NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election Diary: Albanese promises 30% discount on household batteries in latest energy bill help

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    In the government’s latest initiative on energy prices, Anthony Albanese on Sunday will promise that if re-elected, Labor will reduce the cost of installing a typical home battery by 30% from July 1.

    This would cut about $4,000 from the upfront cost of an 11.5 kWh battery, which is the typical household size.

    Small businesses and community facilities would be eligible for the discount, as well as households.

    The government says the discount would save a household with existing rooftop solar panels up to $1,100 off their power bill every year. For those with new solar panels and battery, the saving would be up to $2,300 annually – up to 90% of a typical power bill.

    More than one million installations would be expected by 2030 under the measure. The initiative would cost an estimated $2.3 billion over the forward estimates, including in the 2025-26 budget.

    The discount would be applied on installing virtual power plant-ready battery systems beside new or existing rooftop solar until 2030. The absolute value of the discount would decline over the five years in line with the expected fall in the cost of batteries.

    Albanese said the measure was “good for power bills and good for the environment”.

    Labor’s number one priority is delivering cost-of-living relief. That’s why we want to make sure Australians have access to cheaper, cleaner energy.

    Energy Minister Chris Bowen said:

    The contrast is clear – a re-elected Albanese government will take pressure off household energy bills, while Peter Dutton’s Liberals will spend $600 billion on a nuclear plan that drives power bills up.

    Mixing politics and sport can be risky on campaign trail

    For the second election campaign in a row, a Liberal leader has claimed a victim on the football field.

    At least, some relieved Liberals might be saying, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton felled a member of the media, not a child.

    Dutton, campaigning in Darwin on Saturday with a few million dollars in hand to promise for the local footy ground, was happy to have a kick with kids for the cameras.

    But the ball hit a TV camera, which went into the face of Channel Ten cameraman Ghaith Nadir. A federal policeman helped with a bandage for Nadir’s forehead. Dutton promised a compensatory beer.

    In the 2022 campaign, Prime Minister Scott Morrison joined some youngsters in their junior soccer training.

    Becoming rather too competitive, Morrison crashed into a boy, and they both ended on the ground. It made for plenty of jokes about the man who’d admitted in the campaign that “I can be a bit of a bulldozer”. The clip was replayed again and again.

    After Saturday’s incident, Dutton quipped, “If the prime minister kicked it, he would have told you that it didn’t hit anyone”.

    Last week, Albanese stepped back off a stage, appearing to fall, during an event. He later insisted he hadn’t fallen. “I stepped back onto a step, I didn’t fall off the stage,” he said. “Just one leg went down, and I was sweet.”

    Way back in 1984, there was another unfortunate incident on the sporting field during a campaign. That time, the perpetrator was a journalist and the victim was Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

    Hawke had called an election a few days before playing in a cricket match against the parliamentary press gallery. A ball from Gary O’Neill, a journalist with the Melbourne Herald, caught the edge of Hawke’s bat and smashed into his glasses.

    Hawke went to the Canberra Hospital, where (after he jumped the queue) a patch was put on his eye. He returned to the match, watching from the sidelines.

    At least he scored 27 before the incident. However, the accident set him back for the early days of what was an eight-week campaign.

    Over the years there are plenty of examples of leaders losing their (physical) footing.

    A few months before the 2007 election, Prime Minister John Howard tripped and fell on his hands on the way to a radio interview in Perth.

    Visiting India in 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard tumbled when her shoe got stuck in grass. She explained:

    For men who get to wear flat shoes all day every day, if you wear a heel it can get embedded in soft grass and when you pull your foot out the shoe doesn’t come.

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Election Diary: Albanese promises 30% discount on household batteries in latest energy bill help – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-albanese-promises-30-discount-on-household-batteries-in-latest-energy-bill-help-253736

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election Diary: Albanese promises 30% discount on solar batteries, in latest energy bill help

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    In the government’s latest initiative on energy prices, Anthony Albanese on Sunday will promise that if re-elected, Labor will reduce the cost of installing a typical home solar battery by 30% from July 1.

    This would cut about $4,000 from the upfront cost of an 11.5 kWh battery, which is the typical household size.

    Small businesses and community facilities would be eligible for the discount, as well as households.

    The government says the discount would save a household with existing rooftop solar panels up to $1,100 off their power bill every year. For those with new solar panels and battery, the saving would be up to $2,300 annually – up to 90% of a typical power bill.

    More than one million installations would be expected by 2030 under the measure. The initiative would cost an estimated $2.3 billion over the forward estimates, including in the 2025-26 budget.

    The discount would be applied on installing virtual power plant-ready battery systems beside new or existing rooftop solar until 2030. The absolute value of the discount would decline over the five years in line with the expected fall in the cost of batteries.

    Albanese said the measure was “good for power bills and good for the environment”.

    Labor’s number one priority is delivering cost-of-living relief. That’s why we want to make sure Australians have access to cheaper, cleaner energy.

    Energy Minister Chris Bowen said:

    The contrast is clear – a re-elected Albanese government will take pressure off household energy bills, while Peter Dutton’s Liberals will spend $600 billion on a nuclear plan that drives power bills up.

    Mixing politics and sport can be risky on campaign trail

    For the second election campaign in a row, a Liberal leader has claimed a victim on the football field.

    At least, some relieved Liberals might be saying, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton felled a member of the media, not a child.

    Dutton, campaigning in Darwin on Saturday with a few million dollars in hand to promise for the local footy ground, was happy to have a kick with kids for the cameras.

    But the ball hit a TV camera, which went into the face of Channel Ten cameraman Ghaith Nadir. A federal policeman helped with a bandage for Nadir’s forehead. Dutton promised a compensatory beer.

    In the 2022 campaign, Prime Minister Scott Morrison joined some youngsters in their junior soccer training.

    Becoming rather too competitive, Morrison crashed into a boy, and they both ended on the ground. It made for plenty of jokes about the man who’d admitted in the campaign that “I can be a bit of a bulldozer”. The clip was replayed again and again.

    After Saturday’s incident, Dutton quipped, “If the prime minister kicked it, he would have told you that it didn’t hit anyone”.

    Last week, Albanese stepped back off a stage, appearing to fall, during an event. He later insisted he hadn’t fallen. “I stepped back onto a step, I didn’t fall off the stage,” he said. “Just one leg went down, and I was sweet.”

    Way back in 1984, there was another unfortunate incident on the sporting field during a campaign. That time, the perpetrator was a journalist and the victim was Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

    Hawke had called an election a few days before playing in a cricket match against the parliamentary press gallery. A ball from Gary O’Neill, a journalist with the Melbourne Herald, caught the edge of Hawke’s bat and smashed into his glasses.

    Hawke went to the Canberra Hospital, where (after he jumped the queue) a patch was put on his eye. He returned to the match, watching from the sidelines.

    At least he scored 27 before the incident. However, the accident set him back for the early days of what was an eight-week campaign.

    Over the years there are plenty of examples of leaders losing their (physical) footing.

    A few months before the 2007 election, Prime Minister John Howard tripped and fell on his hands on the way to a radio interview in Perth.

    Visiting India in 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard tumbled when her shoe got stuck in grass. She explained:

    For men who get to wear flat shoes all day every day, if you wear a heel it can get embedded in soft grass and when you pull your foot out the shoe doesn’t come.

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Election Diary: Albanese promises 30% discount on solar batteries, in latest energy bill help – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-albanese-promises-30-discount-on-solar-batteries-in-latest-energy-bill-help-253736

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: With US bombers at the ready, can Trump cut a deal with Iran and avoid a war?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University

    The United States and Iran are once again on a collision course over the Iranian nuclear program.

    In a letter dated early March, US President Donald Trump urged Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to negotiate a new deal. The new deal would replace the defunct nuclear agreement negotiated in 2015 between the United States, Iran and five other global powers.

    Trump withdrew from that agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), during his first term.

    Trump gave the Iranians a two-month deadline to reach a new nuclear deal. If they don’t, the US will bomb the country. In recent days, American B-2 bombers and warships have been deployed to the region in a show of force.

    In response, Tehran has agreed only to indirect negotiations. It has ruled out any direct talks while under a US policy of “maximum pressure”.

    Down to the ‘final moments’

    The danger of US or combined American-Israeli military actions against Iran has never been greater.

    Trump says the US is down to the “final moments” should Tehran persist with moving towards a military nuclear capability.

    His national security advisor, Mike Waltz, has gone further, demanding Iran shut down its entire nuclear program.

    Khamenei and his generals have promised a “harsh response” to any military venture. Iran has vowed to target all American bases in the region.

    France, one of key negotiators in the 2015 deal, said this week a failure to secure a new deal would make a military confrontation “almost inevitable”.

    In a positive sign, however, Washington is reportedly “seriously considering” Iran’s offer for indirect negotiations. And Trump is now suggesting Iran may actually be open to direct talks.

    On the threshold of a nuclear bomb

    It would be a folly to expect a quick result that could satisfy an impatient Trump. This is especially true given Trump is under intense pressure from his close friend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Netanyahu has long advocated for military action as the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and eliminate its other military capabilities, as well as its regional influence.

    The Iranian Islamic regime has repeatedly said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. However, the US and its allies – in particular Israel – have remained highly sceptical of Tehran’s intentions.

    Following Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Tehran has substantially expanded its nuclear program, to the chagrin of the other signatories to the deal (Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China).

    It has installed more advanced centrifuges and accelerated uranium enrichment to 60%, just below weapons-grade level. The country is now at a nuclear weapon threshold. It is believed to be capable of assembling an atomic bomb within months, if not weeks.

    Israel’s devastating military operations against Iran’s allies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, as well as direct exchanges with Iran, have prompted some in the Iranian leadership to advocate for crossing that threshold.

    As I document in my book, Khamenei also remains highly distrustful of Trump and the US political class in general.

    Khamenei initially dismissed Trump’s letter last month as a “deception” from the leader of a country he has long considered an “arrogant power” that wants to dictate to Iran, rather than negotiate with it.

    One of his senior advisers, former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, berated Washington for engaging in “psychological warfare”.

    And the current foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said direct negotiations would be futile unless Washington changed its policy of maximum pressure against Iran. This would involve removing sanctions against his country.

    What the two sides want

    Despite this historic distrust of the US, Tehran has found it expedient to offer indirect talks for a possible deal. However, the two sides remain far apart in their respective demands.

    Washington, at the very least, would want Tehran to indefinitely limit its uranium enrichment to 3.7% – the level it had agreed to in the 2015 deal. Washington would also demand close oversight by the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Tehran’s minimum demands would include the US unfreezing Iranian assets, lifting all sanctions against Iran and guaranteeing a nuclear deal will not be rescinded by future American administrations.

    Neither side could meet these demands, however, without first engaging in substantive confidence-building measures. Since Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, the onus is on him to jump-start the process. He could do this by:

    • unfreezing Iranian assets in the United States
    • lifting some sanctions to enable Iran to purchase non-lethal items from the West, including new civilian aircraft from Boeing and Airbus which were voided following the JCPOA’s dismantling
    • withdrawing the threat of a US, Israeli or combined military action.

    Given the depth of the long-standing enmity and distrust between the parties, the chances of reaching a new nuclear deal seem further away than the drums of war.

    However, given Trump’s unpredictability and the serious domestic and foreign policy challenges facing the Iranian regime, a deal also cannot not be completely ruled out.

    Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. With US bombers at the ready, can Trump cut a deal with Iran and avoid a war? – https://theconversation.com/with-us-bombers-at-the-ready-can-trump-cut-a-deal-with-iran-and-avoid-a-war-253828

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Consumers are boycotting US goods around the world. Should Trump be worried?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Bradshaw, Professor of Marketing, Royal Holloway University of London

    US alcohol has been removed from sale in the Canadian province of British Columbia. lenic/Shutterstock

    As politicians around the world scramble to respond to US “liberation day” tariffs, consumers have also begun flexing their muscles. “Boycott USA” messages and searches have been trending on social media and search engines, with users sharing advice on brands and products to avoid.

    Even before Donald Trump announced across-the-board tariffs, there had been protests and attacks on the president’s golf courses in Doonbeg in Ireland and Turnberry in Scotland in response to other policies. And in Canada, shoppers avoided US goods after Trump announced he could take over his northern neighbour.

    His close ally Elon Musk has seen protests at Tesla showrooms across Europe, Australia and New Zealand. New cars have been set on fire as part of the “Tesla take-down”, while Tesla sales have been on a deep downward trend. This has been especially noticeable in European countries where electric vehicles sales have been high, and in Australia.

    This targeting of Trump and Musk’s brands are part of wider boycotts of US goods as consumers look for ways to express their anger at the US administration.

    Denmark’s biggest retailer, Salling Group, has given the price label of all European products a black star, making it easy for customers to avoid US goods.

    Canadian shoppers are turning US products upside down in retail outlets so it’s easier for fellow shoppers to spot and avoid them. Canadian consumers can also download the Maple Scan app that checks barcodes to see if their grocery purchases are actually Canadian or have parent companies from the USA.

    Who owns what?

    The issue of ostensibly Canadian brands being owned by US capital illustrates the complexity of consumer boycotts – it can be difficult to identify which brands are American and which are not.

    In the UK, for example, many consumers would be surprised to learn how many famous British brands are actually American-owned – for example, Cadbury, Waterstones and Boots. So entwined are global economies that attempts by consumers to boycott US brands may also damage their local economies.

    This complexity is also present in Danish and Canadian Facebook groups that are dedicated to boycotting US goods. Consumers exchange tips on how to swap alternatives for American products.

    The fact that Facebook is a US-based company only demonstrates how deeply embedded consumer culture is in US technologies. European businesses often depend on American operating systems and cloud storage while consumers rely on US-owned social media platforms for communication.

    Even when consumers succeed in weeding out American products, if they pay using Visa, Mastercard or Apple Pay, a percentage of the price will nonetheless be rerouted to the US. If a touch payment is made with Worldpay, the percentage could be even greater.

    These American financial services show just how embedded US businesses are in retail in ways that consumers may not appreciate. In practice, an absolute boycott of US business is almost unimaginable.

    All-American brands

    But American branding is not always subtle. In addition to brands directly connected to the US administration – such as the Trump golf courses and Tesla – many other companies have always been flamboyantly American. Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Budweiser are just some examples where their American identities and proudly on show.

    As such, it’s possible that consumers will increasingly avoid blatantly American brands. They may be less concerned about the complexities and contradictions of a more comprehensive boycott.

    Consumer actions where the goal is political change are known as “proxy boycotts” because no particular company is the ultimate target. Rather, the brands and firms are targeted by consumers as a means to an end.

    Do boycotts work?

    A classic example of a proxy boycott took aim at French goods, particularly wine, in the mid-1990s. This was in response to president Jacques Chirac’s decision to conduct nuclear tests in the Pacific. The large-scale consumer boycotts contributed to France’s decision to abandon its nuclear tests in 1996.

    In Britain, for example, French wines in all categories lost market share as demand fell during the boycott. At the time, it cost the French wine sector £23 million (about £46 million today).

    These boycotts are a reminder that the interplay between corporations, brands and consumer culture are inevitably embedded in politics. The current political impasse demonstrates that consumers can participate in politics, not just with their votes, but also with their buying power.

    Trump clearly wants to demonstrate American strength. The “liberation day” tariffs, which were higher than most observers expected, bear this out. But many US corporations will now be worrying about how consumers in the US and around the world might respond. Trump could see a mass mobilisation of consumer power in ways that will give the president something to think about.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Consumers are boycotting US goods around the world. Should Trump be worried? – https://theconversation.com/consumers-are-boycotting-us-goods-around-the-world-should-trump-be-worried-253389

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Taiwan’s latest computer chip has serious implications for technology – and the island’s security

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Domenico Vicinanza, Associate Professor of Intelligent Systems and Data Science, Anglia Ruskin University

    Aslysun / Shutterstock

    On April 1, 2025, the Taiwanese manufacturer TSMC introduced the world’s most advanced microchip: the 2 nanometre (2nm) chip. Mass production is expected for the second half of the year, and TSMC promises it will represent a major step forward in performance and efficiency – potentially reshaping the technological landscape.

    Microchips are the foundation of modern technology, found in nearly all electronic devices, from electric toothbrushes and smartphones to laptops and household appliances. They are made by layering and etching materials like silicon to create microscopic circuits containing billions of transistors.

    These transistors are effectively tiny switches, managing the flow of electricity and allowing computers to work. In general, the more transistors a chip contains, the faster and more powerful it becomes.

    The microchip industry consistently endeavours to pack more transistors into a smaller area, leading to faster, more powerful, and energy efficient technological devices.

    Compared to the previous most advanced chip, known as 3nm chips, TSMC’s 2nm technology should deliver notable benefits. These include a 10%-15% boost in computing speed at the same power level or a 20-30% reduction in power usage at the same speed.

    Additionally, transistor density in 2nm chips is increased by about 15%, over and above the 3nm technology. This should enable devices to operate faster, consume less energy, and manage more complex tasks efficiently.

    Taiwan’s microchip industry is closely tied into its security. It is sometimes referred to as the “silicon shield”, because its widespread economic importance incentivises the US and allies to defend Taiwan against the possibility of Chinese invasion.

    TSMC recently struck a US$100 billion deal (£76 billion) to build five new US factories. However, there is uncertainty over whether the 2nm chips can be manufactured outside Taiwan, as some officials are concerned that could undermine the island’s security.

    Established in 1987, TSMC, which stands for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, manufactures chips for other companies. Taiwan accounts for 60% of the global “foundry” market (the outsourcing of semiconductor manufacturing) and the vast majority of that comes from TSMC alone.

    TSMC’s super-advanced microchips are used by other companies in a wide range of devices. It manufactures Apple’s A-series processors used in iPhones, iPads, and Macs, it produces NVidia’s graphics processing units (GPUs) used for machine learning and AI applications. It also makes AMD’s Ryzen and EPYC processors used by supercomputers worldwide, and it produces Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors, used by Samsung, Xiaomi, OnePlus, and Google phones.

    In 2020, TSMC started a special microchip miniaturisation process, called 5nm FinFET technology, that played a crucial role in smartphone and high-performance computing (HPC) development. HPC is the practice of getting multiple processors to work simultaneously on complex computing problems.

    Two years later, TSMC launched a 3nm miniaturisation process based on even smaller microchips. This further enhanced performance and power efficiency. Apple’s A-series processor, for example, is based on this technology.

    TSMC makes the world’s most advanced microchips.
    Michael Vi / Shutterstock

    Smartphones, laptops and tablets with 2nm chips could benefit from better performance and longer battery life. This will lead to smaller, lighter devices without sacrificing power.

    The efficiency and speed of 2nm chips has the potential to enhance AI-based applications such as voice assistants, real time language translation, and autonomous computer systems (those designed to work with minimal to no human input). Data centres could experience reduced energy consumption and improved processing capabilities, contributing to environmental sustainability goals.

    Sectors like autonomous vehicles and robotics could benefit from the increased processing speed and reliability of the new chips, making these technologies safer and more practical for widespread adoption.

    This all sounds really promising, but while 2nm chips represent a technological milestone, they also pose challenges. The first one is related to the manufacturing complexity.

    Producing 2nm chips requires cutting-edge techniques like extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. This complex and expensive process increases production costs and demands extremely high precision.

    Another big issue is heat. Even with relatively lower consumption, as transistors shrink and densities increase, managing heat dissipation becomes a critical challenge.

    Overheating can impact chip performance and durability. In addition, at such a small scale, traditional materials like silicon may reach their performance limits, requiring the exploration of different materials.

    That said, the enhanced computational power, energy efficiency, and miniaturisation enabled by these chips could be a gateway to a new era of consumer and industrial computing. Smaller chips could lead to breakthroughs in tomorrow’s technology, creating devices that are not only powerful but also discreet and more environmentally friendly.

    Domenico Vicinanza does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Taiwan’s latest computer chip has serious implications for technology – and the island’s security – https://theconversation.com/taiwans-latest-computer-chip-has-serious-implications-for-technology-and-the-islands-security-251633

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ireland’s neolithic passage tombs were not just the burial place of the elite – new research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Carlin, Lecturer in Archaeology, University College Dublin

    In County Meath in eastern Ireland sits the world heritage site of Brú na Bóinne. The late 4th millennium BC megalithic tombs have been labelled “passage tombs” by archaeologists because they typically feature a narrow passage leading to an internal chamber, covered by a large circular mound. Centuries of antiquarians and archaeologists thought they were burial places for the elite of Neolithic Irish society.

    Genetic analysis of human remains within several of the tombs initially seemed to reinforce this. But our latest research has overturned this idea.

    By integrating exciting new results from ancient DNA into archaeological models, combining archaeological and biomolecular data, we have been able to draw out a rich and complex picture of daily life, interactions, and social structure in Neolithic Ireland. Together, this evidence deconstructs the myth that only important individuals were socially active, which downplays the contribution made by collective action in the deep past.

    What our research reveals is a complex pattern of small, mobile groups who moved frequently with their animals and gathered seasonally. These groups would meet with their extended community at their shared monuments to progress funerary rites for some of their dead, renew old relationships and form new ones. In this way, they built their kin networks over hundreds of kilometers and many generations through communal feasting, ceremonies, and work, as well as through having children together.

    Burial within even the largest examples of “developed” passage tombs does not seem to have been restricted to venerated chiefs. Instead, it was part of a long sequence of rites and rituals that included cremation, the exposure or circulation of parts of bodies, and the eventual interment of partial sets of remains, some of which were later removed.

    Genetic analysis revealed evidence of close biological relations, the kind of which is expected from the final resting-places of a dynastic lineage: from grandparents to grandchildren, siblings, uncles and aunts, nieces, nephews and first cousins. However, we have shown that only a few examples of these close family links occur, and not within passage tombs, but exclusively in smaller and earlier Neolithic tombs.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    Instead, in passage tombs, most biological relationships tend to have been distant (fifth degree or further, meaning second cousins or a great-great-great grandparent). This tells us that burial was not strongly determined by biological relatedness.

    Nevertheless, there is something genetically distinctive about passage tombs.

    Most of the individuals genetically sequenced from these monuments were more closely biologically related to each other than to the wider Irish population at this time. This means they formed a genetic cluster.

    We argue that rather than this being evidence for an elite class in Neolithic Ireland, something else is responsible for this genetic patterning. Crucially, these individuals all postdate 3600BC.

    By this time, people’s lifestyles had shifted, possibly becoming more mobile. Houses were temporary and modest in size, farming practices seemed to focus more on animal husbandry, while forests expanded and evidence for cereals reduced. This is the period when the Newgrange-style passage tombs were emerging. Compared to earlier tombs, Newgrange-style tombs were more architecturally complex, much larger and situated in more elevated, visible locations but at a remove from the everyday world of settlement and pasture. Their construction peaked between 3300 to 3000 BC.

    Their complexity reflects multiple phases of construction and rebuilding stretching over generations and centuries of seasonal gatherings of widely dispersed communities. In tandem with this new style, social networks became more expansive, spanning ever-greater parts of the island.

    Chemical signals locked in human bone and tooth enamel indicate that the people interred in these large monuments came from many different parts of Ireland, as did the artefacts placed in them and the materials from which they were built. People probably brought building materials with them as part of collective journeys to participate in rites that included both burying and building. Such repeated large-scale gatherings involving communal acts of labour contributed to a sense of shared identity and kinship by interconnecting participants with other people, places and things.

    The distinct genetic clustering in individuals from passage tombs is likely to have emerged within the context of the extended kin groups created and maintained by such interactions. The genetic analysis shows that people within communities who used passage tombs more frequently chose to have children with each other rather than with people who used other tomb types for their funerary rites. These were sizeable but dispersed communities with extensive interaction networks.

    We suggest it may simply have been easier to meet and connect with people who shared the same beliefs, cultural practices and seasonal cycles. Nevertheless people met, mingled, and had children with each other throughout the Irish Neolithic period, regardless of how they buried their dead. There is no evidence that patterns of marriage or reproduction within a given group were enforced or exclusive or that who your parents were reflected differences in status, rank, or importance.

    More work, including more ancient DNA samples, is vital to achieve a fuller understanding of the social changes occurring in Ireland at the time of Newgrange. Yet, by interrogating the archaeological evidence in light of genetic findings, we are getting ever closer to understanding how peoples’ relationships changed through time.

    Neil Carlin receives funding from Research Ireland

    Catherine J. Frieman receives funding from Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT220100024 ‘Kin and Connection: ancient DNA between the science and the social’.

    Jessica Smyth receives funding from Research Ireland (Consolidator Laureate IRCLA/2017/206 ‘Passage Tomb People: investigating the social drivers of passage tomb construction’)

    – ref. Ireland’s neolithic passage tombs were not just the burial place of the elite – new research – https://theconversation.com/irelands-neolithic-passage-tombs-were-not-just-the-burial-place-of-the-elite-new-research-253774

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Even just thinking you’re hungry could change your immune system – new research in mice

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Giuseppe D’Agostino, Senior Lecturer, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology & Gastroenterology, University of Manchester

    The synthetic hunger state led to a marked drop in specific immune cells in the mice’s blood. IhorL/ Shutterstock

    Feeling hungry doesn’t just make you reach for a snack – it may also change your immune system.

    In a recent study in mice, we found that simply perceiving hunger can change the number of immune cells in the blood, even when the animals hadn’t actually fasted. This shows that even the brain’s interpretation of hunger can shape how the immune system adapts.

    Our new research published in Science Immunology challenges the long-standing idea that immunity is shaped primarily by real, physical changes in nutrition, such as changes in blood sugar or nutrient levels. Instead, it shows that perception alone (what the brain “thinks” is happening) can reshape immunity.

    We focused on two types of highly specialised brain cells (AgRP neurons and POMC neurons) that sense the body’s energy status and generate the feelings of hunger and fullness in response. AgRP neurons promote hunger when energy is low, while POMC neurons signal fullness after eating.

    Using genetic tools, we artificially activated the hunger neurons in mice that had already eaten plenty of food. Activating this small but powerful group of brain cells triggered an intense urge to seek food in the mice. This finding builds on what multiple previous studies have shown.

    To our surprise, though, this synthetic hunger state also led to a marked drop in specific immune cells in the blood, called monocytes. These cells are part of the immune system’s first line of defence and play a critical role in regulating inflammation.

    Conversely, when we activated the fullness neurons in fasted mice, the monocyte levels returned close to normal, even though the mice hadn’t eaten.
    These experiments showed us the brain’s perception of being hungry or fed was on its own enough to influence immune cell numbers in the blood.

    To understand how this axis between the brain and the immune system works, we then looked at how the brain communicates with the liver. This organ is important in sensing energy levels in the body. Research has also shown the liver communicates with bone marrow – the soft tissue inside bones where blood and immune cells are made.

    We found a direct link between the hunger neurons and the liver via the sympathetic nervous system, which plays a broad role in regulating functions like heart rate, blood flow, and how organs respond to stress and energy demands. When the hunger neurons were turned on, they dialled down nutrient-sensing in the liver by reducing sympathetic activity.

    This suggests that the brain can influence how the liver interprets the body’s energy status; essentially convincing it that energy is low, even when actual nutrient levels are normal. This, in turn, led to a drop in a chemical called CCL2, which usually helps draw monocytes into the blood. Less CCL2 meant fewer monocytes circulating.

    We also saw that hunger signals caused the release of a stress hormone called corticosterone (similar to cortisol in humans). This hormone on its own didn’t have a big effect on immune cell numbers, at least not at the levels that would typically be released while fasting.

    Much higher levels of stress hormones are usually needed to affect the immune system directly. But in this case, the modest rise in corticosterone worked more like an amplifier. While it wasn’t enough to trigger immune changes by itself, it was crucial for allowing the response to happen when cooperating with signals coming from the brain.

    This further illustrate how the body’s stress system and immune changes are scalable and how they adjust depending on the nature and intensity of the stressful event.

    Why might this happen?

    Why would the brain do this? Although we haven’t formally tested this, we think one possibility is that this complex, multi-organ communication system evolved to help the body anticipate and respond to potential shortages. By fine-tuning energy use and immune readiness based on perceived needs, the brain would be able to coordinate an efficient whole-body response before a real crisis begins.

    If the brain senses that food might be limited (for example, by interpreting environmental cues previously associated with food scarcity) it may act early to conserve energy and adjust immune function in advance.

    If these findings are confirmed in humans, this new data could, in future, have real-world implications for diseases where the immune system becomes overactive – such as cardiovascular diseases, multiple sclerosis, and wasting syndrome in cancer patients.

    This is of further relevance for metabolic and eating disorders, such as obesity or anorexia. Not only are these disorders often accompanied by chronic inflammation or immune-related complications, they can also alter how hunger and fullness are computed in the brain.

    And, if the brain is able to help dial the immune system up or down, it may be possible to develop new brain-targeted approaches to aid current immuno-modulatory therapies.

    Still, there’s much we don’t know. We need more studies investigating how this mechanism works in humans. These studies could prove challenging, as it isn’t possible yet to selectively activate specific neurons in the human brain with the same precision we can in experimental models.

    Interestingly, more than a century ago a Soviet psychiatrist, A. Tapilsky, conducted an unusual experiment where he used hypnosis to suggest feelings of hunger or fullness to patients. Remarkably, immune cell counts increased when patients were told they were full and decreased when they were told they were hungry.

    These early observations hinted at a powerful connection between the mind and body, well ahead of today’s scientific understanding and are eerily prescient of our current ability to use powerful genetic tools to artificially generate internal sensations like hunger or fullness in animal models.

    What’s clear is that the brain’s view of the body’s energy needs can shape the immune system – sometimes even before the body itself has caught up. This raises new questions about how conditions such as stress, eating disorders and even learned associations with food scarcity might drive inflammation and disease.

    Giuseppe D’Agostino receives, or have received, research funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO), the Wellcome Trust (via the University of Aberdeen), Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly and Co. The funders had no involvement in the writing of this article or in the decision to publish it.

    Joao paulo Cavalcanti de Albuquerque received funding from “British Society for Neuroendocrinology” (BSN). The funders had no involvement in the writing of this article or in the decision to publish it.

    – ref. Even just thinking you’re hungry could change your immune system – new research in mice – https://theconversation.com/even-just-thinking-youre-hungry-could-change-your-immune-system-new-research-in-mice-253501

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The International Space Station is too clean – what does that tell us about how to co-exist with bugs on Earth?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Samuel J. White, Associate Professor & Head of Projects, York St John University

    One of the cleanest places beyond Earth may be making its residents ill. Astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) have had rashes, allergies and the odd infection, and scientists now believe the station’s environment is too clean. Researchers recently concluded that the ISS is so sterile it may be damaging astronauts’ health and have even suggested it might be time to make the station deliberately “dirtier”.

    This might seem surprising. We’re constantly told to avoid germs, not embrace them. But the findings from space highlight a growing concern among scientists: that extreme cleanliness can sometimes do more harm than good.

    The ISS lacks many of the environmental microbes, the sort found in soil, water and plants, that humans have evolved alongside for millennia. Instead, the microbial life floating around the station comes mainly from the astronauts themselves, such as bacteria shed from the skin.

    In an environment sealed off from the natural world, the only microbes astronauts are exposed to are the ones they bring with them. Even though the crew stopped cleaning for a period before the study, scientists still found large amounts of chemical cleaning residues across the station’s surfaces.

    The ISS is a microbial bubble: no fresh microbial input from outside and constant sterilisation from within. In such an environment, the immune system may struggle to function normally. That could help explain why astronauts commonly suffer immune-related issues like fungal infections, cold sores and unexplained skin conditions while in orbit.

    For those of us back on Earth, this space station discovery offers a timely lesson. Modern life has given us a remarkable ability to control our surroundings. Homes are climate-controlled and filled with antibacterial sprays. Hand sanitisers are used regularly. Children’s toys, floors and worktops are scrubbed spotless.

    But, as with all things, there may be a tipping point. Too much hygiene can interfere with how our bodies learn to defend themselves.

    Our immune system isn’t just a shield against germs, it’s a complex network that needs training. From the moment we’re born, we begin learning how to respond to different microbes. Many of these are harmless and some are beneficial.

    Early and repeated exposure to a broad range of microbes helps the immune system understand what is a genuine threat and what isn’t. Without that exposure, the system can overreact, triggering allergies, asthma and even autoimmune conditions.

    There’s growing evidence for this idea. Children who grow up with pets or on farms, for example, tend to have lower rates of asthma and allergies. The thinking is that regular contact with soil, animal dander and a wider variety of bacteria helps build a more tolerant immune system. In contrast, children raised in more sterile, urban homes, with limited exposure to the microbial world, are more likely to develop allergic diseases.

    Targeted hygiene

    This isn’t a call to abandon cleanliness altogether. Handwashing, proper food hygiene and general sanitation have saved countless lives and remain essential. But there’s a difference between good hygiene and indiscriminate sterilisation. Not all microbes are enemies; many are part of our natural environment and play a key role in keeping us well.

    One sensible approach is known as targeted hygiene. This means cleaning where it really matters, after using the toilet, before eating or preparing food, and when someone is ill while allowing more relaxed standards in lower-risk areas.

    It might also mean accepting that a bit of outdoor mud, the presence of pets, or letting children get dirty now and then isn’t just harmless – it’s beneficial.

    Some scientists are now exploring the idea of introducing friendly microbes into our homes and workplaces to restore microbial balance. There are cleaning products containing beneficial bacteria designed to crowd out harmful ones.

    Other research is looking at how indoor environments, especially in places like hospitals, schools and public transport, could be made more microbially diverse without compromising safety.

    Which brings us back to the ISS. If astronauts are becoming unwell due to a lack of microbial exposure, it may be time for space agencies to rethink their hyper-clean protocols.

    The researchers behind the ISS study have proposed introducing safe, beneficial microbes into the station to replicate the sort of environmental exposure humans would naturally get on Earth. Future space missions may even incorporate microbial “gardens” or systems to reintroduce natural microbial communities.

    Here on Earth, we don’t need to float in orbit to learn from this. The lesson is clear: balance is key. A world that is too dirty spreads disease. But a world that is too clean may leave us vulnerable in other ways.

    The best defence may lie not in eradicating microbes entirely but in learning to live with the right ones. For astronauts and Earth dwellers alike, it may be time to welcome a little bit of good, clean dirt back into our lives.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The International Space Station is too clean – what does that tell us about how to co-exist with bugs on Earth? – https://theconversation.com/the-international-space-station-is-too-clean-what-does-that-tell-us-about-how-to-co-exist-with-bugs-on-earth-253563

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Shop smarter, not harder. How gentle messaging can help the planet more than tough talk

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jasmine Mohsen, Doctoral Researcher in Consumer Psychology and Consumer Behaviour, University of Leeds

    Heavy-handed messaging? Andy Soloman/Shutterstock

    Fast fashion is booming, but so is its environmental toll. With up to 10% of global carbon emissions linked to the industry, the over-consumption of cheap clothing has made sustainability campaigns more vital than ever. Yet, even as awareness of fast fashion’s environmental harm grows, many consumers remain resistant to changing their shopping habits.

    My recent research investigated a surprising obstacle to these campaigns: the language used to drive change. I explored how assertive messages such as: “Stop shopping to save the planet!” fare when pitted against softer suggestions along the lines of: “Consider shopping less for a greener future.”

    The results reveal that pushy messaging not only fails but actively backfires, triggering anger and resistance that can undermine the campaign’s goals.

    At the heart of this resistance lies psychological reactance – a defensive reaction to perceived threats to personal freedom. Humans value autonomy, and messages that come across as commands (“must”, “stop”, “don’t”) can spark a “boomerang effect”, prompting people to defy the directive – even if they agree with its underlying intent.

    This reluctance may be attributed to the fact that buying clothes is frequently linked to self-esteem, social desirability and confidence. Shopping is often an enjoyable and empowering experience, driven by personal choice and satisfaction. But when marketing relies on guilt or pressure, this positive engagement can shift to discomfort and resistance. Rather than nurturing real connections with brands’ messages, forceful campaigns risk weakening trust and consumer loyalty.

    In the study, 196 participants in the US were shown posters designed as part of a campaign to reduce consumption. One group saw an assertive poster demanding they stop shopping to help the environment. The other saw a suggestive poster encouraging wise shopping for the same goal. Participants then completed surveys assessing their emotional responses and willingness to alter their behaviour.

    The findings were clear. Assertive messages provoked stronger feelings of anger and defensiveness in the face of a perceived threat than suggestive ones. These negative emotions led to lower compliance with the campaign’s goals, showing that pushy language can diminish – rather than enhance – effectiveness.

    The role of anger

    The emotional fallout of assertive messaging doesn’t stop there. The study found that anger, sparked by perceived restrictions, affects consumer behaviour. Participants who felt their freedom was threatened were not only less likely to reduce shopping but also more likely to dismiss the campaign altogether. Anger adds another barrier to encouraging sustainable habits.

    However, this anger can also fuel a desire to regain autonomy, pushing consumers toward action that reaffirms their independence. This could be resisting the message or making choices that feel self-directed – it may even drive consumers towards unsustainable choices.

    The findings uncovered several insights for anyone designing campaigns to encourage sustainable consumption.



    Read more:
    Five consumer myths to ditch in 2025

    First, go with suggestion over command. Messages framed as friendly suggestions, such as “consider” or “you might”, are less likely to provoke resistance and more likely to inspire positive change.

    Second, focus on empowerment. Highlighting the autonomy of the consumer and the benefits of participation can encourage them to cooperate without threatening their individual freedom.

    Third, educate with empathy. Campaigns that inform consumers about the environmental impact of their habits, without using forceful language, are better received.

    In 2011, outdoor clothing brand Patagonia launched an advert with the message “Don’t Buy This Jacket” – a good example of assertive language and reverse psychology. The campaign sent a message about buying less and taking care of the environment. As a strategy, this is known as “demartketing”.

    Interestingly, although it used the “don’t” command, Patagonia was giving people a choice to ignore the message or question why they were buying the jacket in the first place. Although Patagonia’s sales jumped by 30% the following year, the campaign was about more than selling. The company wanted to encourage people to think about the impact of Black Friday as well as their wider buying habits, and to consider repairing things, reusing them or buying clothing that would last longer.

    Of course, these insights extend beyond fast fashion. Judgemental messaging has been shown to fail in areas such as smoking cessation, exercise and diet campaigns, suggesting that softer approaches may work better across a range of public health and environmental initiatives.

    The environmental cost of fast fashion is undeniable, with millions of tons of clothing wasted annually and more than a billion tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year. Encouraging consumers to embrace sustainable habits, from buying secondhand to adopting minimalism, is vital. However, as our research shows, how we ask for that change makes all the difference.

    If we want people to shop less for the planet’s sake, it might be worth abandoning the “here’s what you must do” messaging in favour of strategies that respect their freedom. This could be a powerful way to shift behaviour towards a sustainable future – one suggestion at a time.

    Jasmine Mohsen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Shop smarter, not harder. How gentle messaging can help the planet more than tough talk – https://theconversation.com/shop-smarter-not-harder-how-gentle-messaging-can-help-the-planet-more-than-tough-talk-249217

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Signalgate’: how the US government creates and guards its secrets

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kaeten Mistry, Associate Professor of American History, University of East Anglia

    DC Studio/Shutterstock

    The conundrum of when classified information is not deemed top secret is at the heart of the recent “Signalgate” controversy in which the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, shared plans for a military attack on Yemen using Signal, a messaging app.

    The recipients were other national security leaders and Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of US magazine The Atlantic, who had been accidentally added to the chat. Goldberg published a story about the incident, omitting several details he believed were highly sensitive and secret.

    The Donald Trump administration has denied that the information was classified. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of US national intelligence, told members of the Senate intelligence oversight committee that “no classified material” was shared in the group. CIA director John Ratcliffe did likewise.

    Hegseth dismissed the idea that any secrets were discussed on the group chat. And Trump also stated that the information “wasn’t classified”. But many disagreed, especially after Goldberg published another piece that included the full transcript of the chat.

    The Trump administration denies wrongdoing and has been on the attack. Meanwhile, critics argue that this is the latest example of misdemeanour and incompetence.

    So, what does this episode tell us about the US secrecy system and how classified information can be revealed?

    The US’s classification system

    The modern system of national security information classification emerged in the early years of the cold war. Many US presidents make small adjustments to the rules, but the basic structure remains the same as the 1950s, when a pair of executive orders established the system and regulated access to secrets.

    Information “related to the national defense” is labelled under three categories: confidential, secret and top secret. Confidential is the lowest rung of the ladder and the most sensitive material is tagged top secret, where an unauthorised disclosure would cause “exceptionally grave damage” to US national security.

    Every government agency that deals with national security matters is responsible for classifying its information. They also decide what, if anything, can be declassified.

    The number of secrets has grown exponentially since the second world war, and more people now have access to them. The exact size of the secrecy state remains unclear (it is, after all, secret), but there are billions of state secrets.

    The most recently available data reveals that more than 5 million Americans possess some level of security clearance, and it costs over US$18 billion (£14 billion) annually to maintain the system.

    The key legal tool to protect state secrets is the Espionage Act. Curiously, the law was passed in 1917, over three decades before the classification system was created.

    On the surface, the Espionage Act is clear-cut. It makes it a crime to disclose secret information to anyone not authorised to receive it. But, in reality, it was of limited value for prosecuting breaches during the 20th century, leading to the development of further tools and laws.

    In the 21st century, the Espionage Act reemerged as the weapon of choice for prosecuting leakers and whistleblowers. Yet punishment has overwhelmingly targeted mid- to lower-tier national security officials. No senior leader in the US has been prosecuted for revealing secrets.

    Similar to the UK?

    The US approach to secrecy is similar to the British approach. But there are key differences.

    The UK passed the first Official Secrets Act in 1889, which was revised several times over the next century. The Official Secrets Acts provide the main legal protection “against espionage and the unauthorised disclosure of official information”.

    It covers all current or former employees of the security and intelligence service, as well as Crown servants and government contractors. But anyone can be bound by it. As a law, everyone who comes across classified information is subject to the Official Secrets Acts.

    While similar secrecy legislation is common in many countries around the world, the US is a notable exception. This is because the first amendment to the constitution prevents laws that impinge on freedom of speech, the press, and the right of people to assemble and petition the government.

    However, recognising the utility of categorising and securing defence information, US military authorities copied the British approach toward classification in the early 20th century. Labelling and safeguarding secrets were critical during the two world wars. The question was how to do so in peacetime.

    The resolution was a US secrecy system that upholds the first amendment while allowing significant government control over secrets. Classification is based on executive orders while legislation outlaws exposure.

    The political stakes?

    The development of the US secrecy regime, like national security generally, has been a bipartisan effort. Democratic and Republican leaders, both in the White House and Congress, created the system over the 20th century. They have consistently sought to uphold and safeguard it.

    But politics is never absent. And in the current hyper-partisan times, Signalgate has been used as a stick against the Trump administration. Democratic lawmakers began calling for resignations and investigations into the leak. Republicans have increased pressure on Hegseth, calling for an independent probe. The Pentagon has said it will review Hegseth’s use of Signal.

    The Trump administration continues to dismiss the notion that this is a political scandal, and is trying to make it a story about media bias. “If you think you’re going to force the president of the United States to fire anybody you’ve got another thing coming,” US vice-president J.D. Vance declared. “We are standing behind our entire national security team.”

    However, there are some signs of unrest. Trump reportedly mulled over firing Mike Waltz, the national security adviser who added Goldberg to the Signal group chat. Growing numbers of voters think Hegseth should go.

    The politics may be uncertain. But the modern secrecy system allows the executive branch tremendous room for manoeuvre. It allows senior officials to claim that exposed details of top secret messages, like military attack plans, are not classified.

    Such a justification would not be plausible for lower level national security officials to evade censure. And Goldberg himself could have been caught in the crosshairs had it not been for the fact the information shared with him came from the very top of the secrecy system.

    Kaeten Mistry has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

    – ref. ‘Signalgate’: how the US government creates and guards its secrets – https://theconversation.com/signalgate-how-the-us-government-creates-and-guards-its-secrets-253569

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Here’s how to create a more nature-literate society

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Seirian Sumner, Professor of Behavioural Ecology, UCL

    stuartjames worcs/Shutterstock

    Spring is the time of year when my friends remember what a strange job I have, because a stripy insect has just appeared in their kitchen and they are panicking. “It’s huge!” one squeals. “Help! What do I do? I swear it’s that murder hornet I saw on social media.”

    I explain to my friend that this is a common wasp queen, freshly emerged from hibernation. She’s lost 40% of her body weight and needs sugar. She will soon build a nest – using wood from my friend’s garden fence – lay eggs and rear them to adulthood by feeding them caterpillars, flies, aphids and spiders. If she survives, she might lay 10,000 eggs through the summer producing 10,000 worker wasps that will hunt more of these so-called pests and pollinate plants in my friend’s garden.

    By now, my friend is offering the wasp some honey. As he watches her feed and fly away, he is contemplating the benefits that this single insect will bring to his garden this summer.

    My friend is not unusual: like many people, he lacks the words to describe nature and knowledge to name it. Without such nature literacy, is it any wonder that many people don’t know how to care for the natural world or why we should bother?

    Humans are more disconnected from nature than ever, partly because technology means we have fewer reasons to spend time in nature – this is what ecologists call the “extinction of experience”. Fewer than half of UK adults feel highly connected with nature; most children can’t identify stinging nettles, bumblebees or robins. People don’t understand what the term natural history means or why it matters.

    I witnessed this recently while lecturing. In a class survey, my bioscience students summed up natural history as: “old Victorian gentlemen”, “museums”, “dinosaurs” and “old-fashioned”. They also rated natural history as not relevant or of little relevance to their degree programmes, with only a few people rating it as quite or very important.

    We weren’t always like this. Natural history is the study of nature: it is the oldest science. Natural selection ensured that early humans were brilliant naturalists, in order to find food and not become food. Nature inspired some of our most influential scientists, from Aristotle to Charles Darwin.

    Non-biologists were also deeply influenced by nature. In the words of physicist Albert Einstein: “Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.” English mathematician Isaac Newton considered himself “a natural philosopher” – only the nature-curious would bother watching an apple fall.

    Having the language to name and describe nature is a gateway to curiosity-driven innovation, creativity and discovery. This matters because our food, health and wellbeing, innovations and creativity depend on observation, curiosity and understanding of the natural world. From termite-mound inspired air-conditioning technology to burr-mimicking Velcro, and ant-led town planning.

    Without noticing how nature has solved problems and without the ability to name, recognise and share the source with others in order to replicate the observations, none of these breakthroughs would have happened. Where will our next innovations come from, if we’ve lost the inclination and ability to notice, name and know nature?

    Knowledge about nature also makes us more pro-environmental and more likely to make planet-friendly decisions. This is critical as we continue to exceed planetary boundaries, driving climate change and nature loss. As things stand, our continuing divorce from nature means that the next generation are ill equipped for the future. Nature literacy helps us reconnect and make the right decisions.

    Growing nature literacy

    Becoming a nature-literate society starts with three key steps.

    1. Notice. Relearn how to be deliciously distracted by nature, curious about the ordinary, and redevelop the sense of awe and wonder that has inspired science, innovation and the arts for centuries.

    2. Name. Embrace the joys of learning to name nature. Can you tell a beech tree from an oak? A bee-fly from a bumble-bee? By being able to name something, we develop a connection with it and crave knowledge about it – be it for wasps or weeds.

    3. Nurture. With names and knowledge come care, responsibility and the determination to take action to protect nature, such that future generations have the biodiversity needed for future learning and inspiration.

    Have you ever seen an elephant hawkmoth caterpillar?
    Simon T May/Shutterstock

    Noticing and naming nature means we’re more likely to nurture it. Sharing our nature knowledge with others helps nudge the nature literacy agenda from below the boots of old Victorian gentlemen and into the 21st century. Even when that bit of nature involves gorgeous wasps.



    Read more:
    A new natural history GCSE is welcome – but climate change needs to be part of the whole curriculum

    And after 11 years of campaigning, environmentalist and author Mary Colwell has nudged nature literacy on to the agenda of the UK government with the approval of an examination-level qualification for secondary school children – the natural history GCSE. This is an important first step forward in shifting the baseline of nature literacy among the next generation in the UK.

    But nature literacy needs to become much more embedded across society. Nature-based jobs are the future. In industry and academia, tech startups and government, frontline roles are now focusing on “green” or “nature-based” jobs to deliver the nature-based solutions needed for a sustainable future. Demands for these jobs is booming, but the the lack of necessary nature-literacy skills is well-recognised. A recent report identified biodiversity knowledge as the most important technical skill identified by nature-based solutions employers globally.

    We need to shift cultural norms and societal expectations so that nature literacy is taught and valued by everyone – not just ecologists. Government and educators owe the future of our planet a nature-literate workforce.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Seirian Sumner receives funding from the UK government’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). She is a Trustee and Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society, and author of the book ‘Endless Forms: Why We Should Love Wasps’

    – ref. Here’s how to create a more nature-literate society – https://theconversation.com/heres-how-to-create-a-more-nature-literate-society-253373

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The hidden power of marathon Senate speeches: What history tells us about Cory Booker’s 25-hour oration

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charlie Hunt, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

    Sen. Cory Booker walks toward reporters after delivering a record-setting 25-hour speech for the U.S. Senate at the Capitol on April 1, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Win McNamee/Getty Images

    Democratic U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey made history on April 1, 2025, when he stood on the Senate floor and spoke for 25 hours and five minutes, delivering the longest floor speech in the history of the U.S. Senate.

    Booker’s speech detailed his concerns about President Donald Trump’s new executive orders, other policies and approach to government in his second term.

    “I rise tonight because silence at this moment of national crisis would be a betrayal of some of the greatest heroes of our nation. Because at stake in this moment is nothing less than everything that we brag about, that we talk about, that makes us special,” Booker said.

    Although Booker’s speech was not technically a filibuster, meaning a prolonged action at the Senate in order to delay or stop a vote on a legislative action, it was clearly a monumental physical achievement. Booker stood, wearing a black suit, for the entirety of his speech and did not pause to take bathroom or meal breaks.

    What does the subject matter of Booker’s speech, as well as his style of giving it, say about its potential effectiveness? Could it succeed where filibusters have failed?

    Many other long Senate speeches in history offer a variety of useful historical hints about the political significance of Booker’s record-breaking speech.

    U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina is kissed by his wife after talking for 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the Civil Rights Act in August 1957.
    Bettmann/Contributor/Getty Images

    Booker’s speech was a wide-ranging protest

    One unusual element of Booker’s oration is that it was not focused on just one narrow issue.

    Most of the lengthiest filibusters from across Senate history are focused on bills that cover important but specific issues. In 1953, Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon, for example, set a record for the longest filibuster when he spoke for 22 hours and 26 minutes. Morse protested a bill involving the transfer of land and oil rights between coastal states and the federal government. The bill passed, despite Morse’s filibuster.

    Sen. Strom Thurmond, the South Carolina politician who broke Morse’s record just four years later, infamously – and unsuccessfully – protested the Civil Rights Act of 1957 with a 24-hour, 18-minute speech.

    Booker’s speech came in the midst of a vote to confirm Matthew Whitaker as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. Whitaker was confirmed shortly after Booker’s speech concluded.

    Booker and the procession of Senate colleagues who asked him questions referenced this and other appointments in their remarks. But Booker largely used the speech to build a much bigger case against the Trump administration, most notably that the administration had wrested from Congress much of its constitutionally mandated budgetary authority by extensively cutting federal staff, grants and spending without congressional approval.

    “These are not normal times in America,” Booker said toward the beginning of his address, “and they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate.”

    The rules and culture of the Senate have always been more lax when it comes to what congressional experts call “germaneness” – in other words, how relevant a Senator’s action is to whatever is being debated.

    For example, the Senate often allows nongermane amendments, meaning those that have little or nothing to do with the bill being debated. Booker leveraged that Senate tradition to make a larger point about what he called an ongoing “crisis” in American democracy.

    Booker stuck to the issues

    Booker may have covered a wide variety of areas in his speech, ranging from proposed Republican cuts to Medicaid to mass firings of federal workers, but there’s no question that he stayed focused on his critique of the Trump administration – a difficult task to stick to for 25 straight hours.

    Booker’s predecessors in the pursuit of Thurmond’s record have demonstrated this difficulty in keeping a marathon speech focused.

    For example, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas diverted from his argument when he gave a 21-hour, 19-minute speech protesting President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, in 2013.

    Cruz, who still serves with Booker in the Senate, took the opportunity to tell his young daughters a bedtime story on the Senate floor, reading aloud from Dr. Seuss’ children’s book “Green Eggs and Ham.”

    Louisiana Sen. Huey Long, meanwhile, shared recipes for southern fried oysters during his 1937 protest of the federal appointments process.

    Booker, on the other hand, almost uniformly kept his focus on his grievances against the Trump administration and used only notes designed to reinforce his central argument that Trump is not leading in the best interest of the country.

    According to an April 1 press release from Booker’s office, the senator drew from over 1,000 pages of prepared material assembled by his Senate aides, including stories from more than 200 Americans who had written to Booker protesting Trump’s actions.

    In many instances, Booker also spoke extemporaneously about the administration’s actions. At other times, his fellow senators broke in for a lengthy question, but even these kept the conversation, and Booker’s attention, focused on taking Trump — and occasionally Elon Musk – to task.

    In all instances, Booker used his speech to rally the public.

    “My voice is inadequate. My efforts today are inadequate to stop what they are trying to do,” he said at one point. “But we the people are powerful, and we are strong.”

    Sen. Cory Booker speaks on the Senate floor on April 1, 2025.
    Senate Television/Associated Press

    Lasting effects

    Of course, with few tangible results to show for lengthy Senate speeches, people might be tempted to view these long orations as little more than trivia or political theater.

    On some occasions, filibusters have made a legislative impact. Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York, for example, filibustered a budget bill in 1986 for nearly 23½ hours to protest an amendment that would have killed funding for a jet trainer plane manufactured in his state. His filibuster didn’t stop the bill entirely, but he did secure a concession that prolonged the project’s life.

    For the most part, however, lengthy filibusters throughout history have been largely fruitless efforts legislatively. Even so, the symbolism of these speeches, including Booker’s, can have effects on politics and representation that last beyond the legislation the senator is protesting.

    It’s difficult to know yet just how effective Booker’s efforts will be in motivating an anti-Trump coalition to stand up to the administration, either in Congress or among voters.

    But politically speaking, Booker’s timing was fortuitous – on April 2, the same evening Booker wrapped up his address, liberals secured a crucial Wisconsin Supreme Court seat in a high-turnout election, when Judge Susan Crawford beat Judge Brad Schimel. Schimel is a Trump supporter and received nearly US$20 million in donations from organizations supported by Musk.

    Democratic politicians also outperformed expectations in two special elections to the U.S. House in Florida, though they lost the races.

    Taken together with Booker’s herculean effort, these events could serve as a catalyst for Trump’s opponents to strike back in the coming months.

    The symbolic significance of Booker’s achievement has also not gone unnoticed. Booker, who is Black and reflected on ancestors who were both enslaved or enslavers in his speech, was himself mindful of the historical relevance.

    “To be candid, Strom Thurmond’s record always just really irked me,” Booker said after his speech in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

    “The longest speech on our great Senate floor was someone who was trying to stop people like me from being in the Senate.”

    If nothing else, Booker took that record from Thurmond and made it his own.

    Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The hidden power of marathon Senate speeches: What history tells us about Cory Booker’s 25-hour oration – https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-power-of-marathon-senate-speeches-what-history-tells-us-about-cory-bookers-25-hour-oration-253695

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Consumers are boycotting US goods around the world. Should Trump be worried?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alan Bradshaw, Professor of Marketing, Royal Holloway University of London

    US alcohol has been removed from sale in the Canadian province of British Columbia. lenic/Shutterstock

    As politicians around the world scramble to respond to US “liberation day” tariffs, consumers have also begun flexing their muscles. “Boycott USA” messages and searches have been trending on social media and search engines, with users sharing advice on brands and products to avoid.

    Even before Donald Trump announced across-the-board tariffs, there had been protests and attacks on the president’s golf courses in Doonbeg in Ireland and Turnberry in Scotland in response to other policies. And in Canada, shoppers avoided US goods after Trump announced he could take over his northern neighbour.

    His close ally Elon Musk has seen protests at Tesla showrooms across Europe, Australia and New Zealand. New cars have been set on fire as part of the “Tesla take-down”, while Tesla sales have been on a deep downward trend. This has been especially noticeable in European countries where electric vehicles sales have been high, and in Australia.

    This targeting of Trump and Musk’s brands are part of wider boycotts of US goods as consumers look for ways to express their anger at the US administration.

    Denmark’s biggest retailer, Salling Group, has given the price label of all European products a black star, making it easy for customers to avoid US goods.

    Canadian shoppers are turning US products upside down in retail outlets so it’s easier for fellow shoppers to spot and avoid them. Canadian consumers can also download the Maple Scan app that checks barcodes to see if their grocery purchases are actually Canadian or have parent companies from the USA.

    Who owns what?

    The issue of ostensibly Canadian brands being owned by US capital illustrates the complexity of consumer boycotts – it can be difficult to identify which brands are American and which are not.

    In the UK, for example, many consumers would be surprised to learn how many famous British brands are actually American-owned – for example, Cadbury, Waterstones and Boots. So entwined are global economies that attempts by consumers to boycott US brands may also damage their local economies.

    This complexity is also present in Danish and Canadian Facebook groups that are dedicated to boycotting US goods. Consumers exchange tips on how to swap alternatives for American products.

    The fact that Facebook is a US-based company only demonstrates how deeply embedded consumer culture is in US technologies. European businesses often depend on American operating systems and cloud storage while consumers rely on US-owned social media platforms for communication.

    Even when consumers succeed in weeding out American products, if they pay using Visa, Mastercard or Apple Pay, a percentage of the price will nonetheless be rerouted to the US. If a touch payment is made with Worldpay, the percentage could be even greater.

    These American financial services show just how embedded US businesses are in retail in ways that consumers may not appreciate. In practice, an absolute boycott of US business is almost unimaginable.

    All-American brands

    But American branding is not always subtle. In addition to brands directly connected to the US administration – such as the Trump golf courses and Tesla – many other companies have always been flamboyantly American. Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Budweiser are just some examples where their American identities and proudly on show.

    As such, it’s possible that consumers will increasingly avoid blatantly American brands. They may be less concerned about the complexities and contradictions of a more comprehensive boycott.

    Consumer actions where the goal is political change are known as “proxy boycotts” because no particular company is the ultimate target. Rather, the brands and firms are targeted by consumers as a means to an end.

    Do boycotts work?

    A classic example of a proxy boycott took aim at French goods, particularly wine, in the mid-1990s. This was in response to president Jacques Chirac’s decision to conduct nuclear tests in the Pacific. The large-scale consumer boycotts contributed to France’s decision to abandon its nuclear tests in 1996.

    In Britain, for example, French wines in all categories lost market share as demand fell during the boycott. At the time, it cost the French wine sector £23 million (about £46 million today).

    These boycotts are a reminder that the interplay between corporations, brands and consumer culture are inevitably embedded in politics. The current political impasse demonstrates that consumers can participate in politics, not just with their votes, but also with their buying power.

    Trump clearly wants to demonstrate American strength. The “liberation day” tariffs, which were higher than most observers expected, bear this out. But many US corporations will now be worrying about how consumers in the US and around the world might respond. Trump could see a mass mobilisation of consumer power in ways that will give the president something to think about.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Consumers are boycotting US goods around the world. Should Trump be worried? – https://theconversation.com/consumers-are-boycotting-us-goods-around-the-world-should-trump-be-worried-253389

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: AI is automating our jobs – but values need to change if we are to be liberated by it

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Robert Muggah, Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow na Bosch Academy e Co-fundador, Instituto Igarapé

    Artificial intelligence may be the most significant disruptor in the history of mankind. Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai famously described AI as “more profound than the invention of fire or electricity”. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman claims it has the power to cure most diseases, solve climate change, provide personalized education to the world, and lead to other “astounding triumphs”.

    AI will undoubtedly help solve vast problems, while generating vast fortunes for technology companies and investors. However, the rapid spread of generative AI and machine learning will also automate vast swathes of the global workforce, eviscerating white-collar and blue-collar jobs alike. And while millions of new jobs will surely be created, it is not clear what happens when potentially billions more are lost.

    The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.

    Amid the breathless promises of productivity gains from AI, there are rising concerns that the political, social and economic fallout from mass labour displacement will deepen inequality, strain public safety nets, and contribute to social unrest.

    A 2023 survey in 31 countries found that over half of all respondents felt “nervous” about the impacts of AI on their daily lives and believed it will negatively impact their jobs. Concerns are also mounting about the ways in which AI is being weaponized and could hasten everything from geopolitical fragmentation to nuclear exchanges. While experts are sounding the alarm, it is increasingly clear that governments, businesses and societies are unprepared for the AI revolution.

    The coming AI upheaval

    The idea that machines would one day replace human labour is hardly new. It features in novels, films and countless economic reports stretching back over centuries. In 2013, Carl-Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne of the University of Oxford attempted to quantify the human costs, estimating that “47% of total US employment is in the high risk category, meaning that associated occupations are potentially automatable”. Their study triggered a global debate about the far-reaching consequences of automation not just for manufacturing jobs, but also service and knowledge-based work.

    Fast forward to today, and AI capabilities are advancing faster than almost anyone expected. In November 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT, which dramatically accelerated the AI race. By 2023, Goldman Sachs projected that “roughly two-thirds of current jobs are exposed to some degree of AI automation” and that up to 300 million jobs worldwide could be displaced or significantly altered by AI.

    A more detailed McKinsey analysis estimated that “Gen AI and other technologies have the potential to automate work activities that absorb up to 70% of employees’ time today”. Brookings found that “more than 30% of all workers could see at least 50% of their occupation’s tasks disrupted by generative AI”. Although the methodologies and estimates differ, all of these studies point to a common outcome: AI will profoundly upset the world of work.

    While it is tempting to compare the impacts of AI automation to past industrial revolutions, it is also short-sighted. AI is arguably more transformative than the combustion engine or Internet because it represents a fundamental shift in how decisions are made and tasks are performed. It is not just a new tool or source of power, but a system that can learn, adapt, and make independent decisions across virtually all sectors of the economy and aspects of human life. Precisely because AI has these capabilities, scales exponentially, and is not confined by geography, it is already starting to outperform humans. It signals the advent of a post-human intelligence era.

    Goldman Sachs estimates that 46% of administrative work and 44% of legal tasks could be automated within the next decade. In finance and legal sectors, tasks such as contract analysis, fraud detection, and financial advising are increasingly handled by AI systems that can process data faster and more accurately than humans. Financial institutions are rapidly deploying AI to reduce costs and increase efficiency, with many entry-level roles set to disappear. Global banks could cut as many as 200,000 jobs in the next three to five years on account of AI.

    Ironically, coding and software engineering jobs are among the most vulnerable to the spreading of AI. While there are expectations that AI will increase productivity and streamline routine tasks with many programmers and non-programmers likely to benefit, some coders confess that they are becoming overly reliant on AI suggestions (which undermines problem-solving skills).

    Anthropic, one of the leading developers of generative AI systems, recently launched an Economic Index based on millions of anonymised uses of its Claude chatbot. It reveals massive adoption of AI in software engineering: “37.2% of queries sent to Claude were in this category, covering tasks like software modification, code debugging, and network troubleshooting”.

    AI is also outperforming humans in a growing array of medical imaging and diagnosis roles. While doctors may not be replaced outright, support roles are particularly vulnerable and medical professionals are getting anxious. Analysts insist that high-skilled jobs are not at risk even as AI-driven diagnostic tools and patient management systems are steadily being deployed in hospitals and clinics worldwide.

    Meanwhile, the creative sectors also face significant disruption as AI-generated writing and synthetic media improve. The demand for human journalists, copywriters, and designers is already falling just as AI-generated content (including so-called “slop”: the growing amount of low-quality text, audio and video flooding social media) expands. And in education, AI tutoring systems, adaptive learning platforms, and automated grading could reduce the need for human teachers, not only in remote learning environments.

    Arguably the most dramatic impact of AI in the coming years will be in the manufacturing sector. Recent videos from China offer a glimpse into a future of factories that run 24/7 and are nearly entirely automated (except a handful in supervising roles). Most tasks are performed by AI-powered robots and technologies designed to handle production and, increasingly, support functions.

    Unlike humans, robots do not need light to operate in these “dark factories”. CapGemini describes them as places “where raw materials enter, and finished products leave, with little or no human intervention”. Re-read that sentence. The implications are profound and dizzying: efficiency gains (capital) that come at the cost of human livelihoods (labor) and rapid downward spiral for the latter if no safeguards are put in place.

    Some have confidently argued that, as with past technological shifts, AI-driven job losses will be offset by new opportunities. AI enthusiasts add that it will mostly handle repetitive or boring tasks, freeing humans for more creative work — like giving doctors more time with patients, teachers more time to engage with students, lawyers more time to concentrate on client relationships, or architects more time to focus on innovative design. But this historical comfort overlooks AI’s radical novelty: for the first time, we’re confronted with a technology that is not just a tool but an autonomous agent, capable of making decisions and directly shaping reality. The question is not just what we can do with AI, but what AI might do to us.

    AI will certainly save time. Machine learning already interprets scans faster and cheaper than doctors. But the idea that this will give professionals more time for creative or human-centered work is less convincing. Already doctors are not short on technology; they are short on time because healthcare systems prioritise efficiency and cost-cutting over “time with patients”. The rise of technology in healthcare has coincided with doctors spending less time with patients, not more, as hospitals and insurers push for higher throughput and lower costs. AI may make diagnosis quicker, but there is little reason to think it will loosen the grip of a system designed to maximise output rather than human connection.

    Nor is there much reason to expect AI to liberate office workers for more creative tasks. Technology tends to reinforce the values of the system into which it is introduced. If those values are cost reduction and higher productivity, AI will be deployed to automate tasks and consolidate work, not to create breathing room. Workflows will be redesigned for speed and efficiency, not for creativity or reflection. Unless there is a deliberate shift in priorities — a move to value human input over raw output — AI is more likely to tighten the screws than to loosen them. That shift seems unlikely anytime soon.

    AI’s uneven impacts

    AI’s impact on employment will not be felt equally around the world. It will impact different countries differently. Disparities in political systems, economic development levels, labour market structures and access to AI infrastructure (including energy) are shaping how regions are preparing for and are likely to experience AI-driven disruption. Smaller, wealthier countries are potentially in a better position to manage the scale and speed of job displacement. Some lower-income societies may be cushioned by the disruption owing to limited market penetration of AI services altogether. Meanwhile, high and medium income countries may experience social turbulence and potentially unrest as a result of rapid and unpredictable automation.

    The United States, the current leader in AI development, faces significant exposure to AI-driven disruption, particularly in services. A 2023 study found that highly educated workers in professional and technical roles are most vulnerable to displacement. Knowledge-based industries such as finance, legal services, and customer support are already shedding entry-level jobs as AI automates routine tasks.

    Technology companies have begun shrinking their workforces, using that also as signals to both government and business. Over 95,000 workers at tech companies lost their jobs in 2024. Despite its AI edge, America’s service-heavy economy leaves it highly exposed to automation’s downsides.

    Asia stands at the forefront of AI-driven automation in manufacturing and services. It is not just China, but countries like South Korea that are deploying AI in so-called “smart factories” and logistics with fully automated production facilities becoming increasingly common. India and the Philippines, major hubs for outsourced IT and customer service, face pressure as AI threatens to replace human labour in these sectors. Japan, with its shrinking workforce, sees AI more as a solution than a threat. But the broader region’s exposure to automation reflects its deep reliance on manufacturing and outsourcing, making it highly vulnerable to AI-driven job displacement in a geopolitically turbulent world.

    Europe is taking early regulatory steps to manage AI’s labour market impact. The EU’s AI Act aims to regulate high-risk AI applications, including those affecting employment. Yet in Eastern Europe, where manufacturing and low-cost labour underpin economic competitiveness, automation is already cutting into job security. Poland and Hungary, for example, are seeing a rise in automated production lines. Western Europe’s knowledge-based economies face risks similar to those in America, particularly in finance and professional services.

    Oil-rich Gulf states are investing heavily in AI as part of diversification efforts away from a dependence on hydrocarbons. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are building AI hubs and integrating AI into government services and logistics. The UAE even has a Minister of State for AI. But with high youth unemployment and a reliance on foreign labour, these countries face risks if AI reduces demand for low-skill jobs, potentially worsening inequality.

    In Latin America, automation threatens to disrupt manufacturing and agriculture, but also sectors like mining, logistics, and customer service. As many as 2-5% of all jobs in the region are at risk, according to the International Labor Organization and World Bank. And it is not just young people in the formal service sectors, but also human labour in mining operations, logistics and warehouse workers. Call centers in Mexico and Colombia face pressure as AI-powered customer service bots reduce demand for human agents. And AI-driven crop monitoring, automated irrigation, and robotic harvesting threaten to replace farm labourers, particularly in Brazil and Argentina. Yet the region’s large informal labour market may cushion some of the shock.

    While most Africans are optimistic about the transformative potential of AI, adoption remains low due to limited infrastructure and investment. However, the continent’s rapidly growing digital economy could see AI play a transformative role in financial services, logistics, and agriculture. A recent assessment suggests AI could boost productivity and access to services, but without careful management, it risks widening inequality. As in Latin America, low wages and high levels of informal employment reduce the financial incentive to automate. Ironically, weaker economic incentives for automation may shield these economies from the worst of AI’s labour disruption.

    No one is prepared

    The scale and speed of recent AI developments have taken many governments and businesses by surprise. To be sure, some are proactively taking steps to prepare workforces for the transformation. Hundreds of AI laws, regulations, guidelines, and standards have emerged in recent years, though few of them are legally binding. One exception is the EU’s AI Act, which seeks to establish a comprehensive legal framework for AI deployment, addressing risks such as job displacement and ethical concerns. China and South Korea have also developed national AI strategies with an emphasis on industrial policy and technological self-sufficiency, aiming to lead in AI and automation while boosting their manufacturing sectors.

    Notwithstanding recent attempts to increase oversight over AI, the US has adopted an increasingly laissez-faire approach, prioritising innovation by reducing regulatory barriers. This “minimal regulation” stance, however, raises concerns about the potential societal costs of rapid AI adoption, including widespread job displacement, the deepening of inequality and undermining of democracy.

    Other countries, particularly in the Global South, have largely remained on the sidelines of AI regulation, lacking the awareness, capabilities or infrastructure to tackle these issues comprehensively. As such, the global regulatory landscape remains fragmented, with significant disparities in how countries are preparing for the workforce impacts of automation.

    Businesses are under pressure to adopt AI as fast and deeply as possible, for fear of losing competitiveness. That’s, at least, the hyperbolic narrative that AI companies have succeeded in putting forward. And it’s working: a recent poll of 1,000 executives found that 58% of businesses are adopting AI due to competitive pressure and 70% say that advances in technology are occurring faster than their workforce can incorporate them.

    Another new survey suggests that over 40% of global employers planned to reduce their workforce as AI reshapes the labour market. Lost in the rush to adopt AI is a serious reflection on workforce transition. Financial institutions, consulting firms, universities and nonprofit groups have sounded alarms about the economic impact of AI but have provided few solutions other than workforce up-skilling and Universal Basic Income (UBI). Governments and businesses are wrestling with a basic challenge: how to manage the benefits of AI while protecting workers from displacement.

    AI-driven automation is no longer a future prospect; it is already reshaping labour markets. As automation reduces human workforces, it will also diminish the power of unions and collective bargaining furthering entering capital over labour. Whether AI fosters widespread prosperity or deepens inequality and social unrest depends not just on the imperatives of tech company CEOs and shareholders, but on the proactive decisions made by policymakers, business leaders, union representatives, and workers in the coming years.

    The key question is not if AI will disrupt labour markets — this is inevitable — but how societies will manage the upheaval and what kinds of “new bargains” will be made to address its negative externalities. It is worth recalling that while the last three industrial revolutions created more jobs than they destroyed, the transitions were long and painful. This time, the pace of change will be faster and more profound, demanding swift and enlightened action.

    At a minimum, governments must prepare their societies to develop a new social contract, prioritise retraining programs, bolster social safety nets, and explore UBI to help workers displaced by automation. They should also proactively foster new industries to absorb the displaced workforce. Businesses, in turn, will need to rethink workforce strategies and adopt human-centric AI deployment models that prioritise collaboration between humans and machines, rather than substitution of the former by the latter.

    The promise of AI is immense, from boosting productivity to creating new economic opportunities and indeed helping solving big collective problems. Yet, without a focused and coordinated effort, the technology is unlikely to develop in ways that benefit society at large.

    Dr. Robert Muggah is the co-founder of the Igarapé Institute, an independent think and do tank that develops research, solutions and partnerships to address global public, digital and climate security challenges. Dr. Muggah is also a principal of the SecDev Group, and an advisor to the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank. An advisor to AI start-ups and a climate tech venture firms, Dr. Muggah has experience developing new technologies and testing AI systems for security and governance. He also coordinated a global task force on predictive analytics and AI in the Global South since in 2023.

    Bruno Giussani não presta consultoria, trabalha, possui ações ou recebe financiamento de qualquer empresa ou organização que poderia se beneficiar com a publicação deste artigo e não revelou nenhum vínculo relevante além de seu cargo acadêmico.

    – ref. AI is automating our jobs – but values need to change if we are to be liberated by it – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-automating-our-jobs-but-values-need-to-change-if-we-are-to-be-liberated-by-it-253806

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What politicians could actually do about the issues raised in Adolescence

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Lawson, Associate Professor in Sociolinguistics, Birmingham City University

    Mounir Taha/Shutterstock

    Netflix hit Adolescence has ignited conversations across the UK about contemporary masculinity, online radicalisation and violence against women and girls. It has also raised questions about the interventions needed at home, in schools and by the government to counter the seductive power of harmful content on social media.

    The series suggests the key to solving some of these issues is parents and teachers understanding the “manosphere”. This is a collection of websites, influencers and communities where men talk about “men’s issues”. But, as I’ve explored in my research, anti-women and anti-feminist sentiment also prevails.

    In an interview about the series, Adolescence writer Jack Thorne says:

    Jamie is not a simple product of the ‘manosphere’. He is a product of parents that didn’t see, a school that couldn’t care and a brain that didn’t stop him. Put 3,000 kids in the same situation and they wouldn’t do what he did. Yet spend any time on forums on 4chan or Reddit, spend any time on most social media platforms and you end up, quite quickly, in some dark spaces. Parents can try to regulate this, schools can stop mobile phone access but more needs to be done.

    Successive UK governments have attempted to counter online misogyny and violence against women and girls through legislation and public education schemes. But what would really work?

    Adolescence attaches much importance to language and emojis used by teens to obscure meaning, though there is undoubtedly some creative license behind the depictions of the emojis used to mean “incel” (involuntary celibate).

    But focusing on “slang parents and teachers need to know” is misguided. Every generation finds ways of talking about their lives in coded ways. And teen language is frequently tied to moral panics about what it potentially hides. Research has shown that regular, open and supportive conversations between parents and children are much more important.

    The role of schools

    The prime minister has suggested that Adolescence should be shown in schools. And Netflix has made the series available to secondary schools across the UK.

    In December 2024, education minister Bridget Phillipson announced new teaching guidance about incel culture and online misogyny. She argued that it was “vital to recognise the signs of these dangerous ideas as early as possible”.

    It’s encouraging to see the government take these issues seriously, but there are pitfalls. Teachers are under substantial pressure, struggling with workload and staffing. How many have the capacity to lead meaningful and supportive discussions, especially with limited training on these topics?

    Some research suggests that female teachers encounter explicit misogyny in their classrooms. This makes it even more difficult to facilitate conversations about gender and violence. Sessions on countering misogyny also pose the danger of alienating boys, making them feel like they are being vilified for the actions of other men and boys.



    Read more:
    Adolescence in schools: TV show’s portrayal of one boyhood may do more harm than good when used as a teaching tool

    Ultimately, interventions to reduce gender-based violence and misogyny need a “whole-school” approach that integrates gender equality across the curriculum, rather than isolating it within relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) classes. This content could also be covered in initial teacher training courses.

    Researchers have developed resources to challenge dangerous gender norms for use in schools, community groups and other forums. These include toolkits from Dublin City University, University of Liverpool and the MascNet research network, which focus on improving critical thinking, unpacking dominant ideas of masculinity and reflecting on different ways of being a man.

    My own work on A-level English curricula also offers suggestions. Improving digital literacy is key to helping young men identify the mechanisms of manipulation in the content they consume and resist the siren call of manosphere influences. This can encourage young men to rethink their assumptions about gender politics and masculinity, with the ultimate aim of reducing gender-based violence.

    Other discussions have focused on recruiting more male teachers and the importance of models of masculinity based on caring, empathy and emotional vulnerability. Again, these are appealing solutions, but the evidence that male role models improve outcomes for young people is mixed.

    Perhaps the trickiest debate concerns the regulation of media and technology. Adolescence writer Thorne has backed the UK following Australia’s approach to ban social media for under-16s, and some argue the government should ban smartphones for teenagers entirely. Experts say that such bans could do more harm than good.

    The UK’s new online safety laws may go some way to holding social media companies to account for moderating illegal or harmful content and algorithms through fines. This covers intimate image abuse, cyberflashing and some other forms of online misogyny, but there are likely to be gaps when it comes to male supremacist and manosphere content.

    And there are serious concerns about how the law will affect free speech and undermine privacy online.

    Investing in youth

    The problem with many of these strategies is that they fail to acknowledge the material reality of many young boys’ lives. There have been significant cuts over the past 20 years to youth provision, from clubs and community centres to mental health support.

    Boys’ prospects in terms of educational attainment and secure employment lag behind girls’. These inequalities become even more pronounced across regions and social classes, and won’t be solved by banning social media.

    Add to this disconnected communities and a potent combination of insecurity, precarity and frustrated expectation, it is no surprise that many young men find solace in an online world which gives them validation, belonging and a sense of community.



    Read more:
    Blaming absent dads for the crisis of masculinity is too simplistic – many men want to be more involved

    Thankfully, a number of organisations offer better solutions. Charities like Beyond Equality, the Manhood Academy, AndysManClub and Progressive Masculinity have provided outreach, mentoring and mental health provision for boys and young men across the UK for years.

    Similarly, the S.M.I.L.E-ing Boys Project supports boys from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities to develop their emotional intelligence, with positive outcomes in terms of navigating relationships and interpersonal conflict. Government investment would help these organisations reach more young men, alongside improving access for underserved communities.

    Adolescence has started some important conversations among parents, teens and politicians. But to make a difference in how young men navigate the world, how they deal with rejection, and how they negotiate the difficulties that life throws at them, these conversations need to be backed up with investment and concrete action.

    Robert Lawson is a Research Fellow in the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism.

    – ref. What politicians could actually do about the issues raised in Adolescence – https://theconversation.com/what-politicians-could-actually-do-about-the-issues-raised-in-adolescence-252978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: More than just chips: Chinese threats and Trump tariffs could disrupt lots of ‘made in Taiwan’ imports − disappointing US builders, cyclists and golfers alike

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jay L. Zagorsky, Associate Professor Questrom School of Business, Boston University

    A cargo ship and containers are seen at the Port of Keelung in Taiwan on April 3, 2025. I-HWA CHENG/AFP via Getty Images

    What would the United States stand to lose economically if its current access to the Taiwanese market were upended or totally restricted?

    This seemingly theoretical question about the longtime U.S. trading partner has taken on more relevance in the past several weeks. First, longtime fears about a potential Chinese invasion of the island – which Beijing claims as its own – were magnified as China increased military pressure by sending patrols, firing live ammunition nearby, practicing blockading the island and even publicly revealing the existence of new barges that might be used in an invasion. If China uses force, Taiwan’s manufacturing capacity could be destroyed.

    Then on April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a new 32% tariff on imports from Taipei, excluding semiconductors. Taiwan described the new tariffs, part of a radical upending of U.S. trade practices, as “deeply unreasonable.” They could also be deeply painful to U.S. consumers given the outsize role Taiwan imports play.

    The U.S. State Department calls Taiwan an important U.S. partner in “semiconductors and other critical supply chains.” But as I learned studying trade data and visiting the small but thriving island last fall, the U.S. depends on Taiwan for more than just sophisticated computer chips. In 2024, Taiwanese products constituted 3.6% of all U.S. imports.

    Overall trade figures

    Trade figures are known in detail because almost every government carefully tracks the contents of all shipping containers, cargo flights and bulk deliveries that legally leave and enter their borders. These figures are published online and broken down into very fine detail using a system called the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, or HTS. The HTS shows the tax or duty that must be paid for each kind of item and from every kind of country.

    In 2024, the U.S. exported US$1.7 trillion worth of goods to the world. Since few of us can conceptualize trillions, that is about $5,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.

    For its part, Taiwan in 2024 exported about that same amount per resident of the island just to the U.S., $5,000 – or about $90 billion overall. The U.S. is Taiwan’s second-biggest trading partner, after mainland China. Looking at their total exports, Taiwan shipped to the entire world about $20,000 worth of items for every resident.

    The vital technology component

    Not surprisingly, Taiwan’s biggest exports to the U.S. are computers, chips and other electronic hardware such as power supplies. These computer chips are so important that they were specifically excluded from the new tariffs.

    However, $90 billion of exports dramatically underestimates the amount of Taiwanese electronics that end up in U.S. hands. For example, the main chip inside all Apple iPhones is Taiwanese. However, these chips are sent from Taiwan to mainland Chinese factories where the phones are assembled. When these iPhones are exported from mainland China, the value of the chips inside the phone is not counted as U.S. imports from Taiwan. Instead, the whole phone is counted as an import from mainland China and slapped with a tariff.

    The building industry

    But while high-technology equipment often gets the headlines, imports from Taiwan are far broader – and the U.S. would face several economic shocks if Taiwan suddenly stopped exporting.

    First, the U.S. building industry could grind to a halt because Taiwan is a major producer of drywall screws. Though small and cheap, that’s a very significant product, given the prominence of drywall in the interior walls of almost every house, office and factory.

    Microchip and Taiwanese flag displayed on a phone screen.
    Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Overall, the U.S. uses a massive amount of drywall for new construction and remodeling. In 2024, the country consumed about 28 billion square feet of wallboard. That amount is enough to cover almost the state of Rhode Island.

    To hang drywall, every 100 square feet of the sheets needs about 125 screws. And the vast majority came last year from Taiwan. The U.S. imported over two-thirds of a billion dollars’ worth of the screws; the screws weighed over half a billion pounds.

    While the U.S. does make screws, domestic screw manufacturers primarily focus on high-value parts such as screws needed for airplanes, rocket ships and other performance vehicles, not lower-value screws whose wholesale cost is slightly more than a dollar a pound.

    Beyond screws, Taiwan is a major producer of tools. For example, approximately two-thirds of all socket wrenches, band saws, blowtorches, air compressors and grinders imported into the U.S. come from that island. Losing access to tools is not as crucial as losing access to the screws because many tools last a long time. But finding new suppliers is not trivial.

    The other basket of imports

    Finally, Taiwan is also a big U.S. supplier of sports goods.

    The country is a major producer of bicycles, with manufacturers such as Giant. In 2024, the U.S. imported from Taiwan over a quarter of a billion dollars in just bike parts, which U.S. manufacturers such as Specialized and Trek use when assembling bikes.

    Moreover, Taiwan controls a few key parts of the bike market. For example, over half of all bicycle crank sets, derailleurs and brake parts came from Taiwan. Without these products it is impossible to pedal, shift and even stop a bike.

    Taiwan is also one of the world’s leading suppliers of golf clubs, with the U.S. in 2024 importing about a quarter of a billion dollars’ worth of clubs from the island. To go along with the clubs, Taiwan also sent half a billion golf balls. Given that about 25 million people play on golf courses in the U.S. each year, that works out to 20 balls per player in just 2024.

    Finally, the island sent over a third of a million lacrosse sticks last year, which is almost one new stick for every member of the USA Lacrosse federation.

    All together, the data shows that not just Silicon Valley should be worried about geopolitical factors that disrupt imports from Taiwan. Taiwan might be a small island, but as the story of David and Goliath reminds us, size and impact are not related.

    Jay L. Zagorsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. More than just chips: Chinese threats and Trump tariffs could disrupt lots of ‘made in Taiwan’ imports − disappointing US builders, cyclists and golfers alike – https://theconversation.com/more-than-just-chips-chinese-threats-and-trump-tariffs-could-disrupt-lots-of-made-in-taiwan-imports-disappointing-us-builders-cyclists-and-golfers-alike-253729

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Abolition wasn’t fueled by just moral or economic concerns – the booming whaling industry also helped sink slavery

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Topher L. McDougal, Professor of Economic Development & Peacebuilding, University of San Diego

    An engraving of whalers at sea attacking a whale with a harpoon from 1820. Kean Collection/Getty Images

    Historians have long debated whether the end of slavery in the United States was primarily driven by moral campaigns or economic changes. But what if both perspectives are looking at only part of the puzzle?

    We are experts in economic development and social movements. Our new research uncovers what we believe to be a surprising and overlooked factor in the decline of slavery in the U.S. – the rise of the whaling industry.

    Starting around 1650, whaling expanded along the Northeast coast of the British American colonies. Whaling expeditions killed whales and brought back to port valuable animal products like oil, used for lamps and other items, and whalebone, used for products ranging from corsets to combs.

    Whalers also brought spermaceti, a waxy substance that comes from a sperm whale’s head and is used to produce candles and lubricants for precision machinery like watches and clocks.

    At its peak, in the 1850s, the American whaling industry alone employed 50,000 to 70,000 workers who worked on an estimated 700 to 800 ships.

    In the decades before cheap oil helped many industries truly take off, whaling played an important, but often overlooked, role in laying the groundwork for the antislavery movement.

    Black sailors made up perhaps 20% to 30% of whaling crews. Of these sailors, some were enslaved and used their hard-won earnings to buy their freedom. Some of these sailors went on to finance abolitionist efforts. Others built houses of worship.

    The whaling industry that produced oil to illuminate 19th-century lamps also added fuel to the fire of the antislavery movement. The city motto of New Bedford, Massachusetts – lucem diffundo, or “I diffuse light” in Latin – referred to the candles and lamps the whaling industry lit, as well as the moral clarity some whalers aspired to promote.

    Three Black whalers stand on a wharf in New Bedford, Mass., in an 1880 drawing.
    Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

    The missing link between whaling and abolition

    Slavery in the American colonies began in 1619 with a small enslaved population that grew to about 500,000 by the American Revolution in 1775. As slavery became institutionalized in law and American culture, the number of enslaved people grew, primarily in the South, to as many as 4 million in the years leading up to the Civil War in 1861.

    The first half of the 1800s saw a surge of abolitionist activism, rooted in early Quaker efforts and Indigenous wisdom. Abolitionism reshaped American politics into a fuller democracy, linking Black resistance, feminist struggles and labor rights to the broader fight for democracy and human rights.

    The decline and eventual abolition of slavery has been portrayed as the result of tireless activism and moral persuasion by early Quaker advocates like Benjamin Lay who considered slavery one of the worst sins. Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass would later go on to advocate for the Civil War to force a moral reckoning on the South.

    The result was an antislavery moral high ground from which the United Kingdom, and later the U.S., could measure other countries and monitor the high seas.

    Another common explanation for the end of slavery is the economic argument that slavery declined as fossil fuel-powered machinery replaced enslaved labor on farms and even in factories.

    Our research challenges this binary by showing that before steam engines transformed industry, whaling played an overlooked role in challenging the proposition that slavery was America’s most economically profitable form of labor organization at the time.

    Increased whaling, decreased slavery

    We analyzed data from U.S. Census records and the logbooks of American whaling voyages from 1790 to 1840 – systematized in a dataset maintained by the Mystic Seaport Museum and New Bedford Whaling Museum.

    This data came from well before the 1859 discovery and exploitation of oil in Pennsylvania.

    The results were striking: When the whaling industry brought back more oil, bone and spermaceti to specific ports, the proportion of enslaved people in the corresponding states declined.

    Statistically speaking, we saw a nearly perfect 1-to-1 inverse relationship between whaling and slavery.

    When whaling products went up 1%, slavery proportions went down by almost the same amount in that state in the following years. What’s more, we mapped these findings geographically and discovered that the more whaling occurred, the more widely decreases in slavery occurred in nearby states.

    In other words, our statistics suggest that increases in whaling led to decreases in slavery, and this effect diffused across state lines.

    Why whaling mattered

    Whaling was the first global industry in the colonies that eventually became the U.S.

    Whaling hubs like the Massachusetts towns of Nantucket and New Bedford and the island of Martha’s Vineyard became some of the wealthiest communities in the country.

    Whaling was also one of the few industries where Black Americans, both free and formerly enslaved, could make money and become wealthy. Individuals of all backgrounds could rise through the whaling industry ranks based on skill rather than birth.

    It also required a risk-embracing and entrepreneurial mindset, as immortalized in a song that the writer Herman Melville has the crew sing in the 1851 book Moby-Dick: “So, be cheery, my lads! may your hearts never fail! / While the bold harpooner is striking the whale!”

    By contrast, the plantation economy relied on rigid racial hierarchies and hereditary enslavement.

    Prince Boston was one example of an enslaved whaler, who, in 1773 at the age of 23, won the right in the local Nantucket court to purchase his own freedom from his owner, who lived locally, with the money he earned on a harpoon crew.

    This watershed moment saw the court make a precedent that was probably illegal at the time, but which supported and defended both the whaling industry as well as the aspirations of the people needed to make it thrive. Prince Boston’s free-born nephew, Absolom Boston, become the first Black whaling captain in 1822 – one of approximately 50 Black and Native captains in the American whaling industry throughout its history.

    Financing the fight against slavery

    The economic power generated by whaling helped fund the abolitionist movement in tangible ways.

    Wealthy Quaker merchants in whaling towns, like Martha’s Vineyard, were some of the earliest and most fervent supporters of abolition.

    Elihu Coleman, a Nantucket Quaker, wrote one of the first antislavery pamphlets in America in 1733. Douglass, the famed abolitionist and formerly enslaved man from Maryland, found refuge in New Bedford, a whaling town with a strong antislavery tradition.

    Whaling profits financed the construction of meeting houses and schools for free Black communities in these towns. The African Baptist Society in Nantucket, for example, was built by Black whalers who had achieved financial independence through their trade.

    Whalers cut pieces from a small whale on Long Island, N.Y., in 1900.
    Bettmann/Contributor/Getty Images

    Whaling’s vital role in ending slavery

    As an industry, whaling provided a meritocratic career path before fossil fuel mechanization made slavery obsolete. While industrialization eventually made enslaved labor less profitable by the mid- and late-1800s, whaling had already eroded slavery’s economic and social foundations decades earlier.

    Of course, whaling itself was not a morally pure endeavor. It was dangerous and devastating to whale populations. The American whaling industry killed perhaps 32,000 whales over the 74 years between 1835 and 1909. The global harvest of whales was many times greater. The U.S. officially outlawed whaling in 1971.

    Yet, whaling’s role in funding abolition and providing economic opportunities for free Black Americans is undeniable. It was, in many ways, a bridge between the world of forced labor and the energy-driven economy of the modern age.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Abolition wasn’t fueled by just moral or economic concerns – the booming whaling industry also helped sink slavery – https://theconversation.com/abolition-wasnt-fueled-by-just-moral-or-economic-concerns-the-booming-whaling-industry-also-helped-sink-slavery-250980

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Florida is home to about 341,000 immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti who may soon lose residency, work permits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mercedes Vigon, Associate professor of Journalism, Florida International University

    An activist protests the lifting of TPS status for Venezuelans in Doral, Fla. AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell

    Florida leads the nation in the number of immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS.

    Soon after taking office, the Trump administration moved to scale back protections for the largest groups of these immigrants – those from Haiti and Venezuela.

    TPS applies to immigrants from designated countries that the Department of Homeland Security considers dangerous due to armed conflicts, environmental disasters, epidemics or other conditions. There are currently 17 countries on the list. The most recent country added was Lebanon on Oct. 16, 2024.

    According to a federal report published in December 2024, nearly a third of the roughly 1.1 million TPS recipients live in Florida. Of those, 59% are Venezuelan and 35% are Haitian, with the other 6% coming from other TPS nations.

    I’m a professor of investigative journalism at Florida International University in Miami. For the past 24 years, I’ve worked with students to report how various waves of immigrants have integrated into Florida, and also on the impact of historical immigration crackdowns on the state’s workforce.

    Because so many TPS recipients live here, ending TPS may affect Florida more than any other state – but it is still hard to say if and when that will happen.

    Uncertain TPS expiration dates

    Temporary Protected Status allows beneficiaries to stay and work in the U.S. for a designated period, typically ranging from six to 18 months. This time period can be extended if conditions in the affected country remain unstable. It does not provide a permanent legal pathway to stay in the United States.

    President Joe Biden’s administration created two TPS designations for Venezuelans – one in 2021 and a second in 2023.

    In early February 2025, Trump’s Homeland Security director, Kristi Noem, rolled back extensions of TPS for Venezuelans that the outgoing Biden administration had issued on Jan. 17, 2025. Then, two days later, she issued a termination notice that canceled TPS for 2023 Venezuelan recipients altogether.

    Noem’s orders meant that almost 250,000 Venezuelans covered by the 2023 designation were expected to lose their residence and work permits on April 7, 2025. Another 256,000 Venezuelans who requested their TPS under the earlier designation were expected to lose their protections on Sept. 10, 2025.

    But Venezuelans got some breathing room on March 31, when U.S. District Judge Edward Chen blocked the change in their immigration status, writing that Noem’s decision “smacks of racism.” As a result, they will keep their TPS protections while the case moves through the courts.

    Noem has said that having Venezuelans in the country “is contrary to the national interest” and accused them without proof of gang affiliations.

    The judge’s ruling doesn’t affect the more than 520,000 Haitian immigrants nationwide expected to lose their TPS protection on Aug. 3, 2025.

    The expiration of TPS potentially affects 341,000 immigrants in Florida. But it doesn’t mean all of these people will leave the country. TPS rules allow immigrants to apply for a change of immigration status, and some will apply for asylum or student visas. Others will go underground.

    Local economic effects

    These policies won’t just affect Venezuelan and Haitian TPS holders personally. It will likely cause some big waves in the Florida economy.

    The non-profit American Immigration Council, an immigrant advocacy group, estimates that 95% of TPS holders in Florida age 16 and older are currently employed.

    They paid approximately US$485.9 million in local and Florida state taxes, according to the same report.

    Although the public often associates immigrants with work in the construction, agricultural and meatpacking industries, most are employed in education and health care.

    Fewer home health aides

    Immigrants account for 64% of all home health aides in Florida, according to the American Immigration Council.

    Nationwide, 1 in 4 direct care workers are immigrants, according to a policy brief from PHI, an advocacy group for elder care and disability service workers.

    Not all of these workers are TPS holders, but an estimated 7% of foreign-born caregivers are from Haiti. Additionally, the research from PHI suggests that the actual percentage of home health aides who are immigrants is likely higher, as many immigrant workers in this sector operate in the “gray market.” These workers receive direct payment from the people they work for, which makes their employment hard to track.

    PHI projects that the long-term care sector in the U.S. will need to fill 9.3 million new direct care job openings by 2031 due to the country’s aging population.

    School staff a concern

    The public school system is another area where the sudden loss of TPS recipients will likely be deeply felt.

    Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the third-largest school district in the country, is experiencing an ongoing shortage of teachers and staff. The district had nearly 700 education and support positions unfilled in August 2024, according to a district-by-district count done by the Florida Education Association.

    “It is not only teachers,” an administrator told me in March 2025, explaining that the vacancies are also among registrars, custodians, paraprofessionals and other roles. These “high stakes” education jobs, as he described them to me, are difficult for Miami-Dade County schools to fill.

    The Miami-Dade school district doesn’t report on the nationality of its employees – or their immigration status. But unfilled positions in the school district dropped after an influx of Venezuelans and Haitians in 2019, the administrator told me.

    Losing these workers would likely mean South Florida’s persistent education and home health care labor shortages would worsen – making it increasingly difficult for families with school-age children, the elderly and individuals with special needs to access affordable essential services.

    Mercedes Vigon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Florida is home to about 341,000 immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti who may soon lose residency, work permits – https://theconversation.com/florida-is-home-to-about-341-000-immigrants-from-venezuela-and-haiti-who-may-soon-lose-residency-work-permits-251791

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Trump administration says Tren de Aragua is a terrorist group – but it’s really a transnational criminal organization. Here’s why the label matters.

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ernesto Castañeda, Professor, and Director, Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, American University

    Venezuelan immigrants, whom the Trump White House says are members of the Tren de Aragua gang, arrive in El Salvador on March 31, 2025. El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images

    The U.S. State Department declared on Feb. 20, 2025, that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, as well as some Mexican drug cartels, are now considered foreign terrorist organizations.

    Is the new label warranted?

    Tren de Aragua is at the center of a controversial immigration case that the Supreme Court is going to consider.

    The Trump administration is using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify deporting more than 100 of the 238 Venezuelan and Salvadoran male immigrants it sent to a prison in El Salvador on March 15. The administration says that these immigrants are members of gangs such as Tren de Aragua and are foreign enemies, so they can be sent away with just an order from the White House.

    The administration uses a checklist of items, including physical markers like tattoos, to determine these individuals’ association with Tren de Aragua. Although in reality, the Tren de Aragua gang members do not use any specific tattoos.

    Family members and lawyers representing some of the Venezuelan immigrants say that they are not actually associated with the gang, and that some of them were living in the U.S. legally.

    I am an expert on immigration, and I think it is important to understand why classifying Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization has sparked debate among observers.

    One important reason is that Tren de Aragua is primarily a profit-driven group, not an ideological one – placing the organization more firmly in the transnational organized crime category rather than a political terrorist group.

    Venezuelan immigrants deported from the U.S. arrived in El Salvador in March 2025.
    El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Understanding Tren de Aragua

    Tren de Aragua originated as a small prison gang in the early 2000s within Tocorón prison in Venezuela’s state of Aragua, located near the country’s capital, Caracas.

    Over the past 25 years, Tren de Aragua has expanded rapidly across South and Central America, and evolved into a transnational criminal organization under the leadership of Hector Guerrero Flores. Also known as Niño Guerrero, Flores is a 41-year-old Venezuelan who first served time in Tocorón prison in 2010 for killing a police officer before he escaped for the first time in 2012. His current location is not known.

    Flores is wanted by the U.S. and Colombia for various crimes related to expanding the group’s criminal network throughout South and Central America.

    Today, an estimated 5,000 people are affiliated with Tren de Aragua, which is mainly focused on human trafficking and other crimes targeting migrants. The gang has also been linked to other criminal organizations in Latin America and is involved with extortion, kidnapping, money laundering and drug smuggling. The number of active members in the United States is in the low hundreds, and clearly the great majority of Venezuelans here are not members.

    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives at the presidential palace in San Salvador, El Salvador, to discuss the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants to the country on March 26, 2025.
    Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

    Different end goals

    Tren de Aragua has expanded in part because of its ability to exploit weak governance within the state of Aragua, and eventually across Venezuela, which faces political instability and a weak economy. An expansion beyond Venezuela has allowed the gang to connect with other transnational criminal networks.

    Most accepted definitions of terrorism say it is a kind of violence, usually used against civilians, motivated by political and ideological beliefs and goals. Tren de Aragua does not fit that definition. It does not have a political ideology and therefore is not an actual terrorist organization.

    The U.S. government considers a foreign terrorist organization a foreign group that engages in terrorist activity, or plans to do so, in a way that threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the country more broadly.

    Tren de Aragua is among the eight groups that the State Department first classified as foreign terrorist organizations in the first few months of 2025 after Donald Trump’s inauguration. The other new groups put on the list primarily include Latin American drug trafficking organizations, like the Mexican Sinaloa cartel.

    While transnational criminal organizations and foreign terrorist organizations both engage in violence and illicit activities, their end goals are different.

    Foreign terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State group seek political, religious or ideological change – or all three – as they try to use violence to reshape the political landscape of their regions.

    Terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations are not the same

    Tren de Aragua, as well as other transnational criminal groups like MS-13 – which originated in Los Angeles but now operates throughout the Americas – and the Sinaloa cartel, carry out illegal, violent activities across borders in order to make money.

    These groups do not have political or ideological motives beyond creating conditions to maximize their own profits. They do not aim to take political power in the U.S. or elsewhere, or try to remake society in their own image. That is beyond their purview and capabilities.

    Properly distinguishing between terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations is crucial for devising effective policies and responses to their violence. Mislabeling these groups can lead to inappropriate responses such as putting aside civil liberties, due process and human rights.

    Incorrectly classifying Tren de Aragua and other criminal groups as terrorist organizations could shift U.S. foreign policy and resources toward counterterrorism efforts and away from decreasing the power and violence exercised by organized crime and drug cartels in many parts of Latin America.

    However, the way in which many Venezuelans and other immigrants have been deported from the country over the past few months without passing through immigration court seems to indicate that the main rationale for the talk about alien enemies and these terrorist designations is to aid in the goal of mass deportations, rather than to fight domestic or international terrorism.

    If the U.S. truly wants to curb undocumented immigration and reduce drug and human trafficking, then I believe that it should ensure that its classification of these organizations is accurate and aligned with its actual objectives.

    Melissa Vasquez, a graduate student at American University studying international affairs and the Northern Triangle in Central America, contributed to this piece.

    Ernesto Castañeda does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The Trump administration says Tren de Aragua is a terrorist group – but it’s really a transnational criminal organization. Here’s why the label matters. – https://theconversation.com/the-trump-administration-says-tren-de-aragua-is-a-terrorist-group-but-its-really-a-transnational-criminal-organization-heres-why-the-label-matters-252793

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Life-size sculptures uncovered in Pompeii show that ancient women didn’t just have to be wives to make a difference

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily Hauser, Senior Lecturer in Classics, University of Exeter

    Visitors to the site of Pompeii, the ancient Roman town buried (and so preserved for thousands of years) by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79AD, don’t often think to look beyond the city walls. And it’s easy to understand why: there’s plenty on offer within this monumentally well-preserved town, from jewel-like wall paintings of myths and legends like Helen of Troy, to the majestic amphitheatre and sumptuously stuccoed baths.

    But step outside the gates for a moment, and you’re in a very different – yet no less important – world.

    For the ancient Romans, the roads and paths leading into and out of cities were crucial: not just for getting places, but as a very real kind of “memory lane”. Tombs lined these ancient byways – some simply bearing inscriptions to the memories of loved ones lost, others, more grand, accommodating space for friends and family to feast in remembrance of the dead.

    Some of the tombs even address the passerby directly, as if its occupant could speak again, and pass on what they’ve learned. Take one Pompeiian example, set up by the freedman Publius Vesonius Phileros, which opens with ineffable politeness: “Stranger, wait a while if it’s no trouble, and learn what not to do.”

    Going into Pompeii, and leaving it, was about being reminded of ways of living and ways of dying – as well as an invitation to tip your hat to those who trod the path before you, and to learn from their example.

    Which is why the recent discovery of a monumental tomb crowned by life-size sculptures of a woman and man, just outside the gates on the east side of the town, isn’t just a fascinating find in and of itself. It’s also a reminder to stop, and to remember the people who once lived and died in this bustling Italian town.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    The tomb’s main feature is a large wall, peppered with niches where cremated remains would have been placed, and surmounted by the astonishing relief sculpture of the woman and man. They’re standing side by side, but not touching.

    I rather like that she’s slightly taller than him, standing at 1.77m, while he’s 1.75m. She’s draped in a modest tunic, cloak and veil (symbols of Roman womanhood), and boasts a pronounced crescent-moon-shaped pendant at her neck called a lunula, that (through the age-old link with lunar cycles) tells a story about female fertility and birth. He, meanwhile, is dressed in the quintessentially Roman toga that instantly identifies him as a proud male citizen of Rome.

    Who do the statues depict?

    The status quo in archaeology, when a woman and a man are presented next to each other in tombs and burials like this, has always been to assume that she’s his wife. Yet here, there’s an unmissable clue that there’s more going on. That’s because, in her right hand, she’s holding a laurel branch – which was used by priestesses to waft the smoke of incense and herbs in religious rituals.

    Priestesses, in the Roman world, held unusual levels of power for women – and it’s been suggested that this woman might have been a priestess of the goddess Ceres (Roman equivalent of Demeter).

    So this high-status priestess is shown alongside a man. The inclusion of the symbols of her status (as priestess) alongside his (as a togatus, or “toga-wearing man”), shows that she’s there in her own right, as a contributing member of Pompeiian society. She might be his mother; she might even have been more important than him (which would explain why she’s taller). Without an inscription, we don’t know for sure. The point is: a woman doesn’t have to be a wife to be standing next to a man.

    What’s fascinating is this isn’t unique to Pompeii. In my new book, Mythica, which looks at the women not of Rome but of Bronze age Greece, I’ve found that new discoveries in archaeology are overturning the assumptions that used to be made about a woman’s place in society, and the value of their roles, all the time.

    One fascinating example is a royal burial in Late Bronze Age Mycenae: a woman and a man who’d been buried together in the royal necropolis, around 1700 years before the eruption of Mount Vesuvius decimated Pompeii. As is typical, this woman was immediately labelled, by the archaeologists who uncovered her, as the man’s wife. But then DNA analysis came into the picture.

    As recently as 2008, both skeletons were sampled for DNA – and came up with the game-changing result that they were, in fact, brother and sister. She’d been buried here as a member of a royal family by birth, not by marriage, in other words. She was there on her own terms.

    From golden Mycenae to the ash-blasted ruins of Pompeii: the remains from the ancient world are telling us a different story from the one we always thought. A woman didn’t have to be a wife to make a difference.

    So I think it’s worth listening to the advice of our friend Publius. Let’s look at the burials of the past, and learn.

    Emily Hauser does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Life-size sculptures uncovered in Pompeii show that ancient women didn’t just have to be wives to make a difference – https://theconversation.com/life-size-sculptures-uncovered-in-pompeii-show-that-ancient-women-didnt-just-have-to-be-wives-to-make-a-difference-253863

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Peers elevated to the House of Lords after a career in the House of Commons are often merely being rewarded for loyalty – new study

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Holden Bates, Senior Lecturer in Political Science, University of Birmingham

    CC BY-NC-ND

    House of Lords reform is being debated once again with the passage of the bill to end hereditary peerages. But far more wide-reaching reform is needed. Our research reveals potential flaws in the appointments system. Far from being a representative chamber filled with those from all walks of life, we found evidence to suggest that the House of Lords contains a large constituency of former MPs – who are often there as a reward for their partisan loyalty.

    Since the introduction of life peers in 1958 and especially since the removal of all except 92 hereditary peers in 1999, former MPs have become an increasingly important constituency in the House of Lords. They make up about a third of the approximate 1,600 life peers who have been created since 1958. The others have largely been appointed because of their specialist skills or life experiences or, apparently, because of how much money they donated to political parties.

    The Lords is getting more and more crowded.
    House of Lords/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    At present, around a fifth of all peers and coming up to a quarter of life peers sat at one time or another in the House of Commons. And nearly a fifth of all MPs who sat in and subsequently left the Commons between 1979 and 2019 went on to become a peer at some point afterwards.

    These ex-MPs became peers having been nominated in a dissolution honours list prior to a general election, a resignation honours list when a prime minister departed from office, or a political list, which is used to top up the strengths of the three main parties in the chamber. A handful have been appointed as a government minister and therefore needed a seat in parliament.

    Becoming a peer is an attractive option for many ex-MPs. Not only do they become part of the titled nobility, but they also have membership of the House of Lords for life, access to a generous allowances system, and the ability to maintain (and expand) outside interests.

    Our research shows that MPs who become peers are whiter and older than those MPs who don’t make it to the upper chamber. They are more likely to be heterosexual and a member of the aristocracy. They are also more likely to be the child or grandchild of a former MP and to have been educated at a public school, attended university – in particular, Oxford or Cambridge – and have studied PPE (philosophy, politics and economics) at Oxford. They are less likely to have a PhD but also less likely to have had a manual occupation as their first career.

    We also found that serving on the front bench as an MP and resisting the temptation to rebel against your party makes you more likely to be elevated to the House of Lords after serving in the House of Commons.

    For elevated MPs who had served on the frontbench in the House of Commons, their length of frontbench tenure and whether or not they became a minister were the most important indicators of them later becoming a peer. But time served is not necessarily an indicator of excellence. As former MP Rory Stewart has argued, promotion to the frontbench “has nothing to do with expertise. It’s about loyalty and defending the indefensible”. To the extent that experience matters then, it can be said to be more in the sense of direct personal participation rather than accumulated knowledge.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    For those MPs who had remained backbenchers throughout their time in the Commons, their loyalty was the strongest indicator of their chances of becoming a peer. There is also some evidence, albeit weak, that familial links for backbenchers and aristocratic links for frontbenchers increase the likelihood of receiving a peerage. There are different pathways from the House of Commons into the House of Lords and some MPs appear to find it easier than others to travel along them.

    Our results suggest that for ex-MPs, almost certainly the largest sub-group in the House of Lords, elevation to the peerage is not based on merit alone. Loyalty and, to a lesser extent, nepotism also appear to matter and help to win you a ticket to the Lords.

    Fresh impetus for reform

    Overall, we believe our findings call into question the continued use of appointments to the Lords that are wholly based on the patronage of party leaders.

    The work of parliament is not enhanced by elevating ex-MPs who are in the upper chamber for reasons other than merit or expertise. Neither is it enhanced in the lower chamber through dangling the possibility of elevation to the peerage to encourage loyalty. Both of these sub-optimal situations are only made possible by the House of Lords’ size, which allows for a substantial number of MPs to be elevated in the first place, and it being entirely appointed.

    Every upper chamber in the world except the House of Lords is smaller than the lower chamber of its parliament. And a sizable majority of these upper chambers use elections, either direct or indirect, as the principal mode of designation of members.

    If we truly want to enhance the work of parliament, perhaps it is finally time for the UK to iron out some of its idiosyncratic constitutional kinks and fit in more with the crowd.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Peers elevated to the House of Lords after a career in the House of Commons are often merely being rewarded for loyalty – new study – https://theconversation.com/peers-elevated-to-the-house-of-lords-after-a-career-in-the-house-of-commons-are-often-merely-being-rewarded-for-loyalty-new-study-251968

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US and Russia squabble over Arctic security as melting ice opens up shipping routes

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

    “You cannot annex another country.” This was the clear message given by the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, at a recent press conference with the outgoing and incoming prime ministers of Greenland. It did not appear aimed at Russian president Vladimir Putin, but at Donald Trump, the president of one of her country’s closest allies, who has threatened to take over Greenland.

    Frederiksen, speaking in Greenland’s capitak Nuuk, was stating something that is obvious under international law but can no longer be taken for granted. US foreign policy under Trump has become a major driver of this uncertainty, playing into the hands of Russian, and potentially Chinese, territorial ambitions.

    The incoming Greenlandic prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, made it clear that it was for Greenlanders to determine their future, not the United States. Greenland, which is controlled by Denmark, makes its own domestic policy decisions. Polls suggest a majority of islanders want independence from Denmark in the future, but don’t want to be part of the US.

    Trump’s interest in Greenland is often associated with the island’s vast, but largely untapped, mineral resources. But its strategic location is arguably an even greater asset. Shipping routes through the Arctic have become more dependable and for longer periods of time during the year as a result of melting sea ice. The northwest passage (along the US and Canadian shorelines) and the northeast passage (along Russia’s Arctic coast) are often ice free now during the summer.


    Breaking the Ice: Arctic Development and Maritime Transportation, ArcticPortal.org

    This has increased opportunities for commercial shipping. For example, the distance for a container ship from Asia to Europe through the northeast passage can be up to three times shorter, compared to traditional routes through the Suez Canal or around Africa.

    Similarly, the northwest passage offers the shortest route between the east coast of the United States and Alaska. Add to that the likely substantial resources that the Arctic has, from oil and gas to minerals, and the entire region is beginning to look like a giant real estate deal in the making.

    Arctic assets

    The economic promise of the Arctic, and particularly the region’s greater accessibility, have also heightened military and security sensitivities.

    The day before J.D. Vance’s visit to Greenland on March 28, Vladimir Putin, gave a speech at the sixth international Arctic forum in Murmansk in Russia’s high north, warning of increased geopolitical rivalry.

    While he claimed that “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic”, he was also quick to emphasise that Moscow was “enhancing the combat capabilities of the Armed Forces, and modernising military infrastructure facilities” in the Arctic.

    Equally worrying, Russia has increased its naval cooperation with China and given Beijing access, and a stake, in the Arctic. In April 2024, the two countries’ navies signed a cooperation agreement on search and rescue missions on the high seas.


    National Snow & Ice Data Center, Arctic Portal

    In September 2024, China participated in Russia’s largest naval manoeuvres in the post-cold war era, Ocean-2024, which were conducted in north Pacific and Arctic waters. The following month, Russian and Chinese coastguard vessels conducted their first joint patrol in the Arctic. Vance, therefore, has a point when he urges Greenland and Denmark to cut a deal with the US because the “island isn’t safe”.

    That the Russia-China partnership has resulted in an increasingly military presence in the Arctic has not gone unnoticed in the west. Worried about the security of its Arctic territories, Canada has just announced a C$6 billion (£3.2 billion) upgrade to facilities in the North American Aerospace Defense Command it operates jointly with the United States.

    It will also acquire more submarines, icebreakers and fighter jets to bolster its Arctic defences and invest a further C$420 million (£228 million) into a greater presence of its armed forces.



    Read more:
    Arctic breakdown: what climate change in the far north means for the rest of us

    Svalbard’s future role?

    Norway has similarly boosted its defence presence in the Arctic, especially in relation to the Svalbard archipelago (strategically located between the Norwegian mainland and the Arctic Circle). This has prompted an angry response from Russia, wrongly claiming that Oslo was in violation of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty which awarded the archipelago to Norway with the proviso that it must not become host to Norwegian military bases.

    Under the treaty, Russia has a right to a civilian presence there. The “commission on ensuring Russia’s presence on the archipelago Spitzbergen”, the name Moscow uses for Svalbard is chaired by Russian deputy prime minister Yury Trutnev, who is also Putin’s envoy to the far eastern federal district. Trutnev has repeatedly complained about undue Norwegian restrictions on Russia’s presence in Svalbard.

    From the Kremlin’s perspective, this is less about Russia’s historical rights on Svalbard and more about Norway’s – and Nato’s – presence in a strategic location at the nexus of the Greenland, Barents and Norwegian seas. From there, maritime traffic along Russia’s northeast passage can be monitored. If, and when, a central Arctic shipping route becomes viable, which would pass between Greenland and Svalbard, the strategic importance of the archipelago would increase further.

    From Washington’s perspective, Greenland is more important because of its closer proximity to the US. But Svalbard is critical to Nato for monitoring and countering Russian, and potentially Chinese, naval activities. This bigger picture tends to get lost in Trump’s White House, which is more concerned with its own immediate neighbourhood and cares less about regional security leadership.

    Consequently, there has been no suggestion – so far – that the US needs to have Svalbard in the same way that Trump claims he needs Greenland to ensure US security. Nor has Russia issued any specific threats to Svalbard. But it was noticeable that Putin in his speech at the Arctic forum discussed historical territorial issues, including an obscure 1910 proposal for a land swap between the US, Denmark and Germany involving Greenland.

    Putin also noted “that Nato countries are increasingly often designating the Far North as a springboard for possible conflicts”. It is not difficult to see Moscow’s logic: if the US can claim Greenland for security reasons, Russia should do the same with Svalbard.

    The conclusion to draw from this is not that Trump should aim to annex a sovereign Norwegian island next. Maritime geography in the north Atlantic underscores the importance of maintaining and strengthening long-established alliances.

    Investing in expanded security cooperation with Denmark and Norway as part of Nato would secure US interests closer to home and send a strong message to Russia. It would also signal to the wider world that the US is not about to initiate a territorial reordering of global politics to suit exclusively the interests of Moscow, Beijing and Washington.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    – ref. US and Russia squabble over Arctic security as melting ice opens up shipping routes – https://theconversation.com/us-and-russia-squabble-over-arctic-security-as-melting-ice-opens-up-shipping-routes-253493

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The women who shaped Sigmund Freud and a hero who can’t feel pain – what to watch, read and do this week

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Walker, Senior Arts + Culture Editor

    Think of Sigmund Freud, the “father of psychoanalysis”, and a few images probably come to mind. A smouldering cigar. His small wire-frame glasses. And of course, his psychoanalytic couch – the divan his patients would lie on during sessions. While the couch has become an enduring symbol of Freud’s practice, and indeed for therapy more generally, few people know that it was originally a gift from one of his wealthy woman patients, Madame Benvenisti.

    It’s on show at London’s Freud Museum as part of the exhibition Women & Freud: Patients, Pioneers, Artists. Until May 5, the space will be packed with works that celebrate the women in Freud’s life.

    Throughout the exhibition, images, film footage and artworks are brought together to ask questions about the women of psychoanalysis. Whether they are patients, analysts, friends and family, or artistic inheritors of its legacy, the show offers much food for thought.

    Marie Bonaparte, great-grandniece to Napoleon, intervened to save Freud from the Nazis. She is remembered through previously undisplayed correspondence. Portuguese artist Paula Rego’s work speaks to Freud’s ideas about the family. And contributions to the wider field of psychoanalysis by American-born Maria Battle Singer, Britain’s first black psychoanalyst, are finally celebrated.

    Women & Freud: Patients, Pioneers, Artists is at the Freud Museum until May 5.



    Read more:
    Freud Museum exhibition uses art to explore the psychoanalyst’s often contradictory relationships with women

    The dance of death

    White Lotus Mondays have become a ritual in my household. If you’ve been watching season three, you probably have the same questions as me. Who is going to die? Who is going to kill them? And what on Earth is going on with those brothers?

    For most viewers, this season, set on the Thai island of Ko Samui, has been a slower burn than the previous one. And who isn’t missing Jennifer Coolidge’s unforgettable turn as the eccentric heiress Tanya McQuoid? But, for my money, series three has now more than earned our trust. The latest episode delivered confrontations, realisations and some jaw-dropping escalations.

    The trailer for the final episode of The White Lotus season three.

    As we head into Monday’s 90-minute final episode, we’ve been reflecting on the way the show’s creator Mike White has engaged with Buddhist philosophy. Brooke Schedneck, an expert in contemporary Buddhism and religious tourism in Thailand, explains what the show gets right and wrong about common Buddhist practices.

    White Lotus is streaming on Sky Atlantic and Now TV.



    Read more:
    What ‘The White Lotus’ gets wrong about the meaning and goals of common Buddhist practices

    One thing most of this season’s White Lotus characters have in common is a love for a good dance – whether neon-daubed at a full-moon party, dripping with sweat in a mega club or vibing on the decks of a super yacht.

    Thailand’s dance culture has its roots in a movement that began in dingy bars in the UK, before spreading to Ibiza, eastern Europe and finally Asia. We asked the experts behind new book Transatlantic Drift, which tracks the emergence, evolution and global spread of nightclubs, to explain the history of dance music and the spaces it’s enjoyed in. As they explain, from basements to beaches, dancefloors have always mirrored social change.

    Transatlantic Drift by Katie Milestone and Simon A. Morrison is out now.



    Read more:
    A brief history of dance music – from basements to beaches, dancefloors have mirrored social change

    The pain of uncertainty

    Another book on our reading lists this week is Embracing Uncertainty by entrepreneur Margaret Heffernan. As our world faces a perfect storm of environmental, societal and economic challenges, the need to support innovation and champion persistence has seldom felt greater. Heffernan’s book explores how writers, musicians and artists can thrive in our unpredictable world.

    We asked professor of cognitive neuroscience David Pearson for his take. He found Heffernan to be an engaging storyteller and thought the book’s hopeful and inspiring stories pointed the way to a more optimistic future.

    Embracing Uncertainty by Margaret Heffernan is out now.



    Read more:
    Embracing Uncertainty: what we can all learn from how artists thrive in an unpredictable world

    Jack Quaid – son of Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan – has quietly been making a name for himself as an actor to watch. I greatly enjoyed his work in Companion, an AI-gone-wrong thriller that deserved far more attention. And he showed his romcom chops in 2019’s wedding caper, Plus One.

    The trailer for Novocaine.

    Now he’s turning to another genre, action, as the lead in Novocaine. Quaid plays Nathan, a man who feels no pain and is on a mission to save the girl of his dreams from the bank robbers who have taken her hostage. He takes bullets without flinching, grabs a hot pan with his bare hands and fishes a gun from a deep frier – all without feeling a thing.

    As far as the movie goes, it’s a recipe for zany, if gory, fun. But in real life this condition, known as congenital insensitivity to pain, is far from a superpower. Pain may not feel nice, but it saves lives, as our medical expert explains.

    Novocaine is in cinemas now.



    Read more:
    Novocaine: the movie action hero with a real-life syndrome that makes him immune to pain

    – ref. The women who shaped Sigmund Freud and a hero who can’t feel pain – what to watch, read and do this week – https://theconversation.com/the-women-who-shaped-sigmund-freud-and-a-hero-who-cant-feel-pain-what-to-watch-read-and-do-this-week-253773

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why ChatGPT is a uniquely terrible tool for government ministers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Deepak Padmanabhan, Senior Lecturer in AI, Queen’s University Belfast

    Shutterstock/Prachova Nataliia

    The news that Peter Kyle, secretary of state for science and technology, had been using ChatGPT for policy advice prompted some difficult questions.

    Kyle apparently used the AI tool to draft speeches and even asked it for suggestions about which podcasts he should appear on. But he also sought advice on his policy work, apparently including questions on why businesses in the UK are not adopting AI more readily. He asked the tool to define what “digital inclusion” means.

    A spokesperson for Kyle said his use of the tool “does not substitute comprehensive advice he routinely receives from officials” but we have to wonder whether any use at all is suitable. Does ChatGPT give good enough advice to have any role in decisions that could affect the lives of millions of people?

    Underpinned by our research on AI and public policy, we find that ChatGPT is uniquely flawed as a device for government ministers in several ways, including the fact that it is backward looking, when governments really should be looking to the future.

    1. Looking back instead of forward

    Where government ministers should ideally be seeking new, fresh ideas with a view to the future, the information that comes out of an AI chatbot is, by definition, from the past. It’s a very effective way of summarising what has already been thought of but not equipped to suggest genuinely new ways of thinking.

    ChatGPT responses are not based on all past equally. The ever-increasing digitisation over the years steers ChatGPT’s pattern-finding mechanism to the recent past. In other words, when asked by a minister to provide advice on a specific problem in the UK, ChatGPT’s responses would be more anchored in documents produced in the UK in recent years.

    And notably, in Kyle’s case, that means that not only will a Labour minister be accessing information from the past, but he’ll be advised by an algorithm leaning heavily on advice given to Conservative governments. That’s not the end of the world, of course, but it’s questionable given that Labour won an election by promising change.

    Kyle – or any other minister consulting ChatGPT – will be given information grounded in the policy traditions reflecting the Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron eras. They are less likely to receive information grounded in the thinking of the New Labour years, which were longer ago.

    If Kyle asks what digital inclusion means, the answer is more likely to reflect what these Tory administrations think it means rather than thoughts of governments more aligned with his values.

    Amid all the enthusiasm within Labour to leverage AI, this may be one reason for them to distance themselves from using ChatGPT for policy advice. They risk Tory policy – one they so like to criticise – zombieing into their own.

    2. Prejudice

    ChatGPT has been accused of having “hallucinations” – generating, uncanny, plausible-sounding falsehoods.

    There is a simple technical explanation for this, as alluded to in a recent study. The “truth model” for ChatGPT – as for any large language model – is one of consensus. It models truth as something that everyone agrees to be true. For ChatGPT, its truth is simply the consensus of views expressed across the data it has been trained on.

    This is very different from the human model of truth, which is based on correspondence. For us, the truth is what best corresponds to reality in the physical world. The divergence between the truth models could be consequential in many ways.

    For example, TV licensing, a model that operates only within a few nations, would not figure prominently within ChatGPT’s consensus model built over a global dataset. Thus, ChatGPT’s suggestions on broadcast media policy are unlikely to substantially touch upon TV licensing.

    Besides explaining hallucinations, divergences in truth models have other consequences. Social prejudices, including sexism and racism, are easily internalised under the consensus model.

    Consider seeking ChatGPT advice on improving conditions for construction workers, a historically male dominated profession. ChatGPT’s consensus model could blind it from considerations important to women.

    The correspondence model of truth enables humans to continuously engage in moral deliberation and change. A human policy expert advising Peter Kyle could illuminate him on pertinent real-world complexities.

    For example, they might highlight how recent successes in AI-based diagnostics could help tackle distinct aspects of the UK’s disease burden in the knowledge that one of Labour’s priorities is to cut NHS waiting times.

    3. Pleasing narratives

    Tools such as ChatGPT are designed to give engaging, elegant narratives when responding to questions. ChatGPT managed this partly by weeding out bad quality text from its training data (with the help of underpaid workers in Africa).

    These poetic pieces of writing work well for engagement and help OpenAI to keep users hooked on their product. Humans enjoy a good story, and particularly one that offers to solve a problem. Our shared evolutionary history has made us story-tellers and story-listeners unlike any other species.

    But the real world is not a story. It is a constant swirl of political complexities, social contradictions and moral dilemmas, many of which can never be resolved. The real world and the decisions government ministers have to make on our behalf are complex.

    There are competing interests and irreconcilable differences. Rarely is there a neat answer. ChatGPT’s penchant for pleasing narratives stands at odds with the public policy imperative to address messy real-world conditions.

    The very features that make ChatGPT a useful tool in many contexts are squarely incompatible with the considerations of public policy, a realm that seeks to make political choices to address the needs of a country’s citizens.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why ChatGPT is a uniquely terrible tool for government ministers – https://theconversation.com/why-chatgpt-is-a-uniquely-terrible-tool-for-government-ministers-253294

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The problem with Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center isn’t the possibility of ‘Cats’

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joanna Dee Das, Associate Professor of Dance, Washington University in St. Louis

    Donald Trump visits the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on March 17, 2025. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

    When President Donald Trump announced that he was assuming control of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, he described the move as a triumph over “wokey” programming. He subsequently fired the 17 board members appointed by President Joe Biden and installed himself as chairman.

    Some critics have reacted to the move by suggesting Trump doesn’t understand art.

    One protester declared that Trump has “no artistic bones in his body.” Theater aficionados claim that he misinterprets his favorite musicals, “Cats” and “Les Misérables.”

    The New Yorker magazine’s satirical description of the Kennedy Center’s 2025 programming under Trump included a fictional show called “Forbidden Branson.” The title plays on the show “Forbidden Broadway,” replacing New York’s storied theater district with the popular Ozarks tourist destination that has been maligned as a mecca of bad taste.

    To me, these responses play right into Trump’s hands, reinforcing his claims that liberals are out-of-touch elitists.

    I’ve spent the past seven years researching and writing a book about Branson, Missouri, a town that offers a plethora of live entertainment, including magic shows, country music performances and variety shows. Many of the productions have a conservative, Christian slant. In my view, a Branson-style show could – and should – belong among the offerings at the Kennedy Center.

    Rather than ridiculing the president’s taste, I think responses to the takeover would be better placed focusing on more fundamental questions about the role of the U.S. government in the nation’s artistic life.

    How can a national arts institution best reflect the country’s diverse range of people and interests? Prior to Trump, how well was the Kennedy Center doing at that?

    Historical opposition to arts funding

    For most of U.S. history, government had a very limited role in the arts.

    European royals had long patronized the arts. In contrast, the founders of the United States, fearful of tyranny, created a weak federal government that could barely impose taxes, let alone establish a national theater.

    Instead, artists of the 18th and 19th centuries operated in a for-profit marketplace. Their audiences rejected elitist cultural norms and watched Shakespeare mixed in with minstrel songs and comedy acts on the same program.

    At the end of the 19th century, the Second Industrial Revolution created a class of ultra-wealthy Americans who sought to imitate European royalty and their tradition of patronage. New cultural distinctions emerged. Opera, ballet and classical music were designated as high art; variety shows featuring comedians, popular songs and acrobatics were designated as low art. Musicals eventually found an uneasy niche as “middlebrow.” Performers who wished to avoid the grind of the commercial marketplace could now turn to private patrons. Nonwhite and working-class performers who lacked social connections to the upper crust had fewer opportunities to do so.

    The Great Depression compelled the U.S. government to fund artists for the first time. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Federal Project Number One, which included visual art, theater, music and writing programs. Its primary goal was to provide work for the unemployed. Its secondary purpose involved creating art that would be accessible to ordinary Americans both in terms of location – like murals in public buildings – and content, such as plays like “One Third of a Nation” that spoke to housing concerns.

    An audience enjoys a public Federal Theatre Project performance in New York in the late 1930s.
    Dick Rose/Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

    Heated controversies over the program ensued. If the main criterion to receive a grant was need, not skill, would government funding churn out bad art?

    Conservative congressmen argued that Federal One artists were taking “unbridled license to ridicule American ideals and to suggest rebellion against our government.” In 1938, the newly formed House Committee on Un-American Activities accused the head of Federal One’s Theatre Project of supporting communism.

    Soon thereafter, the Federal One programs ended.

    The Cold War and the Kennedy Center

    The Cold War created a new opportunity for arts funding as the United States scrambled to counteract the Soviet Union’s depiction of America as “culturally barren.” Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the State Department began to sponsor American artists and fund international tours of their work.

    Even this modest attempt at public arts patronage – European nations were spending 20 to 40 times as much on the arts – faced pushback from conservatives, who cast the tours as a waste of taxpayer money. Nonetheless, Eisenhower persisted. In 1958, he signed the National Cultural Center Act to authorize a national arts complex.

    The act failed to provide enough money to actually build the center. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy embarked on a campaign to raise US$30 million in private money. Part of those fundraising efforts involved reassuring donors that their high-art tastes would be reflected.

    The Kennedy Center finally opened its doors in September 1971. Given the need for constant fundraising ever since, philanthropists have dominated its board.

    Today, the Kennedy Center receives $43 million as a public subsidy, or 16% of its budget. Ticket sales, facility rentals and donations comprise the other 84%. No government funds go to artistic programming, which has blunted potential criticism about censorship or propaganda. But this has also precluded the ability of regular people across the nation to weigh in about what appears onstage.

    With members of the Kennedy family looking on, President Lyndon B. Johnson shovels dirt during the groundbreaking ceremonies for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in 1964.
    Bettmann/Getty Images

    An uncertain future

    The Kennedy Center staff has attempted to work within the constraints of a philanthropy model to reach a broad audience and challenge high/middle/low distinctions. In its first year, the center appointed renowned choreographer Katherine Dunham as a technical adviser in intercultural communication. She aimed to “make the center more responsible to the community” and establish a model of local engagement in Washington that could be replicated throughout the country.

    It didn’t materialize. Programming remained in the traditional high art category until Kennedy Center President Deborah Rutter expanded into genres like hip-hop and comedy in the 2010s. In 2020, the center made progress toward Dunham’s vision with its Social Impact initiative, which focused on free performances and transportation to arts events for local Washington communities. Trump has since dissolved it.

    By declaring himself chairman and personally overseeing the programming, Trump has followed in the footsteps of Russian czars or monarchs like Louis XIV of France, who established arts institutions as extensions of royal power. In effect, it realizes 18th-century Americans’ fears about government involvement in the arts as a form of control.

    At the same time, the private philanthropy model has been far from perfect. It has left the Kennedy Center vulnerable to attacks of elitism. Perhaps future leaders can imagine more robust models of public support and stewardship that reflect America’s diverse and multifaceted national landscape – if they’re ever given an opportunity to do so.

    Joanna Dee Das does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The problem with Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center isn’t the possibility of ‘Cats’ – https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-trumps-takeover-of-the-kennedy-center-isnt-the-possibility-of-cats-253196

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Insects are everywhere in farming and research − but insect welfare is just catching up

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bob Fischer, Professor of Philosophy, Texas State University

    Employees sort crickets by size at a farm in Thailand. AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit

    Did you know your lipstick might be made from beetles? Or that some cat food may soon be made from flies?

    People farm insects for all sorts of reasons: Farmers rear bees to pollinate billions of dollars of crops, textile companies raise silkworms for their cocoons, and cosmetic companies use cochineal beetles for dyes. Researchers also put insects to work in labs: Fruit flies have revolutionized genetics, cockroaches provide insights into neurobiology, and ants inspire AI-driven robots.

    On top of that, medical companies raise blowfly larvae to clean wounds, desert locusts for compounds that might help reduce the risk of heart disease, and lac insects for their secretions, which are used to coat pills.

    All told, trillions of insects are farmed each year across the globe – more than all other livestock combined. Each year, producers rear some 2.1 trillion black soldier flies alone – and, if industry trends hold, will be rearing three times as many in 2035. Currently, roughly 30 times as many insects are produced as the most-farmed “traditional” farm animal: the chicken.

    As an ethics professor, I think this raises pressing questions about what it means to treat insects humanely. Several years ago, I was skeptical that these questions were worth asking, as most questions about animal welfare center on pain – and I didn’t think there was much chance that insects could feel it. However, as science has uncovered more about insects’ abilities, the emerging field of insect welfare seems increasingly important.

    Dried, crushed female insects known as Dactylopius coccus, which will be used to produce natural red dye, at a farm in Mexico.
    AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo

    New science of animal minds

    In the 17th century, many scientists believed that all nonhuman animals were mere machines that behaved as if they felt pain but didn’t actually experience it.

    While most scientists have long abandoned this view, researchers have not identified a definitive test for the capacity to feel pain in any nonhuman animal. There is no known brain structure or pattern of neural activity whose presence or absence settles the question. There’s no single behavior that decisively establishes pain, either.

    So, researchers look for several markers of pain that, taken together, support taking this possibility seriously. Some of these markers are neurobiological, such as specialized damage receptors and regions of the brain that integrate those signals with information from other senses. Some are behavioral, such as an animal making trade-offs between avoiding harm and pursuing rewards.

    Fruit flies, for example, are willing to cross electrical barriers that give them mild shocks to reach food. However, they won’t cross barriers that give them stronger shocks, even when very hungry. This suggests that there’s something more than simple reflexes at work: The animal is weighing different motivations to make a decision.

    Evidence like this keeps accumulating. Some bees can remember experiencing high heat and weigh this against the reward of sugar when it’s offered in hot containers. They also display emotion-like states, in that they respond to cognitive bias tests the way other animals do. These tests are used to assess how animals’ emotions influence their cognitive processes: Like people, animals handle uncertain situations differently if stressed or satisfied.

    Fruit flies become averse to temperatures that were once innocuous after researchers amputate their legs, just as some injuries in humans can lead to heightened pain sensitivity. Tobacco hornworm moth larvae and cockroaches tend to their wounds when hurt. And contrary to a common myth, many male praying mantises try to avoid being eaten by females; they don’t always just continue mating.

    Again, no single marker – or even the lot of them – proves that insects can feel pain. However, the accumulated evidence suggests that there’s at least a realistic possibility. This position is reflected in two scientific consensus statements: the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and the 2024 New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, which are attempts to summarize the state of knowledge about many groups of animals.

    Humane practices?

    It’s widely acknowledged that it’s wrong to cause unnecessary pain in animals – an imperative codified in the ethical principles that U.S. federal agencies consult when making regulations about research. So, if insects can feel pain, as most Americans believe, then there is an ethical reason to protect their welfare.

    Of course, it isn’t certain that they can feel pain. So, precautionary reasoning becomes important: taking steps to reduce the risk of causing harm that are, in some sense, proportional to the magnitude of the risk. In other words, people who rear insects should take modest steps to reduce the risk that they are causing more pain than they need to cause.

    On some insect farms, a potential concern is injuries from cannibalism and aggression, which occur at greater rates when animals such as crickets are crowded together. The issue crops up in other farming systems as well: Chickens harm their flockmates when they don’t have sufficient room.

    There are also worries about slaughter. Typically, a humane death is fast, but many insects are killed using very slow methods, such as baking and microwaving. Grinding and boiling, by contrast, may be much quicker.

    Black soldier flies being grown as fish food live in laying-and-rearing aviaries at a factory in France.
    AP Photo/Aurelien Morissard

    In lab research, one potential concern is performing live dissections, once known as vivisection, without anesthetics or analgesics. The practice has been almost universally abandoned for vertebrate animals but is still routine with some insects. People have described many cases of insect neglect to me, including times when researchers have accidentally let insects starve or become fatally dehydrated after experiments conclude, rather than euthanizing them.

    Granted, it’s hard to be sure that any particular practice causes pain. If there’s a realistic possibility, however, then it’s worth considering alternative practices.

    As scientists have suggested, insect producers could reduce the number of animals in each container to reduce problems associated with crowding. They could investigate strategies for stunning insects before processing them, just as other animals are stunned before slaughter.

    In most countries, insect researchers are not legally required to follow the standard ethical guidelines for other animal researchers. But there is nothing to prevent insect researchers from following them voluntarily. These international guidelines recommend avoiding the use of live animals entirely when possible; using fewer live animals when they do need to be used; and refining practices to minimize the risk of pain and distress, such as giving insects anesthesia before dissection.

    It’s possible to treat insects more humanely. And since they may be able to feel pain, I believe it’s important to take reasonable steps to do so.

    Bob Fischer is on the board of the Insect Welfare Research Society and the Arthropoda Foundation.

    – ref. Insects are everywhere in farming and research − but insect welfare is just catching up – https://theconversation.com/insects-are-everywhere-in-farming-and-research-but-insect-welfare-is-just-catching-up-249585

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hormone therapy may cut cardiovascular risk in younger menopausal women

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Nudy, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Penn State

    Hormone therapy relieves many symptoms of menopause. Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    Menopause can have profound effects on heart health, yet many people are unaware of this important connection.

    The hormonal shifts occurring during menopause mark the end of a woman’s reproductive years and contribute to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the most common cause of death among women globally. As estrogen levels drop, changes in cholesterol, blood pressure, inflammation and fat distribution can lead to plaque buildup in blood vessels, which is a major cause of heart disease.

    Hormone therapy has long been prescribed to relieve bothersome menopausal symptoms, but research published in 2002 and 2004 raised concerns about its safety, especially regarding cardiovascular health. Those findings led to years of confusion and debate. Although hormone therapy was also previously prescribed to prevent chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, medical guidelines today no longer recommend it for this purpose based on this prior research.

    As a cardiologist studying the prevention of heart disease in menopausal women, I investigate how hormone changes affect heart health and how treatments can be improved to lower cardiovascular disease risk. As research continues to shed light on menopause and heart health, it is becoming increasingly clear that hormone therapy used to treat menopausal symptoms in younger, healthy women is not only safe for the heart but may even offer some cardiovascular benefits.

    The estrogen-cardiovascular link explained

    Menopause, defined as 12 consecutive months without a menstrual period, marks the end of a woman’s reproductive years and typically occurs between ages 45 to 55. The transition leading to menopause, known as perimenopause, can last several years and is characterized by fluctuating levels of hormones, including estrogen and progesterone. These hormonal changes often cause symptoms such as hot flashes, night sweats and sleep disturbances.

    Hormone therapy got a bad rap in the early 2000s.

    What’s less widely known is that menopause and lack of estrogen also drive changes to the heart and blood vessels. Estrogen has protective effects on the cardiovascular system, and its decline can lead to increased blood vessel stiffness, resulting in high blood pressure, higher cholesterol levels, more inflammation, and shifts in fat deposition, which lead to a greater risk of heart disease.

    One reason for this is that estrogen helps keep blood vessels flexible and supports the production of nitric oxide, a molecule that allows vessels to relax and maintain healthy blood flow. Estrogen also influences how the body processes cholesterol, helping to make changes to cholesterol to reduce plaque buildup in artery walls. When estrogen levels drop during menopause, these protective factors diminish, making arteries more susceptible to stiffening, plaque buildup and inflammation. These biological processes raise the risk of long-term cardiovascular disease.

    Hormone therapy’s rocky history

    Hormone therapy using estrogen alone or a combination of estrogen and progestin, a synthetic derivative of progesterone, restores estrogen levels and effectively treats menopausal symptoms. It comes with some risks, though, which depend on factors such as a woman’s age, time since menopause began and overall health.

    The medical community’s view on hormone therapy has shifted dramatically over the years. In the 1970s, hormone therapy was widely promoted as a fountain of youth and was prescribed commonly to prevent age-related chronic diseases such as heart attack and stroke.

    Then, in the early 2000s, the Women’s Health Initiative, one of the largest clinical trials testing oral hormone therapy in women, found an increased risk of stroke and breast cancer in those who used hormone therapy. Doctors abruptly stopped prescribing it, and medical guidelines shifted their recommendations, saying the treatment had more risks than benefits.

    However, additional analyses of data from the Women’s Health Initiative along with results from further studies pointed researchers to a theory called the timing hypothesis, which suggests that the risks and benefits of hormone therapy depend on when treatment begins.

    According to the timing hypothesis, hormone therapy may lower the risk of heart disease in menopausal women who start it before age 60 and within 10 years of menopause onset, and who are otherwise in good health. Women who begin hormone therapy much later – after age 60 or more than 10 years after menopause onset – may instead face increased cardiovascular risks.

    Studies show that estrogen can support heart health.
    Adam SmigielskiE+ via Getty Images

    A personalized approach to treating menopause

    My research supports this idea. In a 2019 study, my colleagues and I analyzed data from 31 clinical trials of women who started hormone therapy at different ages, and we found that women under 60 who used hormone therapy tend to live longer and are less likely to die from heart disease. However, our study did find an increased risk in blood clots and stroke with hormone therapy. This risk was present in menopausal women under 60 years old and continuously increased as women got older.

    Additionally, research has shown that different methods of taking hormone therapy may affect its impact on cardiovascular health. For example, using estrogen patches worn on the skin may have a lower risk of blood clots compared with hormone therapy taken as a pill.

    This is due to a phenomenon called first pass metabolism. Hormone therapy taken by mouth is processed by the liver before entering the bloodstream. The liver produces clotting factors, which raises the risk of blood clots. In contrast, estrogen patches deliver the medication into the bloodstream, bypassing the liver, and do not increase this risk.

    Overall, we found that women who took oral hormone therapy tended to have lower cholesterol levels, and this effect persisted over many years. For healthy younger women who are within 10 years of menopause onset, hormone therapy is safe from a cardiovascular standpoint and may even provide benefit.

    However, hormone therapy is still not recommended for women with existing heart disease, history of blood clots, prior stroke, gallbladder disease or certain types of cancers.

    Medical experts now recognize that blanket recommendations for or against hormone therapy are not appropriate. Instead, treatment decisions should be individualized, considering factors such as age, time since menopause began and overall health.

    If you are considering hormone therapy, discussing risks and benefits with your health care provider is vital.

    Here are questions to consider asking your health care provider:

    • Am I a good candidate for hormone therapy based on my health history?

    • What are the risks and benefits of starting hormone therapy at my age?

    • What type of hormone therapy, such as pills, patches or gel, is safest and most effective for me?

    • How long should I stay on hormone therapy?

    Matthew Nudy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Hormone therapy may cut cardiovascular risk in younger menopausal women – https://theconversation.com/hormone-therapy-may-cut-cardiovascular-risk-in-younger-menopausal-women-243561

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Being alone has its benefits − a psychologist flips the script on the ‘loneliness epidemic’

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Virginia Thomas, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Middlebury

    Studies show that choosing ‘me time’ is not a recipe for loneliness but can boost your creativity and emotional well-being. FotoDuets/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Over the past few years, experts have been sounding the alarm over how much time Americans spend alone.

    Statistics show that we’re choosing to be solitary for more of our waking hours than ever before, tucked away at home rather than mingling in public. Increasing numbers of us are dining alone and traveling solo, and rates of living alone have nearly doubled in the past 50 years.

    These trends coincided with the surgeon general’s 2023 declaration of a loneliness epidemic, leading to recent claims that the U.S. is living in an “anti-social century.”

    Loneliness and isolation are indeed social problems that warrant serious attention, especially since chronic states of loneliness are linked with poor outcomes such as depression and a shortened lifespan.

    But there is another side to this story, one that deserves a closer look. For some people, the shift toward aloneness represents a desire for what researchers call “positive solitude,” a state that is associated with well-being, not loneliness.

    As a psychologist, I’ve spent the past decade researching why people like to be alone – and spending a fair amount of time there myself – so I’m deeply familiar with the joys of solitude. My findings join a host of others that have documented a long list of benefits gained when we choose to spend time by ourselves, ranging from opportunities to recharge our batteries and experience personal growth to making time to connect with our emotions and our creativity.

    Being alone can help remind people who they are.

    So it makes sense to me why people live alone as soon as their financial circumstances allow, and when asked why they prefer to dine solo, people say simply, “I want more me time.”

    It’s also why I’m not surprised that a 2024 national survey found that 56% of Americans considered alone time essential for their mental health. Or that Costco is now selling “solitude sheds” where for around US$2,000 you can buy yourself some peace and quiet.

    It’s clear there is a desire, and a market, for solitude right now in American culture. But why does this side of the story often get lost amid the warnings about social isolation?

    I suspect it has to do with a collective anxiety about being alone.

    The stigma of solitude

    This anxiety stems in large part from our culture’s deficit view of solitude. In this type of thinking, the desire to be alone is seen as unnatural and unhealthy, something to be pitied or feared rather than valued or encouraged.

    This isn’t just my own observation. A study published in February 2025 found that U.S. news headlines are 10 times more likely to frame being alone negatively than positively. This type of bias shapes people’s beliefs, with studies showing that adults and children alike have clear judgments about when it is – and importantly when it is not – acceptable for their peers to be alone.

    This makes sense given that American culture holds up extroversion as the ideal – indeed as the basis for what’s normal. The hallmarks of extraversion include being sociable and assertive, as well as expressing more positive emotions and seeking more stimulation than the opposite personality – the more reserved and risk-averse introverts. Even though not all Americans are extroverts, most of us have been conditioned to cultivate that trait, and those who do reap social and professional rewards. In this cultural milieu, preferring to be alone carries stigma.

    But the desire for solitude is not pathological, and it’s not just for introverts. Nor does it automatically spell social isolation and a lonely life. In fact, the data doesn’t fully support current fears of a loneliness epidemic, something scholars and journalists have recently acknowledged.

    In other words, although Americans are indeed spending more time alone than previous generations did, it’s not clear that we are actually getting lonelier. And despite our fears for the eldest members of our society, research shows that older adults are happier in solitude than the loneliness narrative would lead us to believe.

    It’s all a balancing act – along with solitude, you need to socialize.

    Social media disrupts our solitude

    However, solitude’s benefits don’t automatically appear whenever we take a break from the social world. They arrive when we are truly alone – when we intentionally carve out the time and space to connect with ourselves – not when we are alone on our devices.

    My research has found that solitude’s positive effects on well-being are far less likely to materialize if the majority of our alone time is spent staring at our screens, especially when we’re passively scrolling social media.

    This is where I believe the collective anxiety is well placed, especially the focus on young adults who are increasingly forgoing face-to-face social interaction in favor of a virtual life – and who may face significant distress as a result.

    Social media is by definition social. It’s in the name. We cannot be truly alone when we’re on it. What’s more, it’s not the type of nourishing “me time” I suspect many people are longing for.

    True solitude turns attention inward. It’s a time to slow down and reflect. A time to do as we please, not to please anyone else. A time to be emotionally available to ourselves, rather than to others. When we spend our solitude in these ways, the benefits accrue: We feel rested and rejuvenated, we gain clarity and emotional balance, we feel freer and more connected to ourselves.

    But if we’re addicted to being busy, it can be hard to slow down. If we’re used to looking at a screen, it can be scary to look inside. And if we don’t have the skills to validate being alone as a normal and healthy human need, then we waste our alone time feeling guilty, weird or selfish.

    The importance of reframing solitude

    Americans choosing to spend more time alone is indeed a challenge to the cultural script, and the stigmatization of solitude can be difficult to change. Nevertheless, a small but growing body of research indicates that it is possible, and effective, to reframe the way we think about solitude.

    For example, viewing solitude as a beneficial experience rather than a lonely one has been shown to help alleviate negative feelings about being alone, even for the participants who were severely lonely. People who perceive their time alone as “full” rather than “empty” are more likely to experience their alone time as meaningful, using it for growth-oriented purposes such as self-reflection or spiritual connection.

    Even something as simple as a linguistic shift – replacing “isolation” with “me time” – causes people to view their alone time more positively and likely affects how their friends and family view it as well.

    It is true that if we don’t have a community of close relationships to return to after being alone, solitude can lead to social isolation. But it’s also true that too much social interaction is taxing, and such overload negatively affects the quality of our relationships. The country’s recent gravitational pull toward more alone time may partially reflect a desire for more balance in a life that is too busy, too scheduled and, yes, too social.

    Just as connection with others is essential for our well-being, so is connection with ourselves.

    Virginia Thomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Being alone has its benefits − a psychologist flips the script on the ‘loneliness epidemic’ – https://theconversation.com/being-alone-has-its-benefits-a-psychologist-flips-the-script-on-the-loneliness-epidemic-250742

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hard work feels worth it, but only after it’s done – new research on how people value effort

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Piotr Winkielman, Professor of Psychology, University of California, San Diego

    How many stairs would you climb for that payoff? Ozgur Donmaz/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    When deciding if something is worth the effort, whether you’ve already exerted yourself or face the prospect of work changes your calculus. That’s what we found in our new research, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

    When you consider a future effort, more work makes the outcome less appealing. But once you’ve completed the work, more effort makes the outcome seem more valuable. We also discovered that hiding behind this general principle of timing there are individual differences in how future and past effort shapes people’s value for the fruits of their labor.

    What’s it worth to you?

    In our experiment, we gave participants a choice between a fixed amount of money and a household item – a mug – that they could take home if they exerted some amount of physical effort, roughly equivalent to walking up one, two or three flights of stairs.

    This setup allowed us to determine the value each person placed on the effort – did it add to or subtract from the value of the item? For instance, if putting in a little more effort made someone switch their decision and decide to go with the cash instead of the mug, we could tell that they valued the mug plus that amount of effort less than that sum of money.

    We also manipulated the time aspect of effort. When the effort was in the future, participants decided whether they wanted to go with the cash or get the mug with some effort. When the effort was in the past, participants decided whether they wanted to cash in the mug they had already earned with effort.

    As we had expected, future effort generally detracted from the value of the mug, but the past effort generally increased it.

    But these general trends do not tell the whole story. Not everyone responds to effort the same way. Our study also uncovered striking individual differences. Four distinct patterns emerged:

    1. For some people, extra effort always subtracted value.
    2. Others consistently preferred items with more work.
    3. Many showed mixed patterns, where moderate effort increased value but excessive effort decreased it.
    4. Some experienced the opposite: initially disliking effort, then finding greater value at higher levels.

    These changing patterns show that one’s relationship with effort isn’t simple. For many people, there’s a sweet spot – a little effort might make something more valuable, but push too far and the value drops. It’s like enjoying a 30-minute workout but dreading a 2-hour session, or conversely, feeling that a 5-minute workout isn’t worth changing clothes for, but a 45-minute session feels satisfying.

    Our paper offers a mathematical model that accounts for these individual differences by proposing that your mind flexibly computes costs and benefits of effort.

    Why violate the ‘law of less work?’

    Why should timing even matter for effort? It seems obvious that reason and nature would teach you to always avoid and dislike effort.

    A hummingbird that puts in lots of extra work to get the same amount of nectar won’t last long.
    Juan Carlos Vindas/Moment via Getty Images

    A hummingbird that prefers a hard-to-get flower over an easy equal alternative might win an A for effort, but, exhausted, would not last long. The cruel world requires “resource rationality” – optimal, efficient use of limited physical and mental resources, balancing the benefits of actions with the required effort.

    That insight is captured by the classic psychological “law of less work,” basically boiling down to the idea that given equivalent outcomes, individuals prefer easier options. Anything different would seem irrational or, in plain language, stupid.

    If so, then how come people, and even animals, often prize things that require hard work for no additional payoff? Why is being hard-to-get a route to value? Anyone who has labored hard for anything knows that investing effort makes the final prize sweeter – whether in love, career, sports or Ikea furniture assembly.

    Could the answer to this “paradox of effort” be that in the hummingbird example, the decision is about future effort, and in the Ikea effect, the effort is in the past?

    Our new findings explain seemingly contradictory phenomena in everyday life. In health care, starting an exercise regimen feels overwhelming when focusing on upcoming workouts, but after establishing the habit, those same exercises become a source of accomplishment. At work, professionals might avoid learning difficult new skills, yet after mastering them, they value their enhanced abilities more because they were challenging to acquire.

    John F. Kennedy supported space exploration efforts, ‘not because they are easy, but because they are hard.’
    Robert Knudsen. White House Photographs. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston, CC BY

    What still isn’t known

    Sayings like “No pain, no gain” or “Easy come, easy go” populate our language and seem fundamental to our culture. But researchers still don’t fully understand why some people value effortful options more than others do. Is it physical aptitude, past experiences, a sense of meaning, perception of difficulty as importance or impossibility, moralization of effort, specific cultural beliefs about hard work? We don’t know yet.

    We’re now studying how effort shapes different aspects of value: monetary value; hedonic value, as in the pleasure one gets from an item; and the aesthetic value, as in the sense of beauty and artistry. For instance, we’re investigating how people value artful calligraphy after exerting different amounts of effort to view it.

    This work may shed light on curious cultural phenomena, like how people value their experience seeing the Mona Lisa after waiting for hours in crowds at the Louvre. These studies could also help researchers design better motivation systems across education, health care and business.

    Piotr Winkielman received funding for this research from the University of California, San Diego, Academic Senate.

    Przemysław Marcowski received funding for this research from the National Science Centre Poland.

    – ref. Hard work feels worth it, but only after it’s done – new research on how people value effort – https://theconversation.com/hard-work-feels-worth-it-but-only-after-its-done-new-research-on-how-people-value-effort-252684

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese and Dutton both say they will return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Anthony Albanese has announced that the government will ensure the Port of Darwin, currently leased by the Chinese company Landbridge, is returned to Australian hands.

    “Australia needs to own the Port of Darwin,” the prime minister declared late Friday.

    Albanese rang a Darwin radio station after Labor got wind of the fact that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would on Saturday announce a Coalition government would return the port back to local control.

    Both the government and opposition are promising that, if necessary, they would bring the port’s lease into public ownership.

    Albanese said the government had been seeking a local buyer, but was prepared to acquire the port’s lease if that was the only solution.

    “We prefer that it be through superannuation funds or some other vehicle that doesn’t mean direct taxpayer’s funds, but we’re prepared to go down the road of taxpayer direct involvement, as well.”

    Asked to clarify whether the options were that the port remain privately owned or that it be returned to be a government asset, Albanese said, “yes, they are.”

    The Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge in 2015 for about $500 million. The lease was for 99 years.

    The federal government at the time was not directly involved in the deal, but the Northern Territory government sought advice from the Defence Department and security agencies, which didn’t raise objections. Later, US President Barack Obama chided then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for not giving the Americans a heads-up.

    The Chinese deal has caused serious controversy in the years since.

    When Dutton was defence minister in the Morrison government, his department did a review of the lease.

    A statement on Friday from Dutton and shadow ministers said a Coalition government would seek a private operator to take over the lease, but if one could not be found within six months, the government would acquire it “as a last resort”.

    It would use the Commonwealth’s “compulsory acquisition powers”, and the government would then compensate the Landbridge Group.

    “In the current geopolitical environment, it is vital that this piece of critical infrastructure, which is directly opposite to the Larrakeyah Defence Precinct, is operated by a trusted, Commonwealth approved entity.

    “We will appoint a specialist commercial adviser to work with the Northern Territory Government and officials from the Departments of Treasury, Finance, Defence and Infrastructure to provide advice and engage with potential new operators of the port.”

    Dutton said that a Coalition government would not allow the port to be leased by any entity that is “directly or indirectly controlled by a foreign government, including any state-owned enterprise or sovereign wealth fund.”

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Albanese and Dutton both say they will return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands – https://theconversation.com/albanese-and-dutton-both-say-they-will-return-the-port-of-darwin-to-australian-hands-253735

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –