G. Mudalige is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Technology & Innovation
Image Source : Javier Hirschfeld
Every day, we encounter a flood of online images, from social media feeds to search engine results. With over 6 hours a day spent online, these visuals dominate our daily experience. Surprisingly, recent research suggests that this visual overload isn’t merely passive—it actively influences how we perceive the world, altering implicit biases and shaping our beliefs.
Our digital landscape is overflowing with images, which research shows can reinforce stereotypes. For instance, a recent study examined Google and IMDB search results for various occupations. When users searched terms like "CEO" or "TV reporter," results skewed heavily toward male representations. Conversely, searches like "housekeeper" or "nurse" predominantly displayed women. This distribution isn’t trivial—it reinforces long-standing gender biases. When people see certain images repeatedly, they internalize these visuals, subconsciously associating specific roles with specific genders or ethnicities. This visual association becomes a subtle form of social conditioning, shaping our implicit beliefs. According to Amanda Ruggeri’s exploration of media influence, "The more biased images we consume, the more implicitly biased we become ourselves."
A 2023 study provides insight into this process. Researchers divided participants into groups that searched occupations on Google using either text or images. Afterward, participants took an implicit association test to measure subconscious bias. Those who used image searches displayed much higher implicit biases than those who used text-based queries. These findings demonstrate that images are especially powerful in triggering internal biases, which linger longer in our minds. Such bias is further compounded by AI algorithms, which train on existing images. These models, like those in ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini, often reflect and amplify biases from prior images. As a result, when we rely on these AI tools, we may inadvertently absorb biases embedded in the technology, reinforcing a feedback loop that sustains stereotypes.
Given the influence of images on our subconscious, what can be done to minimize their impact? Technology companies hold a significant responsibility in promoting diverse, accurate representations. However, individuals can also take proactive steps. Curating social media feeds to include diverse voices and perspectives can help disrupt our “echo chambers.” Search phrasing adjustments can also lead to broader, more inclusive results, allowing us to consciously challenge stereotypes.One effective strategy is a “digital detox.” In The Visual Detox: How to Consume Media Without Letting It Consume You, Marine Tanguy recommends setting app time limits, removing unused apps, and embracing tech-free moments to reconnect with real-world perspectives. These practices help to reduce screen time and exposure to biased content.
Visual culture has changed drastically. Historically, humans spent most of their time looking at their environment and each other, not artificial images on screens. Today, however, the prevalence of digital images is unprecedented, affecting our worldview in profound, often unnoticed ways.
To regain balance, it’s essential to be aware of the impact images have on our perceptions. With mindful consumption and intentional curation, we can protect ourselves from the biases embedded within visual media and foster a more informed, unbiased perspective. Ultimately, taking control of our digital diet—by managing what we see and how often we see it—can lead to healthier, more objective views in an increasingly image-driven society.
C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.
On October 17th, former Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky outlined his purported “victory plan” to the EU, in which he called for increased military aid and a path to NATO membership, and deep strikes into Russia, with hopes of ending the war by next year. However, Ukraine joining NATO remains highly improbable - actually impossible!
Image Source : (President.gov.ua)
The origins of the current conflict can be traced back to 2008, when NATO expansion discussions first included Ukraine and Georgia, sparking a major rift with Russia. That moment in time set in motion the unraveling of Ukraine’s stability, which culminated in the events we’re seeing today.
The future of any peace will depend on which side holds the stronger position, and there’s no room for bluffing anymore. Russia has long made clear its opposition to NATO’s presence on its borders, while the West claims that it remains committed to supporting Ukraine. However, this creates a stalemate that is better described as a quagmire, where military strength and strategic alliances, or the lack thereof, will shape the ultimate outcome.
So far, it is not looking good in what has proved to be a Western sponsored proxy war. If NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table, as seems most likely, a lasting peace will require a different approach. Possible alternatives could include neutrality for Ukraine, a regional security pact, or even a frozen conflict. Ultimately, peace must come down to finding a solution that somehow respects Ukraine’s sovereignty but as a neutral state, and where the de-Nazification process has been effective, while at the same time addressing Russia’s security concerns about NATO’s eastward expansion and ensuring that the rearming of Ukraine and raising more armies for the next war does not happen.
It is becoming increasingly evident, day-by-day, that Zelensky’s regime is facing a multitude of internal and external challenges that could lead to its eventual collapse. The front lines are crumbling, and the strain on the government is showing in several ways. The Ukrainian parliament (Rada) is resisting efforts to lower the draft age for men, even considering drafting women, whereas desertions within the army are rising, with upwards of 75,000 this year alone.
For obvious reasons, there is a growing resistance to the draft itself, with widespread movements pushing back against forced conscription, including buying your way out. Additionally, corruption within the ranks of officials connected to the military draft is rampant, further undermining public confidence in the government’s ability to sustain any semblance of a war effort.
Compounding these problems are the internal power struggles within the government. Zelensky is reportedly at odds with key figures such as General Zaluzhny, former head of the army, and intelligence chief Budanov, both of whom are influential in Ukraine’s military and security apparatus. These feuds are weakening the unity and effectiveness of the government at a critical time.
All of this must be seen in the larger context of Ukraine’s failure to secure more advanced weaponry, particularly missiles, despite not knowing how to use them, a job done, it is believed, by NATO personnel acting as “volunteers”, and the billions of dollars in aid needed to sustain the war effort. International support, which once flowed freely, is now being not only questioned, but drying up, as the situation deteriorates for Ukraine on all fronts, including the previously lauded drive into Kursk Oblast.
Hence, Zelensky and his corrupted administration find themselves increasingly isolated, as the blind reliance on foreign aid has led them to a dead end, with few options for moving forward. The cracks in the regime are widening, and without decisive changes or support, the future of the government remains uncertain - especially that of Zelensky himself, whom many predict is on his way out, and the landing may not be so light.
Victory Plan is Road to Total Defeat
Zelensky’s five-point “victory plan,” in which he ruled out ceding Ukrainian territory, also called for an unconditional invitation for Kyiv to join the NATO alliance … but if anything is unconditional in this future peace deal, it will be unconditional surrender. It is described by the AP as Ukraine’s last resort to strengthen its hand in any future cease-fire negotiations with Russia.
Why should Russia back down now and roll over like a bug with its feet wiggling in the air when it is winning on all fronts and Ukraine, its army is crumbling, and it is getting close to winter, a winter that, due to the Russian destruction of up to 90% of Ukraine’s thermal power production, will be the grimmest in Ukraine in living memory.
The big question is, will the West be able to warm things up, especially relations?
Zelensky said granting Ukraine an invitation to NATO would be a “testament of determination” by its allies to support Kyiv. The former (his term of office has expired, remember) Ukrainian president has taken his wishful thinking to an unprecedented level, and his plight may befall other politicians skating on thin ice. He had talks on October 10 with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in Rome as part of a push to secure additional military and financial aid.
Zelenskiy met with Macron after talks in London with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who was in Kyiv last week after taking over at the helm of the military alliance.
Zelenskiy “outlined the details” of his proposed “victory plan” to defeat Russian forces in his meetings with these two stooges, and he was expected to give the same in his upcoming meeting with Meloni.
Perfect Storm Brewing for Destruction
There are more than enough internal problems in Ukraine, and also in most of Europe and NATO itself, and these problems have been made all the worse with the failure of the Kursk invasion, this “brilliant” operation having backfired badly.
It was seemingly intended to cause panic in the Russian government, making them withdraw troops from eastern Ukraine to counter it, and also hopefully cause a “popular uprising” against Putin. Instead, it simply motivated the Russians to double down. The planners should have realized this is hallowed ground for the Russians going back to 1943 and studied the lessons of the German defeat, and how this battle was a game changer. Rather than causing support for Putin to crumble, the effect has been the opposite, with a massive boost to voluntary recruiting in Russia, and support for Special Military Operation in general.
Instead, in the wake of high casualties in Kursk, and an increasingly ruthless “popular mobilization” which now targets concert-goers, restaurants, and even wedding celebrations, domestic support for Zelensky eroding, the same trend is speeding up in the West, especially in Europe and in the US in the countdown to US elections, and it is likely, if Trump is election, the game is over.
The Harsh Reality!
The situation remains on a knife edge, with acceptance of one part of Zelensky’s plan, the deep strikes on Russia using western weapons, more than likely to instigate a major escalation. It is well known that such weapons cannot be used without intelligence and satellite data from the west, and the use of western technicians to program and target such weapons. Russia has been repeatedly clear what will happen if such strikes are launched. But it seems that we are being saved not by cooler western heads, but by the fact that the US simply does not have enough of such weapons to give, without seriously weakening its own military.
What will be left of Ukraine will never be allowed to be a member of NATO, at least not until hell freezes over, the aims of the special operation are fully achieved, and the de-Nazification program is concluded. Too much is riding on seeing this process to the end, as was the case in East Germany, which pretty much explains why the AfD is faring well, especially among voters from what was the former East Germany, in local elections.
The hang on, term-expired, president, who refuses to step aside now that his term has ended, can huff and puff all he wants, visit all the crashing and burning leaders of Europe and claim that wants peace, but on whose terms will peace be made?
There will be no Peace with Honor, as Richard Nixon spoke about ending the Vietnam War, for Zelensky, or his backers! Unlike the Vietnam situation, where the U.S. could physically withdraw, Ukraine’s future is on the line. For Ukraine, there may be no path to a peace that preserves its territorial integrity, claimed sovereignty, and dignity, without substantial concessions and a change in mentality.
Russia, too, will never accept a settlement that doesn’t enshrine its strategic gains and original objectives for the SMO, especially regarding NATO’s proximity to its borders. In this context, any peace deal—if it is ever reached—will likely come without honor. The legacy of such a peace would be fragile, and, like post-Vietnam, the scars of a prolonged and costly conflict will likely linger for generations, not only in Ukraine but for much of Europe.
It’s harder for the US to get out of Ukraine than Vietnam because it’s dirty and deeper. And now Zelensky wants nukes. He sold himself to US, and it didn’t go as planned. Now he is so desperate!
Zelensky says, “it would be horrible if Biden didn’t support Ukraine’s victory plan, which includes NATO membership”, however, horrible for whom, besides Zelensky and his corrupted minions.
C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.
Political leaders are increasingly proposing more finance as the solution to global development challenges. While this is certainly necessary, it will also be important for multilateral development banks to encourage the standardization of innovative instruments and their integration into developing countries’ economic policy.
Image Source : (Eoneren/Getty Images)
Whenever the world’s financial and political leaders convene – whether at the G20 summit, the United Nations General Assembly, or the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings – the most urgent development challenges are nearly always on the agenda. Increasingly, the solution these leaders propose to such problems, from poverty alleviation and public-health crises to climate change and the energy transition, is more financing.
They are not wrong. Addressing each of these challenges requires more than a trillion dollars. For example, Latin America and the Caribbean need $2.2 trillion to invest in sustainable infrastructure, while emerging markets worldwide require $1.5 trillion per year for such projects. And much of this financing will come from multilateral development banks (MDBs), which have already started to use their balance sheets more aggressively.
But equally important is MDBs’ innovative deployment of instruments – including capital-market mechanisms, structured finance, and sustainability-linked bonds – to mobilize more public and private finance for such investments. Moreover, MDBs are offering guarantees, debt swaps, contingency financing without commitment fees, and climate-resilience clauses to client countries in exchange for commitments to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions and protect nature.
To be sure, these instruments are not necessarily new. The Code of Hammurabi, which is nearly 4,000 years old, allows for the suspension of debt payments following a flood or drought. The use of green capital-market instruments dates back to at least the 1640s, when Dutch water boards issued perpetual bonds to finance improvements to local canals. And credit guarantees have existed since the nineteenth century.
The innovation is that MDBs have introduced these instruments into cross-border finance. Facilitating further progress requires ensuring that they are integrated into developing countries’ economic policies and become standardized – and thus replicable.
For many emerging and developing economies, balancing economic growth with poverty alleviation and climate objectives is the central challenge. Their governments must deploy the full range of available financial tools to combat global warming while ensuring that these efforts result in productivity gains and growth. Otherwise, their debt will become unsustainable.
The energy transition, for example, requires investing in renewables, expanding transmission networks to overcome the intermittency problem, and mitigating the risk of stranded fossil-fuel assets. In the many developing countries where utilities are financially constrained, the burden is unaffordable. Climate finance thus requires economic policymaking that considers the ability of consumers and taxpayers to repay these investments. Policies related to pricing, regulation, sector planning, and the investment environment will increasingly determine financial viability.
The dramatic increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather also requires a shift in economic thinking. Finance ministers generally rely on emergency-response financing to rebuild after such events, based on the belief that catastrophes are few and far between. However, the most intense hurricanes are now more than three times more frequent than they were a century ago, droughts last longer, and more predictable events, such as seasonal storms, are increasingly severe. Worse, disasters – including pandemics – are increasingly overlapping.
Governments must therefore use proactive financial instruments - from loans that finance flood management systems to guarantees that support climate-change adaptation - to build resilience before extreme weather events occur. Each dollar spent on advance planning can save up to $13 in reconstruction costs when a crisis hits, minimizing emergency borrowing.
Another innovation is the standardization of available mechanisms. This includes clarity on their intended use, because markets must understand the benefits accruing from instruments that incentivize sustainable practices in order to price them properly. To that end, the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently issued guidance for the listing of carbon-offset derivatives, and the International Sustainability Standards Board is focusing on developing green bond standards. If we want voluntary carbon markets to grow, and the price of green finance to reflect the real value of addressing climate change and supplying global public goods, then how such instruments are used must be verifiable and easily comprehensible.
The cost of not investing in climate mitigation and resilience, as well as other development goals, increases every year, making guarantees and insurance products ever more expensive in the most vulnerable and least prepared countries. MDBs should provide more green financing, but standardizing innovative instruments and encouraging their use in economic policymaking are just as important.
