Skip to main content

Tim Marshall - Five Way Interview

Tim Marshall is a leading authority on foreign affairs with more than 30 years of reporting experience. He was diplomatic editor at Sky News, and before that was working for the BBC and LBC/IRN radio. He has reported from 40 countries and covered conflicts in Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. He is the author of the No. 1 Sunday Times bestsellers Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps that Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics (which has sold over 2 million copies worldwide) and The Power of Geography: Ten Maps that Reveal the Future of Our World. His latest book is The Future of Geography.

Why geography?  

After World War 2 the ‘geo’ in geopolitics fell out of fashion, but as a foreign correspondent, I always made sure to explain not just what was going on, but why it was going on – and I found that so often where it was going on played a big part. Geography often remains an overlooked factor in reporting on international affairs despite being one – I emphasize one – of the determining factors in what's happening. It’s important to remember that geography doesn’t just cover the topography of a place, but encompasses things such as demographics, economics, and technology, all of which can be key issues in global events.

Why this book? 

The blindingly obvious finally became apparent to me. I'd been covering international relations for thirty years, and then I noticed that so much of it was increasingly happening in space. The more I looked at it the more I realised that the technological advances allowing the new space race were converging with the economic and military imperatives driving Space 2.0. What was taking place in space was reflective of our conflicts and alliances on Earth – and ultimately what happens up there is going to have a fundamental impact on us down here. So I believe it’s becoming more and more important that people are made aware of how this is all going to affect them.

Do you hold out any hope for things not going horribly wrong (in an astropolitical sense) in space?  

Yes! It’s true that humans have a history of using new inventions for terrible acts. The printing press fuelled the witch-hunting craze by enabling the mass circulation of negative propaganda about them, contributing to many deaths. Planes were used to bomb cities. The internet led to social media… So while there are many accelerating negative effects that will be caused by competition in space, including militarisation, there are many positive opportunities that will arise, including potentially helping us to reverse climate change. There is an arms race in space, there will be 'incidents' but we will also reach a stage where the great powers realise they need new treaties to govern everyone’s activities and mitigate the risks, just as they did after a few years of the nuclear arms race. 

What’s next?  

Support the paperback version of The Future of Geography in the near future . . . I do have two possible new two projects in mind, so watch this space. 

What’s exciting you at the moment?  

The attacking formation of Leeds United FC! But in the realm of space, there are constant new developments that are worth getting excited about. The recent race to see whether Russia or India would be the next to land a craft on the moon was an interesting one, with all sorts of implications for international relations on Earth. The fact that Russia failed and India did not speaks volumes about their roles in the future of space exploration. The Caltech team that managed to wirelessly transfer energy from a solar panel in space down to earth is a significant breakthrough. These are events that have the potential to have huge ramifications for the future of humanity. 


 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more