Teil B

Aufgabenstellung

Teil II.1 Leseverstehen

Outline the information on the challenges that humankind is confronted with.

(20 %)

Teil II.2 Analyse

Analyze how the author presents the two narratives on the future of humankind and his own vision for the future. Focus on communicative strategies and use of language.

(40 %)

Teil II.3 Persönliche Stellungnahme bzw. gestaltende Schreibaufgabe

Choose ONE of the following:

Teil II. 3a)

The author claims that “the solutions we pursue today […] will one day come to form the basis for a new world order.” (ll. 73–74)

Taking the author’s view as a starting point, assess the impact international cooperation has on future global developments.

Teil II. 3b)

As a participant at the “Global Youth Climate Summit”, you have been invited to react to this year’s motto, a statement by Wangari Maathai: “When we plant trees, we plant the seeds of peace and seeds of hope”.

Wangari Maathai (1940-2011) – environmentalist and first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize; founder of the Green Belt Movement, by which more than 50 million trees have been planted

Write an entry for the official blog of the summit, commenting on Maathai’s statement.

(40 %)

Material

Jerome Roos: We Don’t Know What Will Happen Next

“There are tranquil ages, which seem to contain that which will last forever,” the

philosopher Karl Jaspers once wrote. “And there are ages of change, which see

upheavals that, in extreme instances, appear to go to the roots of humanity itself.”

Ours is clearly an age of upheaval. As war rages in Europe and the world counts

the cost of the deadliest pandemic in living memory, an ominous mood reigns over

the earth. After years of economic turmoil, social unrest and political instability,

there is a widespread sense that the world has been cast adrift – like a rudderless

ship in a terrible storm.

For good reason. Humanity now faces a confluence of challenges unlike any other

in its history. Climate change is rapidly altering the conditions of life on our planet.

Tensions over Ukraine and Taiwan have revived the specter of a conflict between

nuclear superpowers. And breakneck developments in artificial intelligence are

raising serious concerns about the risk of an A.I.-induced global catastrophe.

This troubling situation calls for new perspectives to make sense of a rapidly chang-

ing world and work out where we might be headed. Instead, we are presented with

two familiar but very different visions of the future: a doomsday narrative, which

sees apocalypse everywhere, and a progress narrative, which maintains that this

is the best of all possible worlds. Both views are equally forceful in their claims –

and equally misleading in their analysis. The truth is that none of us can really know

where things are headed. The crisis of our times has blown the future right open.

The doomsayers would probably beg to differ. In their perspective, humanity now

stands on the eve of cataclysmic changes that will inevitably culminate in the

collapse of modern civilization and the end of the world as we know it. It is a view

reflected in the growing number of doomsday preppers, billionaire bunkers and

post-apocalyptic television series. While it may be tempting to dismiss such cultural

phenomena as fundamentally unserious, they capture an important aspect of the

zeitgeist, revealing deep-seated anxieties about the fragility of the existing order.

Today these fears can no longer be confined to a fanatical fringe of gun-toting

survivalists. The relentless onslaught of earthshaking crises, unfolding against the

backdrop of flash floods and forest fires, has steadily pushed apocalyptic sentiment

into the mainstream. When even the head of the United Nations warns that rising

sea levels could unleash “a mass exodus on a biblical scale,” it is hard to remain

sanguine about the state of the world. One survey found that over half of young

adults now believe that “humanity is doomed” and “the future is frightening.”

At the same time, recent years have also seen the resurgence of a very different

kind of narrative. Exemplified by a slew of best-selling books and viral TED talks,

this view tends to downplay the challenges we face and instead insists on the in-

exorable march of human progress. If doomsday thinkers worry endlessly that

things are about to get a lot worse, the prophets of progress maintain that things

have only been getting better – and are likely to continue to do so in the future.

The Panglossian scenario painted by these new optimists naturally appeals to

defenders of the status quo. If things are really getting better, there is clearly no

need for transformative change to confront the most pressing problems of our time.

So long as we stick to the script and keep our faith in the redeeming qualities of

human ingenuity and technological innovation, all our problems will eventually re-

solve themselves.

These two visions, at face value, appear to be diametrically opposed. But they are

really two sides of the same coin. Both perspectives emphasize one set of trends

over another. The optimists, for one, often point to misleading statistics on poverty

reduction as evidence that the world is becoming a better place. The pessimists,

by contrast, tend to take the worst-case scenarios of climate breakdown or financial

collapse and present these real possibilities as unavoidable facts. […]

We are ourselves in the midst of a painful transition, a sort of interregnum, as the

Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci famously called it, between an old world

that is dying and a new one that is struggling to be born. Such epochal shifts are

inevitably fraught with danger. Yet for all their destructive potential, they are also

full of possibility. As the 19th-century historian Jacob Burckhardt once noted, the

great upheavals in world history can equally be seen “as genuine signs of vitality”

that “clear the ground” of discredited ideas and decaying institutions. “The crisis,”

he wrote, “is to be regarded as a new nexus of growth.”

Once we embrace this Janus-faced nature of our times, at once frightening yet

generative, a very different vision of the future emerges. No longer do we conceive

of history as a straight line tending either up toward gradual improvement or down

toward an inevitable collapse. Rather, we see phases of relative calm punctuated

every so often by periods of great upheaval. These crises can be devastating, but

they are also the drivers of history. Progress and catastrophe, those binary

opposites, are really joined at the hip. Together, they engage in an endless dance

of creative destruction, forever breaking new ground and spiraling out into the

unknown.

Our age of upheaval may well result in some global catastrophe or even the

collapse of modern civilization – but it may also open up possibilities for transform-

ative change. […]

The solutions we pursue today – on global peace, the clean energy transition and

the regulation of A.I. – will one day come to form the basis for a new world order.

It is impossible to predict where these developments will lead, of course. All we

know is that our civilizational rite of passage opens a door to the future. It is up to

us to walk right through.

(983 words)

[Roos, J. (2023). We Don’t Know What Will Happen Next. The New York Times. 18 April, 2023]

Annotations:

l. 24	doomsday preppers	individuals or groups anticipating imminent war or disaster, acquiring skills and supplies to prepare
l. 36	TED talks	presentations given at TED conferences, sharing innovative ideas in e.g. art, science, and business
l. 41	Panglossian	(from Greek panglossía), characterized by extreme optimism especially in the face of hardship
l. 61	Janus-faced	here: having two strongly contrasting aspects or characteristics

Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!

monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?

Please note: The solutions presented here are just one possible way to approach the task. There are often multiple valid methods and perspectives, and alternative approaches may be equally effective.

Teil II.1 Leseverstehen

The author argues that humankind is currently facing an unprecedented combination of global challenges. First of all, climate change is increasingly threatening the conditions of life on Earth. In addition, growing tensions over Ukraine and Taiwan raise the risk of a conflict between nuclear powers. Furthermore, rapid advances in artificial intelligence create concerns about a possible global catastrophe caused by AI.

According to the author, these crises are accompanied by economic instability, social unrest and political uncertainty, which have created the widespread feeling that the world is drifting without clear direction.

Roos explains that people respond to these challenges in two opposing ways. On the one hand, pessimists predict the collapse of modern civilisation and the end of the world as we know it. Their fears are fuelled by ongoing crises, natural disasters and rising sea levels, causing many people, especially young adults, to view the future with anxiety.

On the other hand, optimists believe that humanity will continue to make progress. They argue that technological innovation and human ingenuity will eventually solve today's problems, making fundamental political or social changes unnecessary.

However, the author rejects both extreme positions. He argues that neither inevitable catastrophe nor guaranteed progress can be predicted. Instead, humanity is currently experiencing a period of major transition that involves both considerable risks and opportunities for transformative change. The decisions made today regarding global peace, clean energy and the regulation of artificial intelligence will shape the future, although their exact consequences remain uncertain.

Teil II.2 Analyse

From the outset, Jerome Roos presents the future of humankind as fundamentally uncertain. While acknowledging the seriousness of today's global crises, he rejects both extreme pessimism and unquestioning optimism. Instead, he develops a more nuanced vision in which periods of upheaval involve both dangers and opportunities. To convince his readers, he combines historical references, vivid imagery, contrasts and inclusive communicative strategies.

The article opens with a quotation by the philosopher Karl Jaspers (ll. 1–3), immediately giving the discussion an intellectual and historical framework. By referring to a respected thinker, Roos establishes his credibility (ethos) and suggests that today's crises are part of a broader historical pattern. The following statement, "Ours is clearly an age of upheaval" (l. 4), directly connects this philosophical reflection to the present. The accumulation of current crises—war, the pandemic, economic turmoil, social unrest and political instability (ll. 4–13)—creates a sense of urgency. At the same time, the simile comparing the world to "a rudderless ship in a terrible storm" (ll. 7–8) vividly illustrates feelings of uncertainty and loss of control, encouraging readers to identify with this widespread anxiety.

Having established the seriousness of the situation, Roos introduces the two dominant narratives about the future. Structurally, he first presents them as opposing positions before later challenging both. He introduces the "doomsday narrative" and the "progress narrative" in parallel sentence structures (ll. 16–18), emphasising their apparent contrast. However, the balanced wording that both are "equally forceful" but also "equally misleading" (ll. 18–19) signals from the beginning that neither perspective represents his own position.

The presentation of the doomsday narrative relies heavily on emotionally charged language. Roos adopts the vocabulary of catastrophe, referring to "cataclysmic changes" (l. 22), the "collapse of modern civilization" (ll. 22–23) and the "end of the world as we know it" (l. 23). Furthermore, the enumeration of "doomsday preppers, billionaire bunkers and post-apocalyptic television series" (ll. 24–25) illustrates how widespread apocalyptic thinking has become. Rather than simply dismissing these developments, however, he acknowledges that they reflect the contemporary "zeitgeist" and "deep-seated anxieties" (ll. 26–27). By referring to the warning of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (ll. 31–32) and to survey data showing that many young adults fear humanity is doomed (ll. 33–34), Roos supports his argument with examples and evidence. These references strengthen his credibility while showing that pessimistic expectations are understandable.

Roos then presents the opposing progress narrative in a similarly balanced manner. The optimistic perspective is introduced through references to "best-selling books" and "viral TED talks" (ll. 35–36), suggesting its popularity. However, the author subtly distances himself from this position through evaluative language. For instance, he calls it the "Panglossian scenario" (l. 41), an allusion that characterises this optimism as unrealistically naïve. Likewise, expressions such as "stick to the script" and "faith" in technological innovation (ll. 44–45) imply that this worldview resembles an unquestioned belief rather than a critical assessment of reality. Thus, while Roos presents the optimistic narrative fairly, his choice of words exposes its weaknesses.

Having described both positions, the author deliberately undermines their apparent opposition. The metaphor that they are "two sides of the same coin" (ll. 47–48) functions as the central turning point of the article. Instead of treating them as genuine alternatives, Roos argues that both selectively emphasise evidence supporting their own conclusions while ignoring contradictory developments (ll. 48–52). The parallel structure contrasting "The optimists..." with "The pessimists..." (ll. 49–52) reinforces the idea that both narratives simplify reality in similar ways.

The final section introduces Roos' own vision for the future. Here, his communicative strategy changes noticeably. The repeated use of the inclusive pronoun "we" (ll. 53, 61, 62, 64, 73, 75–77) actively involves readers and presents the search for solutions as a shared responsibility. Rather than speaking about humanity, Roos increasingly speaks to humanity, encouraging readers to adopt his perspective.

His own vision is characterised by a series of historical metaphors. Borrowing Antonio Gramsci's concept of an "interregnum" (ll. 53–55), Roos portrays the present as a transitional phase between "an old world that is dying and a new one that is struggling to be born" (ll. 54–55). This metaphor combines uncertainty with hope, reflecting the central message that crises simultaneously destroy and create. Similarly, Jacob Burckhardt's quotation describing crises as "a new nexus of growth" (ll. 57–60) reinforces the idea that upheavals often prepare the ground for renewal. These historical references strengthen the author's authority while placing current events within a long-term historical perspective.

The language becomes increasingly figurative towards the end of the article. The metaphor "Janus-faced nature of our times" (ll. 61–62) captures the coexistence of danger and opportunity in a single image. Likewise, history is no longer described as "a straight line" (ll. 62–64) but as alternating periods of stability and crisis. Particularly memorable is the metaphor that "Progress and catastrophe [...] are really joined at the hip" (ll. 66–67), followed by the personification of both concepts engaging in "an endless dance of creative destruction" (ll. 67–68). These striking images make Roos' complex argument easier to understand and emphasise the inseparable relationship between crises and progress.

Finally, the conclusion deliberately avoids certainty. Modal verbs such as "may well" (l. 70) and the admission that it is "impossible to predict" the future (l. 75) underline intellectual honesty. Nevertheless, the article ends with an appeal to the reader's sense of responsibility. The metaphor that our present crisis "opens a door to the future" (ll. 76–77) is immediately followed by the inclusive call to action: "It is up to us to walk right through" (ll. 76–77). This optimistic ending leaves readers with a sense of agency instead of fear or complacency.

Overall, Roos presents both the doomsday and the progress narratives as overly simplistic interpretations of an uncertain future. Through historical allusions, vivid metaphors, balanced argumentation, inclusive language and carefully chosen contrasts, he persuades readers to reject extreme positions and embrace a more differentiated understanding of history. His central message is that the future cannot be predicted, but that today's crises offer not only risks but also opportunities for transformative change.

Teil II.3 Persönliche Stellungnahme bzw. gestaltende Schreibaufgabe

Teil II. 3a)

Jerome Roos argues that the decisions humanity makes today will shape tomorrow's world order. His statement suggests that many of today's global challenges cannot be solved by individual countries acting alone. While international cooperation is by no means a guarantee of success, it will play a crucial role in determining future global developments.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of international cooperation is the global nature of today's challenges. Climate change, pandemics, cybercrime and the regulation of artificial intelligence all cross national borders. No single country, regardless of its economic or political power, can solve these issues independently. For example, international climate agreements such as the Paris Agreement have established common goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Although implementation remains uneven, these agreements demonstrate that cooperation creates a framework for collective action.

Similarly, scientific cooperation has proven its value in responding to global crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers from different countries shared data, developed vaccines in record time and exchanged medical knowledge. This shows that cooperation can significantly accelerate innovation and improve humanity's ability to respond to future emergencies.

Moreover, international organisations contribute to maintaining peace and stability. Institutions such as the United Nations provide platforms for diplomacy and conflict resolution, helping states negotiate instead of immediately resorting to military confrontation. Although these organisations are often criticised for being slow or ineffective, they nevertheless reduce the risk of misunderstandings and encourage dialogue between countries with conflicting interests.

However, the impact of international cooperation should not be overestimated. Political and economic interests frequently prevent states from reaching meaningful agreements. Recent tensions surrounding the war in Ukraine, growing competition between the United States and China and disagreements over migration policy illustrate that national interests often outweigh global responsibility. As a result, international organisations sometimes struggle to enforce their decisions.

Furthermore, cooperation can only succeed if countries trust one another. Rising nationalism and geopolitical rivalry increasingly undermine this trust. In areas such as artificial intelligence, many governments fear losing their technological advantage and therefore hesitate to introduce common international regulations. Consequently, competition may slow down the development of effective global solutions.

Nevertheless, these limitations do not diminish the importance of cooperation. On the contrary, they highlight how urgently it is needed. Future global developments will depend not only on technological progress but also on humanity's willingness to cooperate across political, economic and cultural boundaries. Even imperfect agreements can establish common standards and create opportunities for further progress.

Overall, I largely agree with Roos' view. International cooperation cannot eliminate every global problem, nor can it prevent every conflict. However, without cooperation, challenges such as climate change, future pandemics or the governance of artificial intelligence are unlikely to be managed successfully. The future will therefore depend less on the actions of individual states than on their ability to recognise their shared responsibility for humanity.

Teil II. 3b)

"When we plant trees, we plant the seeds of peace and seeds of hope."

At first glance, Wangari Maathai's statement may sound like a simple slogan encouraging environmental protection. However, I believe it expresses something much deeper. Planting trees is not only about protecting nature—it is about investing in the future of our societies.

Trees are among the most effective natural tools we have in the fight against climate change. They absorb carbon dioxide, improve air quality, protect biodiversity and help prevent soil erosion and flooding. Every tree planted today contributes to making our planet more resilient tomorrow. In this sense, planting trees is undoubtedly an act of hope because it reflects the belief that our actions can still make a positive difference.

But Maathai also connects trees with peace, and this idea deserves particular attention. Environmental degradation increasingly contributes to conflicts over scarce resources such as water, fertile land and food. As climate change intensifies droughts and extreme weather events, these conflicts may become even more frequent. Restoring forests and protecting ecosystems can therefore improve living conditions and reduce some of the pressures that lead to instability. Healthy environments often provide the foundation for more peaceful communities.

At the same time, tree-planting projects bring people together. Around the world, volunteers, schools, local communities and international organisations work side by side to restore damaged landscapes. These shared efforts create trust, strengthen communities and demonstrate that people from different backgrounds can cooperate towards a common goal. In this way, planting trees becomes a symbol of collective responsibility.

Of course, we should not misunderstand Maathai's words. Trees alone will not end wars or solve the climate crisis. Lasting peace also depends on political leadership, social justice, education and international cooperation. Likewise, climate action requires much more than reforestation. We need cleaner energy systems, sustainable agriculture and responsible economic policies. Tree planting is therefore not a complete solution but an important part of a much broader strategy.

Nevertheless, I find Maathai's statement both inspiring and realistic. It reminds us that major global challenges are often addressed through countless small actions taken by millions of people. Every tree planted represents confidence in the future and a willingness to take responsibility rather than remain passive.

As young people, we sometimes feel overwhelmed by the scale of the climate crisis. Yet Maathai's words encourage us to focus on what we can do. Whether we plant trees, reduce waste, support climate initiatives or encourage political action, every contribution matters. Hope does not emerge by waiting for change—it grows through action.

That is why I believe Wangari Maathai's message remains as relevant today as ever. Every tree is more than a tree. It is a sign that we believe a better future is still possible—and that we are prepared to help create it.

Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!

monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?