English – Page 439 – MIL Submissions Engine

December 3, 2025

Disability rights and services are shaped by the narratives embedded in policies like the Accessible Canada Act and MAID

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Alfiya Battalova, Assistant Professor in Justice Studies, Royal Roads University

This year’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities centres on “fostering disability inclusive societies for advancing social progress.”

The theme recognizes persistent barriers faced by disabled people: disproportionate poverty, employment discrimination, inadequate social protection and the denial of dignity and autonomy in care systems.

Accessibility gains and losses

In 2022, the disability rate for people aged 15 years and over in Canada was 27 per cent. Nearly eight million people identified as having one or more disabilities, an increase of 1.7 million people over 2017, when the disability rate was 22 per cent.

The United Nations’ latest review of Canada’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities praised Canada’s progress in adopting the Accessible Canada Act and accessibility legislation at the provincial/territorial levels.

At the same time, the committee identified several areas of deep concern, such as the expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) for disabled people whose death is not foreseeable. The report warns that inadequate supports risk normalizing death as a “solution” to poverty, lack of services and discrimination, and that the concept of choice can create a false dichotomy, enabling death without guaranteeing support.

All policies tell stories

All policies convey narratives and stories that carry values. They deal with questions of “why” as well as “how.”

Narratives distil and reflect a particular understanding of social and political relations. A story about disability as a phenomenon can be told from different perspectives. A medical model of disability views disability as a personal problem, a social model focuses on removing the barriers, and a human rights model introduces a language of rights and their protection. We often hear deficit-based stories rooted in the medical model about disability.

The Accessible Canada Act (ACA) and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) Track 2 in Canada tell contradictory stories about disability rights and state responsibility.

A young person using crutches shakes hands with a person holding open a door — The Accessible Canada Act is framed as a landmark piece of human rights legislation, emphasizing inclusion, accessibility and the removal of barriers.
(Pixabay)

The ACA is framed as a landmark piece of human rights legislation, emphasizing inclusion, accessibility and the removal of barriers to ensure full participation for people with disabilities, with a vision of a barrier-free Canada by 2040. Disability activists played a central role in its development, and the law is celebrated for its systemic, proactive approach to tackling exclusion and discrimination, offering rights to consultation, representation and accessible information.

In contrast, the MAID regime, especially after the expansion through Bill C-7, has been criticized for normalizing assisted death as a response to suffering caused by lack of access to medical, disability and social support, rather than addressing the underlying barriers and systemic failures that the ACA promises to remove.

Research shows that the odds for having unmet needs for health-care services, medications, assistive aids or devices, or help with everyday activities increases with disability severity. A coalition of disability rights organizations and two personally affected individuals have filed a Charter challenge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice opposing Track 2 of the MAID law, which extends eligibility to people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

Narrative accounts like the ones below, and research in bioethics, highlights that many people seek MAID not because they are terminally ill, but because they face poverty, inadequate housing and lack of care. This reveals a troubling contradiction: while the ACA proclaims a commitment to inclusion and support, MAID often functions as a default solution for those failed by the very systems the ACA aims to fix.

The stories told by these two policies — on one hand, the promise of full inclusion and on the other, the normalization of state-facilitated death for those marginalized by inadequate support — reveal a profound tension in Canada’s approach to disability rights and social responsibility.

Troubling cases

Cases are emerging where people access MAID due to intolerable suffering caused by systemic failures. There is a story of 66-year-old Normand Meunier who requested medical assistance in dying following a hospital stay last year that left him with a severe bedsore. He died a few weeks later.

The coroner’s report on Meunier’s case highlights the need for guaranteed and prompt access to therapeutic mattresses for patients with spinal cord injuries. Québec coroner Dave Kimpton also calls on the province to create an advisory committee aimed at preventing and treating bedsores with new tools and training. Kimpton observes:

“It is now undeniable to me, after this research, that the body of someone with a spinal cord injury speaks a different language, and that health-care professionals must learn to decode it if they are to anticipate and effectively manage medical complications.”

The stories of disabled people advocating for life-saving treatment is an example of continuing devaluation of disabled lives. Jeremy Bray of Manitoba pleaded for continued coverage of medication for his Type 2 spinal muscular atrophy. In British Columbia, Charleigh Pollock’s family fought for continued coverage of the medication for her neurological disorder. These stories individualize disability and promote a medical model approach.

Disability justice, as championed by the late activist Alice Wong and her Disability Visibility project, insists that storytelling is not “add-on” advocacy — it is evidence that exposes how policies like MAID, income-testing and institutionalization feel on the ground. Wong’s work demonstrates that disabled people’s stories are a powerful form of resistance, providing evidence that disabled people exist in societies that often erase them.

In her book Dispatches from Disabled Country, activist, educator and researcher Catherine Frazee provides an alternative vision of living with a disability. She uses a metaphor of Disabled Country to describe a “place of refuge for outlaws from the rules of fitting in a place where the value of human life is intrinsic, not contingent on a place that yields itself to our being and our capacity to flourish.”

Re-examining Canada’s disability policy story

From a policy-research perspective, understanding these narrative dynamics is essential for evaluating the effects of laws such as the ACA and for anticipating the implications of MAID expansion.

Scholars argue that policy narratives influence everything from budget priorities to program eligibility criteria and institutional cultures. They also shape how disabled people imagine their futures — an increasingly important dimension of well-being research.

As Canada reflects on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, emerging evidence underscores the importance of aligning disability policy with the lived realities documented through research, monitoring processes and personal accounts.

Examining the narratives embedded in policy frameworks can help clarify how laws and institutions either support or hinder long-term flourishing for disabled people, and can offer insights into how stories told in policies ultimately align with societal values.

Alfiya Battalova 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. Disability rights and services are shaped by the narratives embedded in policies like the Accessible Canada Act and MAID – https://theconversation.com/disability-rights-and-services-are-shaped-by-the-narratives-embedded-in-policies-like-the-accessible-canada-act-and-maid-271094

December 3, 2025

Zero waste in schools? Why factoring in labour is essential

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mitchell McLarnon, Assistant Professor, Adult Education, Concordia University

Over the last decade, I’ve worked closely with Montréal educators and students to better understand how climate change education occurs in schools — and how climate change curricula and policies shape everyday experiences there.

In 2019, as part of a wider climate action plan, Montréal ambitiously committed to transitioning to zero waste by 2030.

With hopes of further reducing landfill waste, 22 schools across four school boards in Montréal were promised compost collection as part of the city’s zero-waste plan.

I interviewed three teachers from three different schools, one principal from another school and a school board employee to hear their analyses of how this program unfolded. The research suggests that to effectively expand composting and zero-waste climate action through schools, the labour of educators and other school workers must be factored into a “just transition.”

As a conceptual framework and practice, a “just transition” is an approach for connecting mechanisms of climate action with social fairness.

Importance of ‘just transition’

Montréal has goals to use a zero-waste model to reduce its emissions because food waste accounts for 15 to 20 per cent of emissions in the city. The aim is to ensure food waste is either being composted or that still-edible food finds its way to people experiencing food insecurity.

As communities grapple with climate change mitigation and adaption, efforts to realize global and local climate policy ambitions like zero waste are often premised upon the concept of a just transition.

Just transitions typically seek to reconcile environmental and social issues with a low-carbon and fossil-fuel-free future. Much of the research on just transitions encircles worker and labour rights from the energy, manufacturing, transport and related sectors as they move toward zero-emission outcomes.

My research points to teachers and other educational workers as key contributors for policy development toward a just transition. Because ecological and social crises are constructed and reproduced through power imbalances, a just transition away from fossil fuels and ecologically destructive practices also needs to be a departure from unequal and extractive ways of relating.

Zero waste by 2030?

During the pilot phase of the zero-waste plan’s implementation in schools, educational workers I partnered with stated they experienced a top-down policy implementation that created additional labour and misunderstandings while undercutting existing school composting programs and other established processes.

School board and city policymakers did not initially consider who would actually take on different compost-related tasks like sorting and transporting waste, and how this might intersect with labour relations and collective bargaining agreements.

As such, teachers and other school staff were compelled to take on additional and onerous tasks, such as organizing waste across the school, raising awareness and communicating with city workers.

For example, one participant said the only support and resources offered to their school by the city came in the form of two large composting bins and a short workshop on what goes into the city’s compost bins. They also felt there was an assumption that the compost would simply sort itself when someone needed to be present to ensure that organic matter ended up in the right place.

When the implementation of city-mediated school composting didn’t work well, some teachers intervened. In different schools, each having its own set of patterns, behaviours and peculiarities, varied responses emerged to the composting program.

One educator opted to work with the city on structuring the kind of compost support that would be pertinent for their school, while another motivated their students to participate during instructional time.

Teachers as key players

Increasingly, climate change education is included in provincial curricula. Along with this are mounting pressures on teachers to add climate change content into existing courses. In this way, teachers are being positioned as key players in addressing the global climate crisis.

Unfortunately, decades of austerity reforms to public education are now coupled with a growing list of unmet social, environmental and health needs (for example, pertaining to child and youth mental health, food insecurity and nutrition) that schools are tasked with addressing. Yet teachers are not structurally supported to take on this important new work.

It’s important that teachers and other educational workers be included in any large-scale policy implementation addressing students or educational spaces. For example, beyond the zero-waste project, the Canadian government announced a National School Food Policy in 2024 to address hunger and health inequities among Canadian youth, boost their mental and physical wellness and promote environmentally sustainable practices. Teacher expertise is crucial for equitable outcomes.

Recognizing people’s labour

Montréal’s 2024 zero-waste report (Montréal objectif
zéro déchet) notes that the city now has 418 educational institutions with organic waste pickup. However, how much school waste is being diverted through the program and how it fits into the larger city’s zero-waste plans are unclear.

Policymakers mean well, but municipal policies need stronger social and structural supports to help stakeholders meet climate-action goals.

If our governments are indeed committed to connecting social justice and climate action, then they should also provide additional funding and labour to local schools to acknowledge the immense efforts required to develop and sustain these kinds of climate policies.

To sketch out where we might begin, I encourage governments to:

Realize that climate policy like composting and notions of zero waste in schools are dependent on the labour and care of students and multiple education workers, including custodians, teachers, day-care workers, principals and others who fell outside of the scope of my research;
Engage, recognize and compensate teachers and other school staff for their time, feedback and expertise on issues that impact them;
Incorporate teacher, student and school-based reactions to proposed projects’ overall goals. Use their input to make the proposed budget realistic and relevant;
Commit to transparency that allows local schools, teachers, education workers and organizers to receive meaningful and detailed updates on climate change mitigation data, benchmarks and budgetary allocations; and
Rather than contracting or using “experts” from outside of a school and its community, work with people in the education sector to hire local climate-engaged teachers and school staff to manage the initiatives.

All climate change mitigation efforts from cities, schools and individuals ought to be applauded and encouraged for attempting to better improve and adapt to the current climate crisis.

But as a society, we shouldn’t pretend that ineffective responses are good enough — instead, climate-engaged educators and policymakers must resolve to learn from experience and insight to improve responsive policy and practice.

Mitchell McLarnon receives funding from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec, le Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec and the Social Sciences Research Council of Canada

– ref. Zero waste in schools? Why factoring in labour is essential – https://theconversation.com/zero-waste-in-schools-why-factoring-in-labour-is-essential-263689

December 3, 2025

Sudan’s protesters built networks to fight a tyrant – today they save lives in a war

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Lovise Aalen, Research Professor, Political Science, Chr. Michelsen Institute

Sudan has a long history of civilian-led resistance, with young people playing a key role. For example, informal neighbourhood networks established in 2013 to survive repression under three decades of authoritarian rule have since transformed into vibrant support systems.

These groups helped mobilise mass protests in 2018. They have provided a lifeline for communities in the ongoing civil war, which started in 2023.

During the mass protests, youth-led networks organised political sit-ins and demonstrations against the Islamist regime of Omar al-Bashir. They were ultimately successful in overthrowing a 30-year dictatorship.

We are researchers in the fields of anthropology and political science, studying youth mobilisation in authoritarian states. In a recent paper, we studied the emergence and role of Sudan’s neighbourhood committees and informal networks. These became the backbone of protests.

We found that young people built grassroots networks through engagement in different forms of voluntarism and charity. They built resistance structures under the repressive environment of the Islamist regime. Later (around 2013 or so), these developed into neighbourhood committees organising resistance underground.

And since the outbreak of war in April 2023, Emergency Response Rooms, which are community-led networks, have been providing crucial humanitarian relief.

African youth mobilisation is often seen as an outcome of tension between an urban underclass and a repressive state. We argue that in Sudan, a collaboration between different classes, including the middle class, has been key in the fight against autocratic governance.

We found that the committees enabled protests. They played a vital role in organising emergency responses during times of crises.

Building the resistance

Under the repressive policies of the al-Bashir regime, political activities were not allowed in public spaces. Opposition was heavily suppressed.

Despite this, young people found innovative ways to create political spaces. Neighbourhood committees became sites of resistance, emerging as a critical infrastructure for grassroots mobilisation.

The committees represent a unique blend of political and practical action. They serve a dual functionality – mobilising for change while addressing immediate community needs. This underscores the potential of informal, decentralised networks to drive both political and social transformation.

They were initially formed during the 2013 anti-austerity protests as neighbourhoods’ underground cells. These committees were informal, hyper-local networks of politically engaged youth.

Over time, they evolved into organised structures. They facilitated protests, provided essential services and emergency responses during crises. In the 2018 uprising, they coordinated logistics. They also provided real-time updates through social media.

The committees also supported a sit-in at the military headquarters in April 2019. This became a focal point of the uprising. This sit-in presented a vibrant community space where youth experienced a sense of political togetherness. It featured art exhibitions, public debates and cultural performances, creating a shared vision of a better Sudan.

The civil war

The war between the army and a paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces, has put more than 30 million people – about two-thirds of the population – in need of humanitarian aid. This has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Conflict and blockades have meant international efforts to send aid hasn’t always been possible.

During the transitional period after al-Bashir’s exit and the 2023 war, the committees transformed into emergency response rooms. These provided critical services, such as healthcare, food and water. These rooms were run by the same youth networks that had led the protests. They drew on their pre-war experiences of grassroots mobilisation and humanitarian aid.

Amid a devastating civil war, they carry on the idea of political togetherness. Bonds of trust, necessity and solidarity established years ago have transcended ethnic or class divisions. They have created civilian resilience against state repression.

Lessons in resilience

The committees’ ability to adapt to new challenges underscores the importance of grassroots networks in both political and humanitarian contexts.

The concept of political togetherness, as seen in Sudan, reveals how temporary alliances across class, gender and ethnic divides can create a cohesive force for change.

This has implications for understanding youth movements globally, particularly where formal political spaces are inaccessible or untrustworthy.

The adaptability of Sudan’s neighbourhood committees illustrates the resilience of grassroots networks. By stepping into the void left by state failure, these committees provide essential services and also reinforce their legitimacy within their communities.

This suggests that such networks can serve as a foundation for future governance models, especially in post-conflict reconstruction efforts.

However, our study also reveals risks associated with informal and flexible structures.

The lack of formal governance mechanisms within these committees leaves them vulnerable to co-optation, fragmentation and the erosion of trust over time.

Without proper institutional support, the cohesion and effectiveness of these networks may wane. This is especially when the crises or transitions are prolonged.

What next?

In a post-war Sudan, both the Sudanese government and the international community should aim to preserve the emergency response rooms’ autonomy and grassroots nature. This should happen while providing resources and institutional support to enhance their capacity for community service and crisis response.

Activists within Sudan and similar contexts should continue to build on the model of political togetherness. This means fostering inclusive alliances that transcend traditional divides.

By prioritising both political mobilisation and community service, these grassroots networks can maintain the momentum for change while addressing immediate needs.

The humanitarian efforts that the Sudanese people invented are based on previous experience in civil engagement. The current call for a civilian government, which was also a demand by the protesters during the 2018 uprisings, is rooted in political togetherness. It is also linked to the long history of civilian governance practices at the grassroots level.

Lovise Aalen receives funding from the Research Council of Norway (grant no. ES620468) and the Sudan-Norway Academic Collaboration (SNAC). She is a member of the board of the Rafto Foundation for Human Rights.

Mai Azzam receives funding from the Bayreuth International Graduate School for African Studies (BIGSAS) and from the Gender and Diversity Office (GDO) of the Africa Multiple Cluster of Excellence, University of Bayreuth, Germany.

– ref. Sudan’s protesters built networks to fight a tyrant – today they save lives in a war – https://theconversation.com/sudans-protesters-built-networks-to-fight-a-tyrant-today-they-save-lives-in-a-war-270176

December 3, 2025

Is anyone really misled by the term ‘veggie burger’? Our research suggests consumers are savvy

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Friederike Döbbe, Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in Business & Society, School of Management, University of Bath

The European parliament recently backed changes to the rules around the labelling and marketing of plant-based meat alternatives. New definitions specify that words like “burger”, “sausage” or “steak”, refer exclusively to animal protein. To get to the meat of the matter, this may mean that Europeans’ favourite soy-based patty can no longer be called a burger.

The vote took place amid a long-running European debate over the designation of plant-based alternatives to animal protein and the associated “linguistic gymnastics”.

A previous proposal to prohibit comparisons between dairy and plant-based foods was rejected. But the EU did decide to reserve the term “dairy” for products derived from animal milk. As a result, companies must now refer to their products as “almond drink” or “plant-based slices”, for example.

In the case of meat, the labelling propositions are part of a broader set of amendments to EU agricultural and food market regulations. These are supposed to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain.
Farmers in Europe have long expressed concerns that plant-based substitutes could threaten traditional farming practices.

But what about the role of the consumer in debates over how meat and its plant-based substitutes should be labelled?

Before the vote, MEPs had discussed a perceived lack of transparency for consumers. It was suggested that terms such as “veggie burger” or “tofu steak” obscure the distinction between meat and plant-based or lab-grown alternatives. These ambiguities, it was argued, could confuse or mislead consumers.

While member states must still negotiate the amendments detailing the labelling changes, the consequences could be significant. Some retailers, like supermarket chain Lidl, are working to increase sales of plant-based foods. This aligns with what the science says about sustainable diets.

After initial growth in the market for plant-based alternatives, sales have plateaued. Many producers fear they may now also face additional costs associated with rebranding and relabelling their products.

In response, a coalition of food producers and retailers have argued that avoiding familiar terms like “steak” or “burger” could actually create more confusion among consumers.

But how misled are consumers really?

Despite concerns on both sides of the debate, our research shows a different reality – one in which many consumers are much more knowledgeable than they are made out to be.

We studied how people reacted to a marketing campaign by Swedish chicken producer Kronfågel. The campaign implied that climate action is the consumer’s responsibility, suggesting that shoppers should switch from beef to chicken to “do something simple for the climate”.

As part of the campaign, an emissions calculation underscored this shift, even leaving the impression it could offset air travel – based on just one meal. While the campaign drew from standardised carbon footprinting, the calculation left more questions than answers.

The ‘eat chicken, fly more’ message didn’t land well with consumers.

Through analysis of comments on social media and complaints to the Swedish consumer protection agency, we studied how people reacted to the campaign – rejecting it vehemently. They took issue for a range of reasons, including the corporation’s use of climate science and debates about what constitutes sustainable food consumption and what does not.

The various sources of disagreement illustrate the polarisation over food consumption and production. Many people were critical of the suggestion to “offset” flying by eating chicken, while others questioned the appropriateness of a chicken producer, with suppliers in the agricultural sector, demonising beef production.

The company responded by saying that its intention was to “help consumers navigate” the difficulties of lowering their consumption-related carbon footprint. It also said that it took consumer criticisms about the campaign being misleading to heart and would learn from them. We know of no investigation into the campaign, but we sense a shift towards softer messaging more broadly as companies’ fears of greenwashing accusations increase.

Our research shows that many consumers are well informed about their choices, actively scrutinising food products about their health effects, climate impact and production processes. And in debating the advantages and disadvantages of meat and plant-based alternatives, we found that they would openly disagree with each other.

These discussions reveal that there are many relevant perspectives and values involved in choosing the “best” diet – and consumption choices are deeply tied to identity, emotion and culture. In light of this complexity, our research serves as a warning for businesses and other organisations, including political parties, to approach climate messaging with care and to make sure their claims are credible.

So what then to make of the labelling debate? It is of course important to safeguard consumers from harmful or deceptive marketing. However, research has illustrated how powerful people and organisations may stereotype citizens. This may be, for instance, as “responsible”, “misled” or “duped” consumers – often the purpose is to serve their own commercial or political interests.

Politicians, food producers and retailers should be cautious about claims that consumers cannot differentiate meat from plant-based alternatives. Shoppers are often much more switched on than some in the EU debate suggest.

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. Is anyone really misled by the term ‘veggie burger’? Our research suggests consumers are savvy – https://theconversation.com/is-anyone-really-misled-by-the-term-veggie-burger-our-research-suggests-consumers-are-savvy-270635

December 3, 2025

What ancient Athens teaches us about debate – and dissent – in the social media age

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sara Kells, Director of Program Management at IE Digital Learning and Adjunct Professor of Humanities, IE University

Monument to Socrates and Confucius in Athens, Greece. Collection Maykova/Shutterstock

In ancient Athens, the agora was a public forum where citizens could gather to deliberate, disagree and decide together. It was governed by deep-rooted social principles that ensured lively, inclusive, healthy debate.

Today, our public squares have moved online to the digital feeds and forums of social media. These spaces mostly lack communal rules and codes – instead, algorithms decide which voices rise above the clamour, and which are buried beneath it.

The optimistic idea of the internet being a radically democratic space feels like a distant memory. Our conversations are now shaped by opaque systems designed to maximise engagement, not understanding. Algorithmic popularity, not accuracy or fairness, determines reach.

This has created a paradox. We enjoy unprecedented freedom to speak, yet our speech is constrained by forces beyond our control. Loud voices dominate. Nuanced voices fade. Outrage travels faster than reflection. In this landscape, equal participation is all but unattainable, and honest speech can carry a very genuine risk.

Somewhere between the stone steps of Athens and the screens of today, we have lost something essential to our democratic life and dialogue: the balance between equality of voice and the courage to speak the truth, even when it is dangerous. Two ancient Athenian ideals of free speech, isegoria and parrhesia, can help us find it again.

Ancient ideas that still guide us

In Athens, isegoria referred to the right to speak, but it did not stop at mere entitlement or access. It signalled a shared responsibility, a commitment to fairness, and the idea that public life should not be governed by the powerful alone.

The term parrhesia can be defined as boldness or freedom in speaking. Again, there is nuance; parrhesia is not reckless candour, but ethical courage. It referred to the duty to speak truthfully, even when that truth provoked discomfort or danger.

These ideals were not abstract principles. They were civic practices, learned and reinforced through participation. Athenians understood that democratic speech was both a right and a responsibility, and that the quality of public life depended on the character of its citizens.

The digital sphere has changed the context but not the importance of these virtues. Access alone is insufficient. Without norms that support equality of voice and encourage truth-telling, free speech becomes vulnerable to distortion, intimidation and manipulation.

The emergence of AI-generated content intensifies these pressures. Citizens must now navigate not only human voices, but also machine-produced ones that blur the boundaries of credibility and intent.

Leer más:
The ancient Greeks invented democracy – and warned us how it could go horribly wrong

When being heard becomes a privilege

On contemporary platforms, visibility is distributed unequally and often unpredictably. Algorithms tend to amplify ideas that trigger strong emotions, regardless of their value. Communities that already face marginalisation can find themselves unheard, while those who thrive on provocation can dominate the conversation.

On the internet, isegoria is challenged in a new way. Few people are formally excluded from it, but many are structurally invisible. The right to speak remains, but the opportunity to be heard is uneven.

At the same time, parrhesia becomes more precarious. Speaking with honesty, especially about contested issues, may expose individuals to harassment, misrepresentation or reputational harm. The cost of courage has increased, while the incentives to remain silent, or to retreat into echo chambers, have grown.

Leer más:
Social media can cause stress in real life – our ‘digital thermometer’ helps track it

Building citizens, not audiences

The Athenians understood that democratic virtues do not emerge on their own. Isegoria and parrhesia were sustained through habits learned over time: listening as a civic duty, speaking as a shared responsibility, and recognising that public life depended on the character of its participants. In our era, the closest equivalent is civic education, the space where citizens practise the dispositions that democratic speech requires.

By making classrooms into small-scale agoras, students can learn to inhabit the ethical tension between equality of voice and integrity in speech. Activities that invite shared dialogue, equitable turn-taking and attention to quieter voices help them experience isegoria, not as an abstract right but as a lived practice of fairness.

In practice, this means holding discussions and debates where students have to verify information, articulate and justify arguments, revise their views publicly, or engage respectfully with opposing arguments. These skills all cultivate the intellectual courage associated with parrhesia.

Importantly, these experiences do not prescribe what students should believe. Instead, they rehearse the habits that make belief accountable to others: the discipline of listening, the willingness to offer reasons, and the readiness to refine a position in light of new understanding. Such practices restore a sense that democratic participation is not merely expressive, but relational and built through shared effort.

What civic education ultimately offers is practice. It creates miniature agoras where students rehearse the skills they need as citizens: speaking clearly, listening generously, questioning assumptions and engaging with those who think differently.

These habits counter the pressures of the digital world. They slow down conversation in spaces designed for speed. They introduce reflection into environments engineered for reaction. They remind us that democratic discourse is not a performance, but a shared responsibility.

Leer más:
‘Historical time’ helps students truly understand the complexity of the past – and how they fit into it

Returning to the spirit of the agora

The challenge of our era is not only technological but educational. No algorithm can teach responsibility, courage or fairness. These are qualities formed through experience, reflection and practice. Athenians understood this intuitively, because their democracy relied on ordinary citizens learning how to speak as equals and with integrity.

We face the same challenge today. If we want digital public squares that support democratic life, we must prepare citizens who know how to inhabit them wisely. Civic education is not optional enrichment – it is the training ground for the habits that sustain freedom.

The agora may have changed form, but its purpose endures. To speak and listen as equals, with honesty, courage and care, is still the heart of democracy. And this is something we can teach.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Sara Kells no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. What ancient Athens teaches us about debate – and dissent – in the social media age – https://theconversation.com/what-ancient-athens-teaches-us-about-debate-and-dissent-in-the-social-media-age-270100

December 3, 2025

Like night and day: why Test cricket changes so much under lights

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania

Cricket’s first Test match was played between Australia and England in 1877.

The next Ashes match, starting at the Gabba in Brisbane on Thursday, will be Test number 2,611.

It will also be the 25th day-night Test.

Many people criticised the introduction of day-night Tests – including challenges posted by the pink ball (not red, as used in day clashes), visibility issues during twilight, and concerns that cricket is putting commercial interests ahead of the sport’s integrity.

But just how are day-night Tests different from traditional day matches?

History of day-night Tests

Australia and New Zealand played the first official day-night Test at the Adelaide Oval in 2015.

Day-night matches were introduced to increase the popularity of Test cricket and to play it at a time when it could attract larger crowds and a greater primetime audience on television.

From a commercial angle, the move has worked. Evening sessions draw larger crowds and television audiences.

Australia has embraced day-night Tests more than any other country, playing in 14 of the 24 completed day-night Tests. England is next with seven.

Australia has also hosted 13 of the day-night Tests, eight of them in Adelaide. India is next with three.

Cricket Australia and various state governments negotiate summer schedules and venues, with only Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart hosting day-night Tests so far.

Australian dominance

The Australian team’s familiarity with day-night cricket may partly explain its outstanding record of 13 wins and one loss.

In contrast, England has only won two of its seven day-night Tests, losing all three against Australia.

Familiarity and more opportunities have contributed to Australian dominance of day-night Tests. The top four leading wicket-takers in day-night Tests are Australian.

Mitchell Starc leads (81 wickets in 14 Tests) while the best by an English player is the now-retired James Anderson with 24 wickets in seven Tests.

Australia also has the top five run scorers in day-night Tests.

Marnus Labuschagne (958 runs in nine Tests) is the current leader and has the chance to be the first player to score 1,000 runs in day-night encounters. Joe Root (501 runs in seven games) is the top Englishman at sixth on the list.

How things change under lights

Day-night games have several key differences to day Tests, such as the ball, the conditions and tactics used.

To make day-night Tests work, manufacturers had to develop a ball that’s visible under floodlights, yet durable enough for Test conditions.

Traditional red balls are too difficult to see at night, whereas white balls (used in shorter cricket formats) become dirty and discoloured too quickly.

After years of experimentation with orange and yellow versions, the pink ball emerged as the best compromise. It was trialled in domestic competitions and one-day internationals before being used in Tests.

Batting and bowling under lights is very different from daytime play because the pink ball behaves differently.

Its thicker coating keeps it shiny for longer, which gives fast bowlers more swing and seam movement.

This is most obvious when the ball is new and also during the twilight session, when dew can add extra moisture to the pitch.

Additionally, more grass is often left on the pitch to help reduce damage to the ball.

This all makes life more difficult for batters.

Spinners, though, often struggle because the ball’s harder coating and extra dew reduce grip and turn.

Players have also spoken about the difficulty of adjusting their eyes as daylight fades and floodlights take over. Fielders can also lose sight of the ball against the dusky sky.

In day Tests, the average runs per wicket increases slightly from session one to session three, with scoring rates also increasing slightly across the day. This pattern suggests batting becomes easier as the ball softens and the pitch flattens, while bowlers tire and conditions remain stable across daylight hours.

In contrast, session two is the easiest to bat in during day-night Tests. Batting is much harder in session one (when the ball is often new) and in session three under lights.

Pink ball scoring rates are similar to daytime matches but bowlers strike more often.

What about tactics?

Teams have learned to plan around the evening session (session three), when the fading light and cooling air can make batting harder.

Captains often time their declarations or new-ball spells to coincide with the twilight period and choose to bat first.

Fast bowlers in particular relish the chance to attack under lights and many batters say adapting footwork and timing against the moving pink ball is more difficult.

Comparing results

In short, day-night Tests are harder for batters. Fewer runs are scored, wickets fall more quickly, and games generally finish earlier.

When comparing all Tests from the past ten years, teams in day-night matches score about 150 fewer runs per game and bowlers need ten fewer balls to take each wicket.

Day-night Tests also tend to end with a result sooner, with matches on average being around 50 overs shorter. Notably, none of the 24 day-night Tests played so far has ended in a draw, compared with 14% of day Tests.

Thursday’s second Ashes Test at the Gabba will be the fourth day-night Test at the Queensland ground.

The Australians lost the previous day-night Gabba Test, to the West Indies last summer, which will give England some hope after their disastrous loss in the opening Ashes clash in Perth.

– ref. Like night and day: why Test cricket changes so much under lights – https://theconversation.com/like-night-and-day-why-test-cricket-changes-so-much-under-lights-267320

December 3, 2025

Kim Kardashian’s brain scan shows ‘low activity’ and holes. I’m a brain expert and I have questions

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sarah Hellewell, Senior Research Fellow, The Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science, and Research Fellow, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University

A recent episode of the The Kardashians shared some startling news about Kim Kardashian’s brain.

Discussing Kim’s recent brain scan, her doctor pointed out “holes” on her brain scan he said were related to “low activity”.

While this sounds incredibly sad and concerning, doctors and scientists have doubts about the technology used and its growing commercialisation.

I study brain health, including imaging the brain to look for early signs of disease.

Here’s what I think about this technology, whether it can really find holes in our brains, and if should we be getting these scans to check our own.

What can imaging really tell you?

Earlier this year, Kim was diagnosed with a brain aneurysm, or widening of an artery, after an MRI.

The type and extent of this aneurysm is unclear. And there doesn’t seem to be a clear link between her aneurysm and this recent news.

But we do know the latest announcement came after a different type of imaging, known as single-photon emission tomography (known as SPECT).

This involves injecting radioactive chemicals into the blood and using a special camera which creates 3D images of organs, including the brain. This type of imaging was developed in 1976 and was first used in the brain in 1990.

SPECT scans can be used to track and measure blood flow in organs, and are used by doctors to diagnose and guide treatment for conditions affecting the brain, heart and bones.

While SPECT does has some clinical use under limited circumstances, there is not good evidence for SPECT scans outside these purposes.

Enter the world of celebrities and private clinics

The clinic featured in The Kardashian episode offers
SPECT to its clients, including the Kardashian-Jenners.

SPECT images have mass appeal due to their aesthetically pleasing pastel colours, widespread promotion on social media, and claims these scans can be used to diagnose any number of conditions. These include stress (as in Kim’s case), Alzheimer’s, ADHD, brain injury, eating disorders, sleep problems, anger and even marital problems.

But the scientific evidence to support the use of SPECT as a diagnostic tool for an individual and for so many conditions has led many doctors, scientists and former patients to criticise the work of such clinics as scientifically unfounded and “snake oil”.

Scans could potentially show changes in blood flow, though these may be common across conditions. Blood flow can also vary depending on the area of the brain examined, time of day, and even how well-rested a person is.

Areas in which blood flow is reduced have been described as “holes”, “dents” or “dings” on such SPECT scans.

In Kim’s case, this reduced blood flow was explained as “low activity” of the brain. Her doctor suggested the frontal lobes of her brain were not working as they should be, due to chronic stress.

But there is no scientific evidence to link these changes in blood flow to stress or functional outcomes. In fact, there is no single technique with scientific support to link changes in brain function to symptoms or outcomes for an individual.

These scans aren’t cheap

Doctors have several concerns about people without symptoms seeking SPECT as a diagnostic tool. First, people are injected with radioactive materials without a defined clinical reason.

Patients may also undergo treatment, or be recommended to take particular supplements, based on a diagnosis from SPECT that is scientifically unfounded.

And as SPECT scans are not recognised as a medical requirement, patients pay upwards of US$3,000 for a SPECT scan, with dietary supplements costing extra.

Do I need a scan like this?

While imaging tools such as SPECT and MRI may be genuinely used to diagnose many conditions, there is no medical need for healthy people to have them.

Such scans for healthy people are often described as “opportunistic”, with a double meaning: they may possibly find something in a person with no symptoms, but at several thousand dollars a scan, they take advantage of people’s health anxieties and can lead to unnecessary use of the health-care system.

It can be tempting to follow in the footsteps of the stars and look for diagnoses via popularised and widely advertised scans. But it’s important to remember the best medical care is based on solid scientific evidence, provided by experts who use best-practice tools based on decades of research.

Sarah Hellewell receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund for MRI-based research.

– ref. Kim Kardashian’s brain scan shows ‘low activity’ and holes. I’m a brain expert and I have questions – https://theconversation.com/kim-kardashians-brain-scan-shows-low-activity-and-holes-im-a-brain-expert-and-i-have-questions-271083

December 3, 2025

Why we remember the source of an opinion better than the source of a fact – new research

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Daniel Mirny, Assistant Professor of Marketing, IESE Business School (Universidad de Navarra)

In public discourse, we spend a great deal of collective energy debating the accuracy of facts. We fact-check politicians, monitor social media for misinformation, and prioritise data-driven decision-making in our workplaces. This focus is vital; the distinction between truth and falsehood is the bedrock of a functioning society.

However, by focusing so intently on factual accuracy, we risk overlooking another fundamental distinction: the difference between a fact and an opinion.

A statement of fact is relatively easy to verify: it is either true or not. But a claim’s objectivity – is it a verifiable objective statement or a subjective expression of belief? – is far more complex. This is why our minds process and encode opinions in a fundamentally different way to facts.

The stakes of objectivity

Objectivity is not a mere linguistic nuance; it lies at the foundation of important policy and legal debates. For instance, in defamation lawsuits against US media figures like Tucker Carlson and Sidney Powell, legal defences have hinged on whether statements could “reasonably be interpreted as facts” or were merely “opinions.” Similarly, social media platforms have struggled with whether to fact-check posts labelled as opinions, a policy that has recently complicated efforts to combat climate change denialism.

The distinction matters because it frames how we disagree. When a claim is clearly an opinion – for instance, “the current administration is failing the working class” – one may agree or disagree, but we understand that there is room for disagreement and neither side is inherently right nor wrong.

However, a factual statement – “The official US poverty rate was 10.6% in 2024” – leaves little room for debate. It necessitates the existence of a source, and an objectively correct response.

As a result, beliefs about claim objectivity can stifle receptiveness to conflicting perspectives. This, in turn, fuels interpersonal conflict and drives political polarisation.

The information we value

Despite these high stakes, there has been limited research on the cognitive implications of claim objectivity. In a recent series of 13 pre-registered experiments involving 7,510 participants, conducted with UCLA Anderson’s Stephen Spiller and published in the Journal of Consumer Research, we investigated how claim objectivity affects a specific and crucial type of memory: source memory.

Our findings suggest that the human mind does not treat facts and opinions equally. When it comes to remembering who said what, objective facts are at a distinct disadvantage.

We can illustrate this with an example. A doctor makes the factual claim that “the measles vaccine prevented an estimated 56 million deaths between 2000 and 2021.” Another doctor might say something similar, but give an opinion instead of data: “I believe vaccination is an easy way to prevent unnecessary suffering.”

In our research, we tested this dynamic, using medical claims about a fictitious disease to control for prior knowledge. We found that people are significantly more likely to remember the original source of an opinion than that of a fact.

Crucially, this is not because opinions are simply “catchier” or easier to remember in general. Across all 13 of our experiments, we also measured “recognition memory” – the ability to remember that a statement was made at all. We found no consistent difference in recognition memory between facts and opinions. Participants remembered seeing factual claims and opinions equally well. However, they struggled to link the factual claims back to the correct source.

Leer más:
The people we like can influence the connections our memory makes

Encoding the source

Why does this disconnect occur? Source memory is a form of associative memory. It relies on the brain’s ability to bind distinct components of an experience – what was said and who said it – into a coherent web of interconnected elements during the initial encoding of information.

We propose that the strength of this binding depends on one thing: what the claim tells us about its source.

Both facts and opinions provide information about the source, but they do so to different degrees. If a political candidate says “The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was created by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,” we learn that they know about legislative history. But if that same candidate says, “I believe shuttering USAID has been a moral catastrophe for our nation and the world,” we learn far more about them. We learn about their values, their priorities, and their stance on America’s role in the world.

Because opinions generally provide more information about the speaker than facts do, our brains encode stronger links between sources and opinions than between sources and facts.

Studies in developmental psychology and neuroscience support this. Research has found that when encoding opinions compared to facts, there is greater activation in the brain regions involved in theory of mind – the ability to represent the thoughts and mental states of others.

When we hear an opinion, we are building a richer mental model of the speaker. This additional social information strengthens the associative links formed during encoding.

Leer más:
Jane Austen and theory of mind: how literary fiction sharpens your ‘mindreading’ skills

But what happens when opinions tell us nothing about a source? We tested this mechanism by presenting participants with book reviews. When participants believed the sources were the authors of the reviews, they remembered the sources of opinions far better than facts. However, when we told participants the sources were merely “re-tellers” reading randomly selected reviews, the source memory advantage for opinions disappeared, performing on par with facts.

We also tested source memory for facts that reveal something about a source, such as personal statements like “I was born in Virginia”. In these cases, source memory was just as accurate as it was for opinions like “chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla”. It was also more accurate than for general facts about the world, such as “Stockholm is the capital of Sweden”.

The visibility paradox

These findings present a major challenge for experts and leaders. Authorities are often advised to “stick to the facts” to maintain credibility, but our findings suggest that by presenting only facts, experts risk being forgotten as the sources of important information.

This may pose a problem for the credibility of information – in an age of rampant misinformation and growing polarisation, remembering who said what is increasingly important to avoid conflict and ensure accuracy.

For experts, the goal is often to anchor facts in reality. Our research suggests that sharing opinions can help people to accurately attribute relevant information to credible sources. By sharing what they believe about the data – rather than just the data itself – experts can provide the social cues that our brains need to more strongly bind the information to its source. While facts play an important role in the battle against misinformation, opinions may be just as critical – and they don’t go unnoticed.

This research was conducted in part thanks to the generous support of the UCLA Anderson Morrison Center for Marketing and Data Analytics.

– ref. Why we remember the source of an opinion better than the source of a fact – new research – https://theconversation.com/why-we-remember-the-source-of-an-opinion-better-than-the-source-of-a-fact-new-research-270579

December 3, 2025

Lasting peace in Ukraine may hinge on independent monitors – yet Trump’s 28-point plan barely mentions them

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter J. Quaranto, Visiting Professor of the Practice, University of Notre Dame

Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting with U.S. representatives Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner (both not pictured) on Dec. 2, 2025. Alexander Kazakov/ AFP via Getty Images

Start-and-stop negotiations for a deal to end the war in Ukraine have been injected with new intensity after U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled a 28-point peace proposal.

It is far from clear whether the latest flurry of diplomacy, which on Dec. 2, 2025, saw Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, will force the warring parties any closer to a resolution in the grinding, nearly four-year-long conflict.

Yet even if negotiators can broker a welcome deal to stop the current fighting, they will immediately be faced with the challenges of sustaining and implementing it.

And many peace accords fall apart quickly and are followed by new waves of violence.

Our research as scholars focusing on peace monitoring and Ukraine suggests that one thing is key in managing mistrust between parties involved in any peace plan: multifaceted third-party monitoring.

The University of Notre Dame’s Peace Accords Matrix, – the largest collection of implementation data on intrastate peace agreements – shows clear evidence that built-in safeguards, such as monitoring and verification by third parties, can increase success rates in peace agreements by more than 29% – meaning no resumption of fighting in the first five years of an accord.

Peace Accords Matrix team members regularly provide support to ongoing peace processes and in the design and implementation of agreements. We believe the program’s research could be applied to the challenges facing future peace in Ukraine.

Lessons from Colombia

The Peace Accords Matrix team’s work in Colombia is instructive on how an effective monitoring mechanism could be shaped in Ukraine.

Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies was tasked with carrying out on-the-ground and real-time monitoring of the 2016 peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, better known as FARC.

The Peace Accords Matrix’s 30-staffer team in Colombia has served as an independent body monitoring 578 peace accord commitments in areas such as rural reform, political participation and securing justice for victims. These staffers have, for example, traveled to reintegration camps to speak to former combatants in verifying United Nations data on the number of weapons surrendered and destroyed, among other accord targets.

Armed with quantitative and qualitative data, matrix members regularly meet with stakeholders – including victims, former guerrillas and politicians – to assess the status of implementation and to identify areas that need to be prioritized.

Over the past decade, the work has highlighted when and where there has been insufficient progress in boosting livelihoods and leadership opportunities for women and ethnic minorities.

This reporting has prompted new attention toward implementing these obligations laid out in the accord.

What does Ukraine need?

Our experience shows that when it comes to securing a lasting peace in Ukraine, it is imperative that a mandate for robust monitoring is spelled out clearly and realistically. To be effective, a monitoring body must have the independence to fully report and document violations.

That’s just the first step. Consider the failure of the Minsk agreements, signed in 2014 and 2015 to end fighting in the Donbas region of Ukraine between Ukrainian troops and Russian-backed separatists.

Those accords failed in part because the monitoring mission, led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, lacked any defined mechanism to press for any action or change once violations – and there were many – had been established.

While the organization’s Special Monitoring Mission may have contributed to some temporary de-escalation in the Donbas conflict, ultimately Russia was able to exploit the weaknesses of the Minsk agreements and commit hostile acts, laying the groundwork for the current war.

Research suggests that monitoring works best when it extends beyond physical ceasefire lines to encompass the cyber domain, too. Moscow has carried out extensive cyberattacks on Ukrainian infrastructure throughout the conflict. Such aggression could continue invisibly despite a ceasefire, allowing one party to pre-position capabilities for future attacks or to conduct espionage without triggering traditional monitoring mechanisms.

Unlike conventional military activities, such cyber hostilities are inherently difficult to monitor and verify. A comprehensive monitoring arrangement will need to grapple with these threats, requiring carefully designed information-sharing protocols with the few international actors capable of monitoring the online activities of both sides.

A bigger tent

A key element of ensuring a durable peace is building trust between conflict parties over time. With the right mandate and authority, monitoring bodies can create space and structure for follow-on dialogue as implementation obstacles emerge. Durable peace processes require fine-tuning to adapt to changing political realities on the ground.

A soldier walks down a road surrounded by bombed-out buildings — The war in Ukraine has dragged on for nearly four years.
Russian Defense Ministry/Anadolu via Getty Images

Involving public stakeholders in the implementation of a peace agreement is another key element, our research shows. Third-party monitoring can provide the framework for soliciting outside perspectives and participation.

Over the past decade, Ukrainian nongovernmental organizations have steadily developed expertise in monitoring and accountability in areas including elections, procurement, humanitarian operations and potential war crime activity.

Building on this experience by involving broader segments of civil society – including the country’s highly trusted faith-based communities – would strengthen the legitimacy of third-party monitoring in the eyes of the domestic public and assuage uneasy acceptance of any peace accord.

Ready on Day 1

While the United Nations and other multinational bodies are well placed to support some core monitoring tasks, those planning for peace now should, we believe, consider the benefits of involving a wider range of third-party actors. Indeed, many Ukrainians are skeptical that institutions of which Russia is a member can carry out their work with the needed independence.

As we have seen with the Peace Accords Matrix’s experience, the involvement of an independent research institution can open up new possibilities for monitoring.

And ideally, monitoring missions should be ready to go from Day 1, or as close to that as possible.

Comparative research has shown that the speed at which a monitoring mission starts its work can affect its relevance. Yet, many monitoring bodies are wracked by delays due to lack of planning, support and resources.

The current 28-point peace plan being mulled by Russia and Ukraine makes only a brief mention of monitoring, by a “Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump.”

But our experience shows that prioritizing third-party monitoring and delving into the details of how it would be carried out – even as ceasefire negotiations are ongoing – can help ensure the success of a future deal.

It would serve as a vital signal to Ukrainians that, unlike the aftermath of the Minsk agreements, this time the international community will continue to engage and act to ensure their country’s peace.

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

– ref. Lasting peace in Ukraine may hinge on independent monitors – yet Trump’s 28-point plan barely mentions them – https://theconversation.com/lasting-peace-in-ukraine-may-hinge-on-independent-monitors-yet-trumps-28-point-plan-barely-mentions-them-268469

December 3, 2025

Google’s proposed data center in orbit will face issues with space debris in an already crowded orbit

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mojtaba Akhavan-Tafti, Associate Research Scientist, University of Michigan

This rendering shows satellites orbiting Earth. yucelyilmaz/iStock via Getty Images

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and cloud services has led to a massive demand for computing power. The surge has strained data infrastructure, which requires lots of electricity to operate. A single, medium-sized data center here on Earth can consume enough electricity to power about 16,500 homes, with even larger facilities using as much as a small city.

Over the past few years, tech leaders have increasingly advocated for space-based AI infrastructure as a way to address the power requirements of data centers.

In space, sunshine – which solar panels can convert into electricity – is abundant and reliable. On Nov. 4, 2025, Google unveiled Project Suncatcher, a bold proposal to launch an 81-satellite constellation into low Earth orbit. It plans to use the constellation to harvest sunlight to power the next generation of AI data centers in space. So, instead of beaming power back to Earth, the constellation would beam data back to Earth.

For example, if you asked a chatbot how to bake sourdough bread, instead of firing up a data center in Virginia to craft a response, your query would be beamed up to the constellation in space, processed by chips running purely on solar energy, and the recipe sent back down to your device. Doing so would mean leaving the substantial heat generated behind in the cold vacuum of space.

As a technology entrepreneur, I applaud Google’s ambitious plan. But as a space scientist, I predict that the company will soon have to reckon with a growing problem: space debris.

The mathematics of disaster

Space debris – the collection of defunct human-made objects in Earth’s orbit – is already affecting space agencies, companies and astronauts. This debris includes large pieces, such as spent rocket stages and dead satellites, as well as tiny flecks of paint and other fragments from discontinued satellites.

Space debris travels at hypersonic speeds of approximately 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 km/h) in low Earth orbit. At this speed, colliding with a piece of debris the size of a blueberry would feel like being hit by a falling anvil.

Satellite breakups and anti-satellite tests have created an alarming amount of debris, a crisis now exacerbated by the rapid expansion of commercial constellations such as SpaceX’s Starlink. The Starlink network has more than 7,500 satellites, which provide global high-speed internet.

The U.S. Space Force actively tracks over 40,000 objects larger than a softball using ground-based radar and optical telescopes. However, this number represents less than 1% of the lethal objects in orbit. The majority are too small for these telescopes to reliably identify and track.

In November 2025, three Chinese astronauts aboard the Tiangong space station were forced to delay their return to Earth because their capsule had been struck by a piece of space debris. Back in 2018, a similar incident on the International Space Station challenged relations between the United States and Russia, as Russian media speculated that a NASA astronaut may have deliberately sabotaged the station.

The orbital shell Google’s project targets – a Sun-synchronous orbit approximately 400 miles (650 kilometers) above Earth – is a prime location for uninterrupted solar energy. At this orbit, the spacecraft’s solar arrays will always be in direct sunshine, where they can generate electricity to power the onboard AI payload. But for this reason, Sun-synchronous orbit is also the single most congested highway in low Earth orbit, and objects in this orbit are the most likely to collide with other satellites or debris.

As new objects arrive and existing objects break apart, low Earth orbit could approach Kessler syndrome. In this theory, once the number of objects in low Earth orbit exceeds a critical threshold, collisions between objects generate a cascade of new debris. Eventually, this cascade of collisions could render certain orbits entirely unusable.

Implications for Project Suncatcher

Project Suncatcher proposes a cluster of satellites carrying large solar panels. They would fly with a radius of just one kilometer, each node spaced less than 200 meters apart. To put that in perspective, imagine a racetrack roughly the size of the Daytona International Speedway, where 81 cars race at 17,500 miles per hour – while separated by gaps about the distance you need to safely brake on the highway.

This ultradense formation is necessary for the satellites to transmit data to each other. The constellation splits complex AI workloads across all its 81 units, enabling them to “think” and process data simultaneously as a single, massive, distributed brain. Google is partnering with a space company to launch two prototype satellites by early 2027 to validate the hardware.

But in the vacuum of space, flying in formation is a constant battle against physics. While the atmosphere in low Earth orbit is incredibly thin, it is not empty. Sparse air particles create orbital drag on satellites – this force pushes against the spacecraft, slowing it down and forcing it to drop in altitude. Satellites with large surface areas have more issues with drag, as they can act like a sail catching the wind.

To add to this complexity, streams of particles and magnetic fields from the Sun – known as space weather – can cause the density of air particles in low Earth orbit to fluctuate in unpredictable ways. These fluctuations directly affect orbital drag.

When satellites are spaced less than 200 meters apart, the margin for error evaporates. A single impact could not only destroy one satellite but send it blasting into its neighbors, triggering a cascade that could wipe out the entire cluster and randomly scatter millions of new pieces of debris into an orbit that is already a minefield.

The importance of active avoidance

To prevent crashes and cascades, satellite companies could adopt a leave no trace standard, which means designing satellites that do not fragment, release debris or endanger their neighbors, and that can be safely removed from orbit. For a constellation as dense and intricate as Suncatcher, meeting this standard might require equipping the satellites with “reflexes” that autonomously detect and dance through a debris field. Suncatcher’s current design doesn’t include these active avoidance capabilities.

In the first six months of 2025 alone, SpaceX’s Starlink constellation performed a staggering 144,404 collision-avoidance maneuvers to dodge debris and other spacecraft. Similarly, Suncatcher would likely encounter debris larger than a grain of sand every five seconds.

Today’s object-tracking infrastructure is generally limited to debris larger than a softball, leaving millions of smaller debris pieces effectively invisible to satellite operators. Future constellations will need an onboard detection system that can actively spot these smaller threats and maneuver the satellite autonomously in real time.

Equipping Suncatcher with active collision avoidance capabilities would be an engineering feat. Because of the tight spacing, the constellation would need to respond as a single entity. Satellites would need to reposition in concert, similar to a synchronized flock of birds. Each satellite would need to react to the slightest shift of its neighbor.

Detecting space debris in orbit can help prevent collisions.

Paying rent for the orbit

Technological solutions, however, can go only so far. In September 2022, the Federal Communications Commission created a rule requiring satellite operators to remove their spacecraft from orbit within five years of the mission’s completion. This typically involves a controlled de-orbit maneuver. Operators must now reserve enough fuel to fire the thrusters at the end of the mission to lower the satellite’s altitude, until atmospheric drag takes over and the spacecraft burns up in the atmosphere.

However, the rule does not address the debris already in space, nor any future debris, from accidents or mishaps. To tackle these issues, some policymakers have proposed a use-tax for space debris removal.

A use-tax or orbital-use fee would charge satellite operators a levy based on the orbital stress their constellation imposes, much like larger or heavier vehicles paying greater fees to use public roads. These funds would finance active debris removal missions, which capture and remove the most dangerous pieces of junk.

Avoiding collisions is a temporary technical fix, not a long-term solution to the space debris problem. As some companies look to space as a new home for data centers, and others continue to send satellite constellations into orbit, new policies and active debris removal programs can help keep low Earth orbit open for business.

Mojtaba Akhavan-Tafti receives funding from NASA and Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA). He teaches space systems engineering and mission design and management at the University of Michigan’s College of Engineering.

– ref. Google’s proposed data center in orbit will face issues with space debris in an already crowded orbit – https://theconversation.com/googles-proposed-data-center-in-orbit-will-face-issues-with-space-debris-in-an-already-crowded-orbit-270410