Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau, Research Fellow, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University

Conspiracy theories are a widespread occurrence in today’s hyper connected and polarised world.

Events such as Brexit, the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections, and the COVID pandemic serve as potent reminders of how easily these narratives can infiltrate public discourse.

The consequences for society are significant, given a devotion to conspiracy theories can undermine key democratic norms and weaken citizens’ trust in critical institutions. As we know from the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, it can also motivate political violence.

But who is most likely to believe these conspiracies?

My new study with Daniel Stockemer of the University of Ottawa provides a clear and perhaps surprising answer. Published in Political Psychology, our research shows age is one of the most significant predictors of conspiracy beliefs, but not in the way many might assume.

People under 35 are consistently more likely to endorse conspiratorial ideas.

This conclusion is built on a solid foundation of evidence. First, we conducted a meta analysis, a “study of studies”, which synthesised the results of 191 peer-reviewed articles published between 2014 and 2024.

This massive dataset, which included over 374,000 participants, revealed a robust association between young age and belief in conspiracies.

To confirm this, we ran our own original multinational survey of more than 6,000 people across six diverse countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, the US and South Africa.

The results were the same. In fact, age proved to be a more powerful predictor of conspiracy beliefs than any other demographic factor we measured, including a person’s gender, income, or level of education.

Why are young people more conspiratorial?

Having established conspiracy beliefs are more prevalent among younger people, we set out to understand why.

Our project tested several potential factors and found three key reasons why younger generations are more susceptible to conspiracy theories.

1. Political alienation

One of the most powerful drivers we identified is a deep sense of political disaffection among young people.

A majority of young people feel alienated from political systems run by politicians who are two or three generations older than them.

This under representation can lead to frustration and the feeling democracy isn’t working for them. In this context, conspiracy theories provide a simple, compelling explanation for this disconnect: the system isn’t just failing, it’s being secretly controlled and manipulated by nefarious actors.

2. Activist style of participation

The way young people choose to take part in politics also plays a significant role.

While they may be less likely to engage in traditional practices such as voting, they are often highly engaged in unconventional forms of participation, such as protests, boycotts and online campaigns.

These activist environments, particularly online, can become fertile ground for conspiracy theories to germinate and spread. They often rely on similar “us versus them” narratives that pit a “righteous” in-group against a “corrupt” establishment.

3. Low self-esteem

Finally, our research confirmed a crucial psychological link to self-esteem.

For individuals with lower perceptions of self worth, believing in a conspiracy theory – blaming external, hidden forces for their problems – can be a way of coping with feelings of powerlessness.

This is particularly relevant for young people. Research has long shown self esteem tends to be lower in youth, before steadily increasing with age.

What can be done?

Understanding these root causes is essential because it shows simply debunking false claims is not a sufficient solution.

To truly address the rise of conspiracy theories and limit their consequences, we must tackle the underlying issues that make these narratives so appealing in the first place.

Given the role played by political alienation, a critical step forward is to make our democracies more representative. This is best illustrated by the recent election of Labor Senator Charlotte Walker, who is barely 21.

By actively working to increase the presence of young people in our political institutions, we can help give them faith that the system can work for them, reducing the appeal of theories which claim it is hopelessly corrupt.

More inclusive democracy

This does not mean discouraging the passion of youth activism. Rather, it is about empowering young people with the tools to navigate today’s complex information landscape.

Promoting robust media and digital literacy education could help individuals critically evaluate the information they encounter in all circles, including online activist spaces.

The link to self-esteem also points to a broader societal responsibility.

By investing in the mental health and wellbeing of young people, we can help boost the psychological resilience and sense of agency that makes them less vulnerable to the simplistic blame games offered by conspiracy theories.

Ultimately, building a society that is resistant to misinformation is not about finding fault with a particular generation.

It is about creating a stronger, more inclusive democracy where all citizens, especially the young, feel represented, empowered, and secure.

Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. 3 reasons young people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories – and how we can help them discover the truth – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-young-people-are-more-likely-to-believe-conspiracy-theories-and-how-we-can-help-them-discover-the-truth-261074

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

Efforts to end the relentless siege of Gaza have been set back by the abrupt end to peace talks in Qatar.

Both the United States and Israel have withdrawn their negotiating teams, accusing Hamas of a “lack of desire to reach a ceasefire”.

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff says it would appear Hamas never wanted a deal:

While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people in Gaza

The disappointing development coincides with mounting fears of a widespread famine in Gaza and a historic decision by France to formally recognise a Palestinian state.

French President Emmanuel Macron says there is no alternative for the sake of security of the Middle East:

True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine

What will these developments mean for the conflict in Gaza and the broader security of the Middle East?

‘Humanitarian catastrophe’

The failure to reach a truce means there is no end in sight to the Israeli siege of Gaza which has devastated the territory for more than 21 months.

Amid mounting fears of mass starvation, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Gaza is in the grip of a “humanitarian catastrophe”. He is urging Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law:

Israel’s denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored.

According to the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, more than 100 people – most of them children – have died of hunger. One in five children in Gaza City is malnourished, with the number of cases rising every day.

Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini says with little food aid entering Gaza, people are

neither dead nor alive, they are walking corpses […] most children our teams are seeing are emaciated, weak and at high risk of dying if they don’t get the treatment they urgently need.

The UN and more than 100 aid groups blame Israel’s blockade of almost all aid into the territory for the lack of food.

Lazzarini says UNRWA has 6,000 trucks of emergency supplies waiting in Jordan and Egypt. He is urging Israel – which continues to blame Hamas for cases of malnutrition – to allow the humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

Proposed ceasefire deal

The latest ceasefire proposal was reportedly close to being agreed by both parties.

It included a 60-day truce, during which time Hamas would release ten living Israeli hostages and the remains of 18 others. In exchange, Israel would release a number of Palestinian prisoners, and humanitarian aid to Gaza would be significantly increased.

During the ceasefire, both sides would engage in negotiations toward a lasting truce.

While specific details of the current sticking points remain unclear, previous statements from both parties suggest the disagreement centres on what would follow any temporary ceasefire.

Israel is reportedly seeking to maintain a permanent military presence in Gaza to allow for a rapid resumption of operations if needed. In contrast, Hamas is demanding a pathway toward a complete end to hostilities.

A lack of mutual trust has dramatically clouded the negotiations.

From Israel’s perspective, any ceasefire must not result in Hamas regaining control of Gaza, as this would allow the group to rebuild its power and potentially launch another cross-border attack.

However, Hamas has repeatedly said it is willing to hand over power to any other Palestinian group in pursuit of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. This could include the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which governs the West Bank and has long recognised Israel.

Support for a Palestinian state

Israeli leaders have occasionally paid lip service to a Palestinian state. But they have described such an entity as “less than a state” or a “state-minus” – a formulation that falls short of both Palestinian aspirations and international legal standards.

In response to the worsening humanitarian situation, some Western countries have moved to fully recognise a Palestinian state, viewing it as a step toward a permanent resolution of one of the longest-running conflicts in the Middle East.

Macron’s announcement France will officially recognise a full Palestinian state in September is a major development.

France is now the most prominent Western power to take this position. It follows more than 140 countries – including more than a dozen in Europe – that have already recognised statehood.

While largely symbolic, the move adds diplomatic pressure on Israel amid the ongoing war and aid crisis in Gaza.

However, the announcement was immediately condemned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed recognition “rewards terror” and

risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became. A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel – not to live in peace beside it.

Annexing Gaza?

A Palestinian state is unacceptable to Israel.

Further evidence was recently presented in a revealing TV interview by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who stated Netanyahu had deliberately empowered Hamas in order to block a two-state solution.

Instead there is mounting evidence Israel is seeking to annex the entirety of Palestinian land and relocate Palestinians to neighbouring countries.

Given the current uncertainty, it appears unlikely a new ceasefire will be reached in the near future, especially as it remains unclear whether the US withdrawal from the negotiations was a genuine policy shift or merely a strategic negotiating tactic.

Ali Mamouri 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. Ceasefire talks collapse – what does that mean for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza? – https://theconversation.com/ceasefire-talks-collapse-what-does-that-mean-for-the-humanitarian-catastrophe-in-gaza-261942

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Charlotte Gupta, Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Appleton Institute, HealthWise Research Group, CQUniversity Australia

We’re constantly being reminded by news articles and social media posts that we should be getting more sleep. You probably don’t need to hear it again – not sleeping enough is bad for your brain, heart and overall health, not to mention your skin and sex drive.

But what about sleeping “too much”? Recent reports that sleeping more than nine hours could be worse for your health than sleeping too little may have you throwing up your hands in despair.

It can be hard not to feel confused and worried. But how much sleep do we need? And what can sleeping a lot really tell us about our health? Let’s unpack the evidence.

Sleep is essential for our health

Along with nutrition and physical activity, sleep is an essential pillar of health.

During sleep, physiological processes occur that allow our bodies to function effectively when we are awake. These include processes involved in muscle recovery, memory consolidation and emotional regulation.

The Sleep Health Foundation – Australia’s leading not-for-profit organisation that provides evidence-based information on sleep health – recommends adults get seven to nine hours of sleep per night.

Some people are naturally short sleepers and can function well with less than seven hours.

However, for most of us, sleeping less than seven hours will have negative effects. These may be short term; for example, the day after a poor night’s sleep you might have less energy, worse mood, feel more stressed and find it harder to concentrate at work.

In the long term, not getting enough good quality sleep is a major risk factor for health problems. It’s linked to a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease – such as heart attacks and stroke – metabolic disorders, including type 2 diabetes, poor mental health, such as depression and anxiety, cancer and death.

So, it’s clear that not getting enough sleep is bad for us. But what about too much sleep?

Could too much sleep be bad?

In a recent study, researchers reviewed the results of 79 other studies that followed people for at least one year and measured how sleep duration impacts the risk of poor health or dying to see if there was an overall trend.

They found people who slept for short durations – less than seven hours a night – had a 14% higher risk of dying in the study period, compared to those who slept between seven and eight hours. This is not surprising given the established health risks of poor sleep.

However, the researchers also found those who slept a lot – which they defined as more than nine hours a night – had a greater risk of dying: 34% higher than people who slept seven to eight hours.

This supports similar research from 2018, which combined results from 74 previous studies that followed the sleep and health of participants across time, ranging from one to 30 years. It found sleeping more than nine hours was associated with a 14% increased risk of dying in the study period.

Research has also shown sleeping too long (meaning more than required for your age) is linked to health problems such as depression, chronic pain, weight gain and metabolic disorders.

This may sound alarming. But it’s crucial to remember these studies have only found a link between sleeping too long and poor health – this doesn’t mean sleeping too long is the cause of health problems or death.

---

Read more:
If ‘correlation doesn’t imply causation’, how do scientists figure out why things happen?

---

So, what’s the link?

Multiple factors may influence the relationship between sleeping a lot and having poor health.

It’s common for people with chronic health problems to consistently sleep for long periods. Their bodies may need additional rest to support recovery, or they may spend more time in bed due to symptoms or medication side effects.

People with chronic health problems may also not be getting high quality sleep, and may stay in bed for longer to try and get some extra sleep.

Additionally, we know risk factors for poor health, such as smoking and being overweight, are also associated with poor sleep.

This means people may be sleeping more because of existing health problems or lifestyle behaviours, not that sleeping more is causing the poor health.

Put simply, sleeping may be a symptom of poor health, not the cause.

What’s the ideal amount?

The reasons some people sleep a little and others sleep a lot depend on individual differences – and we don’t yet fully understand these.

Our sleep needs can be related to age. Teenagers often want to sleep more and may physically need to, with sleep recommendations for teens being slightly higher than adults at eight to ten hours. Teens may also go to bed and wake up later.

Older adults may want to spend more time in bed. However, unless they have a sleep disorder, the amount they need to sleep will be the same as when they were younger.

But most adults will require seven to nine hours, so this is the healthy window to aim for.

It’s not just about how much sleep you get. Good quality sleep and a consistent bed time and wake time are just as important – if not more so – for your overall health.

The bottom line

Given many Australian adults are not receiving the recommended amount of sleep, we should focus on how to make sure we get enough sleep, rather than worrying we are getting too much.

To give yourself the best chance of a good night’s sleep, get sunlight and stay active during the day, and try to keep a regular sleep and wake time. In the hour before bed, avoid screens, do something relaxing, and make sure your sleep space is quiet, dark, and comfortable.

If you notice you are regularly sleeping much longer than usual, it could be your body’s way of telling you something else is going on. If you’re struggling with sleep or are concerned, speak with your GP. You can also explore the resources on the Sleep Health Foundation website.

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

– ref. Is sleeping a lot actually bad for your health? A sleep scientist explains – https://theconversation.com/is-sleeping-a-lot-actually-bad-for-your-health-a-sleep-scientist-explains-259991

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Celia McMichael, Professor in Geography, The University of Melbourne

In the village of Nagigi, Fiji, the ocean isn’t just a resource – it’s part of the community’s identity. But in recent years, villagers have seen the sea behave differently. Tides are pushing inland. Once abundant, fish are now harder to find. Sandy beaches and coconut trees have been washed away.

Like many coastal communities, including those across the Pacific Islands region, this village is now under real pressure from climate change and declining fish stocks. Methods of fishing are no longer guaranteed, while extreme weather and coastal erosion threaten homes and land. As one villager told us:

we can’t find fish easily, not compared to previous times […] some fish species we used to see before are no longer around.

When stories like this get publicity, they’re often framed as a story of loss. Pacific Islanders can be portrayed as passive victims of climate change.

But Nagigi’s experience isn’t just about vulnerability. As our new research shows, it’s about the actions people are taking to cope with the changes already here. In response to falling fish numbers and to diversify livelihoods, women leaders launched a new aquaculture project, and they have replanted mangroves to slow the advance of the sea.

Adaptation is uneven. Many people don’t want to or can’t leave their homes. But as climate change intensifies, change will be unavoidable. Nagigi’s experience points to the importance of communities working collectively to respond to threats.

Unwelcome change is here

The communities we focus on, Nagigi village (population 630) and Bia-I-Cake settlement (population 60), are located on Savusavu Bay in Vanua Levu, Fiji’s second largest island. Fishing and marine resources are central to their livelihoods and food security.

In 2021 and 2023, we ran group discussions (known as talanoa) and interviews to find out about changes seen and adaptations made.

Nagigi residents have noticed unwelcome changes in recent years. As one woman told us:

sometimes the sea is coming further onto the land, so there’s a lot of sea intrusion into the plantations, flooding even on land where it never used to be

In 2016, the devastating Tropical Cyclone Winston destroyed homes and forced some Nagigi residents to move inland to customary mataqali land owned by their clan.

As one resident said:

our relocation was smooth because […] we just moved to our own land, our mataqali land.

But some residents didn’t have access to this land, while others weren’t willing to move away from the coast. One man told us:

leave us here. I think if I don’t smell or hear the ocean for one day I would be devastated.

Adaptation is happening

One striking aspect of adaptation in Nagigi has been the leadership of women, particularly in the small Bia-I-Cake settlement.

In recent years, the Bia-I-Cake Women’s Cooperative has launched a small-scale aquaculture project to farm tilapia and carp to tackle falling fish stocks in the ocean, tackle rising food insecurity and create new livelihoods.

Women in the cooperative have built fish ponds, learned how to rear fish to a good size and began selling the fish, including by live streaming the sale. The project was supported by a small grant from the United Nations Development Programme and the Women’s Fund Fiji.

Recently, the cooperative’s women have moved into mangrove replanting to slow coastal erosion and built a greenhouse to farm new crops.

As one woman told us, these efforts show women “have the capacity to build a sustainable, secure and thriving community”.

The community’s responses draw on traditional social structures and values, such as respect for Vanua – the Fijian and Pacific concept of how land, sea, people, customs and spiritual beliefs are interconnected – as well as stewardship of natural resources and collective decision-making through clans and elders, both women and men.

Nagigi residents have moved to temporarily close some customary fishing grounds to give fish populations a chance to recover. The village is also considering declaring a locally-managed marine area (known as a tabu). This is a response to climate impacts as well as damage to reefs, pollution and overfishing.

For generations, village residents have protected local ecosystems which in turn support the village. But what is new is how these practices are being strengthened and formalised to respond to new challenges.

Adaptation is uneven

While adaptation is producing some successes, it is unevenly spread. Not everyone has access to customary land for relocation and not every household can afford to rebuild damaged homes.

What Nagigi teaches us, though, is the importance of local adaptation. Villagers have demonstrated how a community can anticipate risks, respond to change and threats, recover from damage and take advantage of new opportunities.

Small communities are not just passive sites of loss. They are collectives of strength, agency and ingenuity. As adaptation efforts scale up across the Pacific, it is important to recognise and support local initiatives such as those in Nagigi.

Sharing effective adaptation methods can give ideas and hope to other communities under real pressure from climate change and other threats.

Many communities are doing their best to adapt often undertaking community-led adaptation, even despite the limited access Pacific nations have to global climate finance.

Nagigi’s example shows unwelcome climatic and environmental changes are already arriving. But it’s also about finding ways to live well amid uncertainty and escalating risk by using place, tradition and community.

The authors acknowledge the support of the people of Nagigi and Bia-I-Cake, and especially the Bia-I-Cake Women’s Cooperative, for sharing their time and insights.

Celia McMichael receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Merewalesi Yee 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. As seas rise and fish decline, this Fijian village is finding new ways to adapt – https://theconversation.com/as-seas-rise-and-fish-decline-this-fijian-village-is-finding-new-ways-to-adapt-261573

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Simon Griffith, Professor of Avian Behavioural Ecology, Macquarie University

Birds are perhaps the most colourful group of animals, bringing a splash of colour to the natural world around us every day. Indeed, exclusively black and white birds – such as magpies – are in the minority.

However, new research by a team from Princeton University in the United States has revealed a surprising trick in which birds use those boring black and white feathers to make their colours even more vivid.

In the study, published today in Science Advances, Rosalyn Price-Waldman and her colleagues discovered that if coloured feathers are placed over a layer of either white or black underlying feathers, their colours are enhanced.

A particularly striking discovery was that in some species the different colour of males and females wasn’t due to the colour the two sexes put into the feathers, but rather in the amount of white or black in the layer underneath.

Why birds are so bright – and how they do it

Typically, male birds have more vivid colours than females. As Charles Darwin first explained, the most colourful males are more likely to attract mates and produce more offspring than those that aren’t as vivid. This process of “sexual selection” is the evolutionary force that has resulted in most of the colours we see in birds today.

Evolution is a process that rewards clever solutions in the competition among males to stand out in the crowd. Depositing a layer of black underneath patches of bright blue feathers has enabled males to produce that extra vibrancy that helps them in the competition for mates.

The reason the black layer works so well is that it absorbs all the light that passes through the top layer of coloured feathers. The colour we see is blue because those top feathers have a fine structure that scatters light in a particular way, and reflects light in the blue part of the spectrum.

The feathers appear particularly vivid blue because the light in other wavelengths is absorbed by the under-layer. If the under-layer was paler, some of the light in the other parts of the light spectrum would bounce back and the blue would not “pop out” as much.

Different tricks for different colours

Interestingly, in the new study, the researchers found that for yellow feathers the opposite trick works. Yellow feathers contain yellow pigments – carotenoids – and in this case they are enhanced if they have a white under-layer.

The white layer reflects light that passes through the yellow feathers, and this increases the brightness of these yellow patches, making them more striking in contrast to surrounding patches of colour.

A surprisingly common technique

The authors focused most of their work on species of tanager, typically very colourful fruit-eating birds that are native to Central and South America.

However, once they had discovered what was happening in tanagers, they checked to see if it was occurring in other birds.

This additional work revealed that the use of black and white underlying feathers to enhance colour is found in many other bird families, including the Australian fairy wrens which have such vivid blue colouration.

This widespread use of black and white across so many different species suggests birds have been enhancing the production of colour in this clever way for tens of millions of years, and that it is widely used across birds.

The study is important because it helps us to understand how complex traits such as colour can evolve in nature. It may also help us to improve the production of vibrant colours in our own architecture, art and fashion.

Simon Griffith receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Birds use hidden black and white feathers to make themselves more colourful – https://theconversation.com/birds-use-hidden-black-and-white-feathers-to-make-themselves-more-colourful-261567

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matthew Taft, Course Coordinator in English and Theatre Studies, The University of Melbourne

Our cultural touchstone series looks at works that have had a lasting influence.

---

Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go was published 20 years ago. Since then, the Japanese-born English writer has been awarded the Nobel Prize in 2017 and knighted for services to literature in 2018.

Never Let Me Go has been translated into over 50 languages. It has been adapted into a film, two stage plays, and a ten-part Japanese television series. A critical and commercial success, the novel has been reissued in an anniversary edition with a fresh introduction from the author.

A spate of reappraisals has accompanied this anniversary: “An impossibly sad novel […] it made me cry several times […] sadness spilled off every page.” “No matter how many times I read it,” one critic wrote, “Never Let Me Go breaks my heart all over again.”

These brief excerpts are clear: the novel pulls us into a morass of sadness that never lets us go. “I’ve usually been praised for producing stuff that makes people cry,” Ishiguro has said. “They gave me a Nobel prize for it.”

Strange and familiar

I want to reconsider the emotional charge of Never Let Me Go.

The deluge of tears attested to by critics hinges on the relationship Ishiguro meticulously crafts between narrator and reader. This is initiated in the novel’s first lines. Ishiguro places us in an alternative 1990s England. His opening gambit will be familiar to novel readers:

My name is Kathy H. I’m thirty-one years old, and I’ve been a carer now for over eleven years. That sounds long enough, I know, but actually they want me to go on for another eight months […] My donors have always tended to do much better than expected.

Within a few pages, the narration slips into Kathy’s recollections of her idyllic 1970s youth at a boarding school called Hailsham. We are immersed in a childhood world of friendship and exclusion, jealousy and love. This is a recognisable world. Ishiguro’s first-person narration affords the reader vicarious access to Kathy’s interior tangle of emotion, desire and reflection, such that we can recognise something of ourselves in her.

Yet something is amiss in her narration. Flat and rather affectless, it is a decidedly less curious, less passionate and more tempered mode of narration than we might expect. The threadbare texture frays the narrative world. What are we to make of the opaque references to “carer”, “they” and “donors”?

This uncanny tension between the strange and the familiar simmers until a third of the way through the novel, when a “guardian” at Hailsham reveals the students’ futures:

Your lives are set out for you. You’ll become adults, then before you’re old, before you’re even middle-aged, you’ll start to donate your vital organs. That’s what each of you was created to do.

Good liberals

Kathy is a clone, condemned to death so her organs can be harvested for “normals”. That this heartless system “reduces the most hardened critics to tears” comes as no surprise. After all, Ishiguro has evoked the familiar genre of the 19th-century boarding-school bildungsroman to encourage us to believe that this is a form of subjectivity we can share. This bildung – the German word for “formation” – is not an integration into society but rather a dismemberment by society.

That this does not provoke anger, in readers and characters alike, does come as a surprise. For if the proclamation of the students’ fates is not distressing enough, Ishiguro forces us to confront the clones’ response or, rather, the lack thereof. There are no incandescent flashes of fury or even mild expressions of dismay.

Instead, the clones are “pretty relieved” when the speech stops. Knowledge of their impending death passes them like a ship in the night, inciting “surprisingly little discussion”. In this disconcerting silence, the relation between reader and clone is mediated through another genre: science fiction.

The bildungsroman and science fiction, identification and misidentification, intimacy and estrangement – these are the tools of Ishiguro’s trade. He manipulates them, and us, with precision. There is intimacy as we recognise that the students’ everyday lives – reading novels, creating art, playing sport – are much like our own. There is estrangement as we realise that the clones are willingly cooperating in their own deaths. They will “donate” and “complete” in the narrative’s chilling terms.

In other words, we cry because the clones are just like us, but our anger towards the machinery of donation is blunted because the clones are not yet us, in that their complicity eerily lacks our instinct for self-preservation.

Confident that we will take ourselves as the measuring stick, Ishiguro compels us to adopt a position of superiority characterised by a paternalistic ethos of sympathy and care. In this way, he persuades us to read as good liberals. We acknowledge the humanity of the clones and embrace the diversity of our common condition. At the same time, we are complacent in the knowledge that we are almost the same, but not quite. We are insulated by a disavowed difference.

An abstract formal equality, evacuated of concrete historical content, is precisely what is expressed when the same critics who praise the novel’s melancholic tone claim that Ishiguro shows us “what it is to be human” or that he enlivens this otherwise “meaningless cliche”.

Beyond liberal sentiments

Is Ishiguro doing anything more than offering a banal endorsement of common humanity? It seems to me that he is, and in doing so he is summoning our liberal sentiments only to turn them against us.

The mechanism he uses is as old as the novel form itself: the romance plot. Romance leads to the happily-ever-after of marriage: a perfect union in which each person completes the other.

Not long after we learn that Kathy and her friends are clones destined to die, we become privy to a rumour: students who can prove they are “properly in love” are eligible for a “deferral” of their donations. To fast-forward through the novel’s tangled romance plot to the denouement, Kathy and Tommy – a fellow clone – track down Hailsham’s former administrator to plead their case. Not only is their request for deferral rejected, but the possibility of deferral is dispelled as a pernicious rumour.

The allure of romance has been a lure, a cold steel trap in the guise of a warm embrace. Ishiguro dangles the promise of romance only to expose its sinister echoes in the donation system.

The “completion” of romance is macabrely inverted. Completion through matrimonial union with an ideal other is transformed into the “donation” of organs, which completes an unknown “normal”, whose life can continue as a result of the clone’s death.

Ishiguro positions us so that we are unwittingly aligned with the “normal” population, whose “overwhelming concern was that their own children, their spouses, their parents, their friends, did not die from cancer, motor neuron disease, heart disease”.

What we want the clones to do (resist their fates) and the means of doing so (romance) are revealed as responsible for the donation system. If we want Kathy and Tommy to live because they love each other – and we do because Ishiguro has compelled us to care for them – then we are endorsing the logic that designates them as disposable in the first place.

The anger Ishiguro has deliberately blunted returns, redoubled. Our care is transformed into complicity. We, rather than the clones, are the targets of Ishiguro’s ire.

Translating this into political terms, Ishiguro is giving aesthetic form to neoliberalism’s eclipse of liberalism. It is no coincidence that Never Let Me Go takes place in England between the 1970s and 1990s, the exact period of neoliberalism’s emergence and consolidation.

But this is no simple transition. Never Let Me Go implies that liberalism is the ghost in the neoliberal machine. The novel is a representation of a vicious neoliberal class system, where those who can afford replacement parts can substantiate the fantasy of liberal individualism, while those who can’t serve as replacement parts.

In this sense, Ishiguro can be read as posing a series of incisive questions, not simply offering the platitude that we are all human. What are the costs of love? Why is there a trade-off between caring for those close to us and caring for those who are distant? How do our claims of shared humanity pave the way for domination? Why do we assume that our way of life is superior because it is predicated on liberal principles? How do we break from a callous system in which we too are complicit?

Twenty years on, these questions are as relevant as ever. To begin answering them, perhaps we have to wipe the tears from our eyes and turn to anger.

Matthew Taft 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. Kazuo Ishiguro said he won the Nobel Prize for making people cry – 20 years later, Never Let Me Go should make us angry – https://theconversation.com/kazuo-ishiguro-said-he-won-the-nobel-prize-for-making-people-cry-20-years-later-never-let-me-go-should-make-us-angry-259282

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jacqueline Peel, Professor of Law and Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

Climate change “imperils all forms of life” and countries must tackle the problem or face consequences under international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found.

The court delivered its long-awaited advisory opinion overnight. The momentous case opens the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations.

And citizens could seek to hold governments to account for a failure to safeguard their human rights if their own or other countries fail to take adequate action to ensure a safe climate.

Here’s what the court ruled – and the global ramifications likely to flow from it.

Climate change breaches human rights

The ICJ case was instigated by law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu in 2019. They successfully launched a campaign for the court to examine two key issues: the obligations of countries to protect the climate from greenhouse gases, and the legal consequences for failing to do so.

The court found a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of many other human rights. As such, it found, the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment.

The ruling confirms climate change is much more than a legal problem. Rather, the justices concluded, it is an:

existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.

Most nations have signed up to global human rights agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICJ ruling means parties to those agreements must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.

An advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is not legally binding. But it is an authoritative description of the state of the law and the rights of countries to seek reparations if the law is breached. As such, it carries great legal weight.

Just as climate science assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have become the gold standard for understanding the causes and impacts of climate change, the court’s ruling provides a clear baseline against which to assess countries’ action, or inaction, on climate change.

Keeping 1.5°C alive?

In recent years, many states’ emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement have seemed to “settle” at levels which would hold global temperature increases to 2°C at best.

But the International Court of Justice ruled the much more ambitious 1.5°C goal had become the scientifically based consensus target under the Paris Agreement.

Some countries argued formal emissions targets should be left to the discretion of each government. However, the court found against this. Rather, each nation’s targets had to be in line with – and make an adequate contribution to – the global goal of holding heating to 1.5°C.

The court found each state’s emissions reduction pledges should be judged against a stringent “due diligence” standard. The standard takes into account each country’s historical contributions to emissions, level of development and national circumstances, among other factors.

The ruling means rich countries, such as Australia, will be required under international law to make more ambitious emission-reduction pledges under the Paris Agreement, such as for the 2035 target currently under consideration by the Albanese government.

The court decision also provides a measure of climate justice for small island states, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change than other nations.

Holding states accountable for inaction

Because climate change is global, it is difficult – but not impossible – to attribute damage from extreme weather to the actions of any one nation or group of nations.

On this question, the court said while climate change is caused by the cumulative impact of many human activities, it is scientifically possible to determine each nation’s total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions.

If a nation experiences damage caused by the failure of another nation, or group of nations, to fulfil international climate obligations, the ruling means legal proceedings may be launched against the nations causing the harm. It may result in compensation or other remedies.

For small, climate-vulnerable nations such as those in the Alliance of Small Island States, this opens more legal options in their efforts to encourage high-emitting nations to properly address climate change.

Importantly, the court made clear nations can be legally liable even if damage from climate change comes from many causes, including from the activities of private actors such as companies.

That means nations cannot seek an exemption because others have contributed to the problem. They must also act to regulate companies and other entities under their jurisdiction whose activities contribute to climate change.

Paris Agreement quitters aren’t safe

One line of argument put to the court by Australia and other states was that climate treaties represented the only obligations to tackle climate change under international law.

But the court found this was not the case. Rather, other international laws applied.

The United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year. The court’s opinion means the US and other nations are still accountable for climate harms under other international laws by which all countries are bound.

Could this lead to greater climate action?

The International Court of Justice has produced a truly historic ruling.

It will set a new baseline in terms what countries need to do to address climate change and opens up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change.

Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council under her Australian Laureate Fellowship and Kathleen Fitzpatrick Award on ‘Transforming International Law for Corporate Climate Accountability’.

– ref. Historic ruling finds climate change ‘imperils all forms of life’ and puts laggard nations on notice – https://theconversation.com/historic-ruling-finds-climate-change-imperils-all-forms-of-life-and-puts-laggard-nations-on-notice-261848

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kim Dovey, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, The University of Melbourne

Balinese officials have begun the demolition of more than 40 businesses at Bingin Beach, a popular tourist spot in the Uluwatu region.

In June, the Balinese House of Representatives determined the settlement is on public land, and is therefore illegal and needs to be demolished. But I’d argue it doesn’t.

The ‘illegal’ settlement

The Bingin Beach coastal settlement began development in the 1970s as an informal surfer hub at the base of a steep escarpment. The beach is a few hundred metres long and largely disappears at high tide.

Originally lined with a string of makeshift warungs (small food stores) and cheap accommodations, the settlement has grown incrementally over the decades, up and along the escarpment, with an intensive mix of surf shops, restaurants and small hotels.

The steepness of the slope precludes vehicle access. The only public access is via two somewhat narrow pedestrian stairways.

While it initially served the surfer community, the settlement now caters to a broader tourist market, with some rooms going for upwards of US$150 per night.

But after more than 50 years of incremental development, the House of Representatives has declared the settlement was illegally constructed on state land, and has ordered the demolition of 45 buildings – effectively the entire settlement.

While most of the buildings seem highly durable, the demolition order is based on illegality, and not durability. A spokesperson for the traders argues most of the businesses are locally owned, and livelihoods are at stake.

The ‘legal’ settlement

The former farmland at the top of the escarpment is also covered with tourist developments that mostly emerged since 2010, and now extend up to a kilometre inland. This is a much more familiar landscape for Bali: a mix of walled hotel compounds and private villas, with manicured gardens and swimming pools.

However, one could scarcely call this larger settlement “planned”. Shops and restaurants emerge wherever they can find a market along the narrow roads. There are no sidewalks and pedestrians are constantly engaged in an anxious game of negotiated passing.

The infrastructure of roads and lanes has also been designed incrementally, across the former farm fields, as the settlement developed. The resulting street network is convoluted and largely unwalkable. The most common street sign is “no beach access this way”.

What is informality?

I’m an academic, architect and urban planner who studies informal settlements and informal urbanism more generally. In this context “informal” can mean illegal, makeshift and unplanned, but it can also mean incremental, adaptive and inventive.

Informal settlement is the means by which a large proportion of Indonesians produce affordable housing. It is also the most traditional form of indigenous housing globally.

After many decades of governments trying to demolish such settlements, the overwhelming consensus across the United Nations Human Settlements Programme is that wholesale demolition is rarely an answer. On-site formalisation and upgrading is the more sustainable pathway.

When engaging with informal settlements, we need to preserve the infrastructures that work and only demolish where necessary. The Bingin Beach escarpment settlement has proven sustainable and has become an integral part of the local heritage.

Its demolition will destroy livelihoods and displace the surfing market, while feathering other nests.

So why is it being demolished? Perhaps to clear the ground for the next round of up-market resorts – what urban studies research calls “accumulation by disposession”. Bingin is widely seen as a major real estate hotspot for investment.

What is overdevelopment?

One of the key dangers of informal settlement is “overdevelopment”. Without
formal planning codes, density can escalate to destroy the very attraction that produced the settlement.

Most buildings along the Bingin Beach escarpment are two to four storeys, and step back with the slope of the escarpment. The exception is the 2019 addition of the Morabito Art Cliff hotel that rises more than six storeys, obscuring the natural landscape, blocking views, and setting a precedent for more of the same.

If everyone in the area built like this, the Bingin settlement would be replaced with a cliff of buildings. To demolish this one building would set a useful precedent of containing the settlement to a sustainable scale.

The Impossibles dream

A few hundred metres south-west of Bingin Beach, a different story unfolds near the beach known as Impossibles. Here, a precarious limestone cliff largely precludes access to the beach, and the clifftop has long been lined with low-rise tourist compounds.

This earlier layer of development is now being demolished and replaced with larger, denser resorts as part of the Amali project which claims a “rare cliff-front location”. The location is “rare” because about half of the 50-metre-high cliff has been excavated to construct villa units quite literally in the cliff.

This excavation was well underway when, in May 2024, it caused much of the remaining natural cliff face to collapse onto the beach and into the ocean. It remains unclear whether the excavation was formally approved. Either way, it prompts the question: what if everyone did that?

The Bingin escarpment and the Impossibles cliff face represent very different kinds of development. One is incremental, irregular and geared to its social and environmental context, while the other is large-grain and environmentally destructive. It makes no sense to demolish the former in order to make way for the latter.

It is imperative to not only save the Bingin Beach settlement, which is part of Bali’s surfing heritage, but also to awaken from the impossible dream of building more and more villas on this fragile and limited coastland.

Kim Dovey 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. Bali is built on informal and ‘illegal’ settlements. Bulldozing Bingin Beach misses the real threat of overdevelopment – https://theconversation.com/bali-is-built-on-informal-and-illegal-settlements-bulldozing-bingin-beach-misses-the-real-threat-of-overdevelopment-261755

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Popi Sotiriadou, Associate Professor of Sport Management – Director Business Innovation, Griffith University

Most sports look to support their athletes to become “faster, higher, stronger” – in reference to the Olympic Games’ original motto – so it is perhaps surprising that cycling’s world governing body is trying to slow down elite riders.

However, there’s good reason the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) recently announced new rules to slow riders down.

These rules – which apply to elite road and cyclo-cross mass-start events for men and women such as the Tour de France – come into place shortly and are aimed at improving rider safety.

---

Read more:
I rode the Tour de France to study its impact on the human body – here’s what I learned

---

What are the new rules?

From August 1, a new bicycle gearing regulation will kick in.

Professional cyclists will only be allowed to use a 54-tooth front chainring with an 11-tooth rear cog.

This replaces the current common setup of 54-10.

To put this into context, a 54-tooth chainring is the big front gear on a bike and the 11-tooth cog is a small rear gear. Moving to a slightly bigger cog (54-11) makes it harder to hit top speeds: the change from a 54-10 to a 54-11 gear setup could reduce the top speed by about 2.4 kilometres per hour.

Pro riders can reach incredible speeds during descents, sometimes surpassing 130 kilometres per hour.

Then, from January 1 2026, handlebars must become wider, increasing from a minimum 350–360 millimetres width (depending on the event) to at least 400mm wide.

The handlebar width affects how a rider controls their bike: narrower bars reduce frontal surface area, making a rider more aerodynamic which again means a faster ride.

This is especially useful in time trials or sprints.

Wider bars offer better stability and control, helping navigate tight turns, peloton traffic, or crosswinds.

The UCI has also announced plans to introduce a formal helmet approval protocol in 2027, which will include separate standards for helmets used in mass-start events and time trials.

This shift suggests helmets may soon be subject to the same pre-race approval process as frames and wheels, potentially leading to safer, more regulated head protection.

New rules, different opinions

Professional cycling is getting faster due to stronger athletes, better training and advanced, lighter equipment.

As a result, high-speed crashes, especially downhill or in crowded sprint finishes, have become more common and more dangerous.

The UCI maintain the new regulations are part of a broader strategy to mitigate speed-related risks, enhance safety and uphold the integrity of the sport.

However, these measures have sparked debate within the cycling community.

Some elite cyclists, particularly those who have suffered severe crashes and injuries, suggest it is time safety caught up with technology.

Wout van Aert, who suffered a severe knee injury in September 2024 during a wet descent, said:

Limiting the number of gears would make the sport much safer.

Chris Froome, four-time Tour de France winner, also said he supported strategies “to keep the speeds down on the descents”.

The Professional Cycling Council supports testing gear ratio limits.

It is also likely these changes could limit cutting-edge innovations that only wealthy teams can afford. This would in turn narrow technological disparities across teams.

Former pro Michael Barry though believes gear restrictions are not the answer, and the UCI should instead focus on improved course design and inspection, better barriers and crash protective clothing.

Technology experts agree, arguing speed is determined more by a rider’s power output and aerodynamic drag than by gear ratios. To enhance safety, they propose alternative solutions such as real-time rider tracking, crash-protective clothing, improved course design and inspection and faster medical response.

The wider handlebar rule has also stirred controversy, especially among smaller-framed riders, many of whom are women, who typically ride with 360–380mm handlebars for better comfort and control.

Under the new regulation, those forced to use bars that exceed their optimal fit range could end up suffering from poor wrist alignment, increased fatigue and a higher risk of repetitive strain injuries.

Despite the growth of women’s cycling, the UCI has not made exemptions for smaller riders, raising concerns a one-size-fits-all solution may compromise inclusively and safety.

Even though regular riders can continue to use the equipment they prefer, what happens in the pro world often shapes non-elite rider preferences and trends, and the bikes sold in stores. If narrower bars are banned at the top level, manufacturers may stop offering them.

Historically, advancements in aerodynamics, gear ratios and component weights seen in the pro peloton have become standard features on consumer bikes.

A delicate balance

The UCI’s new regulations mark a likely shift towards standardised equipment and heightened safety. This deliberate emphasis on safety naturally elevates awareness among all cyclists about the crucial link between equipment choices and rider wellbeing.

While these restrictions may foster a more level playing field, they also risk curbing the sport’s long-standing tradition of engineering innovation.

The very appeal of professional cycling has often been intrinsically tied to the relentless pursuit of technological advancements that yield even fractional competitive advantages.

Striking a balance between ensuring safety and preserving this spirit of ingenuity remains a crucial challenge for the sport’s future.

Popi Sotiriadou 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. Cycling’s governing body is introducing new rules to slow down elite riders. Not everyone’s happy – https://theconversation.com/cyclings-governing-body-is-introducing-new-rules-to-slow-down-elite-riders-not-everyones-happy-260917

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Benjamin Pope, Associate Professor, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University

The day before my thesis examination, my friend and radio astronomer Joe Callingham showed me an image we’d been awaiting for five long years – an infrared photo of two dying stars we’d requested from the Very Large Telescope in Chile.

I gasped – the stars were wreathed in a huge spiral of dust, like a snake eating its own tail.

We named it Apep, for the Egyptian serpent god of destruction. Now, our team has finally been lucky to use NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to look at Apep.

If anything could top the first shock of seeing its beautiful spiral nebula, it’s this breathtaking new image, with the JWST data now analysed in two papers on arXiv.

Violent star deaths

Right before they die as supernovae, the universe’s most massive stars violently shed their outer hydrogen layers, leaving their heavy cores exposed.

These are called Wolf-Rayet stars after their discoverers, who noticed powerful streams of gas blasting out from these objects, much stronger than the stellar wind from our Sun. The Wolf-Rayet stage lasts only millennia – a blink of the eye in cosmic time scales – before they violently explode.

Unlike our Sun, many stars in the universe exist in pairs known as binaries. This is especially true of the most massive stars, such as Wolf-Rayets.

When the fierce gales from a Wolf-Rayet star clash with their weaker companion’s wind, they compress each other. In the eye of this storm forms a dense, cool environment in which the carbon-rich winds can condense into dust. The earliest carbon dust in the cosmos – the first of the material making up our own bodies – was made this way.

The dust from the Wolf-Rayet is blown out in almost a straight line, and the orbital motion of the stars wraps it into a spiral-shaped nebula, appearing exactly like water from a sprinkler when viewed from above.

We expected Apep to look like one of these elegant pinwheel nebulas, discovered by our colleague and co-author Peter Tuthill. To our surprise, it did not.

Equal rivals

The new image was taken using JWST’s infrared camera, like the thermal cameras used by hunters or the military. It represents hot material as blue, and colder material in green through to red.

It turns out Apep isn’t just one powerful star blasting a weaker companion, but two Wolf-Rayet stars. The rivals have near-equal strength winds, and the dust is spread out in a very wide cone and wrapped into a wind-sock shape.

When we originally described Apep in 2018, we noted a third, more distant star, speculating whether it was also part of the system or a chance interloper along the line of sight.

The dust appeared to be moving much slower than the winds, which was hard to explain. We suggested the dust might be carried on a slow, thick wind from the equator of a fast-spinning star, rare today but common in the early universe.

The new, much more detailed data from JWST reveals three more dust shells zooming farther out, each cooler and fainter than the last and spaced perfectly evenly, against a background of swirling dust.

New data, new knowledge

The JWST data are now published and interpreted in a pair of papers, one led by Caltech astronomer Yinuo Han, and the other by Macquarie University Masters student Ryan White.

Han’s paper reveals how the nebula’s dust cools, links the background dust to the foreground stars, and suggests the stars are farther away from Earth than we thought. This implies they are extraordinarily bright, but weakens our original claim about the slow winds and rapid rotation.

In White’s paper, he develops a fast computer model for the shape of the nebula, and uses this to decode the orbit of the inner stars very precisely.

He also noticed there’s a “bite” taken out out of the dust shells, exactly where the wind of the third star would be chewing into them. This proves the Apep family isn’t just a pair of twins – they have a third sibling.

Understanding systems like Apep tells us more about star deaths and the origins of carbon dust, but these systems also have a fascinating beauty that emerges from their seemingly simple geometry.

The violence of stellar death carves puzzles that would make sense to Newton and Archimedes, and it is a scientific joy to solve them and share them.

Benjamin Pope receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Big Questions Institute.

– ref. Swirling nebula of two dying stars revealed in spectacular detail in new Webb telescope image – https://theconversation.com/swirling-nebula-of-two-dying-stars-revealed-in-spectacular-detail-in-new-webb-telescope-image-258314