Rethinking peace and coexistence in the AI age
The dawn of a new year is often accompanied by resolutions, promises, and, let us face it, a generous helping of naive optimism. We set out to eat healthier, exercise more, or save money, only to find ourselves devouring pizza by February.
But perhaps as springtime approaches, humanity as a whole could make a belated resolution: To rethink coexistence and strive for a new era of peace. Nowhere is this call more urgent than in the Middle East, a region whose skies often echo with the sounds of war rather than laughter.
But let us be honest: It is 2025, and while some of us are debating the merits of pineapple on pizza, others are debating borders, religions and histories that stretch back thousands of years. If we are to find a way forward, it is time to rethink what coexistence truly means — not as a utopian ideal, but as a practical necessity.
Philosophers have long grappled with the challenges of human conflict. Immanuel Kant, in his essay Perpetual Peace, argued that lasting peace could only emerge from a foundation of mutual respect and legal frameworks that transcend individual nations. Sounds great, right? Yet, here we are, centuries later, with international laws that are ignored more often than New Year's gym memberships.
Irony aside, Kant's ideas remain relevant. The conflicts in the Middle East highlight the failure of both international governance and localized empathy. While governments sign treaties they do not intend to honor, children hold onto fading memories of safety. 'We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves,' said the Dalai Lama. Yet, it seems humanity's inner turmoil spills over into policies and actions, creating external chaos.
And yet, philosophers also remind us of our potential. Martin Buber's concept of the 'I-Thou' relationship emphasizes seeing others as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. What if this profound principle could guide geopolitics? Imagine a world where nations treated one another not as rivals or pawns, but as partners in a shared human story. Admittedly, this might sound like the plot of a science fiction film, but every revolution — industrial, social, or ideological — began as a wild idea.
Imagine leveraging artificial intelligence to create platforms that facilitate genuine dialogue between conflicting groups.
Rafael Hernandez de Santiago
Enter technology — the double-edged sword of the modern age. While it has amplified voices, connected minds, and enabled innovation, it has also been wielded as a weapon in both literal and figurative senses. Yet, within this paradox lies a unique opportunity to rethink coexistence.
Imagine leveraging artificial intelligence to create platforms that facilitate genuine dialogue between conflicting groups. AI could analyze speech patterns, cultural nuances, and historical grievances to foster understanding rather than deepen divides. In the spirit of ironic optimism, let us hope it does not malfunction and spark a virtual war instead.
Moreover, technology can offer new tools for transparency and accountability. Blockchain — a buzzword often associated with cryptocurrencies and get-rich-quick schemes — can be a powerful ally for peace. Smart contracts could ensure that aid reaches its intended recipients, while decentralized systems could make human rights abuses harder to conceal.
Of course, no technological advancement can substitute for the human will to change. As Albert Camus wrote: 'Peace is the only battle worth waging.' The Middle East's troubles — and, indeed, those of the wider world — are deeply rooted in identities, memories, and narratives. Rethinking coexistence requires us to confront these with humility and courage.
Let us embrace the irony that hope often emerges from despair. The conflicts in Gaza, Yemen, and beyond are not just crises; they are opportunities to rethink our approach to coexistence. They challenge us to go beyond slogans and resolutions, to actively build bridges where walls once stood.
Let us draw on the wisdom of philosophers, the potential of technology, and the strength of the human spirit to craft a new narrative — one where coexistence is not merely an abstract idea but a lived reality.
And if all else fails, let us at least agree on the one universal truth — pineapple has no place on pizza. Peace may take time, but some battles — culinary or otherwise — are worth fighting.
• Rafael Hernandez de Santiago, viscount of Espes, is a Spanish national residing in Saudi Arabia and working at the Gulf Research Center.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Auburn is completely justified in claiming 4 more national titles
The Auburn Tigers just closed the gap on the University of Alabama in the national title debate, and they didn't have to take a single snap to do it. Claiming four new national titles in one swoop, in the year 2025, has to rank as Auburn's greatest victory since the Kick Six. Thing is, based on the precedent already set down by that school across the state, Auburn is completely justified in claiming most, if not necessarily all four of the new titles. What's good for the Tide is good for the Tigers, after all. 'For too long, Auburn has chosen a humble approach to our program's storied history — choosing to recognize only Associated Press national championships,' Auburn athletic director John Cohen told On3 in announcing the new title windfall. Two banners, for the 1957 and 2010 seasons, hang in Jordan-Hare Stadium, and prior to this week the Tigers also acknowledged the 1913, 1983 and 1993 seasons as meeting national championship qualifications. [Join or create a Yahoo Fantasy Football league for the 2025 NFL season] Effective immediately, Auburn will now claim the 1910, 1914, 1958 and 2004 seasons as national championship ones, because, as Cohen notes, the Tigers' recognitions 'now align with the well-established standard used by the NCAA's official record book and our peers across the nation.' Auburn can justify the new rings on two fronts: first, because pre-21st-century college football was a chaotic nest of competing rankings and ad hoc justifications, and second, because Alabama already went there. Reason #1: Nobody knows anything The Tigers are taking advantage of 20th century college football's inherent absurdity. Then as now, the soul of college football lies in argument, the furious and fiery debate over unanswerable questions of strength and worth. But for all the good that the College Football Playoff and its predecessor postseason series have brought the game, they've robbed us of the debate of which team really would've come out on top in a winner-take-all matchup. When you determine your postseason rankings via polls rather than games, there's ample room for debate … and ample territory to claim championships on your own a century after the fact. Multiple contemporaneous and after-the-fact polls have attempted to make sense of college football's anything-goes era, some with far more statistical rigor and validity than others. Still, finding a poll that breaks your way is like finding a $100 bill on the ground; you might not be entitled to it, but you're going to keep it anyway. Auburn does have history in its corner. The Auburn of the 1910s was a fearsome unit, led by a diminutive Irishman named Mike Donahue and featuring players with spectacular names like Fatty Warren, Baby Taylor and Moon Ducote. In the three national championship seasons Auburn now claims, the Tigers won 22 games, lost one and tied one. Auburn and Alabama weren't playing at that time due to hard feelings on both sides, which was good news for a Tide team that went a mediocre 15-11 over the same stretch. The 1958 Auburn team played under a total blackout — no television, no bowl appearances — but still managed to go 9-0-1. That was only good enough for fourth in the final rankings, behind LSU (10-0), Iowa (7-1-1), and Army (8-0-1). The 2004 team went 13-0 but was not included in the two-team BCS, losing out on a berth by mere percentage points to USC and Oklahoma. Auburn and Oklahoma were tied going into the regular season's final week, but because Auburn didn't beat Alabama badly enough in the Iron Bowl, winning by 'only' eight points, Oklahoma moved ahead only to get shellacked by USC in the Orange Bowl. (Incidentally, I cover all this in my new — and apparently already dated — book "Iron In The Blood: How the Alabama vs. Auburn Rivalry Shaped the Soul of the South," on sale next Tuesday. Feel free to correct the appropriate passages by hand.) Reason #2: Alabama did it first If you're mad at Auburn for claiming four new titles, you might want to reserve a good measure of your scorn for their rival. Back in the 1980s, an Alabama sports information director went diving in the record books and in one swoop, awarded Alabama five pre-Bear Bryant-era titles. These range from defensible and acceptable to absurd, like the 1941 season where Alabama went 9-2 and finished 20th (!) in the AP poll … but ranked No. 1, tied with Minnesota, in a single, much smaller poll. Nothing Auburn did Tuesday is anywhere near as egregious as that, and yet the 1941 team remains canonized on Alabama's Walk of Champions in front of Bryant-Denny Stadium. Now, granted, there's the question of an incredibly slippery slope here. If Auburn is going to claim a national title for 2004, why can't Utah — which also went undefeated at 12-0 that year — also claim one? Why couldn't 2017 Central Florida or 2023 Florida State, which, like 2004 Auburn, were both left out of the postseason dance despite going undefeated? For that matter, why can't Alabama claim the 1966 title and jump up to 19? That season, Alabama went 11-0 with six shutouts, but finished behind two teams — Notre Dame and Michigan State — that went 9-0-1 and played to a tie in late November. The suspicion, then and now, was that pollsters of the day were punishing the Crimson Tide for the state of Alabama's woeful record on civil rights in the turbulent 1960s. (Politics and sports have always intertwined.) Yes, Auburn's ring-grab could well set off a new wave of schools retroactively seeking to claim national titles won by their great-grandfathers. We could see new banners hanging in stadiums all across the country as enterprising researchers whip up dissertation-length justifications for why their school deserves titles from the days before cars or TV. But so what? We now have in place a means of determining, once and for all, a season's indisputable national champion. And as college football sins go, a bit of reapportioned valor ranks pretty low on the list. We've got to hold onto something to argue about, after all.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 401(k) move could unlock billions for crypto, says Reserve Exec
Trump's 401(k) move could unlock billions for crypto, says Reserve Exec originally appeared on TheStreet. Thomas Mattimore, co-founder of Reserve, says President Donald Trump's recent executive order opening 401(k) plans to alternative assets marks a watershed moment for innovation — with crypto standing to benefit. Reserve is a permissionless platform enabling anyone to launch, mint, and govern on-chain crypto indexes — called Decentralized Token Folios (DTFs) — that function like ETFs but with full transparency and 24/7 redemption.'This isn't just a pro crypto change, but it's a pro innovation change,' Mattimore said in an interview with TheStreet Roundtable. 'For a huge swath of the population who uses 401(k)s as their savings mechanism, they've been very limited. Crypto is the fastest growing asset, best performing asset of anything in the last decade.' Accessibility and new products Until now, most Americans have only accessed crypto through exchanges or exchange-traded funds. Mattimore said the new order could quickly expand that landscape. 'There's actually only one 401(k) provider that gives people access to native crypto assets today,' he said. 'This executive order is taking the stigma off of crypto as opposed to encouraging it.' He expects that index-style products will dominate retirement accounts, mirroring traditional markets. 'For the last 30 plus years we've seen an explosion in index investing, specifically ETFs,' Mattimore said. 'I expect that it's going to be the same for crypto over time. At Reserve, we're building DTFs, which are like ETFs in crypto.' Standards and scale Mattimore pointed to encouraging signals from regulators. 'We've seen and heard a lot from the SEC this year encouraging transparency and encouraging good acting from various different players in the space,' he said. 'For something like retirement accounts, transparency and the trustability so that people can actually understand what they're getting into is critical.' On yield-bearing products, Mattimore argued it's only a matter of time. 'Offering exposure to crypto assets without some of the staking or without some of the underlying yield just wouldn't make sense,' he said. Looking at the bigger picture, Mattimore said the inflows could be massive. 'The estimate on the size of the 401(k) accounts is seven and a half to eight trillion,' he said. 'One percent of 8 trillion is still $80 billion. That would still be quite a bit of inflows.' Ultimately, he views the policy as a turning point. 'This executive order is really removing the stigma from enabling people to get involved in this innovative sector,' Mattimore said. 'I'm really excited for rule-based index investing to come to the crypto space.' Trump's 401(k) move could unlock billions for crypto, says Reserve Exec first appeared on TheStreet on Aug 19, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Aug 19, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Willi Castro's three-run homer (11)
Willi Castro hits a three-run home run to right-center field to extend the Cubs' lead to 5-0 in the bottom of the 3rd inning
