A London court has found Sam Kerr not guilty of the racially aggravated harassment of Metropolitan Police officer Stephen Lovell.
As captain of the Australian women’s national soccer team, Kerr was widely condemned when news broke she had used a “racial slur” against an officer during an altercation.
The high-profile incident sparked debate across the globe.
Initially, former Australian soccer player Craig Foster criticised Kerr’s behaviour before retracting it and publicly apologising to her.
Meanwhile, politicians and academics argued her comments did not amount to racism given the power dynamics at play: not only is Kerr of Indian descent, but official inquiries have found the Metropolitan Police to be institutionally racist.
Kerr has maintained she and her partner – United States’ women’s national team player Kristie Mewis – believed they were being kidnapped by a cab driver.
He refused to let them out of the cab after Kerr vomited, taking them to Twickenham police station instead of their destination.
There, Mewis broke the cab window in an attempt to get out of the vehicle.
At the station, Kerr reportedly appealed to officers to “understand the emergency that both of us felt”, referencing the 2021 abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a Metropolitan Police officer.
However, Kerr soon faced an allegation of racism after becoming distressed and antagonistic towards the officers.
Believing they were siding with the cab driver after forming negative preconceptions because of her skin colour, she repeated “you guys are stupid and white, you guys are fucking stupid and white”.
What are the legal ramifications in the UK?
Kerr pleaded not guilty to the offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm, or distress to another by using threatening, abusive, or insulting words under Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, and to the racial aggravation of the offence per the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
She faced a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
Kerr accepted she used the words “fucking stupid and white”. But it still had to be proven she intended and caused harassment, alarm, or distress to Lovell and that the offence was racially motivated.
Initially, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded there was not enough evidence to charge Kerr.
But after receiving a request from the Metropolitan Police to review the case, and a new statement from Lovell about Kerr’s words making him feel “belittled” and “upset”, they authorised police to charge the athlete.
A jury found her not guilty after a seven-day trial.
Broadly speaking, public order offences criminalise words and behaviour that might breach the peace. Police have significant discretion to use these offences as tools to regulate people’s uses of public space.
In Australia and the UK, police have been shown to use these powers in discriminatory ways.
Kerr has conceded her behaviour was regrettable but the charge against her is difficult to align with the purpose of public order legislation.
What does it mean for Kerr’s soccer career?
It is unclear what this verdict means for Kerr’s career.
Her English club, Chelsea, is anticipating she will return from a long-term knee injury soon.
It is possible the club was kept in the loop about Kerr’s altercation with police from the beginning, as she reportedly threatened to involve its lawyers in the body-cam footage shown at trial.
The club is yet to make a statement about the trial or verdict.
Football Australia is in a different position though, having been blindsided by the news Kerr had been charged by police.
The fact Kerr is the captain of the Matildas, and the sport’s highest-profile marketing asset, adds layers of complexity to Football Australia’s decision-making.
CEO of Football Australia James Johnson declined to weigh in on Kerr’s captaincy until her trial concluded.
It is possible the governing body will impose a sanction, with Kerr falling afoul of clause 2.14 of their national code of conduct and ethics after being charged with a criminal offence.
Kerr could return to the pitch later this month, but has been left out of the Matildas squad for the SheBelieves Cup in the US because of her fitness.
With the AFC Women’s Asian Cup on the horizon, interim Matildas head coach Tom Sermanni no doubt hopes her recovery stays on track.
Meanwhile, Kerr is yet to play under Chelsea manager Sonia Bompastor. She could prove crucial as the club chases an elusive UEFA Women’s Champions League title, but faces competition for her spot.
Megan McElhone 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.
Hate speech on X was consistently 50% higher for at least eight months after tech billionaire Elon Musk bought the social media platform, new research has found.
The research looked at the prevalence of overt hate speech including a wide range of racist, homophobic and transphobic slurs.
The study, published today in PLOS ONE, was conducted by a team of researchers led by Daniel Hickney from the University of California, Berkeley.
On October 27 2022, Musk officially purchased X (then known as Twitter) for US$44 billion and became its CEO. His takeover was accompanied by promises to reduce hate speech on the platform and tackle bots and other inauthentic accounts.
But after he bought X, Musk made several changes to the platform to reduce content moderation. For example, in November 2022 he fired much of the company’s full time workforce. He also fired outsourced content moderators who tracked abuse on X, despite research showing social medial platforms with high levels of content moderation contain less hate speech.
This new study is the first to show that this wasn’t an anomaly.
Hate speech including homophobic, racist and transphobic slurs was significantly higher on X after Elon Musk bought the platform. The black lines represent standard errors. Hickey et al., 2025 / PLOS One
More than 4 million posts
The study examined 4.7 million English language posts on X from the beginning of 2022 through to June 9 2023. This period includes the ten months before Musk bought X and the eight months afterwards.
The study measured overt hate speech, the meaning of which was clear to anyone who saw it – speech attacking identity groups or using toxic language. It did not measure covert types of hate speech, such as coded language used by some extremist groups to spread hate but plausibly deny doing so.
As well as measuring the amount of hate speech on X, the study also measured how much other users engaged with this material by liking it.
The researchers’ access to X data was cut off during the study due to a policy change by the platform, replacing free access to approved academic researchers with payment options which are generally unaffordable. This significantly hampered their ability to collect sample posts. But they don’t mention whether it affected their results.
A clear increase in hate
The study found “a clear increase” in the average number of posts containing hate speech following Musk’s purchase of X. Specifically, the volume of posts containing hate speech was “consistently” 50% higher after Musk took over X compared to beforehand – a jump from an estimated average of 2,179 to 3,246 posts containing hate speech per week.
Transphobic slurs saw the highest increase, rising from an average of roughly 115 posts per week before Musk’s acquisition to an average of 418 afterwards.
The level of user engagement with posts containing hate speech also increased under Musk’s watch. For example, the weekly rate at which hate speech content was liked by users jumped by 70%.
The researchers say these results suggest either hate speech wasn’t taken down, hateful users became more active, the platform’s algorithm unintentionally promoted hate speech to users who like such content – or a combination of these possibilities.
The study also detected no decrease in the activity of inauthentic accounts on X. In fact, it found a “potential increase” in the number of bot accounts partly based on a large upswing in posts promoting cryptocurrency, which are typically associated with bots.
An important data-driving deep dive
There were a number of limitations to the study. For example, it only measured hate speech posts in English, which accounts for only 31% of posts on the platform.
Even so, the study is an important, data-driven deep dive into the state of X. It shows it is a platform where hate speech is prolific. It also shows Musk has failed to fulfil his earlier promises to address problems on X such as hate speech and bot activity.
As Musk himself said at the White House earlier this week: “Some of the things I say will be incorrect and should be corrected”.
Michael Jensen receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Bayer, and the Australian Department of Defence Science and Technology Group.
Lakes, natural and man-made, provide water, food and habitats for wildlife, as well as supporting local economies. Around the world, though, there’s a growing threat to lakes: toxic bacteria which turn the water green.
This is the same green as you see on stagnant ponds. It’s caused by tiny organisms called cyanobacteria and can be deadly.
Cyanobacteria thrive in warm, sunny lakes and ponds that contain excess nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients derived from fertiliser, manure and sewage. When conditions are right, cyanobacteria multiply rapidly and form smelly green scums on the water’s surface.
Known to science as cyanoHABs (cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms), the scums are harmful to livestock, wildlife, pets, people and aquatic organisms like fish. Toxins make untreated water unsafe to drink, swim in, or even touch. Sometimes they can become suspended in air and be inhaled. The cyanoHABs also harm ecosystems by depleting oxygen, killing off whatever lives in the water, and disrupting food webs and fisheries.
CyanoHABs are a global threat and receive considerable scientific attention in North America and Europe. Blooms are becoming more widespread worldwide because rising temperatures promote cyanobacterial growth and more intense rainfall delivers nutrients from the landscape. Only effective management of nutrients can reverse this trend.
The problem is understudied in Africa’s main lakes, including its largest – Lake Victoria. Past research on cyanoHABs has mostly used microscopy to study the kinds found there, but microscopy cannot differentiate between toxic and non-toxic cyanobacterial cells.
We are on a large project team of scientists who have been studying the socioeconomic and environmental effects of cyanoHABs in the Winam Gulf region of Lake Victoria in south-western Kenya.
Our latest study identified which cyanobacteria were the most abundant in the gulf and which ones were producing the main toxin of concern.
These findings can improve public safety:
local authorities can monitor for specific cyanobacteria and warn residents to stay away when blooms are present
cyanoHAB prevention practices (nutrient reduction, land-use practices) can target the cyanobacteria that cause the problem.
Greening of lakes
Lake Victoria now receives large influxes of nutrients because of growing lakeside populations and land-use changes. Nutrients from agriculture, industry and urbanisation fuel the growth of cyanoHABs.
CyanoHABs occur in many basins in Lake Victoria but are highly concentrated in Kenya’s shallow Winam/Nyanza Gulf. Changing nutrient and temperature conditions can also alter which types of cyanobacteria dominate the gulf and the types and levels of toxins in the water. Lakeside communities that rely on the gulf for drinking water and domestic tasks are at risk of exposure to cyanoHAB toxins.
Past research on cyanoHABs has mostly used the oldest of microbiological techniques — microscopy — to classify the types of cyanobacteria in the gulf. This cannot differentiate between toxic and non-toxic cyanobacterial cells.
Modern genome sequencing technologies can identify genes encoding the production of known and novel toxins and other molecules of interest, such as those with medicinal properties. Genomic data from African Great Lakes is scarce, so the chemical capabilities of bacteria in this region are largely unexplored. But this is beginning to change.
Our latest study adds to a growing number of recent studies our team has carried out in and around Lake Victoria. In this study, our research vessel stopped at over 31 sites to collect scientific samples and data. The samples were later analysed for DNA, the biological “instruction manual” inside every living thing. DNA tells an organism how to grow, function, reproduce, and – in the case of cyanobacteria – make deadly toxins. This analysis produced near-complete genome sequences – that is, the set of all genes in the DNA – for organisms at each sampling site.
Past reports identified Microcystis as the dominant cyanobacteria in the Winam Gulf. Our research, however, found Dolichospermum was the most abundant type in major cyanoHAB events there. This finding might be due to recent environmental changes in the region.
But we linked Microcystis to microcystin. This is a liver-damaging toxin that can kill livestock, wildlife and humans, especially those whose immune system isn’t working well. In Winam Gulf, it’s often more abundant than the health limits set by the WHO.
Our study also found that Microcystis occurs mainly in murkier river mouths where green scums are not visible, making scientific monitoring and public alerts even more important.
Local authorities can now monitor for these cyanobacteria and warn residents to stay away when blooms are present.
The findings also mean that authorities know which cyanobacteria to target in prevention efforts like reducing the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients entering the gulf.
Lastly, our genomic study uncovered over 300 uncharacterised genes that may produce novel cyanobacterial molecules. These molecules could have toxic or therapeutic effects, and provide an opportunity for future investigators to explore.
A model for what is to come
Rapid human population growth and settlement around lakes and their watersheds is leading to high levels nutrients in lakes around the world. This results in excessive growth of algae and aquatic plants. This danger is likely to increase with global warming because warm temperatures promote algal blooms.
Our data provides a foundation for remedying this in Lake Victoria – and possibly discovering beneficial properties in cyanoHABs.
Lauren Hart receives funding from National Institute of Health.
George S Bullerjahn receives funding from the National Science Foundation.
Gregory J. Dick receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institutes for Health, and the US Geological Survey.
Kefa M. Otiso receives funding from the US National Science Foundation.
Composer and educator Michael Mosoeu Moerane (1904-1980) is probably best known for a few evergreen choral works, including Della and Sylvia, still sung by choirs across South Africa today.
And, of course, for his orchestral piece FatŠe laHeso (My Country). It had the distinction of being recorded by both the British and South African public broadcasters in an era when white minority rule denied even the existence of Black classical musicians.
Apartheid held the identity of Black people in South Africa to be unchangeingly simple, rural and tribal. Sophisticated activities such as orchestral composing were both beyond their capacity and dangerously subversive.
But, as South African author and music scholar Christine Lucia’s biography of Moerane, The Times Do Not Permit, reveals, there was more to Moerane’s work than those few compositions. And a far more nuanced relationship with his oppressive political times. Moerane was vocal against the system, yet secured white university supervision. He was consulted by white ethnomusicologists. Yet still he was stereotyped and confined by apartheid rules.
I am a researcher into South African jazz and other genres and a teacher of writing. (Jazz, incidentally, was a genre that Moerane detested.) From my own work, I recognise many similarities between his story and the lives of jazz musicians I have studied: genteel homes with a piano in the parlour; after-dinner family music hours; the risk of instant dismissal for schoolteachers heard discussing anti-apartheid politics.
I recognise, too, the gaps in his music story that Lucia finds: the questions that scholars did not ask while more people were still alive to answer them.
Her book matters because, at last, it asks and answers those questions. In how it assembles the answers, it helps us to start mapping the undiscovered continent of Black classical music under apartheid.
The book’s nearly 300 pages offer a detailed account of Moerane’s life, based on research and conversations with family and still-living contemporaries.
Lucia takes us through Moerane’s various roles in turn (student, teacher, choralist and more). It also analyses his compositions and their treatment of themes that range from spirituality and tradition to love and loss.
A reader can view Moerane’s life though these different lenses; together they add up to an intricate, multidimensional portrait.
Who was Michael Moerane?
Born in the Eastern Cape province and educated there and in neighbouring Basutoland (today Lesotho), Moerane stitched a music-teaching career together that moved between the two countries.
His own radical Africanist politics, the activism of family members, his marriage across apartheid-defined ethnic barriers (he was Sotho, his wife Xhosa) and the simple fact of being a Black composer exploring unconventional, modernist music meant he was often in the sights of repressive authorities in both countries. Lowering his profile every now and then (a new school, a more obscure place to live) was his best protection.
There’s real fear in some of his letters that all these moves would mean his written compositions would be lost or scattered. Yet remarkably, through all this, he managed to hold a family together, establish music ensembles and a reputation, and graduate with a music degree from the University of South Africa in 1941, a time when it was almost unknown for Black South Africans to receive a university education outside segregated black colleges. He was supported, through a unique arrangement, by supervision from the all-white Rhodes University College in his home province.
His external examiner, William Henry Bell, said of FatŠe laHeso (Moerane’s examination piece) that he “never had expected such a work to be written in South Africa and less so by a Native”.
Lucia’s account of how Moerane got there, and of the many compositions and long music teaching career that followed, is made even clearer through a rich variety of material. There are geographical, historical and musical road-maps, extracts from his manuscripts, evocative photographs of people and places, and probably the most complete catalogue of Moerane’s works to date.
The catalogue was put together from both archive records and fragments of sheet music surviving in the family piano-stool, where they were stored. It’s a poignant reminder of how much Black South African history is no longer available because of how apartheid repeatedly uprooted people and communities, with little chance to save family memorabilia.
White minority rule didn’t only restrict where Black South Africans could live and work but even how they could learn music. Tuition for Black music students was limited to writing in tonic sol-fa (doh-re-mi) notation. Excluded from the notation used in classical music, composers and performers who would have occupied concert stages were limited to community choirs and brass bands. That was part of Moerane’s story too.
Moerane’s Sylvia is still performed by choirs today.
His life matters because of all this.
A masterful book
The book traces the defiant survival and originality of this important figure and restores him in the country’s history. It adds detail and clarification to what was already known. It corrects confusions about dates and place names. If that were all the book had done, it would already have been a worthwhile contribution.
But Lucia’s way of telling the story adds significantly more. It brings Moerane alive through the texture of human voices and human detail, creating a read that is academic but far from dry. We hear, for example, his children recalling how strict he was during daily piano practice: “You would scramble to get a slot when my father wasn’t at home.”
But more: South African music under apartheid is often shown as the “soundtrack” to history. Or often the history is seen as mere “background” to the music. But Moerane’s music was not a soundtrack to history: it was part of history. His times were not a background to his music, they were an ingredient. Not so much because of the work but because of who he chose to be – and who he could not be.
The title, The Times Do Not Permit, is taken from a 1966 letter written by Moerane to music academic Percival Kirby, in polite response to a request for detailed information about his life:
Please be satisfied with the bare statement that the times do not permit.
That may seem cryptic to anybody who has not felt the iron heel of state repression. For those who have, it’s obvious: the more the authorities know about you, the more power they have over you.
So Lucia’s book allows us to enter a world that is distant from today’s experience and rejoice that such a full life was led and that now we know about it. But it also forces us to mourn the opportunities lost for him – and by earlier scholars looking into his life. How many other Black South African musicians have had their lives and legacies obscured like Michael Mosoeu Moerane’s was?
Gwen Ansell 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.
In the middle of Super Bowl LIX, President Donald Trump posted on social media that he was getting rid of the penny. Since the lowly penny in 2024 cost about 3.7 cents to make – meaning the government loses money on every coin – the announcement might seem practical at first glance. But does the president have the power to kill off the penny?
I’m a business schoolprofessor and a longtime advocate for physical money who has written op-eds supporting the penny in The Wall Street Journal and CNN. My forthcoming book, “The Power of Cash,” explores the many advantages of using old-fashioned currency. Yet inflation has slashed the value of the penny by a third in just the past decade, and even I now admit that its time is up.
But eliminating the penny via a social media post isn’t just legally dubious. It could cause more problems than it solves.
The penny problem
Critics see the penny as a shining example of government waste. Last year, the U.S. Mint lost US$85 million making pennies, according to the bureau’s annual report. It also lost about $18 million minting nickels. Now, to be clear, just because the mint didn’t make money on pennies or nickels doesn’t mean it’s losing money overall. In 2024, the mint earned a profit of about $100 million making the country’s pocket change. Still, $85 million is no small sum.
Meanwhile, public opinion on the penny is split. Some surveys show support for it, but it has plenty of opponents. Many of my students cite carrying around “nuisance coins” like the penny as a reason for switching away from using cash.
The good news, for those who dislike the penny, is that the coin is disappearing on its own. The U.S. Mint has made about 5 billion pennies annually throughout the 2020s — down from about 11 billion each year in the 1990s. So far in 2025, it has only made about a quarter of a million pennies.
But is it legal?
Setting aside people’s feelings toward the penny, the problem with the president’s order, I think, is that only Congress can change the type of coins the mint produces.
Now the phrase “to coin money” is vague. To fix that, the United States’ second Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1792, which was signed into law by President George Washington. The act, which lays out how the mint operates and what it produces, says it must produce “Cents – each to be of the value of the one hundredth part of a dollar, and to contain eleven penny-weights of copper.”
Congress can modify this act anytime it wants – and it has. The 1792 act also required the mint to produce “Half Cents – each to be of the value of half a cent.” These coins were eliminated in 1857 by an act of Congress. Similarly, before 1965, many U.S. coins were made out of silver. After a 1965 congressional amendment to the act passed, they were made out of a cheaper composite.
And lawmakers have tried several times to eliminate the penny. In 1989, for example, Arizona Rep. Jim Hayes proposed the Price Rounding Act, which called for cash purchases to be rounded to the nearest nickel. It didn’t pass. More recently, in 2017, Republican Senator John McCain introduced the COINS act, which would have eliminated the minting of pennies. The bill also proposed switching the paper one-dollar bill to a metal coin. It, too, didn’t pass.
What happens if pennies go?
Since Congress has failed to eliminate the penny in the past, Trump is trying to do so via a direct order to the Treasury secretary. However, many of Trump’s actions are being challenged in court. For the sake of argument, let’s assume no one challenges the order to kill off production of the penny.
A big problem remains. Even if the U.S. stopped making pennies, they’d remain legal tender and people would still need them as change. In simple terms, the supply would change, but not the demand.
Past efforts to phase out the penny have tried to deal with this problem by requiring rounding, but Trump’s effort doesn’t do this. I think it’s entirely possible that people opposed to Trump would organize national “Demand your penny in change” days in an attempt to embarrass the president.
The U.S. government loses less than $10 million a month minting pennies. In theory, Congress could pass legislation eliminating the penny and requiring rounding within a month or two. The cost to the government for doing things legally is low. If the penny has to go, let Congress do it the right way.
Jay L. Zagorsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Bob Dylan gives his first concert in Israel in 1987 in Tel Aviv, playing with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.AP Photo/Anat Givon
James Mangold’s film “A Complete Unknown,” nominated for eight Oscars, captures the elusive, enigmatic quality of Bob Dylan in the early 1960s: the years he emerged as a major musical and cultural phenomenon. A scant few years after he came to New York from Minnesota, and legally changed his name from Robert Allen Zimmerman, Dylan transformed American music.
Especially “unknown” and baffling is Dylan’s religious and spiritual identity, one that has undergone many transformations. Mangold’s film avoids these questions, as does his 2005 film “Walk the Line,” a Johnny Cash biopic. The filmmaker – and much of Hollywood in general – must believe religion isn’t good at the box office.
As a music fan and scholar of religion, I have long been interested in artists’ religious backgrounds. Cash’s tumultuous life, like his friend and collaborator Dylan’s, was rich in religious affiliations and commitments.
And both of these musical giants shared a connection with Israel, defying calls to cancel performances there over concern for Palestinian rights – similar to artists’ debates in recent years. Dylan’s, in particular, is difficult to parse and part of his larger spiritual journey – one that’s rambled through Judaism and Christianity and back again.
Bob Zimmerman
The last time Dylan took the stage in Israel was at Tel Aviv’s Ramat Gan Stadium in June 2011. It had been 18 years since his last performance in the country, though he had made many personal visits in the interim.
He was, of course, a household name in Israel, revered by the young as well as the not so young. The audience members that evening, according to the Haaretz reporter who covered the event, were
“overwhelmingly young, overwhelmingly native-born Israelis.”
Surely everyone in attendance knew that Dylan had been born Robert Zimmerman – indeed, that he had a long, complicated relationship with Israel and with Judaism itself.
Bob Dylan, right, and a friend visit the Western Wall in Jerusalem on April 6, 1971. AP Photo
Young Zimmerman grew up in Hibbing, Minnesota, in a home that emphasized Jewish identity, if not its religious rituals. A visiting Orthodox rabbi had prepared him for his bar mitzvah, which took place in May 1954, with 400 guests in attendance. That summer, Zimmerman attended Camp Herzl in Wisconsin, a Jewish camp with a Zionist orientation; he would return there the following summers as well. At Camp Herzl young Bob formed his first musical group, the Jokers.
In his mid-20s, he married Sara Lownds, a Jewish woman with whom he had five children. Dylan made his first private visit to Israel in 1969 and returned regularly in the early 1970s. In May 1971, he celebrated his 30th birthday in Jerusalem; photos of him at the Western Wall appeared in Israeli and American newspapers, fueling speculation that he had “found religion” in the holy city.
In some ways, the young star put distance between himself and his Jewish roots – he was now Dylan, after all, not Zimmerman. But even in these early years, as throughout his career, “Dylanologists” delighted in the biblical allusions in some of his songs – including irreverent ones, at least at first glance.
“Highway 61 Revised,” for example, the title track of a 1965 album, kicks off with the binding of Isaac: a section of the Book of Genesis where God famously tests Abraham with a command – reprieved at the last moment – to kill his beloved child:
Yeah, God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe said, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God said, “No”, Abe said, “What?”
Twists and turns
But Dylan confounded both his admirers and his critics, turning abruptly in the late 1970s to evangelical Christianity. After his conversion, Dylan took a course at Vineyard Christian Fellowship in Los Angeles, which emphasized the end-time narratives of the New Testament Book of Revelation.
His years as a born-again Christian resulted in a series of gospel-influenced albums and at least one more visit to Israel during this early ’80s period. In 1987 he gave his first concerts there, kicking off his Temples in Flames world tour alongside Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Within years of embracing Christianity, however, Dylan’s spiritual life yet again confounded his critics and fans, including the more scholarly obsessives known as “Dylanologists.” Born into Judaism, then a born-again evangelical, the rocker now forged ties to Chabad, an ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish movement. Between 1986 and 1991, he made three appearances on the Chabad “To Life” Telethon, an annual fundraiser broadcast from Los Angeles.
Because Dylan was – and is – so private and publicity-shy, it is difficult to know whether such ecumenism represented true spiritual seeking, a political statement or sheer mischief.
Whether he was presenting himself as a born-again Christian, a supporter of Chabad or just a rock and roller, Dylan seemed inextricably connected to Israel in all its complexity. For example, many listeners interpreted the song “Neighborhood Bully” on his 1983 “Infidels” album as a “declaration of full-throated Israel support,” as Haaretz wrote.
Many fans interpret ‘Neighborhood Bully’ as sympathetic to Israel.
The lyrics presented the title character, the “bully,” as an unrepentant, besieged victim: “His enemies say he’s on their land/ They got him outnumbered a million to one/ He got no place to escape to, no place to run.”
‘Dylan lives here’
Dylan performed again in Israel in June 1993, bringing his summer tour to Tel Aviv, Beersheba and Haifa.
It would be nearly two decades before his next public performance in Israel, the 2011 concert at Ramat Gan. By then, performing in Israel had become much more controversial, with artists planning to tour there under scrutiny.
The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement publicly pressured the singer to cancel his Tel Aviv show, appealing to his past support of the American Civil Rights Movement. Activists called on Dylan “not to perform in Israel until it respects Palestinian human rights. A performance in Israel, today, is a vote of support for its policies of oppression, whether you intend for it to be that, or not.”
Ever the enigmatic artist, Dylan did not respond to the BDS appeal, nor did he cancel his concert. The towering pop-music icon did not say why. But many Israelis and Americans read his return as a gesture of support for the Jewish state in the face of widespread criticism.
Tel Aviv welcomed him with open arms, including a television news profile of his life, music and Jewish affiliations. Though he said nothing from the stage during the performance – late-career Dylan is notorious for not addressing the audience between songs – Israeli fans saw the concert as a triumphant homecoming.
“Dylan lives here. He lives in the culture of Israel,” wrote the Haaretz reviewer. “He has influenced Israel for the better more than any other American Jew.”
Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in 2023, international criticism of Israeli policies has become much more strident. Dylan, as cryptic as ever, has neither joined the critics nor identified himself with Israel’s supporters.
Shalom Goldman 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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stefan Schmitt, Project Lead for International Technical Forensic Services Global Forensic Justice Center, Florida International University
As an expert in forensic anthropology and mass casualties in conflict, I was asked to evaluate what became known as the “Caesar photographs.” What was clear to me then, and is even more so now, is that those photos represented a systematic approach to torturing, killing and disappearing massive numbers of people by the Assad regime.
With Assad now gone, the newly formed government of the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has vowed to seek justice for the crimes Syrians suffered under Assad. Doing so will be difficult, even with the civil war in Syria being one of the better monitored conflicts in recent history. Yet it is a task that is imperative for the sake of pursuing justice in a shattered country and reducing the likelihood of violence returning to Syria.
Estimates of those killed since the start of civil conflict in 2011 range anywhere from 100,000 to over 600,000, with civilian deaths accounting for at least 160,000.
Many of these deaths have been at the hands of the Assad regime. But different armed groups, including the al-Nusra Front and Islamic State group, have also been accused of atrocities.
From the perspective of holding perpetrators accountable, that could complicate matters. The leader of now ruling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is the founder of the al-Nusra Front and might not be willing to hold his group or others accountable or acknowledge the crimes of that group.
An uncovered mass grave believed to contain the remains of civilians killed by the ousted Assad regime in Daraa, Syria. Bekir Kasim/Anadolu via Getty Images
Who investigates?
There are three dimensions of accounting for the missing following conflict. First, there is the task of identifying and repatriating the remains of those in mass graves to allow family and friends to grieve. Second, the rights of victims to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones needs to be addressed. And finally, the process needs to provide justice, accountability and reconciliation, regardless of who was responsible.
But before this can take place, the question of who is responsible for the accounting needs to be addressed.
Countries coming out of civil conflict have turned to different mechanisms, from truth commissions to criminal tribunals. In the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, special U.N. courts were set up to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of grievous crimes. These tribunals were created as independent judicial bodies dedicated to investigating and prosecuting those most responsible for the crimes that had been committed during conflict.
The nongovernmental Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala, or FAFG, has since 1993 formed a fundamental part of searching, identifying and repatriating the missing. FAFG collects personal information, DNA profiles and witness statements and is responsible for protecting the rights of victims’ families in Guatemala’s judicial system.
Its work continues to this day.
What crimes to include
As to the Syrian civil war, a decision over the scope of any investigation into the disappeared and dead will likewise have to be made.
Will it include all those missing and in mass graves in areas held by al-Nusra, the Islamic State group and other armed groups, as well as those killed by Assad? The fact that groups and individuals that now form the government could have been involved in human rights violations may risk future investigations being skewed toward just the victims of Assad.
Even if the scope was narrowed to Assad’s crimes, it’s unclear how far back one should go. Assad rule in Syria began more than 50 years ago under Assad’s father, Hafez al Assad. And killings and disappearances date back to the elder’s time in power, including the 1982 massacre in the city of Hama in which an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 were killed.
The role of the state
Another fact-finding question concerns the sharing of information between civil society groups and the state.
The information gathered on the war by various NGOs so far is technically held or “owned” by such groups, not the Syrian state. This is for a good reason, as victims trust these organizations to protect information from the perpetrators, some of whom might form part of the new government.
The International Commission on Missing Persons, an NGO with its seat in the Netherlands, gained its reputation while identifying the dead from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and early 2000s. It has already collected and stored testimonies from over 76,200 Syrian relatives of more than 28,000 missing persons and has identified 66 mass grave locations. Other organizations have similar testimonies.
At some point, the state of Syria will need to be involved in the process. Legally and in practice, the state issues a citizen’s “civil identity” through things such as a birth certificate that establish a person with rights and responsibilities. In the same manner, the state issues death certificates in which the manner of death determines any judicial reactions – such as a criminal investigation in cases where the death is due to homicide.
The state is also important in resolving issues such as inheritance and widower status.
Identifying the remains from the mass graves is therefore not just a “technical” issue dependent on cutting-edge DNA laboratories and missing-persons databases. It is also something that any future Syrian state should work toward, and then own and take responsibility for.
Shifting responsibility away from the state to an international body would not really help Syria develop its own accountability mechanisms or hold the government to delivering justice for the victims and their families.
In my view, empowering victims in this transitional justice process needs to be a priority for the Syrian state. This includes the establishment of a transparent forensic and investigative effort to address the concerns of families searching for loved ones.
It should not, I believe, be outsourced. From my experience with similar processes elsewhere, it is important that Syrians become “experts” in all aspects of this process. No doubt, the task will take time and searching for the truth about what happened, and will involve perpetrators and victims alike.
It might well be a painful and painstaking process. But it is a necessary one if postconflict Syrian is to hold to account those who attempted to “erase” the identity of victims by disappearing them, burying them in mass graves, or leaving them under the bombed rubble of their neighborhoods.
Stefan Schmitt 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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul Webster Hare, Master Lecturer and Interim Director of Latin American Studies, Boston University
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s special envoy, in Caracas, Venezuela, on Jan. 31, 2025. Venezuela’s presidential press office, via AP
The policy, which led Venezuela to officially sever ties with the United States, was consistent with the first Trump administration’s policy of maximum pressure and a desire for regime change when it came to the socialist government in Caracas.
Fast forward six years: The early days of Trump’s second administration has seen the U.S. president negotiate with Maduro over the release of detained Americans and an apparent willingness from Venezuela to receive hundreds of thousands of its nationals being deported from the U.S.
So far, the second Trump’s administration seems to be sticking to the line of not officially recognizing Maduro and preferring his departure from the scene. It has kept sanctions on the country intact and continues to recognize Maduro’s opponent, Edmundo González, as the legitimate president-elect.
But that hasn’t stopped the administration from pursuing negotiations. In late January, Trump’s envoy Richard Grenell visited Caracas to secure the release of six Americans accused by Venezuela of plotting to destabilize the country. Trump subsequently announced that Maduro would accept repatriation of deportations of Venezuelans in the U.S. The U.S. administration also revoked the Temporary Protected Status, a categorization prioritized by President Joe Biden, for hundreds of thousands of people who fled Maduro’s Venezuela.
On Feb. 10, two Venezuelan planes returned home from the U.S with nearly 200 deported Venezuelan nationals, a signal that negotiations between the two nations were more than just optics. But news that the Trump administration has sent Venezuelan detainees to a U.S. military camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba – and is trying to send more – could yet prove a thorn in the side of any diplomatic thaw.
But so long as Trump feels Venezuela under Maduro is useful to his aims of deportations, other U.S. issues with the government in Caracas are, I believe, likely to remain of secondary importance.
Rhetoric vs. reality
The complicated dynamic of two men, ideologically opposed but aware of the other’s usefulness, is reciprocated by Maduro. The Venezuelan leader congratulated Trump on his election victory in November, and he appears to treat his more powerful adversary with some pragmatism. But Maduro also remains willing to take a strident line rhetorically, even suggesting that Venezuela might “liberate” Puerto Rico if the U.S. keeps meddling with Venezuela’s affairs.
Rhetoric aside, Maduro – as evidenced by his apparent willingness to deal with the new administration on hostages and immigration – is likely to pursue self-interest where possible. And he will be well aware that the survival of his rule may be tied with his country’s economic situation.
Venezuela has been hit hard by U.S. sanctions that have been in place since 2017.
Under Biden, the U.S. granted some exemptions for oil companies to work in Venezuela despite sanctions, helping the struggling export industry to recover some of its lost productivity.
Maduro will want to see where he can work with the Trump team to continue such allowances and avoid a full embargo. But recent noises coming from the administration have been mixed on this front. On Jan. 20, Trump suggested that he may pull the plug on Venezuelan oil exports to the U.S. “We don’t have to buy their oil. We have plenty of oil for ourselves,” he said.
Such a move would be a severe blow to Venezuela’s economy, which has benefited from increased exports to the U.S. in recent years. But the move will likely face resistance from oil producers like Chevron, the American company that has a license to operate in Venezuela.
Election fraud and beyond
It’s plausible Trump will be swayed by the elements of his base or administration who view Venezuela primarily in terms of a socialist authoritarian adversary to be defeated.
Many in Trump’s circle viewed the fraudulent election as another reason for being hawkish toward the nation – a position that takes in both ideological and electoral considerations.
Rubio, in particular, is a longtime critic of any accommodation with Venezuela. He has spoken to opposition leaders, called González the legitimate president, blasted any relaxation of sanctions and, during his confirmation hearing, labeled Maduro’s government “a narco-trafficking organization.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, right, oversees a ‘seized’ sign being placed on a Venezuelan government airplane on Feb. 6, 2025. Mark Schiefelbein/AFP via Getty Images
And while U.S. envoy Grenell has been shaking hands with Maduro, Rubio has been seizing the Venezuelan leader’s aircraft. On Feb. 6, the U.S. secretary of state personally oversaw its confiscation while visiting the Dominican Republic, where it had been impounded since last year.
Competition with China
During his first administration, Trump failed in his efforts to encourage the replacement of Maduro.
In any case, the Venezuelan government under Maduro, like Chavez before him, has shown itself capable of withstanding U.S. pressure.
Throwing a further wrinkle to any U.S. intentions of influencing the future of Venezuela is the role China has taken on in the country and Maduro’s increasing closeness with Beijing. In contrast to leaders in the West, China’s president, Xi Jinping, congratulated Maduro following the latter’s claim of victory in 2024. China is the leading importer of Venezuelan crude oil and has signed a series of bilateral trade and tourism pacts that have provided Maduro an economic lifeline.
Ultimately, whatever path Trump chooses on relations with Venezuela is likely to be conditioned on what factions win out in his administration and which political constituencies the president is most keen to please.
Paul Webster Hare 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.
As we have written, American history is not a steady march toward greater equality, democracy and individual rights. America’s commitment to these liberal values has competed with an alternative set of illiberal values that hold that full American citizenship should be limited by race, ethnicity, gender and class.
The most famous example of this conflict is the Jim Crow era after Reconstruction, when many of the political and legal rights gained by African Americans in the Civil War era were swept away by disenfranchisement, segregation and discrimination. From roughly 1870 until 1940, democracy and equal rights were retreating, not advancing, leaving what was described in the 1960s by President Lyndon Johnson as “the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.”
Today, the Trump administration is seeking to roll back America’s commitment to equality and engaging in a broad effort to limit – if not outright deny – the rights, liberties and benefits of democracy to all Americans.
President Donald Trump attacked the FAA’s DEI initiatives during a press conference on the D.C. plane crash.
Progress, then rollbacks
The biggest gains in African American rights came during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War II and the Cold War, when the United States confronted enemies that Americans believed contradicted its liberal values – the British monarchy, Southern slaveholders, fascist dictators and communist tyrants. The United States highlighted its commitments to democracy and human rights as a way of contrasting itself from its enemies.
But once the pressures of war faded, America’s illiberal values reasserted themselves. With the end of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, the movement for greater equality stalled and many of the previous gains were rolled back.
The onset of World War II and then the Cold War forced Americans to renew their commitment to democracy and human rights for all Americans. This period is often described as the Second Reconstruction.
Like the First Reconstruction a century earlier, the federal government helped to ensure civil and voting rights for African Americans. These efforts laid the groundwork for advancing the political and civil rights of women, other racial and ethnic groups, immigrants, disabled persons and, eventually, members of the gay and lesbian community.
But like the First Reconstruction, these changes generated intense backlash.
Since his second inauguration, Trump has mounted a full-scale effort to undermine the policies of the Second Reconstruction. This effort has been masked as an attack on diversity, equity and inclusion – or DEI – policies. According to Trump and other critics of DEI, these policies are themselves racist, since they allegedly single out white Americans for shame and scorn.
The Trump administration’s effort to end DEI programs is really an attack on decades of efforts by the federal government to make good on the promise of America: to engage in rigorous nondiscrimination efforts and open up opportunities for all.
These diversity initiatives have for more than 50 years included requirements that beneficiaries of these policies must be qualified for the benefits they obtain.
But to Trump and many conservatives, such policies force employers to engage in racial and gender quotas to prove that they don’t discriminate. Furthermore, these efforts to end discrimination, according to Trump’s executive order, “diminish the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination,” leading to “disastrous consequences.”
In other words, Trump and others claim that efforts to end discrimination are themselves a form of discrimination and force the hiring of unqualified and incompetent people.
Trump made this view clear in his comments on the recent collision between a passenger airliner and a military helicopter in Washington, D.C. Before any formal investigation, Trump alleged that the crash resulted from Obama and Biden administration efforts to diversify the Federal Aviation Administration staff. Such efforts, he suggested, elevate unqualified people.
Efforts to reverse DEI have been accompanied by other antidiversity moves. One example: According to a news release, the Defense Department will no longer use “official resources” to mark “Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Pride Month, National Hispanic Heritage Month, National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and National American Indian Heritage Month.”
Undoing 19th-century advances
The attack on DEI goes beyond the federal government. Other executive orders mandate that K-12 schools as well as colleges and universities end DEI programs, since they are “anti-American, subversive, harmful, and false ideologies.”
Such a policy will almost certainly prevent schools from honestly addressing the ways in which racial, ethnic and gender discrimination have influenced America’s past and present.
This provision was included in order to explicitly overturn the notorious 1857 Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, that ruled that African Americans were not citizens and consequently “they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Pushback capacity
A protester at a demonstration against the Trump administration at the Texas State Capitol on Feb. 5, 2025, in Austin, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
How far can the Trump administration go in its efforts to undo the Second Reconstruction?
Numerous legal challenges have already been filed. In the case of the executive order limiting birthright citizenship, a lower federal court judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan blocked the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Many of these cases will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, which under Chief Justice John Roberts has been willing to overturn long-established equal rights precedents. Besides its 2012 gutting of the Voting Rights Act, in 2022 the court limited the reproductive rights of women by overturning its 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade. Most recently, in 2023 the court ended a 45-year precedent that allowed colleges and universities to engage in limited forms of affirmative action in order to achieve more student diversity.
Yet despite years of attacks by conservatives and now the Trump administration, most efforts to end discrimination and open doors to all Americans, including DEI, remain popular. And the groups empowered by the Second Reconstruction – racial and ethnic minorities, women, immigrants, the LGBTQ community – are far more numerous and have far more legal and political resources available with which to fight back than those that were aided by the First Reconstruction.
There are now no government pressures driving Americans to make greater progress toward democracy and equal rights for all, as in the relatively brief earlier periods of significant reform in America.
But those reforms have given many more Americans the capacity to push back against policies that violate both American values and American interests.
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.
The Miss Pacific Islands Pageant (MPIP) Committee has finally issued a statement — 5 days after damaging social media attacks following the 2025 Pageant finals hosted by the Solomon Islands last Saturday.
The statement yesterday simply said the committee recognised and deeply regretted the distress caused by recent disputes concerning the result on the pageant night.
“Unfortunately, these allegations have escalated to the extent of subjecting contestants to degrading treatment and issuing threats against the lives of certain judges, thereby, detrimentally impacting the camaraderie and ethos of the pageant,” it said.
However, the statement did not address the judging controversy despite calls from around the Pacific for a proper investigation and to hold the person responsible for the false allegations of results rigging against the pageant’s head judge, Leiataualesa Jerry Brunt.
A former pageant organiser told Talamua that the statement had come “too late — too little, the damage has been done”.
The organiser said there were policies and regulations that must be followed to ensure the successful progress of the pageant and steps to be taken if such events like the allegations against a judge surfaced.
She told Talamua that the MPIP committee should have issued a statement within 24 hours of the allegations.
Opened the door to conflict She believes that if MPIP had issued a statement earlier, it would have prevented the harsh attacks on the contestants and the head judge, but the delay had opened the door for the exchange between Samoans and Tongans on social media.
The statement did not offer an apology or reasons why a statement was not issued earlier.
It only gave an explanation on why such a pageant had been established and then acknowledged Miss Samoa Litara Ieremia Allan, the contestants, all involved in the pageant, and the host country.
According to the former pageant organiser, the MPIP seemed to take the stop notices issued on the pageant judges very lightly, which drew an unprecedented involvement of both the Solomon Islands and Samoan governments.
Although the detained judges have returned to their respectful countries, a statement from the Solomon Islands government issued yesterday said investigation was continuing based on the complaint and that formal charges would then be determined.
It should not have gone this far if the MPIP committee had done their part, said a former pageant organiser.
When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, many users looked for alternatives, fuelling a wave of online migration from the social media platform. Musk says he’s using Twitter, now named X, to champion free speech and that “cancel culture has been cancelled”. But his closeness to Donald Trump and his use of X to support far-right political ideologies around the world, have driven even more people to explore new options.
How do these alternative platforms differ from traditional social media, and what does the future hold for these online spaces? In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Robert Gehl, Ontario Research Chair of Digital Governance at York University, Canada, about the evolving landscape of decentralised social media.
In 2018, technologists working at the World Wide Web Consortium built a new protocol for social media called ActivityPub. It would give birth to the Fediverse, a decentralised form of social media. Robert Gehl likens the Fediverse to email.
”A friend of mine can have a Gmail account, another friend can have an Outlook account with Microsoft. I could have an account with ProtonMail. And even though these are three different companies and three different locations in the world, I can email all my friends and they can email me back because all those email servers agree to speak a shared protocol.“
ActivityPub does the same, but for social media. Somebody could set up a server that speaks that protocol and invite their friends to sign up. Somebody else could set up a different type of server, and those two could connect using ActivityPub’s protocol. Gehl explains: “You can build a big network out of all these little servers that removes a centre.”
Examples of platforms on the Fediverse include micro-blogging site Mastodon, image-sharing site Pixelfed and video-sharing platform PeerTube. By comparison to these decentralised systems, traditional social media platforms like X, Instagram or YouTube centralise user data, content, moderation and governance and control how information is organised and distributed to their users.
Other alternative platforms, which aren’t part of the Fediverse, include Bluesky, which launched to the public in 2024. Bluesky grew out of Twitter, and Twitter’s founder, Jack Dorsey, used to be on its board. However, Gehl says analysts still see Bluesky as a quite centralised because of the way it’s designed.
”They’re building an architecture where all posts are accessible and then they let people build filters to go to that big stack of posts and pull out the things that they want to see … I personally find Mastodon and the Fediverse to be a little bit more compelling because they’re federated systems. When you run a federated social media system, you install the software like Mastodon, and then it pulls in messages from the network as need be … so you don’t have the entire network on one box.“
Listen to the interview with Robert Gehl on The Conversation Weekly podcast, which also includes an introduction with Nehal El-Hadi, interim editor-in-chief at The Conversation Canada.
This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany with assistance from Katie Flood and Gemma Ware, Sound design was by Michelle Macklem, and theme music by Neeta Sarl.
The Chinese have politely told the Kiwis to back off. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun told reporters that China and the Cook Islands have had diplomatic relations since 1997 which “should not be disrupted or restrained by any third party”.
“New Zealand is rightly furious about it,” a TVNZ Pacific affairs writer editorialised to the nation. The deal and the lack of prior consultation was described by various journalists as “damaging”, “of significant concern”, “trouble in paradise”, an act by a “renegade government”.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters, not without cause, railed at what he saw as the Cook Islands government going against long-standing agreements to consult over defence and security issues.
“Should New Zealand invade the Cook islands?” . . . New Zealand Herald columnist Matthew Hooton’s view in an “oxygen-starved media environment” amid rattled nerves. Image: New Zealand Herald screenshot APR
‘Clearly about secession’ Matthew Hooton, who penned the article in The Herald, is a major commentator on various platforms.
“Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown’s dealings with China are clearly about secession from the realm of New Zealand,” Hooton said without substantiation but with considerable colonial hauteur.
“His illegal moves cannot stand. It would be a relatively straightforward military operation for our SAS to secure all key government buildings in the Cook Islands’ capital, Avarua.”
This could be written off as the hyperventilating screeching of someone trying to drum up readers but he was given a major platform to do so and New Zealanders live in an oxygen-starved media environment where alternative analysis is hard to find.
The Cook Islands, with one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones in the world — a whopping 2 million sq km — is considered part of New Zealand’s backyard, albeit over 3000 km to the northeast. The deal with China is focused on economics not security issues, according to Cooks Prime Minister Mark Brown.
Deep sea mining may be on the list of projects as well as trade cooperation, climate, tourism, and infrastructure.
The Cook Islands seafloor is believed to have billions of tons of polymetallic nodules of cobalt, copper, nickel and manganese, something that has even caught the attention of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Various players have their eyes on it.
Glen Johnson, writing in Le Monde Diplomatique, reported last year:
“Environmentalists have raised major concerns, particularly over the destruction of deep-sea habitats and the vast, choking sediment plumes that excavation would produce.”
All will be revealed Even Cook Island’s citizens have not been consulted on the details of the deal, including deep sea mining. Clearly, this should not be the case. All will be revealed shortly.
New Zealand and the Cook Islands have had formal relations since 1901 when the British “transferred” the islands to New Zealand. Cook Islanders have a curious status: they hold New Zealand passports but are recognised as their own country. The US government went a step further on September 25, 2023. President Joe Biden said:
“Today I am proud to announce that the United States recognises the Cook Islands as a sovereign and independent state and will establish diplomatic relations between our two nations.”
A move to create their own passports was undermined by New Zealand officials who successfully stymied the plan.
New Zealand has taken an increasingly hostile stance vis-a-vis China, with PM Luxon describing the country as a “strategic competitor” while at the same time depending on China as our biggest trading partner. The government and a compliant mainstream media sing as one choir when it comes to China: it is seen as a threat, a looming pretender to be South Pacific hegemon, replacing the flip-flopping, increasingly incoherent USA.
Climate change looms large for island nations. Much of the Cooks’ tourism infrastructure is vulnerable to coastal inundation and precious reefs are being destroyed by heating sea temperatures.
“One thing that New Zealand has got to get its head round is the fact that the Trump administration has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord,” Dr Robert Patman, professor of international relations at Otago University, says. “And this is a big deal for most Pacific Island states — and that means that the Cook Islands nation may well be looking for greater assistance elsewhere.”
Diplomatic spat with global coverage The story of the diplomatic spat has been covered in the Middle East, Europe and Asia. Eyebrows are rising as yet again New Zealand, a close ally of Israel and a participant in the US Operation Prosperity Guardian to lift the Houthi Red Sea blockade of Israel, shows its Western mindset.
Matthew Hooton’s article is the kind of colonialist fantasy masquerading as geopolitical analysis that damages New Zealand’s reputation as a friend to the smaller nations of our region.
Yes, the Chinese have an interest in our neck of the woods — China is second only to Australia in supplying much-needed development assistance to the region.
It is sound policy not insurrection for small nations to diversify economic partnerships and secure development opportunities for their people. That said, serious questions should be posed and deserve to be answered.
Geopolitical analyst Dr Geoffrey Miller made a useful contribution to the debate saying there was potential for all three parties to work together:
“There is no reason why New Zealand can’t get together with China and the Cook Islands and develop some projects together,” Dr Miller says. “Pacific states are the winners here because there is a lot of competition for them”.
I think New Zealand and Australia could combine more effectively with a host of South Pacific island nations and form a more effective regional voice with which to engage with the wider world and collectively resist efforts by the US and China to turn the region into a theatre of competition.
We throw the toys out We throw the toys out of the cot when the Cooks don’t consult with us but shrug when Pasifika elders like former Tuvalu PM Enele Sopoaga call us out for ignoring them.
In Wellington last year, I heard him challenge the bigger powers, particularly Australia and New Zealand, to remember that the existential threat faced by Pacific nations comes first from climate change. He also reminded New Zealanders of the commitment to keeping the South Pacific nuclear-free.
To succeed, a “Pacific for the peoples of the Pacific” approach would suggest our ministries of foreign affairs should halt their drift to being little more than branch offices of the Pentagon and that our governments should not sign up to US Great Power competition with China.
Ditching the misguided anti-China AUKUS project would be a good start.
Friends to all, enemies of none. Keep the Pacific peaceful, neutral and nuclear-free.
Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.
Papua New Guinea’s civic space has been rated as “obstructed” by the Civicus Monitor and the country has been criticised for pushing forward with a controversial media law in spite of strong opposition.
Among concerns previously documented by the civil rights watchdog are harassment and threats against human rights defenders, particularly those working on land and environmental rights, use of the cybercrime law to criminalise online expression, intimidation and restrictions against journalists, and excessive force during protests.
In recent months, the authorities have used the cybercrime law to target a human rights defender for raising questions online on forest enforcement, while a journalist and gender-based violence survivor is also facing charges under the law, said the Civicus Monitor in its latest report.
The court halted a logging company’s lawsuit against a civil society group while the government is pushing forward with the controversial National Media Development law.
Human rights defender charged under cybercrime law On 9 December 2024, human rights defender and ACT NOW! campaign manager Eddie Tanago was arrested and charged by police under section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Act 2016 for allegedly publishing defamatory remarks on social media about the managing director of the PNG Forest Authority.
Tanago was taken to the Boroko Police Station Holding cell and released on bail the same afternoon. If convicted he could face a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.
ACT NOW is a prominent human rights organisation seeking to halt illegal logging and related human rights violations in Papua New Guinea (PNG).
According to reports, ACT NOW had reshared a Facebook post from a radio station advertising an interview with PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) staff members, which included a photo of the managing director.
The repost included a comment raising questions about PNGFA forest enforcement.
Following Tanago’s arrest, ACT NOW said: “it believes that the arrest and charging of Tanago is a massive overreach and is a blatant and unwarranted attempt to intimidate and silence public debate on a critical issue of national and international importance.”
It added that “there was nothing defamatory in the social media post it shared and there is nothing remotely criminal in republishing a poster which includes the image of a public figure which can be found all over the internet.”
On 24 January 2025, when Tanago appeared at the Waigani Committal Court, he was instead charged under section 15, subparagraph (b) of the Cybercrime Act for “identity theft”. The next hearing has been scheduled for February 25.
The 2016 Cybercrime Act has been used to silence criticism and creates a chilling effect, said Civicus Monitor.
The law has been criticised by the opposition, journalists and activists for its impact on freedom of expression and political discourse.
JOURNO ARRAIGNED ON CYBER HARASSMENT Journalist Hennah Joku appeared before Magistrate Paul Nii at the Waigani Committal Court on charges of cyber defamation following a Facebook post made on 4th September 2024. Read more:https://t.co/LEIDEcTZv6#EMTVNews#EMTVOnlinepic.twitter.com/zHqm353Cst
Journalist and gender activist charged with defamation Journalist and gender activist Hennah Joku was detained and charged under the Cybercrime Act on 23 November 2024, following defamation complaints filed by her former partner Robert Agen.
Joku was charged with two counts of breaching the Cybercrimes Act 2016 and detained in Boroko Prison. She was freed on the same day after bail was posted.
Joku, a survivor of a 2018 assault by Agen, had documented and shared her six-year journey through the PNG justice system, which had resulted in his conviction and jailing in 2023.
On 2 September 2024, the PNG Supreme Court overturned two of three criminal convictions, and Agen was released from prison.
Section 21(2) of the Cybercrimes Act 2016, which has an electronic defamation clause, carries a maximum penalty of up to 25 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kina (NZ$442,000).
The Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) expressed “grave concerns” over the charges, saying: “We encourage the government and judiciary to review the use of defamation legislation to silence and gag the universal right to freedom of speech.
“Citizens must be informed. They must be protected.”
Court stays logging company lawsuit against civil society group In January 2025, an injunction issued against community advocacy group ACT NOW! to prevent publication of reports on illegal logging has been stayed by the National Court.
In July 2024, two Malaysian owned logging companies obtained an order from the District Court in Vanimo preventing ACT NOW! from issuing publications about their activities and from contacting their clients and service providers.
That order has now been effectively lifted after the National Court agreed to stay the whole District court proceedings while it considers an application from ACT NOW! to have the case permanently stayed and transferred to the National Court.
ACT NOW! said the action by Global Elite Limited and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited, which are part of the Giant Kingdom group, is an example of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
“SLAPPs are illegitimate and abusive lawsuits designed to intimidate, harass and silence legitimate criticism and close down public scrutiny of the logging industry,” said Civicus Monitor.
SLAPP lawsuits have been outlawed in many countries and lawyers involved in supporting them can be sanctioned, but those protections do not yet exist in PNG.
The District Court action is not the first time the Malaysian-owned Giant Kingdom group has tried to use the legal system in an attempt to silence ACT NOW!
In March 2024, the court rejected a similar SLAPP style application by the Global Elite for an injunction against ACT NOW! As a result, the company discontinued its legal action and the court ordered it to pay ACT NOW!’s legal costs.
Government pushes forward with controversial media legislation The government is reportedly ready to pass legislation to regulate its media, which journalism advocates have said could have serious implications for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.
National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) of PNG reported in January 2025 that the policy has received the “green light” from cabinet to be presented in Parliament.
The state broadcaster reported that Communications Minister Timothy Masiu said: “This policy will address the ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.”
In July 2024, it was reported that the proposed media policy was now in its fifth draft but it is unclear if this version has been updated.
As previously documented, journalists have raised concerns that the media development policy could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.
The bill includes sections that give the government the “power to investigate complaints against media outlets, issue guidelines for ethical reporting, and enforce sanctions or penalties for violations of professional standards”.
There are also concerns that the law will punish journalists who create content that is against the country’s development objectives.
A motion of no confidence has been filed against the Prime Minister and his Cabinet following the recent fiasco involving the now-abandoned Cook Islands passport proposal and the comprehensive strategic partnership the country will sign with China this week.
Cook Islands United Party leader Teariki Heather said Prime Minister Mark Brown should apologise to the people and “graciously” step down, or else he would move a no-confidence vote against him in Parliament.
Clerk of Parliament Tangata Vainerere today confirmed that a motion of no confidence has been filed, and he had placed the notice with the MPs.
Parliament will convene for the first time this year next Monday, February 17, to consider various bills and papers, including the presentation of the supplementary budget.
Heather, an Opposition MP, is concerned with Brown’s lack of consultation regarding the passport issue, which the Prime Minister later confirmed was “off the table”, and the China agreement with New Zealand.
New Zealand has raised concerns that it was not properly consulted, as required under their special constitutional arrangement.
However, PM Brown said he had advised them and did not believe the Cook Islands was required to provide the level of detail New Zealand was requesting.
‘Handled the situation badly’ “He [Brown] has handled the situation badly. He has to step down graciously but if he doesn’t, I’m putting in a no confidence vote in Parliament — that’s the bottom line,” Heather told the Cook Islands News.
“I will move that motion and if there’s no support at least I’ve done it, I’ve seen it through.”
Heather also said that he believed the Prime Minister should apologise to the people of the Cook Islands.
“A simple apology, he made a mistake, that’s it.”
Cook Islands News asked the Leader of the Opposition Tina Browne for comment on Heather’s no confidence motion.
Browne on Sunday told PMN that residents were angry, and there was mounting pressure and strong feeling that the PM Brown “should go” (step down).
Backed by cabinet ministers The Prime Minister has the confidence of his Cabinet Ministers, who are backing their leader and the China agreement, according to Foreign Affairs Minister Tingika Elikana.
Brown is in China on a state visit with his delegation. Yesterday marked the third day of the visit, during which he will oversee the signing of a Joint Action Plan for Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) with China.
He is also expected to meet with Chinese Premier Li Qiang and President Xi Jinping.
The content of the agreement and its signing date remain unknown.
“At this stage, discussions regarding the agreement are still ongoing, and it would be premature to confirm a signing date at this time. However, once there are any formal developments, we will ensure updates are shared through an official MFAI media release,” a spokesperson for the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration told Cook Islands News.
Public protest march A public protest march will convene at Parliament House on Monday to challenge the government’s direction for the people of the Cook Islands.
Heather is spearheading the “peaceful” protest march, rallying citizens against PM Brown’s controversial proposal to introduce a Cook Islands passport.
More than 100 people attended Heather’s public meeting last Monday evening at the Aroa Nui Hall to voice their concerns about government’s actions disregarding the voices of the people.
“Do we just sit around no. Te inrinaki nei au e te marama nei kotou te iti tangata,” Heather said.
“We have to do this for the sake of our country. This is not a political protest, it’s people of the Cook Islands uniting to protest, if you understand the consequences, you will understand the reason why.”
Although Brown has since ditched the proposal after New Zealand warned it would require holders to renounce their New Zealand one, “the damage is done”.
This has sparked heated debates about national identity, sovereignty and the implications for the Cook Islands relationship with New Zealand.
Concerns of citizens Heather has taken onboard the concerns of citizens and argued that such a move could undermine the historical ties and shared citizenship that have long defined the relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand.
He has no confidence in Brown’s statement that the proposed Cook Islands identity passport is “off the table”.
“I think it is off the table for now . . . but for how long?” Heather questioned.
“Then there’s the impact of what he has done with our relationship with New Zealand so we are very much concerned about that.
“We are making a statement. The march is actually to show the government of New Zealand that we the people of the Cook Islands don’t agree with the Prime Minister on that.
“We want New Zealand to see that the people of the Cook Islands – that we love to keep our passport, that we care about our relationship as well.”
Heather said they are also concerned about New Zealand’s reaction to the Cook Islands proposed agreement with China.
‘Peaceful’ protesters welcomed He welcomes members of the community to join the “peaceful” protest.
On Monday morning, drummers will be located on both sides of Parliament House on the main road.
At 10.45am, the proceedings will start when people start moving towards Parliament. Heather wants all protesters to bring along their New Zealand passports.
Heather would like to remind people not to use dirty language at the protest — “auraka e autara viiviii, don’t bring your dirty laundry . . . ”
First published by the Cook Islands News and republished with permission.
Inflation is building again; but the housing industry may find it harder to do so as a result of Trump tariffs. Win McNamee/Getty Images
Inflation figures released on Feb. 12, 2025, will come as a disappointment to Americans who hoped President Donald Trump would be true to his word on bringing down prices “on Day One.” It will also put pressure on the new administration to be wary of policies that may heat up inflation – and that includes tariffs.
The consumer price index, which measures the change in prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services, rose unexpectedly from December to January by 0.5%. It means consumers are paying around 3% more on item prices than they were a year ago.
The news isn’t good for anyone concerned. It means inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s long-run target of 2% – making it harder for the central bank to cut rates at its next meeting on March 19. At its last meeting, the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee kept its benchmark federal funds rate unchanged at a range of 4.25-4.50%.
Following the release of the latest inflation data, markets have a stronger conviction that the Fed will again hold rates steady when it meets in March.
It also means more pain for consumers. Higher interest rates set by the Fed play a large role in determining rates for mortgages, credit cards and auto loans. If January’s rate of inflation were to continue throughout 2025, consumers would see a painful 6.2% annualized inflation rate.
And although it would be churlish to link the latest jump in inflation to an administration just weeks old, it does put into focus the current slate of Trump economic policies. Economists have long warned that imposing tariffs on imports and cutting taxes does little to curb inflation – rather, they may contribute to faster price increases.
I believe that if these wide-ranging tariffs come into effect, the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to keep rates elevated for the remainder of 2025.
If Trump’s tariffs on Canadian imports, like lumber, take effect, Americans can expect continued price increases in the homebuilding sector. Supply and demand imbalances remain a key driver for higher prices, so fewer houses being built due to higher materials cost will likely lead to higher rents.
Consumers saw better news on new vehicle prices, which remained flat over the month and showed slight declines from a year ago.
This is even as demand for new cars increased 2.5% over 2024. In January 2025, the number of new vehicles sold topped the same month a year earlier for the fifth month in a row.
But as with homebuilding, any tariffs on the import of car parts or materials will impact the auto industry. Carmakers may have breathed an immediate breath of relief when Trump delayed new tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But if deals aren’t reached by the March 1 deadline, industry analysts expect immediate impacts on top sellers.
And any higher cost of new cars will have a knock-on effect on used cars, which saw prices jump 2.2% in January – it’s largest increase since May 2023.
Increased prices are no yoke! (groan)
Of course, not all inflationary pressures are in the purview of government.
All in all, voters who cited inflation as the main reason they were backing Trump may be feeling a little uneasy – the administration is only a few weeks old, but for one reason or other, Americans are experiencing ever higher prices with little relief in sight.
Jason Reed 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.
United States Vice President JD Vance made headlines this week by refusing to sign a declaration at a global summit in Paris on artificial intelligence.
In his first appearance on the world stage, Vance made clear that the U.S. wouldn’t be playing ball. The Donald Trump administration believes that “excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off,” he said. “We’ll make every effort to encourage pro-growth AI policies.”
But upon a closer look, events this week point to signs that just the opposite may be unfolding. A host of nations took notable steps towards address growing safety and environmental concerns about AI, indicating that a regulatory tipping point has been reached.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered the keynote address at the AI Action Summit in Paris, France.
The Paris communiqué calls for an “inclusive approach” to AI, seeking to “narrow inequalities” in AI capabilities among countries. It encourages “avoiding market concentration” and affirms the need for openness and transparency in building and sharing technology and expertise.
The document is not binding. It does little more than tout principles, or affirm a collective sentiment among the parties. One of these — perhaps the most important — is to keep talking, meeting and working together on the common concerns that AI raises.
While nothing is binding on the parties, the goals are notably specific. They include coming up with standards for measuring AI’s environmental impact and more effective ways for companies to report on the impact. Parties also aim to “optimize algorithms to reduce computational complexity and minimize data usage.”
Even if most of this turns out to be merely aspirational, it’s important that the coalition offers a platform for collaboration on these initiatives. At the very least, it signals a likelihood that sustainability will be at the forefront of debate about AI moving forward.
The convention commits parties to pass domestic laws on AI that deal with privacy, bias and discrimination, safety, transparency and environmental sustainability.
The treaty has been criticized for containing no more than “broad affirmations” and imposing few clear obligations. But it does show that countries are committed to passing law to ensure that AI development unfolds within boundaries — and they’re eager to see more countries do the same.
If Canada were to ratify the treaty, Parliament would likely revive Bill C-27, which contained the AI and Data Act.
The act aimed to do much of what Canada agrees to do under the convention: impose greater oversight of the development and use of AI. This includes transparency and disclosure requirements on AI companies, and stiff penalties for failure to comply.
What does this really mean?
While the U.S. signed the convention on AI and human rights, democracy and rule of law in the fall of 2024, it likely won’t be implemented by a Republican Congress. The same might happen in Canada under a Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre. He could also decide not to fulfil commitments made under other agreements about AI.
The Trump administration may have ushered in a period of more lax tech regulation in the U.S., and Silicon Valley is indeed a key player in tech — especially AI. But it’s a wide world, with many other important players in this space, including China, Europe and Canada.
The events in Paris have revealed a strong interest among nations around the globe to regulate AI, and specifically to foster ideas about inclusion and sustainability. If the Paris summit was any indication, the hope of sheltering AI from effective regulation won’t last long.
Robert Diab 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.
State governments, community groups, advocacy nonprofits and regular Americans have filed a large and growing number of federal lawsuits opposing President Donald Trump’s barrage of executive orders and policy statements. Some of his actions have been put on hold by the federal courts, at least temporarily.
One problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has moved sharply to the right and has approved of past efforts to expand the powers of the presidency. But the problem with relying on the courts for help goes beyond ideology and right-leaning justices going along with a right-leaning president, as happened in Trump’s first term.
One challenge is speed: The Trump administration is moving much faster than courts do, or even can. The other is authority: The courts’ ability to compel government action is limited, and also slow.
The administration’s strategy, it seems, is the longstanding tech-company mantra: “move fast and break things.” The U.S. courts do not – and by design cannot – move equally quickly.
It can take years for a case to wind its way through the lower courts to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. This is by design.
Courts are deliberative in nature. They take into account multiple factors and can engage in multiple rounds of deliberation and fact-finding before reaching a final ruling. At every stage, lawyers on both sides are given time to make their cases. Even when a case does get to the Supreme Court – as many of these lawsuits likely will – it can take months to be fully resolved.
By contrast, Trump’s and Musk’s actions are happening in a matter of days. By the time a court finally resolves an issue that happened in late January or early February 2025, the situation may have changed substantially.
Volunteers hand out USAID flour at the Zanzalima Camp in Ethiopia in 2021. J. Countess/Getty Images
For an example, consider the effort to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development. In the space of a week, the Trump administration put most of USAID’s workers on administrative leave and halted USAID’s overseas medical trials, which included pausing potentially lifesaving treatments.
As of this writing, a district judge has temporarily blocked the order putting USAID workers on leave. But even if the courts ultimately conclude several months from now that the Trump administration’s actions regarding USAID were unlawful, it might be impossible to reconstitute the agency the way it used to be.
For instance, many workers may have been demoralized and sought other employment. New personnel would have to be recruited and trained to replace them. Contracts that were terminated or invalidated or expired would have to be renegotiated. And the countries and communities that had received help from USAID might be less committed to the renewed programs, because of concerns services could be cut off again.
Breadth
When Republicans disagreed with any of Joe Biden’s executive actions – for example, his student debt forgiveness plan – they went to federal court to obtain nationwide injunctions stopping the implementation of the plan.
But injunctions will not be as helpful given Trump’s recent playbook. A court blocking one order isn’t enough to stop the administration from trying different tactics. In 2017, courts blocked the first two versions of Trump’s ban on travel to the U.S. from majority-Muslim countries – but ultimately allowed a third version to take effect. And if an attack on one agency is blocked, the administration can try similar – or different – tactics against other agencies.
The strategy of moving fast and breaking things is successful if the other side – or even the process of repair – can’t keep up with all the different strategies. Courts can be part of the strategy to preserve the Constitution, but they cannot be its only defenders.
For instance, a federal district judge in Massachusetts has ordered the government not only to refrain from implementing changes to federal research grant funding but to provide evidence to the court that it was complying with the court’s order, immediately and every two weeks until the case is decided.
Another federal judge has already found the administration failed to abide by a court order – but so far has not imposed any consequences on Trump, the administration or other officials.
It’s unclear whether Trump would obey Supreme Court rulings against him, either. On the campaign trail, Trump’s running mate JD Vance said, “When the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.’” He also recently remarked that “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” hinting at strong opposition to rulings the administration disagrees with.
All this doesn’t mean the courts are useless, nor that people shouldn’t sue to challenge actions they deem illegal or unconstitutional. The courts – and the Supreme Court in particular – exist in part to arbitrate power disputes between Congress and the presidency. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in his landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
But the courts alone will not be sufficient. The courts are like an antibiotic on a cut, helping healing and staving off further infection. They cannot keep a grievously wounded patient alive. For this, a robust political strategy is necessary. It is in all Americans’ hands collectively to make sure that the constitutional structure is not just enforced, but also sustained.
Maya Sen 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.
When we think of Valentine’s Day, chubby Cupids, hearts and roses generally come to mind, not industrial processes like mass production and the division of labor. Yet the latter were essential to the holiday’s history.
As a historian researching material culture and emotions, I’m aware of the important role the exchange of manufactured greeting cards played in the 19th-century version of Valentine’s Day.
At the beginning of that century, Britons produced most of their valentines by hand. By the 1850s, however, manufactured cards had replaced those previously made by individuals at home. By the 1860s, more than 1 million cards were in circulation in London alone.
The British journalist and playwright Andrew Halliday was fascinated by these cards, especially one popular card that featured a lady and gentleman walking arm-in-arm up a pathway toward a church.
Halliday recalled watching in fascination as “the windows of small booksellers and stationers” filled with “highly-coloured” valentines, and contemplating “how and where” they “originated.” “Who draws the pictures?” he wondered. “Who writes the poetry?”
In 1864 he decided to find out.
Manufactured intimacy
Today Halliday is most often remembered for his writing on London beggars in a groundbreaking 1864 social survey, “London Labour and the London Poor.” However, throughout the 1860s he was a regular contributor to Charles Dickens’ popular journal “All the Year Round,” in which he entertained readers with essays addressing various facets of ordinary British daily existence, including family relations, travel, public services and popular entertainments.
In one essay for that journal – “Cupid’s Manufactory,” which was later reprinted in 1866 in the collection “Everyday Papers” – Halliday led his readers on a guided tour of one of London’s foremost card manufacturers.
Inside the premises of “Cupid and Co.,” they followed a “valentine step by step” from a “plain sheet of paper” to “that neat white box in which it is packed, with others of its kind, to be sent out to the trade.”
Touring ‘Cupid’s Manufactory’
“Cupid and Co.” was most likely the firm of Joseph Mansell, a lace-paper and stationary company that manufactured large numbers of valentines between the 1840s and 1860s – and also just happened to occupy the same address as “Mr. Cupid’s” in London’s Red Lion Square.
The processes Halliday described, however, were common to many British card manufacturers in the 1860s, and exemplified many industrial practices first introduced during the late 18th century, including the subdivision of tasks and the employment of women and child laborers.
Halliday moved through the rooms of “Cupid’s Manufactory,” describing the variety of processes by which various styles of cards were made for a range of different people and price points.
He noted how the card with the lady and gentleman on the path to the church began as a simple stamped card, in black and white – identical to one preserved today in the collections of the London Museum – priced at one penny.
A portion of these cards, however, then went on to a room where a group of young women were arranged along a bench, each with a different color of “liquid water-colour at her elbow.” Using stencils, one painted the “pale brown” pathway, then handed it to the woman next to her, who painted the “gentleman’s blue coat,” who then handed it to the next, who painted the “salmon-coloured church,” and so forth. It was much like a similar group of female workers depicted making valentines in the “Illustrated London News” in the 1870s.
These colored cards, Halliday noted, would be sold for “sixpence to half-a-crown.” A portion of these, however, were then sent on to another room, where another group of young women glued on feathers, lace-paper, bits of silk or velvet, or even gold leaf, creating even more ornate cards sometimes sold for 5 shillings and above.
All told, Halliday witnessed “about sixty hands” – mostly young women, but also “men and boys,” who worked 10 hours a day in every season of the year, making cards for Valentine’s Day.
Yet, it was on the top floor of the business that Halliday encountered the people who arguably fascinated him the most: the six artists who designed all the cards, and the poets who provided their text – most of whom actually worked offsite.
Here were the men responsible for manufacturing the actual sentiments the cards conveyed – and in the mid-19th century these encompassed a far wider range of emotions than the cards produced by Hallmark and others in the 21st century.
A spectrum of ‘manufactured emotions’
Many Victorians mailed cards not only to those with whom they were in love, but also to those they disliked or wished to mock or abuse. A whole subgenre of cards existed to belittle the members of certain trades, like tailors or draper’s assistants, or people who dressed out of fashion.
Cards were specifically designed for discouraging suitors and for poking fun of the old or the unattractive. While some of these cards likely were exchanged as jokes between friends, the consensus among scholars is that many were absolutely intended to be sent as cruel insults.
Furthermore, unlike in the present day, in the 19th century those who received a Valentine were expected to send one in return, which meant there were also cards to discourage future attentions, recommend patience, express thanks, proclaim mutual admiration, or affirm love’s effusions.
Halliday noted the poet employed by “Cupid’s” had recently finished the text for a mean-spirited comic valentine featuring a gentleman admiring himself in a mirror:
Looking at thyself within the glass,
You appear lost in admiration;
You deceive yourself, and think, alas!
You are a wonder of creation.
This same author, however, had earlier completed the opposite kind of text for the card Halliday had previously highlighted, featuring the “lady and gentleman churchward-bound”:
“The path before me gladly would I trace,
With one who’s dearest to my constant heart,
To yonder church, the holy sacred place,
Where I my vows of Love would fain impart;
And in sweet wedlock’s bonds unite with thee,
Oh, then, how blest my life would ever be!”
These were very different texts by the very same man. And Halliday assured his readers “Cupid’s laureate” had authored many others in every imaginable style and sentiment, all year long, for “twopence a line.”
Halliday showed how a stranger was manufacturing expressions of emotions for the use of other strangers who paid money for them. In fact, he assured his readers that in the lead up to Valentine’s Day “Cupid’s” was “turning out two hundred and fifty pounds’ worth of valentines a week,” and that his business was “yearly on the increase.”
Halliday found this dynamic – the process of mass producing cards for profit to help people express their authentic emotions – both fascinating and bizarre. It was a practice he thought seemed like it ought to be “beneath the dignity of the age.”
And yet it thrived among the earnest Victorians, and it thrives still. Indeed, it remains a core feature of the modern holiday of Valentine’s Day.
This year, like in so many others, I will stand at a display of greeting cards, with many other strangers, as we all try to find that one card designed by someone else, mass-produced for profit, that will convey our sincere personal feelings for our friends and loved ones.
Christopher Ferguson 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.
Anti-immigrant sentiment has profoundly reshaped Germany’s political landscape. It is connected to the surge of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), as well as the rightward shift of the Christian Democrats and Liberals, and the social democrat SPD under current chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Even the Greens and the Left party were internally conflicted on the matter, ultimately leading the anti-immigration BSW to split off from the Left.
At the centre of the debate is the notion of “welfare magnetism”. This is the idea that migrants are drawn to Germany by its generous welfare system. Actors like the AfD and Christian Democratic chancellorship-hopeful Friedrich Merz refer to it more pointedly as “Sozialtourismus” – welfare tourism.
Welfare magnetism: what does the evidence say?
For decades, politicians in Germany have suspected welfare as a “pull factor” for migrants, especially those living in poverty. Parties have proposed and implemented the same solution again and again: welfare exclusions. In 2006 and 2016, EU migrant citizens were excluded from two major social assistance schemes for their first five years in Germany.
Aside from normalising anti-immigrant sentiment, this achieved very little. In a major research project on the interplay between migration and social policy that ran from 2019 to 2024, we could find no evidence that introducing these exclusions led to declining migrant numbers.
Even researchers promoting the idea struggle to produce convincing evidence. Their findings are often limited to hyper-specific scenarios, such as migration between border towns of two US states.
While immigration economist George Borjas claims that “differences in welfare benefits generate strong magnetic effects” he himself calls the empirical evidence “relatively weak”, and notes that “there may well be alternative stories that explain the evidence”.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
In one study, researchers claimed to find “some of the first causal evidence on the welfare magnet hypothesis” in Denmark. Yet they analysed a case in which many of the immigrants in question were also excluded from the labour market and where their belongings were (partially) confiscated upon entering the country.
Under these circumstances, the researchers found that radically cutting welfare benefits by up to 50% could lead asylum seekers – who were migrating either way – to choose a different country of destination. As the researchers point out, “most newly arrived refugees have very limited job opportunities and therefore no alternative to welfare benefits”.
A major driving force of international migration is conflict. If refugees fleeing war are given no alternative option of sustaining a living than receiving benefits – and if these benefits are then cut – the refugees in question may seek asylum elsewhere. This, however, has little to do with a “pull effect” and is a far cry from anything that could be considered welfare tourism.
When confronted with the research, centrist politicians argue that regardless of how big a threat welfare magnetism actually is, people are afraid of it. To beat the far right, politicians feel obliged to copy their arguments.
But research shows this approach does not work. By copying the far right, mainstream parties normalise instead of weakening the fringes. Far-right parties will always be able to make more extreme demands than the mainstream – there is no point in trying to beat them on their own turf.
Policies that link migration and welfare can also make situations in already struggling areas worse. In our forthcoming research, we identified such problems in Germany.
In Nordstadt, a deprived neighbourhood in Dortmund, many migrants face poor living conditions as economic disadvantages overlap with welfare exclusions. Many cannot afford proper housing and healthcare, and have to accept exploitative working conditions.
Social assistance could provide help, yet excluding migrants from federally funded welfare schemes means that municipalities are largely left to deal with these challenges.
Working with the far right
Despite the lack of evidence for welfare tourism, the current political trajectory suggests that anti-immigrant sentiment will thrive further in Germany. Recent acts of violence by asylum seekers, including a fatal stabbing in Aschaffenburg, led the far-right AfD – accompanied by mainstream parties – to immediately push for restrictive immigration policy reforms.
In a watershed moment for German politics, the Christian Democrats subsequently broke with a postwar taboo, voting with the AfD in favour of border closures and similar measures. Merz was harshly criticised for cooperating with the AfD, and his immigration bill ultimately failed.
But, notably, hardly any party openly opposed his anti-immigration positions as such. The dispute was primarily about his cooperation with the AfD and less about disagreement over policy substance.
This was evident in the first televised debate between Scholz and Merz, where competition over who was tougher on migrants took up a significant portion of the run time.
Rarely have German elections seen a list of lead candidates so unequivocally united in characterising migrants as a threat. However, political tides may shift. Some of these candidates will unavoidably lose – and, perhaps, parties will shift gear once in opposition or government responsibility.
Dominic Afscharian has previously received funding from the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs under the FIS research grant. This article has followed from the associated project “Freedom of Movement and Social Policy in Historical and International Comparison (FuS)”. He currently works for the Zentrum für neue Sozialpolitik in Berlin, Germany, which was not involved in the genesis of this article.
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser has previously received funding from the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs under the FIS research grant. This article has followed from the associated project “Freedom of Movement and Social Policy in Historical and International Comparison (FuS)”.
To address this, retrofit programs that improve home energy efficiency have become one of Canada’s main strategies to cut emissions in the housing sector. These programs focus on upgrades like air sealing, enhanced insulation, upgrading heating and cooling systems and installing energy-efficient windows and doors.
But do these programs deliver on their promises of lower bills and reduced carbon emissions? Our recent study, forthcoming in Energy Economics, examined the outcomes of the federal ecoENERGY home retrofit program, a predecessor to the Greener Homes Initiative.
Our findings shed light on where the program succeeded, where it fell short and what this all means for Canadian families and policymakers moving forward.
Real-world energy savings
Our study analyzed a decade of monthly electricity and natural gas consumption data from Medicine Hat, Alta., where residents participated in the federal ecoENERGY retrofit program that was in place between 2008 to 2012.
We found that households undertaking comprehensive envelope retrofits — which includes insulation and air sealing — reduced their total energy use by an average of 25 per cent per household. Natural gas usage dropped by 35 per cent on average for these same households, and these savings lasted for at least 10 years after the retrofit.
However, our study found that homes achieved only about 60 per cent of the predicted savings projected in pre-retrofit estimates. While measures like air sealing and attic and wall insulation were relatively effective, other upgrades, such as basement insulation and energy-efficient windows, showed zero effect on energy use.
This gap between projected and actual savings suggests that the estimates shown to households during pre-retrofit audits might be overestimating the benefits. This could leave families with lower-than-expected savings on their energy bills after making significant financial investments. These findings align with similar studies in the United States and Europe, where realized energy savings hover at around 60 per cent of pre-retrofit projections.
Despite this gap, there are promising opportunities for low-cost, high-return investments. Our research suggests that relatively cheap measures like air sealing generate high returns. Adopting electric heat pumps and fuel switching also show promise for delivering both energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The need for broader participation
Our study also revealed significant gaps in program access and the distribution of benefits. Although the ecoENERGY program was available to all Canadian households, participation was highest among families of mid-valued houses.
Participation among families in lower-valued houses was disappointingly low: about four per cent of the families in lowest-valued houses took part, even though they stood to benefit the most from reduced energy bills. Homes in our study saw bill savings ranging from eight to 17 per cent, based on a comparison of their actual consumption before and after the retrofit. The highest savings were observed in homes with assessed values of $100,000.
Middle-valued homes with the highest retrofit program participant rate tended to save the least amount of money; this group had average gas bill reductions of approximately 10.5 per cent.
The maximum amount that could be claimed under the ecoENERGY program was $5,000, yet the average rebate received was $1,100. This disparity not only limited the program’s potential to reduce emissions on a large scale, but also means Canada’s current approach to energy retrofits may be missing an opportunity to improve energy affordability for those who need it most.
Room for improvement
Energy-saving retrofits have significant potential, but current prediction models often overestimate the savings homeowners can achieve. Improving these models could allow homeowners to make better-informed choices, leading to greater efficiency and improved household welfare.
Upfront costs also remain a significant barrier, particularly for lower-income families. Many cannot afford the upfront expenses associated with retrofitting their homes. Expanded financial support, such as rebates or no-interest loans, may provide much-needed support necessary to allow more households to participate, and more research is needed to evaluate how best to incentivize household participation.
Another major challenge is a lack of awareness. Many Canadians are unaware of the benefits of deep retrofits. Public awareness campaigns, possibly delivered in collaboration with community organizations, may also help educate homeowners on the long-term value of retrofits and make the process more accessible and appealing.
Our project is the first in Canada to use detailed household-level data to assess energy savings from retrofits in houses of various values. We were able to achieve this through partnerships between academia, utilities and the federal government. Such collaborations are crucial for advancing research that informs effective policies and programs.
As Canada advances toward net-zero emissions by 2050, energy-efficient housing should remain central to its climate strategy. Achieving sustainable progress in this area will require retrofit programs that deliver on their promises by enhancing household welfare, addressing energy affordability and ensuring continued public support.
Maya Papineau receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the National Science and Engineering Research Council and the National Research Council of Canada.
Nicholas Rivers receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the National Science and Engineering Research Council. He is affiliated with the Canadian Climate Institute.
Kareman Yassin 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.
United States Vice President JD Vance made headlines this week by refusing to sign a declaration at a global summit in Paris on artificial intelligence.
In his first appearance on the world stage, Vance made clear that the U.S. wouldn’t be playing ball. The Donald Trump administration believes that “excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off,” he said. “We’ll make every effort to encourage pro-growth AI policies.”
But upon a closer look, events this week point to signs that just the opposite may be unfolding. A host of nations took notable steps towards address growing safety and environmental concerns about AI, indicating that a regulatory tipping point has been reached.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered the keynote address at the AI Action Summit in Paris, France.
The Paris communiqué calls for an “inclusive approach” to AI, seeking to “narrow inequalities” in AI capabilities among countries. It encourages “avoiding market concentration” and affirms the need for openness and transparency in building and sharing technology and expertise.
The document is not binding. It does little more than tout principles, or affirm a collective sentiment among the parties. One of these — perhaps the most important — is to keep talking, meeting and working together on the common concerns that AI raises.
While nothing is binding on the parties, the goals are notably specific. They include coming up with standards for measuring AI’s environmental impact and more effective ways for companies to report on the impact. Parties also aim to “optimize algorithms to reduce computational complexity and minimize data usage.”
Even if most of this turns out to be merely aspirational, it’s important that the coalition offers a platform for collaboration on these initiatives. At the very least, it signals a likelihood that sustainability will be at the forefront of debate about AI moving forward.
The convention commits parties to pass domestic laws on AI that deal with privacy, bias and discrimination, safety, transparency and environmental sustainability.
The treaty has been criticized for containing no more than “broad affirmations” and imposing few clear obligations. But it does show that countries are committed to passing law to ensure that AI development unfolds within boundaries — and they’re eager to see more countries do the same.
If Canada were to ratify the treaty, Parliament would likely revive Bill C-27, which contained the AI and Data Act.
The act aimed to do much of what Canada agrees to do under the convention: impose greater oversight of the development and use of AI. This includes transparency and disclosure requirements on AI companies, and stiff penalties for failure to comply.
What does this really mean?
While the U.S. signed the convention on AI and human rights, democracy and rule of law in the fall of 2024, it likely won’t be implemented by a Republican Congress. The same might happen in Canada under a Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre. He could also decide not to fulfil commitments made under other agreements about AI.
The Trump administration may have ushered in a period of more lax tech regulation in the U.S., and Silicon Valley is indeed a key player in tech — especially AI. But it’s a wide world, with many other important players in this space, including China, Europe and Canada.
The events in Paris have revealed a strong interest among nations around the globe to regulate AI, and specifically to foster ideas about inclusion and sustainability. If the Paris summit was any indication, the hope of sheltering AI from effective regulation won’t last long.
Robert Diab does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Benoit, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Physics and Astrochemistry, University of Hull
A detector on the seabed near Toulon, France, has spotted a high energy neutrino.ivan bastien/Shutterestock
Recent research on lightweight particles called neutrinos might have passed you by – much like the more than 10 trillion neutrinos passing through your body each second. Now, our new paper – with 21 countries, more than 60 institutes and around 360 scientists contributing – reports the observation of the most energetic neutrino yet.
Despite the enormous number of neutrinos around us, this is one of the most exciting – and rarest – astronomical events of the year. Our paper has been published in the journal Nature.
Neutrinos are tiny elementary (sub-atomic) particles that are abundant in our universe. Yet, you probably haven’t seen any. They do not interact with other matter in the ways we are familiar with.
Their lack of charge, for example, means that the electrostatic force that governs most of our everyday experiences does not interact with them at all. And their vanishingly small mass means that gravity – the other major force we experience – also has no effect on them in lab conditions on Earth.
So, detecting their presence is challenging to say the least.
They are formed through the actions of the weak nuclear force, which governs radioactive decay. It is this force that enables positively charged particles called protons, which make up to atomic nucleus, to change into neutrons, neutrally charged particles which also exist in the atomic nucleus, and vice versa.
We cannot detect a neutrino directly. But, every now and then (although very rarely), they might bump into something. When that happens, through the action of this weak nuclear force, a charged particle, such as an electron, may be created – seemingly out of nowhere – that we can detect.
Those charged particles travel at enormous speeds. And when they move through a medium such as water, they create an eerie, faint blue glow as they are slowed down. This event, called the Cherenkov effect, also happens in nuclear reactor containment pools.
How likely (or unlikely) are these interactions? Well, you would have to flip 75 heads in a row on a fair coin to have the same probability of a single neutrino interacting with a particle of matter. Think this is easy? Go ahead and flip them. It’ll take a while.
Under the sea
The KM3NeT telescope collaboration uses this Cherenkov effect to scrutinise the depths of the Mediterranean Sea for the telltale faint glow of those neutrino events. They operate two huge detection stations – one off the shores of Toulon, France and one off the southern coast of Sicily. Scientists keep watch for events around the clock.
The scale of those detectors is gigantic, as are most neutrino detectors, since the only way of spotting the elusive neutrino collision is to try to increase the amount of matter that the neutrino can interact with. In fact, the KM3 part of the KM3NeT acronym stands for the kilometre cube (KM3) of seawater that the detector will be surveying when completed.
The detection stations themselves each consist of nearly 600 light detectors – spherical buoys each containing 31 light sensing tubes, which are attached to cables anchored to the seabed up to 3.5km below the surface.
The particle described in our recent paper was detected on February 13 2023. And you might wonder why the long wait? The intervening time has been spent by collaborators across Europe verifying and simulating the detection to confirm the nature of the event. After months of work by the KM3NeT team, we can finally say that this is the most energetic observation of a neutrino interaction ever recorded.
About 28,000 photons (light particles) were detected across the array in Sicily, indicating that a hugely energetic event had just happened. That said, an average 75W lightbulb generates millions and millions of photons every second (about 100 quintillion to be more precise). But while these few thousands of photons might appear to be a small event, remember that this has been generated by a single particle.
In fact, the energy of the neutrino responsible for such bright display was estimated to be 220 peta-electronvolts (PeV) or 30 times more energetic than the highest-energy neutrino recorded so far. In terms of particle energies, it is around 1,000 times more energetic than the particles generated at Cern, the most energetic accelerator facility in the world.
The light generated by this record-breaking event could be followed through the detector array and our collaboration was able to use it to reconstruct the near-horizontal trajectory of this high-energy neutrino. The path taken indicates that this neutrino is of cosmic origin.
We don’t know exactly where it comes from, but we’ve identified 12 potential blazars (bright cores of active galaxies) that may have produced it. It is also possible that it was created in the interaction of cosmic rays with photons from the cosmic energy background.
This detection provides a window into the ultra-high-energy phenomena happening in the universe and could, for example, help us better understand the nature of some of the most energetic cosmic rays. Moreover, the observation can help us further test the theoretical models that predict the existence of high-energy neutrinos.
David Benoit receives funding from the European Union, the Science and Technology Facilities Council and the UKRI National Quantum Computing Centre.
James Keegans receives funding from the European Union.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Blane Savage, Lecturer in MA Creative Media Practice and BA(Hons) Graphic Art & Moving Image, University of the West of Scotland
The exhibition curator James Knox is to be congratulated on bringing together an impressive collection of work that tells the story of a diverse group of artists who helped transform and modernise British art in the early 20th century and contains work held in private collections not seen by the public before.
The Scottish colourists, as they were known, all visited and lived in Paris and were heavily influenced by the burgeoning avant-garde movement there in the early years of the 20th century. This was during its most dynamic and transformative stages, when cubism, post-impressionism and fauvism movements were evolving.
The exhibition highlights and contrasts the work produced by the colourists to that of Roger Fry’s Bloomsbury group members, Vanessa Bell and her amour Duncan Grant. It also includes work by the Fitzroy Street Group and several distinguished Welsh artists of that time, Augustus John and James Dickson Innes, as well as fauvist artists Andre Derain and Kees van Dongen.
The colourists’ paintings stand out in the exhibition through the maturity and confidence of their artworks, the tonal qualities and vibrancy of their colour palettes consistently rising above the more muted works surrounding them.
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 capacity of the colourists to study, travel and seek inspiration internationally, away from a grey Scottish Presbyterian climate, and particularly, embedding themselves in the Paris art scene in the early 20th century is impressive.
These artists stood shoulder to shoulder with their European contemporaries, inspired by the post-impressionist work of Cezanne, Matisse, Van Gogh and Derain. They delivered consistent and highly sophisticated artworks throughout their careers exploring light, shape and dynamic colour ranges, and often painted outdoors.
Each of the Scottish colourists returned to Scotland bringing new approaches to art with them. Peploe experimented with Cezanne-like geometric forms, whereas Fergusson’s practice was heavily influenced by the fauves. Hunter experimented with simplified post-impressionist blocks of colour to create dynamic shapes, while Cadell often focused on bold shapes and stylish impressionistic compositions.
Peploe, Hunter and Cadell exhibited in London’s Leicester Gallery in 1923 where they were first described as the “three colourists” by critic P.G. Konody.
Peploe, Fergusson and Hunter’s reputations were enhanced in 1924 when their work was bought by the French state after an exhibition organised by one of the most influential art dealers in Europe, Glaswegian Alexander Reid. He represented the four artists at the Galerie Barbazanges in Paris entitled Les Peintres de L’Ecosse Moderne, and turned their loose affiliation into an art movement.
Reid had also been responsible for developing the profile of The Glasgow Boys – a group of radical young painters whose disillusionment with academic painting signalled the birth of modernism in Scotland in the late 19th century. Reid was also a central figure in developing Sir William Burrell’s art collection. This was closely followed by a further exhibition in London’s Leicester Gallery in 1925 and then in Paris in 1931.
Peploe was the most commercially successful of the four artists, having a still life purchased by the Tate in 1927. His painting of Paris Plage captures the atmospherically startling white light of that French region. His studio work with a still life of flowers and fruit had the hallmarks of Cezanne’s style.
His love of outdoor landscapes, as shown in Kirkcudbright, painted in south-west Scotland, also resemble Cezanne’s primary geometric forms. He visited the island of Iona on a number of occasions with Cadell and other painters, revealing his love of the white sands, rocks and water which can be seen in Green Sea, Iona.
Cadell was known for his powerful still lifes, stylish portraits of elegant women in hats, and for his landscape painting on Iona. Cadell’s Green Sea on Iona and Ben More on Mull on show are part of a series of paintings of the white sands he produced on his regular visits there.
J.D. Fergusson‘s The Blue Hat, Closerie de Lilas is an outstanding piece on show which dazzles with the vibrancy of Parisian cafe life. He was attracted to fauve-like expressive colours and strong outlines in his work. The one piece of sculpture on display is by Fergusson, whose foray into sculptural medium in the Eastre, Hymn to the Sun is striking in its modernist aesthetic – like the female robot character in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.
Having no art training like the others, Lesley Hunter’s Still Life with White Jug and Peonies in a Chinese vase highlight his developing skills as a still life painter and they have a striking vibrancy to them. His outdoor scenes use loosely styled daubs of colour in a post-impressionistic style often in vibrant colours.
All the Scottish colourists were recognised for their influence and contribution to the development of Scottish art during their lifetimes, combining aspects of The Glasgow School and cutting-edge Parisian avant garde. But they fell out of fashion due to economic decline before the second world war.
They were rediscovered and packaged as a collective in the 1950s initially by art historian T.J. Honeyman in his book Three Scottish Colourists and were brought together with the inclusion of J.D. Fergusson in the 1980s. Although their key role in the development of Scottish art history is assured, interestingly their appreciation in France is even greater than in Britain.
The Scottish Colourists: Radical Perspectives is on at the Dovecot Studios in Edinburgh until June 28.
Blane Savage 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.
We are in the early days of a seismic shift in the global AI industry. DeepSeek, a previously little-known Chinese artificial intelligence company, has produced a “game changing”“ large language model that promises to reshape the AI landscape almost overnight.
But DeepSeek’s breakthrough also has wider implications for the technological arms race between the US and China, having apparently caught even the best-known US tech firms off guard. Its launch has been predicted to start a “slow unwinding of the AI bet” in the west, amid a new era of “AI efficiency wars”.
In fact, industry experts have been speculating for years about China’s rapid advancements in AI. While the supposedly free-market US has often prioritised proprietary models, China has built a thriving AI ecosystem by leveraging open-source technology, fostering collaboration between government-backed research institutions and major tech firms.
This strategy has enabled China to scale its AI innovation rapidly while the US – despite all the tub-thumping from Silicon Valley – remains limited by restrictive corporate structures. Companies such as Google and Meta, despite promoting open-sourceinitiatives, still rely heavily on closed-source strategies that limit broader access and collaboration.
What makes DeepSeek particularly disruptive is its ability to achieve cutting-edge performance while reducing computing costs – an area where US firms have struggled due to their dependence on training models that demand very expensive processing hardware.
Where once Silicon Valley was the epicentre of global digital innovation, its corporate behemoths now appear vulnerable to more innovative, “scrappy” startup competitors – albeit ones enabled by major state investment in AI infrastructure. By leveraging China’s industrial approach to AI, DeepSeek has crystallised a reality that many in Silicon Valley have long ignored: AI’s centre of power is shifting away from the US and the west.
It highlights the failure of US attempts to preserve its technological hegemony through tight export controls on cutting-edge AI chips to China. According to research fellow Dean Ball: “You can keep [computing resources] away from China, but you can’t export-control the ideas that everyone in the world is hunting for.”
DeepSeek’s success has forced Silicon Valley and large western tech companies to “take stock”, realising that their once-unquestioned dominance is suddenly at risk. Even the US president, Donald Trump, has proclaimed that this should be a “wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser-focused on competing”.
But this story is not just about technological prowess – it could mark an important shift in global power. Former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo has framed DeepSeek’s emergence as a “shot across America’s bow”, urging US policymakers and tech executives to take immediate action.
DeepSeek’s rapid rise underscores a growing realisation: globally, we are entering a potentially new AI paradigm, one where China’s model of open-source innovation and state-backed development is proving more effective than Silicon Valley’s corporate-driven approach.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
I’ve spent much of my career analysing the transformative role of AI on the global digital landscape – examining how AI shapes governance, market structures and public discourse, and exploring its geopolitical and ethical dimensions, now and far in the future.
I also have personal connections with China, having lived there while teaching at Jiangsu University, then written my PhD thesis on the country’s state-led marketisation programme. Over the years, I have studied China’s evolving tech landscape, observing firsthand how its unique blend of state-driven industrial policy and private-sector innovation has fuelled rapid AI development.
I believe this moment may come to be seen as a turning point not just for AI, but for the geopolitical order. If China’s AI dominance continues, what could this mean for the future of digital governance, democracy, and the global balance of power?
China’s open-source AI takeover
Even in the early days of China’s digital transformation, analysts predicted the country’s open-source focus could lead to a major AI breakthrough. In 2018, China was integrating open-source collaboration into its broader digitisation strategy, recognising that fostering shared development efforts could accelerate its AI capabilities.
Unlike the US, where proprietary AI models dominated, China embraced open-source ecosystems to bypass western gatekeeping, scale innovation faster, and embed itself in global AI collaboration. China’s open-source activity surged dramatically in 2020, laying the foundation for the kind of innovation seen today. By actively fostering an open-source culture, China ensured that a broad range of developers had access to AI tools, rather than restricting them to a handful of dominant companies.
The trend has continued in recent years, with China even launching its own state-backed open-source operating systems and platforms in 2023, to further reduce its dependence on western technology. This move was widely seen as an effort to cement its AI leadership and create an independent, self-sustaining digital ecosystem.
Video: BBC.
While China has been steadily positioning itself as a leader in open-source AI, Silicon Valley firms remained focused on closed, proprietary models – allowing China to catch up fast. While companies like Google and Meta promoted open-source initiatives in name, they still locked key AI capabilities behind paywalls and restrictive licenses.
In contrast, China’s government-backed initiatives have treated open-source AI as a national resource, rather than a corporate asset. This has resulted in China becoming one of the world’s largest contributors to open-source AI development, surpassing many western firms in collaborative projects. Chinese tech giants such as Huawei, Alibaba and Tencent are driving open-source AI forward with frameworks like PaddlePaddle, X-Deep Learning (X-DL) and MindSpore — all now core to China’s machine learning ecosystem.
But they’re also making major contributions to global AI projects, from Alibaba’s Dragonfly, which streamlines large-scale data distribution, to Baidu’s Apollo, an open-source platform accelerating autonomous vehicle development. These efforts don’t just strengthen China’s AI industry, they embed it deeper into the global AI landscape.
This shift had been years in the making, as Chinese firms (with state backing) pushed open-source AI forward and made their models publicly available, creating a feedback loop that western companies have also – quietly – tapped into. A year ago, for example, US firm Abicus.AI released Smaug-72B, an AI model designed for enterprises that built directly upon Alibaba’s Qwen-72B and outperformed proprietary models like OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 and Mistral’s Medium. But the potential for US companies to further build on Chinese open-source technology may be limited by political as well as corporate barriers.
In 2023, US lawmakers highlighted growing concerns that China’s aggressive investment in open-source AI and semiconductor technologies would eventually erode western leadership in AI. Some policymakers called for bans on certain open-source chip technologies, due to fears they could further accelerate China’s AI advancements.
But by then, China’s AI horse had already bolted.
AI with Chinese characteristics
DeepSeek’s rise should have been obvious to anyone familiar with management theory and the history of technological breakthroughs linked to “disruptive innovation”. Latecomers to an industry rarely compete by playing the same game as incumbents – they have to be disruptive.
China, facing restrictions on cutting-edge western AI chips and lagging behind in proprietary AI infrastructure, had no choice but to innovate differently. Open-source AI provided the perfect vehicle: a way to scale innovation rapidly, lower costs and tap into global research while bypassing Silicon Valley’s resource-heavy, closed-source model.
From a western and traditional human rights perspective, China’s embrace of open-source AI may appear paradoxical, given the country’s strict information controls. Its AI development strategy prioritises both technological advancement and strict alignment with the Chinese Communist party’s ideological framework, ensuring AI models adhere to “core socialist values” and state-approved narratives. AI research in China has thrived not only despite these constraints but, in many ways, because of them.
Video: CNBC.
China’s success goes beyond traditional authoritarianism; it embodies what Harvard economist David Yang calls “Autocracy 2.0”. Rather than relying solely on fear-based control, it uses economic incentives, bureaucratic efficiency, and technology to manage information and maintain regime stability.
The Chinese government has strategically encouraged open-source development while maintaining tight control over AI’s domestic applications, particularly in surveillance and censorship. Indeed, authoritarian regimes may have a significant advantage in developing facial-recognition technology due to their extensive surveillance systems. The vast amounts of data collected through these networks enable private AI companies to create advanced algorithms, which can then be adapted for commercial uses, potentially accelerating economic growth.
China’s AI strategy is built on a dual foundation of state-led initiatives and private-sector innovation. The country’s AI roadmap, first outlined in the 2017 new generation artificial intelligence development plan, follows a three-phase timeline: achieving global competitiveness by 2020, making major AI breakthroughs by 2025, and securing world leadership in AI by 2030. In parallel, the government has emphasised data governance, regulatory frameworks and ethical oversight to guide AI development “responsibly”.
A defining feature of China’s AI expansion has been the massive infusion of state-backed investment. Over the past decade, government venture capital funds have injected approximately US$912 billion (£737bn) into early-stage firms, with 23% of that funding directed toward AI-related companies. A significant portion has targeted China’s less-developed regions, following local investment mandates.
Compared with private venture capital, government-backed firms often lag in software development but demonstrate rapid growth post-investment. Moreover, state funding often serves as a signal for subsequent private-sector investment, reinforcing the country’s AI ecosystem.
China’s AI strategy represents a departure from its traditional industrial policies, which historically emphasised self-sufficiency, support for a handful of national champions, and military-driven research. Instead, the government has embraced a more flexible and collaborative approach that encourages open-source software adoption, a diverse network of AI firms, and public-private partnerships to accelerate innovation. This model prioritises research funding, state-backed AI laboratories, and AI integration across key industries including security, healthcare, and infrastructure.
Despite strong state involvement, China’s AI boom is equally driven by private-sector innovation. The country is home to an estimated 4,500 AI companies, accounting for 15% of the world’s total.
As economist Liu Gang told the Chinese Communist Party’s Global Times newspaper: “The development of AI is fast in China – for example, for AI-empowered large language models. Aided with government spending, private capital is flowing to the new sector. Increased capital inflow is anticipated to further enhance the sector in 2025.”
China’s tech giants including Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent and SenseTime have all benefited from substantial government support while remaining competitive on the global stage. But unlike in the US, China’s AI ecosystem thrives on a complex interplay between state support, corporate investment and academic collaboration.
Recognising the potential of open-source AI early on, Tsinghua University in Beijing has emerged as a key innovation hub, producing leading AI startups such as Zhipu AI, Baichuan AI, Moonshot AI and MiniMax — all founded by its faculty and alumni. The Chinese Academy of Sciences has similarly played a crucial role in advancing research in deep learning and natural language processing.
Unlike the west, where companies like Google and Meta promote open-source models for strategic business gains, China sees them as a means of national technological self-sufficiency. To this end, the National AI Team, composed of 23 leading private enterprises, has developed the National AI Open Innovation Platform, which provides open access to AI datasets, toolkits, libraries and other computing resources.
DeepSeek is a prime example of China’s AI strategy in action. The company’s rise embodies the government’s push for open-source collaboration while remaining deeply embedded within a state-guided AI ecosystem. Chinese developers have long been major contributors to open-source platforms, ranking as the second-largest group on GitHub by 2021.
Founded by Chinese entrepreneur Liang Wenfeng in 2023, DeepSeek has positioned itself as an AI leader while benefiting from China’s state-driven AI ecosystem. Liang, who also established the hedge fund High-Flyer, has maintained full ownership of DeepSeek and avoided external venture capital funding.
Though there is no direct evidence of government financial backing, DeepSeek has reaped the rewards of China’s AI talent pipeline, state-sponsored education programs, and research funding. Liang has engaged with top government officials including China’s premier, Li Qiang, reflecting the company’s strategic importance to the country’s broader AI ambitions.
In this way, DeepSeek perfectly encapsulates “AI with Chinese characteristics” – a fusion of state guidance, private-sector ingenuity, and open-source collaboration, all carefully managed to serve the country’s long-term technological and geopolitical objectives.
Recognising the strategic value of open-source innovation, the government has actively promoted domestic open-source code platforms like Gitee to foster self-reliance and insulate China’s AI ecosystem from external disruptions. However, this also exposes the limits of China’s open-source ambitions. The government pushes collaboration, but only within a tightly controlled system where state-backed firms and tech giants call the shots.
Reports of censorship on Gitee reveal how Beijing carefully manages innovation, ensuring AI advances stay in line with national priorities. Independent developers can contribute, but the real power remains concentrated in companies that operate within the government’s strategic framework.
The conflicted reactions of US big tech
DeepSeek’s emergence has sparked intense debate across the AI industry, drawing a range of reactions from leading Silicon Valley executives, policymakers and researchers. While some view it as an expected evolution of open-source AI, others see it as a direct challenge to western AI leadership.
Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, emphasised its technical efficiency. “It’s super-impressive in terms of both how they have really effectively done an open-source model that does this inference-time compute, and is super-compute efficient,” Nadella told CNBC. “We should take the developments out of China very, very seriously”.
Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, a prominent advisor to Trump, was similarly effusive. “DeepSeek R1 is one of the most amazing and impressive breakthroughs I’ve ever seen – and as open source, a profound gift to the world,” he wrote on X.
For Yann LeCun, Meta’s chief AI scientist, DeepSeek is less about China’s AI capabilities and more about the broader power of open-source innovation. He argued that the situation should be read not as China’s AI surpassing the US, but rather as open-source models surpassing proprietary ones. “DeepSeek has profited from open research and open source (e.g. PyTorch and Llama from Meta),” he wrote on Threads. “They came up with new ideas and built them on top of other people’s work. Because their work is published and open source, everyone can profit from it. That is the power of open research and open source.”
Not all responses were so measured. Alexander Wang, CEO of Scale AI – a US firm specialising in AI data labelling and model training – framed DeepSeek as a competitive threat that demands an aggressive response. He wrote on X: “DeepSeek is a wake-up call for America, but it doesn’t change the strategy: USA must out-innovate & race faster, as we have done in the entire history of AI. Tighten export controls on chips so that we can maintain future leads. Every major breakthrough in AI has been American.”
Elon Musk added fuel to speculation about DeepSeek’s hardware access when he responded with a simple “obviously” to Wang’s earlier claims on CNBC that DeepSeek had secretly acquired 50,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs, despite US export restrictions.
Beyond the tech world, US policymakers have taken a more adversarial stance. House speaker Mike Johnson accused China of leveraging DeepSeek to erode American AI leadership. “They abuse the system, they steal our intellectual property. They’re now trying to get a leg up on us in AI.”
For his part, Trump took a more pragmatic view, seeing DeepSeek’s efficiency as a validation of cost-cutting approaches. “I view that as a positive, as an asset … You won’t be spending as much, and you’ll get the same result, hopefully.”
The rise of DeepSeek may have helped jolt the Trump administration into action, leading to sweeping policy shifts aimed at securing US dominance in AI. In his first week back in the White House, the US president announced a series of aggressive measures, including massive federal investments in AI research, closer partnerships between the government and private tech firms, and the rollback of regulations seen as slowing US innovation.
The administration’s framing of AI as a critical national interest reflects a broader urgency sparked by China’s rapid advancements, particularly DeepSeek’s ability to produce cutting-edge models at a fraction of the cost traditionally associated with AI development. But this response is not just about national competitiveness – it is also deeply entangled with private industry.
Musk’s growing closeness to Trump, for example, can be viewed as a calculated move to protect his own dominance at home and abroad. By aligning with the administration, Musk ensures that US policy tilts in favour of his AI ventures, securing access to government backing, computing power, and regulatory control over AI exports.
At the same time, Musk’s public criticism of Trump’s US$500 billion AI infrastructure plan – claiming the companies involved lack the necessary funding – was as much a warning as a dismissal, signalling his intent to shape policy in a way that benefits his empire while keeping potential challengers at bay.
Not unrelated, Musk and a group of investors have just launched a US$97.4 billion (£78.7bn) bid for OpenAI’s nonprofit arm, a move that escalates his feud with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and seeks to strengthen his grip on the AI industry. Altman has dismissed the bid as a “desperate power grab”, insisting that OpenAI will not be swayed by Musk’s attempts to reclaim control. The spat reflects how DeepSeek’s emergence has thrown US tech giants into what could be all-out war, fuelling bitter corporate rivalries and reshaping the fight for AI dominance.
And while the US and China escalate their AI competition, other global leaders are pushing for a coordinated response. The Paris AI Action Summit, held on February 10 and 11, has become a focal point for efforts to prevent AI from descending into an uncontrolled power struggle. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, warned delegates that without international oversight, AI risks becoming “the wild west”, where unchecked technological development creates instability rather than progress.
But at the end of the two-day summit, the UK and US refused to sign an international commitment to “ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy … making AI sustainable for people and the planet”. China was among the 61 countries to sign this declaration.
Concerns have also been raised at the summit about how AI-powered surveillance and control are enabling authoritarian regimes to strengthen repression and reshape the citizen-state relationship. This highlights the fast-growing global industry of digital repression, driven by an emerging “authoritarian-financial complex” that may exacerbate China’s strategic advancement in AI.
Equally, DeepSeek’s cost-effective AI solutions have created an opening for European firms to challenge the traditional AI hierarchy. As AI development shifts from being solely about compute power to strategic efficiency and accessibility, European firms now have an opportunity to compete more aggressively against their US and Chinese counterparts.
Whether this marks a true rebalancing of the AI landscape remains to be seen. But DeepSeek’s emergence has certainly upended traditional assumptions about who will lead the next wave of AI innovation – and how global powers will respond to it.
End of the ‘Silicon Valley effect’?
DeepSeek’s emergence has forced US tech leaders to confront an uncomfortable reality: they underestimated China’s AI capabilities. Confident in their perceived lead, companies like Google, Meta, and OpenAI prioritised incremental improvements over anticipating disruptive competition, leaving them vulnerable to a rapidly evolving global AI landscape.
In response, the US tech giants are now scrambling to defend their dominance, pledging over US$400 billion in AI investment. DeepSeek’s rise, fuelled by open-source collaboration, has reignited fierce debates over innovation versus security, while its energy-efficient model has intensified scrutiny on AI’s sustainability.
Yet Silicon Valley continues to cling to what many view as outdated economic theories such as the Jevons paradox to downplay China’s AI surge, insisting that greater efficiency will only fuel demand for computing power and reinforce their dominance. Companies like Meta, OpenAI and Microsoft remain fixated on scaling computational power, betting that expensive hardware will secure their lead. But this assumption blinds them to a shifting reality.
DeepSeek’s rise as the potential “Walmart of AI” is shaking Silicon Valley’s foundation, proving that high-quality AI models can be built at a fraction of the cost. By prioritising efficiency over brute-force computing power, DeepSeek is challenging the US tech industry’s reliance on expensive hardware like Nvidia’s high-end chips.
This shift has already rattled markets, driving down the stock prices of major US firms and forcing a reassessment of AI dominance. Nvidia, whose business depends on supplying high-performance processors, appears particularly vulnerable as DeepSeek’s cost-effective approach threatens to reduce demand for premium chips.
Video: CBS News.
The growing divide between the US and China in AI, however, is more than just competition – it’s a clash of governance models. While US firms remain fixated on protecting market dominance, China is accelerating AI innovation with a model that is proving more adaptable to global competition.
If Silicon Valley resists structural change, it risks falling further behind. We may witness the unravelling of the “Silicon Valley effect”, through which tech giants have long manipulated AI regulations to entrench their dominance. For years, Google, Meta,and OpenAI shaped policies that favoured proprietary models and costly infrastructure, ensuring AI development remained under their control.
More than a policy-driven rise, China’s AI surge reflects a fundamentally different innovation model – fast, collaborative and market-driven – while Silicon Valley holds on to expensive infrastructure and rigid proprietary control. If US firms refuse to adapt, they risk losing the future of AI to a more agile and cost-efficient competitor.
A new era of geotechnopolitics
But China is not just disrupting Silicon Valley. It is expanding “geotechnopolitics”, where AI is a battleground for global power. With AI projected to add US$15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030, China and the US are racing to control the technology that will define economic, military and political dominance.
DeepSeek’s advancement has raised national security concerns in the US. Trump’s government is considering stricter export controls on AI-related technologies to prevent them from bolstering China’s military and intelligence capabilities.
As AI-driven defence systems, intelligence operations and cyber warfare redefine national security, governments must confront a new reality: AI leadership is not just about technological superiority, but about who controls the intelligence that will shape the next era of global power.
China’s AI ambitions extend beyond technology, driving a broader strategy for economic and geopolitical dominance. But with over 50 state-backed companies developing large-scale AI models, its rapid expansion faces growing challenges, including soaring energy demands and US semiconductor restrictions.
China’s president, Xi Jinping, remains resolute, stating: “Whoever can grasp the opportunities of new economic development such as big data and artificial intelligence will have the pulse of our times.” He sees AI driving “new quality productivity” and modernising China’s manufacturing base, calling its “head goose effect” a catalyst for broader innovation.
To counter western containment, China has embraced a “guerrilla” economic strategy, bypassing restrictions through alternative trade networks, deepening ties with the global south, and exploiting weaknesses in global supply chains. Instead of direct confrontation, this decentralised approach uses economic coercion to weaken adversaries while securing China’s own industrial base.
Video: AP.
China is also leveraging open-source AI as an ideological tool, presenting its model as more collaborative and accessible than western alternatives. This narrative strengthens its global influence, aligning with nations seeking alternatives to western digital control. While strict state oversight remains, China’s embrace of open-source AI reinforces its claim to a future where innovation is driven not by corporate interests but through shared collaboration and global cooperation.
But while DeepSeek claims to be open access, its secrecy tells a different story. Key details on training data and fine-tuning remain hidden, and its compliance with China’s AI laws has sparked global scrutiny. Italy has banned the platform over data-transfer risks, while Belgium and Ireland launched privacy probes.
Under Chinese regulations, DeepSeek’s outputs must align with state-approved narratives, clashing with the EU’s AI Act, which demands transparency and protects political speech. Such “controlled openness” raises many red flags, casting doubt on China’s place in markets that value data security and free expression.
Many western commentators are seizing on reports of Chinese AI censorship to frame other models as freer and more politically open. The revelation that a leading Chinese chatbot actively modifies or censors responses in real time has fuelled a broader narrative that western AI operates without such restrictions, reinforcing the idea that democratic systems produce more transparent and unbiased technology. This framing serves to bolster the argument that free societies will ultimately lead the global AI race.
But at its heart, the “AI arms race” is driven by technological dominance. The US, China, and the EU are charting different paths, weighing security risks against the need for global collaboration. How this competition is framed will shape policy: lock AI behind restrictions, or push for open innovation.
DeepSeek, for all its transformational qualities, continues to exemplify a model of AI where innovation prioritises scale, speed and efficiency over societal impact. This drive to optimise computation and expand capabilities overshadows the need to design AI as a truly public good. In doing so, it eclipses this technology’s genuine potential to transform governance, public services and social institutions in ways that prioritise collective wellbeing, equity and sustainability over corporate and state control.
A truly global AI framework requires more than political or technological openness. It demands structured cooperation that prioritises shared governance, equitable access, and responsible development. Following a workshop in Shanghai hosted by the Chinese government last September, the UN’s general secretary, António Guterres, outlined his vision for AI beyond corporate or state control: “We must seize this historic opportunity to lay the foundations for inclusive governance of AI – for the benefit of all humanity. As we build AI capacity, we must also develop shared knowledge and digital public goods.”
Both the west and China frame their AI ambitions through competing notions of “openness” – each aligning with their strategic interests and reinforcing existing power structures.
Western tech giants claim AI drives democratisation, yet they often dominate digital infrastructure in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, exporting models based on “corporate imperialism” that extract value while disregarding local needs. China, by contrast, positions itself as a technological partner for the rest of the global south; however, its AI remains tightly controlled, reinforcing state ideology.
China’s proclaimed view on international AI collaboration emphasises that AI should not be “a game of rich countries”“, as President Xi stated during the 2024 G20 summit. By advocating for inclusive global AI development, China positions itself as a leader in shaping international AI governance, especially via initiatives like the UN AI resolution and its AI capacity-building action plan. These efforts help promote a more balanced technological landscape while allowing China to strengthen its influence in global AI standards and frameworks.
However, beneath all these narratives, both China and the US share a strategy of AI expansion that relies on exploited human labour, from data annotation to moderation, exposing a system driven less by innovation than by economic and political control.
Seeing AI as a connected race for influence highlights the need for ethical deployment, cross-border cooperation, and a balance between security and progress. And this is where China may face its greatest challenge – balancing the power of open-source innovation with the constraints of a tightly controlled, authoritarian system that thrives on restriction, rather than openness.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Peter Bloom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ivo Vlaev, Professor of Behavioural Science, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick
Sir Keir Starmer has become the first sitting UK prime minister to publicly take an HIV test to reduce stigma around Aids and encourage more people to get tested.
There are historical parallels. In 1956, when Elvis Presley, at the height of his fame, was filmed receiving his polio vaccine on US television.
Do these high-profile gestures really change attitudes and behaviour, or are they just headline-grabbing stunts?
A closer look at the behavioural science behind celebrity endorsements suggests that, under the right conditions, public demonstrations by famous figures can indeed shift social norms, reduce stigma and influence health outcomes. However, the effects depend a lot on the credibility of the endorser, the authenticity of the act and the presence of sustained, follow-up campaigns.
Elvis Presley’s polio jab is one of the most iconic examples of celebrity-led health campaigns. But many other well-known figures have encouraged the public to adopt protective health measures, from actors promoting annual flu jabs to footballers advocating organ donation drives.
The premise is that a celebrity’s endorsement can normalise certain behaviour by tapping into the principles of “social learning theory”, particularly observational learning. That is, when we see someone we admire or trust do something, we are more likely to follow suit.
In the 1950s, polio was a serious threat, capable of causing paralysis or death. After witnessing Elvis roll up his sleeve on national television, many teenagers – previously sceptical or apathetic – became far more willing to accept the polio vaccine. That event is now hailed as a masterclass in leveraging popular culture to address a public health crisis.
A masterclass in leveraging popular culture.
A cornerstone of behavioural science is the recognition that who delivers a message can be as important as – or sometimes more important than – what the message contains. The so-called “messenger effect” highlights how we are often more persuaded by people we perceive to be credible, relatable or high status.
In the case of Elvis, he was already idolised by millions. He was the perfect conduit to promote vaccination among teenagers who might otherwise dismiss appeals from older authority figures.
Starmer occupies a different kind of influence. Supporters of the Labour party may see him as a trustworthy figure, while others could be sceptical of a politician’s motives. This underscores a key aspect of the messenger effect: if a large segment of the target audience views the figure as partisan or self-serving, the endorsement can backfire or simply fail to register.
Another powerful effect identified in behavioural science is social norms – our shared understandings of what is typical or appropriate – which strongly influence whether we take certain actions.
Stigma around HIV remains a major barrier to testing and treatment. Even though medical advances have changed the landscape of HIV/Aids care, many people still fear the societal consequences of a positive diagnosis. According to the UK Health Security Agency, around 5,000 people in the UK are unaware they are living with HIV, partly because they hesitate to test in the first place.
By publicly taking an HIV test, Starmer aimed to shift perceptions and normalise testing. In terms of social identity theory, seeing a prominent figure within the national community – especially one involved in shaping policies – undergo testing can communicate that “people like us” view HIV testing as a routine, responsible health measure. This may be particularly powerful for people who identify politically with Starmer or who respect his leadership position.
Despite the potential of celebrity or high-profile endorsements, behavioural science also points to authenticity as a vital ingredient. Audiences are more likely to change their behaviour if they believe the celebrity genuinely cares about the issue rather than simply seeking publicity. If endorsements are perceived as insincere or politically opportunistic, their effect can be muted or even counterproductive.
In Elvis’s case, he was known for engaging with young fans and had a track record of public good works, which helped bolster the sense that his polio vaccination was done for more than just a publicity boost.
For Starmer, sustaining the momentum beyond a single test – through continued advocacy, support of free testing programmes, and visibility in HIV-awareness campaigns – could reinforce the perception of a real commitment rather than a fleeting photo opportunity.
Nudges
Behavioural scientists also often talk about “nudges” – small interventions that change people’s choices without forbidding options or significantly changing incentives. A celebrity endorsement can serve as a nudge by making a desirable health behaviour (like getting tested) more top-of-mind or socially acceptable.
However, historically, Elvis’s vaccination was not a standalone act. It was part of a broader public health strategy involving schools, local campaigns and continued outreach. Those elements ensured that once people were motivated to get the polio jab, they could do so easily.
For HIV testing, the same principle applies: visible leadership from Starmer may spark initial interest, but practical measures – such as pop-up testing centres, free home-test kits and confidential testing support – are vital to maintain engagement.
Is Keir Starmer the new Elvis? In reality, the two scenarios differ in time and context. A 21st-century political leader raising awareness about HIV testing in the UK operates within a more complex media landscape than a 1950s rock ’n’ roll icon on American primetime television. Yet, there is a parallel: both used their public status to tackle a widespread health concern, hoping to overcome stigma and promote an important preventative measure.
Ultimately, celebrity moments can open the door, but only a sustained, evidence-based strategy will keep it open – and encourage people to walk through.
Anyone in England can order a free and confidential HIV test from www.freetesting.hiv to do the test at home.
Ivo Vlaev 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.
Grown in Ecuador (Équateur en français), sold in Paris. Robert Crum / shutterstock
As you read this, planes full of roses are heading from east Africa and South America to almost every corner of the world. If you buy someone a rose this Valentine’s Day, it may be in the air right now or perhaps in a refrigerated warehouse in the Netherlands.
A huge logistical operation ensures those flowers are timed to be perfectly in bloom on the 14th. From flower farm to bouquet can take just a few days. In all, hundreds of millions of roses will be shipped internationally this week, and many will die before they can be sold.
Can all this flying be justified?
You’re reading the Imagine newsletter – a weekly synthesis of academic insight on solutions to climate change, brought to you by The Conversation. I’m Will de Freitas, energy and environment editor, covering for my colleague Jack Marley who is lovesick. This week, we’re looking at flowers.
Many people don’t realise just how far a Valentine’s rose has probably travelled. Though roses can be grown in the UK (and some species are native), most of them won’t flower for at least another few months.
Jill Timms and David Bek, academics at the University of Coventry who have researched the global flower trade point out: “This sort of localised growing does not satisfy the demand for volume, variety and year-round supply, or indeed guarantee sustainability in terms of energy, pesticide use and so on.”
This means most roses are imported from countries with more land, more sunshine, and a cheaper workforce. Major growers include Colombia, Ecuador, Kenya and Ethiopia. The Netherlands is actually the biggest exporter of roses, partly due to its own production in greenhouses but mostly thanks to its position as a crucial hub for the global trade. Flowers sent to the UK from the Netherlands were probably grown elsewhere.
To ensure they stay fresh, those flowers are kept cool as they’re transported in a series of refrigerated lorries, planes or boats, while some are sprayed with chemicals to freeze them.
“Geography matters,” say Timms and Bek. “Some flowers travel by sea, some cargo plane and others in the hold of passenger jets, all with very different carbon footprints.”
Figuring out a flower’s carbon footprint is not straightforward. Jennifer Lavers and Fiona Kerslake from the University of Tasmania compared cut flowers grown in heated or refrigerated greenhouses in the Netherlands with those grown in Kenya.
“Maintaining the controlled environmental conditions inside these [Dutch] buildings requires artificial light, heat and cooling, so each rose grown in The Netherlands contributes an average of around 2.91kg of CO₂ to the atmosphere.”
“In contrast”, they write, “a single rose grown on a farm in Kenya contributes only 0.5kg. This is largely because Kenyan hot houses do not use artificial heating or lighting, and most farm workers walk or cycle to work. As a result, flowers grown in tropical regions are sometimes considered low-carbon (of course, this doesn’t always factor in international transport).”
Paul D. Larson of the University of Manitoba points out that, while local production would ground some of the international flower flights, “growing flowers in greenhouses can use as much energy as shipping them [to North America] from Colombia by air freight”.
Larson, a professor of supply chain management, does highlight one major issue with “low carbon” flowers in the global south, however:
“Since flowers are not classified as edible, they are often exempt from pesticide regulations. Thus, many flower production workers in Ecuador and Colombia have suffered from respiratory problems, rashes and eye infections caused by exposure to toxic chemicals in fertilizers, fungicides and pesticides.”
The flower trade in Ecuador and Colombia was actually engineered a few decades ago to try and stem the flow of cocaine into the US, says Jay L. Zagorsky, an associate professor at Boston University’s business school.
“One part of the strategy was to convince farmers in Colombia to stop growing coca leaves – a traditional Andean plant that provides the raw ingredient for making cocaine – by giving them preferential access to US markets if they grew something else.”
Whether this policy helped stop drug production is unclear, says Zagorsky, but American domestic rose growing has collapsed and “many businesses in Colombia and Ecuador started growing and shipping flowers north”.
No one expects you to know exactly how a flower was grown, what conditions were like for workers, or to conduct a full “life cycle assessment” of their carbon footprint. But what can you do to help this Valentine’s Day?
Timms and Bek, the flower trade experts at Coventry University, wrote about five ways to ensure your flowers are ethical. They contrast flowers grown in the Netherlands and Kenya and say that “your priorities need to guide your purchase: environmental issues include carbon footprint, chemical use, ecological degradation and water use; social issues include health and safety standards, gender discrimination, precarious employment and land rights.”
While the first world war and the Spanish civil war had already drawn children in Europe and beyond into the orbit of conflict, the second world war marked a pivotal period in how young people have experienced the horrors of war.
During the 1940s, children faced unprecedented mobilisation and violence. From bombings and massacres to forced displacement and genocide, the impact was staggering. Millions of children were directly affected by these atrocities, while countless others endured the indirect consequences: shortages, family separations and grief.
In the aftermath of the war, childhood experts such as pediatricians, psychologists and nutritionists, as well as political leaders and humanitarian workers, feared for this potentially “lost generation”. With recognition of the vulnerability of children as a social group, there was a transnational push to implement protective measures. This shared awareness led to milestones such as the establishment of the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) in December 1946 and, later, the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
The period from 1939 to 1949 not only highlighted the need to protect children worldwide, but also underscored their importance in building a peaceful future. As detailed in La Seconde Guerre mondiale des enfants (The second world war of children), published in September 2024 by Presses Universitaires de France, children embodied hope for postwar nations. They were seen not only as victims of war but also as active participants in shaping a peaceful world.
Schools as foundations of reconstruction
After 1945, schools became central to Europe’s social reconstruction. Seen as spaces of socialisation that included nearly all children, schools were viewed as critical for rebuilding society. Some measures mirrored those introduced after the first world war. Children, particularly those aged 6 to 14 (the typical age for compulsory education in Europe), were tasked with preserving the memory of fallen soldiers, resistance fighters and civilian victims. They cleaned and adorned graves, attended public ceremonies and paid homage to the dead.
However, postwar education went further. In some countries, particularly those that formerly had authoritarian or totalitarian regimes such as Italy and Germany, school curricula underwent significant transformation. Lessons on democratic governance and peaceful figures were either reinforced or reintroduced, and history classes began emphasising cultural, political and economic exchanges between nations. These reforms aimed to counteract the nationalist ideologies that had fuelled war and division.
Unlike the post-WWI era, the years after 1945 saw efforts to strengthen ties between nations by fostering connections among their youngest citizens. Programs promoting international school exchanges flourished. French students corresponded with Canadian peers, British children sent books to Germans and Swedish students traveled to Belgium.
Germany hosted one of the most ambitious programs: the US-led “World Friendship Among Children Program”. This initiative included pen-pal projects, student travel and even the symbolic adoption of war orphans by classrooms. The program also established the “World Friendship Council of the Future”, where young people proposed initiatives for international dialogue, mimicking the operations of newly formed organisations such as the United Nations, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and the World Health Organization.
It was also in Germany that Houses of America, or Youth Centres, were established. While the goal was to offer children sports and cultural activities, they were primarily seen by Americans as tools of soft power and political instruments to (re)educate youth about the principles of democracy.
Active pedagogy for European education
Indeed, after 1945, educating children for peace also meant educating them about democracy. Across Western Europe, teaching methods inspired by progressive education movements – championed by figures such as Maria Montessori, Ovide Decroly and John Dewey – became widespread.
For educational leaders, merely teaching democratic principles wasn’t enough: children needed to practice them. Classrooms became miniature societies where students elected class representatives, voted on school matters and debated everyday and political issues. This active engagement aimed to cultivate civic responsibility and critical thinking.
Some postwar experiments went further. Communities of children or “children’s republics” emerged across Europe to provide homes for children who had lost their homes and parents. While their primary mission was humanitarian, these communities were also intended to form the foundations of new, peaceful societies. Self-governance was central to their goal of preparation for active citizenship. In the Repubblica dei Ragazzi (boys’ republic) in Santa Marinella, near Rome, children ran their own court, deliberative assembly and union.
Ideological differences
While schools are indeed the cornerstone of global peacebuilding, debates about fostering peace go beyond the classroom to encompass all aspects of children’s lives. This includes the private sphere, as evidenced by numerous transnational legislative efforts to ban violent comic books and war-themed toys, which are accused of inciting aggression in children and thus threatening a peaceful future.
This surge of post-WWII initiatives underscores the fact that educating for peace and democracy was a European – if not global – project. However, its interpretation varied depending on country and region. In France, West Germany and Italy, the project was rooted in liberal ideals; in Eastern Europe, it reflected a different understanding of democracy.
In the West, the focus was on the individual, with boys and girls assigned traditional, gendered roles: girls were encouraged to become future mothers, while boys were groomed to be workers contributing to economic growth. In contrast, the Eastern model emphasised collective values within a socialist framework, promoting more egalitarian relationships between boys and girls, albeit in service of political objectives.
Regardless of ideological differences, these post-1945 initiatives left a lasting legacy. Their influence can still be seen today in school activities such as student elections and class trips, which continue to echo the democratic ideals of that era.
Camille Mahé ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jennifer Clapp, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability, and Member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, University of Waterloo
History has shown us again and again that, so long as inequality goes unchecked, no amount of technology can ensure people are well fed.
Today, the world produces more food per person than ever before. Yet hunger and malnutrition persist in every corner of the globe — even, and increasingly, in some of its wealthiest countries.
The major drivers of food insecurity are well known: conflict, poverty, inequality, economic shocks and escalating climate change. In other words, the causes of hunger are fundamentally political and economic.
The urgency of the hunger crisis has prompted 150 Nobel and World Food Prize laureates to call for “moonshot” technological and agricultural innovations to boost food production, meaning monumental and lofty efforts. However, they largely ignored hunger’s root causes — and the need to confront powerful entities and make courageous political choices.
Food is misallocated
To focus almost exclusively on promoting agricultural technologies to ramp up food production would be to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The Green Revolution of the 1960s-70s brought impressive advances in crop yields, though at considerable environmental cost. It failed to eliminate hunger, because it didn’t address inequality. Take Iowa, for example — home to some of the most industrialized food production on the planet. Amid its high-tech corn and soy farms, 11 per cent of the state’s population, and one in six of its children, struggle to access food.
Even though the world already produces more than enough food to feed everyone, it’s woefully misallocated. Selling food to poor people at affordable prices simply isn’t as profitable for giant food corporations.
They make far more by exporting it for animal feed, blending it into biofuels for cars or turning it into industrial products and ultra-processed foods. To make matters worse, a third of all food is simply wasted.
Meanwhile, as the laureates remind us, more than 700 million people — nine per cent of the world’s population — remain chronically undernourished. A staggering 2.3 billion people — more than one in four — cannot access an adequate diet.
Women queue up to receive food distributed by local volunteers at a camp in Somalia in May 2019. Conflicts hinder the effective delivery of humanitarian aid during food security crisis. (AP Photo/Farah Abdi Warsameh)
Confronting inequity
Measures to address world hunger must start with its known causes and proven policies. Brazil’s Without Hunger program, for example, has seen dramatic 85 per cent reduction in severe hunger in just 18 months through financial assistance, school food programs and minimum wage policies.
Our politicians must confront and reverse gross inequities in wealth, power and access to land. Hunger disproportionately affects the poorest and most marginalized people, not because food is scarce, but because people can’t afford it or lack the resources to produce it for themselves. Redistribution policies aren’t optional, they’re essential.
Governments must put a stop to the use of hunger as a weapon of war. The worst hunger hotspots are conflict zones, as seen in Gaza and Sudan, where violence drives famine. Too many governments have looked the other way on starvation tactics — promoting emergency aid to pick up the pieces instead of taking action to end the conflicts driving hunger.
Governments must also break the stranglehold of inequitable trade rules and export patterns that trap the poorest regions in dependency on food imports, leaving them vulnerable to shocks.
Instead, supporting local and territorial markets is critical in helping build resilience to economic and supply chain disruptions. These markets provide livelihoods and help ensure diverse, nutritious foods reach those who need them.
Mitigating and adapting to climate change requires massive investments in transformative approaches that promote resilience and sustainability in food systems.
Agroecology — a farming system that applies ecological principles to ensure sustainability and promotes social equity in food systems — is a key solution, proven to sequester carbon, build resilience to climate shocks and reduce dependence on expensive and environmentally damaging synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
More research should explore agroecology’s full potential. And we must adopt plant-rich, local and seasonal diets, ramp up measures to tackle food waste and reconsider using food crops for biofuels.
This means pushing back against Big Meat and biofuel lobbies, while investing in climate-resilient food systems.
Bold political action needed
This is not to say that technology has no role — all hands need to be on deck. But the innovations most worth pursuing are those that genuinely support more equitable and sustainable food systems, and not corporate profits. Unless scientific efforts are matched by policies that confront power and prioritize equity over profit, then hunger is likely to here to stay.
The solutions to hunger are neither new nor beyond reach. What’s missing is the political will to address its root causes.
This message is shared by my colleagues with the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, IPES-Food, whose work covers a range of expertise and experience. Hunger persists because we allow injustice to endure. If we are serious about ending it, we need bold political action, not just scientific breakthroughs.
Jennifer Clapp receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. She is a member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food).
At a recent summit in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, leaders of eight African states released a statement calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The statement comes after a flareup in fighting in eastern DRC that has killed hundred and wounded thousands.
On Jan. 31, 2025 the rebel group known as the March 23 Movement (M23) captured the city of Goma in the eastern DRC. At a news conference, Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance that includes M23, declared that they were there to stay and would march to the DRC’s capital of Kinshasa.
The World Health Organization reported 900 bodies had been recovered from the streets of Goma, with about 3,000 people injured and thousands forced to flee. The Congolese government said that it had started burying more than 2,000 people and thousands had been displaced.
On Feb. 4, 2025, the Congo River Alliance declared a ceasefire. This isn’t the first time M23 attacked Goma and then declared a ceasefire. The renewed violence is the latest in a long-running conflict in the region that has grown to involve local militias, regional countries and foreign companies seeking to exploit Congo’s mineral wealth.
However, a faction within the CNDP disapproved of the Goma agreement and created a militia group in 2012 that came to be known as M23. A United Nations group has said senior government officials from Rwanda and Uganda have provided M23 with weapons, intelligence and military support.
The roots of the conflict lie in the history of Belgium’s colonial rule of the region that pitted the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups against each other. In 1956, ethnic tensions in Rwanda forced many Tutsis to seek refuge in Congo (then Zaire), Uganda, Tanzania and beyond.
Tutsis who fled to Congo and Uganda were not accorded full citizenship rights, and this led to resentment.
In the mid-1990s, Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni collaborated with Congolese rebel leader Laurent-Désiré Kabila to create the AFDL. The group waged the First Congo War from October 1996 to May 1997 that ended with the overthrow of the DRC’s long-time ruler, Mobutu Sese Seko. Kabila became president.
Kagame and Museveni fought along with Congolese Tutsis to assert their citizenship once the war ended. However, when Kabila turned against his backers, it led to the waged Second Congo War from 1998 to 2003, with Rwandan and Ugandan-backed militas fighting against the DRC government.
The FDLR was implicated in orchestrating the 1994 Rwandan genocide that killed 800,000 people, most of whom were Tutsi. The FDLR has been based in eastern Congo since 1996, after the Rwandan Patriotic Front, led by Kagame and others, pushed them out of Rwanda.
Fear of the FDLR was one of the drivers for the First Congo War. In a recent interview with CNN, Kagame said:
“If you want to ask me, is there a problem in Congo that concerns Rwanda? And that Rwanda would do anything to protect itself? I’d say 100 per cent.”
Control of minerals
Before the fall of Goma in February 2025, M23 captured mineral-rich areas like Rubaya, the largest coltan mine in the Great Lakes region; Kasika and Walikale, where there are numerous gold mines; Numbi, which is rich with tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold; and Minova, which is a trade hub.
In December 2024, a UN expert group noted that M23 exported about 150 tonnes of coltan to Rwanda, and was involved with Rwanda’s production, leading to “the largest contamination of mineral supply chain.”
One of the central dynamics of this conflict is the control and profit from natural resources. The DRC is rich in minerals and metals needed around the world, including the critical minerals used in the technology and renewable energy industries.
The World Bank has noted that the “DRC is endowed with exceptional mineral resources.” However, administration of the sector is dysfunctional and handicapped by insufficient institutional capacity.
Ending the M23 insurgency requires taking Tutsi citizenship seriously. Politics researcher Filip Reyntjens has argued that any peaceful transition in the DRC needed to take regional countries seriously. He emphasized:
“By turning a blind eye to Rwanda’s hegemonic claims in eastern Congo, the future stability of the region remains in doubt. Rwanda may once again, in the not too distant future, become the focal point of regional violence.”
A factor contributing to the violence is the lack of measures to ensure ceasefires are respected by different parties engaged in conflicts. In addition, armed groups and their backers have not been effectively prosecuted. A 2010 UN mapping report describes 617 alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and human rights between March 1993 and June 2003. No perpetrators have never been prosecuted.
Furthermore, there must be strong international efforts to prevent conflict minerals from getting into international supply chains. M23 and other militias smuggle Congo’s minerals through regional neighbours, where they are considered conflict-free.
Tech giants that rely on these minerals must do more to scrutinize where they come from. Equally, all of us, as consumers of products made from the DRC’s minerals, must demand accountability.
It’s usually only men who participate in such talks. Women, who endure the brutality of sexual violence and other human rights violations, must be represented in peace and security talks.
In his 2018 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Congolese physician and human rights activist Dr. Dennis Mukwege noted that:
“What is the world waiting for before taking this into account? There is no lasting peace without justice. Yet, justice in not negotiable. Let us have the courage to take a critical and impartial look at what has been going on for too long in the Great Lakes region.”
To effectively respond to the plight of the people of eastern Congo will take more than situational and short-term intervention. National, regional and international parties must negotiate peaceful and just access to minerals. Peace and security in Congo will happen when sectarian and partisan politics is replaced with commitment to democracy, sovereignty and peoples’ well-being.
Evelyn Namakula Mayanja receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canada and Carleton University.
How might you make your mark on the world forever? Write a play more timeless than Shakespeare, or compose music to out-do Mozart, or score the winning goal in the next World Cup final, perhaps?
There’s an easier way of leaving an indelible mark on our planet. Just finish a soft drink and toss the can (and the remains of the chicken dinner that went with it), ditch last year’s impulse purchases from your wardrobe, resurface that old patio, upgrade your mobile phone … simply carry on with everyday life, that is, and you’ll likely leave a fascinating legacy. It might last a billion years.
We’re palaeontologists, and have spent our careers looking at the fossil record of the deep past, puzzling out how those magnificent animal and plant relics have been preserved as dinosaur bones, the carapaces of ancient crustaceans, lustrous spiralled ammonites, petrified flower petals and many more. Often they still have exquisite detail intact after millions of years.
We’ve now turned our attention to the myriad everyday objects that we make and use, to see what kind of future fossils – we call them technofossils – they will make. We’ve written about this in our new book, Discarded: how technofossils will be our ultimate legacy. Here are some key messages:
The first things that’ll catch the eye of any far-future palaeontologist are our manufactured objects – buildings, roads, machines and so on. In recent decades, they have rocketed in amount to over a trillion tonnes, to now outweigh all living things on Earth. That’s a lot of raw material for generating future fossils.
Then, most things we make are designed to be durable, to resist corrosion and decay, and are significantly tougher than the average bone or shell. Just from that they have a head start in the fossilisation stakes.
Many are new to the Earth. Discarded aluminium cans are everywhere, for instance, but to our planet, they’re a wondrous novelty, as pure aluminium metal is almost unknown in nature. In the past 70 years we’ve made more than 500 million tonnes of the stuff, enough to coat all of the US (and part of Canada) in standard aluminium kitchen foil.
What’s going to happen to it? Aluminium resists corrosion, but not forever. Buried underground in layers of mud and sand, a can will slowly break down, but often not before there’s a can-shaped impression in these new rocks, lined with microscopic clay crystals newly-grown out of the corroding aluminium.
Everyday items can be flushed onto a floodplain and be quickly buried under sediments. As they slowly degrade they may leave an impression on the soft muds and silts for future palaeontologists to puzzle over. Sarah Gabbott
Having been shielded from ultraviolet light, the thin plastic liner inside the can may endure too. (Oil-based plastic is even more novel in geological terms, being entirely non-existent until the 20th century). These two materials compressed side-by-side represent future fossil signatures of our time on Earth.
Billions of fossilised chicken thighs
But what about bones – the archetypal fossil relic? There will be many of these as future fossils, stark evidence of our species’ domination over others.
The standard supermarket chicken seems mundane. But it’s now by far the most common bird of all, making up about two-thirds of all bird biomass on Earth, and its abundance in life increases its fossilisation chances after death.
We stack the odds further by tossing the bones into a plastic bin-bag, that’s then carted to the landfill site to join countless more bones for burial in neatly engineered compartments – also plastic-lined. There, the bones will begin to mummify, another useful step in the road to petrifaction. Our landfills are giant middens of the future and will be stuffed full of the bones of this one species.
Geologists of the far future may conclude that chickens could only have existed thanks to a more intelligent species. dba87 / shutterstock
These bones – super-sized but weak, riddled with osteoporosis, sometimes fractured and deformed – will tell their own grisly story. Future geologists will puzzle over a suddenly-evolved bird so abundant yet so physically helpless. Will they figure out the story of a broiler chicken genetically
engineered to feed relentlessly to maximise weight gain, for slaughter just five or six weeks after hatching? We suspect the fossil evidence will be damning.
Fossilised fleeces
Fossilizeable fashion is also new. Humans have worn clothes for thousands of years, but archaeological clothes discoveries are rare, because made of natural fibres they are feasted on by clothes moths, microbes and other scavengers. Fossil fur and feathers are rare too, for the same reasons.
But cheap, cheerful and hyper-abundant polyester fashion is quite different. There’s no need for mothballs with these garments because synthetic plastics are indigestible to most microbes. How long might they last? Some ancient fossil algae have coats of plastic-like polymers, and these have lasted, beautifully preserved, for many millions of years.
Fossil clothes will surely perplex far-future palaeonologists, though: first to work out their shape from the crumpled and flattened remains, and then to work out what purpose they served. With throwaway fashion, we’re making some eternal puzzles.
Concrete and computers
The lumps of concrete from your old patio are not any old rocks. The recipe for concrete, involving furnace-baked lime, is rare on Earth (the minerals involved occasionally form in magma-baked rock), but humans have made it hyper-abundant. There are now more than half a trillion tonnes of concrete on Earth, mostly made since the 1950s – that’s a kilo per square metre averaged over the Earth. And concrete is hard-wearing even by geological standards: most of its bulk is sand and gravel, which have been survivors throughout our planet’s history.
There’s nothing old about computers and mobile phones, but they are based on the same element – silicon – that makes up the quartz (silicon dioxide) of sand and gravel. A fossilised silicon chip will be tricky to decipher, though: the semiconductors now packed on to them are just nanometres across, tinier than most mineral forms geologists analyse today.
But the associated paraphernalia, the burgeoning waste of keyboards, monitors, wiring, will form more obvious fossils. The patterns on these, like the QWERTY keyboard, resemble the fossil patterns seized upon by today’s palaeontologists as clues to ancient function. That would depend on the excavators, though: fossil keyboards would make more sense to hyper-evolved rats with five-fingered paws, say, than superintelligent octopuses of the far future.
It’s fun to conceptualise like this, and set the human story within the grand perspective of Earth’s history. But there’s a wider meaning. Tomorrow’s future fossils are today’s pollution: unsightly, damaging, often toxic, and ever more of a costly problem. One only has to look at the state of Britain’s rivers and beaches.
Understanding how fossilisation starts now helps us ask the right questions. When plastic trash is washed out to sea, will it keep travelling or become safely buried, covered by marine sediments? Will the waste in coastal landfill sites stay put, or be exhumed by the waves as sea level rises? The answers will be found in future rocks – but it would help us all to work them out now.
Sarah Gabbott is affiliated with Green Circle Nature Regeneration Community Interest Company 13084569.
Jan Zalasiewicz 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.
