Daily Times

The World Economic Forum held annually every January in Davos, Switzerland is considered the global gathering of political, business and other elites. The Financial Times reported that this year, a preliminary survey of Davos elites in September showed a “predominately negative outlook for the world …. that is expected to worsen over the next decade….” 91 precent see “elevated risks of global catastrophes” headed by “environment, social conflict, cyber threats and misinformation.”

If the survey were taken at this meeting after the October 7th attacks, it would be even more negative. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza are far from over. Little noticed was a nuclear threat sounded again by former Russian President and Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev on Telegram against the West. Lai Ching-te’s election as Taiwan’s president has roiled relations with China, raising concerns about the threat of a Chinese invasion of the island.

In America, Donald Trump’s romp to a 30-point victory in the Iowa Caucuses, barring an unforeseen event, virtually assures his nomination. Allegations of a sexual relationship with an Atlanta prosecutor and a subordinate could end the trial and one of the most dangerous legal threats to Trump’s campaign. President Joe Biden’s ratings continue to fall. Congress is still fumbling over the debt ceiling, another Continuing Resolution, the border crisis and aid to Israel and Ukraine.

Welcome to 2024! And could this get worse as the great majority of Davosites fear? Is the world in general in as much trouble as this cursory summary suggests? Is it time for despair? Or is a touch of euphoria possible? These are the questions that must be addressed with obvious care given the quick silver-like nature of thinking about, not predicting the future.

A nearly two hundred and fifty-year-old caveat is worth repeating. In September and October 1777, British General “Gentleman Johnny” Burgoyne was defeated at the Battles of Saratoga by Continental General Horatio Gates. The battle turned the tide of the revolution. France would enter on the side of the American rebels.

Winston Churchill failed at everything before becoming one of Britain’s greatest leaders.

At Edinburgh University, the famous Adam Smith was in residence. Hearing the battle’s outcome, a rattled student approached Smith crying out “Burgoyne was defeated. We are ruined.” Smith’s understated reply should be heeded today. “My boy, there is a lot of ruin in a nation.”

The answer to the balance between how despair and euphoria may affect 2024 is how much ruin is there in nations and the global system. In other words, does some form of innate stability exist to limit the amount of damage that can be done by acts of man if not by nature? Prior history argues no with one exception-before thermonuclear weapons existed.

About acts of nature, extinction took place many millennia ago when life on Earth was ended by a giant asteroid. Whether climate change will prove catastrophic or not is surely worthy of debate. And disease could run rampant. Suppose Covid had a 95 percent or higher mortality rate.

Assuming away these massive acts of existential disruption and destruction, what will prevent the wars in Ukraine and Gaza or other conflicts from escalating out of control; a massive global economic depression devastating most countries; revolution and civil war accelerating; and other societal endangering scenarios?

International organizations such as the UN are not capable of assuring the stabilizing influence to prevent wholesale ruin. Can government? In the US, both sides argue that the opposing candidate, Trump or Biden, will bring ruin to the nation.

It is argued that Trump will do so because, despite his denial, he will pursue a campaign of retribution and revenge. Trump is a bull who brings his own China shop with him and chaos follows.

Biden is seen as old and doddery. Suppose the unthinkable happens: Kamala Harris assumes the presidency. Catastrophe!

One can argue similar scenarios are present in many countries to different degrees. Yet, we have been there before. Harry Truman was a haberdasher and over his head. Winston Churchill failed at everything before becoming one of Britain’s greatest leaders.

The contradictory fact is that, unlike Robert Oppenheimer’s fear that he was the bringer of death, that threat may prove to be humankind’s saviour. Despite these other frightening scenarios, that thermonuclear war is off limits may be our salvation and the ultimate stabilizing force enabling the toleration of a great deal of ruin. And that may apply not only to war. Psychologically, this fear could have subliminal effects to ward off the worst of despairs and perhaps allow a bit of euphoria to battle through.

The writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council and a published author.