Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Blasiak, Associate Professor in Ocean Stewardship, Stockholm University

Conflict and turmoil are seemingly rife in the ocean. Choked shipping lanes. Sabotaged seabed cables and pipelines. Migrants risking dangerous sea passages. Collapsed fish populations. Coastlines washed away by a changing climate.

But if we only consider the ocean in terms of conflict, our policymakers start to focus just on threats, borders, extraction and defence. And we miss a key opportunity. Despite the friction, powerful solutions already exist and can be scaled up.

Research shows that the ocean can be a catalyst for proactive peacebuilding. Ocean peacebuilding is the use of marine scientific cooperation, sustainable resource management and conservation efforts to anticipate and prevent conflict while fostering trust among nations.

Ocean peacebuilding is already underway, even in the most unexpected places and those shaped by the sharpest geopolitical tensions. It happens in three key ways.

Building bridges

By embracing diversity of thought when tackling problems, stereotypes and biases can be challenged, simplistic assumptions crumble and common humanity can emerge. This “contact hypothesis” has been key to ocean peacebuilding in the Gulf of Mexico. One hundred miles of water separates the Florida Keys from Cuba – plus several decades of geopolitical tensions.

Beneath the water’s surface, marine ecosystems know no such boundaries. Coral larvae, endangered sharks, turtles and fish travel the currents of the gulf. Remove a key nesting site or a stop along a migratory corridor, and those species could disappear for everyone.

Marine biologists from Cuba, Mexico and the US began quietly meeting in the 2000s to discuss conservation of marine wildlife and share data, despite the diplomatic standoff between the US and Cuba. When relations thawed in 2014, the then US president Barack Obama and former Cuban president Raul Castro re-established diplomatic relations between their countries.

Together they established the “Redgolfo” network of marine protected areas across the Gulf of Mexico. Marine protected areas or MPAs are parts of the ocean or coastline where human activity is restricted to protect natural resources, biodiversity or cultural heritage.

Scientific cooperation became a trusted foundation for heads of state to sign agreements and shake hands. Things improved.

Building standards

But the world never stands still. Politicians come and go, priorities shift, norms evolve. The second mechanism of ocean peacebuilding is the spreading of norms that empower civil society.

Designating marine protected areas without consultation and excluding local or Indigenous communities can end in failure and even spark conflict.

So when 14 serving heads of state came together in 2018 to establish the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, their flagship commitment was to ensure 100% sustainable management within their respective jurisdictions by 2025 through designing sustainable ocean plans.

They not only all agreed to this – they also agreed that these plans must be developed in an inclusive way and be underpinned by the best available science and Indigenous knowledge.

A group of countries that collectively accounts for 50% of the Earth’s coastlines had agreed on shared standards of how to plan ocean conservation and use. It relied on inclusion, consultation and empowerment of civil society.

Building trust

In 2004, the armed conflict in Indonesia’s Aceh province entered its 29th year. And then another disaster struck: an earthquake triggered a devastating tsunami that swept across the region. More than 230,000 people died. The shock was profound.

One former combatant said: “My family was gone; the people were gone; the enemy was gone. What is there to fight for?” Within months, a peace deal was signed.

Read more:
Reflecting on 20 years of the Aceh tsunami: From ‘megathrust’ threat to disaster mitigation

In the following months, efforts to establish an Indian Ocean tsunami early warning system began. Over time, the system was expanded and improved. Ocean scientists and seismologists in the region began working together. In Aceh, the government started multiple initiatives to install tsunami buoys and improve its early warning system.

The government was taking steps to improve the wellbeing of its people. This leads to collaboration that re-establishes and builds trust in public institutions – a critical priority in a post-conflict setting.

Can ocean peacebuilding stop a war?

Today, US-Cuba relations seem to be spiralling towards conflict. What difference could ocean peacebuilding make? History shows that even amid acute tension, ocean science is a vital diplomatic back channel. It keeps dialogue alive and gives a sense of shared prosperity and that ecological loss is a cost born by all.

At the height of the cold war and nuclear arms race, the US and USSR entered into a détente programme of ocean science collaboration. Known as the Polymode program, this focused on studying the structure of currents and eddies in the Atlantic Ocean. For years, hundreds of scientists from the two countries worked together, sharing data, vessels, ports and equipment. Science advanced. Yet when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, everything stopped.

So while we need new narratives, we cannot afford to be naïve.

Ocean peacebuilding won’t stop all wars. But it may help prevent some from starting and others from returning. In Northern Ireland, an environmental organisation called the Loughs Agency shows how cross-border institutions can sustain peace while stewarding shared marine ecosystems.

The more deeply peace is built into institutions, processes and standards, the stronger the prospects for avoiding future conflict.

Robert Blasiak is a member of the Advisory Board of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030. This is a voluntary and unpaid position.

Paul Conville 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 ‘ocean peacebuilding’ can help calm global conflicts – https://theconversation.com/how-ocean-peacebuilding-can-help-calm-global-conflicts-278903

Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Ferns, Senior Lecturer in Business and Society, University of Bath

In business, nature often gets reduced to numbers: emissions targets, sustainability metrics, biodiversity data. But when professionals rely too heavily on what’s measurable, they can risk missing what’s meaningful. One of the most effective ways to tackle this is through outdoor education.

For business students and professionals, this approach offers something conventional leadership programs often miss. Outdoors, environmental issues become tangible. Ecosystems, soil, and water are no longer abstract case material, but living systems to notice and learn from.

My own work with students studying for a Masters in business administration (MBA) shows how outdoor learning can support business professionals. It helps them rethink leadership, sustainability and their relationship with the living world in ways that classroom teaching rarely achieves.

My students and I have headed out of seminar rooms at the University of Bath and into nearby fields and woodland to experience, instead of just think and talk about, sustainability. Some were hesitant at first. As they slowed down and tuned in, though, the conversations shifted.

One told me they had not felt so clear-headed in years. Others described sudden “ah-ha” moments – experiencing interdependence (a cornerstone of both ecology and sustainability) not as theory, but as an experienced reality.

These moments highlight what philosophers describe as the shift from “shallow” to “deep” connection with nature. As I have argued in research, shallow approaches treat nature as a backdrop for reports, strategies, or symbolic gestures. Deep connection arises when leaders feel their place within living systems through direct, embodied experience.

Other studies have found similar results. A research study that reviewed a wide range of outdoor learning programs found consistent outcomes. Participants reported stronger motivation, improved wellbeing and more positive environmental attitudes.

Recent research in has found that direct engagement with nature is one of the strongest predictors of a lifelong commitment to helping the environment. Experiential education can support this. It involves hands-on, immersive experiences in nature, where people engage emotionally with ecosystems and reflect on their place within them, rather than learning in abstract ways.

This matters for business because leadership decisions are not purely analytical. They are influenced by perception, emotions and values. Research shows that awe-inspiring encounters in nature can reduce stress and enhance empathy. In one study, participants who spent meaningful time outdoors later drew themselves smaller, reflecting a humbler, interconnected sense of self.

For business leaders, humility and empathy are not soft extras. They are essential for navigating crises, building trust and making effective long-term decisions. Outdoor learning creates the conditions for these qualities to develop.

This is why nature-based leadership retreats and wilderness programs are on the rise.

Business practice

A growing number of companies are taking their teams outdoors to connect employees more deeply with their sustainability strategies. Rather than discussing sustainability in meeting rooms, participants encounter nature directly through the living systems they depend on. The intention is to make organisational values tangible and emotionally resonant.

Clothing company Patagonia’s founder, Yvon Chouinard, has long credited time outdoors as foundational to his company’s environmental values. Footwear company Vivobarefoot’s leadership team has held nature immersions on remote beaches and in woodlands to guide a shift toward “regenerative thinking”.

These initiatives are not fringe experiments – they signal how business culture itself is beginning to shift.

Of course, there is a risk that outdoor learning initiatives become either a form of greenwashing or simply another obligatory corporate away day. Simply taking employees outdoors does not guarantee meaningful engagement with sustainability. Without careful design and integration into organisational practice and culture, such experiences may remain superficial – inspiring individuals without leading to real change.

Additionally, peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of nature-based retreats for corporate sustainability is still limited. Many organisations that adopt them already hold strong pro-environmental values.

Evidence does, however, suggests outdoor education can influence how people think and lead. Reviews of outdoor leadership initiatives show strong “learning transfer”. Follow-up studies on outdoor education programmes indicate that leadership capacities developed in nature – such as independence, confidence and decision-making – persist after outdoor education retreats.

Business leaders must do more than analyse. They must feel their connection to the living world in order to lead with compassion and courage. Nurturing that connection may be one of the most strategic decisions any (future) business leader can make, both for the planet and for themselves.

George Ferns 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. Why business students should spend time connecting with nature – https://theconversation.com/why-business-students-should-spend-time-connecting-with-nature-259228

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael J. Benton, Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, University of Bristol

The study of dinosaurs has been through a revolution in recent decades. The story began half a century ago, when Robert McNeill Alexander, a professor of zoology at the University of Leeds, showed how the speed of an animal could be calculated from the spacing of its footprints and its body size.

This formula worked both for modern and extinct animals and so, for the first time, the speed of a dinosaur could be estimated from a fossilised trackway. Alexander calculated speeds for different dinosaurs of between 1.0 and 3.6 metres per second (up to 13kmh) – rather slower than others had guessed.

In the 1970s, dinosaurs were becoming exciting again after years of being treated as lumbering failures. Termed the “dinosaur renaissance”, American paleontologists Robert Bakker and John Ostrom were among those transforming understanding by arguing that dinosaurs were active, possibly warm-blooded, and that they included the ancestors of birds. Remarkable fossils of feathered dinosaurs from China, found from 1996 onwards, cemented this idea.

Before Alexander’s groundbreaking study in 1976, palaeontologists had made “reasonable guesses” about the function of dinosaurs – persuasive arguments but often untestable. Alexander began a movement to apply scientific methods to investigating dinosaur function and behaviour.

His research heralded the start of a revolution in palaeobiological methods, using modern scientific methods to bring dinosaurs to life in a testable way.

Modern techniques applied to the deep past

There are many questions about dinosaurian palaeobiology: what colours were they, how fast did they run, how did their jaws operate, how long did they take to grow to adult size?

Modern palaeobiologists conduct a three-step process to answer such questions. First, observe the fossil, then apply what we call the neontological toolkit – sets of observations and rules from the modern world that can be applied to ancient situations – and finally, make an inference about the dinosaur’s behaviour.

To establish the running speed of dinosaurs from fossilised dinosaur tracks, Alexander measured the tracks, applied the formula derived from modern animals, and presented the speed calculation. He showed definitively that large dinosaurs could not gallop at the speed of a racehorse, as some had suggested.

A more recent example by one of us (Emily) is the use of engineering methods to establish dinosaurs’ jaw movements. The computational methods are identical to those used to design aircraft, buildings and medical limb replacement devices, and so they are all stress-tested and they work. By making a 3D model of a skull or skeleton, the dinosaur’s jaw movements and forces, as well as leg movements, could be calculated.

Feeding calculations show that some flesh-eating dinosaurs punctured bone, while others pulled at their dead prey to yank off chunks of flesh. The most famous dinosaurian flesh eater, Tyrannosaurus rex, bit with a force of 50,000 newtons – enough to have bitten a car in half.

Scanning can reveal embryonic dinosaurs inside their eggs, and sections through their bones show growth rings that tell us their age at death. This means palaeontologists can calculate the rate of growth of dinosaurs and indeed some of them, during growth spurts, were putting on as much as 1-2 tonnes a year.

Earlier calculations suggested T. rex reached adult size of 6-8 tonnes at 20 years, but re-examination by Holly Woodward and colleagues suggests more like 30 years. This revision is not based on guesswork, but on counting bone rings and estimating body masses from a larger sample of specimens than first used.

But what about their colours? Even here, the new wave of investigative palaeontology has revealed the answer. In 2010, in work done between Bristol, Beijing and Yale University, the colours and colour patterns of two small theropod dinosaurs, Sinosauropteryx and Anchiornis, were published.

The neontological toolkit here was from modern birds, whose melanosomes (tiny capsules inside their feathers) contain variants of the pigment melanin. Two types of melanin give either black, brown and grey colours or ginger colours, and each type is contained in a differently shaped capsule.

These shapes were preserved in the dinosaurs’ fossil feathers. Details of their coloured crests and wing and tail feather stripes show that small dinosaurs at least used these colours in competitive displays, just like some modern birds.

We don’t need a time machine

All these studies are scientific hypotheses that can be disproved by contrary evidence. We don’t need a time machine to determine, say, that the small Chinese dinosaur Sinosauropteryx had a ginger-and-white striped tail, or that T. rex could run at a range of speeds from 16 to 40 kilometres per hour.

Anyone who disagrees with these findings simply has to provide a critique of the chain of evidence to identify where an error has been made. But this scientific revolution in dinosaur studies does not mean every question about them has been answered.

For example, we don’t yet know the sounds dinosaurs made, nor exactly how they communicated with each other. In some cases, researchers have reconstructed the nasal passages and discovered what toots and honks some dinosaurs made – but we cannot be sure these are realistic.

What are the limits of our knowledge about dinosaurs? It would be wise to be cautious in our predictions. After all, it was once widely claimed we would never know their true colours. A new generation of smart investigators may soon identify new toolkits that solve many more questions about these extraordinary creatures.

Emily Rayfield receives funding from UK research councils NERC and BBSRC.

Michael J. Benton 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. The revolution in dinosaur science started 50 years ago – here’s what we have learned – https://theconversation.com/the-revolution-in-dinosaur-science-started-50-years-ago-heres-what-we-have-learned-278600

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca Scott, Senior Lecturer in Marketing and Strategy, Cardiff University

We love the magic of eating out. Instagrammable plates, a curated atmosphere, chefs that can serve artistry in every delectable bite. But what if our pleasure is part of an illusion? Behind many opulent dining rooms lies a harder truth: the taste and spectacle we celebrate are too often produced in kitchen cultures shaped by fear, humiliation and even violence.

René Redzepi of the renowned Danish restaurant Noma has recently quit after 35 staff members alleged he had been physically and emotionally abusive towards them. Having researched elite kitchens, I can tell you reports of toxic kitchen cultures are not new. So much so that this reality has bled into popular culture. This ranges from fictional chefs like the emotionally unstable Carmy of The Bear, who is depicted as having come up in kitchens like Noma’s, to the very real Anthony Bourdain, who wrote in his book, Kitchen Confidential, that macho, competitive, self-reliant and aggressive behaviours are normal behind closed doors.

In research alongside colleagues in sociology and organisational studies, I spoke to elite chefs who shared their experiences of working in such kitchens. What they told us exposed three reasons why cultures of violence persist in these work environments.

1. Out of sight

Elite kitchens are often hidden worlds, tucked into basements and behind closed doors, far from the calm luxury of the dining room. That separation creates what we call a “geography of deviance”: a space where social norms, workplace expectations and even employment protections can start to fall away.

Think about basement kitchens. These are often windowless and airless. There’s the clatter, the heat, the blades, the fire. Then there are all the tools of craft, which can be repurposed into tools of violence. If you’ve watched the first season of The Bear, you’ve seen this happen when sous-chef Sydney in a heated moment accidentally stabs front-of-house manager Ritchie. Throughout that show we see characters lose their cool and act abusively towards each other.

One chef that we interviewed described the kitchen “like being in a submarine”. Another chef explained how “being out of sight definitely allows abuse to happen”.

Hidden away, the kitchen becomes a backstage world where shouting, intimidation and physical abuse can be normalised. Shared hardship binds the brigade together, creating a tight-knit underworld of enduring violence. What emerges is a kind of community enclosure where new rules apply.

2. Scars are badges of honour

For many chefs, suffering is not just a part of the job; it becomes part of who they are. The pressure and pain of kitchen life are folded into a chef’s professional identity. Scars, burns and cuts are worn as marks of legitimacy. Chefs are recognised as elite by what is burned onto their skin. As one Michelin chef shared:

I was on the tube once and I was hanging – I stood up holding the top rail. And someone was like: “Oh, where are you a chef then?” I was like: “What do you mean?” And they were like: “Well look at your arm, you must be a chef!” And I had all burn marks on my arms from the oven. It felt so cool to be recognised as a chef.

What we call “embodied identity work” helps explain this: chefs don’t just endure suffering, they can come to see it as meaningful. Pain is often reframed as discipline, growth and transformation – a way to prove commitment, build skill and become the kind of chef they aspire to be.

3. Enduring pain leads to success

In elite kitchens suffering doesn’t just wound, it distinguishes, signalling that a chef can stand the heat and keep going. Physical and mental durability is often tied to employability and advancement.

One Michelin chef explains how:

It just blew up in the service … [He] picked up his bread knife from the middle of the kitchen and just – had it to my neck in front of everyone … [he] said: “I’m going to fucking kill you.” And that was traumatising … Not so long after that I got moved to the flagship – the three Michelin star restaurant. They thought: “Fuck, this guy’s good! … Fuck, man, that guy’s just done that to him and he doesn’t give a fuck. Bring him over.”

Like professional musicians, the military,
policing and athletic sports, elite kitchens can turn suffering into virtue. That is why violence persists and what makes cultures difficult to change. Violent behaviours are not always seen as a failure in the workplace, but part of what it takes to belong and succeed.

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.

Rebecca Scott 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. Noma wouldn’t be the first – in elite kitchens abuse is worn as a badge of honour and suffering is rewarded – https://theconversation.com/noma-wouldnt-be-the-first-in-elite-kitchens-abuse-is-worn-as-a-badge-of-honour-and-suffering-is-rewarded-279546

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jeremy Howick, Professor and Director of the Stoneygate Centre for Excellence in Empathic Healthcare, University of Leicester

Taylor Little became so badly addicted to her smartphone that she felt she had lost many of her teenage years. “I was literally trapped by addiction at age 12 and lost my teenage years because of it,” she said. Her addiction was to social media, which led to suicide attempts and prolonged depression.

Molly Russell, at just 14, took her own life. Her parents blame the apps on her phone for exposing her to graphic and disturbing content that took control of her mindset.

These stories are not unique. Data from thousands of people shows that social media increases loneliness, depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. Last week, a jury in California found that Meta and YouTube were liable for causing a teenager’s addiction to social media. The idea that social media causes harm is no longer in dispute.

The proposed response – in Australia, now proposed in the UK and elsewhere – is to ban social media for under-16s. It is an understandable impulse. But there are good reasons to think it won’t work – despite politicians claiming a successful start to the ban.

Teenagers have always found ways around rules. Getting an older sibling to buy alcohol is a time-honoured tradition. When it comes to social media, teenagers are more tech-savvy than the adults trying to restrict them, and evidence is emerging that many are working around the age verification systems put in place to enforce bans, such as by using VPNs (virtual private networks).

Rules will exist, but compliance will be patchy and hard to enforce. Those most determined to access social media may also be the most resourceful in getting around restrictions. This means that the teenagers most at risk may also be the least affected by a ban. Evidence from other areas shows that when certain activities are driven underground, they often become more harmful.

Not neutral tools

Even if the bans worked perfectly, they would address only part of the problem. It is difficult to disentangle the harms of social media from the devices that deliver it.

Smartphones are not neutral tools: they are engineered to hold attention through constant notifications, “frictionless” access to content, and rewards for regular interactions. Research links smartphone use – not just social media – to disrupted sleep, impaired attention and cognition, mental health problems, physical ailments such as chronic back pain and addiction.

Social media is one component of a broader “smartphone ecosystem”, and targeting one app while leaving the ecosystem intact is unlikely to solve much.

If social media is blocked, teenagers are not going to put their phones down. They will migrate to mobile games, group chats and endless web browsing – activities that rely on the same design features driving their social media use: notifications, streaks (features that track consecutive days of use and reward consistency), infinite scroll. The problem is not any single app but a pattern of behaviour that will find new outlets.

Nor is this only a problem for teenagers. Adults struggle with excessive smartphone use too. Heavy use is associated with poorer sleep, reduced attention and higher stress – and in some respects the adult consequences are more severe. Distracted driving, often fuelled by phone use, kills thousands of people every year.

This matters for teenagers because behaviour is learned by watching others. Children who see parents, teachers and other adults checking their phones absorb that as the norm. A policy that targets only young people does nothing to change the culture they are growing up inside.

And opting out is becoming harder for everyone. Primary school children are expected to use smartphones for homework – on apps that share more than a passing resemblance to addictive games. Online banking has become more difficult without one. Workplaces assume employees are reachable via multiple WhatsApp groups at all hours.

When opting out means opting out of modern life, restricting access to one category of app starts to look less like a solution and more like a gesture.

If the goal is to reduce harm, the focus needs to widen. The deeper issue is the central role smartphones now play in everyday life – for all of us, not just teenagers. That points towards different kinds of intervention: delaying smartphone adoption among younger children, encouraging simpler devices, redesigning compulsive features across all apps, and ensuring that essential services such as banking, education and travel stop assuming everyone is glued to a screen.

Banning social media for teenagers may feel like decisive action. But until the broader dependency is addressed, it will not deliver the change its advocates are hoping for.

Jeremy Howick 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. Why a social media ban for teenagers misses the point – https://theconversation.com/why-a-social-media-ban-for-teenagers-misses-the-point-279492