Intuitively, the argument that digital media is dumbing us down is plausible but....

Screens and social media get the blame, but the real problem lies in how we measure intelligence in the first place

Stuart Jefferies

In the past decade, researchers have found data suggesting that, on average, the populations of developed Western countries are becoming more stupid. It’s a reversal of the so-called Flynn Effect, named after the New Zealand philosopher and intelligence researcher James Flynn. In the 1980s, Flynn had shown that, between the 1930s and the 1970s, average intelligence rose by three IQ points per decade in the United States and in other Western nations, a trend that seemed to persist until the 1990s. But then in the early years of the 21st century, Flynn noticed something disturbing: IQ scores for even the brightest children in the US and the UK had started to decline. And in Nordic nations, Flynn projected that average national intelligence scores – some of which had been declining since the mid-1990s – could drop by around seven IQ points over the following 30 years.

Plenty of reasons are given for this decline. In November 2025, Lane Brown, a feature writer for New York magazine, cited several possible factors: outsourcing our cognitive labour to AIs, being glued to our screens, the ongoing effects of COVID-19 and, though this is probably a niche factor, too-strong weed. ‘The world is dumber, and we all know it,’ writes Brown. ‘Lately, it feels like that culturewide upgrade to our mental operating systems has been rolled back to an older and buggier version.’

The negative Flynn Effect, however, isn’t what it seems. Firstly, falling average intelligence among Western nations is perfectly compatible with rising intelligence rates among certain sections of their populations. But more worryingly, the IQ tests on which Flynn relies are of doubtful value. Our stupidity, it turns out, is not always easy to understand.

A century ago, the superbly named pioneer of intelligence tests, Professor Edwin G Boring, remarked that ‘Intelligence is what the tests test.’ It’s a maxim whose circularity suggests that aptitude at passing IQ tests may be a hopeless proxy for intelligence and doesn’t indicate much about real-life cognitive abilities. Instead, IQ scores reward what society regards as valuable mental traits at a particular slice of time: your IQ number is a judgment rather than an objective fact. And yet, that number may serve as a curse or a badge of honour, depending on which side of the average 100-point score a person falls. As Brown puts it, ‘both the original Flynn effect and its reversal might owe more to inconsistent methodology than to real cognitive change.’

IQ tests can also be unhelpfully culturally specific, with disastrous, even racist results. In the BBC documentary Subnormal (2021), one of the UK’s first Black educational psychologists, Waveney Bushell, told an interviewer that underperforming Black kids who were segregated into special educational needs schools were often considered to be educationally subnormal due to unhelpful culturally specific questions on IQ papers. For instance, one question invited children to identify a ‘tap’ – more commonly known as a ‘faucet’ in the US. Easy enough, one would have thought. But some Black kids struggled with the question. It was not because they were stupid, but because in parts of the Caribbean, where their families are from, the word ‘pipe’ is used rather than ‘tap’.

For Arendt, our leading moral task is to overcome that stupidity – that form of moral blindness

Perhaps there’s more to intelligence than passing an IQ test. Consider the case of what Newsweek, in a 1945 article, called ‘the evil geniuses’. Before high-ranking Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, American psychologists measured their IQ scores and, worryingly, found that, by that metric, many of the most evil men in the world were geniuses: the economics minister Hjalmar Schacht scored 143, the Air Force commander Hermann Göring 138, and Hitler’s architect Albert Speer 128.

In 1961, when the philosopher Hannah Arendt looked across a Jerusalem courtroom into the eyes of Adolf Eichmann, one of the leading organisers of the Holocaust, she was struck by his absolute inability ‘to think from the standpoint of somebody else’. That is precisely what Arendt meant by the ‘banality of evil’. Then in an interview in 1964, Arendt said: ‘It was his thickheadedness that was so outrageous, as if speaking to a brick wall. And that was what I actually meant by banality … There’s simply resistance ever to imagine what another person is experiencing.’ For Arendt, our leading moral task is to overcome that stupidity – that form of moral blindness.

So, even if our intelligence measures really are flawed, what explains the rise and fall of IQ scores? Flynn hypothesised the importance of environmental factors, including changes in education, nutrition, family structure, economic pressures, microplastics, antidepressants and woodfire smoke. But that’s not an adequate explanation: from the 1930s, when average national intelligence rose in developed Western nations decade on decade, other deleterious environmental factors were at play. There was a lack of free public education and socialised healthcare, and toxic air pollution – a known factor influencing intelligence scores and cognition – was often unchecked. Complicating things further, what Flynn proposed as negative factors may be positive ones, and vice versa. Antidepressants, for instance, might help with improving one’s intelligence precisely by lifting one out of existential hopelessness.

More recently, observers have suggested two knockdown factors accounting for the apparent declines in average national intelligences: screens and social media. For many, these are intuitively seen as accelerants to the 21st century’s bonfire of stupidity – we seem to collectively sense that they are dumbing us down.

On this point, it’s worth noting that the scores used to support the negative Flynn Effect weren’t down in every category. In 2023, researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Oregon published a study indicating that average American intelligence declined between 2006 and 2018 across three of four broad domains tested. They found that their fellow citizens tracked falling scores in logic, vocabulary, visual and mathematical problem-solving, and analogical reasoning. Only scores for spatial ability ­– the measure of the mind’s ability to analyse three-dimensional objects – rose during that period for the average American. Again, this highlights the culturally specific value judgment of those who contend that IQ tests demonstrate falling average intelligence. Perhaps spatial ability, for instance, is more important to today’s cognitive elites than reading. Certainly, you’ll need the former if you’re going to be any good at fast, visually intensive online games such as Fortnite. It is uncertain right now whether the gaming virtuosos who will play the next iteration of the Grand Theft Auto series will be dumber than someone who can write a plausible essay on the depiction of female autonomy in Samuel Richardson’s literary classic Clarissa; or, The History of a Young Lady (1748). Perhaps both skills are signs of intelligence; perhaps neither. What’s important here is that it’s hard to determine whether the latter is a more objective measure of intelligence than the former.

Intuitively, the argument that digital media is dumbing us down is plausible. And book after book, based on study after study, appears to confirm our intuitions. Computers and smartphones spare us cognitive labour. As a result, the human mind has less to do. Therefore, the need to be intelligent is less of an evolutionary imperative than it was in the pre-digital era. Computers and smartphones are more complex than ever, but human routines are oddly simpler. Generations ago, dishwashers and clothes dryers eased physical labours in daily life. Today, an iPhone or an Amazon Echo can ease mental labour, enabling us, the creators of these machines, to slide into the warm bath of mental fatuity. But perhaps, in principle at least, using an Echo or talking with ChatGPT allows you to free your mind for more cognitively challenging work.

The Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan saw the invention of the light bulb as an enlightening moment for humanity. ‘A light bulb creates an environment by its mere presence,’ he wrote in Understanding Media (1964) – the light extends human powers over what was hitherto dark. It is not utter folly to believe that AI and other digital tools derided for making us more stupid work in similar ways, by extending human cognitive powers rather than destroying them. Or maybe, and this is my favourite thought, they do one or the other depending on your ability to critically reflect on what the technology is offering you. ChatGPT, after all, does come with a cognitive health warning that the data it supplies may be wrong. It is up to the wit and discernment of the human using it to sort the right from the wrong. Human intelligence is not quite obsolete, but it does face new demands.

One intriguing hypothesis for the supposed cognitive decline has been advanced by the psychologist Elizabeth Dworak, lead author of the aforementioned 2023 study seeking to explain the negative Flynn Effect. As she told The Hill newspaper: ‘The line can’t go up forever. It’s called the ceiling effect. You eventually hit that threshold.’ Again, this is intuitively plausible. What goes up must come down. Athletes can only run so quickly. Presumably, then, there will come a day when some sprinter holds on to the 100-metre world record, in principle, forever. Similarly, there’s only so far mere human intelligence can go.

But the parallel isn’t a good one. Firstly, world records are measured objectively by clocks. Second, human intelligence is too slippery and culturally relative to yield to objective measurement. What we regard as intelligent or stupid changes over time, just like the skills that we regard as important or irrelevant. Some abilities valorised by IQ tests decades ago may be worthless in 2026.

The grand delusion of IQ scores is that they are objective facts rather than relative measures of intelligence. Despite what hypotheses about the negative Flynn Effect suggest, these numbers do not offer incontrovertible evidence that us poor mugs in the developed West are more stupid on average than our grandparents. That judgment may say more about our witlessness than our intelligence. Or, at least, I hope I’m not stupid in believing so.

Slaves in the Islamic world have often found opportunities for social and financial advancement

 

Up to 17 million people have passed through the slave trade in the Muslim world since the 7th century. Tragically, the practice lives on

I began my research into the history of slavery in the Islamic world in Bamako, the capital of Mali, in 2020. Yes, you read that right. Not 1820 or 1920, but five years ago, during a harrowing encounter. Sitting cross-legged on the mud floor of a temporary shelter, a man in his late 50s called Hamey told me how he and his ancestors had been enslaved to a slave-owning family in the western region of Kayes for many generations. It was only two years earlier, after a savage public beating, that he’d managed to escape his enslavement. He broke down repeatedly as he described the near-impossibility, now that he was free, of finding somewhere to live and providing for his family in one of the poorest countries on earth.

Slavery is officially illegal in Mali, but it continues, a hereditary and racialised system, as it does in Mauritania and other parts of west Africa. Nor is the problem unique to the region. In recent years, the Arab world, especially the Gulf, has become a hub of modern slavery – defined by Walk Free, the international human rights and anti-slavery group, as “situations of exploitation in which a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, or abuse of power”.

In its most recent report, from 2023, Walk Free’s Global Slavery Index reported that Arab states have the world’s highest prevalence of slaves (10.1 per 1,000 people), ahead of Asia and the Pacific (6.8), Europe and Central Asia (6.6) and Africa (5.2). The countries in the region with the highest numbers of people trapped in modern slavery were Saudi Arabia (740,000), Iraq (221,000), Yemen (180,000) and Syria (153,000).

The history of slavery and the slave trade in the Islamic world is as long as the history of Islam. Whereas the notorious Atlantic slave trade lasted from the 15th to the 19th centuries and enslaved 11-14 million Africans, the slave trade practised within the geographical heart of the Muslim world, centred on North Africa and the Middle East, lasted from the seventh century until the 20th and enslaved 12-15 million, perhaps even 17 million. Vast numbers of men, women and children were taken overwhelmingly from sub-Saharan Africa, together with Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus during the Ottoman period. More covertly and in much smaller numbers, slavery – if not institutionalised trafficking – continues today.

But Islam did not conceive slavery in the Middle East, any more than Christianity devised it on the shores of the Atlantic. (It is just as wrong to call this phenomenon “the Muslim slave trade” or “Islamic slave trade” as it would be to call its Atlantic version “the Christian slave trade”.) Seventh-century Arab Muslims, already surrounded by the ancient slaving civilisations of the Persians and Byzantines, inherited the tradition of slavery from their pagan ancestors and refined and adapted it in an Islamic context. Islam permitted slavery from the outset and with their range of regulations, and rights afforded to slaves, the Quran and Islamic jurisprudence combined to improve the lot of the average slave.

My new book Captives and Companions, the first history of its kind for the general reader, is the result of years of research and travel in the Muslim world. Here are the stories of eighth-century concubines, ninth-century plantation slave revolts, 13th-century slave soldiers who founded mighty dynasties ruling Egypt, Syria and Iraq, and generations of Christian boys “harvested” annually from the Balkans to become the Ottoman Empire’s crack soldiers – the Janissaries. Eighteenth-century Muslim and Christian corsairs marauding across the Mediterranean rub shoulders with 19th-century Ottoman eunuch millionaires, downtrodden Egyptian cotton-pickers and enslaved Africans labouring on Zanzibari clove plantations. There are disturbing accounts of 20th-century pearl divers, date palm cultivators in the Gulf, and Yazidi women serially raped in the recent terrorist “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq.

On the other hand, it may surprise you to know that slaves in the Islamic world have often found opportunities for social and financial advancement. From the earliest days of Islam, enslaved men – and in some cases women – could rise to the heights of society. Take Bilal ibn Rabah, an Ethiopian slave who became one of the prophet Mohammed’s most cherished “companions” (disciples and followers), and earned the exceptional distinction of becoming Islam’s first muaddin, or caller to prayer. Famous eunuchs and concubines could become the richest men and women of their day.

Eunuchs represented one of the Islamic world’s longest-lasting categories of enslavement. Mohammed himself was given Mabur, a eunuch, by the Byzantine ruler of Egypt in 627. Although castration is prohibited by Islam, for centuries leaders across the Islamic world looked the other way and imported enormous numbers of mutilated boys. Nineteenth-century descriptions of castration, provided by Western travellers, are not for the faint-hearted. Boys were shackled to a table, wrote Raoul du Bisson, a Frenchman who watched Christian monks perform the operation in Ethiopia in the 1860s. “The operator then seizes the little penis and scrotum and with one sweep of a sharp razor removes all the appendages.” Styptic substances used to cauterise the wound around the urethra included hot oil, dust or tar, honey, butter and mule dung. Mortality rates appear to have been one in three.

Concubines, too, have endured for virtually the entire lifespan of the Islamic world and, unlike eunuchs, were not prohibited. Mohammed was given Mariyya in 627, and had several others. Women captured during the world-changing Arab Conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries were routinely enslaved as concubines. The Abbasid caliph Mutawakkil, leader of the Islamic world from 847–861, had 4,000 of them, as did Muqtadir, one of his 10th-century successors. Al Aziz, the Fatimid caliph of Cairo from 975-996, kept 10,000 concubines and eunuchs combined. In some cases, the voices of these courageous and charismatic women have been preserved. Arib, a concubine from 9th-century Baghdad, admitted to having slept with eight caliphs. Asked what she looked for in sex, she replied: “A hard p---k and sweet breath.”

Abolition came late in the Islamic world. Though many indigenous voices called for it in the 19th and 20th centuries, including Mohammed Abduh, Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the Indian philosopher, and Rashid Rida, the anti-Western Islamic revivalist, they did not amount to a movement. Ultimately, it was global economic forces and international political pressure, often led by the British, to combine and bring slavery to a stuttering close. (For all the reformist zeal of the Young Turks, slavery – as opposed to the slave trade – hadn’t been abolished in the Ottoman Empire before its fall in 1922.)

What is remarkable today is how one version of slavery and the slave trade continues to dominate Western public consciousness. To take just one example, A Short History of Slavery, by the historian James Walvin, was published in 2007. Of the book’s 235 pages, 201 focus on the Americas.

By contrast, the history of slavery in the Islamic world – so long, various and controversial – has been neglected. That is starting to change: a new generation of Moroccan, Tunisian, Algerian and (in particular) Turkish researchers are poring over the archives and asking uncomfortable questions. Among other things, their work will demonstrate that, although it has become fashionable in some quarters to vilify the West as the supreme historical villain, such a stance is historically and factually incorrect.

My final confrontation with modern slavery came last year in Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania. Here I met a woman in her fifties called Habi. She had, like Hamey in Bamako, managed to escape a life of slavery. Regularly beaten and repeatedly raped as a child by her ‘master’, she came, again like Hamey, from a long line of enslaved men and women, and – having been rescued by her brother in 2008 – was now living free, but in destitution. Home was a small, breeze-block shelter, buried in deep drifts of sand, in the outer reaches of a poverty-stricken settlement, under a scorching sun.

But Habi struck a note of defiance. She said it was only when she came to Nouakchott as a free woman that she realised she’d never really lived. “Before that, I was just an object,” she told me. “I didn’t exist as a human being. Now, praise God, I am free.” She has stood for the Mauritanian parliament twice, and has dedicated the rest of her life to fighting slavery. It’s both tragic and disconcerting that, in 2025, such a fight goes on.

Built to Last: Memory, imagination, and the architecture of Mariam Issoufou

 

Kibo Ngowi

Mariam Issoufou’s architecture is distinct. Perhaps because it looks so familiar yet so unusual at the same time. 

Where the earth speaks: Housing in Niamey, Niger, designed by Mariam Issoufou, doesn’t ape Western suburban architecture but uses local materials and aesthetics, including thick walls so the spaces are cool without air-conditioning. 

A wall might be made of compressed earth but curve like concrete. A window might be shaped like an arch you once saw in a medieval city, or a village courtyard or both.

Her buildings carry the weight of memory and the clarity of invention. 

They seem to belong as much to the past as they do to a future — not yet fully realised, straddling the realm between imagination, antiquity and reality.

There is a kind of silence to her structures. The kind that settles over a space when it has been designed with care and patience. 

In Dandaji — a village on the arid western plains of her home country, Niger — a library stands beside a mosque and both are built of earth pulled from the ground just metres away. It doesn’t feel symbolic. It feels natural. As if the village decided to rise taller and Issoufou simply gave it form.

In Niamey, a housing block built for the city’s growing middle class doesn’t mimic Western suburbia. Instead, it offers courtyards for gathering, thick walls that cool the air without machines, passages that bend and open like market alleys. 

The lines are sharp but the logic is organic. The geometry never feels forced. You could run your hand along the walls and feel stories pressed into them.

In her hands, architecture doesn’t just shelter. It speaks. It honours. It reflects. Her buildings don’t shout but they sure don’t whisper either. They have the presence of something that knows where it came from and is confidently deciding where to go.“I think the biggest trap we’ve fallen into is conflating modernity and Westernity,” she told Justin McGuirk, director of the Design Museum’s Future Observatory, during a live interview at the recent Abu Dhabi Culture Summit in the United Arab Emirates. 

“This idea that somehow modernity has a style has been, to me, the most bewildering realisation, because there is no such thing. 

“There is modernism, which is something that came out of the West.

“Modernity itself is a principle; it’s something that can be quite universal and that we can all claim. And it absolutely does not have an aesthetic to me, it’s a mindset. It’s a way of thinking of yourself in the present, and of projecting yourself into the future.”

“And, for me, it’s straightforward to go from an architecture that is rooted to learn from what came before, but then make a new interpretation of it that can exist in the present, and can then evolve into something new for the future.”

To explore Issoufou’s work and ideas is to discover how much they challenge conventional wisdom about modern architecture and what form that should take in the Global South. Yet somehow her work has been embraced in Africa and beyond.

Established in 2014, her architecture and research firm Mariam Issoufou Architects has offices in Niamey, New York and Zurich. One of its crowning achievements was the Hikma Community Complex in Dandaji, which won two Global LafargeHolcim Awards for sustainable architecture.

Further afield, in the Kaolack region of Senegal, Issoufou is building the Bët-bi Museum of Contemporary Art and Culture. 

In Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, she’s developing the Hayyan Housing Project and Lifestyle Centre. And in Monrovia, Liberia, she’s leading the design of the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Presidential Centre for Women and Development in collaboration with fellow architects Sumayya Vally and Karen Richards Barnes.

In preparing to speak to Issoufou, I framed many of my questions around the use of “traditional African architecture” but, the more I reflected, the more I realised how much even that choice of words is loaded with assumptions.

I grew up in Gaborone, Botswana, during a boom time when it was among the fastest-growing cities on the continent and, in large part, that meant importing the structures of skyscrapers, imposingly tall buildings made of glass and concrete, from Europe and North America. This was progress. This was development.

Meanwhile, the kind of architecture that naturally grew out of the Botswana environment, the rondavels and the thatch roofs, rarely featured into the new vision of how Gaborone would grow to become a world-class city. Because that was traditional. That was outdated. 

Reflecting on this led me to ask Issoufou if she had faced pushback in her efforts to institute her perspective into her architectural practice.

“Yes, of course,” she says. “But, at the end of the day, what I ended up realising is that you really have to empathise with where people are coming from. 

“So, it’s not really about wanting to institute anything. 

“I think, for me, I was more focused on having the conversation and then really challenging those views.

“Like, when I first started talking about earth architecture, people literally laughed in my face. 

“They’d say, ‘You’re trying to set us back 200 years. Like, what do you think this is? We’re not trying to live in the past.’” 

“And we had to have this conversation about the fact that it has nothing to do with the past. And again, that’s why I like to give wood as an example, or stone. These are materials that we’ve used forever. And in places where they grow and they’re abundant.”

One thing that has helped Issoufou’s cause is the undeniable benefits that come with using earth in terms of both practicality and sustainability. For the Hikma Community Complex in Dandaji, most of the project materials were sourced within a less than 5km radius from the site, while concrete was limited to structural elements such as columns and lintels. 

The project introduced compressed-earth bricks made with laterite soil found on site. 

The thermal mass of these bricks made natural ventilation possible, keeping indoor temperatures comfortable and removing the need for air conditioning.

“We tend to think of certain types of materials as being non-modern and feel somehow we have to explain them in contemporary terms or have to justify their use,” Issoufou says. 

“And I think that’s the first trap we fall in, because there is nothing inherently traditional about any materials versus others.

“When we build with wood, we don’t think of wood as being a traditional material. So, there’s certain stigmas that we associate with certain materials and earth is definitely one of them. 

“But I don’t think of materials in terms of modern or not. I think of them in terms of practicality, in terms of what makes sense to me. 

“It’s not an aesthetic response at all. It’s just a logical response to the local conditions. And the climate is just one of the dimensions of those conditions.”

The Hikma Community Complex combines the restoration of old buildings with the addition of new structures. An existing mosque has been renovated and adapted as a library, with study spaces, classrooms and workshop areas in the gardens, and a larger new mosque building has been added.

“Earth is the exact same in its usefulness as wood or stone but somehow the only material that has that stigma is earth. And why is that? 

“What we have all internalised in a profound manner is our inferiority. We have an ingrained inferiority complex. So, we accept things as being valuable if they are valuable in the West or if the West has decided that they’re valuable.”

Mariam Issoufou’s journey to becoming an internationally lauded architect wasn’t straightforward. She began her working life pursuing a career as a computer engineer, earning a bachelor’s degree in technical computing from Purdue University in Indiana in the US in 2001, and then a master’s degree in computer science from New York University in 2004.

“I wanted to be an architect very early on, but it kind of didn’t make sense to me, because I didn’t really know anybody who was an architect,” she reflects. 

“I was privileged enough to be sent to the US to study and it felt a bit obscene to study something like architecture because it takes a lot of effort and money. 

“For this education I was receiving, I felt like I needed to study something that would have a good return on investment.

“How I grew up, it was either you have to become a doctor or lawyer. And this is very typical, I think, of most immigrant families. 

“And at the time, it was the late Nineties, so I just looked around and tried to see what seemed like a solid career. That’s why I studied computer science — because it was around the time of the internet boom. It was a good decision. I believe I don’t regret doing that first before coming to architecture.”

She worked in the computing field for seven years before deciding to become an architect to fulfil her childhood aspirations. 

In 2013, Issoufou earned her master’s degree in architecture from the University of Washington. The following year she founded Mariam Issoufou Architects. 

Her career took off swiftly. In addition to leading an architecture firm with a presence on three continents, Issoufou is also a professor of architecture heritage and sustainability at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, one of the most prestigious architecture schools in the world.

She’s a 2019 laureate of the Prince Claus Award and was named as one of 15 Creative Women of Our Time by The New York Times in 2020.

At the heart of Issoufou’s practice is a deep belief in collaboration and continuity. For her, architecture is not just about building structures, it’s about building systems of knowledge and opportunity that can outlast the project itself.

When renovating the old mosque as part of the Hikma Community Complex, she brought in the original masons who constructed the building decades earlier. Rather than simply restoring the space to its former state, the team taught these masons how to work with adobe-enhancing additives and erosion-protection techniques, updating their traditional craft with new layers of resilience.

The approach was not about preservation for its own sake but about growth: “We don’t look for artisans because they already know how to make what we want,” Issoufou explains. “We study what they can do and then we design something new that pushes that skill forward.”

She recalls a metalworker who had never bent thick iron pipes into curved structural forms before. When faced with the design for a market structure, he laughed at the model and asked if she had pulled the concept from the internet. 

But, after testing a prototype together, he travelled to Benin to purchase a machine. Now, he’s one of only two people in Niger with that capacity and his business has grown as a result.

It’s a ripple effect. “Even if we stop a project, the skills don’t stop,” Issoufou says. 

Her masons have since been contracted for work in Senegal and Mali. Her brick-makers are being called in for international jobs. 

The process is just as important as the product, and the people who shape the project — brick by brick, weld by weld — are not treated as footnotes. They’re credited in publications, in images, in the very narrative of the work.

“We make sure that their names are known,” Issoufou says. “That a photographer from Tahoua, or a contractor from Niamey, can be found and called and offered more work. That matters to us.” 

For her, architecture is never just about what is built. It’s about who builds it, and what they’re able to build next.

The past few years in Niger have been marked by political instability. In July 2023, a military coup ousted the democratically elected president, one of several power shifts to shake the Sahel region. Borders closed, international aid froze and sweeping sanctions followed. For many, it felt like the future had been put on hold.

Among the stalled projects was a major cultural work in Niamey led by Issoufou’s firm — an elegant composition of elliptical towers built of  compressed earth, designed as both a civic landmark and a communal heart. 

“It was an extinction event for the firm, honestly,” Issoufou admits. “We were about to break ground. And then everything stopped.”

Yet despite the upheaval, her practice did not collapse: “What saved us was that we were already working in so many different countries nearby,” she explains. “Most of the projects were already outside Niger.” 

While the Niamey project remains on pause, the firm has pushed forward with work in Senegal, Ghana, Benin and Liberia, including the Bët-bi Museum and the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Presidential Centre, which are breaking ground this year.

This regional spread is no accident. Issoufou has designed her practice to be flexible and cross-continental. 

“Over the past decade and more, we’ve built an incredibly robust remote working system,” she says. 

“That’s a legacy from my computer science background. It means I can draw, review and collaborate, regardless of where I am.”

Still, her commitment to Niger remains unwavering. 

“The headquarters of the firm being there is incredibly important to me,” she says firmly. “There’s no scenario where that’s not the case.” 

Rather than despair, she sees the crisis through a lens shaped by lived experience: “We come from a part of the world where the ground is always unstable to some extent. So, you build systems of resilience, both professionally and personally.”

For Issoufou, that isn’t about resistance alone; it’s about readiness. 

“You can’t run out of patience when things flip,” she says. “You have to understand that the chaos will end and you have to be ready to pick up the pieces afterward. This is temporary. It will pass.”

Issoufou’s architecture defies categorisation and reframes the conversation entirely. Rooted in the soil of her home country, yet expansive in its reach, it proposes an alternative vision of modernity, one that honours the past not by preserving it in amber, but by folding it into new futures.

In a world quick to flatten tradition into stereotype or discard it altogether in the pursuit of progress, Issoufou’s buildings whisper a different kind of intelligence, one born of listening closely to place, to people and to materials often overlooked.

Maybe that’s the quiet radicalism at the heart of her practice. From Dandaji to Monrovia, from earth bricks to elliptical towers, her crafting goes beyond architecture and encompasses a methodology of care, a politics of presence.

In uncertain times, her work reminds us true modernity doesn’t come from erasure or mimicry but from the courage to imagine continuity. It’s not about where you build, but how, and with whom. And it’s in that grounded imagination that Issoufou’s vision finds its most enduring form.

Why do some societies become creative powerhouses while others stagnate?

 

Johan Norberg

Any decent artist could have created realistic characters, with volume, physical weight and a spatial presence, with the use light and color to suggest distance, because that is after all, what the world looks like. So why was the Renaissance painter Giotto the first one to do it in 900 years?

Or take the flying shuttle, which helped to make weaving much more productive during the Industrial Revolution. It required no special knowledge and only took some string and two wooden boxes on either side. And yet, for 5,000 years, no weaver tried it.

Why do we suddenly get an explosion of creativity and progress in certain places and moments – and why do they end? That is what I examine in my book Peak Human: What We Can Learn from the Rise and Fall of Golden Ages (Atlantic Books). 

I have learned that ages become golden because they imitate and innovate. They first emerge because of cheating. They didn’t come up with all the innovations that made them prosper; instead they took them from others.

Athenian, Italian and Dutch merchants picked up new ideas on their business trips. Like the Borg of Star Trek, the Romans constantly absorbed peoples, ideas and methods by conquest, and Abbasid Baghdad actively sponsored a translation project to lay their hands on the world’s knowledge and science.

But there is a limit to how far imitation can get you. To make this progress self-propelling, these cultures had to combine these inputs with their own thoughts to create innovations, from higher agricultural yields to artistic rebellions. This takes inclusivity back home. People have to be allowed to try new things. Free speech, free markets and a rule of law that constrains the arbitrary actions of rulers leave room for this. 

But get Giotto and the flying shuttle, it takes something more: a broader culture of optimism. Innovation is difficult and controversial, and the results are never guaranteed. Therefore, you need a sense that there is hope and possibility, and you need role models around you who have shown the way, to make it seem like it is worth trying. Others to be inspired by, learn from, and to compete with.

This progress sometimes became self-sustaining because, at a certain point, it started transforming the self-identity of these cultures. That is why we often see clusters of creativity, like philosophy in Athens, art during the Renaissance, classical music in Vienna and technology in Silicon Valley.

Pessimism, the sense that it is hopeless, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a clue to the decline and fall of golden ages.

It is as if history has a Great Status Quo Filter (similar to the hypothesis about the Fermi paradox on why we have not encountered alien life despite the likelihood that it exists). Civilizations in every era have tried to break away from the shackles of oppression and scarcity, but increasingly they faced opposite forces, and sooner or later these dragged them back to earth.

Elites who have benefited from the innovation that elevated them want to kick away the ladder behind them, groups threatened by change try to fossilize culture into an orthodoxy, and aggressive neighbors are attracted to the wealth of the achievers and try to kill the goose to steal its golden eggs. However, outsiders can kill and destroy, but they can’t kill curiosity and creativity. Only we can do that to ourselves.

When under threat, we often seek stability and predictability, shutting out that which is different and unpredictable. All these golden ages experienced a death-to-Socrates moment in times of crisis, when they soured on their previous commitment to open intellectual exchange. They started to support strongmen, control the economy and abandon international exchange. This made the fear of disaster self-fulfilling, since those barriers limited access to other possibilities and restricted the adaptation and innovation that could have helped them deal with the threat.

Where does that leave our civilization? The present Anglosphere age, started by the Industrial Revolution and carried on by the American Revolution and the liberal world order after the Second World War has been the most golden so far, since it has also been global. For the first time, improvements in living standards and opportunities have not been limited to one region.

Since 1820, the share of people in extreme poverty globally has been reduced from more than 8 out of 10 to fewer than 1 out of 10, and life expectancy shot up from 30 to 74.

As we have learned from history, however, nothing is forever. The question is, is the great filter in front of us or behind us? My conclusion is that it is never behind us once and for all, because the forces of reaction and tribalism exists within human nature and we carry it with us wherever we go. It can return and threaten us at the most unexpected moment, but it does not mean that it will win.

I don’t think that the American-led world order will be destroyed from the outside. There are too many countries and populations who see their interest in open trade and a rules-based order, and that choice gives them more innovation and growth in the long run. But it can all be torn down from the inside, by regulations and unsustainable debts, by erecting walls, trade barriers and unconstitutional strongman rule.  

As Abraham Lincoln said about the risk of an end to the American experiment in 1838: “It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

That is our choice today as well. But we have an advantage over earlier golden ages, because we can learn from their successes and their mistakes. We know what we should do, to try and rediscover that sense of life, that sense of wonder, and fight for openness and liberty, to rebuild a culture of optimism. In the end, golden ages are a choice.

“Open Socrates” encourages us to recognize how little we know, and to start thinking

 

In “Open Socrates,” the scholar Agnes Callard argues that the ancient Greek philosopher offers a blueprint for an ethical life.

Jennifer Szalai

Maybe this is the year that you have resolved to drink less and exercise more. Or maybe you want to be kinder, gentler and more caring to the people around you.

In “Open Socrates,” Agnes Callard suggests that self-improvement, at least as we usually understand the term, isn’t so much a matter of willpower, but of ideas. It’s not that we are weak-willed creatures, who know what “the good” is and then fail to pursue it; it’s that we haven’t given enough thought to what “the good” is in the first place. “The hard work of struggling to be a good, virtuous, ethical person” is, “first and foremost, intellectual work,” she writes.

Callard, a philosopher at the University of Chicago, is aware that “more intellectualism!” isn’t exactly an easy sell, which is undoubtedly why she waits until Page 129 to describe her chosen approach as “hard-line intellectualist.” But she is so earnestly excited by her subject that even a skeptical reader is bound to feel a swell of enthusiasm as she makes her full-throated case for a life of the mind. She wants her book to do double duty: advance a “neo-Socratic ethics” that can pass muster with her fellow philosophers, and offer lay readers an accessible introduction to how “living a truly philosophical life” can “make people freer and more equal; more romantic; and more courageous.”

This is a book that is charming, intelligent and occasionally annoying. The irritation is wholly appropriate: Socrates, whom Callard affectionately calls a “wet blanket,” was known for challenging his interlocutors to the point of exasperation, pushing them to think harder about whether what they had just said was what they truly meant. “I realized, to my sorrow and alarm, that I was getting unpopular,” Socrates ruefully reflected, after having alienated a number of powerful politicians in Athens and before being sentenced to death. Callard was so enthralled by Socratic philosophy as a college student that she wanted to “be Socrates” and set out to hound strangers at an art museum with big questions about the meaning of life. “They felt trapped,” she recalls now, “and I felt not at all like Socrates.”

Socrates died in 399 B.C., and it’s not as if there’s a shortage of writing about him or his thought. But Callard says that Socrates has too often been “diluted”: treated like a “sauce” that could enhance one’s critical thinking instead of as the main event, whose ethics, if properly understood, were nothing short of radical. He called himself a “gadfly” and also a “midwife” — refuting his interlocutors’ falsehoods but also helping them bring true ideas into being. The acts of destruction and creation were connected, arguably even one and the same. Refutation was never to be done for its own sake; only by helping to peel the scales from people’s eyes could they see the world anew.

Following Socrates’ example is a lifelong pursuit. All too often, Callard says, we react instinctively to “savage commands”: doing something because it is dictated to us in the moment by our body (to pursue pleasure and avoid pain) or by social bonds (to pursue pride and avoid shame). Such commands make us “waver,” she says, and contradict ourselves: “They might give us a loud, clear answer as to what we ought to do, but the answers don’t last.”

The question of time comes up a lot in “Open Socrates.” There is, most obviously, the matter of our limited time on Earth, and Callard agrees with Socrates that philosophy is preparation for death. Thinking more deeply about what we know and what we don’t pushes us beyond our usual (unthinking) habit of “getting through the next 15 minutes.” She opens her book with the example of Tolstoy, in his “Confession,” recalling how his 50-year-old self suddenly wasn’t sure what any of it — love, children, worldly success — was for.

Callard’s name may be familiar to those who have read a profile of her in The New Yorker. She left her first marriage, to another philosopher, to marry a graduate student, also a philosopher. She talks as if love is an ecstatically intellectual pursuit, at least when it’s going well. In “Open Socrates,” she describes how we can get so caught up in our own thoughts that we don’t let evidence from the world in; another person can reveal to us our own blind spots, nudging us just so in order to see what we were missing. Socratic inquiry, with its emphasis on dialogue, reveals thinking as a communal process: “In the presence of others, something becomes possible that isn’t possible when you are alone.”

I find this notion inspiring, even if I’m not as confident as Callard that “our most fundamental wish” is to be treated “as an intellectual thing.” She puts so much stock in the power of thought that she suggests it can get us out of the most intractable dilemmas: “What appears to be a difficulty with life” is “in fact a difficulty in our thinking about life.”

But she also allows that “thinking about life” isn’t necessarily guaranteed to yield the knowledge one seeks. Socrates used to say that he knew nothing other than the fact of his own ignorance. Despite some of her grander pronouncements, Callard invites us to think alongside her. “Open Socrates” encourages us to recognize how little we know, and to start thinking.