Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Melanie Beasley, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Purdue University

Scientists long thought that Neanderthals were avid meat eaters. Based on chemical analysis of Neanderthal remains, it seemed like they’d been feasting on as much meat as apex predators such as lions and hyenas. But as a group, hominins – that’s Neanderthals, our species and other extinct close relatives – aren’t specialized flesh eaters. Rather, they’re more omnivorous, eating plenty of plant foods, too.

It is possible for humans to subsist on a very carnivorous diet. In fact, many traditional northern hunter–gatherers such as the Inuit subsisted mostly on animal foods. But hominins simply cannot tolerate consuming the high levels of protein that large predators can. If humans eat as much protein as hypercarnivores do over long periods without consuming enough other nutrients, it can lead to protein poisoning – a debilitating, even lethal condition historically known as “rabbit starvation.”

So, what could explain the chemical signatures found in Neanderthal bones that seem to suggest they were healthily eating tons of meat?

I am an anthropologist who uses elements such as nitrogen to study the diets of our very ancient ancestors. New research my colleagues and I conducted suggests a secret ingredient in the Neanderthal diet that might explain what was going on: maggots.

Isotope ratios reveal what an animal ate

The ratios of various elements in the bones of animals can provide insights into what they ate while alive. Isotopes are alternate forms of the same element that have slightly different masses. Nitrogen has two stable isotopes: nitrogen-14, the more abundant form, and nitrogen-15, the heavier, less common form. Scientists denote the ratio of nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 as δ¹⁵N and measure it in a unit called permil.

As you go higher up the food chain, organisms have relatively more of the isotope nitrogen-15. Grass, for example, has a very low δ¹⁵N value. An herbivore accumulates the nitrogen-15 that it consumes eating grass, so its own body has a slightly higher δ¹⁵N value. Meat-eating animals have the highest nitrogen ratio in a food web; the nitrogen-15 from their prey concentrates in their bodies.

By analyzing stable nitrogen isotope ratios, we can reconstruct the diets of Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens during the late Pleistocene, which ran from 11,700 to 129,000 years ago. Fossils from various sites tell the same story – these hominins have high δ¹⁵N values. High δ¹⁵N values would typically place them at the top of the food web, together with hypercarnivores such as cave lions and hyenas, whose diet is more than 70% meat.

But maybe something else about their diet was inflating Neanderthals’ δ¹⁵N values.

Uncovering the Neanderthal menu

We suspected that maggots could have been a different potential source of enriched nitrogen-15 in the Neanderthal diet. Maggots, which are fly larvae, can be a fat-rich source of food. They are unavoidable after you kill another animal, easily collectible in large numbers and nutritionally beneficial.

To investigate this possibility, we used a dataset that was originally created for a very different purpose: a forensic anthropology project focused on how nitrogen might help estimate time since death.

I had originally collected modern muscle tissue samples and associated maggots at the Forensic Anthropology Center at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, to understand how nitrogen values change during decomposition after death.

While the data can assist modern forensic death investigations, in our current study we repurposed it to test a very different hypothesis. We found that stable nitrogen isotope values increase modestly as muscle tissue decomposes, ranging from -0.6 permil to 7.7 permil.

This increase is more dramatic in maggots feeding on decomposing tissue: from 5.4 permil to 43.2 permil. To put the maggot values in perspective, scientists estimate δ¹⁵N values for Pleistocene herbivores to range between 0.9 permil to 11.2 permil. Maggots are measuring up to almost four times higher.

Our research suggests that the high δ¹⁵N values observed in Late Pleistocene hominins may be inflated by year-round consumption of ¹⁵N-enriched maggots found in dried, frozen or cached animal foods.

Cultural practices shape diet

In 2017, my collaborator John Speth proposed that the high δ¹⁵N values in Neanderthals were due to the consumption of putrid or rotting meat, based on historical and cultural evidence of diets in northern Arctic foragers.

Traditionally, Indigenous peoples almost universally viewed thoroughly putrefied, maggot-infested animal foods as highly desirable fare, not starvation rations. In fact, many such peoples routinely and often intentionally allowed animal foods to decompose to the point where they were crawling with maggots, in some cases even beginning to liquefy.

This rotting food would inevitably emit a stench so overpowering that early European explorers, fur trappers and missionaries were sickened by it. Yet Indigenous peoples viewed such foods as good to eat, even a delicacy. When asked how they could tolerate the nauseating stench, they simply responded, “We don’t eat the smell.”

Neanderthals’ cultural practices, similar to those of Indigenous peoples, might be the answer to the mystery of their high δ¹⁵N values. Ancient hominins were butchering, storing, preserving, cooking and cultivating a variety of items. All these practices enriched their paleo menu with foods in forms that nonhominin carnivores do not consume. Research shows that δ¹⁵N values are higher for cooked foods, putrid muscle tissue from terrestrial and aquatic species, and, with our study, for fly larvae feeding on decaying tissue.

The high δ¹⁵N values of maggots associated with putrid animal foods help explain how Neanderthals could have included plenty of other nutritious foods beyond only meat while still registering δ¹⁵N values we’re used to seeing in hypercarnivores.

We suspect the high δ¹⁵N values seen in Neanderthals reflect routine consumption of fatty animal tissues and fermented stomach contents, much of it in a semi-putrid or putrid state, together with the inevitable bonus of both living and dead ¹⁵N-enriched maggots.

What still isn’t known

Fly larvae are a fat-rich, nutrient-dense, ubiquitous and easily procured insect resource, and both Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens, much like recent foragers, would have benefited from taking full advantage of them. But we cannot say that maggots alone explain why Neanderthals have such high δ¹⁵N values in their remains.

Several questions about this ancient diet remain unanswered. How many maggots would someone need to consume to account for an increase in δ¹⁵N values above the expected values due to meat eating alone? How do the nutritional benefits of consuming maggots change the longer a food item is stored? More experimental studies on changes in δ¹⁵N values of foods processed, stored and cooked following Indigenous traditional practices can help us better understand the dietary practices of our ancient relatives.

Melanie Beasley received funding from the Haslam Foundation for this research.

– ref. Neanderthals likely ate fermented meat with a side of maggots – https://theconversation.com/neanderthals-likely-ate-fermented-meat-with-a-side-of-maggots-261628

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Scott Morgenstern, Professor of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh

The U.S. has an important choice to make regarding agriculture.

It can import more people to pick crops and do other kinds of agricultural labor, it can raise wages enough to lure more U.S. citizens and immigrants with legal status to take these jobs, or it can import more food. All three options contradict key Trump administration priorities: reducing immigration, keeping prices low and importing fewer goods and services.

The big tax-and-spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, included US$170 billion to fund the detention and deportation of those living in the U.S. without authorization. And about 1 million of them work in agriculture, accounting for more than 40% of all farmworkers.

As the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants ramps up, one emerging solution is to replace at least some deported farmworkers with foreigners who are given special visas that allow them to help with the harvest but require them to go home after their visas expire.

Such “guest worker” programs have existed for decades, leading to today’s H-2A visa program. As of 2023, more than 310,000 foreigners, around 13% of the nation’s 2.4 million farmworkers, were employed through this program. About 90% of the foreign workers with these visas come from Mexico, and nearly all are men. The states where the largest numbers of them go are California, Florida, Georgia and Washington.

As a professor of Latin American politics and U.S.-Latin American relations, I teach my students to consider the difficult trade-offs that governments face. If the Trump administration removes a significant share of the immigrants living in the U.S. without legal permission from the agricultural labor force to try to meet its deportation goals, farm owners will have few options.

Few options available

First, farm owners could raise wages and improve working conditions enough to attract U.S. citizens and immigrants who are legal permanent residents or otherwise in the U.S. with legal status.

But many agricultural employers say they can’t find enough people to hire who can legally work – at least without higher wages and much-improved job requirements. Without any undocumented immigrant farmworkers, the prices of U.S.-sourced crops and other agricultural products would spike, creating an incentive for more food to be imported.

Second, farm owners could employ fewer people. That would require either growing different crops that require less labor or becoming more reliant on machinery to plant and harvest. But that would mean the U.S. could have to import more food. And automation for some crops is very expensive. For others, such as for berries, it’s currently impossible.

It’s also possible that some farm owners could put their land to other uses, ceasing production, but that would also necessitate more imported food.

Trump administration’s suggested fixes

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has predicted that farm owners will soon find plenty of U.S. citizens to employ.

She declared on July 8 that the new Medicaid work requirements included in the same legislative package as the immigration enforcement funds would encourage huge numbers of U.S. citizens to start working in the fields instead of losing their health insurance through that government program.

Farm trade groups say this scenario is far-fetched.

For one thing, most adults enrolled in the Medicaid program who can work already do. Many others are unable to do so due to disabilities or caregiving obligations.

Few people enrolled in Medicaid live close enough to a farm to work at one, and even those who do aren’t capable of doing farmwork. When farm owners tried putting people enrolled in a welfare program to work in the fields in the 1990s, it failed. Another experiment in the 1960s, which deployed teenagers, didn’t pan out either because the teens found the work too hard.

It seems more likely that farm owners will try to hire many more foreign farmworkers to do temporary but legal jobs through the H-2A program.

Although he has not made it an official policy, Trump seems to be moving toward this same conclusion.

In June, for example, Trump said his administration was working on “some kind of a temporary pass” for immigrants lacking authorization to be in the U.S. who are working on farms and in hotels.

Established in 1952, numbers now rising quickly

The guest worker system, established in 1952 and revised significantly in 1986, has become a mainstay of U.S. agriculture because it offers important benefits to both the farm owners who need workers and the foreign workers they hire.

There is no cap on the number of potential workers. The number of H-2A visas issued is based only on how many employers request them. Farm owners may apply for visas after verifying that they are unable to locate enough workers who are U.S. citizens or present in the U.S. with authorization.

To protect U.S. workers, the government mandates that H-2A workers earn an “adverse effect wage rate.” The Labor Department sets that hourly wage, which ranges from $10.36 in Puerto Rico to about $15 in several southern states, to more than $20 in California, Alaska and Hawaii. These wages are set at relatively high levels to avoid putting downward pressure on what other U.S. workers are paid for the same jobs.

After certification, farm owners recruit workers in a foreign country who are offered a contract that includes transportation from their home country and a trip back – assuming they complete the contract.

The program provides farm owners with a short-term labor force. It guarantees the foreign workers who obtain H-2A visas relatively high wages, as well as housing in the U.S. That combination has proven increasingly popular in recent years: The annual number of H-2A visas rose to 310,700 in 2023, a more than fivefold increase since 2010.

Possible downsides

Boosting the number of agricultural guest workers would help fill some gaps in the agricultural labor force and reduce the risk of crops going unharvested. But it seems clear to me that a sudden change would pose risks for workers and farm owners alike.

Workers would be at risk because oversight of the H-2A program has historically been weak. Despite that lax track record, some unscrupulous farmers have been fined or barred from participating in the H-2A program because of unpaid wages and other abuses.

Relying even more on guest farmworkers than the U.S. does today would also swap workers who have built lives and families north of the border with people who are in the U.S. on a temporary basis. Immigration opponents are unlikely to object to this trade-off, but to immigrant rights groups, this arrangement would be cruel and unfair to workers with years of service behind them.

What’s more, the workers with guest visas can be at risk of exploitation and abuse. In 2022, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Georgia described conditions for H-2A workers at an onion farm the government had investigated as “modern-day slavery.”

For farm owners, the downside of ramping up guest worker programs is that it could increase costs and make production less efficient and more costly. That’s because transporting Mexican farmworkers back and forth each year is complicated and expensive. Farm groups say that compliance with H-2A visa requirements is cumbersome. It can be particularly difficult for small farms to participate in this program.

Some farm owners have objected to the costs of employing H-2A workers. Rollins has said that the Trump administration believes that the mandatory wages are too high.

To be sure, these problems aren’t limited to agriculture. Hotels, restaurants and other hospitality businesses, which rely heavily on undocumented workers, can also temporarily employ some foreigners through the H-2B visa program – which is smaller than the H-2A program, limits the number of visas issued and is available only for jobs considered seasonal.

Home health care providers and many other kinds of employers who rely on people who can’t legally work for them could also struggle. But so far, there is no temporary visa program available to help them fill those gaps.

If the U.S. does deport millions of workers, the price of tomatoes, elder care, restaurant meals and roof repairs would probably rise substantially. A vast increase in the number of guest workers is a potential but partial solution, but it would multiply problems that are inherent in these temporary visa programs.

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

– ref. Trump’s push for more deportations could boost demand for foreign farmworkers with ‘guest worker’ visas – https://theconversation.com/trumps-push-for-more-deportations-could-boost-demand-for-foreign-farmworkers-with-guest-worker-visas-259868

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Wilfredo José Burgos Matos, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Latin American and Latino Studies, Lehman College, CUNY

What began as songs about heartbreak in the brothels and barrios of the Dominican Republic in the 1960s has become a worldwide sensation.

Even the Bee Gees have gotten a bachata spin. Prince Royce’s bilingual take on the 1977 hit “How Deep Is Your Love” has topped the Latin music charts this summer and proves bachata is no longer chasing the mainstream but reimagining the pop canon.

Bachata dance classes, parties and festivals have sprung up across the U.S. in recent years, everywhere from Philadelphia to Los Angeles, and Omaha, Nebraska, to Oklahoma City.

It’s easy to find abroad as well. Upcoming bachata festivals are happening in cities in Austria, Egypt, Australia and China.

I’m a scholar of Dominican culture and the senior researcher for the History of Dominican Music in the U.S. project at the City University of New York’s Dominican Studies Institute. I see bachata as a revealing window into modern post-1960s Dominican history – and one that spotlights the emotional truths and everyday experiences of poor and Black Dominicans in particular.

Music from the margins

Bachata was born in the Dominican countryside and later developed in the shantytowns of Santo Domingo, the capital. In most Latin American dictionaries, the word “bachata” is loosely defined as “revelry” or “a spree.”

The distinctive sound is formed from guitars, bongos, bass and the güira – a percussion instrument also used in merengue music – and accompanied by typically romantic or bittersweet lyrics.

The music was long associated with the lower classes and Black Dominicans.

The genre’s first recording came in 1962, just over a year after Rafael Leónidas Trujillo, a brutal dictator who ruled the island for 31 years, was assassinated. Trujillo’s death marked the beginning of a new cultural and political era in the Dominican Republic, although democratic hopes were soon shattered by a military coup, civil war and a second U.S. intervention following an earlier one between 1916-1924.

Urban and middle-class Dominicans looked down on bachata as the music played in brothels and favored by poor, rural people who started to migrate to urban areas in large numbers in the 1960s. It was played almost exclusively on Radio Guarachita, a Santo Domingo station run by Radhamés Aracena, a key promoter of the genre.

Amid a country reeling from political upheaval, bachata emerged as a soundtrack to working-class survival. The guitar-based rhythms were shaped by Cuban bolero and son and Mexican ranchera music, while the lyrics chronicled daily struggles, grief and marginalization.

Bachata’s shifting language

In the 1960s, bachata lyrics centered on heartache and were often directed at a romantic partner.

“Understand me, you know I love only you. Don’t deny me the hope of kissing you again,” Rafael Encarnación sang in Spanish in his 1964 song “Muero Contigo,” or “I Die With You.”

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, sexual innuendos were common, adding to the genre’s low standing among Dominican elites.

“I gave you everything you ever wanted, but it was all useless because you went looking for another man,” Blas Durán sang in 1985. “I was left like the orange vendor – peeling so someone else could suck the fruit.”

To reclaim respect for bachata, some artists, such as Luis Segura and Leonardo Paniagua, in the mid-1980s began calling their music música de amargue, or “music of romantic bitterness.”

What began as a genre label gradually transformed into a sensibility. “Amargue” came to name a feeling marked by longing, loss and quiet introspection – akin to “feeling the blues” in the U.S.

American blues similarly emerged from the hardships faced by Black Americans in the South and expressed themes of sorrow, resilience and reflection.

By the 1990s, the stigma surrounding bachata began to fade, partly due to the international success of Dominican star Juan Luis Guerra and his album Bachata Rosa. The album sold more than 5 million copies worldwide by 1994, earned Guerra a Grammy Award for best tropical Latin album, and was certified platinum in the U.S.

As acceptance of the genre grew, traditional bachateros in the Dominican Republic continued releasing bachata albums. However, Dominican pop, rock and other artists also began recording bachatas – such as 1990’s “Yo Quiero Andar” by Sonia Silvestre and 1998’s “Bufeo” by Luis “El Terror” Días.

Bachata goes mainstream

Migration to the U.S. is a pivotal chapter in Dominican history after the 1960s. The U.S. Immigration Act of 1965 functioned as a de facto immigration policy and encouraged a large-scale exodus from the Dominican Republic.

By the mid-1990s, a strong and vibrant Dominican diaspora was firmly established in New York City. The Bronx became the birthplace of Grupo Aventura, a group that revolutionized bachata by blending its traditional rhythms with urban genres such as hip-hop.

Their music reflected the bicultural diaspora, often torn between nostalgia for their homeland and everyday challenges of urban American life. Against the backdrop of city life, bachata found a new voice that mirrored the immigrant experience. The genre shifted from a shared feeling of loss and longing to a celebration of cultural community.

In 2002, the song “Obsesión” by Aventura and featuring Judy Santos topped music charts in France, Germany, Italy, the U.S. and elsewhere. The group Aventura and, later, lead singer Romeo Santos as a solo artist sold out Madison Square Garden and Yankee Stadium, respectively.

As they rose in fame, Aventura became global ambassadors for Dominican culture and made bachata mainstream.

Global spin on bachata

Bachata’s popularity has also spread to other countries in Latin America, and especially among working-class and Afro-descendant communities in Central America that see their own realities reflected in the music.

At the same time, Dominican diasporic communities in countries such as Spain and Italy carried the genre with them, where it continued to evolve.

In Spain, for example, bachata experienced a creative transformation. By the mid-2000s, bachata sensual had emerged as a dance style influenced by zouk and tango, emphasizing smooth, body-led movements and close partner connection.

Around the same time, modern bachata also developed between Spain and New York City. This style is a departure from traditional bachata, which focuses on the box step and fast footwork, and incorporates more turns and other elements from salsa.

In 2019 bachata was added to UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, which also lists Jamaican reggae and Mexican mariachi.

Today, bachata’s influence is truly global. International conferences dedicated to the genre attract dancers, musicians and scholars from around the world. Puerto Rican, Colombian and other artists from diverse cultural and racial backgrounds continue to nurture and reinvent bachata.

At the same time, more women, such as Andre Veloz, Judy Santos and Leslie Grace, are building careers as bachata performers and challenging a traditionally male-dominated genre.

Bachata holds a place not only on the world stage but in the hearts of Latino, Black, Asian and many other communities in the U.S. that recognize the genre’s power to tell stories of love, loss, migration and resilience.

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

– ref. How bachata rose from Dominican Republic’s brothels and shantytowns to become a global sensation – https://theconversation.com/how-bachata-rose-from-dominican-republics-brothels-and-shantytowns-to-become-a-global-sensation-260886

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Brian N. Chin, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Trinity College

I saw it firsthand after my cat Murphy died earlier this year. She’d been diagnosed with cancer just weeks before.

She was a small gray tabby with delicate paws who, even during chemotherapy, climbed her favorite dresser perch – Mount Murphy – with steady determination.

The day after she died, a colleague said with a shrug: “It’s just part of life.”

That phrase stayed with me – not because it was wrong, but because of how quickly it dismissed something real.

Murphy wasn’t just a cat. She was my eldest daughter – by bond, if not by blood. My shadow.

Why pet grief doesn’t count

More than two-thirds of U.S. households include pets. Americans tend to treat them like family with birthday cakes, shared beds and names on holiday cards.

But when someone grieves them like family, the cultural script flips. Grief gets minimized. Support gets awkward. And when no one acknowledges your loss, it starts to feel like you weren’t even supposed to love them that much in the first place.

I’ve seen this kind of grief up close – in my research and in my own life.
I am a psychologist who studies attachment, loss and the human-animal bond.

And I’ve seen firsthand how often grief following pet loss gets brushed aside – treated as less valid, less serious or less worthy of support than human loss. After a pet dies, people often say the wrong thing – usually trying to help, but often doing the opposite.

When loss is minimized or discounted

Psychologists describe this kind of unacknowledged loss as disenfranchised grief: a form of mourning that isn’t fully recognized by social norms or institutions. It happens after miscarriages, breakups, job loss – and especially after the death of a beloved animal companion.

The pain is real for the person grieving, but what’s missing is the social support to mourn that loss.

Even well-meaning people struggle to respond in ways that feel supportive.
And when grief gets dismissed, it doesn’t just hurt – it makes us question whether we’re even allowed to feel it.

Here are three of the most common responses – and what to do instead:

‘Just a pet’

This is one of the most reflexive responses after a loss like this. It sounds harmless. But under the surface is a cultural belief that grieving an animal is excessive – even unprofessional.

That belief shows up in everything from workplace leave policies to everyday conversations. Even from people trying to be kind.

But pet grief isn’t about the species, it’s about the bond. And for many, that bond is irreplaceable.

Pets often become attachment figures; they’re woven into our routines, our emotional lives and our identities. Recent research shows that the quality of the human-pet bond matters deeply – not just for well-being, but for how we grieve when that connection ends.

What’s lost isn’t “just an animal.” It’s the steady presence who greeted you every morning. The one who sat beside you through deadlines, small triumphs and quiet nights. A companion who made the world feel a little less lonely.

But when the world treats that love like it doesn’t count, the loss can cut even deeper.

It may not come with formal recognition or time off, but it still matters. And love isn’t less real just because it came with fur.

If someone you care about loses a pet, acknowledge the bond. Even a simple “I’m so sorry” can offer real comfort.

‘I know how you feel’

“I know how you feel” sounds empathetic, but it quietly shifts the focus from the griever to the speaker. It rushes in with your story before theirs has even had a chance to land.

That instinct comes from a good place. We want to relate, to reassure, to let someone know they’re not alone. But when it comes to grief, that impulse often backfires. Grief doesn’t need to be matched. It needs to be honored and given time, care and space to unfold, whether the loss is of a person or a pet.

Instead of responding with your own story, try simpler, grounding words:

• “That sounds really hard.”

• “I’m so sorry.”

• “I’m here if you want to talk.”

You don’t need to understand someone’s grief to make space for it. What helps isn’t comparison – it’s presence.

Let them name the loss. Let them remember. Let them say what hurts.

Sometimes, simply staying present – without rushing, problem-solving or shifting the focus away – is the most meaningful thing you can do.

‘You can always get another one’

“You can always get another one” is the kind of thing people offer reflexively when they don’t know what else to say – a clumsy attempt at reassurance.

Underneath is a desire to soothe, to fix, to make the sadness go away. But that instinct can miss the point: The loss isn’t practical – it’s personal. And grief isn’t a problem to be solved.

This type of comment often lands more like customer service than comfort. It treats the relationship as replaceable, as if love were something you can swap out like a broken phone.

But every pet is one of a kind – not just in how they look or sound, but in how they move through your life. The way they wait for you at the door and watch you as you leave. The small rituals that you didn’t know were rituals until they stopped. You build a life around them without realizing it, until they’re no longer in it.

You wouldn’t tell someone to “just have another child” or “just find a new partner.” And yet, people say the equivalent all the time after pet loss.

Rushing to replace the relationship instead of honoring what was lost overlooks what made that bond irreplaceable. Love isn’t interchangeable – and neither are the ones we lose.

So offer care that endures. Grief doesn’t follow a timeline. A check-in weeks or months later, whether it’s a heart emoji, a shared memory or a gentle reminder that they’re not alone, can remind someone that their grief is seen and their love still matters.

When people say nothing

People often don’t know what to say after a pet dies, so they say nothing. But silence doesn’t just bury grief, it isolates it. It tells the griever that their love was excessive, their sadness inconvenient, their loss unworthy of acknowledgment.

And grief that feels invisible can be the hardest kind to carry.

So if someone you love loses a pet, don’t change the subject. Don’t rush them out of their sadness. Don’t offer solutions.

Instead, here are a few other ways to offer support gently and meaningfully:

• Say their pet’s name.

• Ask what they miss most.

• Tell them you’re sorry.

• Let them cry.

• Let them not cry.

• Let them remember.

Because when someone loses a pet, they’re not “just” mourning an animal. They’re grieving for a relationship, a rhythm and a presence that made the world feel kinder. What they need most is someone willing to treat that loss like it matters.

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

– ref. The 3 worst things you can say after a pet dies, and what to say instead – https://theconversation.com/the-3-worst-things-you-can-say-after-a-pet-dies-and-what-to-say-instead-258531

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Leslie Root, Assistant Professor of Research, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder

Pronatalism – the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed – is having a moment in the U.S.

As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007.

As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic.

The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates.

Fertility fluctuations

Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years.

Fertility rates are not fixed – in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s – births that are often unintended.

But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux – for example, if people are delaying having children.

Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today’s 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That’s not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction.

A more nuanced picture of childbearing

These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two.

Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future.

In other words, it doesn’t seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it’s because they don’t feel it’s feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like.

The challenge of predicting future population size

Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically.

One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That’s 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend.

Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now – and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That’s because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways.

The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role.

Will low fertility cause an economic crisis?

A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true – and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn’t fix the problem.

As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls.

For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults – usually defined as ages 18 to 64 – often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults.

What’s more, pronatalists’ core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women’s labor force participation rates have risen dramatically – from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women’s employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers.

Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful – and immediate – tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers.

Overall, there’s no evidence for Elon Musk’s assertion that “humanity is dying.” While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.

Leslie Root receives funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) for work on fertility rates.

Karen Benjamin Guzzo has received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in the United States.

Shelley Clark receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Fears that falling birth rates in US could lead to population collapse are based on faulty assumptions – https://theconversation.com/fears-that-falling-birth-rates-in-us-could-lead-to-population-collapse-are-based-on-faulty-assumptions-261031

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kevin Johnson, Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Davis

All modern U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have attempted to reduce the population of millions of undocumented immigrants. But their various strategies have not had significant results, with the population hovering around 11 million from 2005 to 2022.

President Donald Trump seeks to change that.

With harsh rhetoric that has sowed fear in immigrant communities, and policies that ignore immigrants’ due process rights, Trump has pursued deportation tactics that differ dramatically from those of any other modern U.S. president.

As a scholar who examines the history of U.S. immigration law and enforcement, I believe that it remains far from clear whether the Trump White House will significantly reduce the undocumented population. But even if the administration’s efforts fail, the fear and damage to the U.S. immigrant community will remain.

Presidents Bush and Obama

To increase deportations, in 2006 President George W. Bush began using workplace raids. Among these sweeps was the then-largest immigration workplace operation in U.S. history at a meat processing plant in Postville, Iowa in 2008.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deployed 900 agents in Postville and arrested 398 employees, 98% of whom were Latino. They were chained together and arraigned in groups of 10 for felony criminal charges of aggravated identity theft, document fraud and use of stolen Social Security numbers. Some 300 were convicted, and 297 of them served jail sentences before being deported.

In 2008, Bush also initiated Secure Communities, a policy that sought to deport noncitizens – both lawful permanent residents as well as undocumented immigrants – who had been arrested for crimes. Some 2 million immigrants were deported during Bush’s two terms in office.

The Obama administration limited Secure Communities to focus on the removal of noncitizens convicted of felonies. It deported a record 400,000 noncitizens in fiscal year 2013, which led detractors to refer to President Barack Obama as the “Deporter in Chief.”

Obama also targeted recent entrants and national security threats and pursued criminal prosecutions for illegal reentry to the U.S. Almost all of these policies built on Bush’s, although Obama virtually abandoned workplace raids.

Despite these enforcement measures, Obama also initiated Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in 2012. The policy provided relief from deportation and gave work authorization to more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.

Obama deported about 3 million noncitizens, but the size of the undocumented population did not decrease dramatically.

The first Trump administration and Biden

Trump’s first administration broke new immigration enforcement ground in several ways.

He began his presidency by issuing what was called a “Muslim ban” to restrict the entry into the U.S. of noncitizens from predominantly Muslim nations.

Early in Trump’s first administration, federal agents expanded immigration operations to include raids at courthouses, which previously had been off-limits.

In 2017, Trump tried to rescind DACA, but the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s effort in 2020.

In 2019, Trump implemented the Remain in Mexico policy that for the first time forced noncitizens who came to the U.S. border seeking asylum to wait in Mexico while their claims were being decided. He also invoked Title 42 in 2020 to close U.S. borders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump succeeded in reducing legal immigration numbers during his first term. However, there is no evidence that his enforcement policies reduced the size of the overall undocumented population.

President Joe Biden sought to relax – although not abandon – some immigration enforcement measures implemented during Trump’s first term.

His administration slowed construction of the border wall championed by Trump. Biden also stopped workplace raids in 2021, and in 2023, he ended Title 42.

In 2023, Biden sought to respond to migration surges in a measured fashion, by temporarily closing ports of entry and increasing arrests.

In attempting to enforce the borders, his administration at times pursued tough measures. Biden continued deportation efforts directed at criminal noncitizens. Immigrant rights groups criticized his administration when armed Border Patrol officers on horseback were videotaped chasing Haitian migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border.

As of 2022, the middle of the Biden’s term, an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants lived in the U.S.

A second chance

Since his second inauguration, Trump has pursued a mass deportation campaign through executive orders that are unprecedented in their scope.

In January 2025, he announced an expanded, expedited removal process for any noncitizen apprehended anywhere in the country – not just the border region, as had been U.S. practice since 1996.

In March, Trump issued a presidential proclamation to deport Venezuelan nationals who were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. In doing so, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – an act used three times in U.S. history during declared wars that empowers presidents to remove foreign nationals from countries at war with the U.S.

Declaring an “invasion” of migrants into the U.S. in June, Trump deployed the military to assist in immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

Trump also sought to dramatically upend birthright citizenship, the Constitutional provision that guarantees citizenship to any person born in the U.S. He issued an executive order in January that would bar citizenship to people born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

The birthright executive order has been challenged in federal court and is mostly likely working its way up to the Supreme Court.

Under the second Trump administration, immigration arrests are up, but actual deportation numbers are in flux.

ICE in June arrested the most people in a month in at least five years, roughly 30,000 immigrants. But deportations of noncitizens – roughly 18,000 – lagged behind those during the Obama administration’s record-setting year of 2013 in which more than 400,000 noncitizens were deported.

The gap between arrests and deportations shows the challenges the Trump administration faces in making good on his promised mass deportation campaign.

Undocumented immigrants often come to the U.S. to work or seek safety from natural disasters and mass violence.

These issues have not been seriously addressed by any modern U.S. president. Until it is, we can expect the undocumented population to remain in the millions.

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

– ref. Deportation tactics from 4 US presidents have done little to reduce the undocumented immigrant population – https://theconversation.com/deportation-tactics-from-4-us-presidents-have-done-little-to-reduce-the-undocumented-immigrant-population-261640