There is nothing inevitable about choices that are environmentally destructive. In 1800, there were indeed 550 steam engines in Europe but there were over 500,000 water mills. Coal was more expensive than hydro power and many industrialists were not persuaded of its added value. It was the economic recession of 1825-1848 with increasing agitation by textile workers over salaries and conditions which made the use of coal-powered, steam-driven spinning machines a much more attractive proposition. More machines meant fewer workers and fewer workers meant fewer demands, notably for wage rises. Therefore, the substantial increase in CO₂ emissions in Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century, which through economic competition, war and imperial domination would start a worldwide trend, was not the blind outcome of the machinery of ‘progress’ but the cumulative consequence of a set of very specific decisions taken by identifiable socio-economic actors.

Similarly, the notion that ecological awareness is only a very recent phenomenon where “humanity” finally woke up to the environmental consequences of its economic activities does not stand up to scrutiny. In the period from the beginnings of the industrial revolution to the decade when the movement towards fossil fuels use becomes more marked, awareness of the relationships between humans and their environment or the “natural world” was widespread. Environmental risks have been clearly and repeatedly signalled from the time of the industrial revolution onwards. The notion of an unthinking humanity bringing destruction upon itself does not bear up to examination.

Michael Cronin. Eco-Translation: translation

and ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. New York: Routledge, 2017. p. 11-12 (adapted).

There is nothing inevitable about choices that are environmentally destructive. In 1800, there were indeed 550 steam engines in Europe but there were over 500,000 water mills. Coal was more expensive than hydro power and many industrialists were not persuaded of its added value. It was the economic recession of 1825-1848 with increasing agitation by textile workers over salaries and conditions which made the use of coal-powered, steam-driven spinning machines a much more attractive proposition. More machines meant fewer workers and fewer workers meant fewer demands, notably for wage rises. Therefore, the substantial increase in CO₂ emissions in Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century, which through economic competition, war and imperial domination would start a worldwide trend, was not the blind outcome of the machinery of ‘progress’ but the cumulative consequence of a set of very specific decisions taken by identifiable socio-economic actors.

Similarly, the notion that ecological awareness is only a very recent phenomenon where “humanity” finally woke up to the environmental consequences of its economic activities does not stand up to scrutiny. In the period from the beginnings of the industrial revolution to the decade when the movement towards fossil fuels use becomes more marked, awareness of the relationships between humans and their environment or the “natural world” was widespread. Environmental risks have been clearly and repeatedly signalled from the time of the industrial revolution onwards. The notion of an unthinking humanity bringing destruction upon itself does not bear up to examination.

Michael Cronin. Eco-Translation: translation

and ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. New York: Routledge, 2017. p. 11-12 (adapted).

They couldn’t even tell the time — this uncountable army of believers.

The warriors of God pushed on to the gates of the imperial city of Constantinople, their arrival heralded by a plague of locusts that destroyed the vines but left the wheat untouched. Their leader, an implacable cleric who had appeared from nowhere to great popular acclaim, exhorted his charges to holy war against the infidel with promises of a home in paradise. Disease and malnutrition were rife. Medical care often involved exorcism of the amputation of injured limbs. Torture and other ordeals settled criminal cases.

Few had any learning at all. What education there was back home consisted of memorizing outdated texts under the watchful eyes of hidebound doctors of religion. They had no understanding of basic technology, science, or mathematics. They could not date their most important holy days, nor chart the regular movements of the sun, the moon, and the planets. They knew nothing of papermaking or the use of lenses and mirrors, and they had no inkling of the prince of contemporary scientific instruments — the astrolabe. Natural phenomena, such as an eclipse of the moon or a sudden change in weather, terrified them. They though it was black magic.

The arrival of this fanatical army horrified the locals. Who were these pale-skinned, blue-eyed barbarians, marching under the sign of the cross, and what did they want on Arab shores at the dawn of the twelfth Christian century?

Jonathan Lyons. The House of Wisdom. How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization. London: Bloomsbury, 2009. p. 9 (adapted).

They couldn’t even tell the time — this uncountable army of believers.

The warriors of God pushed on to the gates of the imperial city of Constantinople, their arrival heralded by a plague of locusts that destroyed the vines but left the wheat untouched. Their leader, an implacable cleric who had appeared from nowhere to great popular acclaim, exhorted his charges to holy war against the infidel with promises of a home in paradise. Disease and malnutrition were rife. Medical care often involved exorcism of the amputation of injured limbs. Torture and other ordeals settled criminal cases.

Few had any learning at all. What education there was back home consisted of memorizing outdated texts under the watchful eyes of hidebound doctors of religion. They had no understanding of basic technology, science, or mathematics. They could not date their most important holy days, nor chart the regular movements of the sun, the moon, and the planets. They knew nothing of papermaking or the use of lenses and mirrors, and they had no inkling of the prince of contemporary scientific instruments — the astrolabe. Natural phenomena, such as an eclipse of the moon or a sudden change in weather, terrified them. They though it was black magic.

The arrival of this fanatical army horrified the locals. Who were these pale-skinned, blue-eyed barbarians, marching under the sign of the cross, and what did they want on Arab shores at the dawn of the twelfth Christian century?

Jonathan Lyons. The House of Wisdom. How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization. London: Bloomsbury, 2009. p. 9 (adapted).

They couldn’t even tell the time — this uncountable army of believers.

The warriors of God pushed on to the gates of the imperial city of Constantinople, their arrival heralded by a plague of locusts that destroyed the vines but left the wheat untouched. Their leader, an implacable cleric who had appeared from nowhere to great popular acclaim, exhorted his charges to holy war against the infidel with promises of a home in paradise. Disease and malnutrition were rife. Medical care often involved exorcism of the amputation of injured limbs. Torture and other ordeals settled criminal cases.

Few had any learning at all. What education there was back home consisted of memorizing outdated texts under the watchful eyes of hidebound doctors of religion. They had no understanding of basic technology, science, or mathematics. They could not date their most important holy days, nor chart the regular movements of the sun, the moon, and the planets. They knew nothing of papermaking or the use of lenses and mirrors, and they had no inkling of the prince of contemporary scientific instruments — the astrolabe. Natural phenomena, such as an eclipse of the moon or a sudden change in weather, terrified them. They though it was black magic.

The arrival of this fanatical army horrified the locals. Who were these pale-skinned, blue-eyed barbarians, marching under the sign of the cross, and what did they want on Arab shores at the dawn of the twelfth Christian century?

Jonathan Lyons. The House of Wisdom. How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization. London: Bloomsbury, 2009. p. 9 (adapted).

They couldn’t even tell the time — this uncountable army of believers.

The warriors of God pushed on to the gates of the imperial city of Constantinople, their arrival heralded by a plague of locusts that destroyed the vines but left the wheat untouched. Their leader, an implacable cleric who had appeared from nowhere to great popular acclaim, exhorted his charges to holy war against the infidel with promises of a home in paradise. Disease and malnutrition were rife. Medical care often involved exorcism of the amputation of injured limbs. Torture and other ordeals settled criminal cases.

Few had any learning at all. What education there was back home consisted of memorizing outdated texts under the watchful eyes of hidebound doctors of religion. They had no understanding of basic technology, science, or mathematics. They could not date their most important holy days, nor chart the regular movements of the sun, the moon, and the planets. They knew nothing of papermaking or the use of lenses and mirrors, and they had no inkling of the prince of contemporary scientific instruments — the astrolabe. Natural phenomena, such as an eclipse of the moon or a sudden change in weather, terrified them. They though it was black magic.

The arrival of this fanatical army horrified the locals. Who were these pale-skinned, blue-eyed barbarians, marching under the sign of the cross, and what did they want on Arab shores at the dawn of the twelfth Christian century?

Jonathan Lyons. The House of Wisdom. How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization. London: Bloomsbury, 2009. p. 9 (adapted).

Diplomacy is often described as an art, involving decisions shaped by sensitive political nuances that require human judgment, cultural understanding, and emotional intelligence — qualities that AI cannot fully replicate. While AI can support decision-making, it may also manipulate human behavior subtly, especially through systems developed in countries with different geopolitical priorities. This deepens the AI divide between technologically advanced and resource-limited nations, embedding linguistic and cultural biases and reinforcing global power asymmetries. As algorithms take their place alongside diplomats, the art of negotiation now meets the science of AI. The future of diplomacy must lie in fostering a symbiotic relationship where AI enhances human expertise, streamlines processes, and offers new strategic tools while leaving the nuanced art of diplomacy in human hands.

Diplomatic institutions adopting such technologies should also adopt guardrails to clarify how these systems inform decision-making. To ensure that AI systems function appropriately across diverse cultural contexts, adaptive and responsible AI frameworks should be integrated into policy discussions at the national and international levels. Crucially, any AI deployment must prioritise human agency. The goal must not be to automate diplomacy, but to augment it. AI’s incorporation into diplomacy offers both promise and peril. While the technology supports efficiency and expands access to information, it must be governed by strong ethical frameworks, particularly when it can shape global power relations through sensitive negotiations. Rather than embracing AI as a magic wand, it must be approached as a double-edged sword that is capable of assisting, but never replacing the unique human skills that diplomacy demands.

Anusha Guru. The Future of Diplomacy: AI’s Expanding

Role in International Affairs. In: Observer Research Foundation, 18/6/2025. Internet: <www.orfonline.org> (adapted).

Diplomacy is often described as an art, involving decisions shaped by sensitive political nuances that require human judgment, cultural understanding, and emotional intelligence — qualities that AI cannot fully replicate. While AI can support decision-making, it may also manipulate human behavior subtly, especially through systems developed in countries with different geopolitical priorities. This deepens the AI divide between technologically advanced and resource-limited nations, embedding linguistic and cultural biases and reinforcing global power asymmetries. As algorithms take their place alongside diplomats, the art of negotiation now meets the science of AI. The future of diplomacy must lie in fostering a symbiotic relationship where AI enhances human expertise, streamlines processes, and offers new strategic tools while leaving the nuanced art of diplomacy in human hands.

Diplomatic institutions adopting such technologies should also adopt guardrails to clarify how these systems inform decision-making. To ensure that AI systems function appropriately across diverse cultural contexts, adaptive and responsible AI frameworks should be integrated into policy discussions at the national and international levels. Crucially, any AI deployment must prioritise human agency. The goal must not be to automate diplomacy, but to augment it. AI’s incorporation into diplomacy offers both promise and peril. While the technology supports efficiency and expands access to information, it must be governed by strong ethical frameworks, particularly when it can shape global power relations through sensitive negotiations. Rather than embracing AI as a magic wand, it must be approached as a double-edged sword that is capable of assisting, but never replacing the unique human skills that diplomacy demands.

Anusha Guru. The Future of Diplomacy: AI’s Expanding

Role in International Affairs. In: Observer Research Foundation, 18/6/2025. Internet: <www.orfonline.org> (adapted).

Diplomacy is often described as an art, involving decisions shaped by sensitive political nuances that require human judgment, cultural understanding, and emotional intelligence — qualities that AI cannot fully replicate. While AI can support decision-making, it may also manipulate human behavior subtly, especially through systems developed in countries with different geopolitical priorities. This deepens the AI divide between technologically advanced and resource-limited nations, embedding linguistic and cultural biases and reinforcing global power asymmetries. As algorithms take their place alongside diplomats, the art of negotiation now meets the science of AI. The future of diplomacy must lie in fostering a symbiotic relationship where AI enhances human expertise, streamlines processes, and offers new strategic tools while leaving the nuanced art of diplomacy in human hands.

Diplomatic institutions adopting such technologies should also adopt guardrails to clarify how these systems inform decision-making. To ensure that AI systems function appropriately across diverse cultural contexts, adaptive and responsible AI frameworks should be integrated into policy discussions at the national and international levels. Crucially, any AI deployment must prioritise human agency. The goal must not be to automate diplomacy, but to augment it. AI’s incorporation into diplomacy offers both promise and peril. While the technology supports efficiency and expands access to information, it must be governed by strong ethical frameworks, particularly when it can shape global power relations through sensitive negotiations. Rather than embracing AI as a magic wand, it must be approached as a double-edged sword that is capable of assisting, but never replacing the unique human skills that diplomacy demands.

Anusha Guru. The Future of Diplomacy: AI’s Expanding

Role in International Affairs. In: Observer Research Foundation, 18/6/2025. Internet: <www.orfonline.org> (adapted).

Diplomacy is often described as an art, involving decisions shaped by sensitive political nuances that require human judgment, cultural understanding, and emotional intelligence — qualities that AI cannot fully replicate. While AI can support decision-making, it may also manipulate human behavior subtly, especially through systems developed in countries with different geopolitical priorities. This deepens the AI divide between technologically advanced and resource-limited nations, embedding linguistic and cultural biases and reinforcing global power asymmetries. As algorithms take their place alongside diplomats, the art of negotiation now meets the science of AI. The future of diplomacy must lie in fostering a symbiotic relationship where AI enhances human expertise, streamlines processes, and offers new strategic tools while leaving the nuanced art of diplomacy in human hands.

Diplomatic institutions adopting such technologies should also adopt guardrails to clarify how these systems inform decision-making. To ensure that AI systems function appropriately across diverse cultural contexts, adaptive and responsible AI frameworks should be integrated into policy discussions at the national and international levels. Crucially, any AI deployment must prioritise human agency. The goal must not be to automate diplomacy, but to augment it. AI’s incorporation into diplomacy offers both promise and peril. While the technology supports efficiency and expands access to information, it must be governed by strong ethical frameworks, particularly when it can shape global power relations through sensitive negotiations. Rather than embracing AI as a magic wand, it must be approached as a double-edged sword that is capable of assisting, but never replacing the unique human skills that diplomacy demands.

Anusha Guru. The Future of Diplomacy: AI’s Expanding

Role in International Affairs. In: Observer Research Foundation, 18/6/2025. Internet: <www.orfonline.org> (adapted).