China’s new literary star had 19 jobs before ‘writer’ – including bike courier and bakery apprentice

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Wanning Sun, Professor of Media and Cultural Studies, University of Technology Sydney

Wavie/Unsplash

Delivering parcels is just one of the 19 different jobs Hu Anyan cycles through over 20 years, as tracked in his Chinese bestseller I Deliver Parcels in Beijing. He also tries his luck working as a convenience-store clerk, a cleaner and in a bike shop, a warehouse, a vegetable market and even an anime design company – always at the very bottom of the ladder.


Review: I Deliver Parcels in Beijing – Hu Anyan (Allen Lane)


Some jobs last weeks, some days, some barely survive the training shift. Bosses disappear, wages evaporate, contracts turn out to be imaginary and rules are invented on the spot. With a blend of hope and resignation, Hu repeatedly comes to realise the true qualifications for survival in the city are a strong back, a flexible sense of dignity and a high tolerance for absurdity.

A smiling man in a hoodie
Hu Anyan.
Penguin

Hu, now aged 47, grew up in Guangzhou, a major city in south China. He has worked in cities big and small, including a brief stint across the border in Vietnam.

They are “places with apparent unlimited potential for development, yet I seemed to have gotten nowhere,” he writes. They promise opportunity, then charge rent on his naivety and optimism. He seems to move through the world with a certain innocence about how it truly works, yet possesses an uncommon capacity for deep, searching reflection.

He writes with dry humour and an eye for the absurd – security guards guarding nothing, managers creating chaos and delivery algorithms ruling lives with godlike indifference. But he also writes like a field researcher issued a hard hat instead of a research grant. His prose has a forensic, documentary precision – wages counted to the cents, shifts timed, fines itemised, and injustices recorded without melodrama.

When he completed his trial as a parcel deliverer, he writes:

an assistant foreman […] told me that although the probationary period wasn’t paid, he would make it up by giving me three extra days of vacation. […] But it wasn’t even a month before the same guy had a dispute with the other foreman and quit. No one mentioned those paid days off ever again.

China’s ‘development didn’t suit me’

This reporting of everyday injustice at work is peppered with occasional philosophical reflections on human nature and the meaning of work. He calmly observes of mean and unhelpful co-workers: “Selflessness may be a noble virtue, but I suppose it isn’t fundamental to being human.”

The real charm is his tone. Even when dealing with exploitation, Hu delivers it with light-footed sarcasm, letting absurdity do the heavy lifting. Writing about heavy workload in the delivery company he works for, he simply comments “capitalists aren’t known for sympathising with workers”.

At times, he reveals his battles with social anxiety, depression and occasional bouts of illness. In one memorable scene, he describes going back and forth between hospitals, community clinics and small medical offices, carefully comparing prices before settling on where to get an IV drip to bring his fever down.

That kind of careful penny-pinching, being unable to justify spending even on one’s own health, feels painfully familiar to anyone trying to survive on very little.

Hu’s story is a personal one about structural inequality and everyday injustice. But he doesn’t sound resentful that China’s economic growth hasn’t benefited him. He just states, matter-of-factly, that China’s “development didn’t suit me”.

His personal account also functions as a practical lesson in the political economy of labour. In that sense, the lesson is not uniquely Chinese. Rather than relying on theories of profit and value, he uses his experience as a courier to show how the gig economy of late capitalism operates globally.

He meticulously calculates how the supposed average monthly pay of 7,000 yuan a month (around A$1,435) he could expect to earn translates in reality. It means working 26 days a month, 11 hours a day – to earn 30 yuan (A$6.16) an hour and 0.5 yuan (ten cents) a minute.

I had to complete a delivery every four minutes in order not to run at a loss. If that becomes unworkable, I would have to consider a change of job.

‘Oddly soothing’

For urban educated readers, both in China and elsewhere, who are crushed by emails, mortgages, childcare and performance anxiety, it can be oddly soothing to read about a life lived under more precarious conditions.

Hu’s calm endurance could work like a psychological release valve – things are hard, yes, but not this hard. The result lets middle-class readers feel ethically awake without feeling accused. This makes the book as reassuring as it is unsettling.

A book cover with an illustration of a man carrying a large pile of parcels

I Deliver Parcels in Beijing is also popular with Hu’s social peers – the urban underclasses and rural migrant workers: it shows that their struggles and small victories are worthy of being recorded and remembered.

A key, albeit implicit, theme circulating the book is unequal access to social mobility. Each of the 19 jobs Hu cycled through may look different on the surface, but rather than climbing a social ladder, he merely shuffles horizontally, stagnating on the same rung: “twelve years have passed, and with the same workload as before, my pay was somehow still lower”.

There is much musing about the meaning of freedom in the book. But freedom, for Hu, is not about the right to vote, but to choose who one wants to be, rather than what society expects one to become.

There’s no cataloguing of human rights abuses – the familiar trope of English-language coverage of China. Nor is the book a sociological exercise by an intellectual, for whom Hu’s world might be an object of study. And it certainly isn’t some diasporic Chinese writer’s rendition of China, often calibrated to the expectations of festival-going, liberal middle-class readers abroad.

Instead, the book speaks from inside the experience it describes, with no apparent desire to translate itself – at least initially – into the moral or political idioms readers might expect. That’s precisely where its quiet power lies.

It doesn’t tell you what to think about China – it shows you a life you would otherwise almost never get to see. The translation, superbly done, helps enhance this objective.

The luxury of being noticed

Like worker-poet Zheng Xiaoqiong and worker-photographer Zhan Youbing, Hu the worker-writer becomes a self-appointed “surrogate ethnographer”, patiently recording rules, rhythms, hierarchies, and survival strategies from the inside. He produces not theory, but something more valuable: reality, rendered with authenticity and credibility.

“I often sat in Jingtong Roosevelt Plaza after finishing my deliveries and watched the passers-by and the salespeople in stores, and the different delivery drivers back and forth,” he writes. “Mostly I supposed they were numb, thinking nothing at all, mechanically going about their days like I once did.”

Social researchers outside China dream of accessing the trove of evidence-based, granular, situated knowledge this book contains – but they rarely do.

Hu is one of the millions of internal labour migrants in China who struggle to survive at the bottom of the social ladder – and a rare case of a worker who became a recognised writer. He has published two books since this one.

His rise was not the result of structural change, but exceptional literary talent and sharp intellectual acuity. Meanwhile, the great majority of China’s urban underclasses and rural migrant workers remain locked in the kind of precarious, exhausting existence Hu describes – without the chance to turn their experiences into art, and without the luxury of being noticed at all.

The Conversation

Wanning Sun 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. China’s new literary star had 19 jobs before ‘writer’ – including bike courier and bakery apprentice – https://theconversation.com/chinas-new-literary-star-had-19-jobs-before-writer-including-bike-courier-and-bakery-apprentice-272447

Winter Olympic security tightens as US-European tensions grow

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Keith Rathbone, Senior Lecturer, Modern European History and Sports History, Macquarie University

Since the murder of 11 Israeli hostages at the 1972 Munich Summer Olympics, security has been fundamental for games stakeholders.

The 2024 Paris games set new benchmarks for security at a mega-event, and now the presence of American security officials in Milan Cortina threatens to darken this year’s Winter Olympics before they even start.

Security at the games

The scale of security at the games has magnified considerably since the 1970s.

For the 2024 Olympics, the French government mobilised an unprecedented 45,000 police officers from around the nation.

For the opening ceremony, these forces cordoned off six kilometres of the Seine River.

Advocates point to Paris as an example of security done correctly.

Milipol Paris – one of the world’s largest annual conferences on policing and security – pointed to lower crime across the country during the games and a complete absence of any of the feared large security events. It stated:

The operation demonstrated the effectiveness of advanced planning, inter-agency cooperation and strong logistical coordination. Authorities and observers are now reflecting on which elements of the Paris 2024 model might be applied to future large-scale events.

However, critics complained the security measures infringed on civil liberties.

Controversy as ICE heads to Italy

Ahead of the Milan Cortina games, which run from February 4-23, Italian officials promised they were “ready to meet the challenge of security”.

A newly established cybersecurity headquarters will include officials from around the globe, who will sift through intelligence reports and react to issues in real time.

As well as this, security will feature:

  • 6,000 officers to protect the two major locations – Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo
  • a no-fly zone around key sites
  • a constant restricted access cordon around some sites (as seen in Paris).

Some of the security officers working in the cybersecurity headquarters will come from the United States.

Traditionally the US diplomatic security service provides protection for US athletes and officials attending mega-events overseas. It has been involved in the games since 1976.

Late last month, however, news broke that some of the officers will be from “a unit of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)”.

US and Italian officials were quick to differentiate between Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which handles cross-border crime, and Enforcement and Removal Operations, the department responsible for the brutal crackdown on immigrant communities across the US.

The HSI has helped protect athletes at previous events and will be stationed at the US Consulate in Milan to provide support to the broader US security team at the games.

But the organisation’s reputation precedes them, and Italians are wary.

In Milan, demonstrators expressed outrage. Left-wing Mayor Giuseppe Sala called ICE a “a militia that kills” while protests broke out in the host cities.




Read more:
Shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis has put America’s gun lobby at odds with the White House


US-European relations are stretched

The presence of ICE has also illuminated fractures within Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s governing coalition.

Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani defended the inclusion of the US officers, saying “it’s not like the SS are coming”, referring to the Nazis paramilitary force in Germany.

However, local officials, including those from Meloni’s centre-right coalition, expressed concerns.

The tension inside Meloni’s government reflects broader concerns on the continent about US-European relations.

US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will attend the opening ceremony in Milan, despite some Europeans viewing Vance as the mouthpiece for US President Donald Trump’s imperial agenda.




Read more:
The Making of an Autocrat: podcast out now


Trump’s desire to take over Greenland has undermined American and European support for trans-Atlantic amity and the NATO alliance.

Just ahead of the Olympics, Danish veterans marched outside the US Embassy after Trump disparaged NATO’s contribution to US-led operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These protests added to Danes’ fears about Trump’s Greenland ambition.

Tensions in Denmark remain high as the Americans and the Danes gear up to play ice hockey in the opening round robin of the men’s competition.

Elsewhere, politicians in the US on both sides have raised concerns that Trump’s bombastic rhetoric will make it harder for American athletes to compete and win.

A double standard?

Critics argue there is an American exception when it comes to global politics interfering in international sport.

Under Trump, the US has attacked Iran and Venezuela, called on Canada to become its 51st state, threatened to occupy Greenland and engaged in cross-border operations in Mexico.

Despite this, US competitors can still wear their nation’s colours at the Olympics.

Compare this to Belarussian and Russian athletes, who are only eligible to compete as Individual Neutral Athletes after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and only under the condition they have not been publicly supportive of the invasion. An International Olympic Committee (IOC) body assesses each competitor’s eligibility.

Israeli athletes have also been under the spotlight amid geopolitical tensions in the region.

Following the Israeli invasion of Gaza in October 2023, a panel of independent experts at the United Nations urged soccer’s governing body FIFA to ban Israeli athletes, stating:

sporting bodies must not turn a blind eye to grave human rights violations.

But FIFA, and the IOC, have recently defended Israeli athletes’ right to participate in international sport in the face of boycotts and protests.

Competitors from Israel can represent their country at the Winter Olympics.

The political developments which have caused ructions worldwide ironically come after the IOC’s 2021 decision to update the Olympic motto to supposedly recognise the “unifying power of sport and the importance of solidarity”.

The change was a simple one, adding the word “together” after the original three-word motto: “faster, higher, stronger”.

It remains to be seen whether the Milan Cortina games live up to every aspect of the “faster, higher, stronger – together” motto, not just the first three words.

The Conversation

Keith Rathbone 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. Winter Olympic security tightens as US-European tensions grow – https://theconversation.com/winter-olympic-security-tightens-as-us-european-tensions-grow-274530

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.

The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur 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. What’s the point of a space station around the Moon? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-point-of-a-space-station-around-the-moon-274765

Banning Rafiki was unlawful: why new court ruling is an important moment for African film

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gibson Ncube, Senior Lecturer, Stellenbosch University

The film Rafiki is a charming love story that plays out in urban Kenya. It follows two teenage girls whose close friendship slowly turns into first love. Directed by rising filmmaker Wanuri Kahiu, it was celebrated as groundbreaking by critics and at festivals when it was released in 2018. But back home in Kenya, where homosexuality is criminal, the film was banned.

On 23 January 2026, after an eight-year legal campaign by the film producers, the Kenyan Court of Appeals ruled that the 2018 ban was not reasonable in terms of the country’s constitution. This means the producers can now submit the film for classification under Kenya’s Films and Stage Plays Act as part of the process to allow public screenings.



The court stressed that depicting a same-sex relationship doesn’t amount to promoting illegal conduct, which is how the state-funded Kenya Film Classification Board had justified the ban in 2018. The film’s happy ending was perceived to be “promoting homosexuality”. The ban quickly became a symbol of the problems filmmakers face whenever they challenge traditional views on sex, gender and morality.

The ruling marks more than the ongoing rehabilitation of a single film. It signals a subtle but significant shift in how African film might negotiate censorship in the years to come.

A young African woman with dreadlocks smiles at the camera, wearing a flowing green dress with a white pattern on it.
Wanuri Kahiu in 2025.
Bryan Berlin/ Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

My research as a scholar of African queer cinemas has focused on how such moments reveal the fragile yet transformative possibilities through which African film cultures negotiate visibility and legitimacy. And the right to imagine queer futures and freedom of speech on their own terms.

At first glance, the ruling might appear modest. Kenya has not decriminalised same-sex relations, and legal restrictions on LGBTIQ+ lives remain firmly in place. Even so, Rafiki’s chance of a return is very important.

It marks the first time a Kenyan film previously prohibited for queer content has been potentially permitted public circulation. Other recently banned queer-themed films like I am Samuel remain banned.

Although largely symbolic, the gesture disrupts long-standing assumptions about what African films can show, who they can centre, and which lives can be made visible.

Censorship and representation

African film industries have historically operated under difficult systems of moral, religious, and political regulation. From colonial censorship boards to postcolonial classification authorities, film has been treated as requiring constant surveillance.

Sexuality, especially queer sexuality, has been one of the most heavily policed domains. Films tackling same-sex desire have often been banned, restricted to festival circuits, or forced into underground circulation. In South Africa, the film Inxeba/The Wound was effectively banned from mainstream cinemas. In Nigeria, the first independent queer film Ìfé was prohibited from cinemas.




Read more:
How young filmmakers are protecting artistic freedom in Kenya


Rafiki’s initial banning followed this pattern. Despite being selected for screening at the important Cannes Film Festival, it was deemed unsuitable for Kenyan audiences. An internationally celebrated Kenyan film could be screened overseas but not in Nairobi.

So the ruling disrupts this asymmetry. It shows that national cinemas cannot indefinitely insulate themselves from transnational circuits. Overseas, African queer films increasingly gain visibility, prestige and market value.

Kenyan law appears, in this sense, to be more flexible and changing in response to international attention, cultural pressure and public image.

African audiences

One of the most significant implications of the potential unbanning concerns the question of audiences. Bans don’t just suppress content; they also actively shape who is imagined as the viewers. For decades, queer African films have been implicitly addressed to foreign audiences, festivals and academic readers, rather than to local publics.

Allowing Rafiki to screen at home will challenge this idea. It will open a space, even if it’s a fragile one, for Kenyan audiences to encounter queer lives. Not as abstract political controversies but as intimate, everyday narratives. Rafiki tells a deliberately modest story, grounded in the innocence of first love and the textures of everyday life in the city.

This matters because being represented is not only about being visible. It’s also about producing audiences. More than depicting queer lives, films like Rafiki shape new viewing communities and new forms of recognition.

In this sense, the ruling contributes to a slow reconfiguration of African film publics. It suggests that African audiences are not uniformly conservative or inherently hostile to queer narratives. Instead, they are plural and capable of engaging with complex stories about identity, love and desire.

These publics have been changing, thanks in part to streaming platforms and digital technologies. Even where films are banned from cinemas, viewers can still watch, share and debate them online. This shift is important as cinema spaces themselves are declining across many African countries.

African filmmakers

For African filmmakers, the ruling carries both practical and symbolic importance. Practically, it signals the possibility that national classification regimes may become more negotiable and more responsive to legal challenges and public pressure. The 2018 High Court ruling that temporarily lifted the ban to allow limited screenings had already established an important precedent. The current unbanning consolidates that into institutional practice.




Read more:
Banning African films like Rafiki and Inxeba doesn’t diminish their influence


Symbolically, the decision offers a measure of protection to filmmakers who dare to take aesthetic and political risks. Rafiki was shot cautiously in order to evade state surveillance.

It teaches us that queer storytelling is no longer automatically incompatible with national cinema. This may encourage a new generation of African directors, screenwriters and producers to pursue narratives once seen as too dangerous, too marginal, or too commercially unviable.

But caution should not be thrown to the wind. The ruling does not signal the end of censorship, nor does it guarantee a hospitable environment for filmmakers. Classification boards still retain broad powers, and political backlash remains likely.

A fragile opening …

The unbanning of Rafiki should not be overstated. Legal prohibitions against same-sex relations remain in force. Violence against queer communities persists, and cultural backlash is inevitable. Yet openings in cultural policy often precede legal and social change, not the other way around.

Cinema, precisely because it works through emotions and the visual, can create the conditions for new ethical and political sensibilities to emerge.




Read more:
Queer film in Africa is rising – even in countries with the harshest anti-LGBTIQ+ laws


Rafiki’s return would ultimately represent a possibility that African films can speak more openly about intimacy, vulnerability and difference. A possibility that African audiences can encounter these stories on their own terms.

This story was updated to clarify details of the legal ruling.

The Conversation

Gibson Ncube receives funding from the National Research Foundation (South Africa).

ref. Banning Rafiki was unlawful: why new court ruling is an important moment for African film – https://theconversation.com/banning-rafiki-was-unlawful-why-new-court-ruling-is-an-important-moment-for-african-film-274542

Some companies claim they can ‘resurrect’ species. Does that make people more comfortable with extinction?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Christopher Lean, Research Fellow in Philosophy, Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology, Macquarie University

Ross Stone/Unsplash

Less than a year ago, United States company Colossal Biosciences announced it had “resurrected” the dire wolf, a megafauna-hunting wolf species that had been extinct for 10,000 years.

Within two days of Colossal’s announcement, the Interior Secretary of the US, Doug Burgum, used the idea of resurrection to justify weakening environmental protection laws: “pick your favourite species and call up Colossal”.

His reasoning appeared to confirm critics’ fears about de-extinction technology. If we can bring any species back, why protect them to begin with?

In a new study published in Biological Conservation, we put this idea to the test. We found no evidence people will accept extinction more readily if they’re promised de-extinction. But it’s important to communicate about de-extinction efforts with care.

The ‘moral hazard’ of de-extinction

Since the emergence of de-extinction technology, critics have argued it potentially undermines support for conserving existing species.

In other words, de-extinction technology poses a “moral hazard”. This is a situation in which someone is willing to behave in riskier ways than they would otherwise, because someone or something else will bear the cost or deal with the consequences. Behaving recklessly because you have health insurance is a classic example.

The moral hazard of de-extinction technology is that if we believe extinct species can be brought back, we may be more willing to let species go extinct in the first place.

Photo of a white wolf with the word extinct crossed out above it.
TIME magazine cover featuring the dire wolf ‘de-extinction’ story.
TIME

This concern mirrors debates in other areas of environmental policy. For example, critics of carbon capture and solar radiation modification worry that believing we can later fix climate change may weaken the incentive to reduce emissions now. However, most studies investigating this claim found these technologies don’t reduce people’s support for also cutting back carbon emissions.

Our study is the first to investigate whether de-extinction technology reduces people’s concern about the extinction of existing species.

What we found

We presented 363 people from a wide range of backgrounds with several scenarios. These described a company doing something that yields an economic or public benefit, but results in the extinction of an existing endangered species.

For example, in one scenario a company intended to build a highway for a new port through the last habitat of the dusky gopher frog, a critically endangered species. The construction would lead to the frog’s extinction.

A medium sized spotted frog with golden eyes held up to a camera.
Endemic to the southern United States, the dusky gopher frog is critically endangered because its native habitat, longleaf-pine forests, are almost entirely destroyed.
ememu/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC

There were two versions of each scenario, differing in how the company would compensate for the species’ extinction.

In the “environmental compensation” version, a large investment would be made to preserve other species. In the “de-extinction” version, de-extinction technology would be used to reintroduce the DNA of the extinct species into a related species at a later date.

For each scenario, people were asked: did they think the project was good for the public? Was the species extinction justified? Did compensation make the company less blameworthy for causing the species extinction? Should we allow projects like this one in the future?

Finally, in cases where de-extinction was proposed, we asked if the respondent believed the companies’ claims that genetic engineering could be used to successfully recreate the extinct species.

A warning against spin

We found no evidence that proposing de-extinction makes people more accepting of extinction than compensation for environmental destruction would.

Therefore, moral hazard alone is not a reason to outright reject the ethical deployment of de-extinction technology. Further, overemphasising potential but unsubstantiated hazards of de-extinction research may undermine the development of effective tools for preserving current species.

We did, however, find one reason for caution.

There was a correlation between a person’s belief that de-extinction could resurrect the species and the belief that causing its extinction would be acceptable.

This is a correlation, so we can’t tell which belief comes first. It could be that these people already think extinction is justified to gain access to economic benefits, and then adopt the view that de-extinction is possible to excuse that belief.

A more worrying possibility is the reverse: believing that de-extinction is possible could have led to these individuals viewing extinction as acceptable. A strong belief in de-extinction’s success could either act as an excuse for extinction, or a reason for extinction.

This creates a major risk if those who develop de-extinction technology overstate or mislead the public about what this tech can achieve.

Avoid misleading claims

It’s crucial the companies and scientists working on de-extinction efforts communicate accurately and without hype. Claims that de-extinction can reverse extinction are misleading. Genetic engineering can introduce lost traits from an extinct species into a closely related living species and restore lost ecological functions, but it can’t re-create the extinct species.

Problems arise when companies present these limits cautiously within the scientific community but make stronger claims in public-facing communication.

Doing so encourages the false belief that extinction is fully reversible. This risks undermining the ethical justification for any de-extinction efforts.

This risk can be avoided. For example, the de-extinction project attempting to restore aurochs (ancient cattle) to Europe clearly states it’s creating aurochs 2.0. It’s an ecological proxy for the extinct species, not the species itself.

Colossal Biosciences attracts widespread controversy for publicising its projects, which include “resurrection” of the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and the thylacine.

Our results show claims that de-extinction will necessarily create a moral hazard are unjustified.

However, de-extinction advocates bear a burden to be cautious and clear in their communication about what their technology offers – and what it can’t do.

The Conversation

Christopher Lean receives funding from the Australian Government through the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology (project number CE200100029).

Andrew James Latham has been supported by a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship.

Annie Sandrussi receives funding from the Australian Government through the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology (project number CE200100029).

Wendy Rogers receives funding from The Australian Research Council. She is a Chief Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology (project number CE200100029), funded by the Australian Government.

ref. Some companies claim they can ‘resurrect’ species. Does that make people more comfortable with extinction? – https://theconversation.com/some-companies-claim-they-can-resurrect-species-does-that-make-people-more-comfortable-with-extinction-273583

The only remaining US-Russia nuclear treaty expires this week. Could a new arms race soon accelerate?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tilman Ruff, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

The New START treaty, the last remaining agreement constraining Russian and US nuclear weapons, is due to lapse on February 4.

There are no negotiations to extend the terms of the treaty, either. As US President Donald Trump said dismissively in a recent interview, “if it expires, it expires”.

The importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate. As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, too.

What is New START?

The New START or Prague Treaty was signed by then-US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dimitri Medvedev, in Prague on April 8, 2010. It entered into force the following year.

It superseded a 2002 treaty that obligated Russia and the United States to reduce their operationally deployed, strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012.

The New START Treaty called for further reductions on long-range nuclear weapons and provided greater specificity about different types of launchers. The new limits were:

  • 700 deployed intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (together with heavy bombers)
  • 1,550 nuclear warheads deployed on those platforms, and
  • 800 launchers (both deployed and non-deployed).

These reductions were achieved by February 5, 2018.

The treaty included mechanisms for compliance and verification, which have worked effectively. It provided for twice-yearly exchanges of data and ongoing mutual notification about the movement of strategic nuclear forces, which in practice occurred on a nearly daily basis.

Importantly, the treaty also mandated short-notice, on-site inspections of missiles, warheads and launchers covered by the treaty, providing valuable and stabilising insights into the other’s nuclear deployments.

Lastly, the treaty established a bilateral consultative commission and clear procedures to resolve questions or disputes.

Limitations of the deal

The treaty was criticised at the time for its modest reductions and the limited types of nuclear weapons it covered.

But the most enduring downside was the political price Obama paid to achieve ratification by the US Senate.

To secure sufficient Republican support, he agreed to a long-term program of renewal and modernisation of the entire US nuclear arsenal – in addition to the facilities and programs that produce and maintain nuclear weapons. The overall pricetag was estimated to reach well over US$2 trillion.

This has arguably done more harm by entrenching the United States’ possession of nuclear weapons and thwarting prospects for disarmament.

As the New START treaty was about to expire in 2021, Russia offered to extend it for another five years, as allowed under the terms. US President Donald Trump, however, refused to reciprocate.

After winning the 2020 US presidential election, Joe Biden did agree to extend the treaty on February 3, 2021, just two days before it would have expired. The treaty does not provide for any further extensions.

In February 2023, Russia suspended its implementation of key aspects of the treaty, including stockpile data exchange and on-site inspections. It did not formally withdraw, however, and committed to continue to abide by the treaty’s numerical limits on warheads, missiles and launchers.

What could happen next

With the imminent expiry of the treaty this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in September 2025 that he was prepared to continue observing the numerical limits for one more year if the US acted similarly.

Besides an off-the-cuff comment by Trump – “it sounds like a good idea to me” – the US did not formally respond to the Russian offer.

Trump has further complicated matters by insisting that negotiations on any future nuclear arms control agreements include China. However, China has consistently refused this. There is also no precedent for such trilateral nuclear control or disarmament negotiations, which would no doubt be long and complex. Though growing, China’s arsenal is still less than 12% the size of the US arsenal and less than 11% the size of Russia’s.

The New START treaty now looks set to expire without any agreement to continue to observe its limits until a successor treaty is negotiated.

This means Russia and the US could increase their deployed warheads by 60% and 110%, respectively, within a matter of months. This is because both have the capacity to load a larger number of warheads on their missiles and bombers than they currently do. Both countries also have large numbers of warheads in reserve or slated for dismantlement, but still intact.

If they took these steps, both countries could effectively double their deployed strategic nuclear arsenals.

The end of the treaty’s verification, data exchanges, and compliance and notification processes would also lead to increased uncertainty and distrust. This, in turn, could lead to a further build-up of both countries’ already gargantuan military capabilities.

An ominous warning

The most unsettling part of this development: it means nuclear disarmament, and even more modest arms control, is now moribund.

No new negotiations for disarmament or even reducing nuclear risks are currently under way. None are scheduled to begin.

At a minimum, after New START expires this week, both Russia and the US should agree to stick to its limits until they negotiate further reductions.

And, 56 years after making a binding commitment in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to achieve nuclear disarmament, both nations should work to implement a verifiable agreement among all nuclear-armed states to eliminate their arsenals.

But Russia, the US and and other nuclear-armed states are moving in the opposite direction.

Trump’s actions since taking office a second time – from bombing Iran to toppling Venezuela’s leader – show his general disdain for international law and treaties. They also affirm his desire to use any instrument of power to assert US (and his personal) interests and supremacy.

Putin, meanwhile, has used of a nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile to strike Ukraine, made repeated threats to use nuclear weapons against Kyiv and the West, and continued his unprecedented and profoundly dangerous weaponisation of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants.

These moves signal a more aggressive Russian stance that rides roughshod over the UN Charter, as well.

All of this bodes ill for preventing nuclear war and making progress on nuclear disarmament.

The Conversation

Tilman Ruff is affiliated with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the Medical Association for Prevention of War, Doctors for the Environment Australia and the Public Health Association of Australia.

ref. The only remaining US-Russia nuclear treaty expires this week. Could a new arms race soon accelerate? – https://theconversation.com/the-only-remaining-us-russia-nuclear-treaty-expires-this-week-could-a-new-arms-race-soon-accelerate-269508

Why Trump’s new pick for Fed chair hit gold and silver markets – for good reasons

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

After months of speculation, US President Donald Trump confirmed he will be nominating Kevin Warsh as the next chair of the US Federal Reserve. The appointment has been closely watched in the context of Trump’s ongoing conflict with the Fed and its current chairman Jerome Powell.

The immediate reaction to the announcement was a significant crash in gold and silver markets. After months of record highs and stretched valuations, spot prices for gold and silver dropped 9% and 28% respectively after the announcement. The US stock market also fell, with major indexes all reporting modest losses.

However, in the context of concerns over Trump’s interference with the Fed, the market crash can ironically be understood as an early vote of confidence in Warsh’s independence and suitability for the role.

Understanding why requires the context of Trump’s ongoing conflict with the Federal Reserve, and the importance of central bank independence to our current global financial system.

Trump’s war with the Fed

The last year has seen Trump in an unprecedented conflict with the Federal Reserve.

Trump appointed current Chairman Jerome Powell back in 2017. However, the relationship quickly soured when Powell did not cut interest rates as quickly as Trump wanted. In characteristically colourful language, Trump has since called Powell a “clown” with “some real mental problems”, adding “I’d love to fire his ass”.

The war of words descended into legal threats. Trump’s Justice Department announced an investigation into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over alleged fraud in historical mortgage documents. Then last month, in a shocking escalation the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Powell relating to overspending in renovations of the Federal Reserve offices.

Both sets of allegations are widely viewed as baseless. However, Trump has tried to use the investigation as grounds to fire Cook. The case is currently before the Supreme Court.

Powell has hit back strongly at Trump, saying the legal threats were

a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.

Powell received support from 14 international central bank chiefs, who noted “the independence of central banks is a cornerstone of price, financial and economic stability”.

Historically, presidential interference with the Fed was a major cause of the stagflation crisis in the 1970s. More recently, both Argentina and Turkey have experienced significant financial crises caused by interference with central bank independence.

Who is Kevin Warsh?

Kevin Warsh is a former banker and Federal Reserve governor, who previously served as economic advisor to both President George W Bush and President Trump.

Originally Trump seemed likely to favour the current director of Trump’s National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, for the job. However, Hassett was widely viewed as being too influenced by Trump, intensifying fears about Fed independence.

Warsh appears more independent and brings a reputation as an inflation “hawk”.

What is an inflation hawk?

The Federal Reserve is responsible for setting US interest rates. Put simply, lower interest rates can increase economic growth and employment, but risk creating inflation. Higher interest rates can control inflation, but at the cost of higher unemployment and lower growth.

Getting the balance right is the central role of the Federal Reserve. Central bank independence is essential to ensure this delicate task is guided by the best evidence and long-term needs of the economy, rather than the short-term political goals.

An inflation “hawk” refers to a central banker who prioritises fighting inflation, compared to a “dove” who prioritises growth and jobs.

From Warsh’s previous time at the Federal Reserve, he established a strong reputation as an inflation hawk. Even in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008, Warsh was more worried about inflation than jobs.

Given Trump’s past conflict with Powell around cutting interest rates, Warsh might seem a curious choice of candidate.

More recently though, Warsh has moderated his views, echoing Trump’s criticism of the Fed and demands for lower interest rates. Whether this support will continue, or if his hawkish tendencies return leading to future conflict with Trump, remains to be seen.

The market reaction

The crash in gold and silver, and decline in stock markets, suggests investors view interest rate cuts as less likely under Warsh than alternative candidates.

Gold and silver prices typically rise in response to instability or fears of inflation.

The previous record highs were driven by many factors, including global instability, concerns over Fed independence, and a speculative bubble.

That Warsh’s appointment has triggered a market correction in precious metals means investors expect lower inflation, and greater financial stability. The US dollar trading higher also supports this view.




Read more:
Silver and gold hit record highs – then crashed. Before joining the rush, you need to know this


The credibility of the Fed is at stake

The past month has seen much discussion of the changing world order. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently decried the end of the international rules-based order and called for a break from “American hegemony”.

The global dominance of the US dollar is a crucial plank of US economic hegemony. Though Trump clearly remains sceptical of central bank independence, his appointment of Warsh suggests he recognises the importance of retaining the credibility of the US currency and Federal Reserve.

Whether that recognition can continue to temper Trump’s instinct to interfere with the setting of interest rates remains to be seen.

The Conversation

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

ref. Why Trump’s new pick for Fed chair hit gold and silver markets – for good reasons – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-new-pick-for-fed-chair-hit-gold-and-silver-markets-for-good-reasons-273233

Funny, tender, goofy – Catherine O’Hara lit up the screen every time she showed up

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, Adelaide University

Catherine O’Hara, the beloved actor and comedian who has died aged 71, occupied that rare position in contemporary screen culture: a comic actor, a cult figure and a mainstream star.

Her work spanned more than 50 years, from improv sketch comedy to Hollywood features and off-beat TV classics.

She was celebrated for her unmatched comic timing and chameleon-like character work. Her roles were often absurdist and quirky, but they hid a razor-sharp humour.

Born and raised in Toronto in a close-knit Irish Catholic family, O’Hara was one of seven siblings. She once remarked humour was part of her everyday life; storytelling, impressions and lively conversation helped hone her comedic instincts.

After high school, she worked at Toronto’s Second City Theatre, a famed breeding ground for comedy talent, and sharpened her deadpan improvisational skills.

Big break

O’Hara’s break came with Second City Television (SCTV), a sketch comedy series that rivalled Saturday Night Live in creativity and influence. Alongside contemporaries Eugene Levy, John Candy, Rick Moranis and Martin Short, she defined her distinctly smart, absurdist comedic voice.

O’Hara was not merely a performer on SCTV; she was also a writer, winning an Emmy Award for her contributions. This dual role shaped her career-long sensitivity to rhythm, language and character construction.

Unlike sketch performers who rely on repetition or catchphrases, O’Hara’s humour emerged with a different comedic logic. Audiences laughed not because the character was “funny”, but because the character took herself so seriously.

Though briefly cast on Saturday Night Live in the early 1980s, O’Hara chose to stay with SCTV when it was renewed, a decision she later described as key in letting her creative career flourish where it belonged.

The transition to film

By the mid-1980s, O’Hara was establishing herself as a screen presence. She appeared in Martin Scorsese’s offbeat black comedy After Hours (1985), and showcased her comic range in Heartburn (1986).

In 1988, she landed what would become one of her most beloved film roles: Delia Deetz in Tim Burton’s left-field Beetlejuice (1988).

Delia – a pretentious, New York art-scene social climber – allowed O’Hara to combine physical comedy and imbecilic dialogue (“A little gasoline … blowtorch … no problem”).

Burton once noted

Catherine’s so good, maybe too good. She works on levels that people don’t even know. I think she scares people because she operates at such high levels.

She went on to play Kate McCallister, the beleaguered mother in the holiday blockbusters Home Alone (1990) and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992). Audiences loved the fact that this rather thinly written role became the films’ beating heart.

Working with Christopher Guest

Another distinctive phase of O’Hara’s career was her work with writer-director Christopher Guest on a series of largely improvised mockumentaries that have become cult classics.

Three standouts were Waiting for Guffman (1996), where she plays a desperate local performer in a small-town theatre troupe, and A Mighty Wind (2003), where she teamed up with old pal Levy as an ageing folk duo.

Her best turn came in Best in Show (2000), in which she and Levy played a couple competing in a national dog show. Her character Cookie Fleck remains one of the finest examples of improvised comedy on film.

Her relentless monologues about former lovers are objectively inappropriate, yet O’Hara delivers them with such earnest enthusiasm that they become strangely compelling.

Her gift for improvisation glittered in these films: these eccentric characters were often laugh-out-loud funny – but O’Hara never mocked them.

Late success

She returned to TV in Six Feet Under (2001–05) and guest appearances on The Larry Sanders Show (1992–98) and Curb Your Enthusiasm (1999–2024). More recently, she appeared in prestige shows such as The Last of Us (2023–) and The Studio (2025–).

But it was the role of Moira Rose, the eccentric, ex-soap opera star in the Canadian sitcom Schitt’s Creek (2015–20), created by Eugene Levy and his son Dan, that would become O’Hara’s most significant late career move. And what a role it was!

Written for O’Hara’s unique talents, Moira was a larger-than-life character with a bizarre, unforgettable vocabulary, dramatic mood swings and a wardrobe that became nearly as famous as the character herself.

Feminist media scholars have noted the rarity of such complex roles for older women, particularly in comedy, making O’Hara’s performance culturally significant.

The show became a global streaming blockbuster during COVID lockdowns and O’Hara’s multi-award-winning performance became a social media phenomenon, spawning memes and viral clips.

There are so many standout moments – her drunken meltdown after losing her wigs, her audition for The Crows Have Eyes 3 and the show’s moving finale where she performs Danny Boy at Alexis’s graduation.

An enduring legacy

O’Hara had a remarkable ability to play flamboyant, self-absorbed characters who were often uproariously funny.

Many comedians and actors have cited O’Hara as an influence for her fearlessness, her ability to blend absurdity with emotional truth, and her steadfast commitment to character integrity. She influenced performers like Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Kate McKinnon and Phoebe Waller-Bridge.

O’Hara also refused to chase conventional stardom. Rather than choosing projects designed to flatten her eccentricities, O’Hara favoured collaborative environments that valued creativity over control.

For her, comedy was always an art of intelligence, empathy and generosity.

The Conversation

Ben McCann 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. Funny, tender, goofy – Catherine O’Hara lit up the screen every time she showed up – https://theconversation.com/funny-tender-goofy-catherine-ohara-lit-up-the-screen-every-time-she-showed-up-274816

Silver and gold hit record highs – then crashed. Before joining the rush, you need to know this

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

Zlaťáky.cz/Pexels, CC BY

The start of 2026 has seen gold and silver surge to record highs – only to crash on Friday.

Gold prices peaked above US$5,500 (A$7,900) per ounce for the first time on Thursday, well above previous highs. But by the end of Friday, it had dropped to around US$5068 (A$7,282).

Silver had been making gains even faster than gold. It hit more than US$120 (A$172) per ounce last week, marking one of its strongest runs in decades, before crashing on Friday to US$98.50 (A$141.50).

So what’s behind those surges and falls? And what should everyday investors know about the risks of investing in precious metals right now?

Why gold has been hitting new highs

Gold is the classic safe haven: an asset people buy to protect their savings when worried about financial risks.

With international political tensions rising, trade war threats, shifting signals about where interest rates are heading and a potential changing world order, investors are seeking assets that feel stable when everything else looks shaky.

Friday’s crash in gold and silver was sparked by financial markets reacting to early news of Donald Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as chair of the US Federal Reserve. The US central bank plays a key role in global financial stability.

Central banks around the world have been buying gold at a rapid pace, reinforcing its reputation as a place to park value during periods of uncertainty.

But it’s not just big institutions moving the market. In Australia and overseas, retail investors – individuals buying and selling smaller amounts for themselves – have played a part too.

Those individuals have been increasingly treating gold, silver and other precious metals as a hedge against so much uncertainty, as well as a momentum play – trying to buy in to keep up with others.

As prices have trended upward, more everyday investors have bought in, especially through gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which make it simple to gain exposure without storing physical gold bullion.




Read more:
The price of gold is skyrocketing. Why is this, and will it continue?


What’s been driving silver’s surge

While gold was grabbing headlines for much of 2025, silver has been the real showstopper. Before Friday’s fall, the metal had surged more than 60% in just the past month, far outpacing gold’s still impressive run of around 30%.

Unlike gold, silver has a split personality. Industrial uses are driving up demand for silver. It’s critical for clean energy technologies including solar panels, electric vehicles (EVs), and semiconductors.

This dual appeal – as a safe haven, but also as an in-demand industrial commodity – is drawing investors who see multiple reasons for prices to keep climbing.

Every solar panel contains about 20 grams of silver. The solar industry consumes nearly 30% of total global demand for silver.

EVs also use 25–50 grams each, and AI data centres need silver for semiconductors.

The kicker? The silver market has run a supply deficit for five consecutive years. We’re consuming more than we’re mining, and most silver comes as a byproduct of other metals. You can’t simply open more silver mines.

Individual buyers have piled into silver

One of Australia’s most popular online investment platforms for retail investors is CommSec, with around 3 million customers.

Bloomberg tracking of CommSec trades shows how much retail purchases of silver ETFs in particular have spiked higher in the past year.

Over the past year, gold ETF trades on CommSec grew 47%, with cumulative net buying reaching A$158 million. That reflects gold’s established role in portfolios.

Yet despite attracting slightly lower total investment overall at A$104 million, silver trading activity exploded by far more: it’s been 1,000% higher than the year before.

This means retail investors made far more frequent, smaller trades in silver. This is classic momentum-chasing behaviour, as everyday investors piled into an asset showing dramatic price gains.

The pattern is unmistakable: while gold remains the anchor, silver has become the speculative play.

Its lower per-ounce price, industrial demand narrative, and social media buzz make it particularly accessible to retail investors seeking exposure to the precious metals rally, at a much lower price than gold.

The risks every investor needs to know

The data shows Australian retail investors have been buying as prices rise. But this “fear of missing out” approach comes with serious risks.

Volatility cuts both ways. From February 2025 to just before Friday’s sharp drop, the price of silver had surged 269%. But even before that fall, silver’s spectacular gain had come with 36% “annualised volatility” (which measures how much a stock price varies over one year). That was nearly double gold’s 20% volatility over the same period.

What does that mean in practice? As we’ve just seen, what goes up fast can come down quickly too.

Buying high is dangerous. When retail investors pile in after major price increases, they often end up buying near the top. Professional investors and central banks have been accumulating gold and silver for years, at much lower prices.

No income, higher risk. Unlike shares or bonds, metals don’t pay dividends or interest. Your entire return depends on prices rising further from already elevated levels. And as the past few days have shown, the potential for sharp drawdowns is substantial.

Keep it modest. Financial advisers typically recommend precious metals comprise 5–15% of a diversified portfolio. After such extraordinary price volatility, that guideline matters more than ever.


Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended as financial advice. All investments carry risk.

The Conversation

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

ref. Silver and gold hit record highs – then crashed. Before joining the rush, you need to know this – https://theconversation.com/silver-and-gold-hit-record-highs-then-crashed-before-joining-the-rush-you-need-to-know-this-274622

Rafiki unbanned on appeal: why it’s an important moment for African film

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gibson Ncube, Senior Lecturer, Stellenbosch University

The film Rafiki is a charming love story that plays out in urban Kenya. It follows two teenage girls whose close friendship slowly turns into first love. Directed by rising filmmaker Wanuri Kahiu, it was celebrated as groundbreaking by critics and at festivals when it was released in 2018. But back home in Kenya, where homosexuality is criminal, the film was banned.

On 23 January 2026, after a lengthy legal campaign by the filmmaker, the Kenyan Court of Appeals unbanned Rafiki for public screening in that country.



In 2018, the state-funded Kenya Film Classification Board had justified the ban because the film’s happy ending was perceived to be “promoting homosexuality”. The ban quickly became a symbol of the problems filmmakers face whenever they challenge traditional views on sex, gender and morality.

The unbanning marks more than the rehabilitation of a single film. It signals a subtle but significant shift in how African film might negotiate censorship in the years to come.

A young African woman with dreadlocks smiles at the camera, wearing a flowing green dress with a white pattern on it.
Wanuri Kahiu in 2025.
Bryan Berlin/ Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

My research as a scholar of African queer cinemas has focused on how such moments reveal the fragile yet transformative possibilities through which African film cultures negotiate visibility and legitimacy. And the right to imagine queer futures and freedom of speech on their own terms.

At first glance, the unbanning might appear modest. Kenya has not decriminalised same-sex relations, and legal restrictions on LGBTIQ+ lives remain firmly in place. Even so, Rafiki’s return is very important.

It marks the first time a Kenyan film previously prohibited for queer content has been permitted full public circulation. Other recently banned queer-themed films like I am Samuel remain banned.

Although largely symbolic, the gesture disrupts long-standing assumptions about what African films can show, who they can centre, and which lives can be made visible.

Censorship and representation

African film industries have historically operated under difficult systems of moral, religious, and political regulation. From colonial censorship boards to postcolonial classification authorities, film has been treated as requiring constant surveillance.

Sexuality, especially queer sexuality, has been one of the most heavily policed domains. Films tackling same-sex desire have often been banned, restricted to festival circuits, or forced into underground circulation. In South Africa, the film Inxeba/The Wound was effectively banned from mainstream cinemas. In Nigeria, the first independent queer film Ìfé was prohibited from cinemas.




Read more:
How young filmmakers are protecting artistic freedom in Kenya


Rafiki’s initial banning followed this pattern. Despite being selected for screening at the important Cannes Film Festival, it was deemed unsuitable for Kenyan audiences. An internationally celebrated Kenyan film could be screened overseas but not in Nairobi.

So the unbanning disrupts this asymmetry. It shows that national cinemas cannot indefinitely insulate themselves from transnational circuits. Overseas, African queer films increasingly gain visibility, prestige and market value.

Kenyan law appears, in this sense, to be more flexible and changing in response to international attention, cultural pressure and public image.

African audiences

One of the most significant implications of the unbanning concerns the question of audiences. Bans don’t just suppress content; they also actively shape who is imagined as the viewers. For decades, queer African films have been implicitly addressed to foreign audiences, festivals and academic readers, rather than to local publics.

Allowing Rafiki to screen at home challenges this idea. It opens a space, even if it’s a fragile one, for Kenyan audiences to encounter queer lives. Not as abstract political controversies but as intimate, everyday narratives. Rafiki tells a deliberately modest story, grounded in the innocence of first love and the textures of everyday life in the city.

This matters because being represented is not only about being visible. It’s also about producing audiences. More than depicting queer lives, films like Rafiki shape new viewing communities and new forms of recognition.

In this sense, the unbanning contributes to a slow reconfiguration of African film publics. It suggests that African audiences are not uniformly conservative or inherently hostile to queer narratives. Instead, they are plural and capable of engaging with complex stories about identity, love and desire.

These publics have been changing, thanks in part to streaming platforms and digital technologies. Even where films are banned from cinemas, viewers can still watch, share and debate them online. This shift is important as cinema spaces themselves are declining across many African countries.

African filmmakers

For African filmmakers, the unbanning carries both practical and symbolic importance. Practically, it signals the possibility that national classification regimes may become more negotiable and more responsive to legal challenges and public pressure. The 2018 High Court ruling that temporarily lifted the ban to allow limited screenings had already established an important precedent. The current unbanning consolidates that into institutional practice. It has set a legal precedent.




Read more:
Banning African films like Rafiki and Inxeba doesn’t diminish their influence


Symbolically, the decision offers a measure of protection to filmmakers who dare to take aesthetic and political risks. Rafiki was shot cautiously in order to evade state surveillance.

It teaches us that queer storytelling is no longer automatically incompatible with national cinema. This may encourage a new generation of African directors, screenwriters and producers to pursue narratives once seen as too dangerous, too marginal, or too commercially unviable.

But caution should not be thrown to the wind. The unbanning does not signal the end of censorship, nor does it guarantee a hospitable environment for filmmakers. Classification boards still retain broad powers, and political backlash remains likely.

A fragile opening …

The unbanning of Rafiki should not be overstated. Legal prohibitions against same-sex relations remain in force. Violence against queer communities persists, and cultural backlash is inevitable. Yet openings in cultural policy often precede legal and social change, not the other way around.

Cinema, precisely because it works through emotions and the visual, can create the conditions for new ethical and political sensibilities to emerge.




Read more:
Queer film in Africa is rising – even in countries with the harshest anti-LGBTIQ+ laws


Rafiki’s return ultimately represents a possibility that African films can speak more openly about intimacy, vulnerability and difference. A possibility that African audiences can encounter these stories on their own terms.

The Conversation

Gibson Ncube receives funding from the National Research Foundation (South Africa).

ref. Rafiki unbanned on appeal: why it’s an important moment for African film – https://theconversation.com/rafiki-unbanned-on-appeal-why-its-an-important-moment-for-african-film-274542