire when you're screaming with your fingers on your Facebook feed? Given the lack of visual feedback from the person on the other side of the argument, likely not—as it is unlikely that many people would argue in the same manner when face-to-face with a person on the other side of a debate. We are generally more civil in real life than on a screen.</p><p>The researchers point out that seeing faces causes complex neurological reactions that must be interpreted in real-time. For example, gazing into someone's eyes requires higher-order processing that must be dealt with during the moment. Your brain coordinates to make sense of the words being spoken <em>and</em> pantomimes being witnessed. This combination of verbal and visual processes are "generally associated with high-level cognitive and linguistic functions."</p><p>While arguing is more exhausting, it also sharpens your senses—when a person is present, at least. Debating is a healthy function of society. Arguments force you to consider other viewpoints and potentially come to different conclusions. As with physical exercise, which makes you stronger even though it's energetically taxing, disagreement propels societies forward.</p>In this study, every participant was forced to <em>listen</em> to the other person. As this research was focused on live interactions, it adds to the literature of cognitive processing during live interactions and offers insights into the cognitive tax of anger. Even anger is a net positive when it forces both sides to think through their thoughts and feelings on a matter. As social animals, we need that tension in our lives in order to grow. Yelling into the void of a comments section? Not so helpful. <p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>. His most recent book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Should scientific studies be available for free?
Plan S is starting to take hold, but the cost is merely shifting even more to the researchers.
06 January, 2021
Credit: yurolaitsalbert / Adobe Stock
- Launched in 2018, cOAlition S is trying to make all of the world's state-backed scientific papers open-access.
- Prestigious publishers like Springer Nature and Elsevier have now adopted a Plan S option for researchers.
- While more studies will be available to read for free, some of the expense is being passed back to authors, which could limit research in the future.
<p>In 2018 <a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cOAlition S</a> launched an ambitious program: to make all of the world's state-backed scientific papers open-access. Their agenda, Plan S—the S stands for "shock"—is backed by over a dozen European research agencies and funders. </p><p>While the group has fallen short of achieving their stated agenda by 2021, they're certainly making strides. Just this week, 160 Elsevier journals, including renowned publications by Cell Press, are registered as "<a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/160-elsevier-journals-become-plan-s-aligned-transformative-journals/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Plan S aligned Transformative Journals</a>." This could be a good move by Elsevier, which has been <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/is-elsevier-really-for-science-or-just-for-profit/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">severely criticized</a> in the past for price gouging practices—although critics cite increased researcher fees as a cause for alarm. </p><p>Unlike the 10-year-old Sci-Hub, which houses over 85 million research papers and regularly changes URLs to avoid the legal ramifications of providing access to paywalled studies, cOAlition S is changing the journal system from within. Their <a href="https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/open-access" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">10 principles</a> call for greater autonomy for researchers conducting scientific studies and having publication fees covered by universities, not researchers. The latter could prove pivotal, as publication budgets are often no match for journal fees. </p><p>In just three years, cOAlition S has gained the support of the World Health Organization, the European Commission, and research institutions and agencies in China, Sweden, France, Jordan, and the United States, including the Gates Foundation and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. While many journals initially opposed this agenda, a few have come around. Bureaucratic red tape and inflated prices have hamstrung science for decades. Plan S is not a perfect solution, but it's the closest we've seen. </p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5eb7732a29a1f312bd5d9b3e7dd11be4"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JpiOCxFxhUg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Science's associate news editor Jeffrey Brainard <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-mandate-highlights-costs-benefits-making-all-scientific-articles-free-read" target="_blank">breaks down</a> how open access works for authors. Publishing studies is an essential part of a researcher's career, bringing with it the potential for career advancement, tenure, peer respect, and, occasionally, popular renown. But it comes at a cost. </p><p><em>Golden open access</em> is one model used by journals such as The Lancet Golden Health, which charges researchers up to $5,000 to make their studies open access. Nature publications now clock in at up to $11,600 and Cell charges $9,900, though the median fee for journals is $2,600.</p><p>Pay-to-play doesn't only exist in music. The more respect a journal carries, the higher the fee. </p><p>When Springer Nature, publisher of the reputable Nature journals, announced it was <a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20201218a/full/" target="_blank">adopting a Plan S option</a> last month, the editorial team announced the $11,600 fee was mandatory for anyone requesting their articles be made open-access, regardless of their financial status. These journals are notoriously expensive: submitting an article for consideration costs roughly $2,700 with no guarantee of publication. One journal, Nature Physics, rejects 90 percent of submissions. </p><p>cOAlition S executive director Johan Rooryck <a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20201218a/full/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">expressed happiness</a> that Springer Nature is now offering an open-access model but stated "that doesn't mean we have signed a blank check and are willing to pay any price for the articles appearing in those journals."</p><p>Springer Nature has <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-mandate-highlights-costs-benefits-making-all-scientific-articles-free-read" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">also adopted</a> a model more in alignment with Spotify: universities and research institutions pay a single fee to publish their authors. Some publishers offer a hybrid approach: some articles are free while others live behind a paywall. There are also embargo models, where authors can offer their papers to the public free of charge after a six-month or year-long waiting period. </p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTI2MDA2My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MDE1MTk5MX0.QbqKqYS48gb6lHjShNUtQTOm_j6MjyKhj8i3sUCbTWw/img.png?width=980" id="8aad2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="29465fea7914455ba7b1fb7b5df11cae" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="2000" data-height="1036" />
<p class=""><br></p>Chart: Science
<p>The cost to publish remains prohibitive for some researchers, with certain journal prices for one article exceeding annual budgets. This has forced many researchers to confront an existential question: publish behind a paywall and wither in obscurity, or pay up and hope enough people read (and cite) your work.</p><p>While inflated journal prices have plagued the scientific community, Brainard notes that a purely open-access model could place even more of a burden on researchers. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"A complete shift to open access could lead publishers to boost publishing fees even further, to try to make up for lost subscription revenues[...] Although just over 30% of all papers published in 2019 were paid open access, subscriptions still accounted for more than 90% of publishers' revenues that year."</p><p>cOAlition S is advocating for increased transparency to push back on price gouging. Just as researchers must disclose funding and conflicts of interest, "Plan S requires publishers to disclose to funders the basis for their prices, including the cost of services such as proofreading, copy editing, and organizing peer review."</p><p>Although Brainard briefly mentions an increase in the number of non-researchers and institutions—laypeople—reading open-access journals, this topic is relevant to this conversation. America is suffering from a longstanding dearth of public science information, evidenced in the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-18/anti-vaxxers-team-up-alt-right-against-covid-19-vaccine" target="_blank">anti-vax fervor</a> that's growing in volume (<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/12/03/intent-to-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-rises-to-60-as-confidence-in-research-and-development-process-increases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">if not in numbers</a>) since the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines. </p><p>Access to scientific studies won't solve all of our woes. But lack of transparency is a major reason why so many citizens have grown suspicious of pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies. An ability to read studies without having to pay exorbitant prices (to the layperson) would be an important step in public health and science education. </p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>. His most recent book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
People in these countries think their government did a good job of dealing with the pandemic
Spoiler: Most people actually approved of their government's approach.
22 December, 2020
Photo by Matthew Waring on Unsplash
How well did your country respond to the pandemic?
<p>It's a subjective question, the answers to which are reflected in new research recording the diversity of opinion around the world.</p><p>Spoiler alert: globally, more people approved of their own country's response than disapproved.</p><p>A Pew Research Center survey of more than 14,000 adults across 14 advanced economies in Europe, Asia, North America and Australia, found <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/08/27/most-approve-of-national-response-to-covid-19-in-14-advanced-economies/" target="_blank">73% thought their own country had done a good job of tackling the coronavirus outbreak</a>.</p><h3>It's a matter of trust</h3><p>Respondents' attitude to their own country's pandemic response – and its impact on national unity – were linked to feelings of trust in others, the survey found.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk4Nzc2NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MDQ4NTY2OH0.7aCNwI30_-qmgMOu854flTXuD1eh_iBAkO2zDlKPzS8/img.jpg?width=980" id="8d49e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a8db10a752157ee0a82c50dfe6a1eb90" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="With the exception of the UK and the US, countries believed they handled the pandemic well." data-width="462" data-height="852" />
Image: Pew Research Center
<p>Denmark recorded the highest government response approval rating of the countries surveyed (95%), followed closely by Australia.</p><p>Support for their government's actions was also shown in countries like South Korea and Canada, along with European nations like Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden, where more than two-thirds of respondents approved.</p><p>But a different picture emerged in the US and UK, where delayed action to combat COVID-19 received less emphatic support. More than half of those polled in each country said they thought the pandemic had been handled poorly.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk4Nzc2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjYxMjA0Mn0.ZyQK6F1fJ1Z5ZtBQLWnwUECKRpopoZzXmPyyG-WETi4/img.jpg?width=980" id="6f92f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a9e2479f24a45ee19f9cb80c3e2742e2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Americans stand out in their belief that they're more divided as a result of the pandemic." data-width="421" data-height="820" />
Image: Pew Research Center
<h3>Divided or united?</h3><p>Opinions were also split on whether the pandemic had increased the sense of national unity.<br><br>Again, Denmark proved to have the most optimistic outlook with 72% of respondents believing the country more united following the virus outbreak. In Canada, Sweden, South Korea and Australia, over half of respondents believed their country was more united.<br><br>Despite approving of their country's response to the pandemic, in European nations like Spain, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands, a majority of people thought their country was more divided post-lockdown.<br><br>In the US, in an era of divisive politics and with no coordinated response to the pandemic in place, more than three-quarters of respondents believed their country was now more divided than before the pandemic.</p><p>The perceived strength of national unity is linked to trust in others, the report found. As a general principle, people who thought others couldn't be trusted were more likely to see divisions in their own country.<br><br>National divisions were most pronounced in France, where almost two-thirds of respondents who think people can't be trusted also see the country as more divided than before the pandemic.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk4NzgwNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MzU4NDYwOH0._oLZklchjnz5tVF5q9NSiTrcBgHTG5frZGAcgU1wtW0/img.jpg?width=980" id="e0f0b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c8134181a7a12218b9e6ae3bd37a9573" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Prevailing view that more international cooperation would have reduced coronavirus cases." data-width="369" data-height="826" />
Image: Pew Research Center
<h3>The role of international cooperation</h3><p>But did this perceived drop in national cohesion prevent countries seeking international help to combat the spread of the virus? And would cross-border cooperation have resulted in fewer cases?<br><br>For the majority of respondents, the answer was yes.<br><br>Across the 14 countries surveyed, 59% of respondents believed greater international cooperation would have reduced the number of coronavirus cases in their own country. In Europe, this average increases to 62%, with seven of the nine countries surveyed expressing belief in the benefits of international cooperation, which was strongest in countries like Belgium, the UK and Spain.</p><p>Outside of Europe, support for international cooperation was also notable in the US (58%) and South Korea (59%), according to the report.</p><p>In Denmark, however, 78% of people thought international cooperation would not have reduced the number of cases. A majority of people in Australia, Germany, Canada and Japan also held little store in international cooperation to tackle the pandemic.<br><br>The World Bank, in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and other stakeholders, held a virtual roundtable to devise an action plan <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2020/04/21/the-world-bank-wef-gsma-and-itu-mobilized-in-the-fight-against-covid-19" target="_blank">to facilitate international cooperations and communications to better tackle the pandemic</a>.</p><p>International <a href="https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/hurdles-developing-covid-19-vaccine-why-international-cooperation-needed" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cooperation is a key element of producing an effective vaccine at scale</a> to protect the global population against COVID-19, according to Chatham House. By working together, researchers, business leaders, policy-makers and other stakeholders can more quickly overcome scientific, regulatory and market challenges to developing and distributing a vaccine.</p><p>Reprinted with permission of the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.weforum.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer">World Economic Forum</a>. Read the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/covid-19-survey-trust-unity-cooperation/" rel="noopener noreferrer">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
The issues and ideas that mattered most to Americans in 2020
Google's "Year in Search 2020" results reveal a year when "why" was searched more than ever.
15 December, 2020
Big Think
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p class=""><br></p>
<p>2020 sucked. That's hardly news to anyone, nor a hot take that will stir up much in the way of debate. But a look at Google's past "Year in Search" results shows how starkly different 2020 has been from any other year the tech giant has chronicled.</p><p>Every year since 2001, Google has tabulated its annual "Year in Search" results by aggregating the trillions of searches on its site. Google then highlights the searches that showed the highest percentage increase over the year. This method means terms like "Netflix," "Facebook," and "YouTube" don't appear on the list despite a high search volume as their percentage change is negligible compared to previous years. What the method does provide, however, is a window into our changing needs, desires, and questions year-over-year.</p><p>In 2011, for example, Google's analytics reveal an America obsession with sports, DIY glitter shoes, and images of planking. We craved information on the latest technology, home appliances, and diets we absolutely stuck with (thank you very much). Political impasses and scandals remained as ubiquitous as ever, but there was a sense that we were finally rebuilding from the Great Recession. And the year's biggest letdowns—Google+ and "Game of Thrones"—wouldn't disappoint for several years yet.</p><p>Google's "<a href="https://trends.google.com/trends/yis/2020/US/" target="_blank">Year in Search 2020</a>" results inflect with a markedly different tone—one that's bleary, scared, and subdued, but also humane and compassionate. It was the year that, according to Google, more Americans than ever were asking, "Why?" It was also the year that, more than ever, we needed those answers.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk2NDUyNi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NjEyMTQxMn0.mNPM5LlMSYt1VJXyVSnIf5fzE4TxmcF1F2O8w_W17RU/img.png?width=980" id="bb797" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a73bbeb648dab5dbb0c87d6610451025" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1966" data-height="1242" />
Credit: Google
The year of coronavirus
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk1ODk0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MzA5NzI1OH0.vimp4BokTC01Fl9fIWkplEKWdHpO6aX-TSFdnmzynMc/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=700" id="64208" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a78d75a3c2cc81a2b421296fdd831f89" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller receives the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
<p>In any other year, an <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/coronavirus-questions" target="_self">outbreak of a novel coronavirus</a> strain—such as SARS and MERS—would have been a story tucked into the Science and Health section. In 2020, it was the issue that mattered most. The term "coronavirus" saw the second-largest increase in searches in the U.S., behind only "election results." Worldwide, it was number one.</p><p>Those entries, however, don't reflect coronavirus's hold over the year. The pandemic infected nearly every category in Google's annual analytics. People needed to know about <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/covid-symptoms-sequence" target="_self">coronavirus symptoms</a> and keep up-to-date on the virus's spread. Trending news terms included "stock market," "<a href="https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/us-government-digital-transformation-woes" target="_self">stimulus check</a>," and "<a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/job-seekers-coronavirus" target="_self">unemployment</a>," all driven by the dire economic straits the pandemic plunged the U.S. into this March. And top word searches ensured "pandemic," "quarantine," and "asymptomatic" would become commonplace in our national word-stock.</p><p>Coronavirus widened the country's already intractable polarization, revealed its <a href="https://bigthink.com/Northwell-Health/health-disparities-coronavirus" target="_self">devastating health gaps</a>, and, as of this writing, has killed nearly 300,000 Americans. <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/covid-brain-damage" target="_self">The potential long-term effects</a> faced by <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/covid-19-survivors" target="_self">America's 15 million COVID-19 survivors</a> are unknown but <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html#:~:text=Respiratory%3A%20lung%20function%20abnormalities,difficulty%20with%20concentration%2C%20memory%20problems" target="_blank">may include complications</a> of the cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological systems.</p><p>While <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/russia-claims-worlds-first-covid-19-vaccine" target="_self">Russia announced the world's first COVID-19 vaccine</a> in August, those claims were scientifically dubious. Since then, more rigorously tested vaccines have been <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/uk-covid-vaccine" target="_self">green-lighted in the United Kingdom</a> and the United States, and both countries have <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/14/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">begun administering it</a> to high-risk populations and front-line workers. However, the vaccine's effectiveness and how <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/coronavirus-vaccine" target="_self">readily it will be available</a> to everyone remains to be seen. For its first few months, at least, 2021 may be the pandemic sequel no one asked for.</p>The new national pastime
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk1ODk1NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNzc5MzQ3M30.sfNgt_x0PrynD5Brdku6L045lxOuU7PVYw3n9598Dlk/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=700" id="82bbe" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3e30b2180da0cd13e0f6a011d006ae1f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />The Electoral College recently cemented Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Congress is scheduled to confirm the votes on January 6, 2021.
<p>Thanks to an anemic baseball season, politics became not just America's new pastime but the world's. The U.S.'s number one trending search term was "election results," and it was number two globally. Politicians became popular search terms, too, with "Joe Biden," "Kamala Harris," and "Pete Buttigieg" leading the pack. And coronavirus-related changes to <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/states-easy-voting" target="_self">traditional voting methods in many states</a> propelled Americas to google about early voting, how to vote, and where they could vote.</p><p>While <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/most-contentious-election-in-american-history-1876" target="_self">American politics have been contentious</a> more often than not, the 2020 election proved fraught, vitriolic, all-encompassing, and seemingly everlasting. The <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/important-issues-in-the-2020-election/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">political parties sparred over issues</a> such as the economy, immigration, violent crime, racial inequality, climate change, and, of course, the incumbent's response to the coronavirus. The September passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg added another ideological melee into the larger political fray, and the entire process was <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/election-results" target="_self">further complicated by social media</a> and the debate over <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/social-media-2020-us-election" target="_self">its culpability in the spread of false information</a>.</p><p>Worse, for many, the usual avenues of escape and mental decompression were barricaded by pandemic restrictions and mandates.</p><p>This national drama, which normally would have ended on Super Tuesday, entered its third act with a protracted vote count. As critical battleground states slowly tallied the influx of mail-in ballots, "who is winning the election" quickly became one of Google's most searched for questions of the year. The answer was determined to be challenger Joe Biden, bringing a decisive end to one of 2020's most challenging moments.</p><p>Kidding! In an unprecedented move, incumbent Donald Trump claimed the results were fraudulent and has (as of this writing) refused to concede. He and his legal team have <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-election-fight-includes-over-30-lawsuits-it-s-n1248289" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">filed more than 50 lawsuits</a> to contest the results, most of which have been shot down as frivolous. For the record: There has been <a href="https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">no evidence of widespread fraud</a> in the election.</p><p><a href="https://bigthink.com/videos/abolish-the-electoral-college" target="_self">The Electoral College</a> has since <a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-270-electoral-college-vote-d429ef97af2bf574d16463384dc7cc1e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cemented Joe Biden's victory</a>, and it looks like this is one 2020 contention that we can safely put behind us come New Year's. Kidding, kidding! A cohort of <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/2020/12/02/the-gops-electoral-mischief-491033" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Republican lawmakers has proposed challenging the Electoral College votes</a> when Congress convenes to confirm them on January 6. Sigh.</p>Livin' in virtual insanity
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk1ODk1Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MzMxNjUyOX0.x-ttrIxjl9_LfCN9GNNGy5ZocwjtsUYd0kZN--Yeut4/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C345%2C0%2C345&height=700" id="4e759" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dc71bbeb7cd9423709008b3bd8ab2b23" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />New York students returned to school for in-person learning this December.
<p>Conspicuously absent from Google's "Year in Search 2020" are the usual events and happenings. With Americans forced to shelter-in-place and events canceled under pandemic restrictions, we've transitioned to a year of virtual living.</p><p>"Zoom" entered the top trending searches at number six, and "virtual" became a trending category. Many of the year's <a href="https://bigthink.com/Charles-Koch-Foundation/emergency-remote-learning-vs-online-education" target="_self">virtual inquiries related to education</a> and student enrichment—with "virtual field trips," "virtual museum tours," "virtual learning," and "virtual classroom" all landing in the top ten virtual searches. </p><p>For schools, parents, and students alike, remote learning has proven one of the year's Herculean labors. While there is evidence that remote <a href="https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/remote-education" target="_self">education has decreased anxiety for some children, </a>there's also evidence suggesting that such setups are taking <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/10/online-learning-mental-health" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a mental health toll on others</a>. Unfortunately, we likely won't know for some time how a year of peer separation will affect student's social development or their scholastic achievements.</p><p>American adults have also felt the social claustrophobia of stay-at-home orders and are seeking a virtual escape. Trending searches include "virtual marriage," "virtual baby shower," "virtual NBA fans," and "virtual EDC raves." As with their pint-sized peers, it remains unknown how <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/pandemic-mental-health" target="_self">this year of isolation will affect mental health</a> in adults. However, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932a1.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">data suggest</a> stress, anxiety, depression, and other mental maladies have become more widespread alongside altered health habits and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7444649/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a lack of access to mental health support services</a>.</p><p>These virtual events may serve as an analgesic, but they aren't a cure for the problem.</p>Personal growth becomes personal beauty
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk2NDUwNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjIxNjcxMH0.Ng9pn9K_jbVQCZZY7o7i0HpfHPI6o8OzV5nEvLPS57Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="e4b04" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8477605b3cc2e1d8682fbc94e07f5f44" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="at-home haircut" data-width="7360" data-height="4912" />Credit: Eugenio Marongiu / Adobe Stock
<p><a href="https://www.bigthinkedge.com/5-things-to-learn-about-personal-growth-and-how-to-achieve-your-own/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Personal growth</a> and health habits typically have a strong standing in Google's "Year of Search," but in 2020, diets and mindfulness took a backseat to the how-to's. How-to questions became trending searches thanks to Americans being cut off from amenities such as beauty parlors and nail salons.</p><p>Most of the trending how-to searches were for hair care. How to cut men's hair and women's hair. How to plop hair, <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/does-hair-dye-cause-cancer" target="_self">color hair</a>, and style curtain bangs. Americans clearly pined for their stylists in 2020. </p><p>Other notable how-to's included dermaplaning, washing hands properly, sewing a face mask, and rocking sweatpants with style. And if that list doesn't signal just how difficult 2020 was, then what else does?</p>Mother Nature pushes back
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9bb94f5d5a58d40f03e1515f3c2e467c"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gzksqQDI_kE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Well, science news may. 2020's trending science searches centered on natural disasters. Americans googled "fires near me" as conflagrations devoured the West Coast, destroying <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/too-many-trees" target="_self">forests</a>, neighborhoods, and even <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-09-09/explosive-western-us-wildfires-threaten-oregon-towns" target="_blank">whole towns</a> as they went. <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/hurricane-laura-live-updates" target="_blank">Hurricane Laura</a>, a Category 4 storm, also trended after slamming into Louisiana this August.</p><p>All told, 2020 witnessed <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-running-list-of-record-breaking-natural-disasters-in-2020/" target="_blank">record-breaking levels of natural disasters</a>, many hitting with a force more devastating than previous years. This <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1075142" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rise in climate emergencies</a> is part of a two-decade trend that scientists have linked to climate change and increased global temperatures.</p><p>When not worrying about natural disasters, Americans were fretting over "murder hornets," another trending term. Entomologists discovered the murder hornets—actually named the Asian giant hornets—in Washington state this year. Because native bees have no natural defenses against this <a href="https://bigthink.com/kevin-dickinson/invasive-species-how-the-tegu-lizard-could-invade-the-southern-us" target="_self">invasive species</a>, their colonies can be massacred by a few dozen hornets in mere hours. While one murder hornet's nest was discovered and destroyed near Blaine, Washington, experts worry there may be more.</p><p>At least there was that baby platypus to enjoy. Except no. In true 2020 fashion, <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/the-incredibly-cute-baby-platypus-that-went-viral-has-a-dark-secret-you-ought-to-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">that picture was bogus</a>—although, not to be a total buzzkill, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhVCwtW6gQ0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">real platypus babies</a> are darn cute.</p>Aiming to make 2021 a better year
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk1ODk2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjM4NzcyNn0.9p5TuitsBtuKblWPCM_mR8DCL7mxoBdrcfMyncrj9vk/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C215%2C0%2C215&height=700" id="78c31" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="240158cc13d58aab62156ce4be124409" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />Students line up to receive food aid packages provided by the charity Secours Populaire in France.
<p>If we're looking for a silver lining to 2020—and at this point it'd be nice—it's that people were actively searching for ways to make the world better.</p><p>The categories "how to donate" and "how to help" both trended in the United States. People wanted to know how to help Yemen, Beirut, Black Lives Matter, and the Australian bushfires. They searched how to assist during the pandemic or help someone having a panic attack. They wanted to donate to Goodwill and send N95 masks to medical facilities. Even search terms about how to donate blood and plasma became trending in 2020. </p><p>As mentioned at the beginning of this article, that means that more people were searching for answers to these questions than in previous years, a likely sign of people trying to help others. So while 2020 certainly sucked, it would have been worse without the people who made it better in their own small way. </p><p>As we look to New Year's Eve, we can crank up Elton John's "I'm Still Standing" and take heart that if next year is better, it is because of the efforts we made in 2020. Because 2021 has got to be a better year. Right?</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
