44th Edition – Fashion – Pike & Hurricane

Why We Still Need Feminism in 2019

Merle Emrich — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 19:17:09 +0000

When I take a step back and look at my life, I have to inevitably realise that my gender has never been much of an obstacle. I cannot remember a single instance in which I was told I could not do something because I was a girl. And sure, I am aware of sexual violence which is directed mostly towards women. And yes, I am familiar with the terms ‘second shift’, ‘gender pay gap’ and glass ceiling. But I always – naively – assumed that most people in the society I live in share my principles of gender equality. A recent incident however made me realise that, firstly, I live in a social bubble. And secondly, while we have undoubtedly taken great steps forward, feminism is a matter as urgent as ever.

The Butt Incident

The incident I am referring to is the following: I was sitting at home, brooding over my minor thesis when I received a message from Ellen Wagner, a friend of mine. She asked me to read through a letter of complaint she had written because of a job advertisement in her town’s local newspaper. In their ad the company stated that they were looking for a plumbing and heating installer. The job description was accompanied by the image of a woman’s bottom in hot pants and holding tools in her hands.

Since the German advertisement council states: ‘Most of all statements or depictions may therefore not be used in commercial advertisement which, 1. discriminate a person on the basis of their gender […] 5. reduce to their sexuality or suggest their sexual availability’ and furthermore the advertisement council emphasises the consideration ‘whether there is a socially acceptable, non-discriminatory or degrading connection between the depiction of the human body and product/ service’, Ellen decided to write a letter of complaint, and has now agreed to an interview with Pike & Hurricane.

Job advertisment published by a local German newspaper.

P&H: What was your initial reaction when you saw the advertisement in your local newspaper?

Ellen: It took me some time to realise what was actually displayed, and why. When I first saw the ad, my subconscious mind probably instantly categorised it as distasteful, not worthy of any attention. But then, a few seconds later, as soon as I caught myself just reading over it, ignoring it, I got alarmed, and I still am. So really, I had to look twice before being able to reflect on it, which really shocked me. I started asking myself, how come my subconscious mind is so indifferent to seeing women’s bodies selling stuff? Has “Sex sells” become naturalised up to a point where we find it legitimate, and we relativise it by claiming it to be a matter of taste and aesthetics, something entirely subjective?

P&H: What reaction to your letter of complaint were you (predominantly) expecting, and what happened in reality?

Ellen: I sent my letter of complaint both to the company commissioning the ad, as well as to the responsible newspaper that chose to print it. I sent it just wanting to do something about it, not even expecting much of a response from them. I was surprised to find support from the mayor who responded to the letter the same day with a very positive message of support. Another interesting part is that I decided to also share it in one of our local facebook groups, to encourage other people to become active, too. I was aware that the same topic had been thoroughly debated a few days earlier within that group, with many people making some meant-to-be-funny comments about women’s butts, not seeming to understand the problem addressed. I guess at that point, I didn’t take it seriously enough. To me, it looked like they were few, maybe because I didn’t find any convincing arguments in their comments which made my brain just skip this whole debate. For my own post, I used the “disable commenting” function because I didn’t want to have to read the same angry ranting and raving again. I explicitly addressed those people interested in becoming active, those wanting to make a change. When I think about it now, I expected at least half of the people to share my concerns about this particular ad, and maybe even some of them to show interest in becoming active in criticising the ad industry. But that impression changed rapidly after I published the post, and I slowly realised that my expectation of a 50:50 distribution would actually rather turn into a 70:30 ratio, dominated by an angry virtual mob.

The Angry Virtual Mob

The comments of this ‘angry virtual mob’ included remarks as to how ‘[w]hat this woman has written is hard to surpass in ridiculousness’, that ‘she can very well wear a burka during summer’ and ‘must be really bored’, as well as assumptions about the body hair of women criticising this type of advertisement. I imagined this to be the result of the (stereo)typical ‘fragile male ego’ but to my surprise – and utter horror – a considerable amount of the comments showing incomprehension for Ellen’s open criticism of this clearly objectifying and over-sexualised advertisement were posted by women.

Facebook reactions to the letter of complaint ranging from incomprehension to comments such as ‘[s]he can very well wear a burka during summer instead of running around in a bikini’.

P&H: Do you see the issue of or need for feminism differently now in comparison to before the incident?

Ellen: After this incident, I see it as especially urgent to reach out beyond our own, comfortable bubbles. When I think about it now, it’s no surprise that I completely underestimated the negative reactions – because most of the time, I am surrounded by people who share my perspective on many issues. That’s why I think we should never jump to the conclusion that the fight for justice – including feminism – isn’t topical anymore. If we only get out of your bubble, we’ll witness how different other people’s realities are from ours. And then, really, it is just about confronting others with the problems we see. Despite all the negative reactions I am receiving at the moment, I do hope that the anger of the mob turned into food for thought for them. If only few of them start reflecting on the problem, this whole initiative was so worth it. Spreading this personal experience with as many people as possible will definitely be one of my goals in 2019, just to make people aware of how we are taking for granted what we had to fight for throughout history.

P&H: Do you have any explanation for the overwhelmingly negative reactions you received?

Ellen: Of course, the scene where all of this happened was quite a rural area, a small town in Bavaria, where people tend to think less critically about politics and how their lives relate to it. People live in their cozy little worlds – of course they feel under attack if somebody comes and turns it around. And once they saw their conceptual world endangered, I think it was mostly the feeling of anonymity online that encouraged people to join the mob and to start making discriminatory remarks. The barrier is lower online than it is in real life, and people enjoy the kind of anarchy they feel to be given in social networks. Though I have to mention that facebook deleted approximately ten comments because they were considered either hate speech or sexual harassment – so it might not be as anarchical after all…

P&H: What changes in society regarding women/ changes in the debates about women’s/ feminist issues would you like to see?

Ellen: Not seeing feminism as a “women only” club, but as an inclusive movement, driven by empathy and togetherness. In the end, for me, it all goes back to the question of how we want to live together on this planet.

by Merle Emrich

Photo Credits

Job advertisement published in Blickpunkt Pegnitz (Nordbayerischer Kurier), Dez 7, 2018

Facebook Screenshots, Merle Emrich & Ellen Wagner

Slutwalk Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, 04.06.11, Ben Ponton, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Why We Still Need Feminism in 2019 appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Fast Fashion Industry

Eligija Rukšytė — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 19:16:31 +0000

The “glory” of fashion

Sometimes a big sign that says “SALE” in capital letters blinds us from thinking about what lies beneath the process of making and promoting clothes from big well-known companies that we wear every day.

Well planned marketing strategies

The clothing industry is one where everyone around the world participates every day- whether you wear clothes, buy them, work in a clothing store, a factory which produces them or even as a designer. It has been this way for many years but recently this production went from simply making and selling clothes for everyday wear to a dangerous and manipulating one. This is where the term of Fast Fashion comes along. Worldwide companies, that create inexpensive clothes modified from high end designers, have created an illusion for the average person to have a need to buy new clothes more often than needed.

Big brands went from introducing new clothing items every season to bringing new collections every two weeks. Their marketing campaigns trick us into thinking that we need to have those new clothes in order to fit into society. Commercials broadcast empowering, confident personalities with clothes from certain brands in order to paint the picture that with these clothes you could be the person from the advertisement. Through this, companies play with consumers’ emotions. Everyone is seeking happiness and, according to their model, you can achieve it by simply buying a new T-shirt.

The “affordable prices” that fast fashion endorses make regular consumers believe that they are able to buy more and even enjoy an elite status. But the truth is that it makes people spend excessively and the ones with all the profit are the owners of the companies.

All in order to make profit

The paradox of buying clothes in order to feel better, confident in existing society is that, in reality, the people who make these clothes are not happy at all. A large part of fast fashion clothing is made in low-income countries. A person might often see that majority of garments from brands like ZARA, H&M, Mango, Benetton state on the back of the item that they are made in countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, India. Why do well-known clothing companies produce clothes in countries in which their market is a lot smaller compared to USA or Europe? Wouldn’t it be easier to make them in places where these clothes are actually sold?

Well, the answer to that is simple. For them it is cheaper to outsource production to other countries around the world instead of producing them in the country they are sold. Since low-income countries have low minimum wages, there are unclear collective, labour, child, maternity rights. This serves as an ideal environment for garment production in the textile industry.

Modern slavery

In Bangladesh, eighty percent of clothing factory workers are young women who get paid from 20 to 50 cents per hour. Not only that, some employees get yelled at, or if they are complaining, even beaten. Let’s not forget to mention that employees work in bad condition buildings which often have poor ventilation systems that cause people to inhale chemicals and work in excessive heat. They breathe serious toxins which are used in order to make or die a clothing item.

In addition to already working minimum 10 hours per day, high temperatures make workers more tired and weak. In Cambodia – a country which massively produces garments for fast fashion companies – there are no temperature limits settled that factories have to follow. There have been many reports of people, mostly women, fainting. In this modern textile industry people are exploited as they are treated as slaves. A well known example of poor working conditions is when Rana Plaza, an eight-story commercial building contained clothing factories collapsed in 2013. This incident is considered to be one of the deadliest in the fashion industry. It took away 1134 lives and got approximately 2500 people injured. All of this happened because the building was in critical condition, but no one bothered to do anything about it. Survivors of this tragedy say that they had informed their supervisors about the cracks in the walls several times. In this case production seemed more important than human lives.

Whose fault is this?

Overall, the reality is that this is how fast fashion brands manage to supply new clothes fast and at an affordable price. A study done in 2014 shows that approximately from 60 to 75 million people work in the textile, clothing and footwear sector industry. It is safe to assume that this number is even bigger today. In order to gain the most profit with the lowest cost, companies do not invest into adequate working conditions. On one hand, it could be said that it is good that clothing factories give jobs and opportunities for people to earn money in low-income countries. However, the environment and the salary these workers are receiving is not acceptable. The only reason why governments are not stepping in is because companies relocate production sites to other countries if they make some drastic changes. However, society, by being ignorant and drawn into this circle of constantly buying new items contribute to the fast fashion industry. Even though being mass consumerism is an outcome of well planned marketing campaigns, a person ultimately still has a choice on how he wants to spend his money. The question, then, arises whether we should we blame companies, the government or each one of us.

Let’s try to fix this mess!

As this topic is slowly becoming a discussable issue, new movements, NGOs and private companies are eager to improve the whole clothing industry. Livia Firth is a founder of EcoAge– a consultancy firm that advises clothing brands how to run their businesses in a sustainable way. She is an activist herself who criticizes fast fashion industry as she hopes for justice. In her speeches she blames fast fashion companies stating that if there was no fast fashion, humanity would not have to face environmental issues and people who work in this industry would not be treated as slaves but with the same respect as everyone else. As companies are operating in a capitalist system, their main goal is to make profit and to be compatible among others and they reach their goal through cheap labor.

With people like Livia Firth and NGOs who openly speak about problems arising from extreme consumer capitalism, there is hope that radical consumerism and exploitation of people could be stopped.

by Eligija Ruksyte

Photo Credits

Banksy black friday, John Jones (CC BY-ND 2.0)

L, ZARA (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Trades Union Congress, Rana Plaza disaster anniversary action on Oxford Street (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

2013-07-09 05.26.46, NYU Stern BHR (CC BY-NC 2.0)

The post Fast Fashion Industry appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Fashion, Trump and Other Stories

Ana Carvalho — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 19:15:50 +0000

Fashion is often undermined and labeled superficial, concepts such as trends and style are considered temporal and inconsequential. But if clothes transmit a message, shouldn’t they be as important as words? In that case what kind of messages are we buying? And what kind of messages are we transmitting?

We often hear: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Indeed, there is a lot more that can be said by reading it rather than by only looking at it. Nevertheless, excluding the importance of the outside appearance would be a mistake.

Everyday we wake up and prepare ourselves to go out in the world. This decision might be conscious or unconscious, but a decision nonetheless. Occasions and people are carefully considered in order to obtain the perfect outfit. A blazer means professional, red sensual or confident and even those Sunday lazy pants, that we are all so embarrassed about, are telling others something: we couldn’t care less.

Fashion is often undermined and labeled superficial, concepts such as trends and style are considered temporal and inconsequential. But if clothes transmit a message shouldn’t they be as important as words? In that case what kind of messages are we buying? And what kind of messages are we transmitting?

Thinking of fashion as an act of language, we can analyze the process of dressing oneself as a discourse and as a performance. As if the act of using clothes is indivisibly telling and being. Each moment is a different play where we choose who we want to be and what we want to say, just by the way we dress. For instance, a knight wouldn’t be a knight without his shiny iron armour and pointy, lethal sword.

Susanna Schrobsdorf pondered Hillary Clinton’s clothing choice : ”You can trace her rise and fall in white pantsuits. She wore white to accept the Democratic nomination, at her last debate and then, finally, at the Inauguration of Donald Trump, where it was anything but the white of surrender”––the conscious use of a contrasting colour in a, usually, “all-dark-suit” environment portraits Hillary as daring and brave, poised and calm. However the story behind the outfit is not only about who’s wearing it or the combinations of elements and colours but, also about how the combination of the entity and the outfit are interacting with the surrounding environment.

This means that, especially in a political environment, fashion discourses can also be manipulated and altered to the benefit or detriment of an idea or of someone. An example of this is the research done by Cambridge Analytica during Trump’s presidential campaign. People buy clothes which they identify themselves with. So through algorithms on social media, based on fashion and music preferences, a personality estimation chart was made. Wrangler, Hollister and Lee buyers were linked to low levels of openness and mistrust and, therefore, easier to engage with pro-Trump advertisement. They were, then, targeted and bombarded with such. In the end “customers and voters are the same”, either wearing a specific brand or voting for someone, they are buying into the same (identification) message.

The president of the United States wasn’t the first to use fashion as a resource of power. Long before him, Louis XIV gave France the fashionable image by which is still known today. While before, Spain had been the European hegemon, the king of France took that place investing in art, theater, music, innovation and fashion, role that he legitimized around the court of Versaille. About 3,000 to 10,000 people were present at the palace everyday, including nobles and artists from all over the world, both eager to know the latest trends as well as be part of the class of influencers, which made them perfect foreign affairs audience.

Le Roi Soleil was indeed the first to introduce fashion templates portraying the ridiculously lavish noble attire, crafted with silk, velvet, pearls, ruffles and vivid colours. Attires and accessories would change according to season and to the occasion, which meant that in the same day a noble would have changed a minimum of four times. Even the act of dressing and undressing the king was ritualized as symbol of status and power. Fashion journalist Alexander Fury stated: “His courtiers spent so much time dolling themselves up, chasing after the rights to wear red heels and remove the king’s chemise at night, that they couldn’t think about overthrowing him”

By showcasing Versailles as the cultural European centre, Louis XIV re-enforced and spread the discourse of a new and glorified French identity, nationally and internationally.

Another example of enhancing political power through fashion is set by Queen Victoria during her reign. The strict moral values of the time were a blueprint of every outfit composed of tight corsets, high turtle necks and long sleeves. Due to the queen’s grief for the loss of prince Albert, even the mourning period had a dress code, especially strict for the women, composed of first mourning, up until one year of being a widow, second mourning (nine months) and third mourning which lasted three months. The fashion was black and progressively more adorned and by the end of the two years women could follow a more fashionable model of dress in mauve, white or gray. In the case of not following the convention, the widow would be socially shunned. Soon enough the whole world was dressed in mourning with the Queen.

Since the beginning of times human beings have used adornments and markings on their bodies both to differentiate and identify themselves. We could go as far as the cave man’s age and argument on someone’s wealth and status based on which kind of fur they would use. Clothes, even though ordinary, or maybe because of that, play an extremely important role in the way we see ourselves and in the way others see us.

In the end, no matter the period, fashion will always be bias. So we might want to ask: What kind of message am I wearing today?

by Ana Carvalho

Photo Credits:

Fashions in hair, 1788 – The Academie de Coiffure, Paris

Pussy Riot (video – make America great again) – in The 405

The post Fashion, Trump and Other Stories appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Risks of Space Trash

Gerard Rodon — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 19:14:18 +0000

Have you ever wondered what the earth will look like from space in 100 years?

Perhaps you imagine a Pale Blue Dot, or an Earthrise. I would bet that for most of us, the Earth looks pretty much as it is today. The solitary home of all humankind, half suspended in the darkness of it’s own shadow.

I bet you don’t imagine it will look like a house-of-mirrors version of Saturn, with rings made of supersonic space trash spinning on different axes around our collective home. But according to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), this may be the Earth’s fate.

In fact, the world is already beginning to look like this. There are 4857 satellites in Earth’s orbit according the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (probably the coolest UN department on the planet. (pun very much intended)). Of these 4857 satellites, 2877 are now non-operational. And therein lies the issue. There are 2877 large and extremely expensive pieces of trash going roughly 7 kilometers per second around the earth.

The only reason you can read this is because of the ever growing network of satellites, whizzing miles above your head and making the modern world of Emojis, GPS, time zones, and talk shows possible. The underlying infrastructure of the digital world just so happens to be suspended in space where it might just crash into now defunct parts of itself. What’s worse, when it does inevitably crash, it makes a real mess.

Thousands of tiny particles of ex-satellite go off in every direction and continue to move at supersonic speeds. This summer, an astronaut aboard on the International Space Station (ISS) had to plug a hole that was created by small particles of space debris from leaking air with his finger before using more advanced methods involving duct tape.

Growing Interest and Risk

The number of satellites launched each year keep increasing. But the good news is that there has been research and legislation on this problem for decades. NASA has recognized this as far back as 1995 when it published the first Orbital debris mitigation guidelines. This led to some governmental interest first by the US, then other countries like Japan, Russia and France, and the European Space Agency, eventually leading to adoption of protocols on debris mitigation by the UN in 2008. These days any states or companies that want to launch a satellite have to have a plan for bringing down the satellite within 25 years. But all the while, space is getting more profitable as private companies see huge opportunities. Investment in the sector totalled $8 Billion between 2012 & 2017.

Smaller states like Laos, Ghana, and Finland are also joining the party. Space launches are a source of international prestige, as well as a good way of fostering interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. So as demand for satellites keeps going up, supply of available space keeps getting smaller. Before 2009, all recorded orbital collisions had been between satellites and these small pieces of debris, but then a deactivated Russian Military Satellite crashed into an active US communications satellite above Siberia, creating 2000 new pieces of debris to fly off into random orbits. Even small particles can cause a lot of damage when they move at 7 kilometers per second. And collisions only create more particles, which create more collisions…you see where I’m going with this.

So along with those 2877 intact but defunct satellites, there are 21,000 objects measuring 10cm in length, and half a million particles less than a centimeter in length. None of this you want to touch anything valuable or expensive, like a functioning satellite. It is a wonder of engineering, navigation, and luck that we can get anything at all off the ground and into space through this terrifying killer cloud of space trash. The problem is only going to get worse as more satellites are launched into an increasingly congested and perilous place for satellites to be, making the likelihood of collisions ever higher. This problem was given a name back in 1978; Kessler Syndrome. The increase of objects sharing low earth orbit could eventually reach a threshold that sparks a domino effect of orbital collisions.

Worst case scenario: we trap ourselves on earth, unable to safely launch anything into space, not to mention collectively finding ourselves suddenly back in 1959, technologically speaking. The implications are hard to even imagine, a sudden collapse of the global communications system could ignite who-knows-what kinds of geopolitical trouble.

Space Trash Disposal

Currently, disposal happens by nudging defunct satellites back down towards earth which either burn up in the process or land in the satellite graveyard, a remote area of the South Pacific in between New Zealand and Chile. Alternatively, satellites can be pushed higher up into an unused orbit. But this only deals with the intact satellites that can be remotely controlled. We still need to deal with the cloud of deadly particles, so scientists are thinking up solutions to clean up space, involving all the most science-y stuff (Lazers, magnets, Space harpoons…).

Orbital Weapons systems, like those promoted by Reagan and Trump are also a terrible idea if you want to keep space tidy due to their enormous size. It is also pretty obvious that if we started a shooting war above the atmosphere, it would make a big mess. In 2007 China drew international condemnation by creating thousands of pieces of debris by blowing up one of its own satellites to demonstrate its anti-satellite weapon system. With the likely growth of space tourism within a decade, it is becoming evident in the infant private space sector that it is in everyone’s interest to have space be safe and debris free.

Space has always given me a childlike excitement. I share the hopes of the late great Stephen Hawking that humanity can, and must, spread out from its home. Going into the unknown, achieving more and creating a better future. This is the has been the hope at the edge of all frontiers. But time and again it has been short sightedness, tribalism, and the tragic greed that lead to failure, cruelty, and injustice.

If space is too deadly or expensive or big to explore, I wont mind. But if we lock ourselves on earth by basically littering, then it’s just too sad to be funny.

by Gerard Rodan

Photo Credits

NASA Johnson, iss046e043433: CC BY-NC 2.0

NASA

iss027e008683, NASA Johnson, CC BY-NC 2.0

The post The Risks of Space Trash appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Antarctica: The Forgotten Continent

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 30 Dec 2018 22:06:07 +0000

Everybody knows who the Arctic belongs to: Santa Claus, no question. But what about the Antarctic? In comparison to the Arctic, it is a continent, way bigger, and was never a place to live for humans. But still, nations are competing for Antarctic territory. Why and with what consequences?

The Uniqueness of the Antarctic Ice

The Antarctic continent is a unique piece of land in many aspects. Its special landscape, flora and fauna attracts scientists from all over the world. And also in the political sphere it has an exceptional status. Since humans have never lived in the Antarctic, it has no native population and nation states were never formed. This does not mean that political interests would be absent from Antarctica. Because of its special situation, it has become a playground for testing political arrangements.

Everyone Gets a Slice

During the times of human discoveries and expeditions, the Antarctic was seen as a significant challenge for science and nations, which led to the famous race 1911 to be the first person at the South Pole between Amundsen (Norway) and Scott (UK).

This part of the world became interesting again during the Cold War–but not in terms of exploitation between the superpowers, as it was with the race into space or to the Mariana Trench. Instead, scientific research in the Antarctic expanded at the end of the 50s, built upon the exchange of knowledge within the international scientific community.

Naturally, some conflicts and disagreements existed, but in 1961 the Antarctic Treaty was created and signed, which fixed the political neutrality of the Antarctic, as well as that it cannot be used by any military or for the disposal of nuclear waste. For the protection of the Antarctic continent and for peaceful research, international cooperation is necessary, which is why the Treaty puts the discussion about claims aside.

Seven nations had made territorial claims in the Antarctic before 1961: “New Zealand, Australia, France, Norway, the United Kingdom, Chile, and Argentina”. Those got accepted within the Atlantic Treaty (which was central for getting the countries to agree) with the condition, that these claims cannot change and no new claims can be raised. Plus, important for political peace: all countries that signed the treaty but do not possess a territorial claim, have access to the whole Antarctic region. The territorial claims therefore still exist unchanged today, looking on a map like irregular pieces of cake, with one piece unclaimed.

The governance of the Antarctic has always been an example of international communication, understanding and peaceful governance – during the Cold War as well as nowadays, in the absence of an Antarctic government. Countries that engage actively in the Antarctic research meet annually in the framework of the Antarctic Treaty to discuss governance and administrative questions.

The only residents in Antarctica these days are scientists. They come from various countries and work in research stations of their governments, whereby they are an example of international cooperation and understanding, within their scientific work as well as private life in the Antarctic.

The White Continent Becomes Interesting – Future Challenges

With the exhaustion of the earth’s natural resources, new interest in the Antarctic has been rising. Huge reserves of natural resources such as coal, oil and minerals are hidden under the ice that covers the Antarctic continent. With the contemporary technology, it would not make sense economically to get through to them, but in the future it certainly will. Furthermore, bioprospecting found with the wildlife in Antarctica make a new potential source for Genetics and Biochemicals.

For purposes of environmental protection, mining is forbidden; as is fishing. The question is, whether this will change and whether the Antarctic Treaty can be preserved under the new pressures. The rapidly growing tourism and the environmental questions are the biggest threats for the Antarctic itself and create challenges for its governance. The Antarctic ice is particularly sensitive to climate change and further melting will uncover under the ice’s hidden resources. The consequences might be a new heated-up competition among countries to save the access to these resources. The situation raises questions about who the resources belong to, and whether the Antarctic treaty will be able to govern and make decisions then.

The Antarctic Treaty was, until now, very successful in keeping peace, science as the priority of activity, and protecting the environment from exploitation. But the agreement on the ban of mining will end in 2048. Illegal fishing exists already and the question is whether states will, in the future, ignore the agreements that the peace in the Antarctic is built upon.

Questions to Ask

The pressure on the Antarctic will environmentally and politically increase in the decades to come. This article does not try to make predictions, since it is hard to foresee what will happen. It rather wants to pull back this often forgotten continent into everyone’s mind and point to the questions that will determine its future and that we should pay attention to:

Can the Antarctic Treaty be preserved as it functions today? Or does it need to be changed? What shape should it take? How can the international community react in case of treaty violations? Should the Antarctic belong to humans at all or should it be freed from our will to rule every part of the earth? Is it reasonable to uphold tourism in the Antarctic? These are questions to think about, that will determine the future of the Antarctic.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

Ship in Antarctica, Ronald Woan, CC BY-NC 2.0

Research station in Antarctica, Ronald Woan, CC BY-NC 2.0

topographic map Antarctica, GRID Arendal, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The post Antarctica: The Forgotten Continent appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.