Analysis – Page 18 – MIL Submissions Engine

November 18, 2025

Wicked: For Good – the second part of this reimagining of Oz takes a much darker political turn

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julian Woolford, Head of Musical Theatre, GSA, University of Surrey

The Wicked Witch of the West is back in part two of the film adaptation, of Wicked. Part one recounted the musical’s first half and with an interval of a year, audiences can now find out what happened to Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) after she learned to fly and set off on a mission to save the animals of Oz from the Wizard’s (Jeff Goldblum) vilification

The Legally Blonde light-heartedness of Shiz University is in the past and the second part, Wicked: For Good, has moved into more sinister political territory. This story emphasises the Wizard’s oppression of the animals as he makes them second-class citizens. It also charts the slow rise of fascism in Oz.

Elphaba is now mounting a one-woman rebellion against the Wizard and, slowly, raises the consciousness of her frenemy Glinda and Fiyero, Captain of the Guard and Glinda’s betrothed.

Ariana Grande’s Glinda has a considerably clearer arc in this movie than onstage. The live musical focuses on Elphaba’s journey and Glinda makes abrupt hand-break turns of realisation. In the film, however, Grande captures her slow disillusionment with the politics of Oz while growing to understand that she still benefits from it.

Grande’s performance is helped by The Girl in the Bubble, one of the two new songs added to the stage score. In this song Glinda chooses her side in the conflict. Grande’s revelatory performance proves her as an actress of considerable depth and remarkable subtlety.

The other new song, There’s No Place Like Home is Elphaba’s rallying call to the animals to stay and fight for Oz. It has less dramatic impetus but emphasises her reasons for fighting the Wizard when all of Oz is bowing to his will. It could be read as an anthem for refugees and the dispossessed everywhere.

Erivo, a queer black woman, delivers a powerhouse performance. Director John Chu’s expert use of close-ups allows the actors to convey the delicacy of emotional shifts in a manner that is impossible onstage, and Erivo can break your heart with a single glance.

Unusually for a movie adaptation, the two-part story of Wicked features the complete score of the stage musical. There are changes, like the opening number Thank Goodness and The March of the Witch Hunters, which are both considerably expanded.

They have decided to keep the one number that sits uncomfortably in the stage show, the upbeat Wonderful. In this song the Wizard attempts to woo Elphaba to join him in power. Chu has added Glinda to this number to emphasise Elphaba’s ambivalence, but the light-hearted nature of moment is awkward, especially considering the more serious tone of the movie.

Wonderful’s tonal shift also presents certain characters in different lights. Jeff Goldblum’s Wizard is more obviously self-serving than in part one and Michelle Yeoh’s Madame Morrible, now promoted to the Wizard’s right-hand woman is seen as clearly clinging to power. Also, Elphaba’s wheelchair-bound sister Nessarose and the Munchkin, Boq, start to feature more as their part in Dorothy’s tale are revealed.

The engagement with the wider world of The Wizard of Oz is vital to this movie. Part one is concerned with Elphaba and Glinda’s early relationship and establishes the socio-political background, a story that the writer Gregory Maguire entirely imagined in his book, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West (1995) – the original source of the musical. In this film, however, the events of L. Frank Baum’s 1900 novel The Wizard of Oz (and the subsequent movie) are vital.

However, Maguire smartly keeps Dorothy Gale mostly in the background and the film follows suit. She never speaks, her face is never seen, and no actress is credited in the role.

At some point, there is clearly going to be a fan edit that splices the 1939 The Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland with both Wicked movies to create a complete journey for both Elphaba and Dorothy. But it is testament to the Wicked creators that, to my eyes, there appear to be no moments where these tales contradict each other, save for the Wicked Witch of the East’s magic slippers.

In Baum’s original novel the slippers are silver but were changed to ruby by MGM to showcase their new Technicolor process (along with the Wicked Witch’s skin becoming green). But the studio declined to give the Wicked creators the copyright to the change, and so, in both stage musical and movie the slippers remain silver.

Chu and his design team cleverly, and sometimes subtly, reference The Wizard of Oz: Fiyero’s horse is blue, the train changes colour depending on who is travelling and Nessarose’s silver slippers glow ruby as Elphaba enchants her from her wheelchair. While the designs of both the Scarecrow and Tinman echo the 1939 movie, the only major departure is the Cowardly Lion, here rendered in CGI as a realistic anthropomorphic feline, rather than the vaudevillian in a furry suit of Bert Lahr’s performance.

Obviously Wicked and Wicked: For Good should really be considered a single movie, a remarkably successful screen adaptation that manages to respect all the underlying source material to create a truly epic movie musical. I wish I could take Baum to witness the entire five hours.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

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.

Julian Woolford 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. Wicked: For Good – the second part of this reimagining of Oz takes a much darker political turn – https://theconversation.com/wicked-for-good-the-second-part-of-this-reimagining-of-oz-takes-a-much-darker-political-turn-269971

November 18, 2025

How pecans went from ignored trees to a holiday staple – the 8,000-year history of America’s only native major nut

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Shelley Mitchell, Senior Extension Specialist in Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University

Pecan pie is a popular holiday treat in the United States. Julie Deshaies/iStock via Getty Images

Pecans, America’s only native major nut, have a storied history in the United States. Today, American trees produce hundreds of million of pounds of pecans – 80% of the world’s pecan crop. Most of that crop stays here. Pecans are used to produce pecan milk, butter and oil, but many of the nuts end up in pecan pies.

Throughout history, pecans have been overlooked, poached, cultivated and improved. As they have spread throughout the United States, they have been eaten raw and in recipes. Pecans have grown more popular over the decades, and you will probably encounter them in some form this holiday season.

I’m an extension specialist in Oklahoma, a state consistently ranked fifth in pecan production, behind Georgia, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. I’ll admit that I am not a fan of the taste of pecans, which leaves more for the squirrels, crows and enthusiastic pecan lovers.

The spread of pecans

The pecan is a nut related to the hickory. Actually, though we call them nuts, pecans are actually a type of fruit called a drupe. Drupes have pits, like the peach and cherry.

Three green, oval-shaped pods on the branch of a tree — Three pecan fruits, which ripen and split open to release pecan nuts, clustered on a pecan tree.
IAISI/Moment via Getty Images

The pecan nuts that look like little brown footballs are actually the seed that starts inside the pecan fruit – until the fruit ripens and splits open to release the pecan. They are usually the size of your thumb, and you may need a nutcracker to open them. You can eat them raw or as part of a cooked dish.

The pecan derives its name from the Algonquin “pakani,” which means “a nut too hard to crack by hand.” Rich in fat and easy to transport, pecans traveled with Native Americans throughout what is now the southern United States. They were used for food, medicine and trade as early as 8,000 years ago.

A map of the US with parts of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri highlighted in green. — Pecans are native to the southern United States.
Elbert L. Little Jr. of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pecans are native to the southern United States, and while they had previously spread along travel and trade routes, the first documented purposeful planting of a pecan tree was in New York in 1722. Three years later, George Washington’s estate, Mount Vernon, had some planted pecans. Washington loved pecans, and Revolutionary War soldiers said he was constantly eating them.

Meanwhile, no one needed to plant pecans in the South, since they naturally grew along riverbanks and in groves. Pecan trees are alternate bearing: They will have a very large crop one year, followed by one or two very small crops. But because they naturally produced a harvest with no input from farmers, people did not need to actively cultivate them. Locals would harvest nuts for themselves but otherwise ignored the self-sufficient trees.

It wasn’t until the late 1800s that people in the pecan’s native range realized the pecan’s potential worth for income and trade. Harvesting pecans became competitive, and young boys would climb onto precarious tree branches. One girl was lifted by a hot air balloon so she could beat on the upper branches of trees and let them fall to collectors below. Pecan poaching was a problem in natural groves on private property.

Pecan cultivation begins

Even with so obvious a demand, cultivated orchards in the South were still rare into the 1900s. Pecan trees don’t produce nuts for several years after planting, so their future quality is unknown.

Two lines of trees — An orchard of pecan trees.
Jon Frederick/iStock via Getty Images

To guarantee quality nuts, farmers began using a technique called grafting; they’d join branches from quality trees to another pecan tree’s trunk. The first attempt at grafting pecans was in 1822, but the attempts weren’t very successful.

Grafting pecans became popular after an enslaved man named Antoine who lived on a Louisiana plantation successfully produced large pecans with tender shells by grafting, around 1846. His pecans became the first widely available improved pecan variety.

A cut tree trunk with two smaller, thiner shoots (from a different type of tree) protruding from it. — Grafting is a technique that involves connecting the branch of one tree to the trunk of another.
Orest Lyzhechka/iStock via Getty Images

The variety was named Centennial because it was introduced to the public 30 years later at the Philadelphia Centennial Expedition in 1876, alongside the telephone, Heinz ketchup and the right arm of the Statue of Liberty.

This technique also sped up the production process. To keep pecan quality up and produce consistent annual harvests, today’s pecan growers shake the trees while the nuts are still growing, until about half of the pecans fall off. This reduces the number of nuts so that the tree can put more energy into fewer pecans, which leads to better quality. Shaking also evens out the yield, so that the alternate-bearing characteristic doesn’t create a boom-bust cycle.

US pecan consumption

The French brought praline dessert with them when they immigrated to Louisiana in the early 1700s. A praline is a flat, creamy candy made with nuts, sugar, butter and cream. Their original recipe used almonds, but at the time, the only nut available in America was the pecan, so pecan pralines were born.

Two clusters of nuts and creamy butter on a plate. — Pralines were originally a French dessert, but Americans began making them with pecans.
Jupiterimages/The Image Bank via Getty Images

During the Civil War and world wars, Americans consumed pecans in large quantities because they were a protein-packed alternative when meat was expensive and scarce. One ounce of pecans has the same amount of protein as 2 ounces of meat.

After the wars, pecan demand declined, resulting in millions of excess pounds at harvest. One effort to increase demand was a national pecan recipe contest in 1924. Over 21,000 submissions came from over 5,000 cooks, with 800 of them published in a book.

Pecan consumption went up with the inclusion of pecans in commercially prepared foods and the start of the mail-order industry in the 1870s, as pecans can be shipped and stored at room temperature. That characteristic also put them on some Apollo missions. Small amounts of pecans contain many vitamins and minerals. They became commonplace in cereals, which touted their health benefits.

In 1938, the federal government published the pamphlet Nuts and How to Use Them, which touted pecans’ nutritional value and came with recipes. Food writers suggested using pecans as shortening because they are composed mostly of fat.

The government even put a price ceiling on pecans to encourage consumption, but consumers weren’t buying them. The government ended up buying the surplus pecans and integrating them into the National School Lunch Program.

A machine with an arm attached to a tree, and a wheeled cab on the ground. — Today, pecan producers use machines called tree shakers to shake pecans out of the trees.
Christine_Kohler/iStock via Getty Images

While you are sitting around the Thanksgiving table this year, you can discuss one of the biggest controversies in the pecan industry: Are they PEE-cans or puh-KAHNS?

Shelley Mitchell 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 pecans went from ignored trees to a holiday staple – the 8,000-year history of America’s only native major nut – https://theconversation.com/how-pecans-went-from-ignored-trees-to-a-holiday-staple-the-8-000-year-history-of-americas-only-native-major-nut-268976

November 18, 2025

How the Louvre thieves exploited human psychology to avoid suspicion – and what it reveals about AI

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vincent Charles, Reader in AI for Business and Management Science, Queen’s University Belfast

On a sunny morning on October 19 2025, four men allegedly walked into the world’s most-visited museum and left, minutes later, with crown jewels worth €88 million (£76 million). The theft from Paris’s Louvre Museum – one of the world’s most surveilled cultural institutions – took just under eight minutes.

Visitors kept browsing. Security didn’t react (until alarms were triggered). The men disappeared into the city’s traffic before anyone realised what had happened.

Investigators later revealed that the thieves wore hi-vis vests, disguising themselves as construction workers. They arrived with a furniture lift, a common sight in Paris’s narrow streets, and used it to reach a balcony overlooking the Seine. Dressed as workers, they looked as if they belonged.

This strategy worked because we don’t see the world objectively. We see it through categories – through what we expect to see. The thieves understood the social categories that we perceive as “normal” and exploited them to avoid suspicion. Many artificial intelligence (AI) systems work in the same way and are vulnerable to the same kinds of mistakes as a result.

The sociologist Erving Goffman would describe what happened at the Louvre using his concept of the presentation of self: people “perform” social roles by adopting the cues others expect. Here, the performance of normality became the perfect camouflage.

The sociology of sight

Humans carry out mental categorisation all the time to make sense of people and places. When something fits the category of “ordinary”, it slips from notice.

AI systems used for tasks such as facial recognition and detecting suspicious activity in a public area operate in a similar way. For humans, categorisation is cultural. For AI, it is mathematical.

But both systems rely on learned patterns rather than objective reality. Because AI learns from data about who looks “normal” and who looks “suspicious”, it absorbs the categories embedded in its training data. And this makes it susceptible to bias.

The Louvre robbers weren’t seen as dangerous because they fit a trusted category. In AI, the same process can have the opposite effect: people who don’t fit the statistical norm become more visible and over-scrutinised.

It can mean a facial recognition system disproportionately flags certain racial or gendered groups as potential threats while letting others pass unnoticed.

A sociological lens helps us see that these aren’t separate issues. AI doesn’t invent its categories; it learns ours. When a computer vision system is trained on security footage where “normal” is defined by particular bodies, clothing or behaviour, it reproduces those assumptions.

Just as the museum’s guards looked past the thieves because they appeared to belong, AI can look past certain patterns while overreacting to others.

Categorisation, whether human or algorithmic, is a double-edged sword. It helps us process information quickly, but it also encodes our cultural assumptions. Both people and machines rely on pattern recognition, which is an efficient but imperfect strategy.

A sociological view of AI treats algorithms as mirrors: they reflect back our social categories and hierarchies. In the Louvre case, the mirror is turned toward us. The robbers succeeded not because they were invisible, but because they were seen through the lens of normality. In AI terms, they passed the classification test.

From museum halls to machine learning

This link between perception and categorisation reveals something important about our increasingly algorithmic world. Whether it’s a guard deciding who looks suspicious or an AI deciding who looks like a “shoplifter”, the underlying process is the same: assigning people to categories based on cues that feel objective but are culturally learned.

When an AI system is described as “biased”, this often means that it reflects those social categories too faithfully. The Louvre heist reminds us that these categories don’t just shape our attitudes, they shape what gets noticed at all.

After the theft, France’s culture minister promised new cameras and tighter security. But no matter how advanced those systems become, they will still rely on categorisation. Someone, or something, must decide what counts as “suspicious behaviour”. If that decision rests on assumptions, the same blind spots will persist.

The Louvre robbery will be remembered as one of Europe’s most spectacular museum thefts. The thieves succeeded because they mastered the sociology of appearance: they understood the categories of normality and used them as tools.

And in doing so, they showed how both people and machines can mistake conformity for safety. Their success in broad daylight wasn’t only a triumph of planning. It was a triumph of categorical thinking, the same logic that underlies both human perception and artificial intelligence.

The lesson is clear: before we teach machines to see better, we must first learn to question how we see.

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. How the Louvre thieves exploited human psychology to avoid suspicion – and what it reveals about AI – https://theconversation.com/how-the-louvre-thieves-exploited-human-psychology-to-avoid-suspicion-and-what-it-reveals-about-ai-269842

November 18, 2025

The fast-fix for global warming that the UN climate summit can’t ignore

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Piers Forster, Professor of Physical Climate Change; Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds

Burping cows are responsible for about a quarter of human-caused emissions of methane: a potent greenhouse gas. Jawinter / shutterstock

Despite rapid progress in clean energy and electric vehicles, the world is still warming faster than ever. The good news is that we already have powerful ways to reduce the warming rate – if governments look beyond carbon dioxide and focus on a broader set of pollutants.

We are writing this from the UN’s Cop30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil, where much of the attention is rightly on the carbon dioxide cuts that we need to avoid long-term warming. But we could make faster progress by also tackling a different set of pollutants that heat the planet intensely – but fade rapidly. Cutting emissions of these means cutting the warming quickly.

So-called “short-lived climate pollutants”, or SLCPs, are emitted in various ways and many of them have the same sources as CO₂. The common ground is that they typically don’t stay in the atmosphere for very long – from a few days to a few decades, compared to centuries for carbon dioxide.

If carbon dioxide is the marathon runner of global warming, SLCPs are the sprinters, with a fast and powerful impact on global temperatures. Because cutting their emissions quickly reduces how much of them is in the atmosphere, they offer a real and rapid way to slow warming.

Methane, emitted from leaky gas pipes, belching cows, and rotting organic matter (think municipal solid waste) among other sources, is one of the most prevalent and powerful SLCPs. It only lasts in the atmosphere for about 12 years, but traps heat 80 times more effectively than carbon dioxide in that time. It’s easy to see how methane has accounted for around a third of global warming since the industrial revolution.

Atmospheric methane reached record levels last year, with an increase of over 3% since just 2019. Aggressive cuts could make a big contribution to slowing warming before mid-century – a timeline that really matters for the countries most affected by escalating climate change.

Retro fridge — Chemicals used in your fridge can warm the climate.
welcomeinside / shutterstock

Other potentially game-changing SLCPs include tropospheric ozone, formed when sunlight reacts primarily with methane and nitrogen oxides. Ground level ozone is also a pollutant that damages human health as well as crops and ecosystems. Hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, used in air conditioning and refrigeration, are also incredibly powerful greenhouse gases.

Nitrogen oxides themselves, along with ammonia, volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide, add to this mix, creating a cocktail of gases and other pollutants that aren’t carbon dioxide but are still able to change the climate. Cutting these pollutants helps human health, the climate and ecosystems.

But there is a flip side. One type of SLCPs (tiny airborne particles known as aerosols, emitted by burning fossil fuels and biomass among other sources) can temporarily cool the planet while they remain in the air. Whiter particles reflect sunlight back into space, while darker particles absorb it and warm the atmosphere. Aerosols also affect clouds, winds, and the strength of the monsoon.

This doesn’t mean we should delay reducing aerosols – keeping health-damaging pollutants in the air is hardly a climate strategy to be proud of – but it does mean that we need to accelerate action on other ways to stop the warming fast.

Fast moves

Many policies and technologies that target carbon dioxide can also reduce SLCPs. Shifting to renewable energy or electric vehicles also cuts methane, nitrogen oxides and aerosol emissions. Plans and policies focused on tackling short-lived pollutants, such as capturing methane emitted from landfill sites, disused coal mines, or stopping gas network leaks, also present quick and cost-effective wins.

Governments already know this. The Global Methane Pledge, launched at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow, highlights that cutting methane is our single most effective strategy for keeping 1.5˚C within reach.

But a rapid acceleration is needed to meet its goal of reducing emissions by 30% by 2030, and at the moment too many countries, including key emitters who have signed the pledge (the EU and US) are not taking it seriously enough. Other major emitters like China and India haven’t signed up to the pledge, though backsliding from the west means that they have a chance to take the lead.

Other short-term pollutants may prove trickier. For example, HFCs are targeted by the 2016 Kigali amendment to the ozone layer-protecting Montreal Protocol.

This aims to phase them down by over 80% by 2050, but barriers to action include the costs of alternative technologies for developing countries and a black-market trade in HFCs. Global cooperation is needed to find solutions to these and other challenges.

What can Cop30 do?

SLCPs are clearly being discussed at Cop30, with influential non-state organisations like the Global Methane Hub, Clean Air Fund and Climate and Clean Air Coalition raising these issues. New initiatives like the Super Pollutant Country Action Accelerator, directly support developing countries in reducing methane and other non-carbon dioxide emissions.

But such ambitious action also needs to be taken at the highest level, by the governments negotiating the climate summit’s core outcomes, if we are to make use of this “emergency brake” on global warming.

The IPCC is set to publish a report on short-lived pollutants in 2027. This will not only raise the issue up the agenda but also provide governments with a sound basis on which to build policies and plans that tackle climate change and air pollution simultaneously.

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 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Piers Forster receives funding from UK and EU funding councils and he sits on the UK Climate Change Committee

Jessica Seddon is a co-chair of the Global Air Quality Forecasting and Information Services initiative of the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch. She is on the board of Radiant Earth and is a consultant/advisor to the Clean Air Fund.

– ref. The fast-fix for global warming that the UN climate summit can’t ignore – https://theconversation.com/the-fast-fix-for-global-warming-that-the-un-climate-summit-cant-ignore-269764

November 18, 2025

Is the AI bubble about to burst? What to watch for as the markets wobble

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Dryden, PhD Candidate in Economics, SOAS, University of London

The global investment frenzy around AI has seen companies valued at trillions of dollars and eye-watering projections of how it will boost economic productivity.

But in recent weeks the mood has begun to shift. Investors and CEOs are now openly questioning whether the enormous costs of building and running AI systems can really be justified by future revenues.

Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, has spoken of “irrationality” in AI’s growth, while others have said some projects are proving to be more complex and expensive than expected.

Meanwhile, global stock markets have declined, with tech shares taking a particular hit, and the value of cryptocurrencies has dipped as investors appear increasingly nervous.

So how should we view the health of the AI sector?

Well, bubbles in technology are not new. There have been great rises and great falls in the dot-com world, and surges in popularity for certain tech platforms (during COVID for example) which have then flattened out.

Each of these technological shifts was real, but they became bubbles when excitement about their potential ran far ahead of companies’ ability to turn popularity into lasting profits.

The surge in AI enthusiasm has a similar feel to it. Today’s systems are genuinely impressive, and it’s easy to imagine them generating significant economic value. The bigger challenge comes with how much of that value companies can actually keep hold of.

Investors are assuming rapid and widespread AI adoption along with high-margin revenue. Yet the business models needed to deliver that outcome are still uncertain and often very expensive to operate.

This creates a familiar gap between what the technology could do in theory, and what firms can profitably deliver in practice. Previous booms show how quickly things wobble when those ideas don’t work out as planned.

AI may well reshape entire sectors, but if the dazzling potential doesn’t translate quickly into steady, profitable demand, the excitement can slip away surprisingly fast.

Fit to burst?

Investment bubbles rarely deflate on their own. They are usually popped by outside forces, which often involve the US Federal Reserve (the US’s central bank) making moves to slow the economy by raising interest rates or limiting the supply of money, or a wider economic downturn suddenly draining confidence.

For much of the 20th century, these were the classic triggers that ended long stretches of rising markets.

But financial markets today are larger, more complex, and less tightly tied to any single lever such as interest rates. The current AI boom has unfolded despite the US keeping rates at their highest level in decades, suggesting that external pressures alone may not be enough to halt it.

Instead, this cycle is more likely to end from within. A disappointment at one of the big AI players – such as weaker than expected earnings at Nvidia or Intel – could puncture the sense that growth is guaranteed.

Alternatively, a mismatch between chip supply and demand could lead to falling prices. Or investors’ expectations could quickly shift if progress in training ever larger models begins to slow, or if new AI models offer only modest improvements.

Overall then, perhaps the most plausible end to this bubble is not a traditional external shock, but a realisation that the underlying economics are no longer keeping up with the hype, prompting a sharp revaluation across related stocks.

Artificial maturity

If the bubble did burst, the most visible shift would be a sharp correction in the valuations of chipmakers and the large cloud companies driving the current boom.

These firms have been priced as if AI demand will rise almost without limit. So any sign that the market is smaller or slower than expected would hit financial markets hard.

This kind of correction wouldn’t mean AI disappears, but it would almost certainly push the industry into a more cautious, less speculative phase.

Computer chip marked 'AI' on circuit board. — When the chips are down.
Blue Andy/Shutterstock

The deepest consequence would be on investment. Goldman Sachs estimates that global spending on AI-related infrastructure could reach US$4 trillion by 2030. In 2025 alone, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta and Google’s owner Alphabet have poured almost US$350 billion into data centres, hardware and model development. If confidence faltered, much of this planned expansion could be scaled back or delayed.

That would ripple through the wider economy, slowing construction, dampening demand for specialised equipment, and dragging on growth at a time when inflation remains high.

But a bursting AI bubble would not erase the technology’s long-term importance. Instead, it would force a shift away from the “build it now, profits will follow” mindset which is driving much of the current exuberance.

Companies would focus more on practical uses that genuinely save money or raise productivity, rather than speculative bets on transformative breakthroughs. The sector would mature. But it would probably do so only after a painful period of adjustment for investors, suppliers and governments who have tied their growth expectations to an uninterrupted AI boom.

Alex Dryden 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. Is the AI bubble about to burst? What to watch for as the markets wobble – https://theconversation.com/is-the-ai-bubble-about-to-burst-what-to-watch-for-as-the-markets-wobble-270113

November 18, 2025

How the rich world is fortifying itself against climate migration

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrea Rigon, Professor, Politecnico di Milano, and, UCL

US Customs and Border Protection field officers during ICE deportation protests in Los Angeles, June 2025. Matt Gush / shutterstock

The UK has announced much harsher rules for asylum seekers including the prospect of more deportations for those whose applications fail. The US is trebling the size of its deportation force. The EU is doubling its border budgets. And in the coming decades, hundreds of millions of people might be displaced by ecological changes.

In the face of this challenge, those countries which are most responsible for climate change have two options. Either they can share resources more equitably, and fund adaptation plans on a massive scale. Or they can prevent others from accessing resources and liveable land through physical and regulatory walls, enforced through mass deportation.

Recent events show that, faced with this choice, many governments are choosing not to share resources to anywhere near the extend needed, and are instead building higher walls.

Climate change is already making life unliveable in some parts of the world. According to a 2020 report from thinktank the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), 2.6 billion people face high or extreme water stress. By 2040, this may jump to 5.4 billion. Droughts, heatwaves, floods, cyclones, food shortages and related conflicts will force millions from their homes.

The IEP warns that up to 1.2 billion people globally might be displaced by 2050, while even the more-cautious World Bank predicts 216 million climate migrants.

Most of these people will move internally within nations, but this too is likely to mean more walls and borders. In very unequal countries, internal migration has already triggered security-driven responses, with a rise in gated communities and other segregated living arrangements to keep the poorer away from the wealthy.

Many other climate migrants will be pushed to travel internationally. It’s likely their motivation will be characterised by many as economic rather than due to climate change. But it’s misleading to separate “economic” from “climate” migrants. When drought kills crops in Somalia or floods wash away farmland in Pakistan, the loss of income is inseparable from the climate shocks that caused it.

Even before the worst impacts hit, climate change is already woven into the economic pressures that push people to move – shrinking harvests, emptying wells and ruining livelihoods. The most severe climate-driven displacement is still ahead, but it has already begun.

Importantly, these pressures come with inequalities in causing climate change and bearing the costs. The richest 1% of the world’s population produces as much carbon as the poorest two-thirds, according to a study of global emissions in 2019 by Oxfam. Northern Europe and the US alone account for 92% of historical emissions.

Those who have contributed the least to climate change are the worst affected and often have the fewest resources to adapt, forcing many people to migrate.

More walls, more deportations

In this context, governments of wealthier countries are massively increasing spending on migration policing. In the US, proposed funding levels are extraordinary.

Recent legislation allocates nearly US$30 billion (£22 billion) to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (Ice) for enforcement and deportation operations – roughly three times its current budget.

The US has also authorised US$45 billion for new detention centres – a 265% increase, more than the entire defence budget of Italy – and US$46.6 billion for additional border walls. Under this plan, Ice would become the largest US law enforcement agency, three times the size of the FBI.

Donald Trump’s policies can be easily labelled as the excess of one would-be autocrat, but this is a global trend across the political spectrum, albeit implemented with more acceptable language by the centre-left.

Introducing the UK Labour government’s new asylum and returns policy, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “We need an approach with a stronger deterrent effect and rules that are robustly enforced.” But previously-supportive MPs from his own party have warned this will mean “Ice-style raids” to deport asylum seekers.

The European Commission’s 2028–34 budget proposal earmarks €25.2 billion (£21.7 billion) for border management and €12 billion for migration, plus €11.9 billion for the Frontex border agency – more than double its current resources.

All this effectively triples current migration and border spending. In 2024, the EU ordered 453,000 non-EU nationals to leave, and actually deported 110,000 of them.

This is part of a much wider pattern, with borders today being far more militarised than at the end of the cold war. After decades of globalisation, states are now reterritorialising, building armoured fortifications against unwanted flows.

In the past two decades, more than 70 new international barriers have gone up, including Poland’s barbed-wire fence with Belarus, Greece’s steel wall on the Turkish border, Turkey’s stone wall on its Iranian border, and the new sections of the infamous wall between the US and Mexico.

Israel has built an “iron wall” around Gaza and border fences through much of the West Bank. Supposedly built to prevent Palestinians moving into Israel, these barriers have become a clear example of migration control tied to power grabs for land and resources.

A crossroads for human rights

Resource-driven migration pressures are rising just as the world is hardening its borders. In July 2025, the International Court of Justice declared that countries have a legal responsibility to address and compensate for climate change – and can be held accountable for their emissions. It is another signal that as humanity, we are at a crossroads.

The world can either prioritise universal human rights by sharing resources. Or it can attempt to protect a small, wealthy minority through walls, mass deportations and border violence on an unprecedented scale.

Andrea Rigon has received funding from UKRI and now receives funding from Fondation Botnar.

– ref. How the rich world is fortifying itself against climate migration – https://theconversation.com/how-the-rich-world-is-fortifying-itself-against-climate-migration-262936

November 18, 2025

Should we eat dinner earlier in winter? Why timing might matter more than you think

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catherine Norton, Associate Professor Sport & Exercise Nutrition, University of Limerick

There’s a connection between daylight and our metabolism. Strela Studio/ Shutterstock

Once the clocks have gone back and darkness falls before many of us even leave work, the rhythms of winter can feel heavier — shorter days, darker evenings, and often, later dinners. But shifting when we eat during the winter could make these months a little easier on our bodies and minds.

Our bodies operate on circadian rhythms – internal 24-hour clocks that regulate sleep, metabolism, digestion and hormone cycles. These rhythms are naturally synchronised with light and dark, so when daylight fades earlier, our metabolism also begins to wind down.

This connection between metabolism and daylight may help explain why a growing body of research from the field of chrononutrition suggests that when we eat may be nearly as important as what we eat. Chrononutrition examines how meal timing interacts with out internal body clock, and what affect short days might have on mood, metabolism and health.

For instance, one study found that healthy adults who ate dinner at 10pm experienced 20% higher blood sugar peaks and burned 10% less fat compared to those who ate dinner at 6pm. This was despite both groups eating identical meals and having similar bedtimes.

Broader analyses support the same trends, with a meta-analysis of 29 trials reporting that earlier eating windows, fewer meals and eating the bulk of one’s calories earlier in the day were linked to greater weight loss and improved metabolic markers (such as better blood pressure and lower blood sugar and cholesterol levels).

Other research links consistent late-night eating – especially close to bedtime – with poorer health outcomes and a greater risk of obesity and metabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes.

Earlier dinners may better align with the body’s natural metabolic rhythms, particularly when the last meal occurs well before the body enters its “rest” phase. This might explain why eating earlier has health benefits.

Many chronobiologists conclude that aligning food intake with circadian biology represents a promising, low-cost method of improving metabolic outcomes – especially when combined with other lifestyle factors such as physical activity and healthy eating.

Eating with intent

In winter, especially in northern latitudes, shorter days and longer nights can disrupt circadian rhythms.

Reduced sunlight can lower serotonin levels, contributing to low mood or seasonal affective disorder (SAD). When paired with longer evenings indoors, it’s common for people to snack more often or delay eating dinner until later at night.

But digestion, hormone release (including those that help with sleep and digestion) and even the amount of calories you burn throughout the day all follow circadian rhythms. When meals are pushed too close to sleep, these processes overlap in ways that can affect both metabolism and rest – potentially increasing risks of poor sleep and metabolic ill health.

A family eats dinner at a candlelit table. — It’s best not to eat dinner too close to bedtime.
Drazen Zigic/ Shutterstock

While light and dark have the biggest influence on circadian rhythms, food intake, stress, physical activity and temperature also affect them.

So, should you eat dinner earlier in winter?

For some people, yes — at least a little earlier. There are three main reasons why.

The first has to do with metabolic alignment. Eating when your metabolism is still active supports better blood sugar control, energy use and fat burning.

The second has to do with digestion. Leaving a few hours between dinner and bedtime allows digestion to wind down before sleep, which may improve sleep quality and recovery.

The third reason has to do with supporting mood and circadian rhythms. A consistent eating window and earlier dinner can help anchor daily routines – especially helpful when other time cues (such as daylight) are weaker.

But here’s the caveat: this isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Many different factors – such as how active you are, if you have any chronic conditions and your schedule – need to be taken into account.

An elite athlete training in the evening may need a later meal to support performance and recovery. But someone less active might benefit more from an earlier, lighter dinner.

So rather than rigid rules, think of meal timing as a flexible tool in your nutrition toolkit. The real focus should be on eating with intent.

This means taking into account your goals (such as whether you want to lose weight or boost athletic performance), how often you exercise, how close to bedtime you normally eat, how you feel depending on the time of day you eat dinner and what’s realistic given your schedule.

If you’re eating after 9pm most nights and waking up sluggish or find sleep less restful, experimenting with earlier meals may be worthwhile. But if you’re training late or eating socially, that’s fine too — focus on quality over timing, choosing lighter, balanced meals and allowing at least two to three hours before bed.

Some other mealtime tips you can try during the darker months include:

finishing dinner earlier, ideally between 5.30pm–7.00pm, or at least two to three hours before bedtime
front loading your calories by making breakfast and lunch more substantial while there’s more daylight and your metabolism is more active
planing around activity, so if you exercise late, have your main meal earlier and a small recovery snack afterwards
keeping a consistent eating window, finishing eating by around 8pm most nights to support circadian alignment
reflecting and adjusting by noting how meal timing affects your energy, sleep quality and mood for a week or two then changing as needed
staying flexible by remembering perfection isn’t required – a regular schedule and awareness of what you need is what counts.

As winter settles in, paying attention to when you eat may be just as important as what you eat. Aligning mealtimes with your body’s natural rhythms can help steady energy, mood and sleep through the darker months.

But the real key is intentionality: making choices that serve your health, not rigid rules that create stress. The healthiest rhythm is the one that harmonises with both your biology and your lifestyle.

Catherine Norton 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. Should we eat dinner earlier in winter? Why timing might matter more than you think – https://theconversation.com/should-we-eat-dinner-earlier-in-winter-why-timing-might-matter-more-than-you-think-269559

November 18, 2025

New study finds that ingesting even small amounts of plastic can be fatal for marine animals

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Britta Baechler, Adjunct Professor, Department of Physical & Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto

When swallowed, plastics can block or puncture an animal’s organs or cause lethal twisting of the digestive tract, also known as torsion. (Troy Mayne/Ocean Conservancy)

Plastics are everywhere, and the ocean is no exception: 11 million metric tons of plastics enter the ocean every year, where they spread far and wide, making their way to the deepest trenches and remote Arctic islands.

We have long known that marine animals can mistake plastic bags and other plastic pollution for food. To date, every family of marine mammal and seabird, and all seven species of sea turtles, have been documented to ingest plastics — nearly 1,300 species in total.

We also know that eating plastics can prove fatal for wildlife. When swallowed, macroplastics — plastics larger than five millimetres in size in any single direction — can block or puncture an animal’s organs or cause lethal twisting of the digestive tract, also known as torsion.

But understanding the link between ingestion of these large plastics and animal death has long been difficult. In an effort to investigate this connection, our team at the Ocean Conservancy non-profit collaborated with experts at the University of Toronto, the Federal University of Alagoas and the University of Tasmania to answer a deceptively simple question: how much ingested plastic is too much?

This question led us to undertake an ambitious effort to compile more than 10,000 animal autopsies — called necropsies — where both cause of death and data on plastic ingestion were known. These necropsies had been reported in peer-reviewed literature, in stranding network databases (collections of information about marine wildlife that have become stranded) and in two original datasets.

What we found

Our dataset included 31 species of mammals, 57 species of seabirds, and all seven species of sea turtles. We then modelled the relationship between plastics in the gut and likelihood of death for each group, looking both at total pieces of plastics as well as volume of plastics.

Our findings are sobering.

First, we found that plastic consumption was common among all types of animals: nearly half of sea turtles, over one-third of seabirds and one in eight marine mammals had plastic in their guts. For sea turtles who ingested plastic, roughly five per cent died directly as a result — an alarming figure given that five of seven sea turtle species are already endangered.

Second, we found that the lethal dose was much smaller than we had initially guessed, especially for small seabirds.

For example, if an Atlantic puffin consumes plastic around the size of three sugar cubes, it faces a 90 per cent chance of death.

A loggerhead sea turtle that consumes just over two baseballs’ worth of plastic has the same odds. And for a harbour porpoise, consuming a soccer ball’s worth of plastic is fatal 90 per cent of the time.

Third, we found that not all plastics cause equal harm. When modelling lethal ingestion thresholds, we looked at the number of plastic pieces and the volume of plastic, and found that the type of plastic is actually very important, as each impacts the gastrointestinal tract differently.

For seabirds, rubber materials like balloons were the deadliest; consuming just six pea-sized shards could be lethal. For marine mammals, lost fishing gear — also known as ghost gear — posed the greatest risk: as few as 28 tennis ball-sized pieces could kill a sperm whale.

Nearly half of the individual animals in our dataset who had ingested plastics were red-listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature — that is, near-threatened, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

Protecting marine life from plastics

The most impactful way to protect ocean wildlife is to reduce how much plastic enters the ocean in the first place. By pinpointing which plastics are deadliest to key marine species, we can help guide targeted actions such as bans on some of the most dangerous items like balloons, fishing line and plastic bags.

Last year, Florida banned the intentional release of balloons with major implications for protecting seabirds and manatees, which also featured heavily in our dataset.

The research also demonstrates the potentially significant impact of removing plastics from shorelines, waterways and the ocean through cleanups and other removal efforts.

By modelling lethal doses, providing our data open-access for anyone to search or us and generating this new framework to help guide risk-assessment efforts, we hope our findings will inform the continued development and implementation of solutions that protect vulnerable ocean species from the dangers of ocean plastics.

Britta Baechler is Director of Ocean Plastics Science and Research at Ocean Conservancy, a U.S.-based nonprofit that spearheaded the study in this article. This study was funded by the Seale Family Foundation, the Wayne Hollomon Price Foundation, and Carla Itzkowich in memory of Moisés Itzkowich.

Erin Murphy is the Manager of Ocean Plastics Science and Research at Ocean Conservancy, a U.S.-based nonprofit that spearheaded the study. This study was funded by the Seale Family Foundation, the Wayne Hollomon Price Foundation, and Carla Itzkowich in memory of Moisés Itzkowich.

– ref. New study finds that ingesting even small amounts of plastic can be fatal for marine animals – https://theconversation.com/new-study-finds-that-ingesting-even-small-amounts-of-plastic-can-be-fatal-for-marine-animals-269882

November 18, 2025

Trump’s aggression in the Caribbean could violate a Victorian-era court ruling on cannibalism at sea

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martin Danahay, Professor, English Language and Literature, Brock University

The Donald Trump administration in the United States has authorized killing people in boats on the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific, claiming they’re transporting illegal drugs.

Maritime and international law experts have raised concerns about the legality of the attacks. And based on a maritime court case from 1884, this use of force may well be illegal.

The Trump administration argues its actions are part of a war against what it has termed “narco-terrorists.” Killing the people manning these boats, it has said, will save the lives of Americans who might otherwise die of drug overdoses from the substances that are allegedly being transported by these boats.

The rationale that the U.S. is justified to kill people at sea in order to save people is similar to what used to be called the “custom of the sea”, which excused “survival cannibalism” if the consumption of one shipwrecked sailor helped the others survive. This custom, which basically excused “murder by necessity,” was essentially outlawed in a landmark case in 1884.

The story of The Mignonette

The case involved an incident of cannibalism after the yacht The Mignonette sank off the west coast of Africa and its four crew members escaped in a small dinghy with no time to gather food and water.

After three weeks at sea, their situation became so dire that two of the men decided that the ailing youngest member of the crew, a 17-year-old boy named Richard Parker, should be sacrificed so the rest of them could survive. They killed Parker and used his body for food and drink; the third crew member later said he opposed their actions, though feasted on Parker anyway.

Four days after they killed the boy, the three survivors were rescued.

Two of them, Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens, were arrested for murder and cannibalism. They were brought to trial in the case R v Dudley and Stephens. The trial opened in Exeter, England after Dudley and Stephens pleaded not guilty.

A panel of judges found them both guilty of murder and they were initially sentenced to death. This judgment was later commuted to six months imprisonment due to errors in trial conduct. Nonetheless, the case did establish that their actions constituted murder and that necessity was not a valid defence for cannibalism.

Justifying murder

Like the crew members of The Mignonette, U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that killing people at sea is justified because it will preserve the lives of others.

A sketch of a man with a beard on a ship wearing a bowler hat. — A sketch of Tom Dudley, commander of the La Mignonette.
(Wikimedia Commons)

This is the same reasoning behind the now discredited “custom of the sea.”

Rather than “survival cannibalism,” this amounts to “survival killing” based on the argument that other people will live if those on the boats die.

The Dudley and Stephens precedent means that if anyone ever goes to trial for the boat strikes, they could potentially be convicted of murder following the landmark 19th century ruling that killing and eating people is wrong.

The case is taught in law classes because of the difficult issues it raises:

When, if ever, is murder justified?
If it is justified, in what circumstances would it be viewed as the only viable option?

While ongoing American attacks on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific don’t involve cannibalism, but instead military attacks that have resulted in the deaths of the people manning those boats, the case of The Mignonette may still be relevant.

Either international norms turn back to the era of the “custom of the sea” and regard murder for the greater good as legal, or they uphold the verdict in R v Dudley and Stephens and view the actions in the Caribbean Sea as unjustified acts of murder.

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

– ref. Trump’s aggression in the Caribbean could violate a Victorian-era court ruling on cannibalism at sea – https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggression-in-the-caribbean-could-violate-a-victorian-era-court-ruling-on-cannibalism-at-sea-270012

November 18, 2025

Alberta’s education legislation erodes gender-based violence prevention in K-12 schools

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamie Anderson, PhD Candidate, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its ruling that mandatory minimum sentences for access or possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material — previously called child pornography — may be unconstitutional in some cases.

The court found that these crimes are uniquely damaging and deserve severe sentences, but faulted how the Criminal Code applies mandatory minimums to “a very wide range of circumstances.”

Certain Canadian politicians have publicly criticized the decision, prompting some legal experts to warn them not to mislead the public by attacking the legal system.

Gender-based violence (GBV) prevention research shows it’s more effective to address the social conditions that enable people to cause harm than to intervene after the harm has been caused.

While Alberta Premier Danielle Smith stoked outrage about the Supreme Court decision, a closer look at her legislative record reveals a suite of policies that are damaging GBV prevention in the province.

Anti-trans policies in health, education and sport will normalize gender-based inequality for transgender Albertans, girls and women.

Additionally, limits on sexual health education and resources mean that fewer students in Alberta will receive sexual violence prevention education.

Online child exploitation

Online child exploitation describes a number of criminal behaviours. In 2022, there were 9,131 online child sexual abuse material offences, which increased to 16,892 in 2023.

This number includes incidents reported to police, which does not demonstrate the full scope of the problem. Unfortunately, the criminal legal system is not very effective in responding to most forms of sexual violence.

Advocates argue for more legal interventions that focus on prevention and not only prosecution, with a focus on greater accountability for technology platforms.

They also call for alternative forms of justice that centre survivors.

Advocates have been calling on federal and provincial governments to do more to prevent sexual and gender-based violence in all forms.

Understanding gender-based violence

Gender-based violence includes any form of violence based on someone’s gender, gender expression, gender identity or perceived gender.

This includes sexual violence, like child sexual abuse and exploitation materials, as well as hate-motivated violence. If we consider the Alberta government’s definition of GBV, homophobia and transphobia would be included.

It is widely accepted that GBV is rooted in forms of structural violence like racism, sexism and colonialism.

Primary prevention strategies address gender-based violence through education and programs that decrease inequality and address its root causes.

Prevention efforts target the beliefs that normalize violence and address risk factors for offender behaviours — to stop victimization before it begins.

Things like traditional gender norms, homophobic teasing and victim-blaming are examples of attitudes and behaviours that contribute to sexualized violence.

School-based programs

Prevention education includes public awareness, training and school programs. School-based comprehensive sexual health education, child sexual abuse prevention education and even gay-straight and queer-straight alliances (GSAs/QSAs) help prevent violence.

Beyond producing positive health outcomes, comprehensive sex-ed teaches human rights, bystander intervention, digital literacy, healthy relationships and more. When sexuality education is comprehensive, it reduces sexual violence. Programs that use queer and trans joy as a framework affirm identities, prioritize care and challenge norms that perpetuate homophobia and transphobia.

Eroding prevention strategies

Despite the evidence supporting primary prevention in schools, Smith’s legislative agenda has thoroughly weakened GBV prevention in schools.

The Alberta government announced a 10-year strategy to end GBV in May, but gender-based violence can not be eradicated when the governing United Conservative Party’s policies are based on harmful myths.

Teaching about gender inequality and diversity is an important aspect of primary prevention, but Alberta’s curriculum scores the lowest in Canada on 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion.

In Alberta, students between kindergarten to Grades 6 only have one opportunity to learn about 2SLGBTQIA+ identities. During Grade 3 physical education and wellness classes, students learn that families can have two mothers or two fathers — but under Alberta legislation, these lessons aren’t universally taught: families must opt their children in.

Alberta has become the only province that requires parent permission for lessons on puberty, hygiene and consent. Experts worry that this means fewer students will have access to sex ed.

In addition to the opt-in policies, Smith’s government now requires prior minister approval for all resources and third-party organizations that support human sexuality education.

Despite being separate from human sexuality, these regulations also apply to sexual assault centres that teach abuse prevention.

As of November, only four organizations have been approved, leaving significant programming and expertise gaps in schools across the province, especially in rural communities that have higher rates of gender-based violence.

Policy harms

As well, under Smith’s leadership, parent permission and notification is now required for trans youth to use a different name or pronouns at school. This policy denies access to a very reasonable accommodation when it is requested for “trans” reasons.

One study shows that being able to use a preferred name in various contexts — like school — reduces suicidal behaviour by nearly 60 per cent in trans youth.

Saskatchewan’s top court ruled that their province’s name and pronoun policy — which Alberta copied — creates the risk of irreparable harm to youth, including the increased risk of family violence.

Still, the government has legislated that teachers must participate in the harm of their trans students or face disciplinary action.

Smith’s government has also moved to limit gender-affirming health care for trans youth. First introduced in a video titled “protecting future choices of children” Smith’s policy bans a number of gender-affirming procedures that are already unavailable under the age of 18.

Smith said her goal was to preserve the future fertility of children until they can make decisions as adults. In other words, Smith believes that someone’s ability to reproduce is a matter of state concern. This belief is rooted in misogyny, especially rigid gender roles that expect women to be mothers and exerts control over their reproductive autonomy. Misogyny is a key driver of gender-based violence.

Bodily autonomy is core to preventing gender-based violence and is strictly limited by the ban on gender affirming care for trans youth included in Bill 26.

Although the courts granted an early injunction that delayed its implementation, Smith intends to invoke the notwithstanding clause for all of her anti-trans bills, denying rights to trans Albertans.

Effective violence prevention needed

Without effective prevention, gender-based violence will continue to grow and strain the already underfunded and overburdened networks of support for survivors.

If Smith were invested in gender-based violence prevention, her legislative agenda — not just her X account — should reflect as much.

Jamie Anderson has previously received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Calgary.

Hilary Jahelka 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. Alberta’s education legislation erodes gender-based violence prevention in K-12 schools – https://theconversation.com/albertas-education-legislation-erodes-gender-based-violence-prevention-in-k-12-schools-269366