Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lyndon Simkin, Professor of Strategic Marketing, Manchester Metropolitan University

British businesses are under such strain that around 50,000 are on the brink of collapse according to a recent report. Retail is an especially vulnerable sector, with predictions that over 17,300 shops will close this year, costing 200,000 jobs.

Last year, the equivalent of 38 shops closed every day. A few re-opened, but most did not, fuelling a sense of economic decay on high streets across the UK where 15% of shops are now empty. In some particularly badly hit places, more shops are closed than open.

These include some still empty former premises of brands like BHS and Woolworths, which have been out of action for almost a decade. Every week, more closures are announced, with many driven by rising tax rates and operating costs.

Fashion retailer River Island recently announced 33 store closures, with more under threat. Now the fashion accessories chain Claire’s has gone into administration, putting 278 shops at risk of closure.

This is a far cry from the halcyon days of the 1980s, when an empty retail unit was rare, soon to be snaffled up by Dixons or Burton Group or a host of other expansion-hungry chains. But those days will not return. Online shopping has seen to that.

So if shopping habits have changed, so surely, must high streets. They need to be used differently – given a different purpose.

There is research which suggests that one good option is for city centres to develop an “experience economy”, where entertainment and leisure are the focus. Another viable path is to embrace more mixed use, where tourism, recreation, housing and education have a more prominent role, instead of everything being aimed at attracting shoppers.

Some towns and cities are already doing this. Former department stores are being redeveloped into a mixture of flats and offices, and retail space is being demolished to be replaced with hotels and housing.

In Cardiff for example, a new square is being planned with a former department store being demolished to be replaced with green space.

Over in Coventry, where retail footfall is down 55% from pre-pandemic levels, a large area of the city centre is being demolished and re-imagined with new street layouts and more open space. Buildings are being designed to offer leisure facilities, along with housing, offices, healthcare – and just a little retail – to breath much needed life into a struggling city centre.

Such mixed use re-developments and re-purposing are challenging. They require agreement from landlords, tenants, planners, local authorities and residents. And they demand considerable investment in new infrastructure and transport links.

Shopping around

They also require a fundamental economic and philosophical shift – to relinquish retail’s grip on the high street and city centre and let new ideas emerge and flourish. The UK needs more housing, and it needs more green open space. These were once banished from the heart of many towns, but there’s no reason for them not to return.

Unfortunately though, too few cities are acting like Cardiff or Coventry. The demoralising demise continues in many towns. One unwelcome consequence is that criminals have moved into cheap shop units to sell counterfeit goods and launder money.

The main challenge will be to achieve agreement around a vision for change. As various solutions emerge for repurposing retail space and buildings, there will be work to do that will be different in every town and city. After all, it is unlikely that only one model of land re-use will be the preferred solution everywhere.

But what is certain is that city centres must change their shape and purpose. The people who use them have already changed their behaviour. It’s time for high streets – and those who own and administer them – to catch up.

Lyndon Simkin 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. With over 17,000 shops in the UK expected to close this year, city centres must move on from retail – https://theconversation.com/with-over-17-000-shops-in-the-uk-expected-to-close-this-year-city-centres-must-move-on-from-retail-262736

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Antje Jackelén, Senior Advisor and Systematic Theologian., Lund University

In 1917, Sigmund Freud described three “narcissistic insults” that had been caused by science. These were moments of scientific breakthrough that showed humans that we are not as special as we once believed.

The first came with astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus’s discovery%5D) that we are not at the centre of the universe, because the sun rather than the Earth is at our solar system’s centre. It was followed by two more: the loss of humanity’s position as “the crown of creation” through Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the loss of sovereignty over our own selves through the discovery of the power of the unconscious. The latter was Freud’s own work and, according to him, the toughest one of all.

Had Freud heard of artificial intelligence (AI), I believe he would have been prompted to add a fourth. The cosmological, biological and psychological insults have now been followed by the intellectual. AI deals a fateful blow to our human self-understanding.

As a theologian, I’m particularly interested in the implications of this threat for our sense of spirituality. Generally speaking, humanity has coped quite well with the first three “narcissistic insults” described by Freud. But what cures are available for the wound of this most recent development?

1. Changing the language of AI

Even though the range and achievements of AI are breathtaking, the term “artificial intelligence” could be questioned to quell the damage it presents to our self-image. “Co-intelligence” may be more adequate, indicating that, for example, large language models should be used only as complementary to our own mental resources. This language softens the harshness.

2. Questioning the intelligence of AI

Some researchers have questioned the intelligence of AI by pointing out that a large language model merely is “a stochastic parrot”. This suggests that AI seems to have a deep understanding of what it conveys, but in reality, it’s just a system that combines linguistic patterns it has encountered in its extensive training data, based on probable associations, without any actual grasp of meaning.

“We are not going to be AI’s stupid pets,” wrote cognitive scientist Peter Gärdenfors. Rather than fearing AI, we should be fearful of ourselves, because, seduced by AI, we could give up the fruits of the Enlightenment.

Focusing on the differences between human intelligence and its artificial counterpart makes us understand that as long as collective human intelligence can judge the plausibility of AI output, the insult can be handled.

3. Speaking of ‘intelligences’ rather than intelligence

Instead of a single phenomenon, human intelligence can be understood as a variety of intelligences: artistic, personal and moral. They all come together in a mode of intelligence that is intuitive, socially embedded and holds special importance for spirituality – the opposite of a stochastic parrot.

Humans seek and find meaning even beyond ordinary reality, whereas AI is stuck in the “here”, in the profane. When a large language model creates nonsensical or inaccurate outputs, this is called a hallucination. Artificial intelligence hallucinates, human intelligence transcends.

In view of this integration of intelligences in humans, AI is inferior to human intelligence – at least for now.

Yes, but …

These attempts to address the insult of AI recognise that it functions differently from human intelligence. Unlike humans, AI has its identity in computation and statistics. But that does not mean that we need not fear. The speed, volume and complexity of data processing by AI can reach levels that render this difference irrelevant, because the output will count, rather than the way it is achieved.

Say I suffer from massive fear of death and my partner is too affected to be of any help, while my AI assistant shares advice that I experience as caring and valuable. Would it then matter what I call this thing (example one), whether it is indeed intelligent (example two) or how many intelligences it represents (example three)?

Experienced usefulness is likely to trump philosophical questions about the intelligence of AI systems. So what now?

Wavering between techno-messianism (AI will save us and the planet) and techno-dystopia (AI is the end of humanity) is an understandable reaction to the intellectual insult. Yet, uncritical embrace is socially irresponsible, and panic often leads to irrational actions or apathy.

AI development is quicker than adaptation of social and legal systems – especially when the law follows democratic principles. In the haze of this dilemma, transparency gets lost, lines of responsibility become blurred, consequences strike unexpectedly and unevenly. AI will change the way we think about knowledge, work, communication and integrity. It will create winners and losers in the labour market. Social unrest may arise. Without critical humanistic reflection, it’s possible that AI will fail to contribute to a good society for all.

In response, all sectors of society must cooperate. Technical and legal expertise is not enough. It is in civil society that existential questions are asked, and answers sought not only in calculations about power and economics or in legal and technical intricacies, but also in the cultural, philosophical and theological sources from which humanity has drawn orientation over centuries.

The hallmarks of western modernity – individualism, consumerism and secularism – will not suffice in face of AI’s narcissistic insult. Instead, human qualities such as relationality, transcendence, fallibility and responsibility are key.

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.

Antje Jackelén 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. Freud would have called AI a ‘narcissistic insult’ to humanity – here’s how we might overcome it – https://theconversation.com/freud-would-have-called-ai-a-narcissistic-insult-to-humanity-heres-how-we-might-overcome-it-255802

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ahmed Elbediwy, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Biochemistry / Cancer Biology, Kingston University

When Jesse J, Christina Applegate and Katie Thurston spoke openly about their mastectomies, their candour did more than share private struggles. It highlighted a procedure that, while often life saving, is unevenly available depending on the genetic lottery into which someone is born.

A mastectomy – the surgical removal of breast tissue – is usually offered after a breast cancer diagnosis or when doctors consider a person’s inherited genetic risk so high that prevention becomes the safest option. For many, it can mean the difference between life and death. Yet who qualifies is dictated less by need than by which specific genes are affected. This disparity reveals deeper questions about genetics, prevention and medical equity.

The human body contains trillions of cells carrying out processes essential for survival. These processes are not flawless – billions of cells die each day as part of a system designed to limit damage. Central to this system is the copying and expression of DNA, the genetic script from which our bodies are built. Mistakes in this process sometimes lead to mutations.

Most are harmless, but some affect critical genes that control cell division. Tumour suppressor genes are particularly important: they are the brakes that keep cell division under control, guarding the integrity of our DNA. When they fail, cells can multiply unchecked, laying the groundwork for cancer.

Few gene families are as well known in this context as BRCA. Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are linked to particularly aggressive forms of breast and ovarian cancer.

These mutations can be inherited from either parent and confer a lifetime breast cancer risk of more than 60%. This knowledge has transformed cancer prevention over the past three decades, especially after the highly publicised decision by actress Angelina Jolie to undergo preventive surgery.

Jolie’s mother, Marcheline Bertrand, died of ovarian cancer, and genetic testing revealed Jolie carried a faulty BRCA1 gene. She chose a double mastectomy and later removal of her ovaries. Her openness about the decision is credited with an 80% increase in women undergoing BRCA testing.

British actress Kara Tointon also had a double mastectomy after genetic screening.

When the wrong mutation means fewer options

The ripple effect of these cases was profound: awareness of BRCA mutations soared, genetic testing became more common, and mastectomies became framed not only as treatment but also as a preventive strategy. Yet the focus on BRCA has obscured the broader picture.

Researchers now know that breast cancer can arise from mutations in a range of other moderate-risk genes, each of which raises risk two to fourfold. For patients carrying these mutations, however, mastectomy is rarely an option.

The barriers are both scientific and economic. Evidence remains limited on whether preventive surgery benefits people with moderate-risk mutations.

Clinical guidelines in the UK, developed primarily around BRCA and other high risk genes, do not include them. And cost is a powerful constraint.

Expanding mastectomy access would mean more operations, more reconstruction, more follow-up – a strain on health systems already under pressure. But the potential benefits are substantial.

One recent study suggested that if mastectomies were offered more widely, beyond the BRCA population, up to 11% of additional breast cancer cases could be prevented. The long-term savings, both in human suffering and in healthcare expenditure, could be significant.

This disparity exposes a fundamental inequity in cancer prevention. While people with BRCA mutations benefit from decades of research and the inclusion of their risks in clinical guidelines, others with equally worrying family histories but different genetic profiles are excluded. The result is a two-tier system: one group with access to the most aggressive preventive care, another left with surveillance and uncertainty.

The problem is only set to grow. As genetic testing becomes cheaper and more widely available, more people will learn that they carry moderate-risk mutations. Without updated research and revised guidelines, thousands will confront elevated cancer risks without the option of the same preventive measures as others. It is a dilemma that stretches beyond oncology – a test of whether medicine can deliver on the promise of personalised care.

For now, preventive mastectomy remains both a triumph of modern medicine and a reminder of its limits. It saves lives, but not equally. As one analysis concluded, true personalised care means ensuring all patients, regardless of which mutation they carry, can access the full range of preventive options. Until then, access to this life-saving surgery will depend not just on medical need, but on genetic chance.

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

– ref. Why preventive mastectomy isn’t offered to everyone at risk – https://theconversation.com/why-preventive-mastectomy-isnt-offered-to-everyone-at-risk-262249

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Styliani Panetsidou, Assistant Professor of Finance, Coventry University

Many of us check the weather forecast to plan our day – to decide whether to carry an umbrella, postpone a trip or work from home when snow is on the horizon. But weather alerts can influence more than just our personal routines. They can also move financial markets.

We have explored this phenomenon in our new research and our findings were both surprising and increasingly relevant in a world of climate change. It seems severe weather alerts can indeed move stock prices. This was unexpected, as alerts are simply warnings, not actual disasters. Yet they are enough to shift market values.

Using detailed UK data on weather alerts from 2015 to 2023 alongside the stock prices of firms with headquarters in affected areas, we showed that investors react negatively to severe weather warnings. On average, firms with headquarters in regions covered by severe weather alerts see their share prices drop by about 1%. It’s a seemingly small drop but it can actually wipe out millions in value for large companies.

This suggests that weather alerts, once considered mainly for their practical and safety implications, are now treated as market-moving information. Notably, the severity of the warning matters. Red alerts – the highest level issued by the UK Met Office, signalling real danger to life and infrastructure – trigger sharper market declines than amber alerts.

The market’s response isn’t spread evenly across all companies. Firms in weather-sensitive industries, such as energy and transport, tend to see sharper declines. For example, when heavy rain or snow threatens to halt trains or disrupt energy supply, it appears that investors quickly factor in the potential costs.

Smaller, high-risk businesses listed on the UK’s growth stock exchange – the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) – also face steeper selloffs. This could be because investors doubt their resilience to sudden shocks.

What’s striking is that these reactions are not just emotional selloffs. Investors appear to be making deliberate, strategic pricing decisions based on exposure to weather risks. Markets are, in effect, treating severe weather alerts as early warnings, not just for public safety but also for financial vulnerability.

Interestingly, one detail stood out to us – updates from the Met Office helped to calm investor nerves. When initial warnings are updated with more information, such as revised timings or affected areas for severe weather, the negative market reaction is smaller. It’s a lesson familiar to anyone who follows stock markets. Uncertainty can be more damaging than bad news, and timely information helps reduce it.

Why this matters

Over the past decades, extreme weather has become more frequent, more severe and more costly. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that the number of weather-related disasters has increased fivefold since 1970, leaving millions dead and causing trillions of dollars in economic damage.

Traditionally, financial research has focused on the aftermath of disasters – the wreckage from floods, hurricanes or wildfires. Our findings reveal something subtler but no less important. Markets are already adjusting when severe weather warnings are issued. That makes the alerts themselves a kind of financial signal.

For investors, this adds a new dimension of information to monitor. A weather alert may no longer be just a headline, it may contain material information that shapes market moves.

For firms, especially in sectors directly exposed to weather disruption, the research highlights the importance of building climate resilience and being transparent about weather-related risks. A company whose operations can grind to a halt at the first sign of heavy snow or extreme heat may find itself increasingly punished by the markets.

And this isn’t only about catastrophic storms or once-in-a-century floods. Our study shows that even amber alerts – for snowstorms, heatwaves or icy conditions – can ripple through markets. That should serve as a warning of its own. Climate volatility is becoming a day-to-day economic factor, not just a distant environmental concern.

Weather has always shaped how people live. Now it’s starting to shape how they invest. A storm warning, it turns out, can matter almost as much to the markets as the storm itself.

Styliani Panetsidou receives funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust.
.

Angelos Synapis receives funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Extreme weather alerts can move markets – here’s what investors can learn from our new research – https://theconversation.com/extreme-weather-alerts-can-move-markets-heres-what-investors-can-learn-from-our-new-research-263400

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elliot David Convery-Fisher, Research Fellow in the Socio-Ecology of Fire Management, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

For the tenth time this year, a wildfire warning covers most of Scotland. The latest alert came after a recent, and not the first, gorse fire on Arthur’s Seat, Edinburgh’s iconic ancient volcano that draws millions of visitors every year. Fire crews think human activity caused the fire. This is exactly the kind of incident that triggers our instinct to find someone to blame.

But with over 41,000 hectares already burned across Britain in 2025 (an area larger than the Isle of Wight) pointing the finger misses the point. News reports focus on who lit the spark, but Arthur’s Seat was primed to burn: flammable gorse has flourished since sheep stopped grazing the slopes. The real question isn’t who started this fire, but why we are caught off guard when fires happen in the wrong places.

This isn’t just an Edinburgh problem. Millions of Britons live near fire-prone landscapes, from Dorset heathlands to the Scottish Highlands.

My colleagues and I work with national parks in southern Africa to understand how they manage this challenge. The challenges I see in South Africa mirror what Britain now faces because of climate change: how to keep people and infrastructure safe when fire an unavoidable part of our reality.

Research shows that climate change has made the UK’s risk of ideal conditions for wildfires six times higher. While ignition sources haven’t changed much – most UK fires still start from human activity like discarded cigarettes or campfires – the conditions that allow fires to spread have transformed. Warmer, wetter winters create more plant growth and therefore fuel, which turns bone-dry during hot, dry spells.

Fire is a natural and vital feature of many landscapes globally. In fire-adapted ecosystems it can clear invasive species while promoting native grasses, reduce the buildup of dead vegetation that fuels dangerous blazes and create some of our most iconic places where plants and animals thrive.

The problem isn’t fire itself, but where, when and how it happens. Over 1.8 million British homes now sit within 100m of countryside edges – exactly where most wildfires occur. During one of Britain’s biggest wildfires on a North Yorkshire moor in 2018, flames nearly reached homes and critical infrastructure: the trans-Pennine railway, M62 motorway, major power lines and drinking water reservoirs. Another recent fire in the same area was close to a ballistic missile base.

I have interviewed fire managers in South Africa, where humans have worked with fire for millennia. Their approach suggests a fundamentally different relationship with fire, understanding fire as part of a landscape’s natural processes. Instead of treating every fire as a crisis, they study how fire behaves – when it helps ecosystems, when it threatens communities, and how to work with these patterns rather than against them.

Take Cape Town as an example, where fire authorities publish daily risk ratings that residents check like weather forecasts. High-risk days mean banned barbecues and closed trails. When safe, fire crews deliberately burn mountain slopes in small sections – having the right fires at the right times to prevent catastrophic ones. Property owners in Cape Town form neighbourhood fire protection associations to support each other and the emergency services during unplanned fires, creating a coordinated response network.

The UK is catching on

The UK government is reviewing its wildfire management strategy, focusing on prevention, collaboration and risk reduction. Landowners are also taking a more proactive approach. The Cairngorms national park in Scotland approved the UK’s first comprehensive wildfire management plan in June 2025, introducing seasonal fire management plans and setting up community groups to communicate fire risk and response. Fire services in the Cairngorms now use drones for real-time aerial mapping and off-road vehicles to fight fires in tough terrain.

However, we are still playing catch up. Fire services recorded 286 wildfires between January and April 2025. That’s over 100 more than the same period in 2022’s record year. Yet services receive little dedicated wildfire funding.

Britain could learn from South Africa’s holistic approach. Starting with the need to understand our own landscapes first. What role does fire play in our landscapes? How can we safely manage fire risk in different landscape types? Which of our ecosystems and places might actually benefit from carefully managed fire?

Edinburgh could start by studying Arthur’s Seat as Cape Town studies Table Mountain – not to implement identical solutions, but to understand how fire behaves in this specific landscape. This means researching how gorse burns, whether controlled burns could reduce dangerous fuel loads, and how visitors can safely coexist with proactive fire management.

The lesson isn’t to transplant South African methods to British soil, but to embrace their comprehensive approach to understanding fire. Every landscape is different. What works on Cape Town’s fynbos shrubland won’t necessarily work on Scottish moors. But the principle of studying fire as a part of the landscape rather than simply an emergency to suppress could transform how Britain manages its growing fire risk.

Fire isn’t the enemy. Poorly understood, unmanaged fire is. Climate change guarantees greater fire risk. Britain’s choice is clear: continue reacting with shock to each blaze, or develop our own integrated understanding of how fire works in British landscapes. The Arthur’s Seat fire was a warning shot. The question is whether we’ll heed it.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Elliot David Convery-Fisher works for the Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh and the University of Edinburgh. He receives funding from UK International Development through the Biodiverse Landscapes Fund project ‘Achieving Sustainable Forest Management through Community Protected Areas in Madagascar’ (ecm 62237).

– ref. Why the Arthur’s Seat burn is a cautionary tale for the UK’s wildfire management strategy – https://theconversation.com/why-the-arthurs-seat-burn-is-a-cautionary-tale-for-the-uks-wildfire-management-strategy-263065