NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Canada and the U.S. can still tackle climate change in a second Trump era

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andy Hira, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

    U.S. President Donald Trump has once again withdrawn the United States from the Paris agreement on climate change.

    There is a palpable sense of fear among environmentalists and those concerned about climate change following Trump’s re-election. His “drill baby drill” support for fossil fuels in the U.S. and frequent criticisms of renewable energy suggest that the world can expect to see a U.S. government that is far less interested in addressing climate change.

    In addition to leaving the Paris deal, Trump is likely to peel back the climate change elements of former president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and disempower the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trump’s nominee to head the EPA, Lee Zeldin, has promised to “pursue energy dominance.” Meanwhile, Chris Wright, Trump’s choice for energy secretary, is the CEO of Liberty Energy, a fracking company.

    While a majority of Americans recognize the dangers of climate change, how they prioritize action to address it tends to fall along partisan lines, with Republican voters seeing a trade-off with economic growth.

    Despite the challenges a second Trump administration is likely to bring, Canada can continue to address climate change by working with sub-national leadership in the U.S.

    Donald Trump signs an executive order withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement.

    U.S. states still making progress

    There are clear indications that Trump will move to dismantle key environmental policies. A dominant Trump adviser, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has indicated his support for removing US$7,500 tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles (EVs), apparently viewing it as a way to undermine Tesla competitors.

    But this move is opposed by other automakers that have invested billions into developing new supply chains.

    Furthermore, dismantling the IRA could undermine Trump’s broader economic agenda. Chinese companies have already leapfrogged their U.S. competitors when it comes to EVs. Biden’s tariffs on Chinese EVs and his promotion of battery supply chains are perfectly compatible with Trump’s own desire to bolster American manufacturing.

    However, despite the negative outlook on climate policy at the federal level, several U.S. states have made significant progress. Many American states already have significant and rapidly growing contributions from renewable energy, including Republican-led states such as Iowa and Texas, which generated respectively 60 and 20 per cent of its electricity from wind in 2024.

    In addition, 24 American states are projected to reduce net carbon emissions by 27 to 39 per cent by 2030, and 45 states and the District of Columbia have EV support policies. Meanwhile, California and 11 other states have EV mandates.

    Globally, solar and offshore wind costs have declined dramatically since 2010 by 89 per cent and 68 per cent, respectively. According to the 2024 levelized cost of energy estimates by financial advisory firm Lazard, onshore wind in the U.S. is fully competitive with natural gas. Utility-level solar is also within the cost range of natural gas.

    California’s decision to ban gas cars by 2035 has been supported by automakers, though the deadline remains hotly contested. California has offered the same EV tax credit if the federal one is eliminated.

    What Canada should do

    Canada must accelerate its own transition to a low-carbon economy by supporting renewable energy initiatives in engineering, construction, transportation and carbon sequestration.

    Renewable energy opportunities that align with U.S. interests exist, and can be pursued irrespective of Trump’s policies. For example, Canada has an opportunity, jointly with the U.S., to expand our mutual critical mineral industry.

    Electrification is set to proceed apace regardless of the political leanings of governments, and the transformation of transportation from fossil fuels to electricity and battery power will require vast amounts of lithium, a mineral Canada has in large quantities. It will also require large investments in cutting-edge battery technology, which is a key limitation to green electrification.

    Canada can play a crucial role in the U.S. critical strategic minerals program. Canada is a critical source of such minerals, and can play a significant role in developing North American EV and battery supply chains.

    Considering both the need for these minerals and how tightly integrated the auto industry is in North America, such integration of supply chains fits within Trump’s general goal of reducing reliance on China. Canada can leverage this role to try to ensure it captures key portions of the supply chain that will create good jobs, particularly as oil demand inevitably winds down.

    Canada could also be a key partner in expanding nuclear energy production. We understand the resistance many have to this suggestion, but it’s worth reconsidering given the intermittency of renewable energy such as wind and solar.



    Read more:
    With nuclear power on the rise, reducing conspiracies and increasing public education is key

    Canada is the second-largest producer of uranium in the world. It has experience developing safe nuclear reactors, and technological advances have improved reactive safety and performance in recent decades.

    As part of reconciliation efforts, Canada must engage Indigenous Peoples in renewable energy discussions and actions on their own lands. Canadian governments should partner with Indigenous communities to provide them opportunities to ensure that investments in green energy are made appropriately and the benefits are shared fairly.

    Lastly, Canada should assist low-income countries to develop appropriate technologies to advance their adoption of renewable energy — think something like a federal renewable energy outreach program.

    By taking these steps, Canada could make significant contributions to helping tackle climate change both in North America and around the world.

    Andy Hira is the Director of the Clean Energy Research Group based at Simon Fraser University. The group has received funding from the Willow Grove Foundation and SFU.

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

    – ref. How Canada and the U.S. can still tackle climate change in a second Trump era – https://theconversation.com/how-canada-and-the-u-s-can-still-tackle-climate-change-in-a-second-trump-era-246290

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Mark Carney might have the edge as potential Liberal leader, but still faces major obstacles

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

    In the weeks following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation announcement, the race to name his successor seems to have become a two-person contest between former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.

    As is the usual practice in leadership bids, each has sought to advance competing visions tied to their personal credentials and desirability as candidates.

    Emphasizing her extensive cabinet experience, for example, Freeland’s pitch has so far focused on the claim that she is best equipped to handle the “existential threat” posed by the second Donald Trump administration in the United States.

    In contrast, Carney has framed himself as a pragmatic outsider. To his supporters, his monetary management of both Brexit and the 2008 financial crisis shows he can effectively address Canada’s economic challenges while remaining above the apparent politicking, ideological excesses and questionable policy decisions of the Trudeau years.

    The importance of the ground game

    It’s difficult to say for certain who is most likely to prevail. Most polls suggest many Liberals are still undecided, although Carney and Freeland are at the same level of support among Canadian voters at large.

    The incredibly short timeline for the race — voters need to be registered as Liberals by the end of today to vote for a leader — does not provide enough time for discernible trends to emerge. Despite the focus on the personality of the candidates, the Liberal leadership will be won or lost on the basis of “ground-game” organization — that is, who can identify, register and mobilize the greatest number of supporters.

    At this point, however, it’s safe to say that Carney has an advantage. Compared to Freeland, he has secured the endorsements of most senior cabinet ministers, including Francois-Philippe Champagne, Melanie Joly, Steven Guilbeault, Harjit Sajjan and Jonathan Wilkinson. This provides not only legitimacy but, far more importantly, greater organizational prowess.

    Also important is the fact that, in an environment of anti-Trudeau sentiment, he has much more — though not complete — distance from the incumbent government. It’s difficult to see how Freeland, regardless of her experience, can effectively avoid associations with the consequences of the past or existing policies that she herself was instrumental in bringing about.

    Of course, Carney has his own challenges. He will likely have to clarify his relationship with the departing Trudeau government. Since 2020, the precise nature of his role as an informal policy adviser to the prime minister — including as the chair of a task force on economic growth — remains a mystery.

    And for all of his emphasis on the importance of good policy, the substance of his actual, announced policy proposals are thin, including an ambiguous stance on the carbon tax.

    Impressive resumé

    Nonetheless, Carney simply has far more flexibility and potential than the more rigid limitations of Freeland’s candidacy. When compared to Freeland, Carney’s pitch to Canadians seems, at least on paper, to be a much smarter response to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives.

    His impressive resumé has the potential to be a strong, substantive contrast to the sloganeering that has so far been offered by the Conservatives. Carney could represent a reasonable alternative to voters who, while desiring change, aren’t sold on Poilievre.

    But can Carney really reverse the fortunes of the Liberal Party? Although the next leader of the party is guaranteed to be Canada’s 24th prime minister, they face near Herculean odds in establishing a term that will last more than a couple of weeks due the near certainty of a non-confidence vote in Parliament after it resumes on March 24, 15 days after the Liberal convention.

    Poilievre’s Conservatives are well over 20 points ahead in public opinion polls as they benefit from an anti-incumbent sentiment that, although commonly expressed in a personal dislike for Trudeau, is really about a deeper discontent with Canada’s structural and economic challenges.

    And, unless the NDP reverses its refusal to support the government, a federal election is likely to be held by May.

    While Carney’s outsider status may inspire the Liberal faithful, his electoral performance is more likely to highlight the drawbacks of political inexperience. Although he has potential in terms of political skills, he may not have the time to realize that potential.

    Past Liberal leaders

    Historically, and to a greater degree than the Conservatives, the Liberals have been successful at recruiting leaders with accomplishments outside of partisan electoral politics.

    William Lyon Mackenzie King made his name in labour relations, while Lester B. Pearson had an incredibly successful career as a diplomat.

    Pierre Trudeau, furthermore, was not a supporter of the Liberal Party until 1965, becoming leader only three years after entering politics. In this vein, Carney — until this stage in his career a largely non-political and accomplished central banker — is a return to form.

    The difference, however, is that — with the exception of academic Michael Ignatieff in 2011 — each of these former leaders had some, albeit limited, experience. They may have been recruited for their potential as future prime ministerial candidates, but each accumulated the requisite political experience.

    Mackenzie King had served as labour minister under Wilfrid Laurier, and Pearson had been external affairs minister for nearly a decade. Pierre Trudeau’s rise to national prominence owed a large part to his provocative legislative reforms as Pearson’s attorney general.

    Carney, on the other hand, has never run for office nor made any public interjections into partisan conflicts.

    Special skill set

    Electoral politics requires a special skill set that, unless it comes naturally, can only be learned through experience. It requires a unique combination of policy aptitude, communication ability, emotional intelligence, coalition-building and raw instinct.

    Those qualities are honed with frequent exposure to voters, whether through stump speeches, stakeholder meetings or community barbecues. Carney simply does not have these experiences.

    And faced with an anti-incumbent mood, his administrative experience may be casting him not as an interesting outsider, but as a technocratic voice of the very economic, political and cultural elite who Canadians are upset with.

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

    – ref. Mark Carney might have the edge as potential Liberal leader, but still faces major obstacles – https://theconversation.com/mark-carney-might-have-the-edge-as-potential-liberal-leader-but-still-faces-major-obstacles-247979

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: For tennis star Destanee Aiava, borderline personality disorder felt like ‘a death sentence’ – and a relief. What is it?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jayashri Kulkarni, Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University

    Last week, Australian Open player Destanee Aiava revealed she had struggled with borderline personality disorder.

    The tennis player said a formal diagnosis, after suicidal behaviour and severe panic attacks, “was a relief”. But “it also felt like a death sentence because it’s something that I have to live with my whole life”.

    A diagnosis is often associated with therapeutic nihilism. This means it’s viewed as impossible to treat, and can leave clinicians and people with the condition in despair.

    In fact, people with this disorder can and do recover with adequate support. Understanding it is caused by trauma is fundamental to effectively treat this complex and poorly understood mental illness.

    A stigmatising diagnosis

    The name “borderline personality disorder” is confusing and adds greatly to the stigma around it.

    Doctors first used “borderline” to describe a condition they believed was in-between two others: neurosis and psychosis.

    But this implies the condition is not real in itself, and can invalidate the suffering and distress the person and their loved ones experience.

    “Personality disorder” is a judgemental term that describes the very essence of a person – their personality – as flawed.

    What is borderline personality disorder?

    People with the disorder can express a range of symptoms, but high levels of anxiety – including panic attacks – are usually constant.

    Symptoms cluster around four main areas:

    • high impulsivity (leading to suicidal thoughts and behaviour, self-harm and other risky behaviours)

    • unstable or poor sense of self (including low self-esteem)

    • mood disturbances (including intense, inappropriate anger, episodic depression or mania)

    • problems in relationships.

    People with the disorder greatly fear being abandoned and as a result, commonly have distressing difficulties in interpersonal relationships.

    This creates a “push-pull” dynamic with loved ones, as people with borderline personality disorder seek closeness, but push away those they love to test the strength of the relationship.

    For example, they may escalate a small issue into a major disagreement to see if the loved one will “stick with them” and reinforce their love.

    Conversely, if a loved one appears distant or fed up – for example, is thinking about ending the relationship – the person with borderline personality disorder will make major efforts to “pull” them back. This might look like a flurry of messages, expressions of despair, or even suicidal behaviours.

    People with borderline personality disorder greatly fear being abandoned, making relationship issues common.
    Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Who does it affect?

    The disorder affects one in 100 Australians, although this is likely a conservative estimate, as diagnosis is based on the most severe symptoms.

    Women are much more likely to be diagnosed with it than men – but why this is so remains a major debate, with political and sociological factors playing a role in making psychiatric diagnoses. Symptoms usually begin in the mid to late teens.

    While an initial response to receiving a diagnosis can be comforting for some, it is commonly seen as a chronic, relapsing condition, meaning symptoms can return after a period of improvement.

    Borderline personality disorder can fluctuate in intensity and mimic other conditions such as major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders and psychosis.

    Estimates suggest 26% of presentations at emergency departments for mental health issues are by people diagnosed with personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder.

    What causes it?

    The main cause for borderline personality disorder appears to be trauma in early life, compounded by repeated traumas later.

    Early life trauma can lead to biological changes in the brain that cause behavioural, emotional or cognitive shifts, leading to social and relationship issues. This is known as complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Aiava has acknowledged the disorder is “mainly from childhood trauma”, although she has not given details about her specific experiences.

    People with borderline personality disorder usually have complex post-traumatic stress disorder. But complex post-traumatic stress disorder doesn’t always result in a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.

    Although the two disorders are not identical, they share many similarities, in particular that they are both caused by complex and repeated trauma.

    However those with borderline personality disorder tend to experience more rage, emotional disturbances and have a greater fear of abandonment.

    They also face greater stigma, whereas the term “complex post-traumatic stress disorder” doesn’t carry the same negative connotations and focuses on the cause of the condition – trauma – rather than “personality”, leading to better treatment options.

    The recognition of the major role of trauma in borderline personality disorder is an important step forward in treating the disorder. But because of the stigma associated with it, using the diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder maybe a better step forward in the future.

    Can it be treated?

    There are many effective psychological therapies and other treatments for people with borderline personality disorder or complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

    For example, dialectical behavioural therapy is a type of cognitive therapy that helps people learn skills such as tolerating distress, managing relationships, regulating emotions and practising mindfulness.

    The treatment of people with post-traumatic stress disorder, including victims of war and rape, has taught us a lot about how to treat complex, underlying trauma. For example, with trauma-focused psychological therapies.

    Other new treatments, such as eye movement desensitisation and reprogramming, have also shown to be effective.

    Many people with borderline personality disorder who receive treatment and have supportive relationships are able to “outgrow” the condition. Others may need to continue to manage symptoms while pursuing a good quality of life.

    Treating trauma, not personality

    Rethinking borderline personality disorder as a trauma disorder enables a more effective and understanding approach for those with it.

    Understanding what trauma does to the brain means newer, targeted medications can also be used.

    For example, our research has shown how the brain’s glutamate system – the chemicals responsible for learning and making sense of one’s environment – is overactive in people with complex post-traumtic stress disorder. Medications that work on the glutumate system may therefore help alleviate borderline personality disorder symptoms.

    Educating partners and families about borderline personality disorder, providing them support and co-designing crisis strategies are also important parts of total care. Preventing early life trauma is also critical.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

    Jayashri Kulkarni receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and educational plus clinical trial grants from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture psychotropic medications.

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

    – ref. For tennis star Destanee Aiava, borderline personality disorder felt like ‘a death sentence’ – and a relief. What is it? – https://theconversation.com/for-tennis-star-destanee-aiava-borderline-personality-disorder-felt-like-a-death-sentence-and-a-relief-what-is-it-247451

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

    This week Prince Harry achieved something few before him have: an admission of guilt and unlawful behaviour from the Murdoch media organisation. But he also fell short of his long-stated goal of holding the Murdochs to account in a public trial.

    The Duke of Sussex, along with Tom Watson, the Labour MP who had led the charge against the Murdochs’ News Group Newspapers (NGN) in the United Kingdom during the 2011–12 phone hacking scandal, are the last to settle their claims against News over their privacy being invaded by phone hacking or through the use of private investigators.

    They join a list of around 1,300 people, including celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, who have already settled their claims against The Sun newspaper at an estimated cost to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s company of more than £1 billion (almost A$2 billion).

    This one is significant because unlike previous settlements, it came with an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, as well as the perfunctory wheelbarrow full of cash.

    Until now, The Sun has simply refused to say sorry or admit liability. But that stance has become increasingly absurd.

    As Grant posted on X last year when he settled his claim:

    News Group are claiming they are entirely innocent of the things I had accused The Sun of doing. As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court.

    Prince Harry wrung from News considerably more. In a statement released after the case was settled on Wednesday morning in London, NGN said:

    NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun.

    It went on:

    NGN also offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the News of the World. NGN further apologises to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years. We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages. It is also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that NGN’s response to the 2006 arrests and subsequent actions were regrettable.

    Let’s break down what this is actually saying, and what it isn’t.

    Carefully crafted wording

    First, it is undoubtedly a significant admission that in pursuit of stories, The Sun engaged in unlawful activity. That is a big step up (or down, depending on your point of view) from previous settlement statements.

    Note, though, it carefully pins the unlawful activity on private investigators working for The Sun rather than on journalists and, more importantly, editors. The word “incidents” is doing a lot of work here: “widespread” and “industrial-strength” come to mind as more appropriate.

    Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, said immediately after the settlement was reached that “NGN unlawfully engaged more than 100 private investigators over at least 16 years on more than 35,000 occasions”.

    He continued: “this happened as much at The Sun as it did at the News of the World with the knowledge of all the Editors and executives, going to the very top of the company.”

    NGN’s statement, then, continues to assert phone hacking did not happen at The Sun but in a roundabout way, somehow, the newspaper benefited from it. Sort of.

    Dancing to avoid perjury

    The company has been engaged in this kind of casuistry ever since 2006 when it said the journalist and private investigator who were found guilty of phone hacking (Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire, respectively) were just two bad apples in an otherwise orchard-kissed media basket.

    The hundreds of people who have received payments because their phones were hacked know this only too well, but there is an important reason NGN feels it still has to maintain this charade. To do otherwise would be an admission that it has perjured itself in courts and before inquiries.

    The Murdochs’ company can hardly deny that journalists at the newspaper it was forced to close over phone hacking – The News of the World – were engaged in the practice. Several of them were jailed over it, most notably former editor Andy Coulson.

    As one of Coulson’s former reporters, Dan Evans, testified at his editor’s trial in 2014, “even the office cat knew” phone hacking was happening at the newspaper.

    The newspaper was closed, in large part, to try and persuade the public that the problem of unethical reporters was confined to that newspaper alone.

    They weren’t expected to notice that months later, News set up a Sunday edition of The Sun that continues to be published.

    The legal war continues

    For Prince Harry, this has been a deeply personal campaign, especially as News has admitted seriously intruding into his private life since he was 12, and into his mother’s too, for many years.

    NGN also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that its response to the 2006 arrests and its subsequent actions were “regrettable”. This is PR-speak for when you can’t bring yourself to actually apologise.

    Harry’s lawyer went on the attack over these evasions and euphemisms:

    there was an extensive conspiracy to cover up what really had been going on and who knew about it. Senior executives deliberately obstructed justice by deleting over 30 million emails, destroying back-up tapes, and making false denials – all in the face of an ongoing police investigation. They then repeatedly lied under oath to cover their tracks – both in Court and at the Leveson Public Inquiry.

    Beneath the duelling statements, though, is the sense that this settlement, important though it is, may not be the end of the saga.

    It seems clear those backing and advising Prince Harry see the settlement as an important step in pursuing criminal charges against NGN executives, as well as winning a personal apology from Rupert Murdoch himself.

    Will that actually happen? We do know that in Murdoch’s long history in the media, apologies are vanishingly rare.

    We also know that the second part of the Leveson inquiry was shelved by the former Conservative government. The recently elected Labour government has been under pressure from Hacked Off, the public interest group that has been advocating for victims of media intrusion and for reform of media laws ever since the phone hacking came to light in 2011.

    Will Britain’s police and government build on NGN’s partial admissions and apologies? Will they investigate News executives, therefore fulfilling what was meant to occur in the second stage of the Leveson inquiry, whose terms of reference singled out News’s activities as a company?

    Or will they take the cautious view that this rare settlement means justice has now been served and hope, like Murdoch and many of his senior executives, this long-running issue will now just quietly go away?

    It is too early to tell. What we do know is that in recent years, the Murdochs’ once brilliant batting average has dropped like a stone. First, there was the historically high payout in the Dominion lawsuit, then the failed attempt to revoke an irrevocable trust that is tearing apart the family, and now the settlement with Prince Harry.

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

    – ref. Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire? – https://theconversation.com/murdochs-uk-newspapers-have-apologised-to-prince-harry-where-does-it-leave-the-legally-embattled-media-empire-248110

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

    Shutterstock/The Conversation

    Elon Musk has emerged as one of the most influential and controversial powerbrokers in the new Trump administration. He spent at least US$277 million (about A$360 million) of his own money to help Donald Trump win re-election, campaigning alongside him around the country.

    This significant investment of time and money raises the question of what the world’s wealthiest person hopes to receive in return. Critics have wondered whether Musk’s support for Trump is just a straightforward commercial transaction, with Musk expecting to receive political favours.

    Or does it reflect Musk’s own genuinely held political views, and perhaps personal political ambition?

    From left to alt-right

    Decoding Musk’s political views and tracking how they have changed over time is a complex exercise. He’s hard to pin down, largely by design.

    Musk’s current X feed, for example, is a bewildering mix of far-right conspiracy theories about immigration, clips of neoliberal economist Milton Friedman warning about the dangers of inflation, and advertisements for Tesla.

    Historically, Musk professes to have been a left libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

    Musk claims that over time, the Democratic party has moved further to the left, leaving him feeling closer politically to the Republican party.

    Key to Musk’s political shift, at least by his own account, is his estrangement from his transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson.

    After Vivian’s transition, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus”. She is very much alive.

    He’s since repeatedly signalled his opposition to transgender rights and gender-affirming care, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more broadly.

    However, if the mere existence of a trans person in his family was enough to cause a political meltdown, Musk was clearly already on a trajectory towards far-right politics.

    Rather than responding to a shift in the Democratic Party, it makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much broader recent phenomenon known as as “the libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.

    The political science, explained

    Libertarianism has historically tended to be divided between left-wing and right-wing forms.

    Left libertarians support economic policies of limited government, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and deregulation more broadly. This is combined with progressive social policies, such as marriage equality and drug decriminalisation.

    By contrast, right libertarians support the same set of economic policies, but hold conservative social views, such as opposing abortion rights and celebrating patriotism.

    Historically, the Libertarian Party in the United States adopted an awkward middle ground between the two poles.

    The past decade, though, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism more generally, move strongly to the right. In particular, many libertarians have played leading roles in the alt-right movement.

    The alt-right or “alternative right” refers to the recent resurgence of far-right political movements opposing multiculturalism, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white nationalism.

    The alt-right is a very online movement, with its leading activists renowned for internet trolling and “edgelording” – that is, the posting of controversial and confronting content to deliberately stoke controversy and attract attention.

    Though some libertarians have resisted the pull of the alt-right, many have been swept along the pipeline, including prominent leaders in the movement.

    Making sense of Musk

    While this discussion of theory may seem abstract, it helps to understand what Musk’s values are (beneath the chaotic tweets and Nazi salutes).

    In economic terms, Musk remains a limited-government libertarian. He advocates cutting government spending, reducing taxes and repealing regulation – especially regulations that put limits on his businesses.

    His formal role in the Trump administration as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency”, also known as DOGE, is targeted at these goals.

    Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This is the alt-right influence on display.

    Alt-right sensibilities are most evident, however, in Musk’s online persona.

    On X, Musk has deliberately stoked controversy by boosting and engaging with white nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.

    For example, he has favourably engaged with far-right politicians advocating for the antisemitic “Great Replacement theory”. This theory claims Jews are encouraging mass migration to the global north as part of a deliberate plot to eliminate the white race.

    More recently, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. He’s also shared videos from known white supremacists outlining the racist “Muslim grooming gangs” conspiracy theory in the United Kingdom.

    Whether Musk actually believes these outlandish racist conspiracy theories is, in many ways, irrelevant.

    Rather, Musk’s public statements are better understood as reflecting philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s famous definition of “bullshit”. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or provoke in which the speaker is simply not concerned with whether the statement is actually true.

    Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset “the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.

    Theory vs practice

    Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.

    For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.

    Musk will expect this special treatment to continue under a quintessentially transactional president such as Trump.

    The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.

    Across the campaign, both Musk and Trump repeatedly criticised immigration to the US. Reprising the themes of the far-right Great Replacement theory, Musk claimed illegal immigration was a deliberate plot by Democrats to “replace” the existing electorate with “compliant illegals”.

    However, after the election Musk has argued Trump should preserve categories of skilled migration such as the H1-B visas. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.

    Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. H1-B visas allow temporary workers to enter the country for up to six years, making them entirely dependent on the sponsoring company. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude”.

    These visas have been used heavily in the technology sector, including in companies owned by both Musk and Trump.

    An unsteady alliance

    So what might we expect from Musk now that he has both political office and influence?

    Musk’s stated aim of using DOGE to cut $2 trillion from the US budget would represent an unprecedented transformation of government. It also seems highly unlikely.

    Instead, expect Musk to focus on creating controversy by cutting DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive programs, such as support for women’s reproductive rights.

    Musk will clearly use his political influence to look after the interests of his companies. Shares in Tesla surged to record highs following Trump’s re-election, suggesting investors believe Musk will be a major financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.

    Finally, Musk will undoubtedly use his new position to remain in the public eye. This last part might lead Musk into conflict with another expert in shaping the media cycle – Trump himself.

    Musk has already reportedly fallen out with Vivek Ramaswamy, who will now no longer co-lead DOGE with Musk.

    Exactly how stable the alliance between Trump and Musk is, and whether the egos and interests of the two billionaires can continue to coexist, remains to be seen.

    If the alliance persists, it will be a key factor in shaping what many are terming the emergence of a “new gilded age” of political corruption and soaring inequality.

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

    – ref. Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan? – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-now-has-an-office-in-the-white-house-whats-his-political-game-plan-248011

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: College course teaches Philly students to appreciate beer − whether they’re tailgating or fine dining

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul O’Neill, Assistant Clinical Professor of Food and Hospitality Management, Drexel University

    The Philadelphia region is home to over 90 craft breweries. sutiporn somnam/Moment Collection via Getty Images

    Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

    Title of course:

    The Fundamentals of Beer

    What prompted the idea for the course?

    After 25 years of working in professional kitchens and as a server in fine dining, I became an adjunct professor and then director of special projects in the Food and Hospitality Management department at Drexel University. Lynn Hoffman, the founder of the school’s culinary program and the author of “The Short Course in Beer,” suggested we create a 10-week beer course.

    It seemed like a no-brainer, given beer’s popularity with college students. But it was also an opportunity to help our students appreciate beer’s dizzying array of styles, as well as its deep cultural and historical significance – including right here in Philadelphia.

    What does the course explore?

    The course explores the history of brewing and how different societies – specifically Sumerian, German, English and Belgian – influenced the ingredients and brewing techniques used to make different styles of beers.

    Some styles are named after their city of origin – for example, pilsners originated in Pilzen, Czech Republic. Others are derived from the brewing procedure. “Lager,” for example, is German for “to stock or store.” These beers are stored at refrigerated temperatures for months after they’re brewed in order for residual flavors to subside, making way for a cleaner, crisper and more refreshing profile. Meanwhile, “porters” are named after the London working-class longshoremen – those who loaded and unloaded cargo at ports – who commonly consumed them.

    After studying the foundational aspects of beer, students learn about its evolution in America, with a focus on the Philadelphia region.

    For example, Yuengling, originally named Eagle Brewery, was established in 1829 in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, about 100 miles outside Philadelphia, and is credited with being America’s oldest continuously operating brewery. And in the city itself, local brewer Robert Hare Jr. made what George Washington referred to as “the best porter in Philadelphia,” just down the street from where America’s first lager was purportedly brewed by Bavarian expat John Wagner around 1840.

    We also discuss current Philadelphia-area brewers such as the Philadelphia Brewing Company, Dock Street and Yards, and their impact on the city’s craft beer industry.

    Why is this course relevant now?

    Beer and other alcoholic beverages have a significant financial impact on the restaurant industry, where many businesses operate on thin margins. Restaurants can attract diners with a dynamic beverage offering. A good beer program requires an informed staff, locally brewed options and an array of diverse styles. They might showcase classic lagers and ales alongside popular contemporary favorites such as New England IPAs and Italian pilsners, and off-the-wall experiments like Fruity Pebbles kettle sour ales.

    What’s a critical lesson from the course?

    Beer appreciation is not inebriation.

    There is a proper way to analyze beer through sight, aroma, palate texture and flavor. We use a tasting grid to guide students through this process. First we assess the beer’s color, clarity and foam, which gives us our initial ideas regarding the beer’s character. We then evaluate the beer’s aroma, which is derived from the grains, hops and fermentation. Then we sip and focus on the texture of the beer to determine the weight of it on the palate, the quality of the carbonation and the mouthfeel – whether it is thin, full or silky. Last, we assess the flavor profile.

    Students get the opportunity to distinguish the various malt and hop characters present in many popular beer styles – from the crisp, biscuit or cracker flavor and light green bitterness of a pilsner, to the dried fruit and dark caramel-laden quality of doppelbocks, to the cold-brew coffee style of dry stouts.

    “Tasting” and not simply “drinking” beer enables students to understand and appreciate what is in their glass. It is also important to note that when analyzing a beer, the glass must be clean, clear and of a certain shape – tulip. Having a globe to swirl the beer allows tasters to judge the viscosity, test the carbonation and open up the aromas.

    What materials does the course feature?

    • Lynn Hoffman’s “Short Course in Beer” offers a digestible summation of beer styles, history and how beer can be enjoyed in settings ranging from tailgates to fine dining.

    • Joshua Bernstein’s “The Complete Beer Course” illustrates the beer family tree in great detail, includes interviews with prominent brewers and provides textbook examples of various beer styles.

    • The Brewers Association’s Style Guidelines
      and Tasting Grid are go-to guides for how beer styles are delineated using a scale of color, bitterness and flavor attributes.

    • Six 1-oz. weekly samples allow students to taste historical representations and current iterations of a particular beer style, such as Bohemian pilsners, German hefeweizens, English bitters and Belgian tripels.

    • We also do a guided tour and tasting at one of Philadelphia’s larger independent craft beer brewers, Yards brewery.

    What will the course prepare students to do?

    Students learn about the history of beer production and its cultural relevance, and develop an understanding of tasting notes and profiles for various beer styles so they can distinguish between ale and lager family styles. By the end of the course, they should also be able to design their own beer menu for a restaurant.

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

    – ref. College course teaches Philly students to appreciate beer − whether they’re tailgating or fine dining – https://theconversation.com/college-course-teaches-philly-students-to-appreciate-beer-whether-theyre-tailgating-or-fine-dining-244476

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Trump’s tariffs can’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rodney Coates, Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies, Miami University

    Americans consume more illicit drugs per capita than anyone else in the world; about 6% of the U.S. population uses them regularly.

    One such drug, fentanyl – a synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – is the leading reason U.S. overdose deaths have surged in recent years. While the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths has dipped a bit recently, it’s still vastly higher than it was just five years ago.

    Ending the fentanyl crisis won’t be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Meanwhile, the opioid crisis alone costs Americans tens of billions of dollars each year.

    With past policies having failed to curb fentanyl deaths, President Donald Trump now looks set to turn to another tool to fight America’s drug problem: trade policy.

    During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they don’t halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders. Trump also promised to impose a new set of tariffs against China if it doesn’t do more to crack down on the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl. He reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, saying to reporters, “We’re thinking in terms of 25% on Mexico and Canada because they’re allowing … fentanyl to come in.”

    Speaking as a professor who studies social policy, I think both fentanyl and the proposed import taxes represent significant threats to the U.S. While the human toll of fentanyl is undeniable, the real question is whether tariffs will work – or worsen what’s already a crisis.

    Fentanyl: The ‘single greatest challenge’

    In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses – the most ever recorded – and nearly seven out of 10 deaths involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids. In 2022, fentanyl was killing an average of 200 people each day. And while fentanyl deaths declined slightly in 2023, nearly 75,000 Americans still died from synthetic opioids that year. In March of that year – the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available – the then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to be “the single greatest challenge we face as a country.”

    But history shows that government efforts to curb drug use often have little success.

    The first real attempt to regulate drugs in the U.S. occurred in 1890, when, amid rampant drug abuse, Congress enacted a law taxing morphine and opium. In the years that followed, cocaine use skyrocketed, rising 700% between 1890 and 1902. Cocaine was so popular, it was even found in drinks such as Coca-Cola, from which it got its name.

    This was followed by a 1909 act banning the smoking of opium, and, in 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act.” The most comprehensive package of laws was instituted with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified drugs into five categories based on their medical uses and potential for abuse or dependence. A year later, then-President Richard Nixon launched the “War on Drugs” and declared drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” And in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, directing US$1.7 billion for drug enforcement and control.

    President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “Public enemy No. 1” at this 1971 press conference.

    These policies have generally failed to curb drug supply and use, while also causing significant harm to people and communities of color. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000. But these policies hardly put a dent in consumption. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65% in 1980 to 58% in 1997.

    In short, past U.S. efforts to reduce illegal drug use haven’t been especially effective. Now, it looks like the U.S. is shifting toward using tariffs – but research suggests that those will not lead to better outcomes either, and could actually cause considerable harm.

    Why tariffs won’t work

    America’s experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don’t do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don’t work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits.

    Over the course of Trump’s first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn’t change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S.

    The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations.

    This isn’t the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl.

    A question of supply and demand

    Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don’t limit the demand. That’s why treatment works and bans don’t.

    The U.S. government’s ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that’s fueling the drug crisis.

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

    – ref. Why Trump’s tariffs can’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-tariffs-cant-solve-americas-fentanyl-crisis-245978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Norovirus, aka the winter vomiting bug, is on the rise – an infectious disease expert explains the best ways to stay safe

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By William Schaffner, Professor of preventive medicine, health policy, infectious diseses, Vanderbilt University

    Norovirus is accompanied by abdominal pain, diarrhea and explosive vomiting. Alla Bielikova/Moment via Getty Images

    The highly contagious norovirus – popularly known as “stomach flu” or the “winter vomiting bug” – is now surging through the U.S.. The number of outbreaks is up significantly over previous years, possibly due in part to a new strain of the virus. Outbreaks can occur after direct contact with someone who is infected. Food and household surfaces can also become contaminated.

    William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, discusses the symptoms of norovirus, how best to treat it, and the populations most vulnerable to this illness.

    Dr. William Schaffner discusses the norovirus.

    The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion that have been edited for brevity and clarity.

    What are the symptoms of a norovirus infection?

    William Schaffner: Norovirus is an intestinal virus that can make you very, very sick. It is indelicately called winter vomiting disease, and it begins suddenly, often with an explosive vomit that then repeats itself.

    Norovirus can cause abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time, along with a fever. It will probably make you feel miserable for two or three days – but then everybody pretty much recovers.

    How should norovirus be treated?

    William Schaffner: The major problem norovirus causes is dehydration from all that vomiting and diarrhea. So you have to stay hydrated. Do this with little sips of clear liquids, because if you take too much, it’ll come right back up. Sports drinks are very good.

    Most people who get into trouble are either very young or older and more frail. They may have to go to the hospital to get rehydrated with an IV. When the occasional death occurs due to this dehydrating infection, it’s in those vulnerable populations.

    Why does norovirus tend to surge during the winter?

    William Schaffner: You can get it any time of the year, but there is a seasonal increase in the winter for reasons that scientists are not quite sure of. But people spend a lot of time indoors with each other in wintertime, so that makes it easier for the virus to get from one place to another. All that travel over the holidays, as well as family gatherings and parties, can spread the virus.

    How can people protect themselves from the norovirus?

    William Schaffner: The most important thing is good hand hygiene. Washing with soap and water works the best. Those hand hygiene gels and wipes – the hand sanitizers – that people tend to use aren’t as effective against norovirus, so just wash frequently with good old soap and water. And then, of course, avoid people who are sick.

    Also, remember that the virus can survive on environmental surfaces, like counters, doorknobs and tables. You don’t want to pick up those viruses on your fingers. If you get a little bit of virus on your fingertips and then touch your lips, you can get an infection because it just takes a small dose of the virus to make you sick.

    Who’s particularly vulnerable to norovirus?

    William Schaffner: The people who are more susceptible to catching it are those living in semi-enclosed or enclosed populations. For example, people in nursing homes, schools and prisons – essentially any circumstance where people are together for a long period of time.

    Another place where the virus can spread is cruise ships, which is why norovirus is also called the cruise ship virus. When people are confined on a ship for days and days, these outbreaks can run through most of the passengers.

    Interestingly enough – and this has never been well explained – the crew is usually less affected.

    But again, the most serious illness occurs in older, frail and immune-compromised people, or in the very young, where dehydration can be more serious.

    Where’s the research on developing a norovirus vaccine?

    William Schaffner: Norovirus has presented some scientific challenges. It’s actually rather difficult to grow in the laboratory, and so that has delayed the development of a vaccine. But researchers are working on it.

    Are there other infectious diseases going around right now?

    William Schaffner: Along with norovirus, respiratory viruses are still out there: influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. They’re all perking up at the same time. It looks as though we’re having a very brisk winter viral season.

    Watch the full interview to hear more.

    SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

    William Schaffner receives funding from the CDC-sponsored Emerging Infections Program Collaborative Agreement.

    – ref. Norovirus, aka the winter vomiting bug, is on the rise – an infectious disease expert explains the best ways to stay safe – https://theconversation.com/norovirus-aka-the-winter-vomiting-bug-is-on-the-rise-an-infectious-disease-expert-explains-the-best-ways-to-stay-safe-247667

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why does it hurt when you get a scrape? A neuroscientist explains the science of pain

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yenisel Cruz-Almeida, Associate Professor & Associate Director, Pain Research & Intervention Center Of Excellence, University of Florida

    Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

    “How come you feel pain when you fall and get a scrape?” – Tillman, age 9, Asheville, North Carolina

    Nobody likes to feel pain, but it’s something every person will experience at some point in their life.

    But why is that?

    I am a neuroscientist, and my job is to research why and how people feel pain in order to help doctors understand how to treat it better.

    What is pain?

    To understand why people feel pain, it helps first to understand what pain is. Pain is the unpleasant sensation you feel when your body is experiencing harm, or thinks it is.

    Not everyone experiences pain the same way. Pain is a highly personal experience influenced by a variety of biological, psychological and social factors. For example, research has shown differences in the pain experiences of women and men, young and older people, and even across people from different cultures.

    It’s important for kids to communicate with a trusted adult if they’re experiencing pain.

    Danger signals

    A network of nerves similar to wires runs all through the human body, from the tips of your fingers and toes, through your back inside the spinal cord and up to your brain. Specialized pain receptors called nociceptors can be found at the end of the nerves on your skin, muscles, joints and internal organs.

    Each nociceptor is designed to activate its nerve if it detects a danger signal. One way scientists classify nociceptors is based on the type of danger signal that activates them.

    Mechanical nociceptors respond to physical damage, such as cuts or pressure, while thermal nociceptors react to extreme temperatures. Chemical nociceptors are triggered by chemicals that the body’s own tissues release when they are damaged. These receptors may also be triggered by external irritants, such as the chemical capsaicin, which gives chili peppers their heat. This is why eating spicy food can cause you pain.

    Finally, there are the nociceptors that are activated by a combination of various triggers. For example, one of these receptors in your skin could be activated by the poke of a sharp object, the cold of an ice pack, the heat from a mug of cocoa, a chemical burn from household bleach, or a combination of all three kinds of stimulation.

    Nerves run from various parts of the body through the spinal cord and up into the brain.
    Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

    How pain travels though the body

    When you fall and get a scrape, the mechanical nociceptors in your skin spring into action. As soon as you hit the ground, they activate an electrical signal that travels through the nearby nerves to the spinal cord and up to your brain. Your brain interprets these signals to locate the place in your body that is hurting and determine how intense the pain is.

    Your brain knows that a pain signal is an SOS message from your body that something isn’t right. So it activates multiple systems all at once to get you out of danger and help you survive.

    Your brain may call on other parts of your nervous system to release chemicals called endorphins that will reduce your pain. It may tell your endocrine system to release hormones that prepare your body to handle the stress of your fall by increasing your heart rate, for example. And it may order your immune system to send special immune cells to the site of your scrape to help manage swelling and heal your skin.

    As all of this is happening, your brain takes in information about where you are in the world so that you can respond accordingly. Do you need to move away from something hurting you? Did you fall in the middle of the road and now need to get out of the way of moving cars?

    Not only is your brain working to keep you safe in the moments after your fall, it also is looking ahead to how it can prevent this scenario from happening again. The pain signals from your fall activate parts of your brain called the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex that process memory and emotions. They will help you remember how bad falling made you feel so that you will learn how to avoid it in the future.

    But why do we need to feel pain?

    As this example shows, pain is like a warning signal from your body. It helps protect you by telling you when something is wrong so that you can stop doing it and avoid getting hurt more.

    In fact, it’s a problem if you can’t feel pain. Some people have a genetic mutation that changes the way their nociceptors function and do not feel pain at all. This can be very dangerous, because they won’t know when they’re hurt.

    Ultimately, feeling that scrape and the pain sensation from it helps keep you safe from harm.

    Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

    And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

    Yenisel Cruz-Almeida receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. She is an Associate Editor at the Journal of Pain and serves as Treasurer on the US Association for the Study of Pain.

    – ref. Why does it hurt when you get a scrape? A neuroscientist explains the science of pain – https://theconversation.com/why-does-it-hurt-when-you-get-a-scrape-a-neuroscientist-explains-the-science-of-pain-238499

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Chrisinger, Assistant Professor of Community Health, Tufts University

    More than 41 million Americans use SNAP benefits to buy groceries. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s pick for director of the Health and Human Services Department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has announced a bold plan. He wants to “Make America Healthy Again.”

    Kennedy’s strategy has gotten a lot of attention for its oddities, such as his opposition to vaccine mandates and support for raw milk. But it includes some concepts that many public health experts consider sensible, such as calling for a stronger focus on chronic disease prevention and seeking more restrictions on prescription drug advertising aimed at consumers.

    But he’s also demanding a ban on junk food from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Banning junk food from SNAP is something that has divided public health experts for years.

    As public health researchers, we’ve devoted our careers to helping reduce chronic diseases. We agree with Kennedy that a healthy diet and sound nutrition are important ways to improve the nation’s health. We also know from our own research that safety net programs, including SNAP benefits – which are still sometimes called food stamps – are staving off hunger and food insecurity for millions of Americans.

    And we’re certain that adding to the restrictions that already limit access to SNAP benefits do little to make Americans healthier.

    What is SNAP?

    Over 42.1 million Americans, about 13% of all families, receive SNAP benefits. More than 1 in 4 of the households enrolled in the program include someone who is earning at least some income.

    More than 4 in 5 families getting SNAP benefits include a child, someone over 65 or someone with a disability. These benefits are distributed on a monthly basis through an electronic benefits transfer card that looks and works like a credit or debit card and can be used at supermarkets and other approved retailers. The federal government has spent more than US$110 billion annually on this program in recent years.

    Benefits help get food on the table but typically don’t cover everything a family needs to eat. The average monthly benefit is $195 per person.

    Americans who earn less than 130% of the poverty line are eligible for SNAP. In the 2025 fiscal year, a family of three can’t make more than $2,152 a month in net income or have assets of more than $4,500 if a household includes someone over 60, and $3,000 if it doesn’t.

    Adults without children or disabilities can’t get these benefits for more than three months every three years unless they meet the program’s work requirements by being employed or spending at least 20 hours weekly in a training program. People who are on strike and foreigners living in the U.S. without authorization are ineligible. People with prior drug-related felony convictions are federally banned from SNAP for life, but states can waive this rule. This program is federally funded but administered by the states, which have some leeway in determining eligibility.

    People enrolled in SNAP already face some restrictions on what they can buy with their benefits. They can’t use SNAP to purchase premade or restaurant meals, alcohol, tobacco, or things such as diapers, vitamins and toilet paper.

    Why restrict SNAP?

    Since SNAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kennedy would have very little power to change SNAP’s rules should the Senate approve his nomination following the controversial politician’s upcoming confirmation hearing on Jan. 29, 2025.

    Still, we’re concerned that his support for new restrictions could help sway the authorities who would be responsible for such a policy change.

    Proposals to ban particular foods from SNAP have been floated many times by state legislators and members of Congress over the years.

    These bills have generally been designed to exclude supposedly luxury items, such as steak and seafood, or aimed at barring purchases from a different supermarket aisle: candy, soda and other junk foods.

    States can’t make this kind of modification without the USDA’s authorization. And so far, the USDA has rebuffed calls for it to allow such measures. Even without the agency’s support, Congress can make changes to these policies in the Farm Bill, which could in the future force the USDA to allow these restrictions in states that ask for them.

    The Trump administration, including Kennedy, has signaled its interest in these kinds of restrictions.

    Why SNAP restrictions won’t make America healthier

    While improving the American diet is a worthy goal, research that we and other scholars have done makes it clear that adding new restrictions to SNAP will do little to help us become a healthier nation.

    First, many studies have found that nearly all Americans could eat healthier.

    The rich and the poor alike consume unhealthy food in the U.S.

    Studies show that while lower-income Americans often spend more of their food budget on unhealthy stuff than more affluent people do, families in the middle and at the top of the income ladder still purchase lots of junk food.

    Unsurprisingly, those purchases reflect what we’re eating: Americans at all income levels have diets that don’t satisfy federal dietary guidelines. Spotlighting the poor food choices of SNAP participants would be a distraction from these facts and would risk further stigmatizing a successful anti-hunger program.

    Maintaining a good diet is not cheap or straightforward, especially on a low income. The poorest communities have far more inexpensive fast-food chains and dollar stores than their wealthier neighbors, as well as more ads for unhealthy products. Even when they get SNAP benefits, many Americans still struggle to make ends meet, and studies show how this negatively affects the quality of their diets.

    Another reason SNAP restrictions wouldn’t make America healthier is that diet is just one of many contributors to chronic diseases. Your level of physical activity, exposure to pollution, stress and genetics, among other things, shape your risk of getting heart disease, diabetes or other chronic diseases.

    Flexible but don’t cover all needs

    SNAP benefits are fairly flexible, covering just about anything people might want to eat, even if they have dietary restrictions due to their culture or health conditions. The program helps Americans afford most of their basic necessities, although it fails to pay for all the groceries most people who rely on the program need to buy in the course of a month.

    SNAP’s main function is preventing the worst effects of hunger and food insecurity for the more than 41 million people relying on it.

    There are other ways for the government to help make Americans healthier besides the imposition of stigmatizing restrictions on SNAP. For example, it can create matching programs for SNAP dollars spent on fruits and vegetables, which would give retailers incentives to offer more produce and make it easier for people who get SNAP benefits to buy more healthy food. The USDA has begun to support this kind of effort in several states.

    Benjamin Chrisinger receives funding from The Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership.

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

    – ref. Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits – https://theconversation.com/why-government-cant-make-america-healthier-by-micromanaging-groceries-purchased-with-snap-benefits-246462

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why neglecting your brain health can make it harder to achieve physical goals

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Cambridge

    SofikoS/Shutterstock

    Our cognition and mental wellbeing are crucial factors for our quality of life and put us in a good position to contribute to society. Ultimately, it can be near impossible to achieve physical goals and demanding life challenges if our brain health is not optimal.

    Yet most of us appear to be more concerned with physical health than brain health. According to the YouGov website the most popular New Year’s resolutions in the UK in 2024 were doing more exercise, saving money, losing weight and dieting – with about 20% reporting they were failing some resolutions only just six days into the year. A large study of approximately 1,000 participants showed that mental health only featured in about 5% of resolutions.

    It’s easy to monitor your physical health using mobile devices and wearable technology to preserve physical health throughout your life. It may be more unclear, however, how to improve and monitor brain health and mental wellbeing. In our new book Brain Boost: Healthy Habits for a Happier Life, we draw on research to offer practical tips.

    A number of factors contribute to our happiness in life, including genetics, our social and physical environment, cognition and our behaviour, such as lifestyle choices. Studies have shown that good cognitive function is related to better wellbeing and happiness.

    Interestingly, according to the 2024 World Happiness Report all five Nordic countries – Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – are in the top 10 happiest countries. The UK and the US, however, do not feature in the top 10.

    In the UK, the YouGov website has been tracking mood states and while it reports that happiness is the most commonly expressed emotion, only 45% of people feel it. Ideally this number should be much higher.

    In addition, feeling stressed and frustrated are the next top emotions with 40% and 35% of people having these feelings respectively. Disappointingly, optimism is also low, for example, only 23% of 18-24 year-olds and over 75-year-olds feel optimistic on average, and 17% of 45-54 year-olds.

    Happiness and wellbeing in general reduces the effects of stress and promotes health and longevity.

    Nurturing your brain

    In our book, we draw on the latest scientific evidence, including our own, to highlight seven essential lifestyle factors that improve our brain health, cognition and wellbeing. We demonstrate how simple — and often surprising —adjustments to our daily habits can enhance brain fitness, boost cognition, and promote overall wellbeing.

    We suggest small incremental steps to improving lifestyle habits and ensuring these fit within our daily activities, as well as being enjoyable and pleasurable. In this way, we can ensure, that unlike New Year’s resolutions that we give up within six days, we can maintain these throughout life. This puts us in a better position to achieve physical challenges in the future.

    These lifestyle factors include exercise, diet, sleep, social interactions, kindness, mindfulness and learning, and knowing how to get the best out of work. For example, exercise is an “all-rounder”, as it can boost our physical health but also our brain health, cognition and mood. In fact, studies have shown that exercise can increase the size of our hippocampus, which is critical for learning and memory.

    Similarly, sleeping the optimal number of hours each night can improve our immune system, brain structure and mental wellbeing. Our own study showed that sleeping 7-8 hours per night in middle to older adulthood was associated with better brain structure, cognition, such as processing speed and memory, and mental health.

    Staying socially connected also plays an important role in our brain health. We have shown that being socially isolated in older adults is associated with a 26% increased risk of dementia. Whereas, having the optimal number of friends in adolescence, about five, is linked with better brain structure, cognition, educational attainment and wellbeing.

    Learning new things is also essential to keep the neural circuits in our brain functioning at their best level for as long as possible. We need to challenge ourselves mentally to keep our brains active – just as we need to do physical exercise to keep our bodies fit.

    This builds cognitive reserve and helps us in times of stress. We can also keep our brains active in a number of ways, for example, by learning a new language or how to play a musical instrument or you can read an educational book about something that interests you.

    Keeping our bodies healthy is incredibly important. But we need to also nurture our brains if we want to be happy, mentally sharp and well protected against diseases such as dementia.

    Embracing these simple strategies to prioritise our brain health and wellbeing is essential for a happier and more fulfilling life. Ultimately, lifestyle choices play a significant role in reducing stress and promoting resilience, creativity and overall quality of life.

    Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian receives funding from the Wellcome Trust and the Lundbeck Foundation. Her research work is conducted within the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Mental Health and Neurodegeneration Themes. She consults for Cambridge Cognition.

    Christelle Langley receives funding from the Wellcome Trust. Her research work is conducted within the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Mental Health and Neurodegeneration Themes.

    – ref. Why neglecting your brain health can make it harder to achieve physical goals – https://theconversation.com/why-neglecting-your-brain-health-can-make-it-harder-to-achieve-physical-goals-248043

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Understanding paranormal beliefs and conspiracy theories isn’t just about misinformation – this course unpacks the history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeb Card, Associate Teaching Professor of Anthropology, Miami University

    The ‘black mailbox’ along Highway 375 near Rachel, Nev., a traditional spot for UFO hunters to meet and search the skies near Area 51. AP Photo/John Locher

    Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

    Title of course:

    “Investigating the Paranormal”

    What prompted the idea for the course?

    My training and professional work have been in Mesoamerican archaeology, but I’ve had a lifelong fascination with paranormal concepts. In fact, I considered studying the UFO community for my doctoral research in cultural anthropology.

    I eventually fused these two interests in my book “Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past,” which examines why archaeology shows up so much in ideas about the mysterious and weird. Most people are familiar with pop culture characters like Indiana Jones seeking magical artifacts. Perhaps less immediately obvious is just how common archaeological topics are in paranormal and conspiracy culture.

    The popularity of paranormal ideas – from television shows and thousands of podcasts to UFOs on the front page of The New York Times and in government investigations – made it clear that a course on paranormal culture would be an excellent way for students to get a taste of social science research.

    What does the course explore?

    The material begins with premodern ideas of magic, myth and metaphysics. The narrative that “Western” societies tell of the development of the modern world is that the Enlightenment cast off supernatural thinking in favor of science. The historical reality, however, is not so simple.

    As science based on observation of material evidence emerged in the 17th through 19th centuries, so did a paranormal worldview: theories about a nonmaterial or hidden reality beyond the mundane, from monsters to psychic powers. Some of these ideas were tied to older religious notions of the sacred or strange but not divine phenomena. Others were new – particularly those suggesting the hidden existence of prehistoric extinct creatures or lost cities.

    In either case, the key element was that proponents of these ideas often tried to support their existence with the kind of evidence used in science, though their “proofs” fell short of scientific standards. In other words, the paranormal is in conflict with the knowledge and worldview of modernity but also attempts to use the concepts of modernity to oppose it.

    The class examines how this tension produced 20th century “-ologies” like parapsychology, which examines evidence for consciousness beyond matter, and cryptozoology, which searches the ends of the Earth for creatures tied to the mythic past. We also learn about UFOlogy, whose proponents have collected alleged contacts with technology and beings from beyond this world ever since the Cold War, as great earthly powers filled the skies with secretive hi-tech aircraft and spaceships.

    As the class concludes, we examine how the “-ologies” declined after the Cold War, alongside the cultural capital of science, whose height of public respect was in the mid-20th century. Since then, proving the existence of paranormal things to institutional scientists has become less important in paranormal communities than promoting them to a broader public.

    Why is this course relevant now?

    Beyond public interest in paranormal topics, the paranormal is entwined with sociocultural forces that have dramatically increased the role of conspiracy rhetoric in the United States and elsewhere. At their core, both types of belief claim to have figured out some kind of supposedly hidden knowledge.

    Furthermore, the conspiracy theories that are now commonplace in American political discourse are more rooted in paranormal ideas than in previous decades. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or even 9/11 were still largely within the materialist realm. People argued that “the truth” had been covered up, but their arguments did not rely on metaphysical ideas. Today, major conspiracy theories involve secret cabals, mystical symbols and code words, demonic forces and extraterrestrial entities.

    What’s a critical lesson from the course?

    Evidence must be interrogated on its own, regardless of whether it fits your perspective. I find time and again that students have a hard time approaching evidence without bias, whether that bias is conscious or not: “knowing” that something must be true, or must be absurd.

    One person apparently makes a death bed confession of faking a famous Loch Ness Monster photo, pleasing skeptics. Another claims to have seen a Bigfoot at close range, pleasing believers. Without further evidence, both are stories: no more, no less.

    The issue isn’t to draw an equivalence between the bigger concepts. Not all narratives are equally well-founded. But students learn how to collect evidence, rather than simply rely on their gut sense of what is plausible or not.

    What will the course prepare students to do?

    This course is meant to help students discern useful and reliable information about claims and events, separating them from irrelevant or inaccurate narratives or sources. The goal is not just “critical thinking” aimed at combating disinformation, though that is part of what they should learn. Students practice evaluating evidence but also develop an approach for analyzing and understanding phenomena behind it: how factors like history, culture and institutions of authority, such as science and government, shape what people trust and what they believe.

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

    – ref. Understanding paranormal beliefs and conspiracy theories isn’t just about misinformation – this course unpacks the history – https://theconversation.com/understanding-paranormal-beliefs-and-conspiracy-theories-isnt-just-about-misinformation-this-course-unpacks-the-history-242007

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

    For more than a decade, Syrians have been the world’s largest refugee population.

    More than 6 million Syrians have fled the country since 2011, when an uprising against the regime of Bashar Assad transformed into a 13-year civil war. Most ended up in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, while a sizable minority wound up in Europe. But the overthrow of the Assad regime in late 2024 by opposition forces led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has seemingly opened a window for their return, and tens of thousands of former refugees have since made the decision to go back to their homeland.

    How many and who decides to go back, and the circumstances under which they reintegrate into Syrian society, will have enormous implications for both Syria and the countries they resettled in. It also provides an opportunity for migration scholars like ourselves to better understand what happens when refugees finally return home.

    Previous research has shown that Syrian refugees who are trying to decide whether to return are motivated more by conditions in Syria than by policy decisions where they’ve resettled. But individual experiences also play an important role. Counterintuitively, refugees who have been exposed to violence during the Syrian civil war are actually more tolerant of and better at assessing the risk of returning to Syria, research has shown.

    But such research was conducted while Assad was still in power, and it has only been several weeks since Assad fell. As a result, it’s unclear how many Syrians will decide to go back. After all, the current government is transitional, and the country is not fully unified.

    The risk of return

    In the month after Assad’s fall, about 125,000 Syrians headed home, primarily from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. But for the majority of those yet to return, important questions and considerations remain.

    First and foremost, what will governance look like under the transitional government? So far, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s rule under Ahmed al-Sharaa has suggested the group will embrace inclusivity toward Syria’s diverse array of ethnic and religious minorities. Even so, some observers worry about the group’s prior connections to militant Islamist groups, including al-Qaida.

    Similarly, initial fears about restrictions on women’s participation in public life have mostly been assuaged, despite the transitional government appointing only two women to office.

    Syrians debating whether to return home must also confront the economic devastation wrought by years of war, government mismanagement and corruption, and international sanctions placed on the Assad regime.

    Sanctions blocking the entry of medications and equipment, along with Assad’s bombing of infrastructure throughout the war, have crippled the country’s medical system.

    In 2024, 16.7 million Syrians – more than half the country’s population – were in need of essential humanitarian assistance, even as very little was available. In early 2025, the U.S. announced that it was extending a partial, six-month reprieve of sanctions to allow humanitarian groups to provide basic services such as water, sanitation and electricity.

    But rebuilding the country’s infrastructure will take much longer, and Syrian refugees will have to weigh whether they are better off remaining in their host countries. This is especially true for those who have worked to build new lives over a long period in exile from Syria.

    The caretaker Syrian government will also have to address the issue of property restitution. Many individuals may want to return home only if they indeed have a home to return to. And the policy of forced property transfers and the settlement by Alawite and minority groups allied to the Assad regime in former Sunni areas vacated during the war complicates the issue.

    Continued welcome in Europe?

    Since the start of the civil war, approximately 1.3 million Syrians have sought protection in Europe, the majority of them arriving in 2015 and 2016 and settling in countries such as Germany and Sweden. As of December 2023, 780,000 individuals still held refugee status and subsidiary protection – an additional form of international protection – with the remainder having received either long-term residency or citizenship.

    Syria’s 13-year civil war reduced many homes to rubble.
    Ercin Erturk/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Subsidiary protection was granted to those who didn’t meet the stringent requirements for refugee status under the Geneva Conventions – which requires a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group – but “would face a real risk of suffering serious harm” if returned to their countries of origin.

    Recognition rates for Syrians have remained consistently high between 2015 and 2023, but the breakdown between subsidiary protection and refugee status has fluctuated over the years, with 81% receiving refugee status in 2015 versus 68% receiving subsidiary protection in 2023.

    For Syrians in the EU who hold refugee status or subsidiary protection, as well as for those with pending asylum claims, the future is very uncertain. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, EU law allows governments to revoke, end or refuse to renew their status if the reason to offer protection has ceased, which many countries believe is the case after Assad’s fall.

    Since then, at least 12 European countries have suspended asylum applications of Syrian nationals. Some nations, such as Austria, have threatened to implement a program of “orderly return and deportation.”

    Conditions in Turkey and Lebanon

    A much larger number of Syrians obtained protection in neighboring countries, namely Turkey (2.9 million), Lebanon (755,000) and Jordan (611,000), though estimates of unregistered Syrians are much higher. In Turkey, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees, Syrians are afforded only temporary protection status.

    In theory, this status allows them access to work, health care and education. But in practice, Syrian refugees in Turkey have not always been able to enjoy these rights. Coupled with anti-immigrant sentiments worsened by the 2023 earthquake and presidential election, life has remained difficult for many.

    And while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly stated that Syrians should return home according to their own timeline, his previous scapegoating of the refugee population indicates that he may ultimately like to see them returned – especially as many in Turkey now believe Syrian refugees have no reason to stay in the country.

    Syrians in Lebanon, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees per capita, face even greater economic and legal challenges. The country is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and its stringent domestic asylum law has granted residency to only 17% of the more than a million Syrians who live in the country.

    Lebanon has been pressuring Syrian refugees to leave the country for years through policies of marginalization and forced deportation, which have intensified in recent months with a government scheme to deport Syrians not registered with the United Nations. As of 2023, 84% of Syrian families were living in extreme poverty. Their vulnerability was exacerbated by the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon, which led 425,000 Syrians to escape war once again and return to Syria even though conditions at the time were not safe.

    Testing the water

    Offering go-and-see visits – whereby one member of a family is allowed to return to a home country to evaluate the situation and subsequently permitted to reenter the host country without losing their legal status – is the norm in many refugee situations. The policy is being used at present for Ukrainians in Europe and was used in the past for Bosnian and South Sudanese refugees.

    The same policy could serve Syrian refugees now – indeed, Turkey recently implemented such a plan. But above all, we believe returns to Syria should be voluntary, not forced. Getting the conditions right for returning refugees will have enormous implications for rebuilding the country and keeping the peace – or not – in the years to come.

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

    – ref. Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision – https://theconversation.com/assads-fall-opens-window-for-syrian-refugees-to-head-home-but-for-many-it-wont-be-an-easy-decision-247051

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katie Scofield, Assistant Instructional Professor in Political Science, Texas A&M University-San Antonio

    Everything is bigger in Texas, except maybe its democracy. Luis Diaz Devesa/Moment via Getty

    While concerns about the future of American democracy dominate headlines worldwide, millions of Texans are already seeing a rapid decline in democratic standards.

    In December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a New York doctor for prescribing abortion-inducing medications to a woman in Collin County, Texas, alleging that the shipment violated Texas’ near-total ban on abortion.

    Two months earlier, Paxton’s office had sued to block a federal rule protecting women’s out-of-state medical records from criminal investigation. And in 2022, it sued the Biden administration over federal guidelines requiring doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations.

    Paxton’s lawsuits – alongside the state’s restrictive abortion policies – raise troubling questions about individual privacy and women’s bodily autonomy in Texas, where I live and teach. And they’re indicative of a broader problem. As my research on democracy and human rights shows, the state government is becoming increasingly antidemocratic.

    Scholars examine a number of factors to determine the health of a democracy. Elections must be free and fair. There should be freedom of expression and belief, multiple competitive political parties and minimal corruption. A democratic government must also respect individual freedom.

    On many of these metrics, I believe Texas falls short.

    Are Texas elections free and fair?

    Texas has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the United States, including strict voter ID laws, stringent limits on mail-in and absentee ballots and no online voter registration.

    Republicans, who passed each of these policies, claim their concern is a democratic one – election integrity. Yet, when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick offered a US$25,000 reward to anyone who could prove voter fraud in the 2020 election, it led to just one arrest.

    The Texas Legislature nonetheless pledged to pass an even more restrictive voting bill in 2021, referencing “purity of the ballot box,” an old Jim Crow phrase. Democratic lawmakers ended up fleeing the state to paralyze the state assembly and keep the most egregious parts of the bill from passing.

    Healthy democracies also have robust competition between multiple parties so that voters have real choices at the polls.

    Yet since its current constitution was written in 1876, Texas has effectively been a one-party state governed by conservatives. No Democrat has won statewide office since 1994 – the longest Democrats have been locked out of statewide office in any state.

    Money in politics

    Texas puts no limits on individual campaign contributions to the governor, one of just 12 U.S. states that lacks this common anti-corruption measure.

    This has allowed Texas’ current governor, Greg Abbott, who has been in office since 2015, to raise vast sums of money. In the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race – the most expensive in the state’s history at $212 million – Abbott outspent his Democratic opponent by almost $50 million. In 2018, he had 90 times more cash on hand than his Democratic opponent.

    Texas’ lack of effective campaign finance regulations has given big donors access to power in the form of gubernatorial appointments.

    An in-depth investigation by The Texas Tribune in 2022 revealed that 27 of the 41 members of the governor’s COVID-19 task force were campaign donors who had collectively paid $6 million toward the governor’s reelection. Many were business owners who had a vested interest in reopening the state.

    Freedom of expression

    Texas is also at the center of a national struggle over academic freedom, a key component of free expression.

    Texas passed a law in 2023 requiring public universities to close their diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, offices, depriving the most vulnerable student communities of resources such as scholarships, mental health programs and career workshops.

    The Texas Senate is considering expanding this legislation to prohibit “DEI curriculum and course content.”

    The mere threat appears to be squelching freedom of thought and intellectual exploration in Texas universities already. The University of North Texas in November started editing course titles and syllabi to remove identity-based topics.

    On Jan. 14, Abbott threatened to fire the president of Texas A&M University – a part of my university system – if faculty attended an academic conference showcasing the work of Black, Latino and Indigenous scholars.

    Human rights at the border

    Abbott’s campaign to control the U.S.-Mexico border has raised concerns among human rights groups about civil rights in the state.

    In March of 2021, Abbott declared a state of emergency in counties on the Texas border, allowing him to deploy the Texas National Guard there. The initiative, Operation Lone Star, was supposed to stop migrants from crossing the border outside official government checkpoints.

    Since border enforcement is a federal authority, however, the troops have mostly enforced state laws on trespassing or drugs and weapons possession. Guardsmen have also participated in busing migrants to Democratic-run cities such as New York and Chicago and built razor-wire barriers in the Rio Grande.

    The result is an $11 billion policing program that has largely targeted Latino American citizens – not immigrants. Fully 96% of those arrested on trespassing charges are Latino, and 75% of those facing court proceedings for that and other crimes as a result of Operation Lone Star are U.S. citizens.

    Gov. Greg Abbott, left, and Donald Trump greet Texas National Guard troops in Edinburg, Texas, on Nov. 19, 2023.
    Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images

    Women’s freedoms

    Finally, women’s right to bodily autonomy is under threat in Texas, which has one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws.

    At least three women have died as a result of doctors being afraid to treat their miscarriages. Overall, maternal mortality rates have increased by 56% since the ban was imposed in 2021. Scary statistics haven’t stopped the state’s plans to tighten its ban.

    The 2025 Texas legislative session began with Republican legislators having prefiled several bills aimed at ending abortion by mail services, including one that would reclassify common abortion pills as controlled substances like Valium or Ambien. Doctors warn that this reclassification could also make it harder for them to disperse these medications quickly in life-threatening emergencies.

    And a handful of rural Texas counties have made it illegal to transport women seeking out-of-state abortions on their roads.

    As Texas goes, so goes the nation?

    The question of whether a government is democratic is often not black or white. It should be viewed on a sliding scale.

    Freedom House, a nonpartisan international democracy watchdog, ranks countries on a 100-point scale based on the factors I mentioned earlier, among others, and labels countries as “free,” “partly-free” and “not free.”

    The freest country in 2024, Finland, had a score of 100. The U.S. has been sliding down the rankings, receiving a score of 83 in 2024 – down from 94 in 2010. It’s still solidly in the “free” category, but U.S. democracy looks less like Germany’s and more like Romania’s. The antidemocratic policy changes made in Texas and a handful of other states contribute to this slide.

    Freedom House doesn’t rank states, but if it did, Texas would likely still rate as a “free” democracy. There is space for dissent, opposition and free speech. Democratic politicians have occasional political victories.

    But Texas is decidedly less democratic than the U.S. at large. Democracy here is not lost, but I fear Texas is in danger of becoming only “partly-free.”

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

    – ref. I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties – https://theconversation.com/i-study-democracy-worldwide-heres-how-texas-is-eroding-human-rights-free-expression-and-civil-liberties-246936

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Sorry, I didn’t get that’: AI misunderstands some people’s words more than others

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Roberto Rey Agudo, Research Assistant Professor of Spanish and Portuguese, Dartmouth College

    Speech recognition systems are less accurate for women and Black people, among other demographics. Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images

    The idea of a humanlike artificial intelligence assistant that you can speak with has been alive in many people’s imaginations since the release of “Her,” Spike Jonze’s 2013 film about a man who falls in love with a Siri-like AI named Samantha. Over the course of the film, the protagonist grapples with the ways in which Samantha, real as she may seem, is not and never will be human.

    Twelve years on, this is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and digital assistants like Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa help people get driving directions, make grocery lists, and plenty else. But just like Samantha, automatic speech recognition systems still cannot do everything that a human listener can.

    You have probably had the frustrating experience of calling your bank or utility company and needing to repeat yourself so that the digital customer service bot on the other line can understand you. Maybe you’ve dictated a note on your phone, only to spend time editing garbled words.

    Linguistics and computer science researchers have shown that these systems work worse for some people than for others. They tend to make more errors if you have a non-native or a regional accent, are Black, speak in African American Vernacular English, code-switch, if you are a woman, are old, are too young or have a speech impediment.

    Tin ear

    Unlike you or me, automatic speech recognition systems are not what researchers call “sympathetic listeners.” Instead of trying to understand you by taking in other useful clues like intonation or facial gestures, they simply give up. Or they take a probabilistic guess, a move that can sometimes result in an error.

    As companies and public agencies increasingly adopt automatic speech recognition tools in order to cut costs, people have little choice but to interact with them. But the more that these systems come into use in critical fields, ranging from emergency first responders and health care to education and law enforcement, the more likely there will be grave consequences when they fail to recognize what people say.

    Imagine sometime in the near future you’ve been hurt in a car crash. You dial 911 to call for help, but instead of being connected to a human dispatcher, you get a bot that’s designed to weed out nonemergency calls. It takes you several rounds to be understood, wasting time and raising your anxiety level at the worst moment.

    What causes this kind of error to occur? Some of the inequalities that result from these systems are baked into the reams of linguistic data that developers use to build large language models. Developers train artificial intelligence systems to understand and mimic human language by feeding them vast quantities of text and audio files containing real human speech. But whose speech are they feeding them?

    If a system scores high accuracy rates when speaking with affluent white Americans in their mid-30s, it is reasonable to guess that it was trained using plenty of audio recordings of people who fit this profile.

    With rigorous data collection from a diverse range of sources, AI developers could reduce these errors. But to build AI systems that can understand the infinite variations in human speech arising from things like gender, age, race, first vs. second language, socioeconomic status, ability and plenty else, requires significant resources and time.

    ‘Proper’ English

    For people who do not speak English – which is to say, most people around the world – the challenges are even greater. Most of the world’s largest generative AI systems were built in English, and they work far better in English than in any other language. On paper, AI has lots of civic potential for translation and increasing people’s access to information in different languages, but for now, most languages have a smaller digital footprint, making it difficult for them to power large language models.

    Even within languages well-served by large language models, like English and Spanish, your experience varies depending on which dialect of the language you speak.

    Right now, most speech recognition systems and generative AI chatbots reflect the linguistic biases of the datasets they are trained on. They echo prescriptive, sometimes prejudiced notions of “correctness” in speech.

    In fact, AI has been proved to “flatten” linguistic diversity. There are now AI startup companies that offer to erase the accents of their users, drawing on the assumption that their primary clientele would be customer service providers with call centers in foreign countries like India or the Philippines. The offering perpetuates the notion that some accents are less valid than others.

    Human connection

    AI will presumably get better at processing language, accounting for variables like accents, code-switching and the like. In the U.S., public services are obligated under federal law to guarantee equitable access to services regardless of what language a person speaks. But it is not clear whether that alone will be enough incentive for the tech industry to move toward eliminating linguistic inequities.

    Many people might prefer to talk to a real person when asking questions about a bill or medical issue, or at least to have the ability to opt out of interacting with automated systems when seeking key services. That is not to say that miscommunication never happens in interpersonal communication, but when you speak to a real person, they are primed to be a sympathetic listener.

    With AI, at least for now, it either works or it doesn’t. If the system can process what you say, you are good to go. If it cannot, the onus is on you to make yourself understood.

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

    – ref. ‘Sorry, I didn’t get that’: AI misunderstands some people’s words more than others – https://theconversation.com/sorry-i-didnt-get-that-ai-misunderstands-some-peoples-words-more-than-others-239281

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bill Sullivan, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University

    Water that comes straight from natural sources, dubbed “raw water,” is gaining popularity. Raw water advocates reject public water supplies, including tap water, because they don’t enjoy the taste or believe it’s unsafe and depleted of vital minerals.

    On the surface, raw water might seem alluring – the natural surroundings may look beautiful, and the water may look clean and taste refreshing. But unlike tap or commercially bottled water, raw water is not evaluated for safety. This leaves the people who drink it vulnerable to infectious microbes or potentially other toxic contaminants.

    I’m a microbiology researcher studying infectious diseases. From a public health perspective, clarifying misconceptions about tap water and the health hazards of raw water can protect consumers and curtail the spread of infectious diseases.

    A short history of public drinking water

    Archaeological evidence suggests that humans have long associated dirty water with negative health outcomes. As early as 1500 BCE, ancient Egyptians added a binding agent to their water to clump contaminants together for easy removal.

    Two major developments in the mid-1800s showed why impure water is dangerous. First, physician John Snow traced a deadly cholera outbreak to contaminated water from London’s Broad Street pump. Second, Louis Pasteur advanced the germ theory of disease, which postulated that microbes can cause illness. Pasteur established that consumable liquids like raw water and milk can harbor disease-causing pathogens.

    Physician John Snow’s 1854 map of cholera cases in London, highlighted in black, clustered around a contaminated pump.
    John Snow/Wellcome Collection

    These discoveries paved the way for large-scale infrastructure projects in the 20th century to ensure the public water supply is safe.

    Today, the process of cleaning water begins with the same steps employed by the ancient Egyptians, followed by extensive filtration to get rid of debris as well as most germs and chemicals. Chlorine is added to kill lingering pathogens, including those that may reside in the service pipes carrying the water to the faucet. Beginning in the 1940s, a small amount of fluoride was added as an inexpensive, safe and effective means to improve dental health.

    The cleanliness and fluoridation of the water supply has dramatically reduced infectious disease and cavities, and has been heralded as one of the 20th century’s greatest public health achievements.

    Is raw water healthier than tap water?

    People who champion raw water claim it has health benefits, such as essential minerals and beneficial bacteria called probiotics, that are stripped from tap water. Let’s unpack each of these claims.

    Water dissolves bits of soil and rock at its source; therefore, its mineral content depends on the local geology. Areas with a lot of limestone, like the Midwest, have water that is higher in calcium. Water from deeper in the ground may have higher mineral content since it passes through more rock on its way to the surface.

    The mineral content of water largely depends on its source and location.
    Sergii Zyskо/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The idea that tap water is depleted of essential minerals is not true, as these nutrients are too small to be excluded by the filtration process. Test kits can determine the mineral content of your water, and if you find it lacking, mineral supplements can be added. Experts suggest, however, that most minerals you need come from your diet, not water.

    Some also claim that raw water contains probiotics that are removed from tap water. The amount of probiotics in water would also vary by location, and the notion that health-promoting bacteria reside in raw water has not been proved.

    There are no studies associating raw water with any health benefit. Anecdotal claims about smoother skin or increased energy are likely to be placebo effects. Even the idea that raw water tastes better might be more psychological than physiological – a 2018 study showed that most people preferred tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.

    Risks of drinking raw water

    Raw water carries the risk of serious gastrointestinal infection from a wide variety of pathogens.

    Water-borne viruses include rotavirus and norovirus, which cause rapid-onset diarrhea and vomiting, and hepatitis A, which infects the liver. Bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella, or parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia, also cause severe diarrhea that can lead to dangerous levels of dehydration. Toxoplasma gondii can also lurk in raw water and can cause miscarriage or birth defects if consumed during pregnancy.

    Tap water undergoes several treatment steps before it reaches your faucet.
    CDC

    Carriers of diarrheal infections can transmit them to others if they swim in public pools or fail to properly wash their hands before touching others or preparing food. Norovirus is particularly durable and can survive on surfaces for days, increasing chances of it infecting someone else.

    Raw water can also contain algae that release toxins causing abdominal issues and damage to the brain and nervous system.

    Cholera, dysentery and typhoid fever are no longer health burdens in the U.S. thanks to a robust water treatment system. But areas of the world lacking this privilege suffer high child mortality and widespread diarrheal diseases.

    How safe is tap water in the US?

    Tap water in the U.S. is among the safest to drink in the world. The Biden administration took steps to further improve it, including funding to replace lead pipes and new rules to monitor forever chemicals like perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and developmental disorders.

    Importantly, raw water is not necessarily free from lead, arsenic, pesticides or industrial contaminants. Raw water sources are not reliably monitored by experts, so it is difficult to say which ones pose less risk. In addition, the water may be acceptably safe one day, but not on another. For example, soil runoff from a storm could introduce new germs or pollutants into the area.

    The Environmental Protection Agency routinely screens for nearly 100 contaminants to ensure tap water is safe. In contrast, raw water remains untested, unregulated and untreated, leaving its safety to drink in question. In terms of risks and benefits, there are no demonstrated health benefits from drinking raw water, but clear evidence that you may be exposing yourself to harmful infectious and toxic contaminants.

    Bill Sullivan receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

    – ref. How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits – https://theconversation.com/how-does-raw-water-compare-to-tap-water-a-microbiologist-explains-why-the-risks-outweigh-the-benefits-246866

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump has rejected the Paris agreement again, but game theory shows how other countries can still lead by example

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

    petrmalinak/Shutterstock

    It came as a surprise to nobody that one of Donald Trump’s first acts on his return to the White House was to sign an executive order withdrawing the US from the Paris agreement on climate change.

    Almost 200 other countries will remain part of the deal designed to stem global warming. So how will they fare without the participation of one of the biggest polluters on the planet?

    The exit of the US encapsulates a tricky issue when it comes to international efforts to tackle climate change. Any effort to decrease the use of fossil fuels is individual, while any benefits are universal.

    And since 1997, the main approach to tackle climate change multilaterally has been through UN-backed summits known as “Cops” (Conference of the Parties) where countries gather and promise each other to cut their emissions.

    Richer countries, which polluted more in the past and created most of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere, have also committed to helping poorer countries develop economically while emitting less, to the tune of US$300 billion (£244 billion) a year by 2035.

    But while plenty of effort goes in to organising the largest possible coalition of countries, in the end, everything is based on good faith and promises. There is no mechanism by which countries which fail to live up to agreements are punished.

    So when national politics or budgetary constraints come into play, climate commitments can be left by the wayside. A project to tax pollution may be cancelled or campaigners may succeed in blocking plans.

    Yet there are benefits to be had from leading by example and cutting emissions without any guarantee that others will do the same. This is partly because humans have a tendency towards what’s known as “conditional cooperation”. People who fail to cooperate when they have to do it at the same time as others are much more likely to join in if they observe previous cooperation.

    For this reason, research I recently published with colleagues on game theory (the mathematical study of strategic interactions), suggests that the best thing for advanced economies to do is keep on cutting their own emissions.

    Because without efforts from rich countries to pursue a path towards mitigating global warming, there is no hope the others will follow. In that case, even a small wealthy country (like the UK) matters in demonstrating an unambiguous commitment to tackling climate change.

    Carbon cooperation

    Beyond encouraging further cooperation, a strong climate policy in the form of carbon taxes is also the most powerful way to punish those who do not take part in the global effort.

    Both the US (under Biden) and the EU have developed their own versions of a tool called a “carbon border adjustment mechanism” which means exporters from countries that do not tax emissions (or tax them less less heavily) need to pay the domestic carbon tax instead.

    Consider for instance a Chinese company exporting a container to the UK. If Chinese manufacturers have already paid a carbon tax worth £100 to the Chinese government for the product in the container, but the UK’s carbon tax would have been £200, the border tax is the difference between the two, £100.

    But if the Chinese government increases its domestic carbon tax to the UK level or above, the tax from the border adjustment mechanism drops to zero.

    This approach has influenced many countries to start their own carbon tax, because it is better to get tax receipts at home than to send them elsewhere. But again, it helps to lead by example. To influence others with border taxes, you need to implement your own system first.

    Cop out?

    Despite all of this apparent cooperation, and widespread concern about the impact of climate change, the latest Cop summit in Azerbaijan, held in November 2024, was considered by many to be a disappointment.

    But there is also some good news, which suggests that efforts are heading in the right direction. The latest data for example, shows that the EU is not far away from its 2030 target. Greenhouse gas emissions are already 37% below what they were in 1990 level. In the UK, the figure is 42%.

    In China, emissions might have apparently already peaked, earlier than expected. Even in the US, emissions are decreasing.

    Looking back at the scenarios that led to the first UN climate summit in Kyoto, not everything is bright. The world is unlikely to avoid global temperatures raising to more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

    So maybe we shouldn’t rely too much on future summits to make the next environmental breakthrough. The path forward could be more likely to come from technical solutions like carbon taxes and border adjustment mechanisms. And perhaps the best way to convince the rest of the world to cut their emissions is not to give them lectures and conferences – but to lead by example.

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

    – ref. Trump has rejected the Paris agreement again, but game theory shows how other countries can still lead by example – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-rejected-the-paris-agreement-again-but-game-theory-shows-how-other-countries-can-still-lead-by-example-246818

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Exercise does increase calorie burn – but probably not as much as you might hope

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dylan Thompson, Professor of Human Physiology, University of Bath

    Exercise can still be a benefit if you’re trying to lose weight or get fit. Green Elk/ Shutterstock

    It’s generally accepted that exercise is a key element of losing weight. But this long-held view has been called into question in recent years – with no shortage of articles and podcasts claiming it’s a myth that exercise increases your metabolism and helps you burn calories after you work out.

    The central tenet of these reports is that the amount of calories we burn each day is somehow constrained. This hypothesis was first proposed in 2012 by the evolutionary anthropologist Herman Pontzer. He posited that as you increase your daily energy expenditure (calories burned) through physical activity, your body will find ways to cut back on energy expended on other biological processes – such as your resting metabolism. This leaves your overall daily energy expenditure unchanged.

    This theory has since been popularised in Pontzer’s 2021 book Burn, in which he theorises that “we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level”.

    Building on this, Pontzer suggests that, “The bottom line is that your daily (physical) activity levels have almost no bearing on the number of calories that you burn each day.”

    But before you pack away your running shoes, let’s look at what the research shows us. The most rigorous and robust evidence available on the topic actually shows that exercise does increase energy expenditure – though perhaps not as much as we might expect.

    Exercise and energy expenditure

    The evidence Pontzer used to support his hypothesis came from observational studies that compared energy expenditure in different populations around the world. In an observational study, researchers only take measurements and make comparisons between groups without actually introducing any changes.

    The most eye-catching of the studies Pontzer used to support his hypothesis was research on the Hadza tribe – one of the last remaining hunter-gatherer groups in Africa. Hunter-gatherers are assumed to be highly active in order to survive. But the study observed that the Hadza expended no more energy than the average Westerner did each day.

    We reviewed the constrained energy expenditure hypothesis in 2023. We concluded that Pontzer’s theory raises some interesting questions. However, it’s generally not very convincing due to flaws in the nature of the evidence.

    Indeed, Pontzer’s own observational data shows that daily energy expenditure can vary by more than 1,000 calories per day in a group of older people. This directly contradicts his suggestion that it’s fixed at 3,000 calories a day for everyone.

    The effects of exercise on calorie burn may be more modest than we might hope, however.
    Dean Drobot/ Shutterstock

    When we look at data from randomised controlled trials, we can clearly see that exercise does have an effect on energy expenditure.

    Randomised controlled trials allow researchers to establish cause and effect from a specific treatment or intervention. They allow groups of people to be fairly compared with just one variable manipulated at a time.

    Trials show that a structured, supervised exercise programme done up to five times a week for six and ten months increases daily energy expenditure. These effects were shown in both young and middle-aged men and women.

    This research clearly shows that physical activity does increase how many calories you burn each day.

    Modest increase

    It’s important to note that these trials do report, however, that the increases in daily energy expenditure were not always as big as expected. Put simply, burning 600 calories in the gym will not necessarily increase your daily energy expenditure by the same amount.

    However, a more-modest-than-expected increase in energy expenditure is a far cry from bold statements that exercise does not increase daily energy expenditure at all. The exact number is difficult to estimate though, as it varies a lot between people.

    As we discuss in our review, there are many possible reasons why exercise does not increase energy expenditure by as much as would be expected. Some factors might include physical activity substitution (when your new workout substitutes for physical activity you would normally have done at that time – so you might only end up burning a few calories more than you normally would have) and behavioural compensation (doing less activity later in the day after a morning workout).

    This also highlights a common misunderstanding about the magnitude of exercise’s effects. Exercise can feel hard – so people might reasonably expect a large return on their investment. But five hours of exercise a week is only about 4% of our typical waking time. So this will only go so far in shifting the dial upwards in terms of how many calories we burn through physical activity.

    Part of the misunderstanding about changes in energy expenditure and potential weight loss through exercise is perhaps related to unrealistic expectations about how many calories we burn when working out.

    So, despite what you might have heard or read, the strongest evidence from robust trials clearly demonstrates that exercise can increase daily energy expenditure. Though this might not be as much as you expect or hope.

    Dylan Thompson receives funding from BBSRC, NIHR, and Heart Research UK. He has previously had funding from MRC, BHF, and Unilever. He is a Fellow of The Physiological Society and the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences.

    Javier Gonzalez receives funding from BSRC, MRC, British Heart Foundation, Clasado Biosciences, Lucozade Ribena Suntory, ARLA Foods Ingredients, Cosun Nutrition Center, Innocent Drinks and the Fruit Juice Science Centre; is a (non-exec) scientific advisory board member to ZOE; and has completed paid consultancy for 6d Sports Nutrition, Science in Sport, The Dairy Council, PepsiCo, Violicom Medical, Tour Racing Ltd., and SVGC. For a full list of disclosures see https://gonzalezjt1.wordpress.com/2024/03/.

    – ref. Exercise does increase calorie burn – but probably not as much as you might hope – https://theconversation.com/exercise-does-increase-calorie-burn-but-probably-not-as-much-as-you-might-hope-247720

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Compendium of the Occult by Liz Williams is a rich and appealing history

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martha McGill, Honorary Research Fellow, Historian of Supernatural Beliefs, University of Warwick

    In the fourth century BC, an unknown – but clearly disgruntled – schemer from the Greek city of Antioch had a curse tablet made. Inscribed on a thin piece of lead and deposited in a well, the tablet called for a “thunder-and-lightning-hurling” god to “strike, bind, bind together Babylas the greengrocer”.

    Around 1,400 years later, an Anglo-Saxon charm advised on how to protect a field. The secret was to take a piece of turf from each corner and anoint it with a mixture of oil, honey, yeast, milk from the animals on the land, pieces of the trees and plants on the land, and water consecrated to the god Thunor.

    In 17th-century England, the antiquarian Elias Ashmole hoped an astrological talisman would expel vermin from his house. Meanwhile, the diarist Samuel Pepys cured his upset stomach by purchasing a new hare’s foot. In 19th-century New Orleans, the Louisiana Creole woman Marie Laveau became famous for her healing, clairvoyance and work as a voodoo priestess, which she displayed in public gatherings at Congo Square.

    These are among the many fascinating snippets discussed in Liz Williams’s new book, Compendium of the Occult: Arcane Artefacts, Magic Rituals and Sacred Symbolism. Looking at western occult traditions from ancient times to the present day, the book explores how human societies have sought power, protection and insight from gods and stars, spells and amulets, sacred places and seductively enigmatic organisations.

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

    The book is made up of 65 short articles, grouped into six sections: the origins of western occultism; divination, rituals and rites; charms and talismans; curses and hexes; secret societies; and sites of significance.

    Many of the articles cover several centuries, meaning there is no scope for detailed analysis. However, Williams strikes an effective balance between general overview and colourful examples. She is sensitive to differences in perspective, noting the competing explanations for phenomena such as dowsing or Ouija boards.

    She also acknowledges the complexities of reconstructing past beliefs and practices from imperfect surviving evidence, although occasionally unreliable source material is not sufficiently interrogated. The book accepts too readily, for example, the questionable story that Louis XIV’s mistress Madame de Montespan arranged “black masses” in which she used the blood of babies to summon the devil.

    Magic and maladies

    Compendium of the Occult is handsomely bound, pleasingly laid out and beautifully illustrated. There are images of ancient clay tablets crisscrossed with incantations, witch bottles stuffed with nails and urine, voodoo dolls, mummies, skulls, books, statues, artworks and protective amulets in the shape of jaunty phalluses.

    The book accepts too readily that Louis XIV’s mistress Madame de Montespan used the blood of babies to summon the devil.
    Wiki Commons

    Some of the printing causes confusion, however. “Gold dots” on the timelines are difficult to see, as is the introduction’s small white text on black pages. The dating of some entries lacks obvious logic: “palmistry” is dated from the 5th to the 1st century BC, even though the article stretches to the 20th century, and other practices get the vaguer label “ancient times to the present day”. But these are minor quibbles.

    More significantly, the book’s geographical remit is limited. The introduction refers to occult traditions in “the west”, but Britain is a particular focal point. Williams discusses eight “sites of significance”, of which three (Glastonbury, Avebury and Stonehenge) can be found within a 75-mile span in England.

    She does cover ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia; there is an entry on voodoo; there are references to the influences of Arabic astrologers, and occasional mentions of practices in east Asia. But more engagement with occult traditions from beyond Europe, particularly in modern times, would have enhanced the volume and better justified the ambitious title.

    A 1660 illustration of Claudius Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the Universe, from Compendium of the Occult.
    Wikimedia Commons

    All the same, this is a rich and appealing book. Humankind’s inventiveness in conceptualising the workings of the world emerges with force. Much magic is underpinned by a belief that the everything is interwoven: the earth corresponds to the skies, the microcosm of the human body to the macrocosm of the universe.

    Williams quotes the physician and polymath Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535), who described how a square inscribed with numbers, stamped on a silver plate at the right hour, could call on Jupiter to bring the owner wealth and peace. If printed on coral, it could destroy evil spells.

    Material objects, plants, numbers and heavenly bodies are drawn into a symbiotic relationship, and invested with the power to reshape human lives. Agrippa’s plates reflect an enduring desire to situate humankind in relation to the environment, and impose meaning and harmony on a chaotic cosmos.

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

    – ref. Compendium of the Occult by Liz Williams is a rich and appealing history – https://theconversation.com/compendium-of-the-occult-by-liz-williams-is-a-rich-and-appealing-history-246925

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Think your efforts to help the climate don’t matter? African philosophers disagree

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick Effiong Ben, Doctoral Researcher in Applied Ethics and African Philosophy, University of Manchester

    PBXStudio/Shutterstock

    When I drive my car on weekends, I emit greenhouse gases – but not enough to change the global climate on my own. But when I, my neighbours and hundreds of millions of other people drive, fly, eat meat and embark on countless other activities that generate greenhouse gas emissions, we raise the Earth’s temperature.

    This is what we might call a collective harm problem, where the acts of many together lead to harmful outcomes, but no discrete act by any one person can solve it. Debates on how to fight climate change generally settle on the need for collective action ~ but does that make personal efforts inconsequential, even pointless?

    If a single pro-environment lifestyle change – like one person giving up their SUV or cutting out meat in favour of plant-based foods – will not turn the tide of global climate change on its own, it’s reasonable to feel there is little that “doing your bit” can achieve. This mindset is disempowering.

    Fortunately, it is not the only way of responding to the challenge. African philosophers have a different way of looking at it.

    Individual contributions are not pointless

    Studies assessing public willingness to contribute to climate action show that people will act even at a personal cost, given the right motivations. The urgent task for philosophers and environmentalists is to provide them with those motivations. This is where African philosophy is helpful.

    By African philosophy, I mean critical reflections on basic questions about the world – spanning the nature of knowledge, existence, morality, meaning and truth, from the perspective of African philosophers.

    I am a philosopher who studies the problem of what appear to be collectively insignificant individual actions. There is a concept from African philosophy that I think is helpful to understand this: “complementarity”.

    Complementarity denotes a relationship of interdependence among all entities – plants, animals, rivers, humans – in an interconnected community of living and non-living things. As a framework for understanding the world, it holds that everything within the human and non-human environment exists in a relationship of mutual dependence. Everything is connected to everything else. No entity can exist and flourish in isolation.

    Our meal choices don’t just affect us.
    Aleksandar Malivuk/Shutterstock

    To that extent, the flourishing of one person depends on and influences the flourishing of other things in the world – including other people and animals as companions, the plants and soil which provide food for survival, rivers and oceans that are a source of water, and the Sun which gives the energy that sustains life on Earth.

    Complementarity has been used by African philosophers like Jonathan Chimakonam, Aïda Terblanché-Greeff, Diana-Abasi Ibanga and Kevin Gary Behrens to develop environmental philosophies based on shared relationships. According to these philosophers, a view of the world based on complementarity neither foregrounds nor diminishes humans. Rather, it sketches a relationship of equals defined by the mutual participation of all.

    This thinking is averse to hierarchy. No individual can claim to have more value than another. Anything that exists serves as an important part of the environment and matters equally, whether alone or collectively. Complementarity holds that the relationships that unite individual things can extend to prove the value of every contribution, no matter its size.

    And so, complementarity rejects the argument that anything you do to help the climate is pointless. Driving my car is not an action that exists in isolation. My emissions are interconnected with other aspects of the environment.

    Similarly, individual climate-positive actions occur in relation to others taken globally, so it is a mistake to assume such actions are pointless. Rather, their relation to other actions makes them not just practically useful but necessary, to make a difference at the level of communities and globally.

    According to this African concept, the race to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a complementary effort. And so, do not be discouraged from taking your own step in this direction.

    Patrick Effiong Ben receives funding from the AHRC North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership (NWCDTP).

    – ref. Think your efforts to help the climate don’t matter? African philosophers disagree – https://theconversation.com/think-your-efforts-to-help-the-climate-dont-matter-african-philosophers-disagree-247042

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: England’s maths teacher recruitment problem is set to worsen

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Saunders, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics, City St George’s, University of London

    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Everyone should leave school with a solid understanding of maths. Decent mathematics literacy is a hugely important skill in many aspects of life. We need it when budgeting for a weekly shop, asking for a pay rise and completing a tax return.

    An interest and enjoyment in maths fostered at school can lead people to study the subject further. Mathematics graduates go on to professions in government, industry, software development and financial analytics, as well as many genres of engineering.

    In total, 13% of all employment in the UK is in professions that depend on mathematical sciences. A workforce that has been well taught in maths is crucial to a society’s prosperity.

    Building a workforce skilled in mathematics in England, however, will be difficult when there are not enough people qualified to teach the subject at school. Mathematics is a technical discipline. Quality teaching relies on its educators to have specific training: a university degree in maths.

    Research published in 2019 in Australia found that secondary school students achieved noticeably higher results when they were taught maths by teachers with a university degree majoring in maths than those “out-of-field” teachers.

    But in England, the Department of Education has an ongoing problem of under-recruitment of maths teachers. In the year 2023-24, recruitment in initial trainee maths teaching reached only 63% of its target. Research from 2018 found that less than half of maths teachers in state schools have a mathematics or other relevant degree.

    And maths achievement is declining. In the OECD’s programme for international student assessment (Pisa) tests, introduced in the year 2000, 15 year-olds in the UK are recording their lowest maths results since 2006.

    The longstanding failure to recruit enough maths graduates to become teachers is now set to be exacerbated by the changes in maths provision at universities. Maths degrees are becoming less accessible to the people who are likely to go on to become teachers.

    University options

    Over the previous decade, but particularly since the pandemic, Russell Group universities – research-intensive institutions that take students with the highest A-level grades — have increased their intake of students taking maths degrees.

    On the other hand, maths options are declining at lower-tariff universities and those that offer flexible study options.

    Birkbeck, University of London, no longer offers undergraduate degrees in maths as a single subject. Birkbeck is renowned for its provision of evening and part-time degree courses, which offers flexibility for students who may not be able to attend a traditional course or need to work while studying.

    Huddersfield has also discontinued its mathematics courses after reviewing its provision, and many other institutions are considering further cuts and redundancies.

    In 2011, lower-tariff institutions accounted for 13% of the market share of the intake of mathematics students. This dropped to just 4.5% in 2021, putting such institutions under severe pressure.

    Graduates of post-92 universities – former polytechnics and other recently established institutions, which often require lower grades for entry – are much more likely than their Russell Group counterparts to go into school teaching. A recent report by Professor Paul Wakeling, which was commissioned by the Campaign for Mathematical Sciences, analysed outcomes of mathematical degrees in the UK across the period 2017-18 to 2020-21.

    Over that period, it found that 17.4% of graduates from post-92 institutions went into the secondary teaching, compared with around 5.6% from Russell group universities.

    The accessibility of a degree will affect who enrols.
    VesnaArt/Shutterstock

    The closure of mathematics departments causes the phenomenon of “maths deserts”: large swaths of the country where access to mathematics degree study is limited. This particularly affects students from poorer backgrounds, who are more likely to be living at home during their degree and will attend their local university.

    This also affects the provision of school maths teachers. Graduates in mathematics from more disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to go into school teaching than graduates from more wealthy backgrounds.

    The decline in the availability of maths degrees at lower-tariff institutions is likely to be reducing the number of potential maths teachers – as well as severely reducing the diversity of people going into maths.

    The chronic shortage of specialist maths teachers is set to worsen. Universities around the country are under severe financial pressure, which is likely to lead to further cutting of courses and staff.

    This will only exacerbate the problem of teacher shortages – which is turn will lead to declining mathematical literacy in the community, as well as a lack of diversity in mathematics.

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

    – ref. England’s maths teacher recruitment problem is set to worsen – https://theconversation.com/englands-maths-teacher-recruitment-problem-is-set-to-worsen-246351

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s plan to eliminate FEMA is a very bad idea

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jack L. Rozdilsky, Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada

    A symbolic visit by an American president to a disaster site can be constructive. Former President Joe Biden’s presence at areas in the United States affected by various disasters allowed him to both show leadership and offer comfort in moments of national tragedy.

    In contrast, a bombastic President Donald Trump used his first domestic trip on Jan. 24 to tour disaster sites in North Carolina and Los Angeles while promoting his litany of grievances and rambling about his dislike of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

    It takes a perverse set of skills for a president to act in a way that squanders the opportunity to genuinely exhibit compassion for disaster victims while also lowering the morale of emergency workers at the same time.

    Trump’s announcement to overhaul or eliminate FEMA — especially in the midst of an ongoing disaster — is unreasonable and foolish.

    Trump’s criticisms

    In a Fox News interview on Jan. 22, Trump suggested that FEMA would be facing a reckoning.

    The president echoed Republican criticisms of the Hurricane Helene disaster response last September. During Hurricane Helene, Trump has used his bully pulpit to endorse or invent false or unsubstantiated claims. The federal government was also falsely accused of a lack of response following Helene.

    While touring hurricane damage in North Carolina on Jan. 24, Trump remarked:

    “Well, I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA. I think, frankly, FEMA is not good.”

    Trump indicated he would like to see state governments respond to disasters.

    The White House later clarified that an upcoming executive order would direct a council of FEMA advisers to examine the agency and come up with proposals for reform.

    Turning back the clock

    If Trump gets rid of FEMA, he’ll be turning back the clock 50 years. It is illogical to call for a return to a time with a weak and disorganized system of disaster management.

    In the 1970s, states were responsible for managing their own disasters. More than 100 different federal agencies could become involved in relief efforts. The system was reactionary and responded on a need basis, with no clear pathways for federal disaster assistance to states.

    State governors became increasingly concerned about the lack of a comprehensive national emergency policy. The dispersion of federal disaster management responsibilities among numerous federal agencies was viewed as impeding states’ own ability to manage disaster situations.

    In advocating for better disaster management, a National Association of Governors’ report entitled 1978 Emergency Preparedness Project made the case for a centralized emergency management system in the U.S.

    President Jimmy Carter acted on the recommendations of the governors with Executive Order 12127 to create FEMA in 1979. It was a cabinet-level agency until 2003, when it was merged into the Department of Homeland Security.



    Read more:
    Jimmy Carter’s death invites us to consider his legacy of nuclear emergency response and disaster management

    Duties enshrined in law

    When a large-scale disaster stretches the ability of an American city to help its citizens, a formal process exists to request aid. As a local disaster expands in size and scope, requests for more assistance can go up to higher levels of administration, from the state governor and ultimately to the president. In this process, FEMA reports to local governments.

    A presidential disaster declaration can open up access to an array of federal programs managed by FEMA to assist with response and recovery.

    FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.
    (J. Rozdilsky), CC BY

    The role of FEMA in supporting the declaration process are defined in provisions in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. The Stafford Act also provides for the statutory authority guiding FEMA programs like individual assistance.

    While Trump sits at the top of the executive branch, he can engage in a variety of political shenanigans to undermine FEMA, but he cannot unilaterally abolish the agency. As the agency’s duties are enshrined in law, only an act of the legislative branch can terminate FEMA.

    A turbulent history

    FEMA has existed for 46 years and faced turbulent times due to the poor decision-making by past Republican presidents. In 1980, Reagan appointed agency directors with conservative philosophies who emphasized downsizing. Under George W. Bush’s presidency, among the flurry of reactions to Sept. 11, 2001, FEMA was eviscerated and relegated from a top-level cabinet level agency to a position buried deep in the Homeland Security organizational chart.

    Trump’s aggressive posture in trying to remake government involves creating diversions, sowing chaos and overloading people with lies. Taking a cue from his former White House strategist Steve Bannon on how to deal with the media, Trump’s statements about FEMA have worked to “flood the zone with shit.”

    As with many functions of American government, emergency management is just the latest target of disorientation tactics intended to paralyze government operations.

    Jack L. Rozdilsky receives support for research communication and public scholarship from York University. He also has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    – ref. Trump’s plan to eliminate FEMA is a very bad idea – https://theconversation.com/trumps-plan-to-eliminate-fema-is-a-very-bad-idea-248293

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Indonesia’s BRICS agenda: 2 reasons Prabowo’s foreign policy contrasts with Jokowi’s

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Aswin Ariyanto Azis, Head of department of Politics, Government, and International Relations of Universitas Brawijaya, Universitas Brawijaya

    Ilustrasi-ilustrasi bendera negara anggota BRICS dan mitra. justit/Shutterstock

    Indonesia’s decision to pursue membership in BRICS – an emerging economy bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – signals that President Prabowo Subianto is steering foreign policy in a direction contrasting with his predecessors.

    During Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s two-term administration, then-former Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi led efforts to integrate Indonesia’s economy with Western institutions by working to secure membership with the OECD.

    Since BRICS is an alternative to Western-dominated organisations, many observers scrutinised and questioned Indonesia’s nonalignment commitment. However, Foreign Minister Sugiono argued that BRICS aligns with Indonesia’s ‘free and active’ foreign policy, allowing Indonesia to collaborate widely without aligning too closely with any single bloc.

    For Sugiono, joining BRICS means paving the way to advance the new government’s goals of food security, energy independence, poverty alleviation, and human capital development. The bloc offers access to funding, technology, and trade opportunities to tackle key challenges in those sectors. BRICS, with its emphasis on fairness and cooperation, supports Indonesia’s vision for a more inclusive and sustainable future.

    The shift from Retno’s OECD focus to Sugiono’s BRICS approach reflects at least two visions. First, Indonesia seeks to reassess its strategic position as the leading economy in Southeast Asia. Second, the country seeks to switch from its nonalignment stance to multi-alignment. The later will help navigate partnerships with both developed and emerging economies, balancing traditional alliances with new opportunities.

    Joining BRICS can amplify Indonesia’s influence in its already strong ties with each of the member countries and unlock opportunities beyond one-on-one partnerships.

    Fear of missing out

    Indonesia’s pivot to BRICS reflects both its relationship with major powers, such as China and the US, and regional pressures.

    Neighbouring countries Malaysia and Thailand have recently expressed interest in BRICS, creating a sense of competition within Southeast Asia. Both countries joining the bloc could erode Indonesia’s leadership and influence in the region, especially in affecting global affairs.

    Through ASEAN, Indonesia has sought to act as a regional stabiliser and mediator amid rising polarisation between the West and China.

    As its de facto leader, Indonesia has historically championed initiatives like the South China Sea Code of Conduct and Myanmar’s peace process. Its G20 presidency further underscored its role as a mediator between global powers.

    This ‘fear of missing out’ has spurred Indonesia’s interest in BRICS.

    Joining BRICS ahead of its regional peers ensures that Indonesia maintains its leadership position in ASEAN. For Prabowo’s administration, BRICS offers a platform to advance Indonesia’s interests in maritime security, economic growth, and global governance. It is a strategic move beyond an economic decision to amplify its voice on global issues and prevent fellow Southeast Asian countries from overtaking it in shaping the bloc’s agenda.

    Bold (but not one) direction

    Indonesia’s BRICS membership announcement highlights the new administration’s foreign policy ambitions, centred on two key shifts: adopting a multi-alignment strategy and strengthening its ‘good neighbour’ policy.

    Prabowo envisions engaging with all nations, fostering friendly relations while opposing oppression. This approach resonates with Indonesia’s historical commitment to sovereignty and equality in international relations.

    Indonesia has traditionally adhered to a nonalignment principle. This virtue has aided the country navigating major power blocs without binding itself to any single alliance. However, the current geopolitical climate – marked by intensifying tensions between global powers, regional conflicts, and intricate challenges – demands a more flexible and strategic approach.

    By joining BRICS, Indonesia avoids taking sides and instead diversifies its partnerships to maximise benefits. This multi-aligned approach enables active participation in BRICS discussions on multilateral reform.

    Prabowo’s ‘good neighbour policy’ further underscores the importance of maintaining positive relations with all countries. It empowers developing nations and advocates for a more equitable global order and economic system. This strategy also facilitates Indonesia’s resilience by fostering partnerships in food and energy security, poverty alleviation, and human capital development.

    Such collaborations reduce reliance on Western financial systems and enhance Indonesia’s autonomy. Ultimately, these strategic directions position Indonesia as a sovereign and dynamic player capable of balancing global relationships while advancing its own priorities.

    What about the OECD?

    This move does not mean the OECD is off the table for Indonesia. Instead, Prabowo’s approach reflects a dual-track strategy that values both alliances for their respective benefits.

    The OECD remains a long-term objective to enhance Indonesia’s economic governance and regulatory standards. It serves the goal of providing the country with stable relationships within the Western economic framework. Meanwhile, BRICS offers an immediate avenue for Indonesia to deepen ties with equivalent economies and actively shape policies that impact the Global South.

    Sugiono’s statement in Kazan emphasised Indonesia’s commitment to engaging in other forums, including the G20 and OECD discussions. It highlighted the country’s flexibility in international alliances.

    This dual-track strategy reinforces Indonesia’s role as a bridge between developed and developing nations, maximising the benefits of both alliances without sacrificing its autonomy.

    What’s next for Indonesia?

    Indonesia’s decision to join BRICS marks a significant evolution in its foreign policy. By participating in BRICS, Indonesia positions itself as a critical player in global discussions on economic reform and development, asserting its voice within a multi-polar world order.

    Indonesia is charting a path that balances traditional alliances with emerging opportunities, reinforcing its role as a dynamic, independent player on the world stage.

    Aswin Ariyanto Azis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

    – ref. Indonesia’s BRICS agenda: 2 reasons Prabowo’s foreign policy contrasts with Jokowi’s – https://theconversation.com/indonesias-brics-agenda-2-reasons-prabowos-foreign-policy-contrasts-with-jokowis-242920

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Women having surgery to treat pelvic organ prolapse don’t always need a hysterectomy

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Erin A. Brennand, Gynecologist & Associate Professor, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

    For decades, the standard surgical approach for treating pelvic organ prolapse has generally included a hysterectomy, or removal of the uterus. (Shutterstock)

    Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to half of all women during their lifetime, and one in eight will have surgery to treat it by the age of 85. Yet, despite how common POP is, the public’s awareness and understanding of this condition remains limited.

    Most people are unfamiliar with POP until they are personally affected, and even then, are often unaware of the different surgical options available to manage it. Our team of medical professionals and health researchers aims to change this.

    POP occurs when pelvic organs, like the uterus, vagina, bladder or bowel, shift downward and sag into, or even through, the vaginal canal. This condition can lead to a range of physical symptoms, with pelvic pressure, urinary incontinence and a vaginal bulge being some of the most common complaints.

    POP can be physically uncomfortable and disruptive to a woman’s quality of life, and the emotional and social impact can be profound. Many affected women report lowered self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and heightened anxiety or depression due to the persistent, painful and often stigmatized nature of the condition.

    Hysterectomy is the default

    For decades, the standard surgical approach for treating POP has generally included a hysterectomy, or removal of the uterus. In many cases, the uterus itself is not part of the prolapse, but removing it allows surgeons to access pelvic ligaments and tissues for securing the vaginal walls. Almost one in three Canadian women aged 60 and older have had their uterus removed to treat a number of gynecologic conditions, including POP.

    POP can be physically uncomfortable and disruptive to a woman’s quality of life, and the emotional and social impact can be profound.
    (Shutterstock)

    This surgery is deeply embedded in medical practice with the long-standing belief that removing the uterus is necessary to achieve durable repair of POP, and that the surgery has minimal impact on women’s overall health.

    Newer evidence, including recent systematic reviews, questions whether hysterectomy is the only effective approach for treating POP in women. Studies have shown that uterine-preserving procedures carry lower surgical risks compared to hysterectomy surgeries, while providing similar effectiveness in reducing prolapse symptoms.

    Adding to this body of evidence, our team of urogynecologists and health researchers developed the Hysterectomy vs. Uterine Preserving Prolapse Surgery (HUPPS) study to generate real-world evidence about outcomes after POP surgery.

    Over three years, we enrolled 321 women with POP affecting the top of their vagina who lived in Calgary and surrounding areas of Alberta. Importantly, each woman was free to consider minimally invasive hysterectomy or uterine-preserving POP surgery, based on their own values, preferences and consideration of the evidence. Almost half (47 per cent) chose the uterine-preserving route, which demonstrated substantial interest among Canadian women to keep their uterus when given the option.

    However, in many hospitals in Canada, hysterectomy remains the primary approach for surgical treatment of POP, partly due to historical and educational clinical practices.

    Surgical outcomes

    At one year post-surgery, we found that 17.2 per cent of women who received a hysterectomy surgery experienced recurrence of POP, compared to only 7.5 per cent of women who received a uterine-preserving (UP) surgery. We then statistically accounted for patient differences such as age, body weight and the initial severity of their POP, and found that women who had uterine-preserving surgery indeed experienced approximately half the risk of POP recurrence than the women who had a hysterectomy.

    Our data also showed other benefits of uterine-preserving surgery, including shorter operating time, shorter hospital stay, less post-operative opioid pain relief and fewer complications overall.

    Why preserve the uterus?

    Some women want to avoid hysterectomy due to personal or cultural beliefs about removing their uterus, while others are concerned about the potential long-term effects on their health.
    (Shutterstock)

    Emerging research suggests there can be long-term effects of hysterectomy. For example, hysterectomy may be associated with elevated risk of chronic health issues such as cardiovascular disease and neurological disorders. These risks are higher for people who undergo hysterectomy at younger ages.

    However, there can be instances where patients may want to consider hysterectomy as part of their POP repair. These include a history of repeated abnormal pap smears signalling a higher risk of developing cervical cancer in the future, or in cases where it is strongly recommended to them by a surgeon, such as when precancerous cells have been determined by a biopsy of the uterus.

    For people without these conditions, there is no medical need to remove the uterus.

    However, the historical hysterectomy-based approach to POP assumes that all women want the same approach to their POP treatment. However, during the past five years, our team has noticed growing inquiries from patients around keeping their uterus, and questions about the risks and benefits of a hysterectomy.

    Some women want to avoid hysterectomy due to personal or cultural beliefs about removing their uterus, while others are concerned about the potential long-term effects on their health. The International Urogynecological Association has a helpful pamphlet with more information on this topic.

    The importance of patient-centred care

    Our research findings, combined with growing evidence on surgical treatment of POP, encourage an essential shift in the field of gynecological surgery towards an approach that offers all women a greater sense of autonomy.

    The HUPPS study demonstrates that when people are presented with evidence-based information on the risks and benefits, they can choose the option that aligns with their personal values and long-term health goals and still achieve a good surgical outcome.

    For women in Canada who are affected by POP, this means ensuring that two options are offered and accessible to them: both hysterectomy and uterine-preserving surgeries. If we can achieve a permanent shift in the medical landscape towards more informed, personalized and patient-centred care, it will change women’s lives for the better.

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

    – ref. Women having surgery to treat pelvic organ prolapse don’t always need a hysterectomy – https://theconversation.com/women-having-surgery-to-treat-pelvic-organ-prolapse-dont-always-need-a-hysterectomy-241755

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The year ahead in the Middle East: A weakened Iran has big implications for China

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Lincoln, Policy Research Analyst, Geopolitics, The China Institute, University of Alberta

    Iran’s diminished status in the Middle East means China will likely be compelled to develop stronger ties with other nations in the region, including Saudi Arabia. (Shutterstock)

    The wheels of history have been turning rapidly in the Middle East over the last year.

    For a significant period of time, Iran’s status as a rising power within the region has been regarded as a consistent reality in assessing Middle Eastern geopolitics. But events since the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel have seen Iran’s position in the region erode substantially. The balance of power in the Middle East has consequently been irreversibly altered.

    A key pillar supporting Iran’s previously powerful status in the Middle East has been its cultivation of the “Axis of Resistance,” a group of Iranian allies across the region that acted together against Israeli and American interests.

    The members of the axis, in addition to Iran itself, include Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militias, the Houthis and Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.



    Read more:
    Assad’s fall in Syria will further weaken Hezbollah and curtails Tehran’s ‘Iranization’ of region

    Axis decimation

    Israel’s relentless war in retaliation for the Oct. 7 attack has seen several of the most important members of the axis severely diminished, if not entirely decimated.

    Both Hezbollah and Hamas have been humiliated through the destruction of their respective leaderships, and their operational capacities have been reduced significantly.

    The largest blow to Iran’s proxy network was arguably the recent ousting of Syria’s Assad, ending a decades-long regime that was regarded by top Iranian strategists as Iran’s most important regional ally.

    The adverse consequences of these developments for Iran’s grand strategy raises questions of how a significantly weakened Iran will affect the world at large, especially in terms of its impact on great power politics in the Middle East.

    This undoubtedly represents a welcome development in the United States given the long-standing animosity towards post-1979 Iran among the American foreign policy establishment. But China is likely to have a more nuanced outlook predicated upon its commitment to pragmatic foreign policy maneuvering in accomplishing its top global objectives.

    China’s engagement with Iran

    As China has grown richer and more powerful in recent decades, it’s turned its attention to increasing its diplomatic clout and economic presence throughout the world. Every region of the planet has been affected by this development, but the Middle East achieved a spot of particular importance for China.

    The Chinese government’s motivation to deeply engage in the Middle East has been — and continues to be — driven by several key considerations: the Middle East’s status as a powerhouse of oil production, its strategic geographic location bridging east and west, and its status as a long-standing pillar of American foreign policy.

    China has fostered bilateral partnerships across the entire Middle East, but one of its longest regional relationships has been with Iran. In Iran, Chinese authorities saw a country that provided it with an opportunity to help it achieve China’s main objectives in the region.

    Post-1979, Iran was inherently anti-American, which meant that China was more likely to be warmly received by Tehran, especially when compared to other regional powers like Saudi Arabia that had relatively warm relations with the U.S.

    Perhaps most importantly, Iran could be depended on — to an extent — to stymie American interests in the Middle East given its status as a rising regional power.

    This is not to say that Iran became a Chinese client state, but rather that China could provide diplomatic and economic support to Iran as the Iranians used their power to act disruptively in a region of great strategic importance to the U.S.

    China’s future moves

    Given the motivations underlying deep Chinese-Iranian ties historically, it’s clear that the evaporation of Iran’s clout will likely greatly alter the character of their relationship moving forward.

    In a nutshell, a significant portion of Iran’s appeal to Chinese policymakers has disappeared with the near annihilation of its regional network. This will likely encourage China to seek deeper ties with other Middle Eastern heavyweights, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in accomplishing its goals in the Middle East — chief among them, increasing its regional influence at the expense of the U.S.

    But it’s also unlikely China will entirely abandon Iran. While it may focus its most concerted efforts on developing deeper ties with other Middle Eastern countries instead of Iran, China would likely be hesitant to see Iran become even further isolated and therefore more predisposed to behaving aggressively.

    China was one of the main behind-the-scenes mediators of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal because it wanted regional tensions to dissipate via Iran’s abandonment of its nuclear program.

    Now that Iran is weakened, it has essentially been boxed into a corner, and has two main options moving forward: either it achieves a rapprochement with the West, or it reinvigorates its nuclear program and acts more aggressively.

    While Iran’s ultra-conservative factions that control the levers of power in the country may be tempted to take a more aggressive path, it is very possible China will attempt to use its substantial economic leverage over Iran to encourage them to pursue the rapprochement option.

    That’s because the Chinese need the Middle East as a source of petroleum to fuel their economy, and because China doesn’t want to be viewed by the West as an implicit accomplice to a bellicose and destabilizing Iran.

    China a moderating influence?

    On the contrary, China is currently attempting to repair relations with many western countries given the importance of the West’s markets to China’s ailing economy.

    In fact, China may wish to play a role in inducing Iran to strike a deal with the West in the near future, given that it would show the incoming Donald Trump administration — which is notoriously hawkish on China — that it can be trusted and worked with constructively.

    At the end of the day, China will seek the path that minimizes the likelihood of full-blown conflict in the Middle East given the importance of the region to the Chinese economy. The country has a strategic opportunity to signal trustworthiness and dependability to the West by working to prevent Iran from choosing a more aggressive path.

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

    – ref. The year ahead in the Middle East: A weakened Iran has big implications for China – https://theconversation.com/the-year-ahead-in-the-middle-east-a-weakened-iran-has-big-implications-for-china-245649

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Businesses must stop caving to political pressure and abandoning their EDI commitments

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Simon Blanchette, Lecturer, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University

    EDI is good for business and good business: it is both the ethical choice and the smart business decision.
     (Shutterstock)

    Over the past year, several major corporations have scaled back their equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives amid shifting political pressures. Walmart is one of the latest major corporations to reduce its EDI programs following conservative backlash and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s re-election.

    Ford Motor Company, Lowe’s and Nissan have all announced plans to change their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. In the entertainment sector, Hollywood’s commitment to EDI has waned, with several studios and networks reducing or eliminating diversity programs.

    This growing trend reflects a broader corporate retreat from EDI commitments, as businesses navigate the complexities of the current political landscape. So far, many have chosen to respond by negating their commitment to inclusion and diversity.

    Given the close economic and cultural ties between the United States and Canada, this troubling shift could spill over into Canada. It would undermine years of progress towards achieving genuine workplace equity. Ultimately, no one will benefit in the long run — not even the people opposed to it — as they will miss out on the benefits of a more inclusive and diverse workforce.

    Walmart: From EDI commitment to rollback

    As the largest private employer in the world with over two million employees, Walmart has long been at the centre of debates about labour practices, workplace diversity and corporate responsibility.

    For years, the company championed EDI principles. In 2019, Walmart made a public commitment to boost diversity, pledging to increase the percentage of women and racialized people in managerial roles.

    Walmart also introduced initiatives to support underrepresented groups in the workforce, including diversity and inclusion training, the Women’s Resource Community, the OneTen Coalition program and partnerships to recruit people with disabilities.



    Read more:
    Employers miss out on talent by overlooking workers living with disabilities

    Walmart also tracked workforce representation by gender and ethnicity. Its 2023 report revealed that 20 per cent of promotions from hourly to management position were Black and racialized women. Over 86,000 employees completed race and inclusion training, and nearly 800 participated in Walmart’s Culture, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Institute.

    However, amid a political climate marked by renewed attacks on corporate diversity initiatives and so-called “wokeness,” Walmart started rolling back its EDI policies and diversity training programs.

    For instance, the company has decided not to extend its racial equity centre, a five-year initiative that was launched in 2020. Additionally, it will discontinue the use of terms such as “LatinX” and “DEI” in official communications, opting instead to use the word “belonging.” But who truly belongs if, at the same time, they are cancelling EDI initiatives?

    Understand what EDI means

    This rollback of EDI initiatives reflects a growing trend within big business to selectively adopt social justice agendas when they are advantageous, then scale them back when the political climate changes. This “diversitywashing” mirrors greenwashing where companies claim to support social or environmental causes but retreat when faced with political or public pressure.

    At its core, EDI is about ensuring that all employees, customers and stakeholders have equitable access to work opportunities, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or socio-economic background.

    EDI policies and practices are essential for supporting equity-deserving groups — such as women, Black and racialized people, Indigenous Peoples, people with disabilities and 2SLGBTQ+ communities — who have historically faced systemic barriers to opportunity.

    Arguing for a meritocracy without first establishing equity is like trying to lift a sloped playing field instead of leveling it, while ignoring that one side is a mountain and the other is a canyon. It leaves existing barriers and inequities intact on the road to merit, telling people that hard work alone will lead to rewards, while ignoring that they need to work that much harder to achieve the same.

    The idea that we must create an even playing field first should not be controversial, and yet it is.

    The fear that EDI programs compromise competency is both common and unfounded; embracing diversity is about dismantling barriers that have unfairly limited opportunities for talented individuals, not lowering standards.

    EDI is about ensuring that all employees, customers and stakeholders have equitable access to work opportunities.
    (Shutterstock)

    Why corporations must commit to EDI

    EDI initiatives should never be reduced to political tools or marketing gimmicks. The true purpose of these policies is to foster an environment where people of all backgrounds can thrive.

    Organizations greatly benefit from the creativity, problem-solving and innovation that come with diversity.

    When corporations roll back these initiatives in response to political pressures, it signals to the world their commitment to EDI was merely a strategic move to improve their brand image during a period when social justice was a trending topic.

    This can damage a corporation’s reputation in the eyes of both employees and consumers, particularly those from equity-deserving groups who expect representation, as well as those who value diversity and inclusivity.



    Read more:
    How equity, diversity and inclusion policies are becoming a tool for capitalism

    It is essential for large corporations to recognize that adopting EDI policies is not just a moral imperative, but also a sound business strategy. The data is clear: diverse companies perform better, including from a profitability standpoint.

    Diversity related advantages create a competitive edge that drives growth. A McKinsey report revealed that companies with more diverse executive teams were 36 per cent more likely to have above-average profitability. Giving that up is simply bad business.

    As both a scholar and a practising strategy and organizational change consultant, I have never encountered a well-designed and effectively implemented EDI program that did not yield positive results for the organization.

    EDI is good for business and good business: it is both the ethical choice and the smart business decision.

    Walking the talk

    The way forward is clear: corporations, especially large ones, must make a genuine commitment to EDI — not just because it is the morally right thing to do, but because it is the key to long-term business success. Diversity fosters innovation, and innovation drives profitability.

    However, for employees of diverse backgrounds to truly thrive in their workplaces, organizations must go beyond surface-level representation and tokenism. They must build inclusive workplaces where diversity is genuinely respected, supported and embraced unconditionally and independent of political trends.

    By doing so, companies will not only contribute to a more equitable society, but also position themselves for success in an increasingly diverse global marketplace. Achieving this requires leaders who are courageous and prioritize long-term strategic goals over short-term political gains.

    Leading through fear is not leadership; it reflects a failure in strategic foresight. Talent is the defining competitive advantage of this century, and business leaders cannot afford to waste it.

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

    – ref. Businesses must stop caving to political pressure and abandoning their EDI commitments – https://theconversation.com/businesses-must-stop-caving-to-political-pressure-and-abandoning-their-edi-commitments-245450

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Australia is banning social media for teens. Should Canada do the same?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christopher Dietzel, Postdoctoral fellow, the DIGS Lab, Concordia University

    Australia is the first country to implement a nationwide ban of social media for teens, but other measures have been enacted or are being considered here in Canada. (Shutterstock)

    The Australian government recently passed legislation that bans social media for anyone under 16. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hailed the legislation for putting “the onus on social media platforms — not young people or their parents” — for protecting youth from online harms.

    Australia is the first country in the world to pass a nationwide ban of social media for teens, set to take effect in a year. But other measures have been enacted or considered here in Canada and elsewhere.

    In the United States, it will be illegal for children under 14 in Florida to have social media accounts starting Jan. 1, 2025.

    Beginning in 2024, Québec began banning cellphones in classrooms. This fall, with the start of the 2024–2025 academic year, Ontario also began banning cell phones in schools. This follows a lawsuit filed by four school boards in Ontario against social media companies for disrupting youth learning.

    Québec is reportedly considering a social media ban — following Australia’s lead — that would limit social media use for teens under 16. Provincial governments recognize that social media and cellphones can be problematic for youth, and they’re not waiting on the federal government to take action.

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently announced that the proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), originally introduced in February 2024, will be separated into two bills. The idea is to pass the part of the bill focused on child protection to address problems like sextortion, image-based sexual abuse, revenge porn and other forms of online sexual violence.

    Since the Online Harms Act is still being debated, MPs in Canada may look to other countries, like Australia, for guidance on protecting youth from these online harms.

    A CBC news report on Australia’s social media ban and the potential for a similar ban in Canada.

    Youth and online harms

    Some people in Canada approve of Australia’s social media ban and see it as a potential solution, including some teens. This idea has received a lot of traction in public discourse too, including with the book The Anxious Generation that argues social media should be banned until age 16.

    Many of us may recall the stories of Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and more recently a boy in British Columbia who died by suicide after being cyberbullied and sextorted.

    Some studies have shown that social media use is related to anxiety and depression among adolescents. Bans or regulations raise important questions about how we, as a society, should respond to social media use among youth and deal with online harms.

    Challenges with bans

    We are a team of researchers who study technology-facilitated sexual violence among youth aged 13–18 in Canada. We have conducted 26 focus groups with 149 youth from across the country, and launched a nationally representative survey of around 1,000 youth to learn about their experiences with online harms, what they know about the law and which resources work — and which ones don’t.

    Our initial findings show that youth experience a range of harms as they use digital platforms and social media. We also found that algorithms are fueling harms. Youth have emphasized they want tailored supports and resources to help them have safe, healthy and enjoyable experiences with technology.

    A full ban of social media is not realistic, in part because social media companies have no idea how to implement it. Some ideas are to use facial recognition technology or check someone’s age using credit cards. Another idea is to upload government IDs to third-party platforms for age verification.

    However a ban is implemented, it will almost certainly gather more user data, which raises questions about youth data privacy and security. These measures may also drive youth towards other platforms that are less regulated, such as on the dark web. This could actually make it harder to protect youth from online harms.

    Bans also don’t actually solve the problem. For example, abstinence-based interventions don’t work when it comes to sex education. It is unlikely that an abstinence-based approach would work with social media.

    Technology is increasingly integrated into our daily lives, and youth need to learn how to have healthy and responsible online interactions.
    (Shutterstock)

    Furthermore, technology is increasingly integrated into our daily lives, and youth need to be taught about healthy and responsible online interactions.

    Youth are learning how to become digital citizens. Kicking the problem down the road until they’re 16 or older will postpone the consequences, not solve them. This could cause more harm than a ban intends to solve.

    A ban also frees social media companies, governments and parents from any accountability. Rather than meaningfully addressing the harmful content and their impacts, a ban removes any and all responsibility from the people and institutions whose job it is to protect youth.

    Holistic interventions

    Technology companies need to develop their products with kids in mind, rather than prioritizing their profits and putting child safety and health second. Kids need guidance and support, and a ban does nothing to remove harmful content or resolve its negative impacts.

    Rather than bans, we suggest implementing holistic interventions that emphasize digital citizenship and youth rights and responsibilities so people of all ages learn how to have safe and healthy interactions with technology. This requires a consolidated effort across various sectors of society, including schools, community organizations and, importantly, both tech companies and government agencies.

    While there are resources available for educators, parents and youth about how to have safe and healthy online interactions, we need to act now.

    Rather than resorting to blanket bans, we should prioritize comprehensive societal changes that address the root causes of these harms. By doing so, we can promote youth safety and help our communities confront online harms.

    Christopher Dietzel receives funding from Le Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC).

    Kaitlynn Mendes receives funding from SSHRC and the Canada Research Chairs Program.

    – ref. Australia is banning social media for teens. Should Canada do the same? – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-banning-social-media-for-teens-should-canada-do-the-same-245932

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Interactive: What Earth’s 4.54 billion-year history would look like in a single year

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francisco Jose Testa, Lecturer in Earth Sciences (Mineralogy, Petrology & Geochemistry), University of Tasmania

    The Conversation

    As a kid, it was tough for me to grasp the massive time scale of Earth’s history. Now, with nearly two decades of experience as a geologist, I think one of the best ways to understand our planet’s history and evolution is by condensing the entire timeline into a single calendar year.

    It’s not a new concept, but it’s a powerful one.

    So, how do we go about this? If we consider Earth’s age as 4.54 billion years and divide it by 365 days, each day of the Gregorian calendar represents about 12.438 million years.

    Let’s say we want to calculate what “day” the Paleozoic started in our new Earth calendar. We just need to subtract 541 million years from the age of the planet and divide it by 12.438 million years. Simple, right?

    As I ran these equations, I noticed something amusing. Some of the most significant events in Earth’s history coincide with major holidays in the Western world. By this reckoning, the dinosaurs went extinct on Christmas Day.

    The Earth calendar

    View the events in the infographic above, or scroll down to read about the entire year in order.

    January 1

    4.54 billion years ago: Formation of proto-Earth as part of the Solar System

    Dust and gas in the early Solar System collide and combine under gravity. This process eventually leads to the formation of a molten planet, our proto-Earth.

    January 3

    4.5 billion years ago: Theia’s impact and the formation of the Moon

    A Mars-sized planet, Theia, collides with the proto-Earth, changing the composition of our planet forever. This massive impact ejects a significant amount of material into orbit around Earth, which eventually coalesces to form the Moon.

    February 4

    4.1 billion years ago: Beginning of the Late Heavy Bombardment

    Earth, the Moon and other inner bodies of our Solar System experience intense asteroid and comet impacts, which shape their surfaces. Unlike Earth, the Moon still retains these craters today because it lacks an atmosphere, water and tectonic activity. The bombardment continues until the very end of February – 3.8 billion years ago.

    February 14

    3.97 billion years ago: Beginning of the Archean Eon

    By Valentine’s Day, the hottest period in Earth’s history – the Hadean Eon – has finally come to an end. With these hostile conditions in the past, the stage is lovingly set for life to emerge as the Archean Eon begins.

    March 16

    3.6 billion years ago: Formation of the first supercontinent, maybe

    For a couple of weeks now, Earth has been cool enough to form stable continental crusts. Vaalbara is a theorised supercontinent consisting of two cratons (ancient, stable and thick blocks that form the cores of continents): Kaapvaal in eastern South Africa, and Pilbara in north-western Western Australia. While still under debate, this would make Vaalbara 3.6 to 2.7 billion years old, one of the oldest supercontinents we know of.

    March 26

    3.48 billion years ago: Earliest direct evidence of life

    Right before the end of the first quarter of the year, simple prokaryotic organisms appear during the Paleoarchean. These are the earliest direct evidence of life recorded as microfossils (stromatolites).

    May 27

    2.7 billion years ago: Cyanobacteria become the first oxygen producers

    Blue-green algae called cyanobacteria develop oxygenic photosynthesis. They use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into organic compounds, releasing oxygen as a byproduct. It’s a milestone for the development of our current atmosphere.

    June 16

    2.46 billion years ago: The Great Oxygenation Event

    A dramatic rise in oxygen levels occurs in shallow seas and in Earth’s atmosphere, driven by oxygenic photosynthesis from cyanobacteria. This event lasts approximately 400 million years, transforming Earth’s environment and paving the way for more complex life forms to thrive on a radically changed planet.

    September 17

    1.3 billion years ago: Formation of the supercontinent Rodinia

    One of the first supercontinents to form on Earth, Rodinia brings together most of the planet’s landmasses. During its 550 million years of existence, Earth is predominantly inhabited by simple life forms, including prokaryotes and early eukaryotes.

    October 31

    750 million years ago: Breakdown of Rodinia and Snowball Earth events

    By Halloween, Rodinia begins to crack apart just like candies in a kid’s trick-or-treat bag. The breakup of Rodinia dramatically influences the planet’s climate and ocean circulation, potentially triggering Snowball Earth events. These two major global glaciations, lasting approximately 70 million years, play a significant role in shaping Earth’s history.

    November 9

    635 million years ago: The Ediacaran Period begins

    Right before the start of the Paleozoic, the first large, complex, multi-cellular marine life forms appear. The Ediacaran biota includes diverse, soft-bodied organisms – early animals, algae and other complex life. Today, curious visitors to the Flinders Ranges in South Australia might be lucky enough to spot some Ediacaran fossils.

    November 17

    538.8 million years ago: The Cambrian Explosion

    The Cambrian Explosion lasts no more than two days (25 million years). During this time, sudden development of complex life occurs in the oceans. Almost all present-day animal phyla appear, and other groups diversify in major ways. Undoubtedly, this is a critical period for life on our planet.

    November 23

    470 million years ago: Plants first colonise Gondwanaland during the Ordovician Period

    Early land plants are simple, non-vascular organisms that colonise moist environments – much like moss today. Over time, plants evolve more complex structures, including vascular tissue specialised for transporting water, nutrients and food, allowing them to thrive in a wider range of terrestrial habitats.

    December 1

    370 million years ago: First vertebrates move onto land

    On the very first day of December, four-limbed animals called tetrapods are the first animals with backbones (vertebrates) to transition to a life on land during the Late Devonian period. These are the ancestors of all land-dwelling vertebrates, living and extinct.

    December 10

    252 million years ago: Permian-Triassic mass extinction

    Life is almost entirely obliterated after a series of massive Siberian volcanic eruptions trigger global warming and a lack of oxygen in the oceans. The Great Dying is the largest extinction in Earth’s history, wiping out more than 90% of marine species and about 70% of terrestrial species.

    December 12

    230 million years ago: The rise of dinosaurs

    The very first dinosaurs are small, bipedal reptiles that eventually evolve into the diverse group of animals that dominate Earth during the Mesozoic Era. Dinosaurs reign over our planet for 13 days, meaning their kingdom endures for an epic 165 million years.

    December 25

    66 million years ago: Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction

    Christmas Day is not a joyful day for dinosaurs: they go extinct. The current leading hypothesis for their demise is an asteroid impact in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. A massive space lump of coal from Santa, if you will.

    December 26

    56 million years ago: The rise of mammals

    Boxing Day is a good day for mammals. During the Palaeocene, right after the extinction event, mammals begin to grow in size and diversity. By noon, when the Eocene starts 56 million years ago, they have evolved into the first large herbivores and carnivores.

    December 31: midday

    ~7 to 6 million years ago: The planet of the apes

    The very first hominids, either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin, appear by noon on December 31. These species represent some of the earliest common ancestors of humans and other great apes, such as gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees.

    December 31: 11:25pm

    300,000 years ago: Modern humans finally arrive

    The very first Homo sapiens emerge in Africa, marking the beginning of anatomically modern humans.

    The final ten minutes

    We’re almost at midnight, and nearly all of humanity’s history can be condensed into the last ten minutes of the year.

    11:50pm

    ~86,377 years ago: Homo sapiens migrate out of Africa into Eurasia. Thus begins a significant global colonisation by early modern humans.

    11:51pm

    ~77,740 years ago: The first symbolic art. Engraved ochre in South Africa’s Blombos Cave is considered one of the earliest symbolic artworks created by humans, indicating the development of cognitive and cultural sophistication.

    11:52pm

    ~69,102 years ago: The Last Glacial Period. An ongoing global cooling event intensifies, forcing humans to adapt to harsher climates.

    11:53pm

    ~60,464 years ago: Humans reach Australia. This marks the earliest known migration across sea, and settlement on a new isolated continent.

    11:54pm

    ~51,826 years ago: Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Humans arrive at a capacity for well-developed language, more complex social structures, and highly specialised tools.

    11:55pm

    ~43,119 years ago: The Neanderthals go extinct. Multiple factors cause their demise, including violence, diseases, natural catastrophes and being outcompeted by Homo sapiens, the only remaining hominid species on Earth.

    11:56pm

    ~34,551 years ago: Symbolic art flourishes and culture emerges globally among modern humans. This time is characterised by significant advancements in creativity and social organisation.

    11:57pm

    ~25,913 years ago: The Last Glacial Maximum. Ice sheets reach their greatest extent, covering large parts of North America, Europe and Asia. This is the peak of the most recent ice age, affecting both ecosystems and human migration.

    11:58pm

    ~17,275 years ago: Warming begins after the Last Glacial Maximum. Ice sheets gradually retreat, leading towards the end of the last ice age.

    11:59pm

    ~8,638 years ago: Significant events take place globally. The Agricultural Revolution has started, with humans cultivating crops and domesticating animals, leading to the first permanent settlements and village life.

    Midnight

    8,638 years ago to today: A great deal happens in the last few seconds of the year. From the Bronze and Iron Age, to the rise and fall of major empires, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, world wars, space exploration, the internet and artificial intelligence.

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

    – ref. Interactive: What Earth’s 4.54 billion-year history would look like in a single year – https://theconversation.com/interactive-what-earths-4-54-billion-year-history-would-look-like-in-a-single-year-245373

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: I was asked to come up with my top 5 Aussie films of 2024. It was a difficult task

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

    Late Night With The Devil. Maslow Entertainment

    Marketing is critical to the success of commercial films, and companies will often spend half as much again on top of the production budget to let people know about a film. But this is usually not the case with the local industry.

    Frequently, Australian films will do well enough on the festival circuit to be picked up by a theatrical distributor who spends virtually nothing on marketing – and then pulls the film when it doesn’t prove to be the next Muriel’s Wedding.

    This is painfully in the back of my mind as I try to compile a list of my top five Australian films of 2024. Top five? Did I even see five? It turns out I did. Did I miss many? A few, because they never crossed my radar – no posters, no advertising, no social media presence.

    Out of the, let’s say ten, Australian films I did manage to see in 2024, this is my top five (which isn’t to say they are, necessarily, five films that I would recommend).

    1. Late Night with the Devil

    Written and directed by Colin and Cameron Cairnes, Late Night with the Devil is a solid genre film.

    The narrative frames the film as found footage. We watch an episode of a late night talk show from Halloween 1977, in which a supposedly possessed girl becomes the centre of the show, unleashing (or not?) various demonic events.

    David Dastmalchian is commandingly goofy in the lead as ratings-hungry host Jack Delroy, and the supporting cast provide some nice character touches.

    The production design is first rate, with everything we love about 1970s horror cinema – and television culture – recreated in vivid strokes.

    Starved of unpretentious and non-didactic cinema, one is tempted to declaim the brilliance of this enjoyable romp. But, at the end of the day – and despite Stephen King’s comment it’s “absolutely brilliant” – it’s just a good horror film, sure to please fans of well-made cinema with a retro bent.

    2. Christmess

    Though released at select cinemas at the end of 2023, I’m including the well-made (and low budget) Christmess on the list, as it secured a mainstream release in 2024.

    The film follows a trio of recovering addicts in a halfway house during the holiday period, centred around once-famous actor Chris (beautifully played by Steve Le Marquand) as he successfully – and unsuccessfully – deals with his demons.

    Christmess is sentimental without being overly schmaltzy, the characters are rendered with nuance while still containing a recognisably mythical dimension, and it feels hopeful while still making sense.

    Writer-director-producer Heath Davis does exactly what is needed for a low budget film. It is economically but effectively shot in the Sydney suburbs, the writing is razor sharp, and the performances are (mostly) excellent. Films like Christmess give hope independent Australian cinema has life yet.

    3. Force of Nature: The Dry 2

    Now we’re getting into trickier territory for a top five list. Force of Nature is the sequel to The Dry from 2020, and treads similar ground, with Eric Bana returning as federal police detective Aaron Falk.

    This time it’s a mystery surrounding a hiking trip and a disappearing informant.

    As with the first film, Force of Nature is an engaging genre film with some arresting moments and effectively handled elements (the cinematography, music, performances are all fine). But it’s also totally forgettable and uninspired, pale in comparison to some of the great variations on the cop-mystery theme of the past.

    4. Birdeater

    Popular at SXSW, Birdeater makes the list by virtue of its style alone.

    What begins as an intriguing look at the horrors of group dynamics when a bunch of youngsters leave the city for a buck’s party quickly fizzles into nothing, the early gestures towards Ted Kotcheff’s masterful Wake in Fright proving little more than hot air.

    But it looks and sounds amazing, one of the most stunningly shot Australian films I’ve seen – actually warranting that haphazardly thrown about adjective “cinematic” – and is worth watching for this dimension alone.

    5. The Moogai

    Some may think writer-director Jon Bell’s The Moogai is an impressive horror film, cleverly integrating a critique of Australian colonisation into a possession story about motherhood and the anxieties of the parent-child relationship.

    I found its treatment of a potentially engaging story humdrum and forgettable, the critique of colonisation obvious and uninteresting, and the performances strained.

    Unlike Jennifer Kent’s excellent The Babadook, which anchors its allegorical dissection of parenthood to specific and weird horrific moments, The Moogai depends too much on the abstract, on the viewer’s knowledge of events and the world outside the film, and suffers as a work of art for this.

    The best of the rest (perhaps)

    Before you attack my evident myopia, there were a handful of Australian films released in 2024 I haven’t seen and that look like they might be worthwhile. Don’t blame me, blame the marketers!

    Sting, directed by Aussie genre maestro Kiah Roache-Turner, looks like a rousingly trashy monster film (there hasn’t been a good giant spider film for years).

    The Rooster, written and directed by actor Mark Leonard Winter, looks like a potentially solid character mystery (and has received great reviews).

    In the Room Where He Waits – which looks like a disturbing Repulsion-like thriller about a queer actor losing his marbles in a hotel room – has also received excellent reviews.

    And this isn’t to discount the potential mirth of a film like Runt, a sweet-looking kids’ film about a ten-year-old girl and her friendship with a dog.

    The biggest Australian film of the year was George Miller’s latest Mad Max endeavour, Furiosa. While some swear by Fury Road, as a long-time fan of the Mad Max films I found it shrill and incomprehensible, a senseless assault on the viewer with little payoff and no dynamism. Well, Furiosa is this, but a little worse.

    How can Screen Australia ensure 2025 (well, 2026 now) has a more robust offering of Australian films? Less money invested in American productions, more on Australian films with lower budgets – and more spent on marketing!

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

    – ref. I was asked to come up with my top 5 Aussie films of 2024. It was a difficult task – https://theconversation.com/i-was-asked-to-come-up-with-my-top-5-aussie-films-of-2024-it-was-a-difficult-task-243922

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: You could be stress eating these holidays – or eating your way to stress. 5 tips for the table

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saman Khalesi, Senior Lecturer and Discipline Lead in Nutrition, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity Australia

    Dean Clarke/Shutterstock

    The holiday season can be a time of joy, celebration, and indulgence in delicious foods and meals. However, for many, it can also be an emotional and stressful period.

    This stress can manifest in our eating habits, leading to what is known as emotional or stress eating.

    There are certain foods we tend to eat more of when we’re stressed, and these can affect our health. What’s more, our food choices can influence our stress levels and make us feel worse. Here’s how.

    Why we might eat more when stressed

    The human stress response is a complex signalling network across the body and brain. Our nervous system then responds to physical and psychological events to maintain our health. Our stress response – which can be subtle or trigger a fight-or-flight response – is essential and part of daily life.

    The stress response increases production of the hormones cortisol and insulin and the release of glucose (blood sugars) and brain chemicals to meet demand. Eating when we experience stress is a normal behaviour to meet a spike in energy needs.

    But sometimes our relationship with food becomes strained in response to different types of stress. We might attach shame or guilt to overeating. And anxiety or insecurity can mean some people under-eat in stressful times.

    Over time, people can start to associate eating with negative emotions – such as anger, sadness, fear or worry. This link can create behavioural cycles of emotional eating. “Emotional eaters” may go on to develop altered brain responses to the sight or smell of food.

    What stress eating can do to the body

    Stress eating can include binge eating, grazing, eating late at night, eating quickly or eating past the feeling of fullness. It can also involve craving or eating foods we don’t normally choose.
    For example, stressed people often reach for ultra-processed foods. While eating these foods is not necessarily a sign of stress, having them can activate the reward system in our brain to alleviate stress and create a pattern.

    Short-term stress eating, such as across the holiday period, can lead to symptoms such as acid reflux and poor sleep – particularly when combined with drinking alcohol.

    In the longer term, stress eating can lead to weight gain and obesity, increasing the risks of cancer, heart diseases and diabetes.

    While stress eating may help reduce stress in the moment, long-term stress eating is linked with an increase in depressive symptoms and poor mental health.

    If you do over eat at a big gathering, don’t try and compensate by eating very little the next day.
    Peopleimage.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    What we eat can make us more or less stressed

    The foods we choose can also influence our stress levels.

    Diets high in refined carbohydrates and sugar (such as sugary drinks, sweets, crackers, cakes and most chocolates) can make blood sugar levels spike and then crash.

    Diets high in unhealthy saturated and trans fats (processed foods, animal fats and commercially fried foods) can increase inflammatory responses.

    Rapid changes in blood sugar and inflammation can increase anxiety and can change our mood.

    Meanwhile, certain foods can improve the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain that regulate stress and mood.

    Omega-3 fatty acids, found in fish and flaxseeds, are known to reduce inflammation and support brain health. Magnesium, found in leafy greens and nuts, helps regulate cortisol levels and the body’s stress response.

    Vitamin Bs, found in whole grains, nuts, seeds, beans and animal products (mostly B12), help maintain a healthy nervous system and energy metabolism, improving mood and cognitive performance.

    5 tips for the holiday table and beyond

    Food is a big part of the festive season, and treating yourself to delicious treats can be part of the fun. Here are some tips for enjoying festive foods, while avoiding stress eating:

    1. slow down: be mindful about the speed of your eating. Slow down, chew food well and put down your utensils after each bite

    2. watch the clock: even if you’re eating more food than you normally would, sticking to the same timing of eating can help maintain your body’s response to the food. If you normally have an eight-hour eating window (the time between your first meal and last meal of the day) then stick to this even if you’re eating more

    3. continue other health behaviours: even if we are eating more food or different food during the festive season, try to keep up other healthy behaviours, such as sleep and exercise

    4. stay hydrated: make sure to drink plenty of fluids, especially water. This helps our body function and can help with feelings of hunger. When our brain gets the message something has entered the stomach (what we drink) this can provide a temporary reduction in feelings of hunger

    5. don’t restrict: if we have a big day of eating, it can be tempting to restrict eating in the days before or after. But it is never a good idea to overly constrain food intake. It can lead to more overeating and worsen stress.

    Reaching for cookies late at night can be characteristic of stress eating.
    Stokkete/Shutterstock

    Plus 3 bonus tips to manage holiday stress

    1. shift your thinking: try reframing festive stress. Instead of viewing it as “something bad”, see it as “providing the energy” to reach your goals, such as a family gathering or present shopping

    2. be kind to yourself and others: practise an act of compassion for someone else or try talking to yourself as you would a friend. These actions can stimulate our brains and improve wellbeing

    3. do something enjoyable: being absorbed in enjoyable activities – such as crafting, movement or even breathing exercises – can help our brains and bodies to return to a more relaxed state, feel steady and connected.

    For support and more information about eating disorders, contact the Butterfly Foundation on 1800 33 4673 or Kids Helpline on 1800 551 800. If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. In an emergency, call 000.

    Saman Khalesi was previously supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship (Award No. 102584) from the National Heart Foundation of Australia.

    Talitha Best is affiliated with Australian Psychological Society.

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

    – ref. You could be stress eating these holidays – or eating your way to stress. 5 tips for the table – https://theconversation.com/you-could-be-stress-eating-these-holidays-or-eating-your-way-to-stress-5-tips-for-the-table-244156

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –