Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Noelia Calvo, Research Associate, Neuroscience, University of Toronto

Why do some people maintain good memories and have healthy brains even as they age?

Research that my colleagues and I recently published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring, explored the effects and interactions of social, linguistic and endocrinological factors on cognitive health.

With Canada’s aging population, the question of brain health is a relevant one. The most recent census in 2021 indicated that one in eight Canadians is aged 70 or over, and there are 1.7 million who are age 80 or older. These numbers show a growing population of older adults at increased risk of cognitive decline, highlighting the need to examine protective factors.

Previous research indicates that bilingualism may be a possible protective factor. Notably, the 2021 census indicated that bilingualism is also increasing among Canadians, with four in 10 (41 per cent) speaking more than one language.

While bilingualism may be one piece of the puzzle, other cognitive or biological factors also influence brain health. Verbal memory — the ability to remember words — has been linked to cognitive resilience. The presence of sex hormones such as estrogen and testosterone, which are present in both men and women, may also influence how the brain ages.

Studying a trio of factors

The relationship between these three factors — bilingualism, verbal memory and sex hormones — has not been studied before. To address this gap, my colleagues and I conducted a new study in Canada. We found that bilingualism may interact with verbal memory and sex hormones to influence dementia risk in unexpected ways.

Our study included data from 335 older adults with mild cognitive impairment and 170 patients with Alzheimer’s disease drawn from the Comprehensive Assessment of Neurodegeneration and Dementia (COMPASS-ND) cohort, which is part of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration and Aging.

COMPASS-ND includes more than 1,200 Canadian adults aged 50–90 years recruited across more than 30 sites nationwide. Using this rich and current database, we examined how sex hormones, verbal memory and bilingualism jointly influence cognitive resilience, brain structure and blood-based markers of Alzheimer’s disease.

---

This article is part of our ongoing series The Grey Revolution. The Conversation Canada and La Conversation are exploring the impact of the aging boomer generation on Canadian society, including housing, working, culture, nutrition, travelling and health care. The series explores the upheavals already underway and those looming ahead.

---

We created a resilience index for each participant that incorporated sex hormones, verbal memory, bilingual proficiency, education, age and immigration status. Age, education, and immigration status were included as covariates because they may influence cognitive resilience through differences in language experiences, educational opportunities and sociocultural adaptation across the lifespan.

Each unit increase in the resilience index was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of dementia-related pathology. Higher resilience index scores were also linked to better performance on clinical diagnostic tools such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), as well as lower levels of key markers associated with neurodegeneration and glial activation, a process in which the brain’s support cells become reactive in response to injury or disease.

Overall, bilingual participants showed the highest resilience index scores, but with notable differences in how these effects manifested across biological sex.

Our findings challenge the idea that risk and resilience can be understood by looking at biological or social factors in isolation. By studying bilingualism and sex hormones together, we reveal how these factors may interact to shape brain resilience.

Bilingualism and verbal memory

Another important finding of our study was related to verbal memory. Consistent with previous research, women showed better performance in verbal memory. This sex difference is clinically important because verbal memory is often used as a proxy for general cognitive function, meaning it can influence how dementia is diagnosed in women.

One might expect that bilingual women would be especially protected, since they have both the bilingualism benefit and strong verbal memory.

Surprisingly, our study found the opposite: bilingual men showed greater brain protection. Our findings suggested that a combination of two factors may be a mechanism behind enhanced verbal memory and cognitive resilience in aging men: aromatization — the conversion of testosterone into estradiol — and bilingual language experience.

In people with mild cognitive impairment, higher estradiol levels produced through aromatization, together with bilingualism, may work synergistically to protect verbal memory, making older bilingual men more resilient to cognitive decline and neurodegenerative pathology.

Overall, our study suggests that bilingual men may have greater resilience to neuropathology and that sex hormones could influence dementia risk in aging women. These findings underscore the need for more research on how sex hormones affect brain health, as well as the importance of using measures beyond verbal memory to improve the accuracy of cognitive decline diagnoses in Canada.

The research discussed in this article was supported by external funding from the Synapse Challenge award, Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration (CCNA). The funding period has now concluded.

– ref. Bilingualism and sex hormones may provide a new link to brain resilience and dementia risk – https://theconversation.com/bilingualism-and-sex-hormones-may-provide-a-new-link-to-brain-resilience-and-dementia-risk-279490

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Meera Karunananthan, Assistant Professor, Human Geography, Carleton University

In November 2025, the Ontario government rushed through new legislation to dramatically restructure public drinking water and wastewater services without any public consultation.

The Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act (WCA) authorizes the province’s minister of municipal affairs and housing to remove water and wastewater services from local governments and assign them to arms-length governance structures by classifying them as “water and wastewater public corporations (WCCs).”

Despite being buried among other controversial measures in the omnibus Bill 60, the WCA drew considerable public backlash. A broad-based coalition was formed, bringing together water workers, environmental organizations, physicians and anti-poverty activists to push back against what seemed like the stealth privatization of provincial water infrastructure.

In response, Premier Doug Ford’s government tabled amendments to restrict shareholders in WCCs to “a municipality, the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada or an agent of any of them” under Bill 98, which is now in third reading.

But University of British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan has concluded these amendments don’t rule out privatization. The possibility of shares being held by the ambiguously termed “agent” of the state opens the door for any number of public-private configurations.

Financialization

While critical details might be clarified in upcoming regulations, a troubling picture emerges when connecting the dots. Whether the WCA leads to outright privatization, its proposed reforms are consistent with an insidious global push to make municipal water and sanitation systems more amenable to private investment. This essentially transforms them into tradeable assets.

This process, known as financialization, would erode the public health and social mandate of public water infrastructure, undermining the capacity of communities to cope with growing ecological and financial stresses.

Around the world, fierce public opposition has resulted in the termination or non-renewal of private contracts in hundreds of communities around the world. Even the staunchest proponents of privatization now view water as too politically risky and insufficiently profitable for private sector engagement.

At the same time, there has been a growing appetite for “bankable” water infrastructure projects in the face of growing economic uncertainty. In response, international financial institutions and other powerful entities are pushing for policy reforms to pave the way for the integration of water into global financial markets.

Extracting profit

Privatization is not a necessary precursor to financialization. Corporatized public utilities, argues British water researcher Kate Bayliss, can perform the same function of laying the groundwork and creating revenue streams that can eventually be captured by financial markets.

In fact the World Bank, the largest funder of water projects in the Global South, promotes reforms to publicly owned and operated utilities to improve their risk-return profiles for commercial investment. In other words, public institutions are restructured to absorb risk and shift costs to local communities in order to ensure greater extraction of private profit.

The Ontario legislation follows this model by dismantling municipal services and restructuring them into arm’s-length WCCs.

By removing water and sanitation services from local control, WCCs create a more streamlined system for profit generation. Key decisions — including finances, contracts and water rates — would be made by corporate boards with little direct accountability to communities.

Deepening existing inequities

Measures that generate value for shareholders will likely take precedence over public health and equity-related considerations.

As Brock University water management expert Lina Taing warns, the proposed consolidation of operations will ultimately undermine hard-won accountability provisions. It will also diminish the “site-specific knowledge” that is central to the multi-barrier approach developed in the aftermath of the Walkerton contaminated water crisis in May 2000.

The plan would take effect most immediately in Peel Region, one of the most racially diverse municipalities in the country. By 2029, jurisdiction over water and wastewater services will be transferred from Peel to its three lower-tier municipalities, which will then be required to deliver services exclusively through a newly created WCC.

The financial implications for Peel are deeply troubling. Water and wastewater infrastructure in Peel was built over decades with public funds. Under the new Ontario law, this infrastructure would be transferred to a WCC while Peel’s existing debt remains with the municipal government.

In other words, the assets are transferred while the liabilities stay behind. Peel will be left servicing legacy debt with no corresponding revenue stream, while revenues generated from water bills flow to WCC shareholders who bear no responsibility for that debt.

This is a textbook example of what scholars describe as risk socialization and profit privatization. Simply put, the public bears the burden while shareholders capture the reward.

Flint water crisis

In the words of American geographer Laura Pulido, racialized places often become the “testing ground for new forms of neoliberal practice.”

The Flint, Mich., water crisis also began with a state-level decision to place the city under emergency management.

The unelected city manager switched the city’s drinking water source to the highly contaminated Flint River as a cost-cutting measure, but failed to ensure the water was treated with corrosion inhibitors. This caused lead to leach from aging pipes and trihalomethanes (TTHMs) to form in tap water. TTHMs are a carcinogenic by-product formed when chlorine reacts with organic matter in water.

Likewise, ongoing challenges in First Nations communities underscore the inadequacies of top-down federal initiatives to resolve the drinking water crisis with blanket solutions that are inappropriate, inadequate or unacceptable to local communities.

A recent study found high concentrations of TTHMs in tap water samples from three Manitoba First Nations reserves as a result of treatment processes that weren’t suited to local environments and climate conditions.

Stripping communities of power

Both Bill 60 and Bill 98 align with broader efforts to expand the financialization of Ontario’s public infrastructure.

The Building Ontario Fund was established precisely for the purpose of including private capital in priority infrastructure projects. Unless challenged, the new legislation will strip communities of their power to shape services according to their needs, will make it easier to extract private wealth from public infrastructure and will erode the social mandates that make public water services central to building just, equitable and sustainable societies.

Experiences with water financialization in the United Kingdom and elsewhere show an intensified form of the harms associated with water privatization.

Water rates often rise sharply to generate returns for shareholders, while revenues are paid out as dividends instead of being reinvested in system maintenance and upgrades. Over time, this can erode environmental protections, social equity and labour rights.

The Ontario government is seeking public input on Bill 98 until this Thursday.

This is an opportunity for Ontario residents to join the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canada Green Building Council, Environmental Defence Canada and many other organizations in demanding a better future for their water systems.

Meera Karunananthan sits on the boards of the Blue Planet Project and Peace Brigades International- Canada. They are both volunteer positions enabling her learn from and collaborate with water defenders, organizations and networks involved in frontline struggles for water justice around the world.

– ref. New Ontario water and sanitation law could pave the way for the financialization of public water – https://theconversation.com/new-ontario-water-and-sanitation-law-could-pave-the-way-for-the-financialization-of-public-water-281685

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elliot Goodell Ugalde, PhD Candidate, Political Economy, Queen’s University, Ontario

For the first time since the Second World War, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic, public debt in the United States has surpassed the entire economy’s GDP. As of late March, debt held by the public reached US$31.27 trillion, just ahead of the GDP of US$31.22 trillion.

This threshold is often treated as a long-term fiscal issue, but the economic costs of this debt are now moving to the forefront. The most immediate pressure comes from the possibility that major foreign holders of American assets begin pulling capital out of U.S. markets.

Gulf states — whose confidence in U.S. fiscal and military protection has been shaken by the U.S.-Israel attacks on Iran — collectively hold roughly US$2 trillion in U.S. assets through their sovereign wealth funds.

Officials across the Gulf are already reassessing their positions. In March, one Gulf official said three of the four largest economies in the Gulf Cooperation Council were reviewing their sovereign wealth fund positions to offset the impact of the Iran war.

Why the U.S. cannot simply block a selloff

The U.S. has limited options to prevent foreign investors from selling. The freedom to enter and exit what the Federal Reserve Bank calls “the deepest and most liquid fixed-income market in the world” is exactly what makes U.S. assets attractive. That same openness creates a structural vulnerability.

The U.S. economy relies heavily on stretched asset valuations — elevated prices in stocks, bonds and real estate — where market values far exceed their underlying fundamentals.

When holders lose confidence and these inflated markets correct, a run is triggered and prices fall sharply, as happened in the 2008 financial crisis. The real economy ends up paying the price.

The present situation carries similar risks. If Gulf states start selling U.S. assets amid ongoing regional instability, falling prices would reduce the value of collateral across the system.

As leveraged institutions see their balance sheets weaken, they cut borrowing and sell assets. This pushes prices down further, setting off a chain reaction that spreads financial stress internationally.

Swap lines as a stop-gap

As these pressures build, one tool has come back into focus: central bank swap lines. These are arrangements between central banks that let countries access U.S. dollars without selling their American assets. Forced selling would push prices down and spread financial stress.

During the 2008 crisis, the Fed used swap lines as an emergency backup to extend dollar liquidity to banks and governments that suddenly needed it.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said that several American allies in the Gulf region and Asia had requested swap lines, saying the arrangements would prevent the “disorderly” sale of U.S. assets.

But where does this dollar liquidity come from? For decades, the global role of the U.S. dollar allowed it to spend more than it earned, while other countries earned dollars through trade and invested them back into U.S. markets. Gulf states were central to this, using oil revenues to buy U.S. bonds, stocks, real estate and weapons.

This was part of a broader arrangement known as the petrodollar system, which traces back to a 1974 agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Oil was priced in U.S. dollars, money flowed into the U.S. and in return Gulf countries received political and military backing.

This allowed the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply through quantitative easing at home and by extending liquidity into the global system through swap lines.

Though this can stabilize markets in the short term, it also deepens reliance on repeated intervention, buying time rather than resolving underlying pressures.

A fracturing arrangement

The petrodollar system only works as long as Gulf states keep sending money back into U.S. markets. Swap lines reverse that condition: dollars must now flow to the Gulf instead of from it.

Iran’s pressure campaign on Gulf states, including attacks on economic assets and leveraging the Strait of Hormuz, are creating uncertainty in oil markets, government budgets and regional stability.

Gulf sovereign wealth funds have responded by placing greater emphasis on liquidity and flexibility.

The United Arab Emirates’ exit from OPEC on May 1 shows how far the old energy-financial bargain has fractured. Gulf states now want more control over production, revenue and liquidity than the cartel system allows. The move also likely reflects U.S. pressure to bring oil prices down in the short term.

---

Read more:
The UAE is leaving the OPEC oil cartel. What could that mean for oil prices?

---

That strategy cannot last. Lower oil prices may help the U.S. and other importers in the short run, but Gulf states still depend on strong revenues to fund budgets, sovereign wealth funds and diversification.

Gulf states are also signalling a willingness to expand the use of alternative currencies, including China’s yuan, for portions of their oil trade if regional instability disrupts dollar liquidity. The shift would merely accelerate the growing trend among emerging economies to move away from U.S. dollar dependence.

Extending swap lines to Gulf states may slow that process, but it may not be enough to reverse the currency diversification already underway.

A system under pressure

The global financial system was already moving toward greater fragmentation and weaker reliance on the U.S. dollar long before the Iran war.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s escalation with Iran has accelerated that process by shaking confidence in the political and military foundations that sustained the petrodollar system for decades.

Behind the scenes, policymakers are increasingly relying on swap lines, monetary expansion and emergency co-ordination measures to stabilize dollar liquidity and reassure allies. These tools were once reserved for acute crises, but are now becoming part of the normal functioning of the system and undermining U.S. asset credibility.

Underlying all of this is a global economy shaped by decades of financialization, growing dependence on inflated asset markets and mounting geopolitical rivalry, all of which are placing increasing strain on the old U.S. centred order.

Elliot Goodell Ugalde is affiliated with the Centre for International and Defence Policy.

Natalie Braun 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 the U.S.‑Israel war against Iran is exposing the limits of the petrodollar system – https://theconversation.com/how-the-u-s-israel-war-against-iran-is-exposing-the-limits-of-the-petrodollar-system-282226

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Marycarmen Lara Villanueva, PhD Candidate, Department of Social Justice Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

What would it take to stop Black boys from disappearing into drug trafficking networks across northern Ontario? Not more policing, argues prison abolitionist and scholar Ruth Wilson Gilmore, but more safe housing, funded schools and community spaces where youth can gather safely.

That is what a growing body of Black community leaders is arguing in response to a crisis that The Fifth Estate documentary Missing Black Boys brought into national view in January: Black boys as young as 14 are lured into gangs and sent to remote parts of the province to sell drugs.

Youth gang recruitment is not a matter of individual choice or criminality, but one shaped by inequality, institutional neglect and racialized perceptions. And punishment alone cannot solve it.

Indigenous youth from northern reserves, where some communities have declared a state of emergency, are also part of this troubling reality. The same conditions that leave Black boys vulnerable to recruitment into exploitative and violent economies leave Indigenous youth vulnerable too.

Anishinaabe journalist and author Tanya Talaga has described this as an insidious web of drug-related violence in which Indigenous and Black youth are disproportionately impacted.

Black leaders respond

In recent months, community leaders, educators and public workers have come together to ask what makes Black youth vulnerable to recruitment, and what kinds of structural interventions can prevent it?

Black boys are not just going missing. They are being drawn into exploitative economies and transnational and intercity webs of violence. Recruitment often begins on social media, where older youth lure boys with promises of fast money.

Until recently, media outlets did not pay enough attention to these cases, reflecting broader racialized ideas about violence, innocence and vulnerability.

And if the problem is not straightforward, neither is the solution.

Shana McCalla, founder of Find Ontario Missing Black Boys, and Camille Dundas, who in 2025 authored a three-part investigative series, have been instrumental in bringing this issue into public view.

Recently, McCalla submitted a brief to Ontario Solicitor General Michael Kerzner outlining 15 recommendations to address the crisis of Black boys being groomed into drug trafficking networks. Like other Black leaders, she insists that boys recruited into criminal activity should be treated as victims of exploitation and human trafficking, not as criminal offenders.

This means being connected to victim services, trauma-informed care and culturally relevant support. In their advocacy, these leaders have pointed to education, media and lack of opportunities as some areas that need urgent attention.

Classrooms and courtrooms

Anti-Blackness in education is well-documented. The treatment of Black youth as adults when they make mistakes starts in school, often leading to disproportionate suspensions.

But when rethinking the school-to-prison pipeline, Black studies scholar rosalind hampton notes that practices of control found in prisons were established earlier within public education, bringing our attention to the carceral connections between schools and prisons.

---

Read more:
How to curb anti-Black racism in Canadian schools

---

How is this racialized perception produced? For race scholars, the answer is complex.

My research suggests that visual cultures of everyday institutions, schools, media and digital platforms play a vital role and influence how children and youth are seen and how they come to see themselves.

Masculinity, money and risk

Images shape how we understand the world and our place within it. Cultural theorist Nicholas Mirzoeff, for example, explains that we live in a visual global environment where the connection between images and how we think of race has a long history.

Youth are immersed in visual cultural production circulating across digital platforms, from social media to music videos, influencing how they see themselves and how they want to be seen.

Bizz Loc, a Toronto rapper featured in The Fifth Estate documentary, is currently serving a 7.5-year sentence for his involvement with the Eglinton West Crips street gang. In music videos of his like “I’m Bacc Crodie,” imagery of youth flashing gang signs, mimicking gun gestures and referencing rivalries circulates a version of Black masculinity tied to risk, conflict and money.

Transfeminist philosopher and essayist Sayak Valencia’s concept of gore capitalism helps explain how, in contexts of inequality, violence can be turned into something that attracts attention and generates value.

In Bizz Loc’s case, masculinity is constructed through proximity to risk and money, offering young men a way to be seen and valued when other opportunities are limited. This visual language is part of a broader web that helps sustain violence through its aestheticization.

At the same time, as American sociologist and author Tricia Rose notes, hip-hop doesn’t just describe street life shaped by chronic Black joblessness, it also educates, critiques injustice and pushes for safer, more just communities.

Yet the versions that are most visible today often narrow these stories.

An abolitionist approach

Dundas raises a pressing question: if it costs close to $97,000 a year to keep a youth in custody, how might those resources be better invested in supporting young people?

Precise figures vary and remain difficult to calculate. There isn’t clear and up-to-date data on governments’ spending on the youth justice system.

What is clear, however, is that Black and Indigenous youth are disproportionately represented within it. Whether it’s $57,000 a year or over $1,400 a day, provincial governments spend heavily on incarcerating youth.

Abolition, Ruth Wilson Gilmore explains, is about the presence of the conditions that sustain life like food security, secure employment, parks and access to nature, clean water and clean air.

In the absence of these conditions for Black and Indigenous youth, other systems step in.

Or as Fred Moten and Stefano Harney, Black studies and critical theorists, put it, the target of abolition work is not prisons, but a society that makes prisons necessary. Rather than punishment, the abolitionist question is how do we build communities where fewer young people are vulnerable to recruitment before they encounter violence at all.

Marycarmen Lara Villanueva 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 structural inequality fuels Black youth recruitment into cycles of violence – https://theconversation.com/how-structural-inequality-fuels-black-youth-recruitment-into-cycles-of-violence-280516

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Richard Lachman, Director, Zone Learning & Professor, Digital Media, Toronto Metropolitan University

A billboard tries to sell you something. So does a used car salesman. But no matter how smooth the pitch, you’re quite aware of the profit motive, and you can walk away at any time.

What if that pitch is invisible, plays to your unique fears and vanities, and is delivered in a voice that sounds like a trusted friend? Generative AI has changed the equation of persuasion entirely: chatbots can now deliver a personalized, adaptive and targeted message, informed by the most intimate details of your life.

Large language models (LLMs) can hyper-target messages by drawing from your social media posts and photos. They can mine hundreds of previous chatbot conversations in which you asked for relationship advice, discussed your parenting fails and shared your health concerns and financial woes. They can also learn from each interaction, refining their manipulation in real time, targeting your unique and individual tastes, preferences and vulnerabilities.

Studies show this kind of personalized content to be 65 per cent more persuasive than messages from humans or from non-personalized AI. It is four times as effective at changing political opinions as advertising. It could be a powerful tool for social change — used for the good, or for nefarious purposes.

This makes one feature especially troubling: Each conversation is private. It is not monitored, never audited and doesn’t happen in the public eye.

This isn’t advertising. It’s something we don’t have words for yet, and we’re living inside it.

Convincing arguments

In my book Digital Wisdom: Searching for Agency in the Age of AI, I explore how large language models introduce a new frontier in persuasion — one where AI systems can draw upon a huge amount of data about the world, language and you to tailor a highly personalized pitch.

Consider how this might work: You’re a nurse. Through your employer’s AI platform, you’ve shared your sleep problems, burnout and the financial stress of a recent divorce. Now the hospital is short-staffed and offering shifts at a reduced rate calculated by software they license.

You ask the AI chatbot whether you should take them. It knows you’re exhausted. It knows you’re behind on bills. It knows exactly which argument could convince you one way or the other. Who is it working for in that moment?

As companies like Meta and IBM explore how AI can hyper-personalize ads for specific audiences, the dividing line between tools that help users find what they genuinely want, and those that manipulate them against their interests, becomes increasingly important.

Friend or stranger?

Let’s look at another example. Imagine the following messages from your favourite AI chatbot or companion:

I noticed your sleep patterns haven’t been great lately, averaging only 5.4 hours, with lots of restless periods. That’s common when dealing with relationship stress. Your partner just went back to work and 76 per cent of couples experience strain during career transitions.

A new sleep medication has shown effectiveness for relationship-linked insomnia. Your insurance would cover it with just a $15 contribution. Would you like me to schedule a telehealth appointment for tomorrow at 2 p.m.? I see you have a break in your schedule.

This might feel great, like advice from a thoughtful friend who knows you well. It might also feel terrifying, as if a manipulative stranger has read your diary.

Given that people are increasingly turning to AI for medical or mental health advice, despite studies showing this advice to be problematic almost 50 per cent of the time, a manipulative stranger could cause real harm.

The danger here isn’t just the precision of the targeting. This content is also impossible to police. What you view can’t be tracked by watchdogs, since you’re the only person who ever sees it.

While governments don’t typically police the content of political ads, beyond transparency about their funding, we often rely on public outcry and the media to expose campaigns that spread falsehoods. If an AI personalizes every message for an individual, there is no trace left behind.

Reshaping our worldview

Perhaps most concerning is that these systems could gradually reshape our worldview over time.

Scholars have long argued that the algorithms used by social networking sites and search engines create filter bubbles, in which we are fed well-crafted text, video and audio content that either reinforces our worldview or exerts influence towards someone else’s.

By controlling what information we see and how it’s presented, AI systems could slowly shift how we think about and interpret the world around us, and even change our understanding of reality itself.

This capability becomes particularly concerning when combined with emotional manipulation. Vendors suggest their AI systems can gauge a user’s emotional state through text analysis, voice patterns or facial expressions, and adjust their persuasive strategies accordingly.

Are you feeling vulnerable? Lonely? Angry? The system could modify its approach to exploit those emotional states. Even more troubling, it could deliberately cultivate certain emotional states to make its persuasion more effective.

Preliminary research shows that AI models tend to flatter users, affirming their users’ actions 50 per cent more than other humans do, even when the actions involve potential harms. Further research shows that chatbots use deliberate emotional manipulation strategies — such as “guilt appeals” and “fear-of-missing-out hooks” — to keep us chatting when we try to say goodbye.

There have also been cases of AI chatbots allegedly endangering users, encouraging suicidal thoughts or giving detailed advice on how a user could harm themselves.

The guardrails set up by corporations to protect users from harm have also proven surprisingly easy to bypass.

Design matters

Persuasion is not a side effect of technology — it’s often the point. Every interface, every notification, every design decision carries with it an intent to influence behaviour.

Sometimes that influence is welcome: reminders to take medication, encouragement to exercise or nudges to donate blood that reinforce values we already hold. But sometimes persuasion serves someone else’s agenda — nudging us to buy, to scroll, to work harder or to give up privacy.

The same persuasive techniques can empower or exploit, depending on who controls the system, what goals they pursue and whether they have meaningful consent.

Design matters. Whether in public health, the workplace or daily life. We must ask hard questions about intent, agency and power. Who benefits from a design? Who is being persuaded and do they know it?

The technologies we build should support reflective choice, not undermine it. As AI continues to shape how we think, feel and act, our ethical obligations grow sharper: to create systems that are transparent, that prioritize user dignity and that reinforce our capacity for independent judgment. We don’t just need innovation — we need wisdom.

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

– ref. Is your AI chatbot manipulating you? Subtly reshaping your opinions? – https://theconversation.com/is-your-ai-chatbot-manipulating-you-subtly-reshaping-your-opinions-280800

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sepita Hatami, Gender Studies researcher; PhD candidate in Comparative Literature, Western University

Where is one of worst places to be a woman? Afghanistan.

That’s what most people think when it comes to the topic of the women’s rights crisis under the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan. But this only tells part of the story.

Focusing on the word “rights” hides something more serious underneath: how people live and survive in this situation. What’s unfolding in Afghanistan is not just a women’s rights crisis, but a humanitarian disaster.

It affects how people access health care, education, food systems and basic supports and whether these system can function at all when half the population has been systematically removed from them. It forces families to deal with women’s limited access to work and services, often pushing households into deeper economic and social vulnerability.

The Taliban has steadily removed women from public spaces including work, health care and education. Recently, for example, female health-care workers were stopped at the gates of a United Nations office and banned from entering the facility by Taliban authorities.

These ongoing removals are incrementally creating a system that determines who has the right to exist, to provide assistance and to receive assistance.

What’s happening in Afghanistan is not simply gender discrimination; rather, it’s pushing an entire gender out of public systems altogether. The predicament of Afghan women is less a social problem and more a structural crisis that shapes institutions and everyday life.

Gender apartheid

This is why the situation in Afghanistan is increasingly referred to as a form of gender apartheid rather than a women’s rights crisis. The exclusion of women reveals how institutions are built and will be maintained in the future.

Gender apartheid refers to a situation in which people are banned from certain spaces or activities based on their gender identity.

This discriminatory and violent practice in Afghanistan has been widely documented and heavily reported on, but the situation continues to deteriorate daily.

Its effects are also accumulative, with each restriction reinforcing others and deepening the overall crisis. These systemic rights violations would be increasingly difficult to reverse even if political bodies and the ruling government changed tomorrow.

That’s because removing women from professional spaces leads to schools losing teachers, hospitals losing trained staff and aid networks losing access to half the population. And this loss isn’t temporary; it limits how systems can respond to the growing needs around them.

When women get barred from institutions, the problem isn’t just that these organizations suffer in their service delivery and performance. It also results in the loss of institutional memory — the skills, professional knowledge and experience that is no longer transferred to future generations.

Over time, institutions also scale down or suspend certain services due to a shortage of female workers. As services shrink, significant gaps appear in the networks of care and support leaving entire groups of people without consistent access to support.

Blocking aid and support

The Taliban refusal to allow female workers into UN and UNICEF offices is one of many examples happening today in Afghanistan that ban qualified women from entering places where they can deliver urgent care and assistance.

This effective crackdown on women’s rights is blocking aid and support in a society where it’s desperately needed.

Male workers are also limited in the ways they can assist female patients due to Taliban gender norms and restrictions, so support for women cannot be simply reassigned to them. This affects several aspects of humanitarian aid including health care, food distribution and protection systems.

It also delegates the burden of these unmet needs into households where women must provide unpaid labour and care-giving responsibilities.

Taliban rule consequently delays or prevents life-saving interventions for women and children, a violation of the human right to survive.

It’s not just UN and UNICEF offices where women workers are banned from entry: they’re being turned away at other aid organizations, hospitals, schools and various public institutions in a widespread erosion of human rights. The Taliban has put in place a network of human rights violations across the entire humanitarian system.

Humanitarian aid also depends on access to information and correct data: who is hungry, who is unsafe and who needs protection. In Afghanistan, where women are limited in who they can interact with and where female staff are largely absent from outreach, surveys and home visits, this information becomes incomplete.

Poor data leads to incomplete distribution of assistance and mismatched allocation of aid. As a result, the most vulnerable populations can remain invisible in official assessments.

This invisibility especially affects households headed by women and those living in remote or rural areas with already limited access.

Normalizing crises

The impact of Aghanistan’s gender apartheid might not be visible to many outside the country, but in the near future, humanitarian systems will break down.

Future generations of female professionals have already been eliminated by the Taliban’s ban of girls from schools.

UNICEF estimates the ban could cost Afghanistan 25,000 teachers and health-care workers. In a country where women are prohibited from receiving care from male providers, banning women from both education and health-care work creates a profound medical emergency.

---

Read more:
The Taliban wages war on women, but their voices roar on the page. Here are 5 essential books by Afghan women writers

---

Over time, systems will be redesigned without women as providers even as they remain central as recipients. As gender restrictions disrupt the flow of resources, knowledge and care, the capacity to deliver services is declining every day despite high demand. Many women are also pushed into informal or hidden work that is insecure and vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

Gender apartheid in Afghanistan will not end through recognition alone. Naming systemic terror does not stop it and, without action, repeated exposure to crisis can instead normalize it through compassion fatigue. Humanitarian organizations now face a stark choice: operate under restrictive conditions and risk legitimizing them, or withdraw and leave people without support.

The longer the situation persists, the more the exclusion of women in Afghanistan risks becoming a normalized structure rather than an emergency. The question is no longer only how to restore what’s been lost, but whether systems once dependent on women’s participation can be rebuilt at all.

Sepita Hatami 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 women’s rights crisis in Afghanistan is an ongoing humanitarian calamity – https://theconversation.com/the-womens-rights-crisis-in-afghanistan-is-an-ongoing-humanitarian-calamity-281686

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Paul Calluzzo, Associate Professor and Toller Family Fellow of Finance, Queen’s University, Ontario

Prime Minister Mark Carney recently announced Canada’s first national sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong Fund. It’s aimed at investing $25 billion in domestic projects while offering Canadians a chance to invest alongside the government.

The fund has a dual mandate to deliver market-rate returns while also investing in Canadian projects that build a stronger and more resilient economy.

But these goals can conflict, and the fund’s current design raises questions the government has not yet fully answered.

What is a sovereign wealth fund?

A sovereign wealth fund is a pot of money owned and invested by a government to generate returns and build national wealth over time.

More than 100 exist globally, collectively managing more than US$10 trillion in assets. Most are funded from commodity surpluses or foreign-exchange reserves.

They differ from other public funds in important ways. Public pension funds manage money on behalf of retirees. Public banks and development funds lend or invest at below-market rates to achieve policy goals. Central bank reserves are held as a financial buffer, not invested for return.

Sovereign wealth funds are explicitly in the business of growing state capital. Governments can also use them to achieve geopolitical and economic goals.

Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, valued at approximately US$2.2 trillion, is the best-known example. It invests oil revenue in a globally diversified portfolio to preserve the country’s resource wealth for future generations.

The Santiago Principles — a set of voluntary governance standards adopted by the international sovereign wealth fund community in 2008 — outline what responsible management looks like.

How does Canada Strong compare?

Canada’s new sovereign wealth fund fits the criteria of being government-owned and seeking market-rate returns. However, it diverges from standard practice in three notable ways.

First, it will be funded from a budget that is already in deficit. Canada’s projected deficit for 2025-26 is $66.9 billion. The $25 billion for the fund will be drawn from the federal budget over three years, meaning the fund is being prioritized over debt reduction and other spending commitments.

Second, the fund will focus on domestic investment. Most sovereign wealth funds invest globally, following best practices from the Santiago Principles to diversify risk.

A fund concentrated in one country’s economy heightens financial risk and is more exposed to political pressure. This concern is serious enough that some sovereign wealth funds have banned domestic investments completly.

Third, it will include an option for retail investors to directly invest in the fund. No existing sovereign wealth fund offers this.

Asset recycling and its risks

To grow the fund over time, the government is also considering raising funds through what it calls “asset recycling” or “asset optimization.”

Pioneered in Australia through a 2014 federal initiative, asset recycling involves selling or leasing public assets to fund new infrastructure.

Early reporting suggests the federal government is considering selling or leasing airports and reinvesting those funds into the Canada Strong Fund.

When asset managers take over public infrastructure, it introduces an additional dimension of risk. The Thames Water company’s record of sewage dumping, crumbling infrastructure and high levels of debt in the United Kingdom offers one cautionary case study.

Research on the privatization of both the Heathrow and Brussels airports highlights increased costs for airlines and passengers, with poorer levels of service.

A dual mandate and its trade-offs

In addition to higher risk, the Canada Strong Fund’s dual mandate may also lead to lower returns. If the fund invests on fully commercial terms alongside private investors, it risks crowding out private capital in projects that would have been funded anyway.

If, instead, it accepts lower returns when supporting strategic projects, it quietly abandons the market-rate mandate and the promise of creating wealth for Canadians.

Where the government identifies infrastructure priorities without a clear business case, it could consider direct public ownership rather than routing investment through the Canada Strong Fund.

When mixing priorities, the trade-off against financial performance is unavoidable. To have a genuine impact, the Canada Strong Fund will need to behave less like a sovereign wealth fund and more like the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the Canada Growth Fund.

Unlike the Canada Strong Fund, however, those two vehicles are upfront about accepting below-market returns to advance their priorities.

What about retail investors?

The most novel feature of the Canada Strong Fund is the retail investment product. The government has said the product will be broadly accessible to Canadians, simple to purchase and structured so investors share in any upside while their initial capital is protected.

According to a 2024 survey conducted for the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, there has been a significant drop in the retirement readiness of Canadians since 2019. A retail product tied to Canadian nation-building could, in principle, help address that gap.

Yet challenges remain. The promise of shared upside with limited downside risk introduces complexity to the product. The performance of complex instruments is lower than the performance of simpler instruments. Retail investors may also struggle to gauge the risk-reward trade-offs associated with the Canada Strong Fund’s dual mandate.

There is also the question of what happens if the fund loses money. The government has stated they will protect the initially invested capital of retail investors, but it is not clear where this money will come from.

If retail investors effectively pay an embedded insurance premium, that premium reduces their return. If the government subsidizes the cost of that protection, it amounts to a cross-subsidy from Canadians who do not participate in the fund to those who do — an outcome that could be regressive, depending on who invests.

What would make it work?

A well-designed Canadian sovereign wealth fund has genuine potential to grow our nation’s generational wealth and financial resilience.

Other sovereign wealth funds have achieved these ends through a focused mandate to invest for financial objectives, as outlined in the Santiago Principles. The odds of Canada Strong Fund succeeding would be improved by pivoting towards these principles.

Canada could follow Norway’s model of running two separate funds. It could leave the existing Canada Growth Fund to pursue domestic strategic investments, and have the Canada Strong Fund invest abroad with the sole goal of building national wealth.

That separation would reduce internal conflict, clarify accountability and give the retail product a cleaner return profile.

Paul Calluzzo receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Dan Cohen receives grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: one on monetary policy (grant number 435-2022-0069) and one on social finance (grant number 4030-2020-00085). He is also a member of the New Democratic Party.

Evan Jo 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. Canada’s new sovereign wealth fund is ambitious, but its design raises questions – https://theconversation.com/canadas-new-sovereign-wealth-fund-is-ambitious-but-its-design-raises-questions-281836

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Chloe Sher, PhD Candidate, Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto

Health disparities across racial and ethnic groups persist in Canada. But how the country can effectively address them hinges upon how it can better study these differences.

In a recent paper I co-authored, we examine how researchers study racial and ethnic inequalities in health. We identify four persistent problems: unclear categories of race and ethnicity, a white-centred lens, heavy reliance on majority-defined health outcomes and limited explanation of why these disparities arise.

We discuss these issues drawing heavily on evidence from the United States. This reflects the state of the field: Much of the research and many of the frameworks used to study racial and ethnic health inequality come from the U.S. and have been widely applied in Canadian research.

Canada and the U.S. share a history of colonialism, structural racism and white dominance that continues to shape persistent health inequalities across racial and ethnic groups.

But Canada is also different in several important ways. It has a larger immigrant population shaped by selective immigration policies, wider variation in social and economic conditions across regions and communities and a higher proportion of Indigenous Peoples. Data are often more limited, and policies such as universal health care shape how inequality is experienced and addressed.

To better understand and address health inequalities in Canada, Canadians must rethink how race and ethnicity are studied and ground approaches in the Canadian context.

Canada is not the U.S.

Canada’s social policies are distinct from American policies. To begin with, the racial and ethnic makeup of the populations differ. Canada, for example, has a smaller Black population and a larger Asian population than the U.S.. These differences reflect broader historical and institutional contexts that shape how racial and ethnic inequalities are structured in each country.

At the same time, Indigenous Peoples are more central to health inequality in Canada. This is because Canada has a relatively high percentage of Indigenous Peoples compared to the U.S. and many other more economically developed nations. The health of Indigenous Peoples is shaped by a long history of colonialism and ongoing structural disadvantage.

Immigrant population also differs. About one-quarter of Canada’s population is foreign-born, compared to about one in seven in the U.S. Canada’s selective immigration system means many immigrants arrive with relatively high levels of education and good health. This contributes to patterns like “the healthy immigrant effect.”

Research has shown that Canada exhibits the healthy immigrant effect, in which newly arrived immigrants tend to have better health than the Canadian-born population, though this advantage often declines over time with longer residence. Inequality does not line up neatly with race.

Policy matters too. Canada promotes multiculturalism, while the U.S. emphasizes assimilation into a single national culture. Canada has universal health care, which reduces financial barriers to basic care.

But this coverage is partial. Services such as prescription drugs, dental care and mental-health support are not fully covered and often depend on employment benefits or where people live. Since health care is organized at the provincial level, access and quality also vary across regions. These gaps shape who gets timely care and who falls through the cracks.

The problem with ‘visible minority’

The term “visible minority” is prevalent in research on racial and ethnic health disparities in Canada. But it often does more harm than good.

At its core, it lumps all non-white, non-Indigenous people into one group. That means populations with vastly different histories, migration paths and socioeconomic status are treated homogeneously. The ability to see meaningful differences in health across groups like Chinese, South Asian and Black communities is diminished.

---

Read more:
The diversity within Black Canada should be recognized and amplified

---

It also mixes up race and immigration. Many studies don’t separate immigrants from Canadian-born racialized populations. This matters because of the healthy immigrant effect. If newer immigrants are healthier on average, combining them with long-settled groups can make inequalities look smaller than they really are.

The term itself is also ambiguous. People do not always understand or interpret it in the same way, and it’s often taken literally to include anyone visibly different, such as those with disabilities or who are transgender, which complicates its use in health research.

In many ways, the problem stems from data. Canada has limited, inconsistent race-based data. Racial categories are not standardized, and detailed race-based data are often hard to access. Due to limited data availability, researchers could only rely on broad racial terms. This aggravates the problem: instead of revealing inequality, it hides it.

We measure health too narrowly

Another issue is how health is defined in the first place. Most studies rely on standard measures such as life expectancy, chronic illness or mortality. These measures are important, but they only tell part of the story. They reflect a narrow, biomedical view, often omitting how diverse racial and ethnic groups actually experience health and well-being.

Considering Indigenous communities as an example, health is not solely about the absence of disease. It includes connections to land, culture, community and spirituality, alongside physical and mental well-being. Defining health narrowly can marginalize groups by neglecting how different groups understand and experience health.

A narrow focus also makes inequality harder to see. Different groups face distinct health risks and barriers. When we rely on only a few measures, important health problems and inequalities can be overlooked.

A Canadian approach

Studying racial and ethnic health inequality in Canada requires a distinctly Canadian approach. The population, data and policy context differ from those in the U.S., and these differences shape both how inequalities emerge and how they should be studied.

This means moving beyond broad categories, improving race-based data, and using more meaningful and diverse measures of health. It also requires closer attention to context, including Indigenous and rural settings, as well as Canada’s social, immigration and health policy landscape.

To effectively address health disparities, research needs to be grounded in Canada’s realities, not simply adapted from models developed elsewhere.

Chloe Sher previously received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

– ref. Studying racial and ethnic health inequality in Canada: What we need to get right – https://theconversation.com/studying-racial-and-ethnic-health-inequality-in-canada-what-we-need-to-get-right-279104

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Lindsey McMaster, Instructor, English Studies and Academic Writing, Nipissing University

Writing the dreaded English essay spikes anxiety for thousands of students, but is there a way for writing to boost students’ well-being instead?

I wanted to know if a new approach to teaching literary studies could tap into the feel-good side of writing and make essays a path to wellness, so I designed an English course to try it out at Nipissing University.

We know that university students are at risk of mental-health struggles, particularly depression and anxiety. If writing can help instead of stress them out, it could be a refreshing change for English studies — and a new way for teachers to introduce essay writing.

Studies show that writing can boost your mental and physical health if you focus on expressing your emotions and digging for insight.

Paying more attention to the positives in our lives, specifically by writing them down, could further enhance short- and long-term well-being.

---

Read more:
Why you’re wise on Tuesday and foolish on Sunday: Practising wisdom in uncertain times

---

Starting with journalling

Students first need to find out that writing can actually support well-being.

In the course, they took up a journalling habit, but it wasn’t just about venting their feelings or writing whatever came to mind. We looked at studies on how writing can reshape your thinking and boost positivity.

Three methods stood out:

• Write down “three good things” about each day and, importantly, your own role in bringing them about. This technique was pioneered in a study led by psychologist Martin Seligman. Participants who adopted the approach reported feeling happier and less depressed at the one-month, three-month and six-month points. It’s now been widely shared, and it’s a great way to start a new journalling habit because it’s straightforward and effective.

• Look to the future and write about your best possible self. When you imagine a fulfilled version of yourself, it will motivate you to do the hard work to get there. According to psychologist Laura A. King, when you imagine a fulfilled version of yourself, you can experience the health benefits of writing without revisiting negatives from the past.

• Add creativity to your journalling. Turn a moment from your day into a comic; narrate your day as if it were happening in Middle Earth; write a haiku about your toothpaste. A diary-based study of more than 600 young adults led by psychologist Tamlin Conner showed a straightforward effect where being creative one day boosted well-being the next.

Case study on the self

Where journalling provides a space to play around with techniques, essays give students a place to reflect on their efforts, report on the results and hypothesize about positive effects of the experience.

One of the fascinating things about writing for well-being is that no one knows for certain why it works. Across studies it shows reliable, modest benefits, but the underlying mechanism for its effects hasn’t been pinned down — so students’ own theories could contribute to solving a real mystery.

Writers feed off inspiration. Showing students that authors have been using writing for well-being — and making great art in the process — gives them that extra push to keep writing and go deeper.

Inspiration from literature

Among Canadian authors, L. M. Montgomery’s story is especially compelling. Her famous books like Anne of Green Gables and Emily of New Moon have made a utopia of Prince Edward Island; but inwardly, Montgomery experienced deep mental anguish, leading to addiction in her later life.

Her journals detail this other side to her life and show how she used writing to ease her mental suffering. As she memorably notes in an entry from 1904:

“I feel better for writing it out. It is almost as efficacious as swearing would be and much more respectable.”

---

Read more:
Playing detective with Canada’s female literary past

---

Looking to Montgomery as a mentor helped students realize how creative and immersive personal writing can be, in turn motivating them to push forward with their own journalling.

Discussing Montgomery’s life writing in their essays made sense because they could see how her efforts to find solace through writing were relatable to their own.

Easing back on literary jargon

Poetry can beautifully map a state of mind. But traditional approaches to teaching it have a tendency to suck the life out of literature that should be a joy and a delight.

Instead of taking what some teachers call a “technique spotting” approach where you count up the metaphors, teaching English from a well-being perspective taps into poetry’s healing qualities.

In the United Kingdom, the Poetry Pharmacy movement spearheaded by publisher and arts advocate William Sieghart focuses on the healing power of poetry.

His curated poetry collections pair thoughtfully selected poems with one-page prescriptions, highlighting each work’s curative potential for conditions like insecurity, regret, loneliness and more. Both the poem itself and the interpretation serve to advance self-knowledge and alleviate mental suffering.

Students easily ran with this idea. They found joy in poems that spoke to their lived experience, used empathy to recommend poems to others in need and wrote movingly in essays about the mental-health issues they face most often — like academic pressure, fear of failure, homesickness, social anxiety, perfectionism, procrastination and more.

The poetry-remedy concept also lent itself to experiential approaches where students could tape a chosen poem on their mirror, make it the lock screen on their phone, share it with a loved one, create a painting or visual, text it to a distant friend — and ultimately share the story of what happened in essay form or classroom discussion.

---

Read more:
Why reading and writing poems shouldn’t be considered a luxury in troubling times

---

Turning away from AI

Essays are a notoriously difficult part of academic life, which is why generative AI presents such an irresistible pull to the stressed-out student. If essay writing is no more than a tedious recital, it’s no wonder they would gladly pass along what AI spews out on such topics.

Writing instead about your own interior world, finding evidence in your own experience and using literature to light a personalized path to growth are tasks that cannot be easily farmed out to a text-generator — because they speak directly to your own humanity.

The idea that writing can offer fresh avenues for growth and betterment is a welcome reminder of what genuine human writing is truly for.

In teaching a course on it, I found writing for well-being to be an exciting expansion of English studies broadly and essay writing in particular. It can support students’ writing and communication skills while genuinely enriching their lives, and it can help us inspire students with what’s most important in the study of literature: a lifetime love of reading and a willingness to take up the pen.

Lindsey McMaster 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. Writing for well-being: How it could be a new way to teach the essay and resist AI – https://theconversation.com/writing-for-well-being-how-it-could-be-a-new-way-to-teach-the-essay-and-resist-ai-263703

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Rahul Ravi, Professor of Finance, Concordia University

Millions of people around the world now use AI companions — for friendship, emotional support, mental health counselling and romantic interactions. This includes 72 per cent of adolescents, according to one study from the United States.

Meanwhile, human-caused climate change has already led to widespread impacts and rising risks, some of them irreversible. Yet emissions remain high.

As a professor of finance, I see these phenomena as different expressions of the same underlying bias: we apply too high a discount rate to the future.

The idea of a discount rate is straightforward. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. The discount rate tells us by how much. Set that rate too high, and you systematically undervalue what lies ahead. Set it too low, and you over-invest in distant outcomes.

In many parts of life, we set this rate too high. Behavioural economist David Laibson showed that people place disproportionate weight on immediate rewards, even when this leads to worse outcomes over time.

In finance, we understand that valuation depends critically on the discount rate applied to future cash flows. In life, we continue to apply a discount rate that is too high, marking down the future to the point where it no longer meaningfully constrains the present.

What feels good now

Psychologist Hal Hershfield’s research on the future self helps explain why. People often perceive their future selves more as another person than as a continuation of who they are now. This makes it easier for the self that benefits today to shift costs onto the self that must bear them tomorrow.

Looking at this through a finance lens, it resembles a “principal-agent problem,” where managers may prioritize short-term incentives over the long-term interests of shareholders.

In both cases, the person making the decision does not fully bear the long-term cost. But the future does not disappear. It simply becomes easier to ignore.

Investment in relationships

This logic becomes easier to see if we look at how we build relationships. Strong relationships require time and a willingness to tolerate discomfort.

Trust and intimacy involve immediate effort but the benefits accumulate gradually. By contrast, autonomy and flexibility offer immediate rewards. They preserve options and reduce constraints, making it easy to defer relational investment.

But relationships, like other forms of capital, depend on sustained investment, and delayed investment is often hard to recover later.

The same logic can also be seen in family structures and broader social connections. Strong ties in families, friendships and communities depend on time and repeated interaction. Without it, those ties weaken.

As those ties weaken, loneliness becomes more likely. Research shows that loneliness and social isolation are associated with significant health risks. In this sense, loneliness can be understood as the long-term consequence of insufficient investment in connection when it was easier to build.

These patterns are not only individual. They also reflect the way modern life is increasingly organized around immediacy and convenience. Technology makes interaction faster, easier and more responsive, but many of the things that matter most in the long run still require time, patience and discomfort. The result is a social environment that increasingly rewards responsiveness over endurance.

Immediate benefits

Seen in this light, AI companions are not an anomaly. They are emerging in an era of widespread loneliness, where many people are seeking connection that feels reliable and low in emotional cost.

Back in 2002, pioneering research by Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon showed that people apply social rules to computers even when they know they’re not human. Almost 25 years later, research now suggests AI can provide emotional support and a real sense of companionship in the short term. From today’s perspective, this is an efficient solution: the benefits are immediate and reliable.

The concern is not that AI companionship fails. It’s that it succeeds too well in the present. By reducing effort, uncertainty and emotional risk, AI companions make connection easier to access but may also shift expectations in ways that are harder to sustain over time in human relationships. In that sense, they reflect the same trade-off: immediate comfort at the expense of longer-term relational depth.

The same logic extends beyond individual life and helps explain how societies respond to long-term problems.

Climate change is perhaps the clearest example. The impacts of our warming planet are already very evident and yet we’re slow to act. This is, in part, because the economic benefits of extraction and consumption are immediate, while many of the costs are delayed and dispersed across time.

A voiceless future

Across many human domains, from AI and personal relationships to climate change, the structure is the same: The present is immediate and rewarded; the future is abstract, distant and silent. So, decisions skew toward today.

This is not simply a matter of awareness or intention. It is structural. The future has no meaningful representation in present decision-making. It has no voice, no urgency and no direct claim. And so it’s discounted.

This is what Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called the “tragedy of the horizon.” Whether in the climate crisis or the loneliness epidemic, the catastrophic impacts will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of investment cycles and political terms.

Because the future has no seat at the board table, it is treated as an externality — a cost we don’t have to account for today, but one that is compounding at an unsustainable rate.

Until we find ways to give the future a real stake in present decisions, we will continue to choose what is easier now and pay for it later.

The tendency to discount the future is deeply human. But in a world increasingly shaped by AI systems, weakening social ties and accelerating climate risk, the costs of doing so are becoming harder to ignore.

Rahul Ravi 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. From AI companions to climate action, we  undervalue what lies ahead – https://theconversation.com/from-ai-companions-to-climate-action-we-undervalue-what-lies-ahead-279838