Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Kerr, Research Fellow, Adolescent Population Health and Obesity Epidemiology, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
Since the 1990s, the proportion of the world’s population who are overweight (with a body mass index of 25–30) or obese (with a body mass index of 30 or above) has doubled.
If current patterns continue, we estimate that by 2050, 30% of the world’s children and adolescents (aged five to 24 years) will be overweight or obese, according to our new research in The Lancet.
By 2050, we forecast that 2.2 million Australian children and adolescents will be living with obesity. A further 1.6 million will be overweight. This is a combined prevalence of 50% – and an increase of 146% between 1990 and 2050.
Already in 2017–18, excess weight and obesity cost the Australian government A$11.8 billion. The projected disease burden will add billions of dollars to these health costs.
So how did we get here? And most importantly, what can we do to turn this trajectory around?
It’s not just about health problems later in life
Living with obesity increases the likelihood of living with disability and dying at a young age.
Obesity doesn’t just cause health problems later in life. Living with obesity increases the chance of developing many serious diseases during childhood or adolescence, including fatty liver disease, type 2 diabetes and hypertension (high blood pressure).
Due to weight-related teasing, bullying and stigma, obesity can also cause problems with mental health, and school and community engagement.
Some of the negative health effects of obesity can be reversed if young people return to a normal weight.
But reducing your weight from an obese BMI (30-plus) to a normal weight BMI (18.5–25) is very difficult. As a result, 70–80% of adolescents with a BMI of 30 or above live their adult years with obesity.
So it’s important to prevent obesity in the first place.
How did this happen?
Obesity is often blamed on the individual child, parent or family. This is reflected in significant weight-based stigma that people in larger bodies often face.
Yet the rapidly changing patterns of obesity throughout the world reinforce the importance of viewing it as a society-level problem.
The drivers of the obesity epidemic are complex. A country’s increasing obesity rates often overlap with their increasing economic development.
Economic development encourages high growth and consumption. As local farming and food supply systems become overtaken by “big-food” companies, populations transition to high-calorie diets.
Meanwhile, our environments become more “obesogenic”, or obesity-promoting, and it becomes very difficult to maintain healthy lifestyles because we are surrounded by very convenient, affordable and addictive high-calorie foods.
Some people are more negatively affected by living in these environments and gain more body weight than others. As our recent study showed, compared to those born with low genetic risk, adolescents who are born with a high genetic risk of developing obesity are more likely to become overweight or obese when living in poverty.
Other research shows those with a high genetic risk are more likely to gain weight when living in obesity-promoting environments.
Can we fix this problem?
The steepest increase in the proportion of young people with obesity is expected to be in the coming years. This means there is an opportunity to address this public health issue through bold actions now.
Some young people with severe obesity should be provided access to funded, stigma-free team-based weight-management health care. This may include:
access to GPs and nurses for lifestyle advice about diet and exercise
Because obesity doesn’t belong to any one part of government, action can fall through the cracks. Although there are significant efforts being made, action requires coordinated investments from numerous government portfolios – health, education, transport, urban planning – at local, state and national levels.
Governments should commit to an immediate five-year action plan to ensure we don’t fail another generation of children and adolescents.
Jessica Kerr has received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. This research was also funded by the Gates Foundation.
Peter Azzopardi receives funding from NHMRC.
Susan M. Sawyer has received funding from National Health and Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.
With the AFL and NRL seasons kicking off, fantasy footy players have been deep in draft mode, carefully building their best teams.
Fantasy sports have transformed the way fans engage with many sports, sparking interest beyond simply watching matches or supporting a favourite team.
What are fantasy sports?
In simple terms, fantasy sports involve participants acting as team coaches/managers, selecting real-life players to form a fantasy team within the constraints of the game’s rules.
These teams compete based on the actual performance of the selected players in real matches. Points are awarded on various performance metrics, depending on the sport.
Many fantasy leagues also incorporate a stock market-like element. When a real-life player exceeds expectations, their fantasy value increases, while underperformance leads to a decrease in value.
This allows coaches to trade players in and out strategically, aiming to build the most valuable and high-scoring team during a season.
Success in fantasy sports often depends on statistical analysis, player scouting, and smart decision-making when it comes to trades and team selection.
The origins of fantasy sports
The first mainstream fantasy game can be attributed to Rotisserie League Baseball in 1980 by Daniel Okrent and friends.
Rotisserie League Baseball is said to be the oldest fantasy sports league in the world.
This league required participants to track their own players’ progress using a scoring system based on statistics obtained in newspapers after a game.
With the rapid progression of technology, fantasy sports have evolved significantly, with most major sporting codes worldwide now offering multiple fantasy platforms, formats and prizes.
In Australia, the number of people playing fantasy sports has doubled since 2021, with nearly 2.5 million players engaged in one league or another.
This growth presents opportunities for content creation, expanded revenue streams, and potentially increased engagement with sports betting.
Fan engagement
The way fans engage with sports has evolved with the rise of fantasy sports, social media, and real time data tracking, leading to “second screen consumption”.
This involves fans using multiple digital platforms such as fantasy sports apps, social media and tracking of live statistics while simultaneously watching live broadcasts.
This shift has redefined the traditional sports fandom experience.
Fantasy coaches watch more games each week, with a dual identity that extends beyond traditional loyalty to the team they support.
While sports fans have historically supported a single team, fantasy sports reshape fan identity by encouraging engagement with both their favourite team and their fantasy team. Fans often watch games they normally wouldn’t be interested in specifically to watch the fantasy-relevant players involved.
Community engagement is a key motivator for participation, often surpassing interest in the real-life sports.
In Australia, a study by News Corporation Australia, which owns SuperCoach, found bragging rights, social connection and learning more about sport drive participation.
While prizes matter, the main reason people join is to connect with others.
In 2021, Australian fantasy players were largely concentrated in the larger sporting codes such as the AFL and NRL, but by 2023 it had broadened into the Big Bash League (BBL) and National Basketball League (NBL).
There are many Australians playing fantasy leagues in global sports too, from the English Premier League (soccer) to the United States’ National Football League (NFL) and National Basketball Association (NBA). Some 14% of the Australian fantasy audience plays in global leagues.
Media involvement
With some sporting seasons becoming longer and the connection to fantasy sports extending beyond live games, fans are kept invested throughout the off-season as they analyse trades, follow pre-season developments and prepare for the next competition.
This almost year-round involvement offers extended media coverage and consumption of new content in a variety of formats.
Fantasy sport complements traditional media by offering alternative coverage, such as podcasts and short-form content that extends beyond game day, keeping fans connected throughout the week as they adjust their lineups and strategies.
Fantasy sports are also boosting viewership for new formats like AFLW by increasing fan engagement.
Rich pickings
Fantasy sport has been big business for a long time but the global fantasy sports market is challenging to quantify.
In 2013, Forbes estimated the NFL fantasy football market alone to be worth $US70 billion ($A111 billion), significantly surpassing the NFL’s 2021 revenue of $US11 billion ($A17 billion), highlighting its major role in the global sporting market.
Their key argument is that betting is a game of chance whereas fantasy sports are games of skill.
Despite these differences, concerns have been raised about the links between fantasy sports and sports betting.
An Australian fantasy betting app was recently fined more than $A500,000 for illegally offering inducements to gamble in dozens of ads on its platform.
Whether or not fantasy sports are likely to encourage gambling is a grey area – studies in this space are mixed.
However, others describe fantasy sports as a more positive alternative to gambling and that participants are motivated by the social benefits, rather than being motivated by a chance to win money.
As fantasy sports continue to evolve and attract new players, their ability to deepen fan engagement, foster community connections, and enhance the sports watching experience ensures they will remain a dynamic and influential part of the sporting world.
I have worked with members of the AFL Fantasy Traders before in schools.
Vaughan Cruickshank 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.
Whether it’s for a work meeting or a class assignment, presenting data to others is a common task on our to-do list.
We use data to make decisions on our health, finances and the world we live in, yet finding the best ways to communicate data without boring your audience can be daunting.
However, there are some tried and true techniques to getting your message across effectively.
First, you need to boost your data literacy – which includes learning about the different kind of charts and how to use them.
What is data literacy?
Data literacy is the ability to “plot” and present complex data in a way that’s easy to digest. There is even a branch of statistics focusing on the best way to present data.
It’s one of the most desired skills in the workplace, yet a 2020 survey found only one in five employees across nine different countries (including Australia) believe they are data literate.
With seemingly countless options available, choosing the right chart is challenging, and the wrong choice can influence how data is interpreted.
Passing on the humble pie
Pie charts are often the first pick when it comes to presenting data with different categories, such as age group or blood type. These categories are represented as slices, with the size of each slice proportional to the amount of data.
Doughnut charts, a close relative of the pie chart, work the same way but are shown with a hole in the middle.
Pie charts present data in a circular pattern, making it difficult to make comparisons when there are many groups, or when groups are similar in size. They can also misrepresent data entirely, especially when data add up to over 100%.
Here are some alternatives to pie charts that sound just as tasty, but are easier to digest.
Bar charts
Bar charts summarise data across different categories, but present them next to each other. This makes it easier to compare several categories at once.
Here is an example from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing the different generations from the last census.
Waffle charts
Waffle charts are a good option for data organised by categories.
They present data in a grid, with each unit representing a fixed number. This is useful for presenting both large and small percentages that are difficult to compare side-by-side.
We can clearly see most people eat meat from the figure.
However, a bar chart would make comparing less common diets difficult. With a waffle chart, we can see 4% of people surveyed are vegan, while 2% are pescetarian.
Histograms
Data often represent different measurements, such as height and weight, or time taken to write an article.
Histograms also present data with bars but, unlike bar charts, are used for data collected as numbers, or numerical data.
This chart type is used to show how a set of numbers are spread out, and can be useful in seeing which numbers occur more often than others.
It’s tempting to simplify data by fitting them into categories, but this can sometimes hide interesting facts.
The example below shows the body mass index (BMI) of a group of people as a bar chart.
It’s easy to lose information when trying to simplify BMI into categories, especially among people who may be obese.
Each category in the bar chart could easily be misunderstood as representing BMI as similar ranges. However, if we look at the histogram, BMI for obese people can be as high as 70.
A doctor using this data would need to take into account that someone with a BMI of 60 may need a different treatment method compared to someone with a BMI of 30.
Line charts and scatterplots
Other chart types for numerical data, such as line charts and scatterplots, allow us to explore how different measurements are related to one another.
Line charts are used to visualise trends over time, such as stock prices and weekly flu cases.
In contrast, scatterplots show how two different measurements collected on the same subject are related.
While scatterplots summarise trends, they sometimes show unusual results that would go unnoticed if measurements were charted separately.
For example, the figure below compares life expectancy and health expenditure in different countries.
If we’re only looking at health expenditure, people from the United States would appear healthier as the US spends the most money on health care per person.
Presenting this information along with life expectancy tells a different story.
Keep it simple and avoid ‘chart junk’
It is always tempting to add more information.
“Chart junk” refers to extra information such as excess labels, 3D effects or even different types of data in the same chart.
This makes them more difficult to read and can distort the data, and is usually a sign your data is too complicated. You’re better off using multiple charts to tell the full story.
As Coco Chanel once said, “simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance”.
Keep these words in mind and choose a chart that keeps it simple without compromising style, content and detail.
Nicole White is a member of the Statistical Society of Australia.
The United States is abandoning its traditional role as the anchor of the liberal world order — a set of norms, rules, customs and international institutions designed to maintain global stability and foster peaceful interchange between states.
Under these circumstances, it’s more urgent than ever that Canada clarifies its vision in world affairs and accepts its responsibility to sustain the rules-based global order. By looking into the past, we can see what Canada can do in the present.
The U.S. isn’t the only country with a vested interest in maintaining the liberal international order — even if it has been the only nation with the will and capacity to serve as its safeguard.
In fact, Canada has been an engaged member of the international community. The country played a leading role in establishing the UN Emergency Force during the Suez Crisis, fighting apartheid in South Africa and building a coalition to ban anti-personnel land mines in the 1990s, to name a few examples.
Canada has done so because it’s been in the best interest of the country. A liberal, rules-based international order is a framework in which Canada can make a meaningful difference in global affairs disproportionate to its limited size and capabilities.
It also makes for a more prosperous, stable and peaceful world. One where norms, rules and institutions constrain aggressive or malevolent world leaders and facilitates co-operation on global problems.
But what can lessons from the past offer Canada in sustaining global order in an “America First” world. This is a policy espoused by the Trump administration that is focused inwards. It approaches international affairs as a transactional, zero-sum game.
Learning from the past
First, Canada is at its most effective when Canadians act in unison towards a common goal.
During the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s, Canadians of all stripes and levels of government worked in tandem to organize a truly national response to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Regular citizens contributed more than $30 million — potentially saving over 700,000 people from starvation.
This domestic political consensus also provided the requisite support for the federal government to co-ordinate an international famine relief effort. This was despite the resistance of Canada’s major allies in the U.S. and the U.K., due to the Marxist orientation of the Ethiopian government.
Granted, few international causes offer such grounds for unity. Political polarization has only made this type of unity more difficult. And yet, as recent events (such as Trump’s threat to coerce Canada into becoming the 51st state) make clear, Canadians are willing to put aside their differences and rally together when there’s a coherent vision for the country rooted in its values and aspirations.
Second, Canada needs to work closely with like-minded states through multilateral institutions — such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth. Under Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government, Canada relied on its membership in nearly every major international association to build and maintain the global coalition against South African apartheid.
Australia, India, Zambia and Zimbabwe emerged as key partners. Such efforts entailed both political and economic costs. But there was a reason why one of Nelson Mandela’s first visits following his release from prison in 1990 was to Canada.
By redoubling its engagement in international organizations, Canada can punch above its weight in world affairs and shape global priorities. It also provides a counter to the influence of the United States in Canadian foreign policy.
Third, the U.S. is more than its president. Canada can still cultivate ties with Americans beyond the White House. Returning to the Mulroney government, Ottawa’s efforts to persuade the Ronald Reagan administration to negotiate restrictions on emissions resulting in acid rain were unsuccessful.
Nonetheless, by lobbying congressional leaders in impacted states and partnering with environmental non-governmental organizations, Canada and the U.S. eventually agreed to the 1991 Air Quality Agreement.
Surviving hostile administrations
Canada should also be realistic about the degree to which it can diversify its economic and diplomatic relationships outside of the U.S.
In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 per cent surcharge on Canadian imports. Then, just as it is now, Ottawa looked for alternative markets to offset Canada’s dependency on the Americans. These initiatives ultimately failed to materialize — but the surcharge was rescinded. Canada-U.S. relations ultimately survived the Nixon administration.
Similarly, while Trump has offered a stark reminder that Canada needs to take an active role in sustaining the rules-based international order on which it depends, the ties that bind the two countries together are deeper and longer-lasting than any one administration or government.
Even so, with a world in chaos, Canada needs to step up to defend international norms and institutions. It has done so in the past and can do so again — provided it develops a coherent foreign policy strategy moving forward.
Daniel Manulak receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Bisexuality has long been the subject of distinct forms of stigma compared to other sexual identities. People who identify as bisexual can be dismissed as “confused”, “indecisive” or as passing through a “transitional stage”. These stigmas circulate both among heterosexual and LGBTQ+ people.
But as social acceptance of diverse sexual identities continues to grow in many countries, more people are identifying as bisexual. My research in Stockholm reflects this trend.
With colleagues, I analysed data from over 75,000 participants in Stockholm, aged 16 and above between 2010 and 2021. Over this 12-year period, bisexual identity increased from 1.6% in 2010 to 2.5% in 2014, and by 2021 had doubled to 3.1%. In comparison, homosexual identity rose slightly from 1.7% to 2%.
This means that bisexual people have been the largest self-identifying sexual minority group in Stockholm since 2014.
Younger generations were more likely to identify as bisexual. Among those born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s, known as generation Z, 9.4% identified as bisexual in 2021, up from 6.2% in 2014. Among millennials, born between the early 1980s and mid-1990s, 4.6% identified as bisexual in 2021, a slight decrease from 5.1% in 2014. Meanwhile, the proportion of generation X, born between 1965 and 1980, who identified as bisexual fell from 2.1% in 2014 to 1.8% in 2021.
A similar trend has been seen in the US. Over the past 15 years, the bisexual population has steadily grown and has been the largest sexual minority since 2016. By 2020, 3.1% of US adults identified as bisexual. This increased to 4.4% by 2023.
Bisexual identity was, again, more common among younger generations. Among generation Z, 12% identified as bisexual in 2020, rising to 15% in 2023. Millennials saw a slight increase from 5% in 2020 to 6% in 2023. For generation X, it stayed at 2% in both years.
What could be driving the rise?
These generational differences suggest a shift in how people understand and define their sexual identities. There are several likely reasons for this. In recent decades, many countries have made significant progress in legal recognition and protections for LGBTQ+ people.
Meanwhile, public support for same-sex marriage rose from 71% in 2006 to 90% in 2015. Since then, between 94% and 98% of Swedes have agreed that “gay, lesbian, and bisexual people should have the same rights as heterosexual people”.
Greater visibility of LGBTQ+ people in media and public life may also have played a role. Seeing people of diverse sexual identities featured in posts, stories, and shows, and as public figures, helps normalise these identities. They also provide relatable examples that can inspire others to feel more confident in being themselves.
The younger generation is leading the charge on celebrating sexual diversity. Shutterstock
For example, pride parades have become influential cultural events in many countries. They create space for celebration and connection, both within the LGBTQ+ community and in society at large. They also contribute to greater visibility and public awareness.
Together, these legal and social changes, along with shifting cultural norms, have helped create safer and more supportive environments for LGBTQ+ people. Younger generations are likely experiencing greater social freedom to explore and express their sexual identities.
As more people feel safe and accepted in identifying as LGBTQ+, society becomes more inclusive and diverse. This, in turn, can encourage others to embrace their sexual identities openly, creating a positive cycle of acceptance and visibility.
This momentum suggests that the number of people who identify as LGBTQ+, particularly bisexual people, will likely continue to grow in the near future, especially in societies with stronger legal protections and social acceptance.
Looking ahead, as our understanding of sexuality continues to evolve, this growing visibility and awareness may suggest the potential for a society that becomes increasingly diverse and accepting.
Multiple sclerosis is a disease that results when the immune system mistakenly attacks the brain and spinal cord. It affects nearly one million people in the U.S. and over 2.8 million worldwide. While genetics play a role in the risk of developing multiple sclerosis, environmental factors such as diet, infectious disease and gut health are major contributors.
The environment plays a key role in determining who develops multiple sclerosis, and this is evident from twin studies. Among identical twins who share 100% of their genes, one twin has a roughly 25% chance of developing MS if the other twin has the disease. For fraternal twins who share 50% of their genes, this rate drops to around 2%.
Scientists have long suspected that gut bacteria may influence a person’s risk of developing multiple sclerosis. But studies so far have had inconsistent findings.
To address these inconsistencies, my colleagues and I used what researchers call a bedside-to-bench-to-bedside approach: starting with samples from patients with multiple sclerosis, conducting lab experiments on these samples, then confirming our findings in patients.
In our newly published research, we found that the ratio of two bacteria in the gut can predict multiple sclerosis severity in patients, highlighting the importance of the microbiome and gut health in this disease.
First, we analyzed the chemical and bacterial gut composition of patients with multiple sclerosis, confirming that they had gut inflammation and different types of gut bacteria compared with people without multiple sclerosis.
Specifically, we showed that a group of bacteria called Blautia was more common in multiple sclerosis patients, while Prevotella, a bacterial species consistently linked to a healthy gut, was found in lower amounts.
In a separate experiment in mice, we observed that the balance between two gut bacteria, Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia, was critical in distinguishing mice with or without multiple sclerosis-like disease. Mice with multiple sclerosis-like symptoms had increased levels of Akkermansia and decreased levels of Bifidobacterium in their stool or gut lining.
Bench to bedside
To explore this further, we treated mice with antibiotics to remove all their gut bacteria. Then, we gave either Blautia, which was higher in multiple sclerosis patients; Prevotella, which was more common in healthy patients; or a control bacteria, Phocaeicola, which is found in patients with and without multiple sclerosis. We found that mice with Blautia developed more gut inflammation and worse multiple sclerosis-like symptoms.
Even before symptoms appeared, these mice had low levels of Bifidobacterium and high levels of Akkermansia. This suggested that an imbalance between these two bacteria might not just be a sign of disease, but could actually predict how severe it will be.
We then examined whether this same imbalance appeared in people. We measured the ratio of Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Akkermansia muciniphila in samples from multiple sclerosis patients in Iowa and participants in a study spanning the U.S., Latin America and Europe.
Our findings were consistent: Patients with multiple sclerosis had a lower ratio of Bifidobacterium to Akkermansia. This imbalance was not only linked to having multiple sclerosis but also with worse disability, making it a stronger predictor of disease severity than any single type of bacteria alone.
One of the most interesting findings from our study was that normally beneficial bacteria can turn harmful in multiple sclerosis. Akkermansia is usually considered a helpful bacterium, but it became problematic in patients with multiple sclerosis.
A previous study in mice showed a similar pattern: Mice with severe disease had a lower Bifidobacterium-to-Akkermansia ratio. In that study, mice fed a diet rich in phytoestrogens – chemicals structurally similar to human estrogen that need to be broken down by bacteria for beneficial health effects – developed milder disease than those on a diet without phytoestrogens. Previously we have shown that people with multiple sclerosis lack gut bacteria that can metabolize phytoestrogen.
Although the precise mechanisms behind the link between the Bifidobacterium-to- Akkermansia ratio and multiple sclerosis is unknown, researchers have a theory. Both types of bacteria consume mucin, a substance that protects the gut lining. However, Bifidobacterium both eats and produces mucin, while Akkermansia only consumes it. When Bifidobacterium levels drop, such as during inflammation, Akkermansia overconsumes mucin and weakens the gut lining. This process can trigger more inflammation and potentially contribute to the progression of multiple sclerosis.
Our finding that the Bifidobacterium-to-Akkermansia ratio may be a key marker for multiple sclerosis severity could help improve diagnosis and treatment. It also highlights how losing beneficial gut bacteria can allow other gut bacteria to become harmful, though it is unclear whether changing levels of certain microbes can affect multiple sclerosis.
While more research can help clarify the link between the gut microbiome and multiple sclerosis, these findings offer a promising new direction for understanding and treating this disease.
Ashutosh Mangalam received funding from the NIH/NIAID, VA, and the University of Iowa. He holds a patent licensed to Evelo Biosciences by Mayo Clinic on a technology using Prevotella histicola to treat autoimmune diseases. No funds or products from this patent were used in this study.
While women are working and earning more than ever before, they are now empowered with even more information to take into salary negotiations and to decide which companies to work for.
This information is especially valuable in a tight labour market, with the unemployment rate at just 4.1%, as companies fight for top talent.
This is the second year the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) has published company gender pay gaps, responding to concerns that progress on gender equality had been stalling.
Pay gap transparency tackles the problem of “asymmetric information” where employers know where each worker sits on the pay scale, but employees don’t.
Data from 7,800 private companies
Women’s typical full-time annual salaries sat at A$72,638 in 2023–24, compared to men’s $84,048.
Though narrowing, that’s still a gap of $11,410 a year, or around $220 a week.
The gap is much larger once bonuses, overtime and superannuation are included: $18,835 or a total remuneration gap of 18.3%.
All private companies in Australia with at least 100 employees must report their data to the federal agency. This covers 5.3 million employees across 7,800 companies, a big expansion from last year’s 5,000 companies as more companies improve their data reporting.
Employees can look at the agency’s website to find the gender pay gap of their private sector employer – or one they are thinking of joining.
This year’s calculations of company gender pay gaps also incorporate the salaries of top executives.
When CEOs and heads of business are factored in, the difference in men’s and women’s average total remuneration swells to $28,435, or 21.8%.
This all adds up to men out-earning women by an average of $547 per week.
A closer look at company-level gender pay gaps
Across all companies, the average gender gap in total remuneration is 13.0%. But the magnitude varies widely across different companies.
Around 2,200 companies (around one-quarter) have a gap exceeding 20%. Of these, around 250 companies have a gap stretching beyond 40%.
At the other end, around one-quarter of companies have a gap that is either zero or negative, meaning in favour of women.
The agency considers a gender pay gap within the range of negative 5% to positive 5% to be a reasonable measure to aim for.
Of the largest organisations (with 5,000 or more employees), airlines are among the worst performers. Virgin has an average gender gap in total remuneration of 41.7% while Qantas reports a gap of 39.2%.
Among the banks, Commonwealth Bank and Westpac both report an average gender pay gap of 22.4%. Suncorp’s gap sits at 19.3%, NAB’s is at 19.0%, and ANZ has a gap of 18.8%.
Progress is happening
The purpose of publishing company pay gap data is to propel progress on gender equality in Australian workplaces.
It follows legislated reforms designed to motivate employers to pay closer attention to their gender pay gap and take more action.
Comparisons to last year’s data suggest this is happening. The agency reports that just over half of all employers (56%) reduced their gender pay gap. And 68% conducted an analysis of their gender pay gap, which is an important first step in making progress.
Greater transparency makes employers more accountable for improving working conditions.
It is also a way to recognise the companies that are improving over time and learn from their success.
Correct interpretation is critical
The gender pay gap, measured as the difference between men’s and women’s earnings, is not the same as equal pay for equal or comparable work. For over 50 years, it has been against the law in Australia to pay men and women differently for doing work of equal value.
Employer-level gaps in earnings reflects a combination of factors, including gender patterns in the different types of occupations that men and women tend to be in within a company. But these gender patterns in job types do not explain the whole picture.
Biases and barriers persist, including unconscious favouritism, gender imbalances in care-giving responsibilities and the perpetuation of gender stereotypes.
This is also not a gap that can be explained by women working fewer hours than men. The calculations include part-time employees, whose pay is converted into an annualised full-time equivalent.
Each employer has the chance to provide deeper analysis and explanation of their gender pay gap, and the actions they are taking, in their official employer statements which are also available on the agnecy’s website.
This information will empower not just current employees but also prospective employees, customers, business partners and the wider community in their choices of which companies to work for, do business with, and endorse – and which ones not to.
Leonora Risse receives research funding from the Trawalla Foundation and the Women’s Leadership Institute Australia. She has previously undertaken commissioned research for the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. She is a member of the Economic Society of Australia and the Women in Economics Network. She serves as an Expert Panel Member on gender pay equity for the Fair Work Commission.
In many countries, buying food at supermarkets, convenience stores and online has become the norm. But what’s the convenience of modern food shopping doing to our health?
Our study, published today with colleagues from UNICEF, looked at how people in 97 countries shopped for groceries over 15 years.
Globally, we found a huge increase in the number of supermarkets and convenience stores (which we’ll shorten to chain grocery stores in this article). We also found people are spending more money in these stores and on their online platforms.
But this has come at a cost to our health. People in countries with the most chain grocery stores per person buy more unhealthy food and are more likely to be obese.
Here’s why we’re so concerned about this public health disaster.
The rise of chain grocery stores
Our study analysed food industry data from a business database to understand how the food retail sector has changed worldwide over time. We looked at the kinds of stores, how much people spend there, and how much unhealthy processed food is sold. We linked these trends with changes in obesity rates using data from a large global initiative.
We found the density of chain grocery stores (number of stores per 10,000 people) has increased globally by 23.6% over 15 years (from 2009 to 2023).
We found far more of these stores per person in high-income countries, as you may expect. However, it’s in low- and middle-income countries where numbers are increasing the fastest.
Rapid urbanisation, rising incomes and customer demand mean large retail companies see these countries as new potential markets.
For example, the density of chain grocery stores increased by about 21% a year in Myanmar, about 18% a year in Vietnam and about 12% a year in Cambodia.
In Vietnam, the number of chain grocery stores increased by about 18% a year. Nature-Andy/Shutterstock
We’re shopping online too
The data in our study also covers the rise of online food shopping. For instance, the worldwide spend on online grocery shopping was 325% more in 2023 compared with 2014.
Out of the 27 countries we looked at for online food shopping, people in the United Arab Emirates and the United States were the top spenders. In 2023, the average person in the United Arab Emirates spent about US$617 that year, 570% more than in 2014. In the US, the average person spent US$387 in 2023. That’s about 125% more than in 2014.
The rise of chain grocery stores, including their online platforms, is also changing what we eat.
Over the 15 years of our study, there has been a 10.9% increase in the sales of unhealthy processed food from those chain grocery stores.
In South Asia, the increase has been particularly rapid. People in Pakistan have been buying 5% more unhealthy processed foods from chain grocery stores every year for the past 15 years. In India, it’s 4% more and in Bangladesh 3% more.
Over 15 years, our study also showed the percentage of people with obesity across all countries rose from 18.2% to 23.7%. It was the countries with the biggest increases in chain grocery stores where we saw the sharpest increases in obesity.
Laos is a good example. The number of chain grocery stores per person in the country has been increasing by 15% each year since 2009, while the percentage of people with obesity has doubled from 2009 to 2023.
In almost all countries, obesity is on the rise. In Australia, overweight and obesity have recently officially overtaken tobacco as the biggest burden on our health.
Over 15 years, there has been a 10.9% increase in the sales of unhealthy processed food globally. Pratiwi Ambarwati/Shutterstock
Why do we think supermarkets are to blame?
Supermarkets and hypermarkets sell healthy foods, such as fruit and vegetables. Yet, there are good reasons to think our retail environment might be to blame for the rise in obesity.
Highly processed foods
Chain grocery stores typically sell an enormous array of highly processed packaged foods high in sugar, fat and salt that can harm our health. One study of the food and drinks available in supermarkets from 12 countries showed the majority are classified as unhealthy. Given our findings of rapid increases in chain grocery in low- and middle-income countries, it was alarming in this study that the least healthy products were typically seen in supermarkets from countries like India, China and Chile.
Heavy promotion
Chain grocery stores often aggressively promote unhealthy foods. This includes through price discounting; advertising in circulars, on TV and social media; and by being placed in prominent displays at checkouts and the ends of aisles. Studies have shown this to be true in Belgium, Ireland and another 12 countries.
Online, we see unhealthy foods promoted more often (with discounts and displayed more prominently) than healthy options. For instance, on average at least one-third of products prominently displayed on Australian supermarket websites are unhealthy.
More buying power
Compared to small independent grocers, large chain grocery stores globally have a far larger influence on decisions around product assortment and price. Because of this, they can control supply chains, often in partnership with national and multi-national food manufacturers of ultra processed, unhealthy packaged foods.
What can we do about it?
There are many social, political, cultural and economic factors that contribute to the rise in obesity globally. Many of these relate to the price, availability and promotion of food in retail settings and the way the retail industry is structured.
Because of this, we think it’s time for governments and retailers to step up and start making changes to where and how we shop for food.
Some countries are already beginning to act. In the United Kingdom for example, government legislation now prevents placing unhealthy foods in prominent places such as the checkout counter and at the ends of aisles close to checkouts. From October this year, further restrictions on the price promotion of unhealthy foods (such as “buy one, get one free”) will also come into force in the UK.
There is also plenty that retailers can do. In Norway, for example, one major grocery chain launched a comprehensive healthy eating campaign several years ago, including by increasing the size and prominence of healthy food displays and offering discounts on fruits and vegetables. This led to a 42% increase in vegetable sales and a 25% rise in fruit sales from 2012 until 2020.
Now more than ever, it is time to create healthier retail food environments that support nutritious diets and help reverse the rising rates of obesity.
Tailane Scapin receives funding from UNICEF.
Adrian Cameron receives funding from the National Heart Foundation of Australia, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and UNICEF. He is affiliated with INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity / Non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support) and is the Director of the RE-FRESH: Next Generation NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Food Retail Environments for Health.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendon O’Connor, Professor in U.S. Politics and U.S. Foreign Relations, United States Studies Centre,, University of Sydney
Since returning to the US presidency, Donald Trump has outdone himself, gaining global media headlines and attention with outrageous statements and dramatic decisions.
The most consequential decision so far has been the freezing of many US aid and development programs. The freeze had an immediate impact. Even with some waivers now in place, it is likely that starving people in Ethiopia will not get the famine relief desperately needed; food is rotting in African harbours as constitutional battles over executive power are waged in Washington.
There are numerous examples of other reckless policy decisions. In terms of long term consequences, arguably the worst decision Trump has made is pulling the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. He also wound back a slew of Biden administration policies while erasing the term “climate change” from various government websites.
Then there are Trump’s statements on Ukraine, Gaza and Panama. Last weekend, his treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House meeting caused widespread dismay around the world, as Trump doubled down on his promotion of Putin’s talking points and Russian government interests.
So what’s Trump’s game plan?
With Trump, it is tempting to claim he is a chaos merchant with no plan or method to his madness. According to this view, when he is challenged or criticised, he will escalate the threats and increase the insults.
Therefore, conventional wisdom has it that the best way to deal with Trump is to flatter and humour him, then wait for his attention to be distracted by another prize. This understanding of Trump has been developed by international relations scholar Daniel Drezner into the “toddler-in-chief” thesis.
Psychological understandings of Trump are useful to a point, but it is worth remembering presidencies are run by vast administrations of people, departments and agencies, and not just one person. Moreover, an institution as large as the US Defense Department – with its two million employees and military bases in at least 80 countries around the world – has a near permanent mindset of its own. This, in turn, tends to make presidents as seemingly different as Obama and Trump custodians of many similar military policies and postures.
The way I have initially examined Trump in my own research is to see him as a hardline conservative nationalist who believes projecting US power with tough talk and reminding other nations of American military might is the best approach to world politics.
Previous Republican presidents, most notably George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, adopted this so-called “cowboy” approach. It’s a posture that rejects the idea that the US is the leader of a liberal international order (a leadership role promoted by their Democratic party opponents).
My starting point for analysis sees continuities between Reagan, Bush and Trump, and highlights their arrogance and ignorance when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.
Similar, but different
However, there are some things about Trump that are clearly different and distinct. Before his second term, the most unusual aspect of Trump’s foreign policy approach was the volume and range of his scattergun rhetoric towards other leaders and nations. For example, he threatened North Korea with “fire and fury and, frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before”, but later told a rally of supporters that, “We fell in love. No, really. He wrote me beautiful letters.”
As for academic perspectives that might help us better understand what kind of politician Trump is and what his next moves might be, the obvious label is “crudely transactional”. His attitude to most minor and middle powers seems to be “what have you done for me lately?” or “why does America owe your nation anything?”.
When it comes to Russia, and potentially China, there has been speculation Trump is adopting a geopolitical approach with parallels to the “great game” of the 19th century. The “great game” is another way of saying imperialism, and this is a largely underused way of describing American foreign policy in general and the second Trump administration in particular.
Then there is the question of whether the (other) “f-word” is a useful way to understand Trump and Trumpism: are his rhetoric and his domestic and international policies fascist? They are definitely ultra-nationalist and racist, which are two key components of fascism; Trumpism revolves around a charismatic leader that has enough in common with fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to make opponents of Trump justifiably nervous. But does Trumpism have the other key element of fascism: mob or state violence that is at times directed at scapegoated enemies?
There is certainly an embrace of revenge and cruelty by Trump in general, which is being carried out in practice by Musk’s DOGE project. However, whether it is useful to call the second Trump administration fascist, or just fascistic for now, is a complex question within scholarly circles.
Five weeks into the second Trump administration, and many of the most destructive ideas that were laid out last year in the unofficial campaign manifesto Project 2025 are being put into place. It has been a long-term dream of many hardline conservatives to gut America’s foreign aid and development programs, which is now happening at a frightening pace.
What lies ahead that turns rhetoric into reality is hard to entirely predict, but many of Trump’s utterances this year have clearly been imperialistic and fascistic. Trump does not have to ignore the constitution or be a textbook fascist to be a terribly dangerous president. Being an authoritarian, which he has no qualms about embracing, is worrying enough.
Brendon O’Connor 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Ghezelbash, Professor and Director, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney
Misinformation is a significant threat to our society. It undermines public discussion, erodes social cohesion, leads to bad policy and weakens democracy.
Misinformation on refugee and migrant issues is particularly pervasive – especially in the lead up to elections, as bad-faith actors try to promote fear, distrust and simplistic solutions.
And sometimes, misinformation is specifically targeted at migrant communities themselves, sowing division in an effort to influence elections.
So, what’s the best way to counter misinformation about refugees and migrants? And given the risk that publicly addressing lies and rumours can sometimes end up spreading them, when is misinformation best ignored?
Behavioural science explains why and how misinformation works. Understanding some of that science can empower all of us to stop its spread.
Misinformation increases during elections
The recent US presidential race provides a stark example of how misinformation on refugees and migrants soars during elections.
During one presidential debate, Donald Trump falsely claimed migrants in Ohio were “eating the pets”. Though entirely untrue, this baseless claim spread rapidly across social media.
Australia is not immune to such deception. While refugees and migrants make significant positive economic, social and cultural contributions to their host societies, politicians across the spectrum have falsely blamed them for issues ranging from rising house prices to crime.
This is not new. Back in the 2001 election campaign, government ministers made false claims that people seeking asylum had thrown their children overboard from a boat. These are widely regarded as having contributed to turning around the fortunes of the Howard government, which was then trailing in the polls.
Instead of addressing challenges with real solutions, these strategies scapegoat refugees and migrants, and ignore their immense positive contributions.
Misinformation leads to a more divided and polarised society. So, how does it spread?
6. Continued influence effect: Misinformation has a lasting effect on our attitudes and decisions, even after it has been corrected.
Building on these principles and an extensive review of research literature, we developed an evidence-based framework for countering misinformation about refugees and migrants.
It provides a step-by-step guide on what to do when faced with falsehoods, starting with recognising whether the misinformation is anticipated or already circulating.
When you expect a particular false claim, but it’s not yet out there, then prebunk. Alert people to manipulation tactics before they become widespread.
If false claims are already out there, first ask three questions before acting:
is the claim prominent (visible and gaining traction)?
is it persuasive (able to change people’s minds)?
is it proximate (relevant to your audience and cause)?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then reframe the agenda. Instead of amplifying falsehoods, shift your resources to sharing stories that reinforce accurate information and resonate with your audience’s values.
If misinformation is indeed prominent, persuasive and proximate, debunk it.
Use the fact, myth, fallacy, fact – or “fact sandwich” – method. Make the correction clear, credible and effective by stating the truth, then presenting the myth, explaining its flaws, and reinforcing the correct fact.
Here’s an example that leads with a fact, warns about the myth, explains the fallacy and then ends with a fact:
When Australia’s borders were closed during COVID, migration was at its lowest in a century — yet house prices still went up. The idea that cutting migration will magically solve the housing crisis doesn’t hold up against the evidence.
But some political actors are blaming migrants, as if they’re the main reason housing has become unaffordable.
In fact, this oversimplifies the problem. The housing crisis has been a long time in the making, and it’s now this severe because of past policy choices piling up.
As we approach Australia’s next federal election, addressing misinformation about refugees and migrants is more crucial than ever to protect refugees and migrants from harm, strengthen our democratic processes, and foster a more inclusive society.
Daniel Ghezelbash receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the NSW government and the Robert Bosch Foundation. He is a board member of Refugee Advice and Casework Services, Wallumatta Legal, and the Access to Justice and Technology Network. He is also a Special Counsel at the National Justice Project.
Saul Wodak is affiliated with the Behavioural Insights Team.
The question of how best to eliminate corruption has exercised the minds of philosophers as much as the practical drafters of legislation from Ancient Greek and Roman times.
Within the political sphere, the notion of “corruption” has fluctuated between broad and narrow conceptions.
The broad conception relates to the decay of institutions or of the stature of the individuals who comprise them. On the other hand, the narrow conception focuses on the abuse of public office for private gain.
There is also “grey corruption” – which involves questionable behaviour involving a breach of integrity standards that does not necessarily amount to criminal conduct.
This could include where a person has undue influence over a politician, such as by essentially buying that power through making large donations or hiring expensive lobbyists, particularly where it causes public officials to behave in corrupt ways.
However the notion is defined, it is clear the fight against corruption is one of the basic tasks of a liberal democracy, perhaps even of an effectively functioning civil society.
Corruption control is a pressing issue worldwide: the United Nations estimated the economic cost of corruption at 5% of global domestic product or $3.6 trillion annually.
Australia has had a number of major corruption scandals throughout its history. Corruption was rife in the colonial era, where wealthy landholders sought to influence parliamentarians with monetary bribes.
This has been followed by several major corruption scandals, such as the Fitzgerald inquiry, which revealed widespread police corruption involving illegal gambling and prostitution.
What are anti-corruption commissions?
Anti-corruption commissions are arguably the most significant tool developed in liberal democracies to fight corruption in recent times.
The first anti-corruption commission in Australia, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), was established in New South Wales in 1988 by then premier Nick Greiner.
Infamously, a few years later, Greiner became the first premier to resign due to an ICAC investigation.
Over the next few decades, all states and territories have set up their own anti-corruption or integrity commissions.
In 2023, the Commonwealth followed suit with the introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), a promise made by Anthony Albanese in the lead-up to the 2022 election after considerable pressure from the public and from within parliament.
As a result, Australia now has a comprehensive network of broad-based public sector anti-corruption agencies covering all levels of government – a significant development nationally and internationally.
Anti-corruption commissions are tasked with investigating serious and systemic corrupt conduct in government. This includes not just members of the House and Senate, but their staff and public servants.
In performing their functions, these commissions have strong coercive powers, equivalent to the powers of a royal commission. This includes the power to compel documents and witnesses.
Some anti-corruption commissions such as the NACC and NSW’s ICAC have the power to conduct public hearings if they believe it’s in the public interest. This increases transparency in government. But concerns have been expressed about reputational damage for those subject to investigations.
Anti-corruption commissions also have corruption prevention functions. They are tasked with educating the public about the detrimental effects of corruption on public administration.
Reports of anti-corruption commissions are often attended by significant media publicity, leading to public awareness of corruption in government.
Why are anti-corruption commissions needed?
It has become well accepted that effective anti-corruption institutions play an important role as institutions supporting constitutional democracy.
The state anti-corruption bodies have brought to light many indiscretions by politicians that would have otherwise remained hidden.
Without these commissions, corruption in the public sector can take root without us knowing about it. An anti-corruption agency is a powerful deterrent against improper behaviour.
Yet anti-corruption commissions tend to be unpopular within governments because they scrutinise government action. This means the a commission may expose improper conduct or corruption within their ranks.
It is common for governments hostile to anti-corruption commissions to attack them, including by reducing their powers or funding.
This is despite their integral role in our democracy. Alongside other oversight bodies such as the ombudsman (who investigates maladministration within government) and auditor-general (who performs audits of government expenditure), anti-corruption commissions form part of an intricate, interlocking integrity framework that monitors executive action.
Who watches the watchdogs?
A big question is about how we ensure anti-corruption commissions do not overstep their bounds. Given their broad coercive powers, how do we hold them to account?
From their inception, concerns have been expressed about the potential for anti-corruption bodies to infringe on civil liberties, and the possibility they may exceed or abuse their powers.
In Australia, anti-corruption commissions are subject to a strong system of accountability through parliaments and the courts. They report to dedicated parliamentary committees who scrutinise their actions and decisions. Complaints against anti-corruption commissions can be made to a dedicated inspectorate – an independent statutory officer who oversees their actions.
Anti-corruption commissions are also subject to judicial review by the courts to ensure they don’t exceed their legal boundaries. Court scrutiny occurs when a person investigated by an anti-corruption commission takes their grievance to court.
To be effective, anti-corruption commissions require strong powers and institutional independence. But this needs to be balanced with accountability and the protection of individual rights.
What is pork barrelling and what are some recent examples?
Pork barrelling involves governments channelling public funds to seats they hold or seats they would like to win from an opponent, as a way of winning voters’ favour. This means the money is used for political purposes, rather than proper allocation according to merit.
We have been inundated with pork barrelling scandals in recent years. This includes the car park rorts scandal, where 77% of the commuter car park sites selected were in electorates held by the then Coalition government, rather than in areas of real need with congestion issues.
This followed close on the heels of the “sports rorts” scandal. Minister Bridget McKenzie resigned from cabinet following allegations she had intervened in the sport grants program to benefit the Coalition government while in a position of conflict of interest.
My research has shown that pork barrelling is an intractable problem across multiple governments over many decades. It takes different forms based on electoral systems.
Australia has a single member electorate parliamentary system, which makes it more susceptible to pork barrelling than multi-member electorates such as Norway or Spain. The belief is that politicians who “bring home the bacon” for their constituents are electorally rewarded for doing so.
This means there are incentives for the central cabinet to strategically apportion benefits to marginal electorates to increase prospects of electoral success. There is also an incentive to bias the apportionment of funds towards the party in power.
In short, rorts scandals keep happening because governments believe that channelling money to marginal and government electorates will win them elections.
Potentially the NACC could investigate rorts scandals, but only where it amounts to serious or systemic corrupt conduct.
How do we fix the grants system?
At the federal level, we have sophisticated financial management legislation that provides a framework for grant rules. The Commonwealth grant rules provide a detailed set of guidelines that ministers and government officials must follow on grant application and selection processes.
However, there are significant loopholes in the rules. For example, the “car park rorts” scandal is not covered by these rules because it involves money being channelled through the states.
Also, there are no sanctions for breaching the rules. So ministers and government officials can break the rules without any repercussions.
To fix the system, we need to reform the rules about grants allocation and close the loopholes. We also need to impose punishment for breaching the rules.
It is imperative our grants administration system be reformed to ensure that taxpayer funds are protected from governmental abuse. If the ministerial discretion available in grants processes is improperly used, this can give rise to political favouritism and corruption.
How corrupt is Australia compared to other countries?
There is a public perception that a small elite is reaping large benefits in Australian society in terms of political influence and its flow-on dividends.
In Australia, the “game of mates” is flourishing. There’s now a revolving door in politics with many politicians, advisers and senior government officials leaving the public sector to become well-paid lobbyists.
Add to that the appointments of political “mates” to commissions, tribunals and cushy ambassadorships and the blatant misuse of parliamentary entitlements such as helicopter trips on taxpayer funds.
Political parties are also accepting millions of dollars in donations from lobbyists and others interested in influencing policy outcomes.
All of this adds to the perception that the system is rigged – and not in favour of the person on the street.
Australia has fallen steadily in Transparency International’s global corruption index, from 8th place in 2012 to 14th in 2024. But even so, Australia is the 14th-least corrupt country in the world, which is still a respectable ranking.
More alarming is the fact that one in 30 Australian public servants said in a survey last year they had seen a colleague acting in a corrupt manner.
The types of corruption witnessed included cronyism or nepotism (favourable treatment of friends or family members without proper regard to merit). Fraud, forgery, embezzlement and conflicts of interest were also reported.
In the 1980s, there were incidences of large-scale corruption that rocked the country, culminating in the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland and the WA Inc Royal Commission in Western Australia. These scandals led to the resignations and imprisonments of various former ministers and officials.
Although we have not sunk to such depths since then, state anti-corruption commissions, such as the NSW ICAC, have uncovered various instances of corruption in recent years. The NSW ICAC’s inquiries have led to the resignations of several politicians, as well as the conviction of former Labor MP Eric Obeid.
Another classic case of corruption exposed by the ICAC led to the downfall of former Newcastle lord mayor, Jeff McCloy. McCloy famously bragged that politicians treated him like a “walking ATM” and admitted to giving two MPs envelopes of cash amounting to $10,000.
In Victoria, the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission’s (IBAC) revealed that a lobbyist funnelled suitcases of cash totalling more than $100,000 from a property developer to a councillor, under the guise of sham transactions.
These explosive scandals involving corrupt conduct by public officials have eroded public trust in politicians. But the exposure of these scandals by anti-corruption commissions have an important deterrent and educative effect on public officials and the broader public.
Our faith in government has been eroded by a lack of transparency and the perception that those in power are enjoying unfair benefits. The active investigations by robust institutions such as anti-corruption commissions will act as checks and balances on governmental power – and are key to a vibrant democracy.
This is an edited extract from How Australian Democracy Works, a new book from leading authors at The Conversation on all aspects of our political system and its history, out March 4.
Yee-Fui Ng 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.
Some of the objects captured by ASKAP.Author provided
Radio astronomers see what the naked eye can’t. As we study the sky with telescopes that record radio signals rather than light, we end up seeing a lot of circles.
The newest generation of radio telescopes – including the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) and MeerKAT, a telescope in South Africa – is revealing incredibly faint cosmic objects, never before seen.
In astronomy, surface brightness is a measure that tells us how easily visible an object is. The extraordinary sensitivity of MeerKAT and ASKAP is now revealing a new “low surface brightness universe” to radio astronomers. It’s comprised of radio sources so faint they have never been seen before, each with their own unique physical properties.
Many of the ASKAP results presented here were obtained with one of its major observing programs called EMU (Evolutionary Map of the Universe). EMU is mapping the entire southern sky with an unprecedented sensitivity and will deliver the most detailed map of the southern hemisphere sky to date – a spectacular new radio atlas that will be used for decades to come.
EMU’s all-hemisphere coverage paired with ASKAP’s exceptional sensitivity, especially within the Milky Way, is what’s yielded so many recent discoveries.
Here’s what they’re teaching us.
Unstable stars
Kyklos (left) and WR16 (r). Author provided
The ghostly ring Kýklos (from the Greek κύκλος, circle or ring) and the object WR16 both show the environment of rare and unusual celestial objects known as Wolf-Rayet stars.
When big stars are close to running out of fuel, they become unstable as they enter one of the last stages of the stellar life cycle, becoming a Wolf-Rayet star. They begin surging and pulsing, shedding their outer layers which can form bright nebulous structures around the star.
In these objects, a previous outflow of material has cleared the space around the star, allowing the current outburst to expand symmetrically in all directions. This sphere of stellar detritus shows itself as a circle.
Exploded stars
Left to right clocwise: the supernova remnants Stingray 1, Perun, Ancora and Unicycle. Author provided
Stingray 1, Perun, Ancora and Unicycle are supernova remnants. When a big star finally runs out of fuel, it can no longer hold back the crush of gravity. The matter falling inwards causes one final explosion, and the remains of these violent star deaths are known as supernovas.
Their expanding shockwaves sweep up material into an expanding sphere, forming beautiful circular features.
The supernova remnant will be deformed by its environment over time. If one side of the explosion slams into an interstellar cloud, we’ll see a squashed shape. So, a near-perfect circle in a messy universe is a special find.
Teleios – named from the Greek Τελεɩοσ (“perfect”) for its near-perfectly circular shape – is shown below. This unique object has never been seen in any wavelength, including visible light, demonstrating ASKAP’s incredible ability to discover new objects.
The shape indicates Teleios has remained relatively untouched by its environment. This presents us with an opportunity to make inferences about the initial supernova explosion, providing rare insight into one of the most energetic events in the universe.
ASKAP EMU radio image of the Teleios supernova remnant. Author provided
At the other extreme, we can take an object and discover something entirely new about it. The Diprotodon supernova remnant is shown below.
This remnant is one of the largest objects in the sky, appearing approximately six times larger than the Moon. Hence the name: the animal Diprotodon, one of Australia’s most famous megafauna, a giant wombat that lived about 25,000 years ago.
ASKAP’s sensitivity has uncovered the object’s full extent. This discovery led to further analysis, uncovering more of the history and the physics behind this object. The messy internal structure can be seen as different parts of the expanding shell slam into a busy interstellar environment.
ASKAP radio image of Diprotodon, a supernova remnant. Green circle shows the previous measured size, and the yellow circle shows the new ASKAP measured size. Earth’s Moon size is shown in the top right for scale, and Diprotodon’s namesake is shown in the top left. Author provided
A cosmic mirror
Lagotis is another object that can show how new telescope data can reclassify previously discovered objects. The reflection nebula VdB-80 has been seen before, within the plane of our Milky Way galaxy. The light we see was emitted by nearby stars, and then reflected off a nearby cloud of gas and dust.
Lagotis, with its cloud of ionised hydrogen or HII region seen on the right. Author provided
However, with newly available ASKAP EMU data, we were able to discover an associated cloud of ionised hydrogen (known as an HII region, pronounced “aitch two”), where stellar energy has caused the gaseous matter to lose its electrons.
This HII region is seen to coexist with the reflection nebula, sharing the same stellar centre, and is created from the star pushing into a molecular cloud. This movement is akin to burrowing, so the object earned the name Lagotis after Macrotis lagotis, the Australian greater bilby.
Outside the galaxy
ASKAP and MeerKAT are also illuminating objects from outside our Milky Way galaxy – for example, “radio ring” galaxies. When we use visible light to look at the stars in this galaxy, we see a rather plain disk.
But in radio light, we see a ring. Why is there a hole in the middle? Perhaps the combined force of many exploding supernovas has pushed all the radio-emitting clouds out of the centre. We’re not sure – we’re looking for more examples to test our ideas.
Finally, LMC-ORC is an Odd Radio Circle (ORC), a prominent new class of objects with unfamiliar origins. Only being visible in radio light, they are perhaps the most mysterious of all.
A radio ring galaxy (left) and LMC-ORC (r). Author provided
The next generation
MeerKAT and ASKAP are revealing incredible insights into the low surface brightness universe. However, they are precursors for the Square Kilometre Array, an international collaborative endeavour that will increase the abilities of radio astronomers and reveal even more unique features of the universe.
The low-surface brightness universe presents many mysteries. These discoveries push our understanding further. Currently, the EMU survey using ASKAP is only 25% complete.
As more of this survey becomes available, we will discover many more unique and exciting objects, both new to astrophysics and extensions on previously known objects.
Acknowledgements: Aaron Bradley and Zachary Smeaton, Masters Research Students at Western Sydney University, made valuable contributions to this article.
Nicholas Tothill receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Andrew Hopkins, Luke Barnes, and Miroslav Filipovic 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.
Have you ever been called a Luddite? We have – usually as an insult, rooted in a popular misconception that Luddites are anti-progress fanatics.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The original 19th century Luddites weren’t against technology. Rather, they resisted its oppressive use.
Their rebellion was violently suppressed. But their core critique lives on: technology should benefit all of humanity, not a privileged few.
Today, as Silicon Valley billionaires and United States president Donald Trump turbocharge corporate control of public digital infrastructure, this critique rings truer than ever.
In response, we are a seeing a growing surge of attempts to wrest back control of technology for democratic ends. This is a kind of “digital Luddism” which echoes past struggles against high-tech injustice.
The original Luddites
The Luddites were 19th century English textile workers who destroyed machinery threatening their craft and livelihoods. Historians call their tactics “collective bargaining by riot”. They were fighting against technologies that centralised power and stripped workers of dignity.
Luddite resistance was part of broader struggles for labour rights and socioeconomic justice.
Earlier, England’s Diggers and Levellers resisted the privatisation of communal lands. This foreshadowed today’s battles over corporate control of digital infrastructure.
The Luddites faced severe punishment, including imprisonment and even execution. Despite this, their legacy endures. Today, dismissing critics of Big Tech as “Luddites” repeats the mistake of conflating resistance to exploitation with fear of progress.
In the most extreme scenario, unchecked corporate power allied with monstrous government polices can lead to atrocities. In Nazi Germany, for example, Dehomag, a former subsidiary of computer giant IBM, provided data systems to the Nazis to track victims. Chemical company IG Farben also supplied Zyklon B gas for extermination camps. Many other companies profited from forced labour and funded the regime. This shows how complicity can make oppression more efficient.
Digital Luddism doesn’t reject innovation. It demands technology serve stakeholders, not shareholders.
Removal: dismantling entrenched power
Some systems are beyond reform, requiring direct intervention. Removal involves political action and legal regulation. It also involves public pressure to break monopolies or impose penalties on unethical corporations.
Big Tech has also repeatedly faced huge fines and antitrust lawsuits. However, breaking up or nationalising these corporations remains rhetoric for now.
But digital Luddism isn’t just about using different tools. It’s about systemic change towards sustainable, transparent and user-controlled infrastructure.
Open-source AI projects such as China’s DeepSeek and HuggingFace’s Deep Research now rival corporate models, proving open tech is a force to reckon with.
The original Luddites smashed machines. But the global nature of today’s digital infrastructure makes physical sabotage impractical. That’s why digital Luddism isn’t about smashing screens. Instead, it’s about smashing oppressive systems.
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.
Does your small toe hide beneath the next its next-door neighbour? Although there isn’t scientific evidence this condition known as “Irish pinky toe” is more common in Ireland, it’s a popular idea that it’s a genetic trait among some people with Celtic heritage. And as podiatrists in Ireland, it is certainly something we see every day.
An Irish pinky toe may look unusual, cause pain or increase your chances of losing it altogether. Added pressure on the toe or toenail can also cause corns, calluses, thickened toenails and even ulcers that may lead to amputation.
If you’ve ever thought, “What is wrong with that little toe?” or “Why don’t I have a nail on that toe?” then here’s why you might need to take extra care to avoid potential wounds – and even amputation – in future. Fortunately, toe amputations are a relatively rare occurrence but can be offered if the toe continues to cause pain after all other treatments have been tried or if there is infection or gangrene.
Because an Irish pinky toe sits under the one beside it and often rotates, this can cause pressure on the neighbouring toe. If two bones or joints are pressed close together, this may cause the skin to thicken and result in a corn.
This might also happen if the little toenail irritates the skin and, if the nail is long or sharp, this might pierce the skin and cause a wound or an infection.
The little toe and toenail may also rub up against the lining of your shoes, leading to painful friction blisters or shoes that wear out quickly. Wellington boots may be ideal for music festivals and the rainy Irish weather but don’t tend to fit very well, causing the foot to slide about inside.
Repeated friction or trauma may even damage the nail matrix, the part that makes nail, attached to the bone. This could lead to permanent thickening of the nail, that may become unsightly and cause pain.
The “Irish pinky toenail” is similar. This is when the toenail may split in two or an extra nail-like skin lesion develops. Sometimes, it may look like you have two nails, a condition described by podiatrists as a petaloid nail or a Lister’s or Durlacher corn. It’s difficult to determine how common petaloid nails are because they’re underdiagnosed and rarely reported.
What can I do?
Whatever your heritage, show your pinky toes some love and avoid future problems by trying to avoid tight footwear, especially boots with a firm toe, such as steel toe caps, court shoes, or any shoe with an unforgiving fabric such as a patent finish.
Some people might throw on any old socks in the morning but ill-fitting socks can contribute to problem foot health – socks that do not stretch, or have heavy seams, may increase the pressure on your pinky toes. Pain or problems may be caused by the toe itself or, perhaps, a sock seam, rigid fabric or the style of shoe. It’s worth investing in high quality, breathable fabrics for socks, such as cotton or bamboo.
If you have to wear specific safety footwear for your job, such as in farming and construction, you may find higher quality, thicker socks are better than boots with thick fabrics in the toe, that will wear down over time. Perhaps also consider investing in a silicone-lined toe sleeve, which acts like a hat for your toes and protects them from the pressure of footwear.
Alternatively, it’s possible “prop the toe” by making custom supports. We do this by creating a silicone device which lifts the toe off the ground, separates tight toes or improves the toes position, to avoid future problems. For existing corns, callus or wounds, it’s best to get a trained specialist who can remove excess nail or skin painlessly with a blade to reduce discomfort.
Irish pinky toes don’t always always cause pain, but if they do, there are ways to reduce it, one step at a time.
Lauren Connell is the owner of L.A Podiatry.
Benjamin Bullen 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hao Cui, Research Fellow in AI-Enhanced Collective Intelligence, Trinity College Dublin
Top tech team: surgeons operating with help frm artificial intelligence.Have a nice day Photo
Imagine a large city recovering from a devastating hurricane. Roads are flooded, the power is down, and local authorities are overwhelmed. Emergency responders are doing their best, but the chaos is massive.
AI-controlled drones survey the damage from above, while intelligent systems process satellite images and data from sensors on the ground and air to identify which neighbourhoods are most vulnerable.
Meanwhile, AI-equipped robots are deployed to deliver food, water and medical supplies into areas that human responders can’t reach. Emergency teams, guided and coordinated by AI and the insights it produces, are able to prioritise their efforts, sending rescue squads where they’re needed most.
Collective intelligence is the shared intelligence of a group or groups of people working together. Different groups of people with diverse skills, such as firefighters and drone operators, for instance, work together to generate better ideas and solutions. AI can enhance this human collective intelligence, and transform how we approach large-scale crises. It’s a form of what’s called hybrid collective intelligence.
Instead of simply relying on human intuition or traditional tools, experts can use AI to process vast amounts of data, identify patterns and make predictions. By enhancing human decision-making, AI systems offer faster and more accurate insights – whether in medical research, disaster response, or environmental protection.
AI can do this, by for example, processing large datasets and uncovering insights that would take much longer for humans to identify. AI can also get involved in physical tasks. In manufacturing, AI-powered robots can automate assembly lines, helping improve efficiency and reduce downtime.
Equally crucial is information exchange, where AI enhances the flow of information, helping human teams coordinate more effectively and make data-driven decisions faster. Finally, AI can act as social catalysts to facilitate more effective collaboration within human teams or even help build hybrid teams of humans and machines working alongside one another.
AI-driven improvements to all these different aspects can make the entire, interconnected system more adaptive and intelligent.
We’re already seeing the impact of AI-enhanced collective intelligence. In disaster response, AI systems already analyse satellite imagery and sensor data, generating risk assessments that help human responders to prioritise rescue efforts and allocate resources efficiently.
In healthcare, AI already helps doctors make faster and more accurate diagnoses by analysing large patient datasets. Medical teams refine AI recommendations with their expertise, ensuring the best possible treatment plans. Robots equipped with AI can assist surgeons in performing delicate tasks, allowing for greater precision.
In media, AI curates and verifies news from global sources, assisting journalists in fact-checking and uncovering misinformation. This collaboration can strengthen the accuracy and reliability of information in an era of digital media. However, AI can also drive the dissemination of fake news and disinformation. These include deep fake videos of, for example, politicians, which have the potential to affect elections.
In the public sector, AI-powered policy simulations help governments anticipate the impacts of regulations. Crowd-sourced citizen feedback, combined with AI analysis, can give a sense of the public mood.
Environmental protection is another area benefiting from AI-enhanced collective intelligence. AI systems can analyse patterns data on pollution, deforestation, and wildlife movements, guiding human efforts to address environmental challenges more effectively.
As we can see, AI-enhanced collective intelligence is already here, transforming how we approach some of the world’s toughest problems. The key is to recognise that AI is a collaborator, not a competitor. When we combine human creativity, intuition, and ethics with AI’s data processing power, the possibilities for what we can be achieved are substantial.
As we look towards the future, AI’s potential becomes even more exciting. From addressing global health challenges like pandemic prevention to developing solutions to the climate crisis, AI will be at the forefront of tackling issues once thought insurmountable. But this potential comes with responsibility.
It’s up to us to guide how this collaboration evolves, ensuring that AI is used responsibly and ethically in ways that enhance human capabilities rather than diminish them. We must engage in shaping policies and frameworks that promote transparency, fairness and inclusivity through a new sociology of humans and machines.
Collaboration across industries, governments, and communities will be crucial to unlocking AI’s full potential. Together, we can build a future where AI not only augments human intelligence but also helps solve the challenges of tomorrow, creating a more equitable, sustainable, and prosperous world for all.
Hao Cui receives funding from the Research Ireland.
Taha Yasseri 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel O’Brien, Lecturer, Department of Literature Film and Theatre Studies, University of Essex
Director Miloš Forman’s masterpiece, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, turns 50 this year. Despite this milestone, it remains a fresh and timeless piece of cinema from the New Hollywood movement.
Combining iconic performances and universal themes of individualism versus the establishment, Forman’s film is perhaps Jack Nicholson’s greatest performance. He plays Randle Patrick McMurphy, a charismatic convict feigning mental illness in order to serve his sentence at a psychiatric hospital and avoid prison labour.
Here, he becomes an unlikely leader to the ward’s patients, helping them to discover self-belief and confidence. He also attempts to steer them away from the regime of the cold and oppressive nurse, Mildred Ratched, brilliantly played by Louise Fletcher. Fletcher’s performance earned her an Oscar for best actress (along with best actor for Nicholson, and three other wins for best picture, director and adapted screenplay).
The trailer for One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.
Forman’s film achieves the seemingly impossible by having the audience root for a morally corrupt character (McMurphy’s convictions include statutory rape). This detail is mentioned just once, early in the film, and is seemingly forgotten in order to reorient him as an unlikely saviour, rather than unsavoury character. Nicholson’s magnetism certainly helps.
Scenes of the anti-hero warmly bonding with his fellow male patients are in stark contrast to the bureaucratic iciness of Ratched, who coldly controls the men of the asylum.
The hospital ward becomes the metaphorical arena for a battle between individual and establishment. The timeliness of this story – and of the problematic treatment of mental health patients – is one of the reasons the film remains so timeless.
Another is the significant role that games play in bringing the group of outsiders together.
The magic circle
Johan Huizinga was one of the first cultural theorists to analytically consider the role of games, describing play as a type of “magic circle”.
This was because it marked out a separate space from the rest of the world. Examples of this term can range from the football pitch to the card table or even a stage, where an audience gather to watch a play, rarely crossing the invisible line.
Huizinga’s term carved out a separate area purely for those players involved in the act of play. In One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, McMurphy galvanises his fellow patients through play, teaching them a range of games from blackjack to basketball. He introduces some of them to baseball through his endeavour to watch the World Series on television, forbidden by Ratchet’s ward policy.
Games and play in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. By Daniel O’Brien.
As he opens these magical circles to his ward-mates, so the confidence of his peers grows, animated with joy and camaraderie. The strict bureaucratic rules from Ratched are filtered with rules from games. McMurphy becomes a reluctant leader, initialling conning the men, but then desperately trying to help them live.
Another moment of play occurs when McMurphy dupes his way into taking the patients out on a fishing trip. He impersonates a doctor and passes the patients off as his colleagues.
In the fishing boat scene, one of the most optimistic within the film (and the only one that takes place away from the hospital grounds), the patients come together like a family. McMurphy is the metaphorical father, teaching them how to bait a hook.
The film circumvents this obvious opportunity for McMurphy’s escape. He instead chooses to offer a form of escape to his companions, enabling them to see what freedom and independence looks like, if only for an afternoon.
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.
Play of course is also a central factor in McMurphy’s presence at the hospital from the beginning. It’s left uncertain whether or not he is simulating mental illness in order to avoid a tougher sentence.
Viewers are reminded of this pretence after McMurphy is forced to undergo electroshock therapy. He returns to the ward acting as though he is now cognitively impaired, before flashing the classic Nicholson grin, which lights him up (to paraphrase McMurphy himself) like a pinball machine.
His play is often weaponised as an attack on Ratched and her rules – or perhaps even on her entire gender. McMurphy’s deck of erotic playing cards is often presented at moments of play to remind us of his unbridled sexuality and ambiguous morality.
But of course, this film isn’t just about McMurphy or Ratched. It’s an ensemble film, beautifully performed by outstanding actors, including Will Sampson, Christopher Lloyd, Brad Dourif and Danny DeVito.
The film has been parodied many times, from The Simpsons to British sitcom Spaced, reminding viewers over many years of its cultural significance. In 2008 one of its original stars, DeVito, parodied the film in his sitcom, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Fifty years on, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest has lost none of its power. So find a copy and hit play for a rewatch; its still as fresh as a new pack of Juicy Fruit.
Daniel O’Brien 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Lonsdale, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, City St George’s, University of London
Ferryland lighthouse near Labrador in the Canadian Arctic, an area mapped by Mina Hubbard in 1905. Nagel Photography
In the summer of 1905, a young Canadian widow, Mina Hubbard, set out on an expedition to map the northeastern corner of Labrador, from Lake Melville up to Ungava Bay, an inlet of the Arctic Ocean. It was an unusual challenge for a former nurse who had left school at 16.
Her husband, Leonidas Hubbard, had died in this same harsh environment two years earlier. Mina, 35, intended to complete his work.
Although she faced physical dangers on the 600-mile journey – starvation, bears, freezing rivers and rapids – her greatest antagonists were the reporters and editors of the male-dominated outdoors press of early 20th-century north America.
The popular Outing magazine, for whom Leonidas Hubbard had written, was the most excoriating. Its editor, Caspar Whitney, thundered in an editorial that “the widow” should not be in the wilderness, let alone speak about it.
The wild was no place for a white woman, especially one accompanied by First Nation (Native American) guides. This was not long after she had given an interview to another paper.
Mina Hubbard in northern Labrador.
Other newspapers described her as a grief-stricken hysteric. This was the only explanation they could find for her decision to go on such a long and arduous journey. When she was 300 miles into her expedition, having found the source of the Naskaupi River, the New York Times reported on its front page that she had given up, beaten back by hardship and privations.
Instead the paper claimed that a man, an explorer called Dillon Wallace who was also in northern Labrador, was “pushing forward beyond any white man’s previous track”. In fact, Hubbard had neither given up, nor had Wallace caught up with her. She would reach Ungava Bay several weeks before his party. But it fitted the dominant narrative of the time: that the wilderness was no place for a woman.
I explore the idea of what the wild is, and of its being a gendered space, in my new book, Wildly Different: How Five Women Reclaimed Nature in a Man’s World. From ancient myths such as Ulysses or Gilgamesh, to the present where research shows that women face harassment and othering even on remote Antarctic bases, the wild has for centuries been a site of heroic male adventuring and rugged exploration.
Studies show that even in modern hunting societies, while women tend forest plots and hunt small game near the village or camp, it is the men who go away, often for many days, to hunt for big game and status.
Myths from across the world have told listeners and readers that women who stray beyond the city wall, village paling or encampment are either supernatural, monsters, or have been banished for perceived sins against society.
In the Greek myth of Polyphonte, the young girl who refuses to follow the correct gender role to become a wife and mother, and wants instead to hunt in the forest, is treated to a terrible punishment from the gods. She is tricked into falling in love with a bear-turned-man and gives birth to two bestial children. She and her sons are then transformed into flesh-eating birds.
In a more recent echo of the media coverage of Mina Hubbard’s journey, in Kenya in the 1980s and 1990s, the environmental activist Wangari Maathai was attacked and belittled. She even had a curse put on her for planting trees in forests earmarked for development by the country’s then president, Daniel arap Moi, and for challenging Moi’s plans to build a skyscraper in one of Nairobi’s last green spaces.
At the height of Maathai’s confrontation with President Moi, the Daily Nation newspaper repeated criticism of both Maathai and her Green Belt Movement organisation. Headlines included: “MPs condemn Prof Maathai” and “MPs want Maathai movement banned”. Her crime? Wanting to slow disastrous desertification and soil erosion, and to empower rural women by planting 30 million trees.
When British mountaineer Alison Hargreaves was killed in the Himalayas in 1995, reporting focused on her being a mother and wife. Historical newspaper records I found during my research roundly accused her of abandoning her primary role of caring for her children.
The Sunday Times called her “A mother obsessed”, while the Independent led with the headline, “Dangerous ambition of a woman on the peaks”. The Daily Telegraph headline read, “A wife driven to high challenges”. Readers’ letters were even more critical, branding her as selfish and irresponsible.
A novelty nail file
Women who have received neutral or positive coverage for their work have tended to have novelty value, or had accomplished a feat so extraordinary that their being a woman was part of the narrative.
The entomologist Evelyn Cheesman spent decades collecting insects on Pacific islands, from the Galapagos to New Guinea. Her work led to support for a biological dividing line between different ecosystems in the New Hebrides to be named Cheesman’s Line, and her contribution to science was a great novelty for the newspaper press.
Her months-long, arduous expedition to Papua New Guinea in the early 1930s earned her the headline in the now defunct UK News Chronicle, “Woman collects 42,000 insects”.
After Cheesman published her memoir in 1957, detailing four decades of exploration, the headline in the newspaper Reynolds News announced: “Woman trapped in giant spider’s web”. The sub-head simply statesd, “saved by her nail file”.
More broadly, my research disappointingly concludes that over 100 years on, women explorers and scientific fieldworkers are still represented as unusual or out of place in the wild. These media narratives are dangerous as they feed into social attitudes that put women at risk and cause them to change their behaviour outdoors by avoiding isolated places, especially beyond daylight hours, for example.
Studies show that women (and black and hispanic) hikers in the US are more afraid of being attacked by men than by bears or other wild animals. Women’s outdoor groups, and campaigners such as Woman with Altitude and the Tough Girl podcast are working hard to counter this narrative, encouraging women to enjoy the beauties and discoveries still to be made in the world’s most rugged and remote places.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Tamvakis, Professor of Commodity Economics and Finance, City St George’s, University of London
The UK has become a world leader in offshore wind power.iweta0077 / shutterstock
Gas and electricity bills will rise again for millions of UK households on April 1, when the latest energy price cap takes effect. A typical household will pay £111 more per year.
Though prices have fallen somewhat since their peak in 2022, bills are still considerably higher than they have been historically. That’s despite the construction over the past decade of vast wind farms in the North Sea – which, once built, provide electricity for very little extra cost.
So what explains the UK’s pricey gas and electricity?
Since the 1990s, the UK has been dependent on natural gas in more ways than one. In 2023 (the most recent year for which we have full statistics), gas accounted for 33% of the UK’s energy and almost as much of the electricity it generated. That year, wind contributed 29% to generation and solar an additional 5%, which is of some significance.
As nearly all households are connected to mains gas, most energy bills reflect the global price of gas.
The UK has to compete with demand for gas from other markets, especially, but not exclusively, the EU. The higher the demand, the higher the price. Before the Ukrainian crisis, many EU economies, especially Germany, were able to source abundant gas through pipelines from Russia.
The UK, like other big European countries such as Spain, Italy and France, was able to meet some of its gas supply via pipelines (from Norway in the case of the UK), but also in the form of more expensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) from as far afield as Qatar, Algeria, West Africa and, more recently, the US.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, the flow of pipeline gas has almost entirely stopped. Germany and western EU countries have to compete with everyone else to source their gas from Norway or international LNG markets. A few countries on the eastern side of the EU, such as Austria and Hungary, are still sourcing their gas from Russia but face western criticism for that continued dependence.
This all matters to UK consumers because most of a household’s average energy bill reflects the vagaries of the international gas market. A relatively harsh winter in Europe means they have purchased more gas and paid more for it. In a global market the UK consumer will have to pay this price as well. Even a harsh winter in Japan means that more LNG is directed there, increasing prices for UK and EU consumers.
We can’t suddenly turn on the wind
Even the growth in renewables, especially wind power, does not offer protection against the vagaries of the global gas markets. It is well known that wind energy is intermittent and therefore difficult to forecast and base generation plans on.
Wind energy is what people in the electricity industry call “non-dispatchable”. Because electricity is a universal good, which we expect to have whenever we ask for it, the national grid needs to be able to balance the randomness of wind generation with the immediate response of a reliable, quick-start, “dispatchable” source of generation. Gas fits the bill.
As a result, expensive gas which is called on to make up for the loss of wind or solar generation, ends up setting the electricity price (called the “system price”) most days. Other countries experience something similar. Germany, for instance, generates just 15% of its electricity from gas (albeit with a further 25% from coal) and gets a higher proportion from renewables (28% wind and 12% solar). Yet it still has to use gas frequently to balance the electrical system, with the same effect as in the UK.
Ultimately, the more variable renewable electricity we inject into the system, the more we need to plan for, and invest in, infrastructure that can support it. That means a smarter grid, fewer grid bottlenecks within the UK, more and bigger interconnections to other European countries and battery solutions which can store electricity both for short periods (minutes and hours) and for days and even weeks.
Putting all these elements in place is a Herculean task. Gas fills the gap, but in a way which is more expensive (for now) and continues emitting greenhouse gases, albeit at half the rate that coal did.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Michael Tamvakis 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.
Small businesses across Australia and New Zealand are facing one of their toughest periods in decades.
A flat economy and shifting consumer behaviour have put pressure on already thin operating margins. A 2024 survey by business finance company ScotPac found 29% of Australian small businesses say they could face insolvency if they lose a major client.
Accounting organisation CPA Australia’s latest small business survey shows only 48% of New Zealand’s small businesses grew in 2023. This is significantly down from 60% in 2022. There have also been a record number of business liquidations in both New Zealand and Australia.
Yet some small and medium-sized businesses are thriving. Part of the reason for this is because they have embraced the concept of “digital leadership”.
This is the ability to strategically integrate digital technologies – such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, data analytics and automation – into a business’s operations, decision-making and long-term vision.
Digital leaders use emerging technologies to improve efficiency, redesign business models, scale operations and reach new customers in ways that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.
Our review of the research on digital leadership, recently published in Digital Leadership and Contemporary Entrepreneurship, found that firms treating digital leadership as a core business strategy, rather than just using technology for isolated tasks, are the ones that successfully scale, grow and future-proof their organisations.
Without this change in mindset, firms risk stagnation and missed opportunities. That difference is critical in an economic environment where small margins separate thriving businesses from struggling ones.
Why some small businesses fall behind
It’s easy to assume small businesses lag in digital adoption because of costs or technical complexity. However, most of the studies we reviewed suggest the real issue is hesitancy at the leadership level.
Some business owners are risk-averse and take a “wait and see” approach. Others believe their current solutions are sufficient even when new technology could improve efficiency.
A 2021 survey commissioned by cloud accounting software company Xero, found fear of change, overconfidence in existing processes and decision paralysis are among the biggest barriers preventing small businesses from embracing digital solutions.
Even businesses that already use digital tools – for example, to manage their social media – often fail to go further and integrate technology into core operations such as supply chain management and automation.
Embracing digital leadership
The lesson is that simply adopting digital tools without a strategic plan doesn’t lead to growth. True digital leadership requires businesses to rethink how they operate, compete and scale.
The firms making the most of digital transformation embed technology in their core strategy. They use data-driven decision-making to refine products, forecast demand and identify new opportunities.
They streamline operations by automating routine tasks, such as using AI-powered invoicing, chatbots for customer inquiries and predictive analytics for inventory management. This frees up time for strategic initiatives such as product development and market expansion.
At the same time, they invest in training employees to effectively use and adapt to new technologies. Perhaps most importantly, they take an experimental approach – testing, learning and adapting in real time.
Learning to thrive in digital economy
Businesses that have successfully grown through digital leadership illustrate this approach in action.
Traditional investment firms required large deposits and complex paperwork, excluding many potential investors. Sharesies took a different approach. The company designed a mobile-first platform where users could start with as little as $5. The company now has more than 650,000 users and NZ$3 billion in investments.
In Australia, The Very Good Bra, a sustainable bra company, used digital leadership to create a global, sustainable fashion brand without traditional retail infrastructure.
Founder Stephanie Devine developed a direct-to-consumer model through e-commerce, bypassing wholesalers and physical stores. She utilised digital tools such as social media platforms for community engagement, online surveys to collaborate with customers to design products, and data analytics software for demand forecasting, ensuring every product had a market before it was manufactured.
Both companies succeeded by leveraging digital technologies to disrupt traditional business models. Sharesies democratised investing by making it accessible to individuals with minimal capital, while The Very Good Bra utilised e-commerce and customer collaboration to create sustainable fashion products.
Their digital-first approaches enabled them to identify and fill market gaps effectively.
To thrive in the tougher economic climate, businesses need to think beyond software tools. The question is no longer whether to go digital, but how fast a business can rethink their work for the digital future.
Guy Bate is affiliated with The Education Technology Association of New Zealand (EdTechNZ). He serves as Chair of their AI in Education Technology Stewardship Group.
Rod McNaughton 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.
After the catastrophic press conference on February 28 between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and US president Donald Trump, it is clear that there has been a global realignment.
What the press conference revealed was that Trump’s position is a lot closer to Russian president Vladmir Putin than long-time US ally Ukraine, and also that other US allies cannot count on Washington to promote the global world order.
The extraordinary spectacle ended with Trump and vice-president J.D. Vance shouting at Zelensky, telling him he wasn’t thankful for US aid. Since then, the expected mineral deal between Ukraine and the US has been called off – at least for now.
There was already a wake-up call for European allies about how reliable the US might be during Trump’s first term when he launched his “American first” policy. This included chastising Nato member countries for not paying enough, and characterising Europe as free-riding on US security guarantees.
While this sparked alarm among some European leaders over how to ensure that the continent becomes less dependent on the US, Europeans are now scrambling to respond to Trump 2.0’s much more extreme version of America first. After the press conference, European Union foreign minister Kaja Kallas declared: “Today it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”
Trump’s relationship with Russia
To some extent Europe was caught off guard because it was hard to imagine that a US president would swing US support behind Russia, especially after Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But Trump has turned the page on challenging Russian aggression, and does not seem to see Putin’s ambitions as a threat to global security.
Instead in the press conference – as in previous statements – Trump has echoed some of Putin’s talking points, such as Ukraine not having any cards to play, being unwilling to do a peace deal, and having to give up land to Russia.
Trump also refused to say that Putin started the war, and even claimed that peace could have been possible early on in the war had Zelensky wanted peace. Trump even repeatedly opined that both Putin and Trump were brothers of sorts — victims of the same investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
The press conference also revealed that the security guarantees that Zelensky pushed Trump to confirm were secondary at best. Trump remained vague and offered no details, possibly because he has no intention of the US providing any security to Ukraine.
The aim may have been to goad Zelensky – just weeks ago on Fox News Trump stated that he did not know if Ukrainians would one day become Russian. Meanwhile, Trump’s claim that Ukraine did not have any cards to play is unhelpful to highlight if you are trying to negotiate a great deal for one of your allies.
What Trump seemed to forget is that Ukraine once had a lot of cards — holding the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world with 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 44 strategic bombers. Ukraine was coaxed into returning all of its nuclear warheads in exchange for security assurances from Russia and the west, in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.
But while this memorandum might mean little to the current US president, allies around the world can see how quickly a US leader can forget their country’s commitments. The message that Trump is sending now is that every country must fight for themselves. All interactions are transactional, and economic interests trump the genuine security needs of allies.
This plays perfectly into China’s hands. To China, Trump has signalled that he primarily cares about the tariff issue. In addition, he could implement higher tariffs on the US’s biggest trading partners (and allies), Canada, the EU and Mexico, than on China.
The symbolism of the unsigned mineral deal with Ukraine and the capitulation to Russia’s territorial interests in Ukraine should be music to the ears of China’s president, Xi Jinping.
What it means for China
China has inundated Taiwan with a propaganda campaign that says the self-governing island is part of China. Part of the campaign focuses on the notion that if China were to invade, the US would abandon Taiwan, citing the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 as evidence of this.
The US’s abrupt abandonment of Ukraine adds fuel to this fire. Xi could be emboldened to execute his plan of uniting Taiwan by 2049, if not earlier, which could have disastrous consequences for the global economy.
European leaders met with President Zelensky after the Trump press conference.
Taiwan produces 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors needed for artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and has a market share of 68%.
An invasion could lead to a block on global access to semiconductors, causing shortages of all sorts of tech, a possible stock market crash and a fall in trade between Taiwan and western economies. This could cost around US$10 trillion (£7.9 trillion), equal to 10% of global GDP.
Additionally, for countries such as South Korea and Japan that have been persuaded to not embark on nuclear programmes, the US U-turn sows doubt about its commitment to provide a nuclear shield to its Pacific allies. This could prompt these countries to reverse policies of nonproliferation.
What happens to Nato?
Nato has been traditionally led by a US general, but it’s not even clear that the US will remain in the alliance. In the past few weeks Europe has been forced to hold a series of emergency meetings to try to rise to the various global challenges – with or without the US as a key partner.
All of this makes the US more vulnerable as well. The US is more secure and prosperous when it is part of a long-term alliance, working in partnership with its allies to ensure security, stability, free trade and investment. If the US were to even reduce its security commitments to Nato by 50%, estimates suggest trade with members would fall by US$450 billion.
The alliance system has been a backbone of US security since 1949. The cost to Nato’s credibility and to defending its borders if Ukraine loses the war would be trillions, not billions, of dollars.
With Trump appearing desperate to do a deal on Putin’s terms with no concessions, Russia will become much stronger as a result. In spite of the fact that more than 95,000 Russians have died, it’s likely that Russia will act even more boldly, becoming a more attractive ally to US adversaries.
Trump’s support for Putin not only encourages a hostile nuclear power on the doorstep of the US’s top Nato allies, but also suggests that the US cannot be counted on in future.
Natasha Lindstaedt 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.
Pets increasingly play a central role in people’s lives. Mental health professionals who overlook this may be missing an opportunity to understand an important aspect of their clients’experience. (Shutterstock)
According to a survey, for nearly 90 per cent of Canadians, pets are considered not only family members, but also an essential source of emotional support.
As researchers interested in the psychology of human-animal relationships, we believe that given these findings, it is imperative to understand how the relationship with pets shapes people’s routines, their self-perceptions, emotional states and ability to cope.
Asking pet-related questions can be particularly relevant for mental health professionals seeking a deeper understanding of clients’ family dynamics. Exploring the role of pets in a client’s life can offer valuable insights into factors shaping their well-being.
Client-centred approach: What if pets are part of the story?
Using a client-centred approach, mental health professionals should understand and validate clients’ perspectives. The goal is to work with clients to understand what shapes their experiences, worldview, strengths and support systems.
Asking pet-related questions can be particularly relevant for mental health professionals seeking a deeper understanding of clients’ family dynamics. (Shutterstock)
More specifically, during intake sessions and assessments, the focus should be on being attuned to the client’s needs. Professionals who overlook the central role pets play in people’s lives risk missing an opportunity to understand an important aspect of their clients’ experience. Shifting this perspective can lead to deeper insight into clients’ emotional states and behaviours, ultimately leading to more tailored and effective treatment.
The benefits of such holistic framework can be invaluable. Researchers have found pet-related questions can not only reduce anxiety, but also improve communication and rapport. These questions also allow professionals to access clinically relevant information that can guide their therapeutic approach.
Unlocking deeper insights in therapy
There are several specific ways that pet-related questions can influence the direction of therapeutic interventions.
1) Help clients feel more comfortable:
Asking pet-related questions can provide a sense of familiarity and comfort. This, in turn, strengthens the therapeutic alliance and creates an inviting atmosphere. For example, many couples treat their pets as children. Among younger generations, there is often a preference for pets over children.
For these clients, neglecting this important aspect of their lives may negatively impact the therapeutic relationship. By asking pet-related questions, professionals can help clients to feel valued and seen. This inclusive approach acknowledges an essential part of their social system and open space for them to talk about how their pets shape their identity.
Among younger generations there is often a preference for pets over children. (Shutterstock)
2) Create trust:
In general, building rapport with clients can create a foundation of trust. This makes it easier for them to share difficult and personal information. Discussing the dynamic between a client and their pet can help them feel more comfortable addressing sensitive topics. Nearly 90 per cent of women experiencing domestic violence report mistreatment of their pets.
Children who are victims of domestic violence often share stories of their pets being mistreated. These clients usually feel more comfortable addressing violence against their pets before they address violence against themselves.
3) Offer insights on the client’s strengths and resources:
For others, the presence of a pet facilitates engaging in social and physical activities. Also, the bond with the pet can increase feelings of belonging and reduce self-harm behaviours. By understanding the role pets play in the client’s life, clinicians gain insight into their coping strategies and available resources. This helps inform more tailored clinical interventions.
4) Offer insight into a client’s broader challenges:
Pets can have a positive impact on emotional attachment. However, strong attachment to pets may sometimes be associated with increased psychological stress and trust issues. Others may experience worry and guilt when their health issues affect their ability to provide care for their pets, which can worsen their psychological distress.
Additionally, the ways clients approach and resolve issues related to their pets can provide insight into their problem-solving abilities. Exploring these areas with clients can highlight target areas for therapy.
5) Help to identify sources of stress:
The relationship with pets is complex, and can fluctuate. Pets with behavioural or health issues may create significant social barriers, reducing social interactions and heightening negative emotions in owners. Also, the inability to afford veterinary care can undermine a person’s well-being. These situations can be associated with anxiety and caregiver burden. Therefore, the dynamics they share with their pets can directly influence the issues presented in therapy.
In such scenarios, not asking about clients’ relationship with their pets may cause professionals to overlook crucial aspects of clients’ overall well-being. This can result in missing important insights into clients’ strengths and challenges.
Not asking about clients’ relationship with their pets, may cause professionals to overlook crucial aspects of clients’ overall well-being. (Shutterstock)
The missing piece
Pet-related questions are not just a trivial detail. The structure of families has evolved. As we work toward more holistic and empathetic therapeutic approaches, exploring the presence of pets in people’s lives is a critical step to fostering an environment of acceptance, openness and trust.
By exploring this bond, mental health professionals can strengthen therapeutic alliances. They would also learn about essential aspects of a client’s emotional life, their strengths and challenges.
Simple questions like: “do you have a pet at home?” and “how would you describe the role of your pet in your life?” can help strengthen connections with clients. These questions create opportunities for deeper engagement. They also promote a practice that is client-centred, inclusive and aligned with the evolving configurations of families.
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.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Raymond A. Patterson, Professor, Area Chair, Business Technology Management, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary
Digital supply chain disruptions are particularly problematic because they can have immediate global effects and can’t rely on inventory as a buffer.(Shutterstock)
A significant incident in July 2024 saw a flawed security upgrade by CrowdStrike impact 8.5 million Windows computers. The fallout impacted various industries, including airlines, hospitals and 911 services. This led to the cancellation of 2,800 flights and delays for 11,000 more.
Threats surrounding the looming trade war between Canada and the United States are also threatening the digital supply chain. The digital supply chain encompasses many goods and services, including video streaming platforms, software, digital content, video games, e-books, online storage, education and training content, and food delivery services.
According to a McKinsey report from October 2024, companies seem to be easing up on efforts to strengthen supply chain resilience, even as disruptions continue to occur. The survey found “considerable gaps in the ability of organizations to identify and mitigate supply chain risks, with few new initiatives aimed at addressing those weaknesses.”
Digital supply chain disruptions are particularly problematic because they can have immediate global effects. Unlike physical supply chains, digital suppliers can’t rely on inventory as a buffer. As is clear from major industry disruptions to the digital supply chain, organizations often lack feasible alternatives for their digital suppliers — there is no plan B.
However, the resilience of digital supply chains is given little attention, despite its critical role in the global economy.
Risks of sharing digital suppliers
Our recent research explored how businesses’ choice of digital supplier — either the same as their competitors or different ones — impacts competition and vulnerability to supply chain disruptions.
Using an economic model, we analyzed how disruptions at a service provider impacted a firm’s customer demand and, in turn, how the firm managed service provider risks.
We found that when companies rely on the same digital suppliers, they also share risks. In contrast, choosing alternative suppliers can help mitigate those risks. However, businesses often mimic their competitors and share suppliers — a strategy that is not always wise.
Disruptions to digital supply chains are inevitable, and the effects of these disruptions, particularly on consumer demand, are often underestimated. These disruptions can spread rapidly, without giving companies enough time to react. Cyberattacks or service losses at a single supplier can take multiple businesses offline at once.
Issues like privacy breaches and service disruptions can even cause customers to change their buying habits. While a disruption at one firm may lead consumers to switch to competitors, broader industry disruptions can diminish overall trust and demand.
Companies with complementary products should consider using different digital suppliers to mitigate the compounded negative effects of any disruption.
Addressing these concerns is difficult due to several factors, including rapidly changing technology, expanding opportunities for attacks, high costs to address privacy and security, and lack of employee awareness, among others.
Our research leads to a number of suggestions for companies, industry coalitions, governmental regulators and consumers. For businesses, building resilience against digital supply chain disruptions and supplier outages requires strategic partnerships. Companies must consider how inevitable disruptions will affect not only their customer demand, but also how competitors’ disruptions could affect them, and vice versa.
For industry coalitions and governmental regulators, understanding the ripple effects of shared digital supply chain risks can help determine whether supply chains should be shared or separated. Industry-specific needs may differ and change over time, which could justify breaking up digital service monopolies to increase supplier diversity or, in some cases, maintaining them.
Consumers should also be aware of the potential for a digital supply chain disruptions. If an industry-wide outage occurs, having a workaround plan can be essential. For example, when purchasing services that can’t be physically stored, like airline tickets, it’s wise to plan for unexpected disruptions. Booking a flight a day earlier than necessary or allowing extra time to return home can provide a buffer against system-wide failures.
With Canadians expressing grave concerns over online privacy and security, everyone must recognize the importance of preparing for and mitigating these risks.
Raymond A. Patterson currently receives funding from the Haskayne School of Business and the National Cybersecurity Consortium (NCC). Previous funding has been obtained from a variety of private and public sources.
Erik Rolland, Hooman Hidaji, and Lisa Yeo 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.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Melise Panetta, Lecturer of Marketing in the Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University
Recent research indicates a significant number of Canadians are now showing a strong preference for domestic products, with many willing to modify their purchasing behaviours. One recent poll revealed 42 per cent of Canadians polled will “absolutely do everything” to avoid purchasing U.S. products. Eighty-eight per cent said they would buy a product promoted as “made in Canada.”
Another poll found that 56 per cent of Canadians said they would stop buying a certain product altogether if there is no Canadian-made alternative.
While the “buy local” movement has deeper roots, often resurfacing during periods of economic tensions, the current surge stems from a desire to support homegrown brands and manufacturers they see as reflecting their values.
Buy Canadian movement challenges
While the Buy Canadian movement is gaining traction, actually sustaining it comes with notable challenges. Some experts caution that reducing reliance on U.S. imports is a gradual process contingent on consistent consumer commitment.
Two primary barriers stand in the way of this sustained change: the higher costs of Canadian-made goods, particularly during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, and the difficulty consumers face in identifying domestically produced items.
Addressing these two issues is crucial for the long-term viability of the Buy Canadian movement.
CBC News segment about the Buy Canadian movement.
Buying Canadian can be pricey
The first primary obstacle facing the Buy Canadian movement is the price disparity between domestic goods and their imported counterparts.
Canadian domestic goods often come with a higher price tag due to production costs, economies of scale, transportation and other economic factors. These factors make it difficult for local manufacturers to compete with cheaper foreign alternatives.
The ongoing cost-of-living crisis, which is driving up prices for goods and services across various sectors, is further intensifying the challenge. One of the biggest household expenses, the cost of groceries, remain particularly high, having jumped by 7.8 per cent in 2023 — its highest level in nearly 40 years.
Higher prices across almost all sectors has resulted in 71 per cent of Canadians naming the cost of living as a top domestic concern, making it the leading news story in the country in 2024.
The second major obstacle for the Buy Canadian movement lies in confusion over product labels. For many Canadians, identifying which products are truly Canadian versus imported alternatives can be a challenging task.
Compounding matters further, understanding country of origin labelling can also be challenging. Labels such as “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” have specific definitions.
“Made in Canada” means the last substantial transformation of the good or service occurs in Canada but may contain up to 49 per cent imported ingredients, while “Product of Canada” means all, or nearly all, significant parts and processing are Canadian.
This nuanced labelling and similarity in wording can lead to confusion, making it difficult for consumers to make informed choices.
Building on the Buy Canadian momentum
Canadian businesses and retailers have been responding to growing consumer demand for domestic products with concrete marketing strategies. For instance, Loblaw Companies, Canada’s largest food retailer, has committed to “doubling down on securing food grown and made” locally.
Grocery stores are also making it easier for consumers to identify local products. Several grocery chains have revamped their in-store displays by using shelf tags, stickers and end-of-aisle signage to clearly identify Canadian-made food items.
Retailers and brands are increasingly spotlighting domestic brands by rolling out targeted pricing deals. Major grocery chains have begun offering significant price reductions and exclusive promotions on items branded as “Made in Canada.”
Additionally, Canadians are flocking to websites such as Madeinca.ca, which aim to demystify country of origin and labelling so shoppers can distinguish domestic products from imports.
Although maintaining this momentum may be challenging, consumers are eager to showcase their patriotism at the check-out. With businesses and policymakers actively improving product transparency and addressing cost concerns, the Buy Canadian movement is poised to gain further traction. After all, nothing embodies unity quite like a little patriotic shopping, the Canadian way.
Melise Panetta 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.
Are Musk’s actions, which some allege are interference, comparable to a young woman’s moralizing?
It might seem odd to equate the richest person in the world supporting far-right political parties with an eco-activist saying politicians should address climate change. However, there is a long history of people seeing scolding as one of the worst things we can do.
Our research has been concerned with how “purity politics” shape people’s attempts to live ethical lives, and what it means to reason about ecological catastrophe. We are writing a book about how rebellion against moralizing has become a surprising rallying point for the political right, and how to think about moralizing more broadly.
Whereas conservatives used to be defenders of morals, they now rage against moralizing, seeing “wokism” as a threat to freedom. Religious conservatives used to position themselves as bastions of morality. But research shows secular societies do not behave less morally as a whole than religious ones.
How did moralizing come to this? Could understanding this help us navigate political deadlocks? The history of philosophy has some surprising suggestions here.
Another is if someone scolds: “you should take the bus rather than driving” — but the bus doesn’t run to your neighbourhood. Moralizing like this is just posturing. Maybe it makes the driver feel bad, but it doesn’t create more public transit.
Still, many of us have strong ethical convictions, and we try to live according to what we believe is right or wrong. Even if we judge someone else for the way they are living or behaving, we might hesitate to say something directly. Having personal ethics is socially acceptable; telling others what to do turns us into a scold. Why?
Our stance
The word “ethos” in ancient Greek means something like “posture” or “standing.” Aristotle saw ethos as marking our credibility, our character; we enact our ethics only in a shared world. Contemporary ethical approaches often focus on the personal side of this, setting an example without pushing values on others.
Aristotle saw ‘ethos’ as marking our character. (Shutterstock)
The related word “moral” comes from the Latin mores, usually understood as naming shared customs. Ancient Roman philosopher Cicero used the term moralis to translate ethos, (ἠθική) from Greek. “Morals” were regarded as “the common consent of all living together, constituted from shared traditions,” to quote the influential definition of Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro.
This “common consent” did not claim to apply to everyone. As late as the 16th century, philosophers such as Michel de Montaigne, Cardano or Agrippa of Nettesheim developed a comparative study of various customs and value systems known as “scienta moralis.”
Moral philosophers discussed different inclinations and life-ways of people without postulating one superior norm that would govern everyone. There was a Christian strand of moral theology that saw morality as a universal principle, but even after the era of 16th-century Reformation in the western church, it was not primarily about condemnation and judgement. Rather, this branch of “humanist” moral inquiry examined how people create and maintain shared norms in a pluralistic society.
This changed with ideas that we could have a universally applicable moral science, governed by reason. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant helped formulate this idea. If we think of morality as a law everyone can be subjected to, it makes sense that people rebel against it.
Channeling opponents of moralizing
When Vance characterised Thunberg as “scolding,” he unwittingly channelled opponents of moralizing, such as philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche once defined his philosophical project as a “declaration of war against morals and moralists.” For him and the thinkers he inspired, moralizing is conceived as a negative emotion motivated by resentment and envy.
Nietzsche’s almost total rejection of morals can be understood as one of the many roots of the contemporary hesitation (though this idea is debated). No one wants to be denigrated by being seen as one of the sheep who unquestioningly embraces a herd mentality.
In this context, paradoxically, moralizing — scolding — has come to mean that anyone who says they think something is bad, or should be otherwise, is oppressing the people they criticize.
‘Scolding’ people in power
When we look at the extraordinary difference in power between Musk and Thunberg, this definition of moralizing begins to seem a little weird. Is scolding so dangerous to people in power?
For people interested in pushing back against authoritarianism, maybe we should hope that it is. We can look to the earlier ideal of morality as forging “common consent” for direction here.
In the philosophical sense, addressing our “mores” suggests moving towards a collective re-evaluation of how people want to live. Saying “no, I do not agree with this” can perhaps express our character in a way that shapes our shared world.
Moralizing could then be the process of building new customs. It would be about building morale and seeing hope and agency in these admittedly dire times. Moralizing with others, rather than at them, could help people move beyond feeling immobilized and cynical.
Studies about “bystander intervention” usually focus on the ways that people go along with things they think are wrong. Research does suggest our moral actions are shaped by the people around us, but this also means moral courage is contagious.
It is perhaps the fear of this powerful potential that is the core of truth in Vance’s otherwise absurd equation.
Perhaps this signals the true threat moralizing poses to the status quo — the possibility that there is a better way to live together in a shared world.
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.
There are doubts as to whether Nigerian president Bola Tinubu’s N54.99 trillion (US$36.6 billion) 2025 budget will lay a solid foundation for addressing some of the country’s current economic challenges.
Economist Stephen Onyeiwu unpacks these challenges and sets out why the 2025 budget won’t change Nigeria’s economic landscape (though it has some silver linings).
What are Nigeria’s four biggest economic challenges?
Firstly, Nigeria’s economy has grown at a subdued average rate of about 3% for the past three years.
Though comparable to global economic growth, this rate of growth is insufficient to create jobs and alleviate poverty. The official unemployment rate is 4.3%.
Only 15% of those employed, however, are in the formal sector as wage earners. About 93% of Nigerians are engaged in informal sector activities. They’re doing low-income and vulnerable jobs, with no social protection.
Secondly, Nigerians are struggling with a high cost of living. Inflation has remained high for three years, as have interest rates.
The exchange rate has been elevated and volatile. The result has been rising food, fuel and housing costs.
Thirdly, the country has not been able to attract enough foreign investment to generate high-paying jobs in the formal sector. Foreign direct investment to Nigeria has been declining. It fell from US$8.6 billion in 2009 to US$1.8 billion in 2023.
Reasons for the decline are the high cost of doing business in Nigeria, insecurity, poor infrastructure and macroeconomic instability.
Fourthly, poverty rates are high. This is due to unemployment and the lack of safety nets. The poverty rate rose from 33.2% in 2020 to 47.2% in 2024. The number of poor people is expected to increase by 13 million in 2025, largely due to inflation.
Will the 2025 budget help?
There are a number of serious flaws in it which suggest it won’t.
Tinubu said the 2025 budget “was designed to ensure macro-economic stability, poverty reduction, promoting economic stability, developing human capital and addressing insecurity.”
But the allocation of funds does not reflect these priorities. The allocations to personnel and overheads far exceed allocations to capital expenditures – things that build the economy’s productive capacity.
A key challenge for Nigeria is how to shift resources from consumption to production. The 2025 budget reinforces the longstanding consumerist nature of the economy.
China spends about 45% of GDP on capital formation. This has spurred and sustained the country’s high growth rates for decades. Nigeria’s allocation to capital expenditure in the 2025 budget is about 19%.
In his budget speech the president said his administration’s goal was to
“get our manufacturing sector humming again and ultimately increase the competitiveness of our economy.”
But the federal ministries that should be driving this effort – industry and education – weren’t allocated enough for capital expenditure.
Nor did the budget prioritise things that would ease the economic burden of Nigerians.
A big chunk of the budget (about 35.4%) goes to servicing debt. Indeed, about 65% of the 2025 budget will finance debt repayment, personnel costs and overheads.
Another concern is that the government intends to borrow N9.22 trillion (US$6.2 billion) to finance the budget, higher than the N7.83 trillion (US$5.2 billion) borrowed in the previous year.
Borrowing to finance a budget increases the interest rate and makes private-sector borrowing costly. Businesses can’t access funds that would enable them to invest and boost economic growth, reduce inflation, create jobs and alleviate poverty.
Are there any silver linings?
There are some.
It is commendable that the Federal Ministry of Communications & the Digital Economy was allocated about N450 billion (US$300 million) for capital expenditure, compared to just N33 billion (US$22 million) for recurrent expenditure. The administration is signalling its commitment to building capacity in the IT sector. This is important because Nigeria needs to promote a knowledge-based economy that would diversify away from hydrocarbons.
Another encouraging aspect of the budget is that the ratio of budget deficit to GDP (3.89%) is lower than the average 5% prior to 2024. Although the administration will borrow to cover the deficit, it’s borrowing less than before relative to GDP. This signals an intention to be more financially prudent than previous administrations, assuming it won’t resort to supplementary budgets.
What needs to happen now?
The 2025 budget is anything but pro-poor. Most of its provisions benefit the elites, contractors and public employees.
Much will be used to pay politicians and their aides at the National Assembly and workers in the government ministries and agencies.
Money allocated to capital expenditure will be used to pay contractors for government projects.
Nigerians in the informal sector will not feel a direct impact. There should have been more proactive measures to address unemployment and poverty.
Sustainable development requires a strong rural economy. While the manufacturing and services sectors are critical for structural transformation and job creation, they can’t develop without a vibrant agricultural sector.
Strengthening the rural economy of Nigeria requires raising the productivity of farmers so that they can supply food to urban workers at affordable prices. This helps keep inflation and wage rates low.
Raising the productivity of rural people raises their incomes and alleviates poverty.
Higher rural incomes increase farmers’ purchasing power, leading to an increase in the demand for goods and services produced in the manufacturing sector. When rural people earn more, there’s less reason to migrate to urban areas.
Less migration implies less pressure on urban social services, the labour market and the informal sector.
More funds need to be allocated to sectors and activities that raise the productive capacity of the economy. This will involve reducing governance costs and using the savings to boost food production, agro-processing and manufacturing.
The key to stabilising the Nigerian economy is massive food production, which will reduce food inflation. Coupled with agro-processing, food production will boost exports, reduce food imports and strengthen the value of the naira.
A stronger naira will reduce inflation and interest rates.
In conclusion, the 2025 budget does not solve Nigeria’s endless cycle of deficits and debts. Neither does it lay the foundation for structural transformation, economic diversification, sustainable economic growth, employment generation and poverty alleviation.
It will leave the economic landscape unchanged.
Stephen Onyeiwu 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.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Tina Lüdecke, Leader of the Emmy Noether Group for Hominin Meat Consumption (HoMeCo), Max Planck Institute For Chemistry
Goodboy Picture Company/Getty Images
For decades, scientists have been learning more about the diets of early hominins, particularly their reliance on plants. Yet we still don’t know when these ancestors of humans started eating meat.
This is a frustrating gap in our understanding of human evolution. We think regular meat consumption was one of the main drivers of brain growth and evolution in hominins, because animal products are calorie-dense and easier to digest than unprocessed plant foods. They also contain all the essential amino acids and are rich in biologically important nutrients, minerals and vitamins.
What we do know is that by the time our genus, Homo, emerged over two million years ago, hominins were regularly eating meat. This is clear from their increased reliance at this point on stone tools to butcher and process meat products. We’ve also found fossil bones with cut marks that indicate butchering.
But that doesn’t explain when and where regular meat eating started and which species of our ancestors made that crucial shift.
Now, thanks to fossilised tooth enamel, we’re a step closer to an answer. In a study with several other co-authors, we measured nitrogen isotopes in the enamel from fossilised teeth belonging to the hominin genus Australopithecus, discovered in South Africa’s Sterkfontein Caves. This is one of the oldest known human ancestor species.
Atoms of the same element can have different versions, called isotopes, which have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. This makes them slightly heavier or lighter but chemically similar. For example, nitrogen has two stable isotopes: nitrogen-14 (¹⁴N) and nitrogen-15 (¹⁵N). These occur naturally, but their ratio varies in nature. In food webs, nitrogen isotopes become enriched as you move up the chain, meaning predators have higher ¹⁴N/¹⁵N ratios than herbivores.
Identifying these isotopes is a way to reconstruct ancient diets and ecosystems, helping scientists understand how past environments shaped the survival of species – including early humans.
We also tested the isotopic signature of animals that lived in the ecosystem at the same time. We saw that the isotopic signature of Australopithecus was low – similar to that of herbivores.
Our findings suggest that these ape-like, small-brained early hominins were eating mostly plants. There was little to no evidence of meat consumption. They may have snacked on the occasional egg or insect but they were not regularly hunting large mammals like Neanderthals did millions of years later.
A toothy approach
One of us (Dr Lüdecke) began working with fossilised tooth enamel during her PhD. The focus was on measuring stable carbon isotopes in the enamel as a way to uncover the plant-based part of an extant or extinct animal’s diet.
This approach reveals whether a species relied on lush, leafy plants or hardy, grass-like vegetation in African savanna ecosystems. But there was always that small, unsatisfying sentence in the discussion section of her academic papers: “This dataset cannot inform about the meat portion of the diet.”
Then inspiration struck. The co-authors of the latest study, Alfredo Martínez-García and Daniel Sigman, had developed a method with their teams to measure nitrogen isotopes in marine microfossils – tiny creatures that, like fossilised tooth enamel, contain almost no organic material.
When these results aligned with what we expected in terms of their known diets, we knew we had a reliable tool. After more laboratory testing, method tweaking and checking, we felt ready to analyse the fossilised tooth enamel of non-primate fauna found in one of the oldest fossil-bearing deposits of South Africa’s Sterkfontein Caves. This deposit, Member 4, formed about 3.4 million years ago, during the Late Pliocene period.
Again, these analyses gave us the expected results: it was clear at the isotopic level whether we were dealing with the teeth of a herbivore or a carnivore.
Then we finally sampled seven Australopithecus molars from Member 4 to uncover whether these ancient hominins, which lived and died around the Sterkfontein Caves about 3.4 million years ago, were sinking their teeth into meat or sticking to a largely vegetarian menu.
By comparing the nitrogen isotope ratios of these early hominins with those of other animals from the same ecosystem – like antelopes, monkeys and carnivores – we found that the isotopic signature of Australopithecus was low, similar to that of herbivores.
Future plans
This discovery is just the beginning. We’re now expanding our research to other fossil sites across Africa and Asia, hoping to answer bigger questions. When did meat truly enter the hominin diet? Which species of hominins through our evolution consumed meat? Did the behaviour emerge several times and did it coincide with the rise of larger brains, or marked changes in behaviour, like new stone tool technology? And what does this mean for how we understand the evolutionary path that led to our species?
Tina Lüdecke receives funding from the German Research Foundation Emmy Noether Fellowship (LU 2199/2-1). She is affiliated with the Emmy Noether Group for Hominin Meat Consumption, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry (Mainz, Germany) and the Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg, South Africa).
Sterkfontein fieldwork is supported by South African governmental platforms DSI-NRF and NRF African Origins Platform, and long-term project and student support from GENUS and PAST.
Left to right: Basel Adra, Rachel Szor, Hamdan Ballal and Yuval Abraham pose with their Oscars for ‘No Other Land’ at the 2025 Academy Awards.Maya Dehlin Spach/Getty Images
For many low-budget, independent films, an Oscar win is a golden ticket.
The publicity can translate into theatrical releases or rereleases, along with more on-demand rentals and sales.
However, for “No Other Land,” a Palestinian-Israeli film that just won best documentary feature at the 2025 Academy Awards, this exposure may not translate into commercial success in the U.S. That’s because the film has been unable to find a company to distribute it in America.
“No Other Land” chronicles the efforts of Palestinian townspeople to combat an Israeli plan to demolish their villages in the West Bank and use the area as a military training ground. It was directed by four Palestinian and Israeli activists and journalists: Basel Adra, who is a resident of the area facing demolition, Yuval Abraham, Hamdan Ballal and Rachel Szor. While the filmmakers have organized screenings in a number of U.S. cities, the lack of a national distributor makes a broader release unlikely.
Film distributors are a crucial but often unseen link in the chain that allows a film to reach cinemas and people’s living rooms. In recent years it has become more common for controversial award-winning films to run into issues finding a distributor. Palestinian films have encountered additional barriers.
As a scholar of Arabic who has written about Palestinian cinema, I’m disheartened by the difficulties “No Other Land” has faced. But I’m not surprised.
The role of film distributors
Distributors are often invisible to moviegoers. But without one, it can be difficult for a film to find an audience.
Distributors typically acquire rights to a film for a specific country or set of countries. They then market films to movie theaters, cinema chains and streaming platforms. As compensation, distributors receive a percentage of the revenue generated by theatrical and home releases.
The film “Soundtrack to a Coup D’Etat,” another finalist for best documentary, shows how this process typically works. It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2024 and was acquired for distribution just a few months later by Kino Lorber, a major U.S.-based distributor of independent films.
The inability to find a distributor is not itself noteworthy. No film is entitled to distribution, and most films by newer or unknown directors face long odds.
So why can’t “No Other Land” find a distributor in the U.S.?
There are a couple of factors at play.
Shying away from controversy
In recent years, film critics have noticed a trend: Documentaries on controversial topics have faced distribution difficulties. These include a film about a campaign by Amazon workers to unionize and a documentary about Adam Kinzinger, one of the few Republican congresspeople to vote to impeach Donald Trump in 2021.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, of course, has long stirred controversy. But the release of “No Other Land” comes at a time when the issue is particularly salient. The Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, and the ensuing Israeli bombardment and invasion of the Gaza Strip have become a polarizing issue in U.S. domestic politics, reflected in the campus protests and crackdowns in 2024. The filmmakers’ critical comments about the Israeli occupation of Palestine have also garnered backlash in Germany.
Yet the fact that this conflict has been in the news since October 2023 should also heighten audience interest in a film such as “No Other Land” – and, therefore, lead to increased sales, the metric that distributors care about the most.
Indeed, an earlier film that also documents Palestinian protests against Israeli land expropriation, “5 Broken Cameras,” was a finalist for best documentary at the 2013 Academy Awards. It was able to find a U.S. distributor. However, it had the support of a major European Union documentary development program called Greenhouse. The support of an organization like Greenhouse, which had ties to numerous production and distribution companies in Europe and the U.S., can facilitate the process of finding a distributor.
By contrast, “No Other Land,” although it has a Norwegian co-producer and received some funding from organizations in Europe and the U.S., was made primarily by a grassroots filmmaking collective.
Stages for protest
While distribution challenges may be recent, controversies surrounding Palestinian films are nothing new.
Many of them stem from the fact that the system of film festivals, awards and distribution is primarily based on a movie’s nation of origin. Since there is no sovereign Palestinian state – and many countries and organizations have not recognized the state of Palestine – the question of how to categorize Palestinian films has been hard to resolve.
In 2002, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences rejected the first ever Palestinian film submitted to the best foreign language film category – Elia Suleiman’s “Divine Intervention” – because Palestine was not recognized as a country by the United Nations. The rules were changed for the following year’s awards ceremony.
In 2021, the cast of the film “Let It Be Morning,” which had an Israeli director but primarily Palestinian actors, boycotted the Cannes Film Festival in protest of the film’s categorization as an Israeli film rather than a Palestinian one.
Film festivals and other cultural venues have also become places to make statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and engage in protest. For example, at the Cannes Film Festival in 2017, the right-wing Israeli culture minister wore a controversial – and meme-worthy – dress that featured the Jerusalem skyline in support of Israeli claims of sovereignty over the holy city, despite the unresolved status of Jerusalem under international law.
Israeli Culture Minister Miri Regev wears a dress featuring the old city of Jerusalem during the Cannes Film Festival in 2017. Antonin Thuillier/AFP via Getty Images
At the 2024 Academy Awards, a number of attendees, including Billie Eilish, Mark Ruffalo and Mahershala Ali, wore red pins in support of a ceasefire in Gaza, and pro-Palestine protesters delayed the start of the ceremonies.
As he accepted his award, “No Other Land” director Yuval Abraham called out “the foreign policy” of the U.S. for “helping to block” a path to peace.
Even though a film like “No Other Land” addresses a topic of clear interest to many Americans, I wonder if the quest to find a U.S. distributor just got even harder.
This article has been updated to clarify that the film was a collaborative effort between Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers. It has also been updated to reflect the film’s win at the 2025 Academy Awards.
Drew Paul 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.
The Holocaust is fast receding from living memory. Some 300 Auschwitz survivors were present at the 70th anniversary commemorations of the camp’s liberation in 2015. This year, just 50 attended, all of whom were children in 1945.
Even before this generation began to pass on, researchers of the Holocaust had begun to study the ways that memory of these events have been shaped, manipulated, or indeed fabricated. Film scholar Alison Landsberg’s influential concept of “prosthetic memory” focused attention on the ways in which film, literature and other art forms can supplement or even substitute for the experiences of those who lived through historical events.
Approaching the moment when such supplements must become the sole means for future generations to understand the Holocaust, it seems no accident that half a dozen films released in 2023 and 2024 made Holocaust memory – and its complexities – an explicit element of their narratives.
Three of these films incorporate scenes filmed on location in Poland at former Nazi death camps. Perhaps the most unexpected example is The Zone of Interest (2023). A brief documentary sequence filmed at the modern-day Auschwitz museum concludes director Jonathan Glazer’s meticulous (though highly stylised) recreation of the idyllic domestic life of camp commandant Rudolf Höss and his family.
It’s the only sequence that crosses the otherwise impermeable boundary separating the Höss family compound from the camp itself. It might be interpreted as a kind of reality check for the audience – a reminder that yes, this all did really happen. But that seems an improbably ingenuous stance for so intelligent a filmmaker.
More plausibly, the sequence is a reflexive extension of the film’s interrogation of the strategies by which atrocity can be held at arm’s length, or “managed”.
Höss (Christian Friedel) and his wife Hedwig (Sandra Hüller) manage this by fabricating a “perfect” bourgeois home, while ignoring the constant soundtrack of barked orders, shots and screams from the other side of their garden wall.
As we watch them, we are naturally appalled and repelled by their callous dissociation. Yet in the contemporary Auschwitz sequence, Glazer asks whether modern habits of Holocaust “consumption” don’t risk an all-too-similar disavowal.
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.
In the museum sequence we see Polish cleaners at work, wiping down the glass of the vitrines in which the infamous heaps of shoes and human hair are displayed, and mopping the floor of the Auschwitz I gas chamber (itself a postwar reconstruction).
This site of unimaginable violence is now a museum where the material evidence of mass murder is carefully preserved and curated for tourists. Perhaps not altogether unlike a historical recreation such as The Zone of Interest.
‘Managing’ Holocaust memory
Tourists are the protagonists of Treasure (2024), directed by Julia von Heinz, and A Real Pain (2024), written and directed by Jesse Eisenberg.
These films centre on survivors and their descendants travelling to modern Poland, ostensibly to commemorate their destroyed families. But it seems that, perhaps inevitably, more pressing and immediate personal issues override these acts of remembrance.
A Real Pain, for example, centres on two cousins, dutiful family man David (Eisenberg) and mercurial, possibly bipolar Benji (Kieran Culkin). The pair join a “Holocaust tour” in honour of their late grandmother, a Polish-Jewish survivor, including a visit to Maidanek.
Clip from A Real Pain.
Dutifully and sombrely, the cousins view the barracks, the gas chamber and the vast pile of human ashes. Afterwards, however, only Benji lapses into inconsolable sobs. Is his grief an authentic reaction to the horror, a mark of his greater emotional connection? Is it histrionically excessive, performative attention-seeking? Or is it that the unfathomable tragedy of European Jewry allows Benji to access his own private agony.
If it’s the latter, is such an appropriation of the Holocaust somehow an “illegitimate” response? According to whom? Eisenberg’s deft traumedy leaves it up to us to decide.
Yet more ambiguous is the epilogue to Brady Corbett’s acclaimed The Brutalist (2024). The film retrospectively interprets the professional career of its protagonist, fictitious Hungarian-Jewish architect and Holocaust survivor László Tóth (Adrian Brody) as a response to the tragedy.
Addressing the 1980 Venice Biennale, Tóth’s daughter declares that through his creations her father worked through the trauma of his experiences in the camps. A Holocaust memorial is among the designs briefly glimpsed in the display of Tóth’s work.
The trailer for The Brutalist.
The scene aptly captures the ways in which public discourses around the Holocaust crystallised from the 1980s onward.
In the immediate postwar period, as The Brutalist shows, the Holocaust was a rarely discussed, even shameful, topic outside of survivor communities. But with the onset of postmodernism, the Holocaust came increasingly to be understood as the defining episode in 20th-century European history, more even than the second world war itself.
The meanings of trauma
As all these films show, the ways that the Holocaust is commemorated today are far uncontested. For example, One Life (2023), the biopic of British rescuer Nicholas Winton, straightforwardly endorses mainstream assumptions about the value of remembrance.
By contrast, in the documentary The Commandant’s Shadow (2024), Holocaust survivor Anita Lasker-Wallfisch is almost dismissive of what she clearly sees as her daughter’s superfluous preoccupation with a past trauma best forgotten.
The Brutalist is more ambiguous still. At one level, traumatic memory may help explain Tóth’s difficult character and relationships in the preceding three hours of the film. Yet at the same time, almost nothing in his words or actions hitherto has suggested the Holocaust is his predominant focus. Nor does Tóth make this claim himself. Stricken mute following a stroke, he can only listen as his daughter offers this account of his work.
Is it true? Or is it imposing a neat, culturally approved meaning onto the complexities of a messy, damaged life?
Together, these films make a strong case that in the “post-testimony” era, we must not only keep remembering the Holocaust, but reflect constantly on how and why we do so.
Barry Langford 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.
The Washington Post still conjures up, for some, the promise of fiercely independent investigative journalism that can unseat a corrupt president. In what became one of the biggest stories of the 20th century, Richard Nixon (1969-74) was forced to resign the presidency in 1974, halfway through his second term, following an investigation by Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.
After months of work the reporting team linked Nixon and his campaign staff to illegal donations, and to the bugging and sabotage of political opponents including a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate building, Washington DC. Their work won a Pulitzer prize.
This kicked off decades of investigative journalism and breaking stories that has cemented the Post’s global reputation.
So the recent memo by billionaire owner of the Post, Jeff Bezos, declaring that the newspaper’s opinion section will now be restricted to pieces supporting “personal liberties and free markets” (and not opposing viewpoints) came as a shock not only to loyal liberal readers and to some journalists, but also to those who see the Post as a bastion of media freedom. Bezos said on X that differing opinions can be “left to be published by others”.
The decision by Bezos prompted the opinion editor David Shipley to resign and Elon Musk to tweet “Bravo, @JeffBezos!” The paper’s newly appointed economics reporter Jeff Stein also took to X to respond to Bezos’s tweeted memo by calling it a “massive encroachment” by his new boss.
He added: “I still have not felt encroachment on my journalism on the news side of coverage, but if Bezos tries interfering with the news side I will be quitting immediately and letting you know.” Some sources suggest that the Post has lost 75,000 digital subscribers since the decision was announced.
The trailer for the film All the President’s Men, based on reporting from the Washington Post.
To many the Post’s reputation was already becoming tarnished. Bezos rocked his readership back in October 2024 when he refused to endorse a candidate in the presidential election for the first time in 36 years.
According to the paper the decision led to 250,000 readers cancelling their subscriptions. Woodward and Bernstein said the decision “ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy”.
And so it came as no surprise at Trump’s inauguration that Bezos could be seen seated prominently beside his fellow tech billionaires Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, X’s Elon Musk and Google’s Sundar Pichai.
But is all lost? The Washington Post has always had its share of bold and outspoken reporters and commentators and, on Friday, Post columist Dana Milbank wrote a strongly worded opinion piece in which he said that readers were worried that Bezos’s words, “are cover for a plan to turn this into a MAGA-Friendly outlet”.
He added: “If we as a newspaper, and as a country, are to defend [Bezos’s] twin pillars, then we must redouble our fight against the single greatest threat to ‘personal liberties and free markets’ today: Donald Trump.”
Jeff Bezos brings in new rules on what can and cannot be published in the Washington Post’s opinion pages.
Has this latest move by Bezos simply made clear an editorial position which is ordinarily inferred but not made explicit? Will reporters be free to conduct investigations into Amazon’s work practices while at the same time extolling free market objectives? As yet no one knows for sure.
Coverage changes?
In January the newspaper’s Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist, Ann Telnaes, resigned after the Post refused to publish a satirical cartoon of a group of tech and media billionaires (that included Bezos and Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg) laying bags of cash before a statue of Trump.
Telnaes described the refusal to publish as “dangerous for a free press”. Ironically it was David Shipley who claimed at the time that he had decided against publication due to “repetition”, rather than because the cartoon mocked Bezos.
Nevertheless, Post reporters have continued to focus national coverage on the wide-ranging effects of Trump’s executive orders, the sacking of senior military leaders and Doge’s culling of resources and jobs in the public sector. Neither has it escaped the new administration’s changes to media access.
On February 7 the Department of Defense announced the Post would be removed from its office in the Pentagon’s “Correspondents Corridor” along with CNN, plus the New York Times, NPR and NBC which were evicted earlier to make room for pro-Trump media organisations.
The Post today
In 2024, the Post took home three Pulitzer prizes for journalism, including one for David E. Hoffman “for a compelling and well-researched series on new technologies and the tactics authoritarian regimes use to repress dissent in the digital age, and how they can be fought”.
The past few years have been financially bruising for the paper and in 2023 the paper announced it had lost US$77 million (£69 million). In its latest round of cuts in January this year it laid off 100 employees.
Back when Bezos took over the paper in August 2013 the New York Times quoted a fellow tech entrepreneur, Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman, as saying in a now prophetic line: “It used to be that in Silicon Valley we just built the platforms and someone else wrote the content. But that is changing. The lines have been blurred for a long time, and this is just another step in that process.”
Twelve years on the “broligarchy” may not be writing the content, but is it restricting it? In these uneasy times in Washington there appears to be a growing erosion of press freedom as the new administration moves to limit access to the White House for mainstream media such as the Associated Press in favour of pro-Trump media.
Whether the Post will come down on the side of press freedom or is banking on an eventual post-Trump bump to stem its declining sales is unclear.
Colleen Murrell received funding from Irish regulator Coimisiún na Meán (2021-4) for research for the annual Reuters Digital News Report Ireland.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcus Holmes, Professor of Government; Faculty Affiliate, Global Research Institute, William & Mary
When it is poorly executed, face-to-face diplomacy reinforces hostility, erodes relationships and makes diplomatic successes even harder. That is exactly what happened during the now notorious White House meeting on February 28 between the US president, Donald Trump, the vice-president, J.D. Vance, and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Instead of culminating in the signing of a deal that would offer Ukraine some measure of security, the meeting left Zelensky shaken and isolated, and US support for Ukraine looking even more uncertain than it had done before. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, was handed a clear political win.
When leaders meet in person, it is possible for them to gain a deeper understanding of each other’s intentions, constraints and red lines – things that don’t always come through in official statements or diplomatic cables. This kind of direct engagement has historically played a key role in defusing tensions, clarifying positions and opening the door to future negotiations.
The best example was in the Reagan-Gorbachev summits of the second half of the 1980s. This handful of meetings between the two leaders deepened their personal relationship, playing a key role in ending the cold war.
Diplomatic meetings, particularly high-stakes ones, should serve at least one of three purposes. First, they should be opportunities for each side to clarify its intentions, priorities and bottom lines – even if no agreement is reached.
There might be openings for future engagement, keeping diplomacy alive. And, at the very least, face-to-face diplomacy should enable parties to prevent escalation or any deterioration in relationships.
By these measures, the meeting between Trump and Zelensky was a failure. Rather than probing positions and potential paths forward for ending the war in Ukraine, Trump and Vance used the meeting to publicly berate and belittle Zelensky.
“Have you said thank you once?” Vance demanded, framing Ukraine’s survival as a matter of gratitude rather than strategic interest. Meanwhile Trump bluntly told Zelenskyy, “You’re not winning this”, dismissing Ukraine’s resilience and reinforcing doubt about the war effort.
He went on to belittle the Ukrainian president further, saying, “You’ve talked too much” – a deliberate move to undercut Zelensky’s standing in the moment.
These were not the words of partners working toward a resolution or seeking common ground. This was a power play, an example of what some have termed a “domination ritual” – designed to make clear that Ukraine is in no position to set terms.
Zelensky is not the first leader to walk out of a face-to-face meeting with a brutally clear sense of the reality ahead. A historical parallel comes from a summit in 1961 between the then US president, John F. Kennedy, and the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna.
US president John F. Kennedy meets with Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, in June 1961, just prior to the Vienna summit. CIA/Wikimedia Commons
Kennedy later admitted that Khrushchev “beat the hell out of me”, leaving him convinced that tensions with the Soviet Union would escalate. “It’s going to be a cold winter,” he remarked afterwards.
Sure enough, within months the two superpowers were embroiled in a crisis over Berlin, and then a year later, Khrushchev tested Kennedy’s resolve by deploying medium-range ballistic missiles to Cuba, triggering the most dangerous confrontation of the nuclear age so far.
But there was a crucial difference: Kennedy and Khrushchev’s bruising exchange happened behind closed doors. Zelensky was forced to experience his own Vienna moment in front of the cameras. Trump and Vance ensured that their disdain for Ukraine’s position was publicly performed, making it even harder for Zelensky to recover politically – both at home and abroad.
The diplomatic fallout: a gift to Russia
Meetings like this don’t just shape the dynamics in the room – they send signals to allies, adversaries and the international system. And in this case, the biggest winner was Putin.
This was a propaganda victory for the Russians, which will have given the Kremlin the encouragement that Ukraine is losing support from its most powerful western backer.
For Ukraine, this was a major strategic setback. Zelensky desperately needed reassurances about a US security guarantee – instead, he left the meeting publicly weakened, making his already difficult job far harder in Kyiv and across Europe.
But it was also incredibly damaging for US diplomacy. America’s credibility as a reliable ally has taken an enormous hit at a time when its reliability was already being questioned by its friends in Europe and Asia. If the US treats a wartime partner, what message does that send to other allies who might someday need Washington’s support?
Face-to-face diplomacy still matters
Interpersonal meetings, especially ones that are broadcast to the world, shape relationships in ways that extend far beyond policy. They can build – or erode –trust, define power dynamics and send signals that can strengthen or weaken alliances.
Kennedy left Vienna shaken, but at least he left with clarity about Khrushchev’s view of him. Zelensky, too, now understands the new reality of US support. But unlike Kennedy, he was humiliated on live television, which will make it harder to rebuild relationships.
Face-to-face diplomacy is one of the most powerful tools world leaders have – when used correctly. But it only works when they use it to solve problems rather than, as we saw with Trump and Vance, perform for the cameras.
What happened in the Oval Office was not diplomacy – it was a spectacle. And the world took notice.
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.
