Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Robert Muggah, Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow na Bosch Academy e Co-fundador, Instituto Igarapé

For many in Venezuela, the question is no longer whether tensions with Washington will reach a boiling point – they already have. Rather, the big unknown now is whether the U.S. will follow up on threats and the sinking of drug boats with something more drastic: direct military engagement or even regime change.

Certainly, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is preparing for all eventualities. On Sept. 29, 2025, the leftist leader signed a decree granting him additional powers. The following day, Maduro threatened a “state of emergency.” Already, Caracas has carried out military drills amid talk of being a “republic in arms.”

It follows a month in which Washington has positioned warships, an attack submarine and aircraft in the Caribbean and destroyed at least four suspected “go-fast” drug boats. At the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23, U.S. President Donald Trump warned of more to come, vowing to blow drug traffickers “out of existence” while repeating his assertion that Maduro was behind the trafficking networks.

Maduro and his generals deny that charge. Nonetheless, Washington has set a US$50 million dollar bounty on Maduro’s arrest and has rejected Venezuela’s appeals for talks.

As an expert on international security and U.S.-Latin American relations, I believe the U.S. position appears to be inching toward regime change from a prior position of ambiguity that has fallen short of an outright pledge to remove Maduro.

But Washington will be aware that any direct military engagement in Venezuela will be a messy affair. Despite increasing international isolation, Maduro still has friends in Moscow and Beijing, as well as closer to home in Havana. And such factors may force the Trump administration to continue to walk a fine line between maximum pressure on the Maduro government without full commitment to armed conflict.

US ramps up pressure

Recent deployments by the U.S. Southern Command demonstrate a shift in posture by the U.S. administration.

The USS Stockdale became the ninth U.S. Navy vessel and third destroyer – alongside USS Gravely and USS Jason Dunham – to join the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group maneuvering between Puerto Rico and the Lesser and Leeward Antilles, and the waters north of Venezuela. In all, at least 4,500 Marines and sailors are positioned in the area.

Meanwhile, at least 10 F-35 fighters and multiple MQ-9 drones are reportedly operating from Aguadilla and Ceiba airports in Puerto Rico, offering the capacity for persistent surveillance and strike options.

These forces are more powerful than the entire Venezuelan navy but reportedly fall short of the forces needed for a full-scale invasion.

For the moment, SouthCom is framing the campaign as enhanced counternarcotics operations, rather than a prelude to a blockade or invasion. Statements have highlighted joint patrols and interdiction efforts with the Royal Netherlands Navy, Canada, the Dominican Republic and the United Kingdom, and the humanitarian or information-sharing nature of missions.

SouthCom has described its position as one of readiness, not war. But this could change, especially with the much-anticipated 2025 national defense review expected to prioritize countering the perceived threat of Chinese interference in the Western Hemisphere.

And it is worth recalling that the U.S. has long maintained a light but steady military footprint in the region.

Caracas pushes back

Caracas has staged military displays of its own.

Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López announced on Sept. 15 three days of drills involving naval units, aircraft air-defense assets and militia participation. Maduro has declared “maximum preparedness” and threatened to mobilize a “republic in arms” if attacked.

If enacted, the state of emergency would be effective for 90 days and centralize military control in the office of the president. The aim is clear: to project resolve and raise the cost for Washington of any further escalation.

Venezuela’s military is not negligible, but readiness has been eroded by decades of economic crisis, sanctions and maintenance shortfalls. It is no match for U.S. military dominance at sea or in the air, although it could inflict damage through asymmetric tactics and militia mobilization.

On the U.S. side, the means for coercion through targeted strikes, interdictions, cyberattacks and sanctions are already at hand. Further escalation may, however, hinge on a catalyzing event, such as an attack resulting in the killing of Venezuelan or U.S. military personnel.

Adversaries and allies

Regionally, most governments have avoided taking sides. One exception is Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who at the United Nations General Assembly called for “criminal proceedings” over the recent U.S. strikes.

In the Caribbean, there is little appetite for hosting a U.S. invasion force. The president of Dominica noted in her speech at the General Assembly that “there is no place in the Caribbean for war.” One exception is Guyana, which is locked in a territorial dispute with Venezuala over the oil-rich Essequibo region and has welcomed U.S. security cooperation.

Yet, an attack on Venezuela or an attempt at regime change risks rallying the country’s allies.

First among them in the region is Cuba. Cuban intelligence and security advisers have long been embedded across Venezuela’s military and security services. This gives Maduro some resilience against internal coups and complicates U.S. efforts to precipitate elite defections from Maduro’s inner circle.

While expressing political support for Maduro, it is highly unlikely that Cuba would ever be in a position to supplement any Venezuelan combat forces given Havana’s own weak position, struggling economy and relatively modest military capabilities.

And despite fresh affirmations of solidarity and the continued presence of Russian “military experts,” Moscow also lacks the political military bandwidth for large, new deployments. Still, long-standing military and technical ties such as training, maintenance, weapons sales and selective systems support offer Maduro a modest but valuable hedge against external pressure.

Even a token port call or bomber overflight could add political friction – and pause for thought in Washington. Russia has sent nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela in the past, and its navy made a publicized visit to La Guaira in July 2024.

Oil in the balance

One much more consequential factor could be the position of China.

Beijing plays a consequential role as a buyer of Venezuelan oil. As Western sanctions have set in, a growing share of Venezuelan hydrocarbon exports is now funneled through “shadow fleet” tankers and complex rerouting schemes, allowing crude to reach Chinese refineries despite sanctions and export restrictions.

Any U.S. campaign that disrupts these flows would hit Chinese refiners first. This would likely prompt Beijing to push back diplomatically and commercially.

In late September, China stressed that it “opposes the use of force” and decried external interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs – a clear rebuke of the U.S. military buildup.

The Chinese ambassador in Caracas has also conveyed solidarity to his host, emphasizing that Beijing will “firmly support Venezuela in safeguarding sovereignty, national dignity and social stability.”

China is offering diplomatic support but has stopped short of any pledge of force.

For now, America’s most likely path is, I believe, coastal policing and military pressure. At sea, this means the U.S. continuing to lead counternarcotics operations, but with Navy cover close at hand. The U.S. buildup could well boost underground opposition networks in Venezuela, increasing pressure on the Maduro regime from within.

This will be paired with increased financial pressure in the form of sanctions aimed at further squeezing Venezuela’s state oil industry, but calibrated to avoid a global energy shock. Measures also include restricting dollar-clearing and maritime insurance, blacklisting intermediaries and dark fleet tankers, and targeting front companies.

Pressure short of war

Nonetheless, expectations of a military clash are edging upward. Several forecasters now put the odds of some form of U.S. strike against Venezuela before year’s end at roughly 1 in 3, with the chances rising further into 2026.

Yet the prospect of an outright invasion remains, I believe, remote. U.S. domestic politics may act as a brake: Opinion polls show most Americans oppose military action to topple Maduro, and an even larger majority reject the idea of a full-scale invasion.

Even so, three factors could shape if and when Washington steps up its action: a deadly incident at sea involving civilians or U.S. personnel; hard evidence that Venezuelan officials are directly tied to large-scale trafficking to the U.S.; and regional governments lining up behind stronger action.

While the odds of a strike and even regime change are rising, Washington’s strategy in the very near term appears to remain one of pressure without full commitment, using shows of force, sanctions and selective strikes to weaken Caracas while avoiding being dragged into a messy war or sparking an oil shock.

Dr. Robert Muggah is affiliated with the Igarapé Institute and SecDev.

– ref. Venezuela and US edge toward war footing − but domestic concerns, international risks may hold Washington back – https://theconversation.com/venezuela-and-us-edge-toward-war-footing-but-domestic-concerns-international-risks-may-hold-washington-back-266509

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Maria Guagnin, Director, Ha’il Archaeology Identification Project, University of Sydney; Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology

About 12,000 years ago, high up on a cliff in the desert of northern Arabia, an artist – or perhaps artists – was hard at work.

Standing on a narrow ledge and with primitive tools, they engraved into the rock an image of a life-sized camel. This wasn’t the first artwork of its kind: in fact, there was already an entire row of fresh camel engravings on the 39-metre-high cliff face, below which a shallow lake sparkled in the sunshine.

Over thousands of years, these engravings weathered the elements. They gradually eroded until they were almost invisible and had been forgotten.

That is, until our international team discovered them and more than 170 others while on a field trip to the region, which sits near the southern edge of the Nefud Desert in Saudi Arabia, roughly two years ago.

As we explain in a new study, published today in Nature Communications, the engravings would have marked important desert water sources – and demonstrate the resilience and innovation of people who lived in such a harsh, arid environment.

Searching for clues

Our earlier research had shown that between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago Arabia was much wetter than it is today.

Grasslands had spread into areas that are now desert, and cattle herders used these pastures for their herds.

The rock art they left behind is well known from two UNESCO World Heritage sites.

We could see there was also older rock art at these UNESCO sites. It was much larger and more detailed, showing life-sized and naturalistic camels and wild donkeys. But it was not clear how old it was. So in May 2023 we set out to find more of this ancient rock art in the hope of finding clues about its age.

Life-sized engravings

In total, we identified more than 60 rock art panels containing 176 engravings in three previously unexplored areas – Jebel Arnaan, Jebel Mleiha and Jebel Misma. The engravings include 130 images of large, life-sized animals – camels, ibex, wild donkeys, gazelles and aurochs. Some are almost three metres long and more than two metres high.

We reached the first panel via a long off-road track which cut through a beautiful mountain landscape. A cool breeze made the heat of the emerging Saudi summer bearable.

The rock art panel showed two large camels, one on top of the other. The older camel looked as though it was in motion and about to stand up, the other like it was striding across the rock surface.

We were excited to find undisturbed archaeological layers directly beneath the engraved camels. In one sealed layer we even found an engraving tool that was once used to make rock art.

Luminescence dating – a dating method that measures when sediment was last exposed to sunlight – revealed the layer in which the tool was found is about 12,000 years old.

The same layer also contained artefacts that are typical for this time, including small arrowheads, stone beads and even a bead made from a seashell.

A far-reaching network

These artefacts tell us the people who made the rock art were part of a far-reaching network. They used the same stone tools and jewellery as communities in the Levant, 400 kilometres further north.

Significantly, our team also discovered the rock art was placed near ancient seasonal lakes.

At the end of the last ice age, during the Last Glacial Maximum, the climate was extremely dry.

These lakes, dated at roughly 15,000 years, are the first evidence of surface water returning to Arabia following the extremely arid period. And they move the timeline of the returning humid conditions back thousands of years, enlarging the opportunity window for humans to settle in these dry inland conditions.

Our results show 12,000 years ago, humans were able to use these seasonal lakes to survive in the desert. They marked these water sources, and the paths leading to them, with monumental rock art.

We don’t know why they did this. But even for us today, the camel is a striking symbol for survival in the desert.

Maria Guagnin received funding from a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant (SRG2223231473) for fieldwork and research.

Ceri Shipton, Frans van Buchem, and Michael Petraglia 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. 12,000-year-old rock art marked ancient water sources in Arabia’s desert – https://theconversation.com/12-000-year-old-rock-art-marked-ancient-water-sources-in-arabias-desert-266144

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University

From the earliest year of school, children begin learning how to express ideas in different ways. Lines across a page, a wobbly letter, or a simple drawing form the foundation for how we share meaning beyond spoken language.

Over time, those first marks evolve into complex ideas. Children learn to combine words with visuals, express abstract concepts, and recognise how images, symbols and design carry meaning in different situations.

But generative artificial intelligence (AI), software that creates content based on user prompts, is reshaping these fundamental skills. AI is changing how people create, edit and present both text and images. In other words, it changes how we see – and how we decide what’s real.

Take photos, for example. They were once seen as a “mirror” of reality. Now, more people recognise their constructed nature.

Similarly, generative AI is disrupting long-held assumptions about the authenticity of images. These can appear photorealistic but can depict things or events that never existed.

Our latest research, published in the Journal of Visual Literacy, identifies key literacies at each stage of the AI image generation process, from selecting an AI image generator to creating and refining content.

As the way people make images changes, knowing how generative AI works will let you better understand and critically assess its outputs.

Textual and visual literacy

Literacy today extends beyond reading and writing. The Australian Curriculum defines literacy as the ability to “use language confidently for learning and communicating in and out of school”. The European Union broadens this to include navigating visual, audio and digital materials. These are essential skills not only in school, but for active citizenship.

These abilities span making meaning, communicating and creating through words, visuals and other forms. These abilities also require adapting expression to different audiences. You might text a friend informally but email a public official with more care, for example. Computers, too, demand different forms of literacy.

In the 1960s, users interacted with computers through written commands. By the 1970s, graphical elements like icons and menus emerged, making interaction more visual.

Generative AI is often a mix between these two approaches. Some technologies, like ChatGPT, rely on text prompts. Others, like Adobe’s Firefly, use both text commands and button controls.

Software often interprets or guesses user intent. This is especially true for minimalistic prompts, such as a single word or even an emoji. When these are used for prompts, the AI system often returns a stereotypical representation based on its training data or the way it’s been programmed.

Being more specific in your prompt helps to arrive at a result more aligned with what you envisioned. This highlights that we need “multimodal” literacies: knowledge and skills that cut across writing and visual modes.

What are some key literacies in AI generation?

One of the first generative AI literacies is knowing which system to use.

Some are free. Others are paid. Some might be free but built on unethical datasets. Some have been trained on particular datasets that make the outputs more representative or less risky from a copyright infringement perspective. Some support a wider range of inputs, including images, documents, spreadsheets and other files. Others might support text-only inputs.

After selecting an image generator, you need to be able to work with it productively.

If you’re trying to make a square image for an Instagram post, you’re in luck. This is because many AI systems produce images with a square orientation by default. But what if you need a horizontal or vertical image? You’ll have to ask for that or know how to modify that setting.

What if you want text included in your image? AI still struggles with rendering text, similarly to how early AI systems struggled with accurately representing human fingers and ears. In these cases, you might be better off adding text in a different software, such as Canva or Adobe InDesign.

Many AI systems also create images that lack specific cultural context. This lets them be easily used in wider contexts. Yet it might decrease the emotional appeal or engagement among audiences who perceive these images as inauthentic.

Working with AI is a moving target

Learning AI means keeping pace with constant change. New generative AI products appear regularly, while existing platforms rapidly evolve.

Earlier this year, OpenAI integrated image generation into ChatGPT and TikTok launched its AI Alive tool to animate photos. Meanwhile, Google’s Veo 3 made cinematic video with sound accessible to Canva users, and Midjourney introduced video outputs.

These examples show where things are headed. Users will be able to create and edit text, images, sound and video in one place rather than having to use separate tools for each.

Building multimodal literacies means developing the skills to adapt, evaluate and co-create as technology evolves.

If you want to start building those literacies now, begin with a few simple questions.

What do I want my audience to see or understand? Should I use AI for creating this content? What is the AI tool producing and how can I shape the outcome?

Approaching visual generative AI with curiosity, but also critical thinking is the first step toward having the skills to use these technologies intentionally and effectively. Doing so can help us tell visual stories that carry human rather than machine values.

T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

Daniel Pfurtscheller previously received funding from the Tyrolean Science Fund and the Austrian Science Fund, for research unrelated to this article.

Katharina Christ works in a project funded by the Klaus Tschira Foundation. This research is unrelated to the content of this article.

Katharina Lobinger has previously received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Federal Office of Communications in Switzerland.

Nataliia Laba has previously received Research Training Program funding from the Australian Government Department of Education.

– ref. We teach young people to write. In the age of AI, we must teach them how to see – https://theconversation.com/we-teach-young-people-to-write-in-the-age-of-ai-we-must-teach-them-how-to-see-259283

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

It is downright eerie to read, right now, Kamala Harris’ memoir of her 2024 presidential campaign. These events feel so far away now, when we read them from within the frequent shocks of the Trump presidency, from troops on the streets of Washington to the indictment of former FBI director James Comey. But the chapter titles – beginning “July 21. 107 Days to the Election” – remind us the election was just last year.

“It says a lot about how traumatised we both were by what happened that night that Doug and I never discussed it with each other until I sat down to write this book,” Harris reflects about election night: her campaign at an end and Trump triumphant.

The book is not the whole story – not by a long shot. But her words about these events resonate with a ring of truth.

---

Book review: 107 Days – Kamala Harris (Simon & Schuster)

---

The first chapter, Sunday July 21, covers the day Joe Biden – who disintegrated before our eyes in his catastrophic debate with Trump – withdrew from the race, with no road to victory.

He did want to endorse Harris, but “not for a day, maybe two”. She told him that would be “ruinous”. She argued that she was not just “the candidate in the strongest position to win”, but “the only person” who would preserve Biden’s legacy. “At this point, anyone else was bound to throw him – and all the good he had achieved – under the bus.”

She draws on her call notes to supply the reactions of various senior Democrats to the news that day, from Bill Clinton (“Oh my god, I’m so relieved!”) to Gavin Newsom:

Hiking. Will call back. (He never did.)

Throughout, Harris is relentlessly sharp in recollecting the campaign – and very candid on all the principals, including the love of her husband, Doug Emhoff.

It takes courage to write about such an agonising, devastating defeat – after an historic, exhilarating campaign – so quickly and so personally. Memoirs are rarely written this quickly. (We are still waiting, five years later, for the second volume of Barack Obama’s memoirs.)

In writing this book, she got by with a little help from a “special friend”: Pulitzer prize winning Australian author Geraldine Brooks. Harris’ acknowledgements note her deep appreciation of working with Brooks, whose “ferocious and brilliant artistic insights were indispensable.”

The book fully reflects that. And who knows? Brooks one day might collaborate with Kamala on an inaugural address.

Candid, but loyal about Biden

Harris is candid about Biden’s decline, but still essentially loyal.

“On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump at his best,” she writes. “There was a distinction between his ability to campaign and his ability to govern.”

Bob Woodward, the dean of presidential journalists, reached the same conclusion in his last book, War.

Harris writes:

of all the people in the White House, I was in the worst position to make the case that he should drop out. I knew it would come off to him as incredibly self-serving if I advised him not to run. He would see it as naked ambition.

The choice, she says, should not “have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.”

In other words, this was a decision his family and associates did not want to make. But it was imperative the national interest be placed above Biden’s personal interest.

The Harris campaign kept the core of Team Biden. “I didn’t have time to build a new plane; I had to fly the aircraft available.”

One of Biden’s closest advisors, Mike Donilon (criticised in Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s recent Biden book, Original Sin) left Harris’ campaign two weeks in.

She describes him, during Biden’s 2024 campaign, filtering poll data and presenting “the numbers in soothing terms […] really there was nothing to see here”. At these briefings (which “made no sense to me”), she writes, “Doug had wanted to stop sitting next to me because he got tired of me kicking him under the table when I asked a question and got a nonanswer.”

Pete Buttigieg ‘too big of a risk’ as VP

Harris delivers the goods on her vice-presidential search. She admits Pete Buttigieg (a personal friend) was her first choice and the “ideal partner” – but the then transportation secretary, with his husband and children, was “too big of a risk” for “a Black woman married to a Jewish man”.

Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania, came across to her as wanting a co-presidency. “At one point, he mused that he would want to be in the room for every decision […] I had a nagging concern that he would be unable to settle for a role as number two.”

She viewed senator and retired astronaut Mark Kelly of Arizona very favourably, but was afraid the Trump attack machine would try to take him down on his (excellent) military service record – just like the Republicans did to John Kerry in 2004. The man who led that effort, Chris LaCivita, was now a top Trump campaign aide.

Could a captain, used to deference and respect, adapt to an opponent’s national campaign specifically designed to disrespect him, to cut a hero down to something small?

Of course, the military service slander she feared with Kelly was employed against her eventual choice. Minnesota governor Tim Walz, who served in the National Guard for 24 years, was accused by vice president JD Vance of “stolen valor” for his misstatement, while arguing for an assault weapons ban, that “these weapons of war that I carried in war” had no place on civilian streets, though he didn’t serve in combat.

Harris found the chemistry she wanted with the “genuinely self-deprecating” Walz: an all-American decent guy next door, with great values and common sense. “He had no fixed ideas about what the role of vice president would be, saying he would do whatever I found was most useful for him to do.”

She writes that her senior staff favoured Walz, “to a person”, as did her sister – while husband Doug Emhoff, interestingly, leaned towards Shapiro.

We will never know if Shapiro or Kelly would have carried their swing states, perhaps changing the outcome of the election.

‘Don’t ever let them make you cry’

Trump’s outrages on the campaign trail were rife. Harris takes us behind the scenes to reveal her reactions to key moments, like Trump’s infamous statement to the National Association with Black Journalists: “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black.” (Her mother is Indian; her father Jamaican.)

To campaign aide Brian Fallon, who wanted her to “punch back with a big speech about my racial identity”, she retorted:

Today he wants me to prove my race. What next? He’ll say I’m not a woman and I’ll need to show my vagina?

Harris takes us into her July 25 meeting with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu during her campaign. She also tells us she believes Israel was right to respond to “the atrocities of October 7”, but criticises the “ferocity” of Netanyahu’s response, including “the number of innocent Palestinian women and children killed and his failure to prioritize the lives of the hostages”. She was tough.

“I interrupted to reiterate the need for an immediate ceasefire and a day-after plan that gave Palestinians some kind of political horizon.” Netanyahu did not like what he was hearing – especially from her. “He wanted Trump in the seat opposite him. Not Joe. Not me.”

Harris does acknowledge Biden gaffes, like when he put on the MAGA hat of a Trump supporter he was joking with, who offered it to him. Her internal monologue went: “Don’t take it […] Don’t put it on.” Then: “He put it on.” That photo carried the caption, “Biden endorses Trump over Harris.” A bad day on a trail that had only 107 days.

When Harris talks about being a woman in politics, she sounds a lot like Julia Gillard.

“As any woman in a public-facing job knows, it takes us longer,” she writes about the two hours she needed to get ready on the campaign trail – make-up, hairstyling, “more complicated apparel choices”. Women are still judged on these seeming trivialities, she writes, over “the consequential matters we’re engaged in”.

She relates a conversation with German chancellor Angela Merkel. “They used to call me this – this ugly bird. And at first it hurt me deeply.” Angela leant towards Kamala. “Don’t ever let them make you cry.”

Harris never does.

‘I know Donald Trump’s type’

Harris’ speeches hit Trump where it hurts. As California’s attorney general, she told crowds:

I took on predators of all kinds […] Predators who abused women, who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own game. So hear me when I say […] I know Donald Trump’s type.

The crowds “exploded” at this line, she writes.

There are phrases in English that do a lot of work for you. “I know his type” is one of them. We’ve all said it about someone of low character whom we’ve personally known.

She had big rallies. And big money. She was fully competitive.

Harris told America what Day One of President Kamala Harris would look like. “When elected, I will walk in with a to-do list full of priorities on what I will get done for the American people.”

By contrast: “On day one, if elected, Donald Trump would walk into that office with an enemies list.” Does anyone following American politics today doubt that?

By her own account, the wisest advisor in her campaign was David Plouffe, who ran Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign. But like a Shakespearean ghost, Plouffe’s warnings haunt this play. He counselled her Trump was doing better than in 2016 and 2020, and the assassination attempt had pushed his turnout up 20%. “Whatever you think his turnout will be, add ten per cent.”

Her campaign strategists were not happy about Harris’ continued praise for Biden in her speeches, urging her to stop. Plouffe put it bluntly: “People hate Joe Biden.” Harris quotes those words twice.

Why does she believe she lost?

This is her verdict: “One hundred and seven days were not, in the end, long enough to accomplish the task of winning the presidency.”

Maybe.

Trump got three million more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. Harris got six million fewer votes than she and Biden did in 2020.

All that Harris was proud of – the landmark legislation on infrastructure, health care and clean energy – would not deliver their full benefits before the election. In the run up to November, she writes, inflation and interest rates were high, and there was no immediate relief.

Harris wanted to talk directly to Trump supporters, but it never happened. She wrote:

I wished I could ask every one of them. What are you angry about? What about me makes you angry? Is it your health care, your grocery bills, a backbreaking job that doesn’t pay what you’re worth – and what can I do to help you?

She did not reach them.

She combated Trump’s strength on immigration and border issues, and the issue of Gen Z facing a future without good prospects. An anti-trans campaign ripped across the country: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” It was reported more than US$21 million was spent by Trump and Republicans on anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ television ads as of October 9 2024.

Harris peaked in mid-September. She never had a lead clear of the polls’ margin of error.

On election day, she believed she would win.

Bruce Wolpe donated to the Biden-Harris campaign. He has served on the staffs of the Democrats in Congress and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

– ref. Kamala Harris’ candid memoir reveals her ‘ideal’ vice president – and why she thinks she lost – https://theconversation.com/kamala-harris-candid-memoir-reveals-her-ideal-vice-president-and-why-she-thinks-she-lost-266047

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher, Digital Wellbeing, Western Sydney University

Walk into a shop, board a plane, log into your bank, or scroll through your social media feed, and chances are you might be asked to scan your face. Facial recognition and other kinds of face-based biometric technology are becoming an increasingly common form of identification.

The technology is promoted as quick, convenient and secure – but at the same time it has raised alarm over privacy violations. For instance, major retailers such as Kmart have been found to have broken the law by using the technology without customer consent.

So are we seeing a dangerous technological overreach or the future of security? And what does it mean for families, especially when even children are expected to prove their identity with nothing more than their face?

The two sides of facial recognition

Facial recognition tech is marketed as the height of seamless convenience.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the travel industry, where airlines such as Qantas tout facial recognition as the key to a smoother journey. Forget fumbling for passports and boarding passes – just scan your face and you’re away.

In contrast, when big retailers such as Kmart and Bunnings were found to be scanning customers’ faces without permission, regulators stepped in and the backlash was swift. Here, the same technology is not seen as a convenience but as a serious breach of trust.

Things get even murkier when it comes to children. Due to new government legislation, social media platforms may well introduce face-based age verification technology, framing it as a way to keep kids safe online.

At the same time, schools are trialling facial recognition for everything from classroom entry to paying in the cafeteria.

Yet concerns about data misuse remain. In one incident, Microsoft was accused of mishandling children’s biometric data.

For children, facial recognition is quietly becoming the default, despite very real risks.

A face is forever

Facial recognition technology works by mapping someone’s unique features and comparing them against a database of stored faces. Unlike passive CCTV cameras, it doesn’t just record, it actively identifies and categorises people.

This may feel similar to earlier identity technologies. Think of the check-in QR code systems that quickly sprung up at shops, cafes and airports during the COVID pandemic.

Facial recognition may be on a similar path of rapid adoption. However, there is a crucial difference: where a QR code can be removed or an account deleted, your face cannot.

Why these developments matter

Permanence is a big issue for facial recognition. Once your – or your child’s – facial scan is stored, it can stay in a database forever.

If the database is hacked, that identity is compromised. In a world where banks and tech platforms may increasingly rely on facial recognition for access, the stakes are very high.

What’s more, the technology is not foolproof. Mis-identifying people is a real problem.

Age-estimating systems are also often inaccurate. One 17-year-old might easily be classified as a child, while another passes as an adult. This may restrict their access to information or place them in the wrong digital space.

A lifetime of consequences

These risks aren’t just hypothetical. They already affect lives. Imagine being wrongly placed on a watchlist because of a facial recognition error, leading to delays and interrogations every time you travel.

Or consider how stolen facial data could be used for identity theft, with perpetrators gaining access to accounts and services.

In the future, your face could even influence insurance or loan approvals, with algorithms drawing conclusions about your health or reliability based on photo or video.

Facial recognition does have some clear benefits, such as helping law enforcement identify suspects quickly in crowded spaces and providing convenient access to secure areas.

But for children, the risks of misuse and error stretch across a lifetime.

So, good or bad?

As it stands, facial recognition would seem to carry more risks than rewards. In a world rife with scams and hacks, we can replace a stolen passport or drivers’ licence, but we can’t change our face.

The question we need to answer is where we draw the line between reckless implementation and mandatory use. Are we prepared to accept the consequences of the rapid adoption of this technology?

Security and convenience are important, but they are not the only values at stake. Until robust, enforceable rules around safety, privacy and fairness are firmly established, we should proceed with caution.

So next time you’re asked to scan your face, don’t just accept it blindly. Ask: why is this necessary? And do the benefits truly outweigh the risks – for me, and for everyone else involved?

Joanne Orlando receives funding from NSW Department of Education and previously from office of eSafety Commissioner.

– ref. How safe is your face? The pros and cons of having facial recognition everywhere – https://theconversation.com/how-safe-is-your-face-the-pros-and-cons-of-having-facial-recognition-everywhere-265753

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

The 20-point plan announced by US President Donald Trump at a joint news conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comes close to living up to Trump’s hype. It is a bold attempt to address all of the issues that need to be resolved if there is to be lasting peace in Gaza.

Could it work? Both sides are tired of the war. Throughout history, quite a number of wars have simply come to an end when both sides were too exhausted to continue. Two-thirds of Israelis want the war to end, and though polling of Palestinians is difficult, they clearly want the devastation and suffering in Gaza to stop, too.

So, this plan, despite its limitations, could come at the right time.

However, there are many outstanding questions about the feasibility of the plan and to what extent it is likely to be successful. Given the Middle East’s violent history, it’s impossible to be optimistic at this point.

Here are five main reasons for concern.

1. Trust is lacking

There’s zero trust between both sides right now. And several aspects of the plan are so vague, there is a big risk both sides could accuse the other of breaking their promises.

The last ceasefire between the two sides only lasted two months before Netanyahu backed out, blaming Hamas for not releasing more hostages before negotiations on the next phase could proceed.

2. The plan is asymmetrical

The deal favours Israel more than it does Hamas. Hamas is essentially being asked to give up all of the remaining Israeli hostages it holds and all of its weapons at the same time, rendering it entirely defenceless.

Hamas, with its lack of trust in Israel and Netanyahu, in particular, may fear the Israeli leader could use this as an opportunity to attack it again without worrying about harming the hostages.

Hamas was also not invited to negotiate the terms of the agreement. And it now faces an ultimatum: accept the terms or Israel will “finish the job”.

Given the asymmetry of the plan, Hamas may decide the risks of accepting it outweigh the potential benefits, despite its offer of amnesty for Hamas fighters who lay down their arms.

Israel is being asked to make some compromises in the plan. But how realistic are these?

For example, the deal envisions a future when the Palestinian Authority (PA) can “securely and effectively take back control of Gaza”. Netanyahu has previously said he would not accept this.

Likewise, it would also be very difficult for Netanyahu to accept “a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”, as outlined in the plan. He has firmly rejected this in the past, most recently in his defiant address to the UN General Assembly last week.

3. Important details are lacking

The implementation strategy of the plan is extraordinarily vague. We know nothing at this stage about the “International Stabilisation Force” that would take the place of the Israeli military after it withdraws from Gaza.

Which countries would participate? It would obviously be a mission fraught with danger to the personnel involved. Netanyahu has previously mentioned an Arab force taking over in Gaza, but no Arab states have yet put their hands up for this.

There is also no timeframe in the plan for the Palestinian Authority reforms, nor any details on what these reforms would entail.

Presumably, there would need to be new elections to install a credible leader in place of current President Mahmoud Abbas. But how that would be done and whether the people of Gaza would be able to take part is still unknown.

In addition, the details of the civil authority that would oversee the reconstruction of Gaza are very unclear. All we know is that Trump would appoint himself chair of the “Board of Peace”, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would also somehow be involved.

This board would need the absolute confidence of the Netanyahu government and Hamas to be effective. Trust is always in short supply in the Middle East.

---

Read more:
The Palestinian Authority is facing a legitimacy crisis. Can it be reformed to govern a Palestinian state?

---

4. No mention of the West Bank

The West Bank is clearly a flashpoint. There are disputes and clashes every day between the Israeli settlers and Palestinian residents, which are only likely to get worse.

Just last month, the Israeli government gave final approval to a controversial plan to build a new settlement that would effectively divide the West Bank in two, making a future, contiguous Palestinian state unviable.

The West Bank must be central to any overall settlement between Israel and Palestine.

5. Israel’s right-wing cabinet remains an obstacle

This could be the ultimate deal breaker: the hardline right-wing members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, have said they will not accept anything less than the complete destruction and elimination of Hamas.

And although Hamas would be disarmed and politically sidelined under this plan, its ideology would remain intact, as would a significant number of its fighters.

So, does it have a chance?

If Hamas accepts Trump’s plan, we could soon have the answers to several of these questions.

But it is going to require a great deal of work by the United States to maintain the pressure on Israel to stick to the deal. The chief Palestinian mediators, Qatar and Egypt, would also need to maintain pressure on Hamas so it doesn’t breach the conditions, as well.

Netanyahu is likely assuming there will be sufficient off-ramps for him to get out of the agreement if Hamas doesn’t live up to it. Netanyahu has already done this once when he backed out of the ceasefire in March and resumed Israel’s military operations.

In his forceful speech to a partially empty UN General Assembly hall last week, Netanyahu didn’t indicate he was thinking of walking away from any of the red lines he had previously set to end the war. In fact, he condemned the states recognising a Palestinian state and vowed, “Israel will not allow you to shove a terror state down our throats.”

Given this, Netanyahu would not have agreed to Trump’s plan at all if the US leader hadn’t put pressure on him. At the same time, Trump said at his news conference with Netanyahu that if Hamas fails to live up to the agreement or refuses to accept it, Israel would have his full backing to finish the job against Hamas.

This promise may be enough for Netanyahu to be able to persuade Smotrich and Ben-Gvir to support the plan – for now.

Ian Parmeter 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 5 big problems with Trump’s Gaza peace plan – https://theconversation.com/the-5-big-problems-with-trumps-gaza-peace-plan-266355

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Asher Kaufman, Professor of History and Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

The latest U.S.-sponsored peace plan for the Middle East was unveiled at the White House on Sept. 29, 2025, and immediately accepted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The proposal, which U.S. President Donald Trump said marked a “historic” moment that was “very close” to ending the two-year-old war in Gaza, will now go to Hamas. The Palestinian group said it was reviewing the document, having had it delivered by Egyptian and Qatari mediators.

Should it be accepted, hostilities would end “immediately,” according to the plan. But given that all previous U.S.-backed attempts have to date failed, there is reason for skepticism. The Conversation turned to Asher Kaufman, an expert on the modern Middle East and professor of peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, to explain what is different about this plan – and how it might fare.

What are the main points of the new plan?

The plan outlined by Trump in the presence of Netanyahu consists of 20 points.

If accepted by Israel and Hamas, it would see the full withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from the Gaza Strip in three stages.

The first stage would be dependent on the release of the remaining 48 hostages taken during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack in Israel by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, 20 of whom are believed to be alive. At the same time, Israel would release 250 Palestinians serving life in prison, as well as 1,700 Gazans arrested after Oct. 7.

This stage would also see humanitarian aid flow immediately to the desperate population in Gaza.

Stage two would see Gaza governed by a temporary transitional body consisting of a technocratic, apolitical committee composed of Palestinians and international members.

The committee would be overseen by a “board of peace” headed by Trump and other heads of state, including former U.K Prime Minister Tony Blair. This board would also oversee the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and its economic development.

Hamas’ members would be given amnesty if they laid down their arms, but would also have to agree – along with other members of militant Palestinian factions – to not have any role in the governance of Gaza.

A new military body to be called the International Stabilization Force would be established and deployed in the Gaza Strip. The plan calls for it to be composed of Arab and international partners.

Only then would the Israeli military withdraw completely from Gaza, at which point the post-war Gaza plan would turn to economic redevelopment.

How does this differ from past US-backed plans?

The portions of the plan that include Israeli withdrawal, the release of hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, and the provision of mass humanitarian aid to Gaza are similar to past agreements, including the last one that collapsed after Israel violated its terms in March 2025.

But there are new parts. These include the creation of the board of peace and the International Stabilization Force.

The former gives concrete structure to Trump’s older ideas to develop the Gaza Strip as a real estate venture; the latter provides a framework for an international military force that would police the strip for the foreseeable future.

The plan also mentions a long-term horizon for self-determination and the establishment of a Palestinian state – a point not raised in previous proposals, which mainly focused on ending the war in Gaza but neglected to include a longer-term pathway to statehood.

What would post-Gaza look like under this plan?

Trump sees the Gaza Strip as a real estate development opportunity – he has said as much in the past, and again talked on Sept. 29 of the opportunities of the coastline of Gaza.

As such, his “vision of peace” is designed mainly through an economic-development lens.

The plan envisions a reconstructed strip supported principally by regional players that could stabilize the region and provide in the short term humanitarian relief and in the long term economic opportunities to Gazans.

The Trump administration and Israel hope to have not only a Hamas-free Gaza but a depoliticized Gazan population in its entirety.

With no role for Hamas, who will represent Palestinians in Gaza?

It is not clear from the plan who will represent Palestinians. But reading between the lines, one can see the possibility of a revamped version of the Palestinian Authority, the body that nominally governs parts of the West Bank, that could take the role of “Palestinian technocrats.” Point nine of the plan suggests that the Palestinian Authority could have a role in the future of Gaza after the Palestinian Authority “has completed its reform program,” but it does not say what this reform program entails.

The plan also suggests that Palestinian police forces would be trained and supervised by the International Stabilization Force and stationed in the Gaza Strip. That also hints to the possibility that the Palestinian Authority’s police – which has long been accused by Palestinians of working in concert with the Israelis to provide security in the West Bank – could take up this role.

Netanyahu has long resisted considering the Palestinian Authority as a viable body to govern Gaza in the “day after” the war.

So if this plan goes into effect, the question of who makes up the Palestinian technocratic administration might certainly be one of the main stumbling blocks.

What are the chances of the plan being accepted?

There are two main barriers.

In Israel, Netanyahu will need to get the approval of the far-right members of his government, who in the past have resisted anything short of a continuation of the war and the final takeover of the Gaza Strip by Israel. Netanyahu knows that his political future is dependent on keeping far-right members of his coalition on board – and that dynamic has undone past pushes for the end of the war.

For Hamas, if this agreement is realized, it would mean the end of its military and political presence in the Gaza Strip.

As such, the political and militant body – which has governed the territory since June 2007 – will need to be in a desperate situation to accept the terms. Or perhaps, Hamas may finally be attuned to the desperate plight of Gazans and respond to it.

The plan, as worded, gives them little to hold on to as an achievement after Hamas sparked two years of war on Oct. 7, 2023, with unbearable sacrifices for Palestinians.

It is not far-fetched to think that Netanyahu is supporting Trump’s plan knowing that chances of its realization are very slim. In the last two years, Netanyahu has demonstrated that he is mainly motivated by his own political survival and he will not take any step that would jeopardize it.

By accepting the plan, he demonstrates his alliance with the American president. It could also win Netanyahu valuable political capital in Israel: allowing him to present himself as willing to end the war, but safe in the knowledge that it will likely be rejected by Hamas.

Given the fact that the plan has no concrete timeline, particularly in relation to Israel’s staged withdrawal, it also buys him valuable political time. It could allow Netanyahu to place himself in a better position domestically, with national elections scheduled for October 2026. If Netanyahu sees that public opinion shifts in his favor he could even move forward with early elections, as he often did in the past, to capitalize on the moment.

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

– ref. Trump’s Gaza peace plan: A bit of the old, a bit of the new – and the same stumbling blocks – https://theconversation.com/trumps-gaza-peace-plan-a-bit-of-the-old-a-bit-of-the-new-and-the-same-stumbling-blocks-266341

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Martin Jucker, Senior Lecturer in Atmospheric Science, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Right now, cold air high above Antarctica is up to 35ºC warmer than normal. Normally, strong winds and the lack of sun would keep the temperature at around –55°C. But it’s risen sharply to around –20°C.

The sudden heating began in early September and is still taking place. Three separate pulses of heat have each pushed temperatures up by 25ºC or more. Temperatures spiked and fell back and spiked again.

It looks as if an unusual event known as sudden stratospheric warming is taking place – the unexpected warming of the stratosphere, 12 to 40 kilometres above ground.

In the middle of an Antarctic winter, this atmospheric layer is normally exceptionally cold, averaging around –80°C. By the end of September it would be roughly –50ºC. This month, atmospheric waves carrying heat from the surface have pushed up into this layer.

In the Northern Hemisphere, these events are very common, occurring once every two years. But in the south, sudden large-scale warming was long thought to be extremely rare. My research has shown they are more common than expected, if we group the very strong 2002 event with slightly weaker events such as in 2019 and 2024.

Sudden warming may sound ominous. But weather is messy. Many factors play into what happens down where we live.

A drier, warmer spring and summer for southeastern Australia usually follow these warming events. But at present, forecasters are predicting warmer than usual temperatures across Australia alongside a wetter spring in the east.

What’s happening in the skies over Antarctica?

High above both the Arctic and Antarctic is a large area of rotating winds called the stratospheric polar vortex. By definition, sudden stratospheric warming events affect these two systems.

Over Antarctica, these events are usually detected about 30 kilometres above the Southern Ocean, just to the north of Antarctica’s coastline.

The Antarctic winter runs from March to October. During this period, the continent and the atmosphere above it are dark and very cold, as the sun doesn’t rise until September.

The polar vortex traps intensely cold air and keeps it isolated from the warmer air at lower latitudes. But every now and then, this can change.

Just like the ocean, the atmosphere has waves. What’s happening at present is that large-scale atmospheric waves have spread from the surface up into the stratosphere above Antarctica, bringing heat energy with them. As these waves interact with the strong winds of the vortex, they transfer this heat.

This is only possible during the Antarctic winter, as the polar winds are only strong during these months.

While these events are called “sudden”, it’s not sudden in the sense we would commonly use. The warming takes place over days or weeks. But they are sudden in the sense they’re often unexpected, as they are difficult to predict.

What does this mean for us?

What happens in Antarctica doesn’t stay in Antarctica. When a sudden warming event arrives, it can have flow-on effects for the weather.

We would usually expect southeastern Australia to be drier and warmer after sudden stratospheric warming above Antarctica.

In 2019, sudden warming over Antarctica led to drier conditions in Australia. Research has shown this influenced the megafires over the Black Summer of 2019–2020. These events can create prime conditions for bushfires.

The opposite is also true: If the polar stratosphere is even colder than usual, we expect wetter and cooler conditions over southeastern Australia.

For instance, over the 2023-24 spring and summer, forecasters predicted a dry spell driven by an El Niño event in the Pacific. But this didn’t happen. Instead, the very cold polar stratosphere produced a rather cool and wet summer.

There’s another effect, too. When the stratosphere is warmer, less ozone is destroyed in the ozone layer and more ozone is carried from the equator towards the poles.

That’s good for humans, as it means more dangerous ultraviolet rays are blocked from reaching the ground. But changing ozone levels can also contribute to the arrival of unexpected weather systems caused by a warmer stratosphere.

How often does this happen?

Media coverage has suggested these events are rare. But that isn’t entirely correct.

These events were first discovered in the Northern Hemisphere, where they happen roughly every second year.

But the northern polar stratosphere is warmer and has weaker winds. This means it’s easier for atmospheric waves to disturb the vortex. In the Northern Hemisphere, sudden stratospheric warming is defined as a complete disappearance of the polar vortex.

When the same definition is used for the Southern Hemisphere, only the 2002 event would meet the criteria in our entire observational record. That’s because the intense stratospheric winds of up to 300kmh over Antarctica are extremely difficult for atmospheric waves to penetrate.

Using this narrow definition, these events in Antarctica are estimated to happen about once every 60 years – and are expected to become even rarer.

But if we define these southern events more broadly as a weakening of the polar vortex producing sudden warming, the frequency is more common. Using this definition, we estimated the frequency of events like the 2019 event to be once every 22 years.

At present, I am leading international work to find better ways of detecting these events in the Southern Hemisphere.

What will this event lead to?

Forecasting chaotic systems such as the weather is a hard job. The sudden warming of the stratosphere over Antarctica will have some influence over spring and summer weather in Australia and New Zealand. But the stratosphere is just one factor among many in shaping the weather as we experience it.

At present, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is forecasting a warmer spring, and wetter in the southeast. This is because the sudden warming event is happening at the same time as ocean temperatures remain very warm, and hotter oceans lead to more evaporation and thus more rain.

But this could still change. Not all sudden stratospheric warming events end up influencing the weather near the surface. It’s worth keeping an eye on the seasonal forecasts this summer.

Martin Jucker receives funding from the NSW Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre.

– ref. Air temperatures over Antarctica have soared 35ºC above average. What does this unusual event mean for Australia? – https://theconversation.com/air-temperatures-over-antarctica-have-soared-35-c-above-average-what-does-this-unusual-event-mean-for-australia-265079

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brenton Griffin, Academic Status in the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University

Russell Marion Nelson Sr, prophet and leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has died aged 101.

Nelson was married to Dantzel White from 1945 until her passing in 2005. As of his 100th birthday, he had ten children, 57 grandchildren, and more than 167 great-grandchildren.

Following Dantzel’s passing, Nelson married Wendy Watson in 2009. Wendy has survived her husband.

Early life and medicine

Nelson was born in Salt Lake City, Utah on September 9 1924, into a faithful family of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He received his medical degree from the University of Utah in 1947. He served in the United States Army Medical Corps during the Korean War, before completing a PhD at the University of Minnesota in 1954. In 1955, he became a faculty member at the University of Utah School of Medicine.

Nelson was attached to various medical societies throughout his successful career, including as President of the Society for Vascular Surgery in 1975. He also had a score of ecclesiastical positions within the Church, which ran parallel to his career.

In 1984, aged 59, he was called to be an apostle, after which he was involved with the church’s ministry full time. In Mormon cosmology, apostles are seen as being in direct communication with God, and are to guide the church until the second coming of Jesus Christ, as laid out in the Latter-day Saint scripture.

Nelson helped broaden the church’s global reach, supervising its expansion across Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

---

Read more:
Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with 2 secretive new temples planned for Australia

---

In 2018, he was ordained as the prophet, seer and revelator of the church following the death of Thomas S. Monson. For Latter-day Saints, the prophet is the senior apostle who holds the “keys of the Kingdom of God on earth”. The prophet is the authority to bring salvation to those willing to accept the church’s doctrines and rituals.

Nelson remained in this position until his death.

A difficult legacy

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will remember Nelson for his role in expanding the church globally, as he was responsible for the construction of various temples. These sacred sites are used exclusively by select, faithful Latter-day Saints – so more temples in more places means easier access for these church members.

Nelson repealed a series of controversial church doctrines. In 2019, he overturned a ban that prevented the children of LGBTQIA+ parents from getting a baptism, and the labelling of LGBTQIA+ Latter-day Saints as apostates.

It was also under Nelson the church released its so-called “Restoration Proclomation”, the sixth proclamation released in the church’s history.

Nelson read the proclamation at the church’s 2020 biannual conference, which coincided with the bicentennial anniversary of Mormonism founder Joseph Smith’s
First Vision, in which Smith claimed to have seen God and Jesus Christ as physical manifestations.

The Restoration Proclamation affirmed the importance of Smith in the “restoration” of the gospel, and promised the church “goes forward through continuing revelation”. It also invited “all to know” of the church’s “divinity and of its purpose to prepare the world for the promised second coming [of Christ]”.

At the same time, several controversies engulfed the church during Nelson’s leadership. These included accusations of the misuse of church finances, representations of historical church-sanctioned violence in popular culture, the naming of the church and church members in various government and media reports on alleged child sexual abuse, and criticism of the church’s aggressive real estate expansion (which included buying agricultural holdings throughout the US and Australia).

Topping all of this off is an increasingly loud ex-Mormon community.

Succession and schism in the church

Ever since the church was established in 1830, there has been a tension between its centralised ecclesiastical nature, and its more charismatic, individualistic undertones.

Mormonism emerged out of an anti-establishment fervour in early 19th-century America. This was also reflected in other restorationist movements such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians.

Part of the religion’s foundational ethos was that individuals can and must have personal relationships with God, and that religious authorities can be corrupted – even those connected to the church. This democratisation of spirituality, which was crucial for the church’s initial successes, has since led to numerous schisms among believers.

The largest of these came after the death of founder Joseph Smith in 1844. Thousands of Latter-day Saints claimed the prophethood should remain within the Smith family, and formed the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They have since renamed themselves as the Community of Christ and are still active today.

Further splinters emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century, when scores of “fundamentalist” branches fractured from the church following the 1890 decision to end polygamy.

Warren Jeffs is the leader of the largest of these polygamous sects, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jeffs was found guilty of child sexual abuse in 2011 and is incarcerated for life.

Who will be the next prophet be?

Unlike other Christian religions, there is no discussion or casting of votes when it comes to choosing the next prophet of the church. The title will automatically go to the most “senior apostle”, who in this case is Dallin H. Oaks.

Before being called to apostleship, Oaks was a lawyer, legal educator, Utah Supreme Court Justice, and president of the church-owned Brigham Young University. He is 93 years old, and has been an apostle since 1984.

Oaks will be set apart as prophet by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and sustained by the church’s membership at the next biannual General Conference.

Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His current research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the nineteenth century to present.

– ref. Mormon leader Russell Nelson has died aged 101. What’s next for the church? – https://theconversation.com/mormon-leader-russell-nelson-has-died-aged-101-whats-next-for-the-church-263276

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bryce Vissel, Cojoint Professor, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney

Imagine knowing in your 20s or 30s that you carry a gene which will cause your mind and body to slowly unravel. Huntington’s disease is inherited, relentless and fatal, and there is no cure. Families live with the certainty of decline stretching across generations.

Now, a new treatment is being widely reported as a breakthrough.

Last week, gene therapy company uniQure announced that a one-time brain infusion appeared to slow the disease in a small clinical study.

If confirmed, this would not only be a landmark for Huntington’s disease but potentially the first time a gene therapy has shown promise in any adult-onset neurodegenerative disorder.

But the results, which were announced in a press release, are early, unreviewed and based on external comparisons. So, while these findings offer families hope after decades of failure, we need to remain cautious.

What is Huntington’s disease?

Huntington’s is a rare but devastating disease, affecting around five to ten people in 100,000 in Western countries. That means thousands in Australia and hundreds of thousands worldwide.

Symptoms usually start in mid-life. They include involuntary movements, depression, irritability and progressive decline in thinking and memory. People lose the ability to work, manage money, live independently and eventually care for themselves. Most die ten to 20 years after onset.

The disease is caused by an expanded stretch of certain DNA repeats (CAG) in the huntingtin gene. The number of repeats strongly influences when symptoms begin, with longer expansions usually linked to earlier onset.

Looking for a treatment

The gene that causes Huntington’s disease was identified in 1993, 32 years ago. Soon afterwards, mouse studies showed that switching off the mutant huntingtin protein even after symptoms had begun could reverse signs and improve behaviour.

This suggested lowering the toxic protein might slow or even partly reverse the disease. Yet for three decades, every attempt to develop a therapy for people has failed to show convincing clinical benefit. Trials of huntingtin-lowering drugs and other approaches did not slow progression.

What is the new treatment?

The one-time gene therapy, called AMT-130, involves brain surgery guided by MRI. Surgeons infuse an engineered virus directly into the caudate and putamen brain regions, which are heavily affected in Huntington’s.

The virus carries a short genetic “microRNA” designed to reduce production of the affected huntingtin protein.

By delivering it straight into the brain, the treatment bypasses the blood–brain barrier. This natural wall usually prevents medicines from entering the central nervous system. That barrier helps explain why so many brain-targeted drugs have failed.

What did they find?

Some 29 patients received treatment, with 12 in each group (one low-dose, and one high-dose) followed for three years. According to uniQure, those given the higher dose declined much slower than expected.

The study compared how much participants’ movement, thinking and daily function declined, compared to a matched external group from a global Huntington’s registry (meaning they weren’t part of the study). The company claimed those given the higher dose had a 75% slowing in their decline.

On a functional scale focused on independence, the company reported a 60% slowing in decline for the higher dose group.

Other tests of movement and thinking also favoured treatment. Nerve-cell damage in spinal fluid was lower for study participants than would be expected for untreated patients.

Why should we be cautious?

These findings are an early snapshot of results reported by the company, not yet peer-reviewed. The study compared treated patients to an external matched control group, not people randomised to placebo at the same time. This design can introduce bias. The numbers are also small – only 12 patients at the three-year mark – so we can’t draw solid conclusions.

The company reports the therapy was generally well tolerated, with no new serious adverse events related to the drug since late 2022. Most problems were related to the neurosurgical infusion itself, and resolved. But in a disease that already causes such severe symptoms, it is often hard to know what counts as a side effect.

The company uniQure has said it plans to seek regulatory approval in 2026 on the basis of this dataset.

Regulators will face difficult decisions: whether to allow access sooner before all the questions and uncertainties are addressed – based on the needs of a community with no effective options – and wait for further data while people are being treated, or to insist on larger trials that confirm results before approval.

What does it mean?

If upheld, these results represent the first convincing signs that a gene-targeted therapy can slow Huntington’s disease. They may also be the first evidence of benefit from a gene therapy in any adult-onset neurodegenerative disorder. That would be a milestone after decades of failure.

But these results do not prove success. Only larger, longer and fully peer-reviewed studies will show whether this treatment truly changes lives. Even if approved, a complex neurosurgical gene therapy may not be easily accessible to all patients.

The company has said the drug’s price would be similar to other gene therapies – which can cost over A$3 million per patient – and will have the added cost of brain surgery.

The takeaway

For families who carry this gene, the hope is profound. But caution is just as important.

We may be witnessing the first credible step toward slowing an inherited adult-onset neurodegenerative disease, or just an early signal that may not hold up.

Ultimately, only time and rigorous science will show whether this treatment delivers the benefits so urgently needed.

Bryce Vissel 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. A new treatment for Huntington’s disease is genuinely promising – but here’s why we still need caution – https://theconversation.com/a-new-treatment-for-huntingtons-disease-is-genuinely-promising-but-heres-why-we-still-need-caution-266062