Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Slutskaya, Chair Professor, Work and Organization Studies, University of Sussex

In the early days of the pandemic, “solidarity” became a buzzword. As COVID-19 appeared to directly threaten us all, the UK celebrated its key workers who were keeping the country running.

This idea ran through discussions on TV and on social media. The Clap for Our Carers movement had people gathering outside on their doorsteps, applauding, ringing bells, chanting and banging on pots and pans to signal their support.

As a result, the collective reliance on various workforces, such as carers, street cleaners, refuse collectors and supermarket workers, to name a few, became increasingly transparent. Public demonstrations of solidarity with these workers gave the initial impression that the status we attach to such work might be revalued: instead of the low status to which these jobs were assigned before, COVID-19 underlined how essential they are.

However, our research on refuse workers shows that this has not translated into a permanent reevaluation of the benefit key workers bring. On the contrary, instead of a collective shift towards real social solidarity, the pandemic has exacerbated socioeconomic divisions.

Unexpected visibility

Between the UK’s first and the second lockdowns in 2020 and again, in the period after the end of the second lockdown in 2021, we interviewed 41 council workers involved in waste management across four sites in London and south-east England. Two were sites where we had previously conducted ethnographic research among street cleaners and refuse collectors.

We wanted to investigate if, and how, the pandemic affected the way that key workers involved in waste management are recognised. We asked our interviewees to reflect on and compare their experiences of working before, during and after the lockdown. We wondered whether they had noticed any changes in their interactions with the public and how they thought these developments might affect them in the future.

We found that the pandemic gave these workers moments of unexpected visibility and recognition. Not only did this show, to their minds, increased public respect, it also gave them hope that social bonds between workers and the public might be strengthened in the long term. They saw the possibility of a novel, yet seemingly mutual acknowledgement and respect. As Keith, one of our interviewees, put it:

During the pandemic we’re part of it, yes … it’s kind of like the police, the fire brigade, the ambulance, the hospitals, it’s part of the services of a community, working to keep the community functioning, and what we do is part of that.

And yet, this experience of coming together was eroded by the unequal consequences of the pandemic for different social groups. Our participants spoke of the differences they saw in people’s ability to distance themselves from the unpleasant or potentially dangerous aspects of the pandemic.

Whereas these workers still had to go to work everyday, other people did not. Our interviewees also noted the stark gap separating those key workers who performed the riskiest jobs (nurses, carers) and those whose jobs involved little risk and could be undertaken from home.

Another interviewee, Kevin, who works as a dustcart driver said:

COVID’s still going on now, because we’re not out of it yet. But, still, they’ve just carried on as their normal day, stayed at home working, while the likes of me go out there all day. And if I don’t work, I don’t get paid.

This chimed with what Nigel, a litter picker, reported:

They’re at home, comfortable. We get nothing. No nothing. Not even ‘Oh, we’ll give you a couple of days, like a couple of days extra as your holiday so you can recover and that’, nothing.

The pandemic also made broader social divisions more tangible. Our interviewees spoke about those with privilege seeming to lack interest in knowing about the deteriorating living conditions of workers like themselves. This was despite the fact that the activities these workers were doing, like waste collection and street cleaning, were vital for societal functioning. Another litter picker, Bernie, put it plainly:

You see people, you see some people going and spending like £12, £16 a day just on food going and buying lunch, and I sit there and I think: ‘How the hell do you do it?’ Nine times out of ten I have to make lunch just buying basics, you know, like a cheap loaf of bread, cheap bit of meat – luxury is a bit of sauce. They don’t want to think about people like me.

This illustrates the oxymoron of being “visibly invisible”. During the pandemic, keyworkers’ effort became more apparent. At the same time, they sensed little desire from the wider public to consider and challenge the cultural and socioeconomic factors that were negatively affecting their lives.

Our findings chime with research on how nurses, too, experienced the pandemic, with comparable levels of scepticism with regards to positive, long-term transformations. The question is whether, as German sociologist Andreas Reckwitz has argued, we are witnessing an increasing polarisation between different groups and social classes. Our research suggests that the sense that the world can be improved and society become more progressive feels ever more remote.

This has worrying implications for societal solidarity. As inequality grows, the mutual obligations citizens might have towards one another are increasingly being eroded.

All names have been changed to preserve interviewee anonymity.

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. Our research shows COVID-19 made people appreciate street cleaners more – but it also made their lives harder – https://theconversation.com/our-research-shows-covid-19-made-people-appreciate-street-cleaners-more-but-it-also-made-their-lives-harder-210298

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manuel Corpas, Lecturer in Genomics, University of Westminster

Global mortality continues to fall. Life expectancy has improved to unprecedented levels and deaths in young children have plummeted. Yet for adolescents and young adults, especially those aged 15 to 24, little progress has been made according to data from the latest Global Burden of Disease study. In parts of North America and eastern Europe, mortality in those aged 15-24 has actually risen in the past decade.

This latest study also showed the main causes of death among young people aren’t disease or poor health. The main causes were shown to be injury, violence, suicide, road traffic accidents and substance abuse.

This shows us that health systems worldwide are still ill-equipped to prevent or intervene effectively in social and structural causes of youth mortality.

The Global Burden of Disease study is one of the largest studies on the picture of health, disease and mortality worldwide. The study analysed more than 310,000 data sources collected between 1950 and 2023 from 204 countries. Using death registries, censuses and household surveys, the research team estimated age-specific mortality trends across the lifespan.

The overall picture is one of uneven progress.

For children, especially in low and middle-income countries, vaccines, improved sanitation and better nutrition have saved millions of lives. In east Asia, for instance, mortality in under-fives fell by 68% between 2011 and 2023.

For older adults, the global mortality rate declined by 67% between 1950 and 2023, thanks to better screening, medication and chronic disease management.

Deaths from cardiovascular disease (the leading cause of death globally) have also improved substantially. But cardiovascular disease and other non-communicable diseases (such as cancer and diabetes) still account for nearly two-thirds of all deaths ariund the world.

For young people aged 15-24, the risk profile was different. For them, the main causes of death were primarily preventable ones.

In North America, deaths among people aged 20 to 39 rose by as much as 50% in the past decade – largely due to suicide, drug overdose and alcohol-related harms. The picture was also similar in some parts of Latin America.

But in other parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa, infectious diseases (such as as tuberculosis) and unintentional injuries were the main drivers of youth mortality.

The study also highlighted stark inequalities in mortality risk for youth from marginalised, low-income or Indigenous groups. For instance, the study found that mortality in young women aged 15-29 living in sub-Saharan Africa was 61% higher than previously estimated, mostly due to maternal mortality, road injuries and meningitis.

However, these groups remain systematically underrepresented in global health datasets. The study found that more than 80% of countries lacked nationally representative data across key health domains, including mental health and child health. This meant most of the data was drawn from high-income regions.

Latin Americans, for example, make up over 8% of the global population but represent less than 1% of some global reference datasets. Such a systemic lack of representation from these groups renders their health needs invisible – including the health needs of those affecting the young.

Emerging trends

Today’s young people face unprecedented economic insecurity, social volatility, violence and pressures from social media – all of which can have an extraordinary toll on both mental health and wellbeing.

Mental health challenges underlie many of the leading causes of adolescent death reported in the study. It’s clear from this and other studies that youth mental health urgently needs to be addressed.

For instance, research from Spain which looked at over 2 million adolescent hospitalisations between 2000 and 2021, found admissions for mental health conditions more than doubled – surging especially after the COVID-19 pandemic.

For teenage boys, substance use, ADHD and psychosis were the most common causes of hospitalisation. For girls, eating disorders, anxiety and depression were more prevalent.

A related study found admissions for adolescent anorexia nervosa rose by almost 90% after 2020 – with cases overwhelmingly concentrated in girls aged 13-17.

Health survey data from 2023 also showed that half of US young adults aged 18-24 reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety or depression. Additionally, a separate US survey also found that more than one-third of 18-24-year-olds reported they’d recently thought about self-harm or suicide.

Other factors which may also have contributed to high youth mortality rates may include a historical lack of preparedness by health systems in focusing on adolescent health issues, as well as a lack of interventions aimed at reducing the actual leading causes of youth death (such as road safety, violence prevention and meaningful mental health care).

The response to youth mortality cannot be medical alone as the leading causes of death in this age group require interventions that sit outside healthcare and require coordination across sectors.

Data systems must also change. Youth from low-income countries, Indigenous people and marginalised groups are underrepresented in research. This means we don’t fully understand the needs of these groups and the problems they face – making it difficult to plan and implement effective interventions.

Youth health must be re-framed as an equity issue, as well. The current model treats young people as responsible for their own poor outcomes, when research shows that, overwhelmingly, these issues can be caused by conditions that young people do not control: poverty, exposure to violence, unsafe road environments, inadequate mental health services and lack of economic opportunity.

These deaths are preventable. We cannot celebrate global health gains when youth mortality is stagnant – and even worsening in many parts of the world. Preventing adolescent and young adult deaths is the next frontier for a fairer, healthier future.

Manuel Corpas 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. Surge in global youth mortality fuelled by mental illness, drugs, violence and other preventable causes – https://theconversation.com/surge-in-global-youth-mortality-fuelled-by-mental-illness-drugs-violence-and-other-preventable-causes-267459

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca A. Drummond, Professor, Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham

The “gut microbiome” has become a popular health term in recent years. It’s easy to see why, with an abundance of research showing how important the trillions of microbes living in our gut are for health.

But what many people might not realise is that the microbiome doesn’t only contain bacteria. It also contains other types of microbes – including fungi. The fungal component of the microbiome is called the “mycobiome”.

Although the mycobiome has been less well studied than its bacterial counterpart, recent research shows it’s sensitive to diet and may affect our health, too.

The best studied mycobiome is the one in our intestines. It’s composed of many fungal species. The most common fungal species found there, particularly in the Western world, belong to the Candida family.

Candida are a type of yeast. For most of us, the Candida population in our mycobiome is kept in check by our immune system and our gut bacteria. But changes to either of these can cause populations of Candida to expand in the mycobiome. This can be a problem, because Candida may cause life-threatening infections in people with damaged immune systems.

For example, research found that hospital patients who are given antibiotics are more likely to develop Candida infections.

This is partly explained by the effect of antibiotics, which kill off certain species of gut bacteria that compete with Candida for space and resources within the intestine. Antibiotics have also been found to directly alter our immune cells and how they fight fungal infections.

Another study, which analysed the mycobiome of cancer patients, found that those who developed serious Candida infections had an overgrowth of the fungus in their mycobiome just before the infection started. Combined with the damaging effects of chemotherapy on the immune system, this made it harder for patients to fight off the infection.

Disruption in the mycobiome’s Candida balance has also been linked to several other diseases. For instance, Candida levels are high in patients who are critically ill. This suggests that too much Candida in our guts is a sign of poor health.

Changes in the fungal mycobiome have also been linked to several gut diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease. Research on Crohn’s disease has also shown that patients have an overgrowth of Candida. These fungi also produce toxins that irritate the gut lining, which could potentially explain some of the symptoms Crohn’s patients experience.

High levels of Candida in the gut can activate immune cells as well, making them more inflammatory. This has been seen in patients with severe COVID-19.

Mycobiomes in the body

The mycobiome isn’t only found in our gut.

We also have a skin mycobiome. In fact, the skin between our toes contains a more diverse number of fungal species than any other skin mycobiome.

The skin mycobiome is mostly dominated by a fungus called Malassezia. This yeast has adapted to grow on the skin’s surface.

Malassezia can activate the immune cells that reside between the skin’s layers. This may lead to inflammation linked to skin disorders, such as psoriasis and eczema.

Candida auris is also a cause for concern. This fungus is resistant to many antifungal drugs, which is why it can be a problem if it grows on the skin’s surface. In a hospital or emergency room, this could be dangerous – particularly to patients who have immune system problems.

Women also have a mycobiome within the vagina. Its balance with the bacterial communities living there can be a big determinant for vaginal health.

One of the most common fungal infections globally is vaginal candidiasis (thrush). It can cause symptoms such as intense itching, pain and swelling. Many adult women will experience at least one thrush infection in their lifetime.

The source of thrush is another fungus from the Candida family: Candida albicans. This is a common member of the vaginal mycobiome.

The vagina’s microbiome is normally dominated by the bacteria Lactobacillus which help keep Candida populations in check. But if the balance between bacteria and fungi gets disrupted (for example, by antibiotics), the fungus can overgrow or produce inflammatory molecules within the vagina. This inflammatory response is responsible for common thrush symptoms such as redness and itching.

Probiotics may help to restore the balance between fungi and bacteria to prevent vaginal yeast infections – although this has had limited success so far. Some new treatments that target inflammation-causing fungal molecules have shown promise in animal models and in small numbers of women.

There’s good evidence to suggest we might also have a mycobiome in the lungs and in breastmilk.

Controversially, some have even suggested that we may have small numbers of fungal cells in the brain – and these fungal cells may be linked with neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinsons and Alzheimer’s.

Autopsy studies have found evidence of fungi in the brains of people who died from brain disorders – but this doesn’t prove the fungi caused their illness or that it was there during their life.

Experimental studies in mice have also shown that small numbers of fungal cells can survive in the brain for long periods of time – and the presence of these fungal cells was linked with reduced memory function.

Experiments in flies have also shown fungi may travel to the brain and affect function. This is the best evidence we currently have showing small numbers of fungi may get into the brain and survive long-term.

Whether this occurs in people, and if this would be considered a true mycobiome, remains to be proven.

There’s still much we don’t know about the mycobiome. But with continued research in this area we may soon better understand the mycobiome’s importance in our health and how we can nurture and care for it.

Rebecca A. Drummond receives funding from the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Lister Institute for Preventative Medicine.

– ref. The fungi living in the body play an important role in health – here’s what you should know about the ‘mycobiome’ – https://theconversation.com/the-fungi-living-in-the-body-play-an-important-role-in-health-heres-what-you-should-know-about-the-mycobiome-264545

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mike Jones, Course Director MA (Music Industries), University of Liverpool

The Mercury prize almost always produces surprises – among them, Gomez not The Verve in 1998, and English Teacher not Charlie XCX in 2024 – but perhaps the biggest surprise is that the prize has survived for so many years. That it has been won this year by Sam Fender in his native Newcastle speaks very much of the time that has passed in those 34 years.

Conceived as a kind of credible alternative to the Brit Awards – a prize for those beyond the razzamatazz of mainstream pop music – the (then) Mercury Music prize was introduced in 1992.

This was the year of a general election which, while won by the Conservative party, did not see the re-election of Margaret Thatcher. But Thatcher’s work had been done: the introduction of neoliberal policies which ravaged many UK industries and the regions in which they were located.

Fender can be understood as a voice of that ravaged Britain. He was born two years after John Major’s election victory, and grew up in a disintegrating family in a disintegrating former industrial region. He survived the chaos and has written about that collective suffering with great skill and passion over three albums.

It is telling, too, that the (renamed) Mercury Prize lost its corporate sponsorship along the way. Being publicly allied with music is no longer the marketing “must have” it once was. This year’s award event was paid for jointly by Newcastle City Council and the regional authority.

As Britain attempts to cope with the evaporation of major industries and the suffering that permanent loss of employment infrastructure induces, many UK regions now foreground the creative abilities of their residents as a reason to invest in their particular area. Demand for music, and for the creativity it carries and expresses, has become a key feature of social and economic as well as cultural life.

This begs the question: what is it that creative people actually contribute? The 2025 Mercury prize shortlist gives us some clues, especially if we look at three of the nominees who missed out on the prize: Pulp, Wolf Alice and Martin Carthy. Both Pulp and Wolf Alice are previous winners (1996 and 2018 respectively), but Carthy has won very few awards over the 84 years of his life.

“Notable” musicians tend to be of their time. This is partly because their choice of instruments and combinations of keys, notes and tempos resonate with the moments they and their audiences are living through. But there is more to being a musician than this.

Real, affecting performance draws on and mobilises symbolic information far beyond musical soundmaking – even though that demands skill and ability. Fender, for example, is unequivocally a Geordie, even as he fits the mould of a kind of Bruce Springsteen for his times.

Both Pulp and Wolf Alice are challenging to discuss. Where Jarvis Cocker is concerned, the word “uncompromising” comes to mind, but what does that mean? Here is someone who is unique – yet what his vision of the world is, is never quite apparent. Cocker is “about something”, and he is about it so strongly that people stand back and admire him for it.

Wolf Alice are something different: a successful rock band in a time when rock bands have gone into decline. It is almost the band’s own self-awareness that, somehow, “they shouldn’t be” that gives them their energy – mining rock’s extensive back catalogue to support essentially introspective lyrics about (mainly singer Ellie Rowsell) self-adjusting to the demands of an evermore turbulent world.

In this, there are shades of Cocker. And with Fender singing about negotiating this turbulence too (only with a more explicit set of references to a world beyond his interior), so the core strengths of contemporary music begin to emerge.

Popular musicians go on providing a soundtrack for our lives because they express themselves through the idioms of the moment. If we take Fender’s previous album, Seventeen Going Under, as a point of reference, every aspect of the recording and its video speaks to his growing up in the northeast of England and his continuing loyalty to the place.

His moving acceptance speech and rapport with the audience were evidence of this. His performance of People Watching was almost pure Bruce Springsteen – mainstream rock inflected and defined by a hometown sensibility.

Which brings us to Martin Carthy. It is impossible to capture Carthy’s significance in words, because his voice cannot be heard on the page – and it is so powerfully distinctive that it needs to be heard.

Carthy was the soul of English folk music in the 1960s and ’70s. His brand of folk music speaks to a resilience through suffering – the suffering of pre-industrial society articulated through song. Now, Fender is speaking to the suffering of post-industrial society. They both should have won.

Mike Jones 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. Sam Fender wins Mercury prize: ‘Geordie Springsteen’ is voice of a UK ravaged by industrial decline – https://theconversation.com/sam-fender-wins-mercury-prize-geordie-springsteen-is-voice-of-a-uk-ravaged-by-industrial-decline-267767

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Dover, Professor of Intelligence and National Security & Dean of Faculty, University of Hull

The alleged Chinese spying affair currently troubling the UK government after the collapse of a trial is markedly different from previous espionage scandals. That is because it is centred not on the actions of suspected spies, but on the behaviour of the government. How did this come to happen?

The two men – former parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash and academic Christopher Berry – remain without stain on their character. The case against them, which they denied, was dropped before going to trial.

As in all spy cases, there is a gap between the speculation (what those outside of government are free to theorise on), and the secrets (the classified material and processes behind closed doors).

The speculation is around whether government behaviour collapsed the prosecution to benefit diplomatic and trade relations with China. The secrets, which a parliamentary inquiry will now investigate, are whether this was indeed what happened, and who in the government, if anyone, was involved in the collapse of the case.

Cash and Berry were charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act (now replaced by the 2023 National Security Act). They were accused of passing “at least 34 reports” containing politically sensitive information about parliament or parliamentarians to a Chinese intelligence agent.

The information was then allegedly passed to Cai Qi, a senior Chinese communist party official often referred to as President Xi Jinping’s right-hand man. The content of the material (which does not need to be classified for the sharing of it to be illegal) and how damaging it may be will also be of interest to the inquiry.

Prosecutors unexpectedly dropped the charges weeks before a trial was to go ahead. The CPS said that it could not obtain necessary evidence from the government that China was a threat to the UK’s national security.

Because of precedent from a 2024 Russian spying case, witness statements were needed to say that at the time of the alleged offences, China was an enemy of the UK. The deputy national security advisor, Matthew Collins, provided three witness statements (in December 2023, February 2025 and July 2025) to the CPS, which the government has now made public.

These statements make clear the range of Chinese intelligence activities against the UK, including continual attempts to compromise UK government systems. They also outline the scale of the challenge from China, and align with current government policy and the last government’s 2023 integrated review of foreign, defence and security policy.

In my view as a researcher of intelligence and national security, Collins’ statements clearly provide evidence of a range of challenges that China poses to the UK. They chime with aspects of the 1989 Security Service Act that puts economic security on a par with other security threats. However, it might have been challenging to put to a jury something the government was not prepared to state outright.

The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, reportedly told MPs that he had 95% of the evidence he needed for prosecution. The government has said that it’s up to Parkinson to explain what that remaining 5% would be.

There are now several key questions. Was the government involved in the CPS’s decision to drop the charges? What discussions took place within government around this case? Does the government view China as a threat to the level required by the CPS? And could the prime minister have stopped the case from collapsing, had he wanted to?

The government’s statements about Collins, emphasising his expertise and role, effectively ask us to believe that he did not consult his boss (Starmer’s trusted aide, Jonathan Powell), nor consult anyone else in Whitehall about an issue that has deep diplomatic ramifications.

The prime minister has acknowledged that he was told the case was on the brink of collapse two days before it did. The PM maintains that he did not involve himself in it.

Starmer made the point that CPS decisions are independent of the government.
While true, it would be very disciplined of Starmer to allow a case with such diplomatic importance to resolve itself without any political input. The government has, historically, intervened in legal cases of a national security nature, including the 1991 arms to Iraq scandal which led to the Scott inquiry, the Binyam Mohammad case (2010), the Belhaj case (2017) and Shamima Begum cases (2021-24). All of these involved the government putting forward national security arguments to protect intelligence relationships and foreign partners.

Brewing storms

The current government has sought to blame the fallout on the last Conservative government’s ambiguity on China. Labour’s position is similarly complex. It sees China as an important partner for trade, global warming, pandemic mitigation and on emerging conflicts. It also sees China as a persistent challenge to British security.

Complicating this further is the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, expressing his frustration with the collapse of the prosecution. He described how large the threat from Chinese espionage is, citing a successful MI5 operation from the previous week. He also said that MI5 had seen a 35% increase in all state-based plots against the UK.

The speculation around the diplomatic and economic advantages of this case collapsing is created by the challenges of the UK’s post-Brexit economy. The UK needs to do business with China, but without being exploited as many nations are seen to be.

A UK still within the EU might have felt more able to weather the storm of offending China with a prosecution. This also applies to the Chinese government’s delayed application to transform the former Royal Mint building into an embassy. Opponents of which have raised security concerns about its proximity to sensitive underground fibre-optic cables, which could be tapped into for eavesdropping purposes. The Chinese government has threatened consequences if it is not approved.

There are a growing number of friction points for the UK operating with increasingly confident and assertive international partners and competitors. The inquiry into the collapsed prosecution will shine a light on how the British establishment is handling these.

Robert Dover 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. How Britain’s weakened global position may have pulled it into a Chinese spying scandal – https://theconversation.com/how-britains-weakened-global-position-may-have-pulled-it-into-a-chinese-spying-scandal-267673

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aislinn Clarke, Lecturer in Film Studies, Queen’s University Belfast

When I think of my first encounter with horror, I don’t think of a vampire, a witch, or even a possessed girl’s head spinning round (I saw The Exorcist at the age of seven). I think of a Sun God, I think of teeth and claws slicked with blood, I think of the Black Rabbit of Death. And he wasn’t even the bad guy.

I’m not talking about some campy folk horror from the 1960s. I’m talking about the 1978 animated version of Richard Adams’ Watership Down.

I was perhaps four when I saw it. The opening sequence remains a core memory: the myth of the Prince with a Thousand Enemies, the Original Rabbit, rendered in gorgeous animation that evoked Aboriginal art via the films of New Zealand artist Len Lye. Then the great crimson wave of blood flowing across the fields. Death, cold and indiscriminate, was coming to the gentle slopes of Watership Down.

That was the moment I first felt awe and terror at the fragility of life. And the utter indifference of death. The kind of awe and terror we assume children’s minds can neither comprehend nor bear.

And that was just the beginning.

This article is part of a series of expert recommendations of spooky stories – on screen and in print – for brave young souls. From the surprisingly dark depths of Watership Down to Tim Burton’s delightfully eerie kid-friendly films, there’s a whole haunted world out there just waiting for kids to explore. Dare to dive in here.

It’s easy to assume that because Watership Down is a cartoon about woodland animals, it must be gentle. It isn’t. And that’s why it’s so powerful. My parents had already let my older siblings and I watch the campy spectacle of Hammer Horror at Halloween, but they couldn’t have guessed the deeper impact of Adams’s rabbits – they let me watch alone from the safe distance of the shag rug one sunny afternoon in 1984.

Nothing terrible had yet happened to me. I hadn’t known grief or loss. Watership Down cracked that open. For the first time, I understood, viscerally, that all the earth’s creatures – including myself – are mortal, and that death was coming for us all.

But don’t let that put you off sharing it with your four-year-old.

The value of horror is that it gives us a safe space to process fear. It takes the anxieties we can’t name and turns them into something we can face. I watched horror films with my family every weekend – Poltergeist, Day of the Dead, The Evil Dead.

Afterwards I slept like the actual dead. Soundly. Peacefully. I didn’t have nightmares, even if I did dream of rabbits. I didn’t need nightmares. For, what is a horror film, after all, if not a nightmare you share with people you love – a nightmare that can be switched off and tucked back into its case?

And, yes, I am saying that Watership Down is a horror film. Like Lovecraft’s cosmic horror, like The Thing or Alien, the terror of Watership Down arises from mortal insignificance. We too are small, powerless, unmoored, no different to the rabbits fleeing the down.

The film’s horror depends on empathy, the recognition that every creature wants what we want: to live, to love, to survive. Children understand that we are not special.

However, it is perhaps the most primal and defining characteristic of humanity that, not only do we fear death, but we know it is coming. Such darkness is part of being human and we can’t insulate children from the fullness of being human.

If we try, the chances are that the darkness will come out anyway in their nightmares, understood as a terrible thing that their own mind created in the dead of night. To share a film like Watership Down with them is to say: “I trust you with this. You are ready for awe, wonder, and yes, for fear too. And it is because we fear that we hope.”

Richard Adams opened his novel with a gruesome quote from the ancient Greek tragedian Aeschylus and added: “If that makes the child put it back on the shelf, then to Hell with the child.”

His provocation was not contempt but a refusal to patronise. Children, he argued, deserve stories that take them seriously. Indeed, to live without curiosity, without discomfort, without provocation, is the stuff of nightmares. That is hell.

Both the book and the film trust their audience to confront mortality honestly. That trust makes for stronger children – and stronger adults. Adams rejected allegorical readings of his story, insisting that this gut wrenching heroes’ journey, with its keen sense of justice, really was about rabbits.

Children understand that not everything has to be about us. Only adults insist on being the default main character. Children know that in this beautiful, terrible world, everything – even us – just wants to live.

Perhaps all of this is more than one would expect from a cartoon film about woodland animals. Maybe we could all use a sunny afternoon on the rug, watching Watership Down, and remembering what it is like to be small and afraid and full of hope.

Watership Down has a PG rating, which means some material may not be suitable for young children, so parental guidance is advised.

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.

Aislinn Clarke 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. Scary stories for kids: Watership Down made me aware of my mortality at four – https://theconversation.com/scary-stories-for-kids-watership-down-made-me-aware-of-my-mortality-at-four-267052

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachael Garrett, Moran Professor of Conservation and Development, University of Cambridge

The vast tropical forest nations of Brazil and Indonesia are both home to millions of people, including Indigenous communities. They store enormous amounts of carbon to protect our climate and are home to staggering numbers of species found nowhere else in the world.

How are their forests still standing while other forests have fallen? Answering this question is critical in the current global moment. As people gear up for the 30th UN climate summit (Cop30) in Belém, Brazil, in November, this “Amazon Cop” could help galvanise action to save the world’s forests with a clearer blueprint for success.

While progress at global climate and biodiversity summits often seems limited, our study highlights how sustained pressure from civil society and international commitments can lead to improved political will for forest protection.

In the agricultural powerhouse of Brazil, 60% of the land area (511 million hectares – more than 20 times the size of the UK) is still covered in natural forests. In the diverse archipelago of Indonesia, known for its globally important production of palm oil, among other tropical crops, 50% of the land (nearly 94 million hectares) is remaining.

Last year, global records for deforestation were shattered, with 6.7 million hectares of pristine tropical forests being cleared – an area almost the size of Ireland. Even by recent standards this was a huge amount of loss, driven by raging fires in the hottest year on record. Yet over a billion hectares of tropical forests remain. Two of the forest giants – Brazil and Indonesia – have both bucked the trend of increasing forest loss at different times in recent years.

Brazil reduced deforestation in the Amazon rainforest by 84% between 2004 and 2012. However, deforestation picked up again in the late 2010s and under President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration.

In Indonesia, a similarly impressive 78% reduction in deforestation was achieved between 2016, when devastating forest fires created a haze across south-east Asia, and 2021. Fortunately these reductions have been sustained, at least for now.

To understand the reasons for Brazil and Indonesia’s success, we brought together the world’s leading experts in forest conservation in these two regions. Most of them came from these two countries. By asking our experts to participate in multiple rounds of surveys and providing feedback on responses from one round to the next, we could identify the full range of factors that are important for protecting forests. This approach, known as a Delphi process, enabled us to avoid groupthink or excessive influence by strong-willed or well-respected characters.

Still standing?

Our results were clear: across both countries, our experts judged that political will and law enforcement were by far the most important factors for protecting forests.

The study revealed how international diplomacy and advocacy by civil society have been pivotal in creating the awareness and demand for political leadership to emerge. Moving to the 2010s, Indigenous rights were seen as an important complement to political will and law enforcement.

These results point to the need to accelerate pressure on policymakers to protect forests and continue to spread public awareness. This is a difficult task with a human toll: worldwide, more than 2100 environmental defenders were killed between 2012 and 2023.

Political will to conserve forests also waned in the late 2010s in Brazil, and is in question under the current Indonesian administration.

Yet the need for instant results and a temptation to pursue the latest big idea should not overshadow the long-lasting and hard-won consequences of sustained pressure for good forest stewardship.

As policymakers, activists and scientists from around the world converge on the Amazon for the next UN climate summit, the message from our research is clear: above the fray of tense negotiations and discussions over policy minutiae, political leadership and persistent advocacy can and do protect forests. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.

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.

Rachael Garrett consults for the businesses Sumthing and Rainforest Builder. She receives funding from the European Research Council (ERC) grant 949932 and the company Suzano. She is affiliated with the Global Land Programme as co-chair of the Science Steering Committee and the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee. She serves on the UN Science Panel for the Amazon and UN Forum on Sustainability Standards Academic Advisory Board.

Joss Lyons-White receives funding from the European Research Council (ERC) grant 949932.

Matthew Spencer works for IDH, which works on forest-risk commodities and agricultural market transformation and is funded by European government donors and philanthropic foundations. His visiting fellowship at the Cambridge Conservation Initiative is supported by the Turner Kirk Trust.

– ref. Protecting Brazil and Indonesia’s tropical forests requires political will, law enforcement and public pressure – https://theconversation.com/protecting-brazil-and-indonesias-tropical-forests-requires-political-will-law-enforcement-and-public-pressure-261958