Analysis – Page 1097 – MIL Submissions Engine

September 24, 2025

How the First Amendment protects Americans’ speech − and how it does not

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ray Brescia, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life, Albany Law School

Demonstrators protest the suspension of the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show on Sept. 18, 2025, in Los Angeles, Calif. Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

Imagine a protest outside the funeral of a popular political leader, with some of the protesters celebrating the death and holding signs that say things like “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed” and “Don’t Pray for the USA.”

No matter the political leanings of that leader, most Americans would probably abhor such a protest and those signs.

What would tolerate such activities, no matter how distasteful? The First Amendment.

The situation described above is taken from an actual protest, though it did not involve the funeral of a political figure. Instead, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested outside the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, a U.S. service member killed in Iraq.

Through demonstrations like this, members of this group were conveying their belief that the U.S. is overly tolerant of those they perceive as sinners, especially people from the LGBTQ community, and that the death of U.S. soldiers should be recognized as divine retribution for such sinfulness.

Snyder’s family sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. A jury issued a US$5 million jury award in favor of the family of the deceased service member. But in a nearly unanimous decision issued in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment insulated the protesters from such a judgment.

This holding is particularly instructive today.

The Trump administration has vowed to crack down on what it calls hate speech. It has labeled antifa, a loosely organized anti-fascist group, a terrorist organization. And it has sought to punish figures such as TV host Jimmy Kimmel for statements perceived critical of conservative activists.

What the First Amendment makes clear is that it does not just protect the rights of speakers who say things with which Americans agree. Or, as the Supreme Court said in a separate decision it issued one year after the case involving the funeral protesters: “The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.”

But free speech is not absolute. As a legal scholar who has studied political movements, free speech and privacy, I realize the government can regulate speech through what are known as “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions. These limits cannot depend upon the content of the speech or expressive conduct in which a speaker is engaged, however.

For example, the government can ban campfires in an area prone to wildfires. But if it banned the burning of the U.S. flag only as a form of political protest, that would be an unconstitutional restriction on speech.

Protected and unprotected speech

There are certain categories of speech that are not entitled to First Amendment protection. They include incitement to violence, obscenity, defamation and what are considered “true threats.”

When, for example, someone posts threats on social media with reckless disregard for whether they will instill legitimate fear in their target, such posts are not a protected form of speech. Similarly, burning a cross on someone’s property as a means of striking terror in them such that they fear bodily harm also represents this kind of true threat.

There are also violations of the law that are sometimes prosecuted as “hate crimes,” criminal acts driven by some discriminatory motive. In these cases, it’s generally not the perpetrator’s beliefs that are punished but the fact that they act on them and engage in some other form of criminal conduct, as when someone physically assaults their victim based on that victim’s race or religion. Such motives can increase the punishment people receive for the underlying criminal conduct.

Speech that enjoys the strongest free-speech protections is that which is critical of government policies and leaders. As the Supreme Court said in 1966, “There is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of (the First) Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

As the late Justice Antonin Scalia would explain in 2003, “The right to criticize the government” is at “the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect.”

Restrictions on government action

The First Amendment prevents the government from taking direct action to curtail speech by, for example, trying to prevent the publication of material critical of it. Americans witnessed this in the Pentagon Papers case, where the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prevent newspapers from publishing a leaked – and politically damaging – study on U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.

But it also applies when the government acts in indirect ways, such as threatening to investigate a media company or cutting funding for a university based on politically disfavored action or inaction.

In 2024 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state of New York’s efforts to punish companies that did business with the National Rifle Association because of the organization’s political positions violated the group’s First Amendment rights.

Similarly, in recent months, courts have ruled on First Amendment grounds against Trump administration efforts to punish law firms or to withhold funds from Harvard University.

And just last week, a federal court in Florida threw out a lawsuit filed by President Trump against The New York Times seeking $15 billion for alleged harm to the president’s investments and reputation.

Nevertheless, some people fear government retribution for criticizing the administration. And some, like the TV network ABC, have engaged in speech-restricting action on their own, such as taking Kimmel temporarily off the air for his comments critical of conservative activists in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing.

Before Kimmel’s suspension, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr described his negotiations with ABC’s parent company, Disney, to take action against him. “We could do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. And Trump said that some media companies might “lose their license” for criticizing the president. It is encouraging that, in the face of these threats, ABC has reversed course and agreed to put Kimmel back on the air.

A man listens to reporters. — President Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One after attending a memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Glendale, Ariz., on Sept. 21, 2025.
AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

The First Amendment protects speech across the political spectrum, even speech Americans do not like. Both liberal comedian Jon Stewart and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson have recently agreed on this. As Carlson said recently, “If they can tell you what to say, they’re telling you what to think. … There is nothing they can’t do to you because they don’t consider you human.”

Just last year in the NRA case referenced above, the Supreme Court clearly stated that even indirect government efforts to curtail protected speech are indeed unconstitutional. In light of that ruling, efforts to limit criticism of the administration, any administration, should give all Americans, regardless of their political views, great pause.

Ray Brescia 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 the First Amendment protects Americans’ speech − and how it does not – https://theconversation.com/how-the-first-amendment-protects-americans-speech-and-how-it-does-not-265655

September 24, 2025

One Battle After Another: this insane movie about leftwing radicals and rightwing institutions is a powerful exploration of US today

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ruth Barton, Professor in Film Studies, Trinity College Dublin

The recent death of Robert Redford was a reminder of just how much All the President’s Men unsettled old certainties about American democracy. An exposé of the Watergate scandal of 1972 (when members of the campaign to re-elect Richard Nixon were caught planting secret recording devices at the Democratic National Committee’s Watergate building), Alan J. Pakula’s film fed into an increasing sense that the institutions of American governance were riddled with corruption.

Maybe not everyone agreed with Pakula’s dark vision. But he was not alone. Over the years since, Oliver Stone could also be relied on to make state-of-the-nation cinema, as could Martin Scorsese – or before them, Frank Capra. Such films attempted to capture, usually to critique, the national mood at that moment in time.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film, One Battle After Another, suggests that there is still a place for challenging filmmaking in today’s culture. Along with the recently released Eddington by director Ari Aster, these new state-of-the-nation films explore an America that is in crisis and throw it in our faces in staggering, epic narratives.

Both films speak to the chaos of a social order that is falling apart. Both, but particularly Eddington, also threaten to be so overwhelmed by this chaos that they end up by falling into incoherence.

The term, “incoherence”, is not chosen at random. One of the seminal texts for film scholars of the 1980s was Robin Wood’s The Incoherent Text, Narrative in the 70s. Looking back at a series of films from this decade, Wood argued that “here, incoherence is no longer hidden and esoteric: the films seem to crack open before our eyes”. These two films do much the same, exposing through chaos something incomprehensible about our times and falling into incoherence in the process.

Set during the pandemic in a desert town, Eddington hurls itself from one flashpoint to the next. The sheriff, Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix) refuses to wear a mask and this apparently minor infraction soon pits him against his old enemy and competitor in love, Mayor Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal). Borrowing from Maga-style campaigning, Cross enters the election as candidate for new mayor.

At home, Cross is living with his conspiracy theory-loving mother-in-law, Dawn (Deirdre O’Connell). His wife Louise (Emma Stone) is retreating further into mental illness and isolation.

On the edges of this, a mysterious conglomerate is building a data centre just outside of town. Race riots are also breaking out following the George Floyd killing. But there is much more to come.

Director Ari Aster could hardly have dreamed up more issues than he does here. With so much weight piling onto the narrative, Eddington concludes with an extended shoot-out that tips an already over-extended film into terminal disarray.

One Battle After Another, like Eddington, is a truly American film. Where Aster shot his neo-western in classic Panavision, Anderson goes one further, following The Brutalist in creating a VistaVision print, a format that is best experienced on a 70mm screen. These formats hark back to Hollywood’s grandiose epics of the 1950s, adding to the films’ evocation of history – both filmic and social.

A further historical layering is Anderson’s source material for One Battle, Thomas Pynchon’s Vineland. Anderson updates Vineland’s kaleidoscopic exhumation of the revolutionary movements of the 60s by casting his ageing hippie hero, now called Bob (Leonardo di Caprio), as a relic of a fictional noughties brigade, the French 75. Led by his lover Perfidia Beverley Hills (Teyana Taylor), they robbed banks, bombed buildings and liberated detention centres in the name of their ideology of “free borders, free choices, free from fear”.

Left to bring up their daughter, Willa (Chase Infiniti) as a single parent, Bob spends his days off-grid unshaven, smoking weed, and watching the classic political drama, The Battle of Algiers. All is (somewhat) well until the brutal army veteran, Colonel Lockjaw (Sean Penn), who believes himself to be Willa’s real father, barrels back into their lives in pursuit of his “daughter”.

In common with Eddington, One Battle is at heart a family melodrama. It draws on the classic tropes of bad versus good father and conflicted mother, questioning the legitimacy of the family unit. On to these narratives bones, Anderson grafts a vision of a post-Obama America in thrall to shadowy corporate interests, a legacy of rounding up and deporting immigrants, and an old white male order hell-bent on its own agenda of personal revenge.

Robin Wood concluded his thoughts on American cinema of the 70s with the prognosis that in their incoherence they pointed to one inescapable solution: the logical necessity for radicalism.

Aster and Anderson have looked radicalism in the eye and dismissed it as yet another failed ideology. Neither names the forces behind their vision of the end of American democracy and, to be fair, the current political crisis postdates both films’ completion in early 2024.

Where Aster sees only bloodshed and impotence, Anderson clings on to a fragile utopianism that in the present day is as unlikely as it is consoling. After the lights have gone up, it may well be that what his film leaves behind is its terrifying imagery of detention centres and the horror of immigrant round-ups. It is this certainly that led Steven Spielberg to acclaim “this insane movie” as more relevant than Anderson could ever have imagined.

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.

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

– ref. One Battle After Another: this insane movie about leftwing radicals and rightwing institutions is a powerful exploration of US today – https://theconversation.com/one-battle-after-another-this-insane-movie-about-leftwing-radicals-and-rightwing-institutions-is-a-powerful-exploration-of-us-today-265818

September 24, 2025

Is meat masculine? How men really talk about being carnivores

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Annayah Prosser, Assistant Professor in Marketing, Business and Society, University of Bath

There are lots of good reasons not to eat meat or dairy products. It might be for your health or for the sake of the environment. Or you might have moral concerns about consuming animals.

Yet many of us continue to eat meat, especially men, who eat more of it than women, and are less likely to opt for a vegetarian or vegan diet.

So is there a link between meat consumption and perceptions of masculinity? Does the mindset of the prehistoric caveman hunter live on in today’s restaurants and weekend barbecues?

To explore this idea, my colleagues and I conducted a survey of more than 1,000 men in the UK, which revealed that social ideas involving “avoidance of femininity” and status were indeed linked to higher levels of meat-eating and a notion that meat is masculine.

The survey showed that those sympathetic to traditional masculine norms consumed more red meat and poultry, and were less keen to part from the meat and dairy in their diet. We then followed up with some of the men who had high levels of “meat attachment” to join an online discussion, and used remotely moderated focus groups to listen in on their conversations about their diets.

So what did they talk about?

More often than not, men were reluctant to talk about the role of gender in meat consumption, or completely rejected the notion that there was any link, with one participant in his thirties saying: “I don’t think gender influences what I eat at all. If there’s something I want [to eat] I’ll just have it.”

He went on: “There’s no such thing as a manly or womanly dish if you ask me. It’s just food, so it’s literally got zero influence on whether I’d eat something or not.”

For others, the relationship between meat and masculinity was more complex. Some men noted for example that the women in their lives were more likely to reduce their meat consumption.

One man in his forties, said: “I live with five women and most of them would happily not eat meat at all. Also [the female] partners of quite a lot of my friends don’t eat a lot of meat. They would happily eat no meat at all. Whereas all of us [men], you know, we like our meat.”

For others, the link between meat and masculinity was explicit, with meat consumption linked to status within social groups. John, in his forties, commented on the obligation he sometimes feels when dining with what he called “alpha males” to “always go for a meat dish or a steak or something like that”.

He added: “Maybe I feel a slight obligation to go down [the meat] route sort of subconsciously. I’ve probably felt I need to have a steak here or need to have something that [perhaps] shows my masculinity.

“I feel sort of safer behind choosing something like that rather than, say, a pasta or a salad-based dish.”

What’s at stake?

We also found mention of an idea revealed in other research which describes meat being commonly understood in terms of “four Ns”: “natural”, “normal”, “necessary” and “nice”. These kinds of values came up in our groups’ discussions, but rarely applied to discussions of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives, which men seemed to consider “unnatural”, “insufficient” and “not nice”.

One participant in his twenties commented: “Chicken will just say ‘chicken’ on the back, whereas a plant-based [alternative to chicken] would have something like glycolic acid or something. I have no idea what that is.”

Another man commented: “I think if you switched maybe most of the time or full time to plant based diets, would you be missing out on certain nutrients?”

Man turning burgers on a grill. — Manning the barbecue.
PeopleImages/Shutterstock

A fellow meat eater added: “The meat alternative options never taste very nice.

“I’ve always found that they just taste really bland [and] it’s an unusual texture.”

It was difficult for many of the men in our groups to imagine consuming a fully plant-based diet. They often spoke of extreme or specific situations as the only situations in which they would consider doing so.

“I’d need the doctor to tell me you’ve got six months [to live],” said one man in his fifties.

Another in his forties explained: “It would only really be health-related stuff. If someone said to me you’re gonna have to [cut down on meat] or it’s going to knock years off your life.”

One participant in the 18-29 age bracket said a meat diet was heavily linked to his social life where his friends relied on meat for protein because of their fitness regimes.

He said: “I would have to change my friends [if I stopped eating meat]. Basically, I have friends who are gym rats, who love to go to the gym together, who love to do strength training. So I would have to change my friends to people who are probably agriculturists – and have more interest in plants.”

These and many other contributions led us to conclude that men can have a mixed –and often contradictory – understanding of the role of gender in their food choices. And while our survey data reveals a strong link between masculinity and diet, our focus group data casts doubt on whether men are generally aware of this connection.

The research study reported here was funded by ProVeg International, a food awareness organisation working to transform the global food system. ProVeg had no role in the study in terms of design, analysis, and reporting. Annayah Prosser’s contributions to the project were not funded by ProVeg and she reports no conflicting interests.

– ref. Is meat masculine? How men really talk about being carnivores – https://theconversation.com/is-meat-masculine-how-men-really-talk-about-being-carnivores-265236

September 24, 2025

Information could be a fundamental part of the universe – and may explain dark energy and dark matter

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Florian Neukart, Assistant professor of Physics, Leiden University

Credits: ESA/Webb, NASA & CSA, G. Östlin, P. G. Perez-Gonzalez, J. Melinder, the JADES Collaboration, M. Zamani (ESA/Webb), CC BY-SA

For more than a century, physics has been built on two great theories. Einstein’s general relativity explains gravity as the bending of space and time.

Quantum mechanics governs the world of particles and fields. Both work brilliantly in their own domains. But put them together and contradictions appear – especially when it comes to black holes, dark matter, dark energy and the origins of the cosmos.

My colleagues and I have been exploring a new way to bridge that divide. The idea is to treat information – not matter, not energy, not even spacetime itself – as the most fundamental ingredient of reality. We call this framework the quantum memory matrix (QMM).

At its core is a simple but powerful claim: spacetime is not smooth, but discrete – made of tiny “cells”, which is what quantum mechanics suggests. Each cell can store a quantum imprint of every interaction, like the passage of a particle or even the influence of a force such as electromagnetism or nuclear interactions, that passes through. Each event leaves behind a tiny change in the local quantum state of the spacetime cell.

In other words, the universe does not just evolve. It remembers.

The story begins with the black hole information paradox. According to relativity, anything that falls into a black hole is gone forever. According to quantum theory, that is impossible. Information cannot be ever destroyed.

QMM offers a way out. As matter falls in, the surrounding spacetime cells record its imprint. When the black hole eventually evaporates, the information is not lost. It has already been written into spacetime’s memory.

This mechanism is captured mathematically by what we call the imprint operator, a reversible rule that makes information conservation work out. At first, we applied this to gravity. But then we asked: what about the other forces of nature? It turns out they fit the same picture.

Black hole. Elements of this image furnished by NASA. — Could quantum memory explain what happens to information in a black hole?
PatinyaS/Shutterstock

In our models assuming that spacetime cells exist, the strong and weak nuclear forces, which hold atomic nuclei together, also leave traces in spacetime. Later, we extended the framework to electromagnetism (although this paper is currently being peer reviewed). Even a simple electric field changes the memory state of spacetime cells.

Explaining dark matter and dark energy

That led us to a broader principle that we call the geometry-information duality. In this view, the shape of spacetime is influenced not just by mass and energy, as Einstein taught us, but also by how quantum information is distributed, especially through entanglement. Entanglement is a quantum feature in which two particles, for example, can be spookily connected, meaning that if you change the state of one, you automatically and immediately also change the other – even if it’s light years away.

This shift in perspective has dramatic consequences. In one study, currently under peer review, we found that clumps of imprints behave just like dark matter, an unknown substance that makes up most of the matter in the universe. They cluster under gravity and explain the motion of galaxies – which appear to orbit at unexpectedly high speeds – without needing any exotic new particles.

In another, we showed how dark energy might emerge too. When spacetime cells are saturated, they cannot record new, independent information. Instead, they contribute to a residual energy of spacetime. Interestingly, this leftover contribution has the same mathematical form as the “cosmological constant”, or dark energy, which is making the universe expand at an accelerated rate.

Its size matches the observed dark energy that drives cosmic acceleration. Together, these results suggest that dark matter and dark energy may be two sides of the same informational coin.

A cyclic universe?

But if spacetime has finite memory, what happens when it fills up? Our latest cosmological paper, accepted for publication in The Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, points to a cyclic universe – being born and dying over and over. Each cycle of expansion and contraction deposits more entropy – a measure of disorder – into the ledger. When the bound is reached, the universe “bounces” into a new cycle.

Reaching the bound means spacetime’s information capacity (entropy) is maxed out. At that point, contraction cannot continue smoothly. The equations show that instead of collapsing to a singularity, the stored entropy drives a reversal, leading to a new phase of expansion. This is what we describe as a “bounce”.

By comparing the model to observational data, we estimate that the universe has already gone through three or four cycles of expansion and contraction, with fewer than ten remaining. After the remaining cycles are completed, the informational capacity of spacetime would be fully saturated. At that point, no further bounces occur. Instead, the universe would enter a final phase of slowing expansion.

That makes the true “informational age” of the cosmos about 62 billion years, not just the 13.8 billion years of our current expansion.

So far, this might sound purely theoretical. But we have already tested parts of QMM on today’s quantum computers. We treated qubits, the basic units of quantum computers, as tiny spacetime cells. Using imprint and retrieval protocols based on the QMM equations, we recovered the original quantum states with over 90% accuracy.

This showed us two things. First, that the imprint operator works on real quantum systems. Second, it has practical benefits. By combining imprinting with conventional error-correction codes, we significantly reduced logical errors. That means QMM might not only explain the cosmos, but also help us build better quantum computers.

QMM reframes the universe as both a cosmic memory bank and a quantum computer. Every event, every force, every particle leaves an imprint that shapes the evolution of the cosmos. It ties together some of the deepest puzzles in physics, from the information paradox to dark matter and dark energy, from cosmic cycles to the arrow of time.

And it does so in a way that can already be simulated and tested in the lab. Whether QMM proves to be the final word or a stepping stone, it opens a startling possibility: the universe may not only be geometry and energy. It is also memory. And in that memory, every moment of cosmic history may still be written.

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

– ref. Information could be a fundamental part of the universe – and may explain dark energy and dark matter – https://theconversation.com/information-could-be-a-fundamental-part-of-the-universe-and-may-explain-dark-energy-and-dark-matter-265415

September 24, 2025

Russia is turning to African women and conscripted North Koreans to tackle its defence worker shortage

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

US president Donald Trump has said Ukraine could win back all of the territory it has lost in the ongoing war, but Russia’s president Vladimir Putin shows no signs of wanting a peace deal, or reducing the military offensive.

Instead, night after night Russia continues to launch hundreds of drones and missiles at Ukraine, killing civilians and destroying homes, public buildings and infrastructure.

Russia can only continue this war if it has enough workers. It has one of the world’s largest armed forces (composed of 1.32 million active military personnel), but its military recruiters face a challenging job in outpacing the enormous losses of soldiers who are killed or seriously injured in Ukraine.

However, the staffing needs of Russia’s military are tiny compared with its defence industry. Russian factories that produce weapons and equipment for the war employ approximately 4 million workers – and they have been suffering from a serious labour shortage.

According to a statement made in the Russian parliament in 2024, the country’s defence industry needs approximately 400,000 more workers than it currently employs.

But how can Russia, with a population of 143 million people have a labour shortage in a sector of the economy that is so crucial for the war?

There are a variety of reasons. An estimated 1 million Russian citizens fled Russia in 2022 – either because they opposed the war in principle or because they wanted to avoid being forced to join the military and fight – or both. Although as many as 45% of those who fled are believed to have returned to Russia over the past three years, that would mean Russia lost approximately 650,000 people from its workforce, at least for the duration of the war and perhaps permanently.

North Korean soldiers captured by Ukrainian forces have talked about the conditions they faced.

Russia’s defence industry is also in direct competition with the army for workers. The Russian state has substantially increased the salaries and various benefits that it offers to new military recruits. Salaries of 200,000 roubles – more than US$2,000 (£1,481) – a month are typical, putting combat soldiers in the top 10% of Russia’s earners.

The defence industry has had to raise the wages it offers during the war, increasing average salaries by 65% between 2022 and 2024, up to about 89,700 roubles per month. New recruits to the military, however, can expect a one-off signing bonus of as much as 4 million roubles in addition to their monthly salary.

Declining birth rate

Demographic patterns also play a part. There was a sharp drop in the birth rate in Russia in the 1990s, which means there are fewer people in their 20s and 30s seeking employment.

The defence industry has introduced a number of initiatives since the start of Russia’s mass invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 to cope with the increased demand for the production of new weapons and equipment along with the need to repair damaged and broken military hardware.

Many facilities are working around the clock: introducing compulsory 12-hour shifts and work weeks of six days on, one day off. Other parts of the defence industry are reportedly using inmates from local prisons to fill staffing gaps, including Uralvagonzavod, which is Russia’s largest manufacturer of tanks.

Russia has turned to ally North Korea to fill some of its military and labour shortages. Thousands of Koreans have been sent to Russia to work in factories and in construction, as part of a deal between Putin and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un. There have been reports of “slave labour” conditions and 18-hour days. North Koreans have also been sent to bolster the Russian military.

Attitudes to women

Despite all the shortages, the military industry is not recruiting Russia’s women to work in most roles. Although some Russian women do work in defence industry, labour regulations introduced in the 1970s exclude women from many roles that are important to defence production, such as working with hazardous chemicals or heavy metals.

These restrictions are designed to protect pregnant women and the fertility of future mothers. Considering Putin’s emphasis on increasing the birth rate and on presenting Russia as a bastion of traditional gender roles, this is unlikely to change.

However, the reluctance to recruit Russian women into jobs in the defence industry does not extend to women from other countries. Around 200 women, mainly from central and west Africa, have been hired to work in defence industry factories located in the Alabuga special economic zone in Tatarstan, a Russian republic located east of Moscow. Many of these factories build drones assembled from components imported from Iran – weapons that have been used extensively by Russia in its attacks on civilians in Ukraine.

The African women employed to build drones in Tatarstan were recruited through a programme called Alabuga Start, which targets young female migrant workers.

It is advertised extensively on social media, including through paid influencers on TikTok. The salaries offered are high in relation to the wages that these women could earn in their own countries. However, Alabuga Start recruits earn around 40,000 roubles a month – less than half the amount that Russian defence industry workers receive.

The programme is focused on recruiting foreign women for a mix of practical, financial reasons and gender stereotypes. African women will work for less money than Russians. They are also believed to be easier to control than foreign men, while women are perceived to be better than men at tasks that require patience and precision.

The Alabuga Start website appears to offer an attractive package of work experience, on-the-job training, accommodation, Russian language lessons and free flights to Russia. The sectors for employment identified include catering, hospitality and service jobs with no mention of drone assembly.

However, once they arrive, the young women can find themselves living very different lives to those they had anticipated. There are reports of working long hours and exposure to dangerous chemicals, with passports being withheld to prevent women from leaving. For instance, Kenya has launched an investigation into Alabuga Start, which may see the programme shut down in that country.

The difficulties of recruiting and retaining labour for Russia’s defence industry, including bringing in foreign migrant workers and their treatment, reveal some serious weaknesses in Moscow’s military planning. While those are probably not enough to stop Russia’s war effort, they do indicate some of the strains that the war is placing on the country’s economy.

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

– ref. Russia is turning to African women and conscripted North Koreans to tackle its defence worker shortage – https://theconversation.com/russia-is-turning-to-african-women-and-conscripted-north-koreans-to-tackle-its-defence-worker-shortage-264731

September 24, 2025

Empathy is under attack — but it remains vital for leadership and connection

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Leda Stawnychko, Associate Professor of Strategy and Organizational Theory, Mount Royal University

Once considered a universal good, empathy now divides as much as it unites. Empathy has long been viewed as a straightforward strength in leadership, but it has recently become a political flashpoint.

Some conservative voices, including billionaire Elon Musk, have criticized empathy, with Musk calling it a “fundamental weakness of western civilization.”

Joe Rigney, a theology fellow at New Saint Andrew’s College in Idaho, has gone further, calling it a “sin”. He argues “untethered empathy” can distort moral judgment because it may lead to people excusing harmful behaviour simply because they sympathize with the person experiencing it.

Few qualities in public life have undergone such a dramatic shift in perception as empathy. Once celebrated as both a marker of moral character and an essential leadership skill, empathy now sits at the centre of polarized debates about governance and policy.

The so-called “war” over empathy reveals not only divided views of leadership but also deeper anxieties about how we connect with one another. These tensions raise important questions about the history, promise, pitfalls and future of empathy.

What is empathy?

The modern term traces back from the German term einfühlung, which was first used in the context of esthetics to describe the emotional response a person feels when imagining themselves moving through a painting, sculpture or scene of natural beauty.

The English term “empathy” was coined in 1908. What began as a way of describing how people relate to art later moved into psychology and leadership as researchers began to study how people identify with the feelings of others.

From there, empathy evolved into a cornerstone skill in business and management to help leaders connect more deeply with others and improve both relationships and performance.

For decades, this was presented as a clear asset. Today, however, that same capacity is viewed by some as a liability rather than a strength.

Why empathy matters

Empathetic leaders can translate this capacity into practical advantage. In organizations, empathy fosters innovation by creating psychological safety — the sense that people feel they can take interpersonal risks, such as sharing ideas without fear of ridicule or retaliation.

Research shows teams learn faster and perform better when people feel safe to speak up. Empathy supports that safety by making listening genuine rather than performative. For example, when leaders regularly ask “What perspectives are we missing?” they signal that speaking up carries little risk. Empathy also strengthens collaboration by enabling leaders to recognize diverse perspectives and weave them into collective problem-solving.

By supporting growth and risk-taking, it reinforces succession pipelines and helps employees step into new responsibilities. Through deep listening and thoughtful responses, empathetic leaders build trust, inspire commitment and help teams remain resilient in the face of change.

Beyond the workplace, empathy also contributes to broader human flourishing. Findings vary across studies, but empathetic people tend to be happier, form stronger friendships and excel in their work. Health-care patients, employees and romantic partners all report higher satisfaction when empathy is present.

Still, despite its many benefits, empathy is not immune to distortion in workplaces, politics and society at large.

The paradox and politics of empathy

Empathy carries an inherent paradox: people can feel genuine compassion while also recognizing the practical limits of what can realistically be offered.

In workplaces, for example, managers may empathize with employees seeking flexibility while also facing pressure to deliver results. Leaders often face difficult questions about fairness when resources are tight and not everyone’s needs can be met.

In politics, a similar dilemma arises. Leaders may, for example, express concern for refugees fleeing conflict while balancing that compassion against constraints on housing, health care and employment in the host country. Here, empathy can clash with competing obligations.

Beyond these limits, empathy can also be distorted when it lacks ethical grounding. Without self-awareness and judgment, it can lead to compassion fatigue or even be used strategically as a tool of manipulation and control. For example, after a child in Texas died from measles, anti-vaccine influencers used the case to stoke outrage and influence public opinion.

Research on negotiations highlights a related risk. Being able to understand someone else’s perspective can help reveal the other side’s constraints and lead to better deals, but feeling their emotions too deeply can pull negotiators off their strategy.

These concerns echo in the broader culture. Critics of empathy argue it has been politicized or weaponized to enforce conformity, with those who fail to display it toward certain groups being portrayed as weak or immoral.

The future of empathy

Although findings are mixed, some studies suggest that empathy, especially among younger generations, has been in decline over the past few decades.

The reasons for this are debated, ranging from the rise of digital communication to broader social and political polarization. Regardless of the cause, the perception of decline has fuelled renewed interest in its study.

Empathy does not mean blindly agreeing with everyone or absorbing every emotion. It calls for listening with genuine curiosity, asking perspective-seeking questions and creating space for others to share their truths.

Simple practices such as naming emotions, noticing body language or imagining how a situation might feel to someone else can strengthen our capacity to connect.

When practised ethically and with courage, empathy has the potential to extend from private virtue to collective strength, and be used to rebuild trust, bridge divides, sustain communities and keep leadership anchored in humanity.

Leda Stawnychko has received SSHRC funding.

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

– ref. Empathy is under attack — but it remains vital for leadership and connection – https://theconversation.com/empathy-is-under-attack-but-it-remains-vital-for-leadership-and-connection-265468

September 24, 2025

How researchers are making precision agriculture more affordable

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Samuel Mugo, Professor & Associate Dean, Development, Department of Physical Sciences, MacEwan University

Farmers are under pressure. Fertilizer costs have soared in recent years. Tariffs are increasing equipment costs and cutting Canadian farmers off from key foreign markets. And climate change is bringing its own set of challenges.

Meanwhile, agriculture is also facing calls to reduce emissions. The industry is responsible for about 10 per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government has set an ambitious goal: reduce emissions from fertilizer use by 30 per cent by 2030.

Farming is tough even during the best of times. Rising costs and the dangers posed by climate change will only make it even more challenging in the years to come.

That’s where our work comes in. At MacEwan University, through our spin-out company PimaSens, we have developed Agrilo — a low-cost soil testing sensor paired with a smartphone app.

Our goal is simple: give farmers clear, real-time guidance on fertilizer use so they can save money, boost yields and protect the environment.

How the sensor works

Agrilo takes technology we first built in the lab and translates it into an easy-to-use diagnostic tool for the field. Unlike traditional soil testing, which often requires sending samples to a lab and waiting days for results, Agrilo provides answers in minutes.

Farmers collect a small soil sample, react it with a pre-filled solution, place droplets onto a paper-based or vinyl colorimetric sensor, and capture the result using their phone camera. The Agrilo app then interprets the colour change, quantifies nutrient levels, and generates fertilizer recommendations tailored to the field.

Each Agrilo sensor costs about $10 and is designed to detect a specific nutrient or soil property. The full suite includes sensors for: nitrate, phosphate, potassium, pH, sulphur, magnesium, manganese, calcium, boron, iron, natural organic matter, cation exchange capacity and more.

A step-by-step guide to using the Agrilo sensor for real-time soil monitoring. (PimaSens)

Farmers can select the tests most relevant to their crops and soils. These results feed directly into Agrilo’s smartphone app, which analyzes patterns and suggests the most optimal fertilizer adjustments.

This precision is critical. Overuse of fertilizer wastes money and increases greenhouse gases, while underuse limits yields. Getting the balance right improves farm efficiency and protects ecosystems.

With fertilizer shortages, soil degradation accelerating and climate concerns mounting, there is an urgent need for practical solutions that can be deployed quickly and affordably.

For farmers, the value is clear:

● Healthier soil through balanced nutrient application.

● Higher crop yields from optimized fertilizer use.

● Lower costs by reducing waste.

● Reduced environmental harm from nutrient runoff and fertilizer-related emissions.

The research behind the tool

Our sensors and platform have been validated in peer-reviewed research with the Agrilo version simplified for ease of use by farmers. We also hold a provisional patent, with a full filing in progress. This ensures that the innovation is both scientifically sound and protected for scaling.

A man holding a small electronic device labeled Agrilo. — Agrilo was created to be both affordable and accessible.
(Author provided)

Agrilo was created to be both affordable and accessible. Conventional soil testing often costs hundreds of dollars and involves long wait times. Agrilo delivers the same type of data — validated against results from traditional labs — at a fraction of the cost and in real time.

This opens up opportunities not just for Canadian farmers but also for communities worldwide, including schools and small scale farmers in the Global South.

One of the most exciting aspects of Agrilo is its versatility. Beyond the farm, Agrilo doubles as an education platform. In classrooms, students can learn hands-on how soil nutrients affect crops, food security and ecosystems.

Using the same colorimetric sensors as farmers, students can connect textbook science to real-world environmental challenges — making soil chemistry, agriculture and sustainability more tangible.

Globally, fertilizer use has increased by 46 per cent since 1990. About one third of the world’s soils are already degraded, with degradation continuing to accelerate.

By making precision agriculture practical and affordable, we can help address these challenges at scale — showcasing how research developed in Canadian labs can benefit farms, classrooms and communities worldwide.

Looking ahead

Our team is continuing to refine Agrilo. We are already testing the platform with farmers and partners in Canada, Kenya, Costa Rica and beyond.

At the same time, we are building partnerships with schools and international organizations to use Agrilo as both a farming tool and a hands-on educational resource. Several high schools in Alberta have started to try out the Agrilo tool to enhance applied science learning.

Ultimately, our vision is to make precision agriculture accessible to everyone — not just large-scale industrial operations. With the right tools, all farmers can play a critical role in feeding the world sustainably, protecting ecosystems and helping their countries meet their climate goals.

Samuel Mugo is a co-founder of PimaSens. He receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Mohammed Elmorsy is a co-founder of PimaSens. He has received research funding related to this work through Riipen and Alberta Innovates Summer Research Studentships.

– ref. How researchers are making precision agriculture more affordable – https://theconversation.com/how-researchers-are-making-precision-agriculture-more-affordable-265366

September 24, 2025

Le Canada, le Royaume-Uni, la France et l’Australie reconnaissent la Palestine – qu’est-ce que cela signifie ? Entretien avec un expert

Source: The Conversation – in French – By George Kyris, Associate Professor in International Politics, University of Birmingham

Le Royaume-Uni, la France, le Canada et l’Australie font partie d’un groupe de nations qui reconnaissent officiellement l’État de Palestine, comme l’ont fait la plupart des autres États au cours des dernières décennies. Cette décision constitue un changement diplomatique majeur et un tournant dans l’un des conflits les plus insolubles au monde. Voici ce que cela signifie.

Reconnaître la Palestine, qu’est-ce que cela veut dire ?

Reconnaître la Palestine, c’est reconnaître l’existence d’un État qui représente le peuple palestinien. Cela signifie également que le pays qui reconnaît la Palestine peut établir des relations diplomatiques complètes avec les représentants de cet État, ce qui inclut l’échange d’ambassades ou la négociation d’accords au niveau gouvernemental.

Pourquoi ces pays ont-ils agi ensemble, et pourquoi maintenant ?

La reconnaissance diplomatique, lorsqu’elle est concertée, a plus de poids que des gestes isolés, et les gouvernements le savent. Il y a environ un an, l’Espagne a tenté de convaincre les membres de l’Union européenne de reconnaître ensemble la Palestine et, lorsque cela s’est avéré impossible, a choisi de coordonner sa reconnaissance avec la Norvège et l’Irlande uniquement. Par ailleurs, un groupe de pays des Caraïbes (la Barbade, la Jamaïque, Trinité-et-Tobago, les Bahamas) a également reconnu la Palestine à peu près à la même époque.

En agissant ensemble, les pays amplifient le message selon lequel la création d’un État palestinien n’est pas une idée marginale, mais une aspiration légitime soutenue par un consensus international croissant. Cette reconnaissance collective sert également à protéger les gouvernements individuels contre les accusations d’unilatéralisme ou d’opportunisme politique.

Cette vague de reconnaissance survient aujourd’hui en raison de la crainte que l’État palestinien soit menacé, peut-être plus que jamais auparavant. Dans leurs déclarations de reconnaissance, le Royaume-Uni et le Canada ont invoqué les colonies israéliennes en Cisjordanie pour justifier leur décision.

Le gouvernement israélien a également révélé des plans qui reviennent à annexer Gaza, l’autre zone qui devrait appartenir aux Palestiniens. Cela fait suite à des mois d’attaques contre les Palestiniens, que la commission d’enquête de l’ONU sur les territoires palestiniens occupés et Israël a qualifiées de génocide. L’opinion publique a aussi évolué de manière radicale en faveur de la Palestine, ce qui accentue la pression sur les gouvernements.

Pourquoi certains affirment-ils que la reconnaissance n’est pas légale ?

Israël et certains de ses alliés affirment que la reconnaissance est illégale, car la Palestine ne possède pas les attributs d’un État fonctionnel, tels que le contrôle total de son territoire ou un gouvernement centralisé. Les avis juridiques divergent quant à savoir si la Palestine répond aux critères d’un État. Mais, quoi qu’il en soit, ces critères ne sont pas systématiquement utilisés pour reconnaître les États.

En fait, de nombreux États ont été reconnus bien avant d’avoir le contrôle total de leurs frontières ou de leurs institutions. Ironiquement, les États-Unis ont reconnu Israël en 1948, réfutant les critiques qui estimaient que cette reconnaissance était prématurée en raison de l’absence de frontières claires. La reconnaissance a donc toujours été politique.

Mais même si l’on adopte une perspective plus juridique, la communauté internationale, à travers de nombreux textes de l’ONU et autres, reconnaît depuis longtemps le droit des Palestiniens à avoir leur propre État.

La reconnaissance « récompense-t-elle le Hamas », comme le prétend Israël ?

Reconnaître un État ne signifie pas reconnaître ceux qui le gouvernent. À l’heure actuelle, par exemple, de nombreux États ne reconnaissent pas le régime taliban, mais cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’ils ont cessé de reconnaître l’existence de l’Afghanistan en tant qu’État.

De même, le fait que Nétanyahou fasse l’objet d’un mandat d’arrêt de la Cour pénale internationale pour crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité n’a pas conduit les États à retirer leur reconnaissance de l’État d’Israël et de son peuple. Reconnaître un État n’est pas la même chose que soutenir un gouvernement spécifique.

De plus, tous les États qui ont récemment reconnu la Palestine ont explicitement déclaré que le Hamas ne devait jouer aucun rôle dans un futur gouvernement. La France a déclaré que, bien qu’elle reconnaisse l’État palestinien, elle n’ouvrirait pas d’ambassade tant que le Hamas n’aura pas libéré les otages.

La reconnaissance fera-t-elle une différence ?

Ces dernières années ont mis en évidence les limites de la diplomatie pour mettre fin à l’horrible catastrophe humaine qui se déroule à Gaza. Cela ne laisse pas beaucoup de place à l’optimisme. Et, d’une certaine manière, les États qui prennent des mesures diplomatiques courageuses révèlent en même temps leur réticence à prendre des mesures plus concrètes, telles que des sanctions, pour faire pression sur le gouvernement israélien afin qu’il mette fin à la guerre.

Néanmoins, cette reconnaissance pourrait avoir un effet boule de neige qui renforcerait la position internationale des Palestiniens. Ils pourront ainsi travailler de manière plus substantielle avec les gouvernements qui reconnaissent désormais leur État. D’autres États pourraient également reconnaître la Palestine, motivés par le fait que d’autres l’ont fait avant eux.

Et une reconnaissance accrue signifie un meilleur accès aux forums internationaux, à l’aide et aux instruments juridiques. Par exemple, la reconnaissance par l’ONU de la Palestine en tant qu’État observateur en 2011 a permis à la Cour internationale de justice d’entendre l’affaire de l’Afrique du Sud accusant Israël de génocide et à la Cour pénale internationale de délivrer un mandat d’arrêt contre Nétanyahou.

Les implications pour le gouvernement israélien et certains de ses alliés pourraient également être importantes. Les États-Unis se retrouveront désormais isolés en tant que seul membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU à ne pas reconnaître la Palestine. Les États qui ne reconnaissent pas la Palestine se retrouveront dans une minorité dissidente et seront davantage exposés aux critiques dans les forums internationaux et dans l’opinion publique.

Cet isolement croissant ne devrait pas entraîner de changements immédiats et ne devrait pas déranger l’administration américaine actuelle, qui ne suit souvent pas la logique de la diplomatie traditionnelle. Néanmoins, avec le temps, la pression exercée sur Israël et ses alliés pour qu’ils s’engagent dans un processus de paix pourrait s’intensifier.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous aujourd’hui à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

En fin de compte, la reconnaissance de certains des plus grands acteurs mondiaux marque une rupture avec leur alignement de longue date avec les gouvernements israéliens successifs. Cela montre à quel point leur opinion publique et leurs gouvernements sont sensibles à la menace que représente Israël pour l’État palestinien par son annexion et son occupation. Pour les Palestiniens, cette reconnaissance renforce leur position politique et morale. Pour le gouvernement israélien, c’est l’inverse.

Mais la reconnaissance seule ne suffit pas. Elle doit s’accompagner d’efforts soutenus pour mettre fin à la guerre à Gaza, traduire en justice les auteurs de violences et relancer les efforts de paix visant à mettre fin à l’occupation et à permettre aux Palestiniens d’exercer leur souveraineté légitime aux côtés d’Israël.

George Kyris 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.

– ref. Le Canada, le Royaume-Uni, la France et l’Australie reconnaissent la Palestine – qu’est-ce que cela signifie ? Entretien avec un expert – https://theconversation.com/le-canada-le-royaume-uni-la-france-et-laustralie-reconnaissent-la-palestine-quest-ce-que-cela-signifie-entretien-avec-un-expert-265950

September 24, 2025

Space-time doesn’t exist — but it’s a useful framework for understanding our reality

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daryl Janzen, Observatory Manager and Instructor, Astronomy, University of Saskatchewan

Space-time provides a powerful description of how events happen. ( MARIOLA GROBELSKA/Unsplash), CC BY

Whether space-time exists should neither be controversial nor even conceptually challenging, given the definitions of “space-time,” “events” and “instants.” The idea that space-time exists is no more viable than the outdated belief that the celestial sphere exists: both are observer-centred models that are powerful and convenient for describing the world, but neither represents reality itself.

Yet from the standpoints of modern physics, philosophy, popular science communication and familiar themes in science fiction, stating that space-time does not exist is contentious.

But what would it mean for a world where everything that has ever happened or will happen somehow “exists” now as part of an interwoven fabric?

Events are not locations

It’s easy to imagine past events — like losing a tooth or receiving good news — as existing somewhere. Fictional representations of time travel underscore this: time travellers alter events and disrupt the timeline, as if past and future events were locations one could visit with the right technology.

Philosophers often talk this way too. Eternalism says all events across all time exist. The growing block view suggests the past and present exist while the future will come to be. Presentism says only the present exists, while the past used to exist and the future will when it happens. And general relativity presents a four-dimensional continuum that bends and curves — we tend to imagine that continuum of the events as really existing.

The confusion emerges out of the definition of the word “exist.” With space-time, it’s applied uncritically to a mathematical description of happenings — turning a model into an ontological theory on the nature of being.

Physical theorist Sean Carroll explains presentism and eternalism.

A totality

In physics, space-time is the continuous set of events that happen throughout space and time — from here to the furthest galaxy, from the Big Bang to the far future. It is a four-dimensional map that records and measures where and when everything happens. In physics, an event is an instantaneous occurrence at a specific place and time.

An instant is the three-dimensional collection of spatially separated events that happen “at the same time” (with relativity’s usual caveat that simultaneity depends on one’s relative state of rest).

Space-time is the totality of all events that ever happen.

It’s also our most powerful way of cataloguing the world’s happenings. That cataloguing is indispensable, but the words and concepts we use for it matter.

There are infinitely many points in the three dimensions of space, and at every instant as time passes a unique event occurs at each location.

Positionings throughout time

Physicists describe a car travelling straight at constant speed with a simple space-time diagram: position on one axis, time on the other. Instants stack together to form a two-dimensional space-time. The car’s position is a point within each instant, and those points join to form a worldline — the full record of the car’s position throughout the time interval, whose slope is the car’s speed.

Real motion is far more complex. The car rides along on a rotating Earth orbiting the sun, which orbits the Milky Way as it drifts through the local universe. Plotting the car’s position at every instant ultimately requires four-dimensional space-time.

Space-time is the map of where and when events happen. A worldline is the record of every event that occurs throughout one’s life. The key question is whether the map — or all the events it draws together at once — should be said to exist in the same way that cars, people and the places they go exist.

Objects exist

Consider what “exist” means. Objects, buildings, people, cities, planets, galaxies exist — they are either places or occupy places, enduring there over intervals of time. They persist through changes and can be encountered repeatedly.

Treating occurrences as things that exist smuggles confusion into our language and concepts. When analyzing space-time, do events, instants, worldlines or even space-time as a whole exist in the same sense as places and people? Or is it more accurate to say that events happen in an existing world?

On that view, space-time is the map that records those happenings, allowing us to describe the spatial and temporal relationships between them.

Space-time does not exist

Events do not exist, they happen. Consequently, space-time does not exist. Events happen everywhere throughout the course of existence, and the occurrence of an event is categorically different from the existence of anything — whether object, place or concept.

First, there is no empirical evidence that any past, present or future event “exists” in the way that things in the world around us exist. Verifying the existence of an event as an ongoing object would require something like a time machine to go and observe it now. Even present events cannot be verified as ongoing things that exist.

In contrast, material objects exist. Time-travel paradoxes rest on the false premise that events exist as revisitable locations. Recognizing the categorical difference between occurrence and existence resolves these paradoxes.

Second, this recognition reframes the philosophy of time. Much debate over the past century has treated events as things that exist. Philosophers then focus on their tense properties: is an event past, present or future? Did this one occur earlier or later than that one?

a stencilled pipe spraypainted onto a concrete wall with the words ceci n'est pas une pipe underneath it — A stencil interpretation of René Magritte’s 1929 painting, ‘La Trahison des images,’ in which the artist points out that the representation of an object is not the object itself.
(bixentro/Wikimedia Commons)

These discussions rely on an assumption that events are existent things that bear these properties. From there, it’s a short step to the conclusion that time is unreal or that the passage of time is an illusion, on the identification that the same event can be labelled differently from different standpoints. But the ontological distinction was lost at the start: events don’t exist, they happen. Tense and order are features of how happenings relate within an existing world, not properties of existent objects.

Finally, consider relativity. It is a mathematical theory that describes a four-dimensional space-time continuum, and not a theory about a four-dimensional thing that exists — that, in the course of its own existence, bends and warps due to gravity.

Conceptual clarity

Physics can’t actually describe space-time itself as something that actually exists, nor can it account for any change it might experience as an existing thing.

Space-time provides a powerful description of how events happen: how they are ordered relative to one another, how sequences of events are measured to unfold and how lengths are measured in different reference frames. If we stop saying that events — and space-time — exist, we recover conceptual clarity without sacrificing a single prediction.

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

– ref. Space-time doesn’t exist — but it’s a useful framework for understanding our reality – https://theconversation.com/space-time-doesnt-exist-but-its-a-useful-framework-for-understanding-our-reality-265952

September 24, 2025

Voici pourquoi la poutine est devenue le nouveau plat identitaire québécois

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Geneviève Sicotte, Professeure, Études françaises, Concordia University

En quelques décennies, la poutine a acquis le statut de nouveau plat identitaire québécois.

On connaît sa composition : frites, fromage en grains et sauce, le tout parfois surmonté de diverses garnitures. C’est un mets qu’on peut trouver simpliste, un fast-food qui assemble sans grande imagination des aliments ultra-transformés et pas très sains.

Pourquoi s’impose-t-il aujourd’hui avec tant de force ?

Dans La poutine. Culture et identité d’un pays incertain publié cette semaine aux PUM, j’explore cette question. J’essaie de comprendre ce qui fait qu’un aliment devient un repère et même un emblème pour une collectivité. Mon hypothèse est que la poutine doit sa popularité au fait qu’elle mobilise de manière dynamique des enjeux sensibles de l’identité québécoise actuelle.

Pour analyser l’imaginaire qui s’élabore autour du plat, j’approfondis ici quelques pistes : ses liens avec la tradition culinaire québécoise et la convivialité particulière qui la caractérise.

Un plat pour repenser le passé

La poutine est relativement récente : elle apparaît dans les années cinquante et ne devient populaire que dans les dernières décennies du XX^e siècle. Mais en fait, malgré cette modernité, elle touche à des enjeux liés au passé et permet de les repenser. C’est un premier facteur qui explique son nouveau statut de plat emblématique.

La cuisine traditionnelle du Québec était d’abord associée à la subsistance. Fondée surtout sur les ressources agricoles, modeste, simple et parfois rudimentaire, elle devait emplir l’estomac. Pour cette raison, elle a longtemps été dénigrée, comme en témoignent les connotations négatives attachées à la soupe aux pois ou aux fèves au lard.

Des valorisations sont bien survenues au fil du XX^e siècle. Mais même si on trouve aujourd’hui des mets traditionnels dans certains restaurants ou qu’on les consomme ponctuellement lors de fêtes, on ne saurait parler de revitalisation. Peu cuisinés, ces mets sont surtout les témoins d’une histoire, d’une identité et de formes sociales dans lesquelles une bonne partie de la population ne se reconnaît pas.

Or dans l’imaginaire social, la poutine semble apte à repositiver cette tradition. D’emblée, elle permet que des traits culinaires longtemps critiqués — simplicité, économie, rusticité et abondance — soient transformés en qualités. Elle procède ainsi à un retournement du stigmate : le caractère populaire de la cuisine, qui a pu susciter une forme de honte, est revendiqué et célébré.

Par ailleurs, la poutine se compose d’ingrédients qui agissent comme les marqueurs discrets des influences britanniques, américaines ou plus récemment du monde entier qui constituent la cuisine québécoise. Mais l’identité qu’évoquent ces ingrédients semble peu caractérisée et fortement modulée par le statut de fast-food déterritorialisé du plat. Le plébiscite de la poutine s’arrime ainsi à une situation politique contemporaine où le patriotisme québécois n’est plus un objet de ralliement dans l’espace public. Le plat devient un repère identitaire faible et, dès lors, consensuel.

Un plat convivial

Les manières de manger révèlent toujours des préférences culturelles, mais c’est d’autant plus le cas quand la nourriture consommée est ressentie comme emblématique. C’est pourquoi il faut également traiter de l’expérience concrète de la consommation de poutine et de la convivialité qu’elle suppose, qui portent elles aussi des dimensions expliquant son essor.

Le casseau abondant de frites bien saucées révèle une prédilection pour un certain type de climat et de liens sociaux. Il est posé sans façon au centre de la table et souvent partagé entre les convives qui y puisent directement. Les relations entre les corps et avec l’espace qui se dévoilent par ces usages, ce qu’on appelle la proxémie, prennent ici une dimension personnelle et même intime.

La convivialité associée à la poutine rejette ainsi les codes sociaux contraignants et valorise un registre libre et familier, où la communauté emprunte ses formes au modèle familial restreint plutôt qu’au social élargi.

Une nourriture de réconfort

Une fois consommé, le mets emplit l’estomac et rend somnolent. Ce ressenti physiologique fait peut-être écho à l’ancienne cuisine domestique qui visait la satiété. Toutefois, il trouve aussi des résonances contemporaines.

La poutine appartient en effet à la catégorie très prisée des nourritures de réconfort, ce phénomène typique d’une époque hédoniste. Mais la poutine n’est pas seulement un petit plaisir du samedi soir. Elle devient le signe de préférences culturelles collectives : les corps se rassemblent dans une sociabilité de proximité qui vise le plaisir et qui permet de mettre à distance des enjeux sociaux et politiques potentiellement conflictuels.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

En outre, le plat fait l’objet de consommations festives qui accentuent sa portée identitaire. Dans ces occasions, la convivialité devient codifiée et parfois ritualisée. La poutine des vacances marque la fin des obligations, le moment où s’ouvre un été de liberté ; la première poutine des immigrants signe leur intégration à la société québécoise ; la poutine nocturne permet d’éponger les excès avant de réintégrer le monde des obligations ; les festivals de la poutine constituent des moments de rassemblement joyeux de la collectivité.

Ces fêtes sont de véritables performances de l’identité, des moments où s’inventent des modalités renouvelées du vivre-ensemble qui valorisent le plaisir, l’humour, la modestie et les liens de proximité. Elles offrent une image qui, malgré qu’elle puisse être idéalisée, joue un rôle actif dans la représentation que la collectivité se fait d’elle-même. Et cela se manifeste même dans le domaine politique, notamment lors des campagnes électorales !

La poutine, passage obligé des campagnes électorales

Un plat emblématique pour célébrer une identité complexe

Loin d’être un signe fixe, un plat identitaire est dynamique et polyphonique. Quand nous le mangeons, nous mobilisons tout un imaginaire pour penser ce que nous sommes, ce que nous avons été et ce que nous voulons être.

La poutine illustre clairement cela. Elle réfère au passé, mais le reformule et l’inscrit dans le présent. Elle valorise une certaine forme de collectivité, mais il s’agit d’une collectivité plutôt dépolitisée et non conflictuelle, rassemblée autour de valeurs familiales et familières.

Privilégiant l’humour et la fête, elle évite le patriotisme sérieux et affirme son existence avec modestie. La poutine devient ainsi un support permettant de manifester l’identité québécoise actuelle dans toute sa complexité. C’est ce qui explique qu’elle s’impose comme nouveau plat emblématique.

Geneviève Sicotte a reçu des financements de l’Université Concordia, du Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada (CRSH) et du Fonds de recherche du Québec, Société et culture (FRQSC).

– ref. Voici pourquoi la poutine est devenue le nouveau plat identitaire québécois – https://theconversation.com/voici-pourquoi-la-poutine-est-devenue-le-nouveau-plat-identitaire-quebecois-263977