Blog

Turning the Tide: How Invasive Seaweed Is Becoming a Biofuel Solution Calls for climate reparations have come from leaders including those in the Caribbean. Climate reparations are essentially payments from countries that have significantly contributed to the climate crisis and economically benefited from doing so. Caribbean leaders have called for reparations because their countries are vulnerable and have suffered from the effects of climate change through rising sea levels and worsening storms, but they have done little to contribute to the problem (Handy). It is understandable that they would like compensation for the harm they have suffered from the countries who contributed towards worsening climate change and benefited from those contributions. I think what is interesting to note though is that it is human advancement which has majorly contributed towards climate change. Usage of fossil fuels has led to the climate crisis, but it also had positive impacts: we now have energy for electricity, transportation, and industrial processes and this led to technological and economic progress. The problem is that this came at a cost and now we are facing the effects of climate change through rising temperatures, rising sea levels, drought etc.   Invasive Seaweed One of the effects of climate change is an invasive seaweed that is washing up on Caribbean beaches- the seaweed is called Sargassum. Tourism is a huge part of the economy in the Caribbean, but Sargassum has a horrible smell as it rots and that repels tourists. Plus, it’s not just affecting the economy, it’s also damaging to human health due to the gases it releases and it harms the environment (Handy). While it is damaging to the Caribbean in this current context, it is interesting to note that the seaweed is not inherently harmful. In the ocean, Sargassum is a floating habitat that feeds and houses many animals (Ocean Exploration). It plays an important role in the ocean ecosystem, but it is not meant to be washing up on the shores of these countries. In these different circumstances, this naturally occurring seaweed becomes harmful towards coastal ecosystems, the economy and public health (National Ocean Service). It is important to keep in mind that Sargassum is not inherently harmful and it does serve an important purpose in the ocean. It is simply that the Sargassum’s environment has changed and so its impact has changed.   Repurposing Sargassum There are few things that are one-dimensional. Most issues are multifaceted and its different aspects should be considered. For instance, Sargassum does not just have a positive or negative impact; it depends on the environment it is placed in. Similarly, human advancement may have contributed to climate change but it also led to technological and economic progress. In this specific context, while human advancement may have caused the problem of Sargassum on Caribbean shores, it also led to a solution where scientists used Sargassum to create biofuel. Dr Henry took advantage of an issue that was facing Barbados to create a fuel source that reduced reliance on expensive imported fossil fuels and helped the Caribbean towards its goal of zero emissions (Handy). She was able to find a solution when faced with this environmental issue that will work towards minimizing the impact of the problem and contribute positively towards the environment and the economy.   Reframing Issues While it is true that there would have been no need for Dr Henry’s team to create Sargassum biofuel if there had been no Sargassum causing what Barbados’ Prime Minister called a national emergency, we cannot fix or change what has already happened (Handy). We need to look forward and work towards how we can better the situation. While it is important to learn from history, we cannot change it and so we should be actively working towards improvement. For instance, colonial countries are the ones who have largely contributed to the climate crisis, and also tend to be better developed and have more resources compared to colonized countries. As a result, many people from developing countries may move to more developed countries due to the professional opportunities available or for a better standard of life- this is referred to as brain drain. This is a reinforcing cycle where skilled people move to developed countries which benefits the developed countries’ economy. While this is negatively impacting developing countries like those in the Caribbean, we cannot go back and change the fact that these countries were colonized. What can be done is to use the resources of colonial countries to help developing countries- this is what climate reparations could potentially do. Reverse brain drain is another example where people from developing countries learn or gain experience in developed countries due to the opportunities available there and then bring their skills back home. Dr Henry and her husband are both from the Caribbean and studied in the US, but they wanted to come back to the Caribbean to help build up the region (Handy). We cannot go back and change what has already happened, but we can move forward and use the tools that may have disadvantaged us to have a positive impact. FAQs 1. What is Sav? Sav is a money-management app, allowing you to stick to your money goals, plan for the future, and spend confidently in the present.Your Sav card helps you meet your goals – just connect your bank account, top up your Sav card, choose goals you would like to set aside money for, and apply rules that automatically allocate funds toward your goals. The money set aside for your goals is safe. It is always available on your prepaid card and held with our partner financial institutions licensed by the CB UAE.You can use your Sav card to get additional rewards and cashbacks while spending. Check out our offer page to find the latest deals and promotions. 2. Is Sav a bank? No, ‘Sav Technologies Limited’ is a technology company registered in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, UAE, with registration number # 5474. Through …

Turning the Tide: How Invasive Seaweed Is Becoming a Biofuel Solution Read More »

Can Pretrial Publicity Impact Jury Fairness? A Look at the Mangione Case Jury trials allow the public to decide the outcome of a case. Justice is taken from the hands of the state and given to ordinary people. This acts as a form of protection for defendants against the power of the state (Iorns & Co). The jurors are meant to be fair and impartial and they can be questioned in order to determine whether they will act accordingly. However, considering the publicity around Luigi Mangione, it raises the question on whether the jurors can still be fair and impartial. There have been studies which looked at the impact of pretrial publicity on a jury and research suggests that publicity can influence the likelihood of a verdict. This publicity tends to rely on police and prosecution accounts, and so the bias is normally against the defendant (Abrams and Calkins). However, for Mangione, the publicity has been quite positive and a lot of the media attention surrounding the case is on why he is innocent or why his actions are justifiable.   Social Media Sympathy The positive publicity surrounding the case has been recognized and US Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has commented on how alarming he finds the idolization of a murderer (Evans). People online either believe Mangione is innocent because the “eyebrows don’t match” or because there is simply too much evidence, or they defend him because they think he was justified in his actions. There are a lot of negative emotions attached to the American health insurance industry and those emotions have fueled support for Mangione. This has led to actions like people funding his defense through various platforms. Hence, it is quite clear that he has garnered a lot of public support. While it is true that people have always had access to the news and other people’s opinions, the Mangione case has received a lot of attention and I think that will have a more significant impact on influencing jurors’ perspectives (Suciu). This is especially because social media acts as an echo chamber and it would be easier to be influenced when all the discourse seems to indicate that a viewpoint is held by the majority of people.   Other Similar Cases This isn’t the first time people have reacted way to an alleged killer. O.J. Simpson had fans cheering for him during his car chase and people even sold merch outside the courthouse (Arntfield). With Mangione, people are frustrated with the health insurance system and so they support him. Similarly with O.J. Simpson, there was a lot of support for him due to concerns with systemic racism. These individuals become symbols and so people flock to support them because of what they represent. In these cases, the jury may be inclined to not pass a guilty verdict even if they “believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law” (Suciu). This can either be seen as the jury exercising their function in a case that they think is unjust or it may be a failing on the part of the legal system to not have an impartial and fair jury. Nevertheless, the jury will be acting in a way that they think is fair, even if objectively their actions may be considered otherwise. In a situation where a jury is expected to be fair and impartial, it then raises the question of how we define fairness. Obviously, there is a certain understood definition which is what lawyers use when selecting a jury. However, fairness is an intangible concept which has many definitions and so the question of whether pretrial publicity would affect a jury’s fairness would be dependent on how we understand fairness. FAQs 1. What is Sav? Sav is a money-management app, allowing you to stick to your money goals, plan for the future, and spend confidently in the present.Your Sav card helps you meet your goals – just connect your bank account, top up your Sav card, choose goals you would like to set aside money for, and apply rules that automatically allocate funds toward your goals. The money set aside for your goals is safe. It is always available on your prepaid card and held with our partner financial institutions licensed by the CB UAE.You can use your Sav card to get additional rewards and cashbacks while spending. Check out our offer page to find the latest deals and promotions. 2. Is Sav a bank? No, ‘Sav Technologies Limited’ is a technology company registered in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, UAE, with registration number # 5474. Through our banking partnership with Mashreq Bank, VISA and NymCard, we provide VISA prepaid cards. 3. Does Sav issue bank accounts? No, Sav does not issue any bank accounts. Instead, Sav offers prepaid Visa cards issued by our partner bank, Mashreq Bank PSC, pursuant to their license from Visa. The money in your savings goals is always held with our partner bank in your individual Sav Card.  4. How is my Mashreq account different to the Sav account? At Sav, we do not issue any bank account. It’s a prepaid Visa card. Share article Instagram Linkedin Facebook-square Twitter-square

Is Pardon Power Excessive? Examining Presidential Pardons While presidential pardons are not unique to the US, these pardons tend to happen at the end of a presidential term due to potential ramifications (Roosevelt). Hence, as President Biden is leaving office, we have the opportunity to see how this power is being exercised. Controversially, Biden decided to pardon his son despite initially saying he would not do so. While Biden has the ability to issue presidential pardons, when this ability is used to pardon family members then it raises questions on if this power extends beyond what Presidents should be able to do. Should Presidents have the ability to pardon their family members for their crimes?   Royal Prerogative This power is reminiscent of the British royal prerogative and does in fact come from the UK (Roosevelt). Considering the US is not a monarchy, it feels odd that the President has this power. Nevertheless, as they are both Heads of State, it makes sense for the power to be with the President more than anyone else. However, the royal prerogative exists because the Crown had arbitrary authority through their supreme power and this is not true for the US. Hence, it seems odd for the President to be exercising the same power that the Crown in the UK does. Law travels and the US was a British colony which is likely why the British royal prerogative was used to form the American presidential pardon. Nevertheless, as this is a power that resides solely within the President, it seems open to exploitation.   Constraints on Pardon Power It appears to be a barrier to justice if the President has the capacity to pardon whomever he would like. However, the power is apparently not limitless. For instance, the Supreme Court has said that the pardon power is to be exercised in the public interest (Tudor and Florence). That justification seems weak when looking at pardoning family members, but if Biden’s son was unfairly targeted then there could be public interest reasons to pardon him. Moreover, there are constitutional constraints on pardon power. This means that Presidents cannot be above the law- which is important when considering the source of the law and its implication in a democratic context- and that it cannot be used to obstruct justice as that would be criminal and unlawful (Tudor and Florence). Understanding that this power has its constraints is reassuring because it means that the President does not have unlimited power.   Benefits of Pardon Power There are benefits to having a President with pardon power. The idea behind it was to prevent miscarriages of justice, to allow acts of mercy, and to help society move forward in politically charged cases (Roosevelt). In cases like military personnel and veterans being convicted for offences based on their sexual orientation, it makes sense for Biden to be able to pardon them (FitzGerald). Biden was not going against the laws of the land, he was merely pardoning those convicted under a now repealed law.   Preemptive Pardons An interesting aspect of pardon power is the ability to grant preemptive pardons. This is what President Ford issued to President Nixon for Watergate. Nixon was never charged with anything, but Ford still pardoned him (Arnold). Similarly, Biden considered preemptively pardoning critics of Trump as Trump has suggested that he will prosecute them. However, there are worries that this would be contrary to what pardon power was intended for: acts of mercy and defusing societal tensions (Hutchinson). Moreover, in Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt (NCC Staff). If these critics have done nothing wrong, they may not want to accept the pardons if it may mean that they have to accept that they were also guilty of the offence. In conclusion, while pardon power may be quite broad, it still has its limits and it is quite reassuring that there are checks on how this power is exercised as it prevents exploitation of it in theory. I think that there are benefits to a president having this power and this is evidenced in history. I also feel it is quite natural to be skeptical when this type of power is used to benefit immediate family members, but I would like to believe that if President Biden did overstep his bounds then there would be measures taken to react to the abuse of power. FAQs 1. What is Sav? Sav is a money-management app, allowing you to stick to your money goals, plan for the future, and spend confidently in the present.Your Sav card helps you meet your goals – just connect your bank account, top up your Sav card, choose goals you would like to set aside money for, and apply rules that automatically allocate funds toward your goals. The money set aside for your goals is safe. It is always available on your prepaid card and held with our partner financial institutions licensed by the CB UAE.You can use your Sav card to get additional rewards and cashbacks while spending. Check out our offer page to find the latest deals and promotions. 2. Is Sav a bank? No, ‘Sav Technologies Limited’ is a technology company registered in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, UAE, with registration number # 5474. Through our banking partnership with Mashreq Bank, VISA and NymCard, we provide VISA prepaid cards. 3. Does Sav issue bank accounts? No, Sav does not issue any bank accounts. Instead, Sav offers prepaid Visa cards issued by our partner bank, Mashreq Bank PSC, pursuant to their license from Visa. The money in your savings goals is always held with our partner bank in your individual Sav Card.  4. How is my Mashreq account different to the Sav account? At Sav, we do not issue any bank account. It’s a prepaid Visa card. Share article Instagram Linkedin Facebook-square Twitter-square

What Does It Mean to Be Stateless? The Legal and Humanitarian Implications of Being Without a Nationality As a global society, we are becoming increasingly interconnected. People may hold one passport but be born in another and live in several more. As a result, some people find it difficult to identify where they are “from”. While this often refers to your nationality, when a person has spent their entire life living abroad it can be difficult to feel connected to a particular country and identify their country of nationality as where they are from. However, nationality is also a legal status and sometimes there is no legal answer to the question. While some people may find it difficult to identify with their nationality, there are others who have no nationality. Stateless people are those that are legally not considered nationals of any country. How can you become stateless? In the movie The Terminal, a man becomes stateless because of a coup d’etat that occurred in his country. He was suddenly stuck in an US airport because his papers were no longer valid and he could not leave the airport to either enter the US or return back home. This does not just happen in the movies. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many Soviet citizens were not able to gain the nationality of the new states in which they resided (Thomson Reuters Foundation). When people are not considered nationals, it can be implied that the state has no duty to protect the individual. As a result, it can be more difficult for them to access their basic rights and they will not have any documents (Versea). This is especially problematic once you understand that most known stateless populations belong to minority groups (UNHCR). It is a problem when those that are inherently vulnerable have no obligation by their state to be protected. The additional vulnerability that is created through becoming stateless is not unknown and one of the ways in which a person can become stateless is through discrimination because of ethnic or religious background or belonging to a minority group (UNHCR). This is evidenced by the Rohingya genocide which resulted in most of the Rohingya people losing their citizenship. Can you be born stateless? Globalization As might have been evident in the last paragraph, you can be born stateless. The world is becoming increasingly globalized and so the risk that you might be stateless increases due to gaps in citizenship laws. For instance, someone with an Andorran father and an Iranian mother born anywhere without birthright citizenship would have no nationality. Plus, a Sudanese father born abroad would not be able to pass his nationality to his child. Also, to be considered Tunisian, your father and paternal grandfather need to have been born in Tunisia. Additionally, a Finnish woman born abroad or a Finnish man having a child out of wedlock both cannot pass their nationality on to their child (World Population Review). These gaps in nationality laws become more evident as more people are born abroad, do not live in their home country, or marry those with other nationalities. Article 1 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness requires states to grant its nationality to those born stateless in their territory (Versea). This helps ensure those that are stateless have an avenue to gain legal protection. Birthright Citizenship Birthright citizenship assists in preventing statelessness as it allows children born in a country to gain the citizenship of that country. Countries that offer this are primarily in North and South America and it is likely because European countries wanted to promote immigration during colonial times (World Population Review). This may no longer be the case in the US as President-elect Trump would like to end birthright citizenship (Sheerin). However, seeing as this right is based on the US constitution, I believe it will be difficult to remove birthright citizenship. Being legally stateless has legal ramifications and can make it difficult for you to access your basic rights. While being a citizen of the world is becoming increasingly common; unfortunately, not having that type of legal link to a state is not a positive thing. Fortunately, some countries allow declarations of statelessness so that people can gain a nationality but this is not true everywhere. FAQs 1. What is Sav? Sav is a money-management app, allowing you to stick to your money goals, plan for the future, and spend confidently in the present.Your Sav card helps you meet your goals – just connect your bank account, top up your Sav card, choose goals you would like to set aside money for, and apply rules that automatically allocate funds toward your goals. The money set aside for your goals is safe. It is always available on your prepaid card and held with our partner financial institutions licensed by the CB UAE.You can use your Sav card to get additional rewards and cashbacks while spending. Check out our offer page to find the latest deals and promotions. 2. Is Sav a bank? No, ‘Sav Technologies Limited’ is a technology company registered in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, UAE, with registration number # 5474. Through our banking partnership with Mashreq Bank, VISA and NymCard, we provide VISA prepaid cards. 3. Does Sav issue bank accounts? No, Sav does not issue any bank accounts. Instead, Sav offers prepaid Visa cards issued by our partner bank, Mashreq Bank PSC, pursuant to their license from Visa. The money in your savings goals is always held with our partner bank in your individual Sav Card.  4. How is my Mashreq account different to the Sav account? At Sav, we do not issue any bank account. It’s a prepaid Visa card. Share article Instagram Linkedin Facebook-square Twitter-square

Regulating Social Media for Kids: Ban or Better Solutions? Regulating new technology is often a reactive process. There tends to not be enough data about the effects of new technology and so it can be difficult for regulators to predict or understand how to regulate the new technology (Kaal). For instance, the first social media platform was launched in 1977 (sciencepod). Plus, social media only started to gain popularity in the early 2000s and so it is still a relatively new technology. Moreover, the way generations interact and use technology is adapting over the years and so we are still developing the role social media plays in our lives. Hence, as the law is constantly developing to reflect our current understanding and beliefs, this also extends to how the law treats social media which has resulted in the thought that underage use of social media should be banned. Reasons Behind Banning As I mentioned, social media is relatively new and so there is limited research on its long-term effects. However, there are multiple studies that show links between heavy social media use and increased risk for for depression, anxiety, loneliness, self-harm and suicidal thoughts (Robinson and Smith). Therefore, while we may not have extensive research on its long-term effects, it would not be far-fetched to imagine that it is not ideal. Children are the future of our society and there is an urge to protect them as they can be vulnerable due to their age. Those that are older, including parents and regulators, will likely feel an obligation to protect children. This may seem paternalistic, but within this particular relationship of children and adults, I believe there is a responsibility on those older to take certain measures to protect children. In this situation, I think this can be considered a case of liberal paternalism using Mill’s example of the bridge- that if a child had all the information surrounding the topic that they would choose not to use social media. On the other hand, that may be overly simplistic as many adults know the harmful effects of social media but still choose to use it. Hence, why would we presume to remove that autonomy from children? I think that this comes down to the fact that we believe adults are able to make those decisions and have the right to act in a harmful way towards themselves. Children are restricted from a multitude of things: for things like alcohol and nicotine it is because it is more harmful when you are young, and for others it is a matter of competency. Society tends not to believe that children are competent enough to make those decisions and so till they are able to do so, those older make those decisions for them. Effect of Banning Social Media Banning social media is not just a hypothetical discussion. The Australian government has recently banned social media for those under 16 (Ritchie 2024b). This has naturally created debate because, like most things, social media is multi-faceted; it has its benefits through allowing people to connect with those they care about globally, access communities, express themselves etc. As a result, they are those who are concerned that banning social media will lead children to use less regulated platforms (Ritchie 2024b). Social media will also still exist in other countries and so children are likely to turn to other platforms in order to continue engaging in that sphere. Social media is extremely prevalent and I think most children will look for replacements or access it illegally. And so, if children are going to illegally access social media, should it still be banned? I think it reduces the effectiveness as I believe the aim of the ban is to protect children and if it simply leads them to unregulated platforms then it may defeat the point. However, the Australian Prime Minister acknowledges that while the ban may not be implemented perfectly, having the ban is the right thing to do (Ritchie 2024b). Hence, the ban is operating as a symbol and, as the aim is to represent the view that social media should be banned, it likely comes as a moot point that it may not be effective.   Banning vs Regulating Commissioner Grant is organizing the implementation and enforcement of the Australian ban, but she would rather focus on investing in educating children and having cleaner platforms. Moreover, over 100 Australian academics think the ban is “too blunt” and that it does not assist children in having safe access to digital environments. The Australian government has acknowledged this and says it will eventually implement “digital duty of care laws” (Ritchie 2024a). This reflects how a ban is not the whole solution in how to respond to social media. The UK is also planning on introducing tougher regulation on underage use of social media and this has caused social media companies to adopt strategies to protect children. TikTok will restrict the use of their beauty filters over concerns on its effect on self-esteem, Roblox is going to prevent their younger users from accessing more violent and crude content over warnings of child grooming, and Instagram is introducing teen accounts which will give parents greater control (Booth). These strategies may be more effective at controlling how children access social media than a straight ban. For example, while France blocked access to social media for those under 15 without parental consent, research shows that almost half of users used VPN to get around it (Ritchie 2024a). Therefore, working with social platforms to regulate may prove more effective in protecting children. As a result, I think that even if a ban is used that it should not be the whole solution. I find the strategies employed by the social platforms above to be interesting, and I think that governments and social media platforms should work together when devising these strategies as it could create novel, effective solutions. FAQs 1. What is Sav? Sav is a money-management app, allowing you …

Regulating Social Media for Kids: Ban or Better Solutions? Read More »

Should Women’s Autonomy Be Compromised to Solve Japan’s Declining Birth Rate? No university education after 18, no marriages after 25, and no uteruses after 30. Naoki Hyakuta, leader of the Conservative Party of Japan, suggested these policies as a response to Japan’s declining birth rate. After receiving backlash, he apologized and said that it was meant as a “science-fiction storyline” (Sharma). This appears similar to Badenoch, who after her comments on maternity pay led to backlash, said that her comments were misrepresented. Hyakuta’s comments are much more extreme than Badenoch’s, but similarly he failed to realize the fallacy in his apology. While he may say that he does not advocate for such measures, believing that policies that go that far are necessary for change means that Hyakuta sees similar policies as needed.   Sparking a Debate While Hyakuta allegedly wanted to start a debate, I do not think that politicians in positions of power who have the ability to make laws have the luxury to suggest such policies without the public believing that this represents their views. While this may not be the case if the context was clear, the backlash that ensued shows that it was not. Further, while this may start a debate on how to solve the declining birth rate, starting a debate on restricting women’s autonomy by using forced hysterectomies suggests that that the policy is one that can be defended. I think this is especially problematic in a country that places 120 out of 153 countries in gender equality (Ipsos). When women are already not being treated as equal to men, presenting the idea that their rights to marriage, to reproduction, and to education can be stripped away in the name of national concerns is problematic. Hyakuta is a lawmaker, a Party leader, and has a large audience and so these “hypothetical debates” could lead to worsening inequality.   Restricting Autonomy The policies that Hyakuta suggested are those that would strip women’s rights and limit their autonomy. It would be ridiculous to suggest that autonomy is the be-all and end-all right. Western countries are the ones that have recently been placing importance on autonomy and respecting autonomy, but even they limit it. People tend to have their right to autonomy as long as it does not harm another person, if it does not interfere with national security, etc. Limitations on autonomy are normal because the law cannot place one value above everything else. Legal systems have numerous rules and values that may conflict with each other, and so a balancing exercise ensues where each is weighed against each other in specific contexts. For instance, it is important for most countries to have a military and in order to have people in the army, countries globally have mandatory service. This includes countries like Greece, Thailand, Sweden, Iran, etc. In these situations, autonomy is limited for the good of the country. The importance of autonomy may potentially be more limited in collectivist cultures which prioritizes the good of the community over the individual, but autonomy will always have limitations regardless of the country due to the importance of other values or concerns.   National Concerns over Decreasing Birth Rate What is Causing It These policies were suggested as part of debate in order to spark conversation on how to solve Japan’s decreasing birth rate. This is because a popular belief is that Japan’s population is shrinking because women are putting their careers first (Semuels). Hence, Hyakuta’s suggestions of restricting access to higher education and putting a time limit on marriage and children are so that women are more likely to focus on their families. However, a major reason for the low birth rate is economic instability. With high living costs, bleak job prospects, and a tough work culture, people are reluctant to get married and have children (Economic Times). They know that it would be difficult to afford to raise children and the current corporate culture in Japan is not conducive to raising a family. Moreover, the bleak job prospects means that most young men are not attractive marriage prospects (East-West Center). As men are widely expected to be the breadwinners in Japan, a lack of employment opportunities means there are less marriages occurring (Semuels). Most of Japan’s current policies focus on supporting married couples with raising a family, and so this aspect of the declining birth rate is not being tackled as extensively (Economic Times). The Impact This Has This has presented two main issues for Japan. The first is that Japan is looking to fortify its military, which will be difficult with an aging population (Economic Times). The second is the economic implications of having a shrinking workforce and fewer adults in the future to support the economy.   Why Women’s Autonomy Is More Important Are those concerns more important than the autonomy of women? More specifically, are the severe restrictions that Hyakuta’s policies would implement on women justifiable in the name of improving Japan’s birth rate. This is because while we have established that restrictions on autonomy are common in legal systems, there is a difference between that and the extreme measures that Hyakuta suggested. Access to Higher Education While Hyakuta suggested barring women from higher education, the fact that he did not suggest completely removing their access to education makes me presume that he either understood that education was important or he thought that suggesting it would be so extreme that it would take away from the point he was attempting to make. Removing women’s access to higher education makes them more unemployable in a country that already has bleak job prospects. Considering Japan wants to increase the birth rate and studies show higher female employment rates lead to higher birth rates, it may be counterproductive to make women focus on families at the expense of their careers without their consent (Wingfield-Hayes). Moreover, 70% of women quit working after their first child and will need to rely on their husband’s salary (Semuels). …

Should Women’s Autonomy Be Compromised to Solve Japan’s Declining Birth Rate? Read More »