Improvement and maintenance of the road networks are the first steps in solving the transport issues in central Cairo. There are eight bridges across the Nile River today. For the new roads that knit outlying suburbs into the urban fabric, the Cairo Ring Road was constructed with this idea back in the late 1980s and continues expanding. The initial purposes are to stop urbanisation by creating a barrier and reducing traffic inside the city. Due to its accessibility to peripheral regions, the ring road fails to successfully reduce city expansion as it nearly triples the urban area in the surrounding deserts. Also, the design of the existing ring road is imperfect and impractical: it has narrow entries and exits, an abrupt transition from sandy roads, and is dangerous for pedestrians.

Infrastructures are “built on an installed base, and the government and researchers have not given up on investing in and planning the development of road networks. Recently, to connect the satellite cities and the new capital, many roads were expanded and upgraded between 2014 and 2020, including the ring road expansion along 106 kilometres with seven lanes in each direction instead of the current four. The management schemes for traffic flow improvement are introduced, for example: installing traffic signals at intersections, regulating U-turns, enhancing pedestrian access on sidewalks and crossings, providing and enforcing stops for buses and minivans, and introducing on-street parking.”

The Cairo Monorail, which begins in 2020 and will be completed in 2025, is planned and shown in Figure 5. The monorail system, one of the cleanest options for mass public transport as it runs on electricity, is the first step of the transformation to sustainable transport in Cairo.

The cost of constructing a monorail is less than 70% of an underground, and it is easy to implement, coexist with, and integrate with the existing infrastructure networks. Nonetheless, these government-oriented transport infrastructures and plans have been criticized by the highly centralised Greater Cairo government, which lowers the efficiency of infrastructure construction and new strategy planning and is presented as a “cautionary tale”.

Furthermore, Ashour and Elkhateeb argue that Cairo has become an “enclaving” city shaped by the new highways, which restrain the dense neighbourhoods, making it even harder for pedestrians and public transit users to navigate the city. Improving transportation infrastructure is a kind of political strategy to ensure the state’s dominance over the territory.

The invisible infrastructure becomes visible when it breaks down and is able to smell(Robbins, 2007; Star, 1999). The transportation congestion in Cairo due to overpopulation and poor mobility networks makes its infrastructure visible to the public. It is a revelatory as well as crisis-ridden moment for the government to take actionto improve the infrastructural network: expand the roadsystem and provide more public transportation.

The visibility of infrastructural networks also brings political significance to urban development in Greater Cairo. Despite emerging problems and social criticism, transport networks provide abundant benefits to the public by connecting sprawling urban areas and accepting the future strategies of higher-efficiency road networks, sustainable transportation modes, and better transportation management in Greater Cairo.

Each of us goes through countless changes in our lifetime. Not only does my appearance change, but also my mind changes — my personality, beliefs, desires, and so on, which may be quite different from those of my ten-year-old self. However, am I still the same person I was when I was ten? How is this possible? In what sense am I the same person today that I was when I was ten?

The question of what is necessary and sufficient for a past or future being to be someone existing now is called the Persistence Question, or the question of personal identity over time. Two possible answers called the Psychological Approach and the Biological Approach (or “animalism” respectively), share importance. The Psychological Approach is the view that the right kinds of psychological relations are necessary and sufficient for us to persist. By contrast, defenders of the animalist theory deny anything psychological suffices for us to persist. Instead, they argue that our identity through time consists of the continuity of our nature of being organisms. To answer the question, “In what sense are you the same person today that you were when you were ten?”, I will discuss each of the theories above and conclude that the animalist theory is the more reasonable one. Hence the answer to the question should be that I am the same person now as I was aged 10 because I am the same living organism as I was aged 10. One more thing to note: for the claim I am the same person today that I was when I was ten, I do not mean that myself now and how I used to be are two persons who are qualitatively the same. I refer to a kind of numerical identity instead, that I am the same person today that I was when I was ten.

The Psychological Approach is the view that something psychological makes us persist over time. It has a long history of debate on personal identity and is often supported by philosophers. The founder of the Psychological Approach, John Locke, asserts that it is memory that is the crucial psychological factor that determines identity. In his view, we are the same persons now as we were aged 10 if and only if we now remember being 10 years old. However, there is an obvious weakness in Locke’s memory theory that it implies we in unconscious situations were not the same beings as we are now. Let us think of the case if I had a dreamless night last night and I cannot recall anything that happened to me then. According to Locke, the girl who lay on my bed last night was not the same as me now.

and the same happens even in everydreamless night. It sounds just like a horrible story. Nobody would think the person who lay on his bed last night wasnot himself. It is such a disturbing idea that it was someone else lying on the bed. Afterward, proponents of the Psychological Approach tried to revise the memory theory to handle the problem above. Parfit proposed the psychological continuity theory as arevised version ofthe memory theory, arguing that our identity through time consists of holding of facts about psychological continuity. Therefore, on this view, the answer to the title question would be that l am the same person now as I was at age 10 because l am psychologically continuous with myself at age 10.

According to Parfit, besides direct memory connections, there are several other kinds of direct psychologicals--those that hold when a connections belief, or a desire, or any other psychological feature, continues to be had. And these psychological fea continue existing when we are unconscious. For instance, my intention to write an essay now is one that l had while l slept last night, although I wasn't aware of it at that time.

Then the problem of the memory theory can be avoided. Parfit constructed his theory based on these direct psychological connections, arguing that the criterion of personal identity overtime is holding of overlapping chain of enough direct psychological connections, that is, psychological continuity.

The most obvious weakness of the psychological continuity view is that it denies each of us has been a fetus and may become a human vegetable. A human fetusless than about six month sold does not have any psychological features, hence one could not be related to a five-month-old human fetus in any psychological way. In the vegetable case human beings who fall into what physiologists call a persistent vegetative state seem to lose all of their mental properties. In both cases, proponents ofthe psychological continuity view have to reject that the fetus or the human

vegetable is the same being as l am now. However, we believe we are fetuses and may become human vegetables lying in ahospital bed. My mother also called the fetus in her womb by my name. If l fall into a persistent vegetative state, she will not give up treatment and will go to see the human vegetable in the hospital. Both my mother and l believe the fetus and the human vegetable is me. This conflicts with claims of the psychological continuity view. The answer given by psychological continuity theorists counters our intuition, raising questions about the plausibility of the psychological continuity view.

According to the analysis above, the Psychological Approach has significant limitations. It fails to cover some cases. such as the fetus and vegetable case. However, the animalist theory can give direct and convincing explanations for these cases.

Contrary to the Psychological Approach,animalists construct their theory to answer the Persistence Question based on biological

continuity. They suggest our persistence conditions are irrelevant toour mental state: one survives just in case one's purely life-sustaining

functions continually exist. These functions include metabolism, the capacity to breathe and circulate one's blood, and the like, which are vital tosustain one's life. They are present from birth and continue in human vegetables. As long as mylife-sustaining functions continue, l continue to persist in virtue of being an organism. Hence in response to the title question, animalists will claim thatIam the same person now as I was at age 10 just because l am the same living organism. The claim implies an animalist view of our identity that we are fundamentally biological animals. Thus, the fetus and vegetable cases canbe easily explained, since the fetus andthe human vegetable who lack mental properties at all are nothing more thanan animal with vital functions. I would argue that the animalist theory is more reasonable. It is inclusive--it can clearly explain cases such as being a fetus or human vegetable and accords with our intuition.

There are many arguments againstthe animalist view on the Persistence Question. The most challenging one is called the transplant argument, which seemingly shows that our intuition supports the Psychological Approach. lt asks us to consider that someday humans will be able to transplant cerebrums. Consider a prince who transplants his cerebrum into the head of a cobbler. Two human beings result from this. The one who has Cobbler's arms, legs, trunk, and other parts, but Prince's cerebrum is called "Brainy"

And the other, who has all of Prince's parts except for his missing cerebrum, is called "Brainless". People are inclined to say Prince survives the transplant as Brainy, even though Brainy is nothing like Prince in appearance since Brainy has the same memories and personality as Prince. However, according to animalism, since you are a human animal, you would stay behind in the transplant case instead of going with your cerebrum. Psychological continuity theorists think this shows our intuition supports the psychological continuity view instead of animalism.

I would argue that the transplant intuitionmay not be correct, and the transplant argument cannot stand.

As I mentioned above, I argue that the transplant argument cannot stand. Firstly, the conclusion of the transplant argument is only supported by people's subjective opinions. Indeed, others' opinions are quite important tools in identifying a person in daily life. However, people's subjective

opinions only are not sufficient to justify the claim that Brainy is Prince. The answer to the persistence problem is not necessarily a subjective one. Investigating the problem objectively is also important. For instance, when you apply for a newidentification card, the officer would simply identify you by checking your objective facial and fingerprint features. What is more, the transplant intuition may not be correct. According to findings in modern medicine, our mind is significantly influenced by our physical body. Brainy's psychological features may inevitably be largely changed compared to Prince's due to his different body. Hence, in effect, others cannot justify that Brainy is the same person as Prince by only considering the mental features of Brainy and Prince, since their mental features may not support the idea that Brainy and Prince are the same person. Some defenders of the psychological continuity theory, such as Shoemaker, argue that in this scenario you are neither Lefty nor Righty. Instead, you cease to exist, though your original body may be alive. They argue that in normal cases, the one who is psychologically continuous with you is the same person as you.

However, you no longer persist if there is more than one person who is psychologically continuous with you. Hence, if both of your hemispheres are transplanted, you cease to survive, and the two new persons, Lefty and Righty, come into existence. This idea is called the"non-branching view”.

The"non-branching view" seems

plausible. However, it will bring troubling consequences. Let us just think of a case in which one of your hemispheres is ill but the other is healthy. If you want to do the transplant surgery, you need to first remove and destroy the sick one before transplanting the healthy one. After

surgery, the“new man” will be the one and the only person who is psychologically continuous with you. Then according to the“non-branching view”, there is no doubt that he/she is you. However, if both your hemispheres remain and get transplanted, you cease to exist. Why do we need to destroy half of your hemisphere to keep you alive? It seems mysterious, since if your survival depends on mental properties, then preserving more parts of your cerebrum should help keep you alive rather than threaten your existence.

After examining the Psychological Approach and animalism, I find that the Psychological Approach has fatal flaws. It fails to cover some scenarios, which animalism can accommodate. What is more, only animalism can give a sensible answer to the fission case. Hence, I argue the animalist theory ofpersonal identity is the more reasonable one. Then, there is no doubt that the conclusion should be: I am the same person now as I was aged 10 because I am the same organism as I was aged 10.

Originating in ancient China,

Confucianism is one of the most dominant philosophies, laying the cultural foundation for enormous amounts of people living in East Asia. Confucian political thought also significantly influenced the way Chinese emperors governed their territories.Joseph Chan, a prestigious Confucian scholar from the University of Hong Kong, wrote the book Confucianism Perfectionism. In this book, Chan examines and rebuilds both the Confucian political ideals and liberal democratic institutions, combining them to form a new Confucian political philosophy. When Chan is discussing the political authority, he proposes a unique justification system of political authority that differentiates from other western scholar's theories justifying the existence of the state.

In this paper, I will compare Joseph Chan's Confucian theory of state justification with John Locke's state justification theories, including his theories of Social Contract and consent. I argue that although the two theories of state justification have some similarities as both theories emphasize people's consent or people's willing acceptance of political authority, Chan's conception of the willingness of the governed to accept certain political authority differs from Locke's conception of mainly two reason: the existence of natural right or not and, more

importantly, the difference on the notion of“trust". I also argue thatthe difference in the definition of “trust" could be explained by the central theme of Confucianism and the decisive principles of Confucian teaching-the Wu Lun.

In the next section, this paper will first bring out the summaries of two theories justifying the existence of the state. After that, this paper will start to compare the two theories, finding the similarities and introducing two reasons that lead to the discrepancy between the two theories. Then, an analysis and an explanation of the be provided using the Wu Lun.

Confucian state justification theory: In the first chapter of Chan Perfectionism, Joseph Chan constructs a special justification system of political authority based on a series of works of ancient Confucian scholars, including the works of Mencius and Xunzi. In Chan's justification system, there are two ways to justify whether a state is legitimate or not.

For the first strategy, Chan uses the contemporary term “service conception" to describe an important syncretic idea of Mencius and Xunzi that the ruling class is an instrument to serve citizens who have "independent worth". Therefore, according to“the service conception", the legitimacy of certain political authority rests on its level of devotion to affairs that could improve citizens' well-being. When Chan argues his first way of justifying political authority, he demonstrates this point by using the ideas of Xunzi. Xunzi, a prestigious Confucian scholar living in the Warring State period, has once argued in Chun qiu fan lu that“if a person's virtue is sufficient to ensure peace and contentment for the people, Heaven will give its mandate to him to govern". This quote means that according to the Heaven Mandate, it is by no means possible for a ruler to rule people with his political right unless he brings benefits to the people. This evidence is closely consistent with the service conception, as they all emphasize the importance of aruler's achievements for the public when he ruled over the citizens.  

According to Chan, the second means justifies authority in terms of the willingness of the governed to trust and accept certain political authority. For this way of justifying state authority, Chan emphasizes more about the ethical relationship between the ruler and the ruled, which, in other words, means whether citizens will trust their rulers or not. It's in this case that the abilities and virtue of the rulers are especially important, as the existence of political authority requires winning people's trust and support.Chan demonstrates this point by citing Confucius'saying that “Without the trust[xin] of the people, no government can stand". To conclude, only if the rulers

could garner enough trust of their citizens without coercion, the political authority could be justified and thus become more effective.

John Locke, one of the most influential British philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment, has also proposed his state justification theory--the Social Contract theory. Lock in his work The Essay Concerning Human Understanding: Second Treatise of Government brings to bear the differences in his version of Social Contract theory from other Western philosophers such as Hobbes or Rousseau. According to Locke, the state of nature is not a state of war as Hobbes has described, but a state of freedom where there is peace and harmony. All People living in the state of nature have three fundamental rights that can not be taken away: “life, liberty, and property".

The only reason people consent to transfer from the state of nature to the establishment of the government is to avoid abuses of rights by the few corrupted individuals or groups who try to diminish the fundamental rights of others in the state of nature. Therefore, the government or the political authority could be considered as a mediator that could preserve the fundamental rights of citizens. To sum up, the state can only be justified if the people have consented to it. In this case, people would be willing to submit some of their rights, including political rights, to the government which is trusted and supported by the citizens

After summarizing the two- state justification theories, several similarities could be easily found out by closely analyzing the two texts. To begin with, when Chan is talking about his first way of justifying the state authority, he emphasizes the point that the service conception greatly rejects a special way of interpreting the concept of tian ming, that it's the god who gives sovereignty and the ownership right of the territories and citizens to the rulers but not people themselves. Such a way of interpreting tian ming strongly contradicts Chan's service conception, since the main objective of rulers is to serve the interest of the citizens, contributing to a better life for people. If rulers fail to achieve that objective or, in other words, choose to serve the private interests of the ruling class, they should be removed.

This idea is very similar to some points made by John Locke in his Social Contract theory. In the Social Contract, the government or the political authority should be considered as the servant of the people. This means that the government is not a result of people agreeing subject to a superior authority, but a result of people itself requiring some forms of institutions to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and to maintain the balance between justice and liberty. Therefore, if the government starts to abuse its power and its behavior seriously threatens the core rights of the citizens, citizens could overthrow and establish a new government with justifiable reasons.

However, It's noteworthy that Chan's conception of “trust”and voluntary submission seems differentfrom Locke's conception for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, Locke assumes natural rights as a cornerstone of their Social Contract theory, since human beings, according to Locke, are born with natural rights in the state of nature. Such an assumption is a prerequisite for Locke's social contract theory. Only when the people view natural rights as an effective bargaining chip can social contracts truly take effect, thus enabling people to recognize the legitimacy of the government and political authority. But for the Confucian-based state justification system, the existence of natural rights, including political rights, is unnecessary, since rulers can be granted sovereignty only if contribute to the social affairs that benefit the citizens or associate with the service conception.

 Second and more importantly, the difference in the notion of“trust" between Chan and Locke causes distinctions between the two theories, which is already stated in Chan's Confucian Perfectionism. According to Chan, Locke's notion of"trust” emphasizes more about the positive relationship between the government and people. The government could be seen as the guardian of the people. We could try to consider the government as a person becoming the security officer for a company and treat the citizens as employees of the company. Only when the company's employees trust this person and transfer some of their rights, such as a key that could open any room in the company, to the person can this person become a security officer. Only when this security officer could effectively fulfill their obligations could enable him to be in the company for a long time. On the contrary, if this security officer fails to do the right job or does something even worse, such as using his master key to steal other employees' private properties, he could be easily suspended by those employees. Such a relationship between the security officer and employees is closely related to Locke's notion of"trust".

Nevertheless, from the Confucian perspective, "trust" refers to“the confidence and faith people have in their rulers". One of the main goals of Confucianism is the maintenance of a harmonious society, in which every person has an appropriate arrangement ofinterpersonal relationships(Bond and Wang,1983). And it's Wu Lun, the key principle of Confucianism, that sustains harmony in social interactions. Confucius has defined five ethical role relations as Wu Lun: ruler and subject; father and son; husband and wife; elder and younger brother; friend and friend. Harmony is established only if every form of relationship meet their role obligations( Hofstede and Bond 1988). Since the ruler and subject is one of the important relationships in Wu Lun, the idea of Wu Lun could be connected with Confucians'notion of"trust". According to Chan, only if the rulers could display their virtue and promote the well-being of people, the rulers could be trusted by the people. In this case, people are willing to subject themselves to the state authorities, fulfilling their obligations such as paying taxes. This is because, based on Wu Lun, rulers could also meet their role-obligations as being a political authority. To conclude, Confucians emphasize more about the ethical connection between government and citizens, that people's trust should come from their heart.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I argue that the state justification system between John Locke and Joseph Chan have some similarities, whereas the two theories' major differences could be clearly seen in the two perspectives: the existence of natural right or not and the difference in notion of “trust".