Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jan Lanicek, Associate Professor in Modern European History and Jewish History, UNSW Sydney

In November 2025, cinemas worldwide will release Nuremberg, a courtroom drama directed by James Vanderbilt. The film focuses on the International Military Tribunal against 24 major Nazi war criminals (though two were ultimately not tried) and seven Nazi organisations – including the SS, the Gestapo and the general staff of the army – at the end of the second world war.

Its release coincides with the 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, which officially opened on October 18 1945. The film explores our desire to see justice and reckoning for those who committed war crimes against civilian populations in the past and present.

The plot centres on the confrontation between Hermann Göring (played by Russell Crowe), a leading Nazi on trial, and psychiatrist Douglas M. Kelley (played by Rami Malek). Kelley’s task was to examine whether the top Nazis were fit to stand trial.

Nuremberg is often called “history’s greatest trial”. It was the first international trial that held senior governmental officials accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed across Europe. It also established individual responsibility for committing war crimes, rejecting the defence of following the orders of superiors.

The indictment covered Nazi crimes before and during the war, against both soldiers and civilians. Nuremberg happened in a unique moment in time, when a country that triggered a major war was completely crushed by a military alliance willing to enforce its “unconditional surrender”.

It was also during the short time before the outbreak of the Cold War, when the wartime alliance between the East and West still held together. Such a trial seems unlikely to be repeated in our current historical moment.

What were the Nuremberg trials?

The International Military Tribunal, which held its hearings in Nuremberg, Germany, lasted for almost a year, until October 1946. It was the first in a series of 13 trials that brought to justice representatives of all the Nazi political, military and business elites, as well as mid-ranking representatives of the army, medical professionals and other Nazi agencies.

The reckoning was comprehensive, even though with the developing Cold War, the Western allies soon lost their appetite for further trials.

The Allies chose Nuremberg as the place for the trials for both political and practical reasons. Nuremberg was one of the centres of the Nazi movement. Numerous political rallies and parades took place there during Hitler’s rule. Also, the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg was one of the few suitable buildings that survived the near total destruction of Germany. It had the facilities needed for a major international tribunal.

Besides Göring, the defendants at the first trial included the Nazi foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, military commanders Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl and armament minister Albert Speer. It also included the vicious antisemite Julius Streicher, and head of the Reich Security Main Office, Ernst Kaltenbrunner – the man in charge of the Nazi policies of persecution.

Several top representatives of Nazi Germany escaped justice: Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels had died by suicide.

In popular memory, the Holocaust or Shoah, the mass extermination of the European Jews, is now commemorated as the main symbol of Nazi atrocities. But historians offer a mixed assessment of the role the Holocaust played during the Nuremberg trial.

While the persecution of the Jews did not dominate the proceedings, their fate was repeatedly emphasised as one of the Nazi crimes. Three Jewish survivors personally testified in the courtroom, reminding the world about the death of approximately six million Jews and incarceration of hundreds of thousands more who survived the ordeal of the camps.

In the courtroom, the prosecution played the footage from the liberated concentration camps, including Belsen and Buchenwald, which shook the audience – including the defendants. Defence witness Rudolf Höss, former commandant of Auschwitz, described the killing process in the gas chambers and crematoria in detail.

The Nazis’ persecution of other minorities received minimum coverage in the main trial. In addition to Jewish people, they also persecuted the Romani people, disabled people, homosexuals and religious minority groups.

Earlier efforts at international justice

Previous efforts to bring leaders of defeated states to justice and establish their accountability had been relatively unsuccessful. The Versailles Peace Treaty in 1919, for instance, promised to bring German leaders to justice for suspected war crimes during the first world war, though the effort never really materialised.

In the Soviet Union, trials of Nazi war criminals and local collaborators had already begun during the second world war. In 1943, the Krasnodar and Kharkov trials sentenced most defendants to death. In late 1944, a Soviet–Polish court sentenced guards from the Majdanek concentration camp to death. Further local trials continued in the first post-war months by the allied militaries, and new political authorities in the liberated countries.

But Nuremberg was the main piece in the puzzle of a comprehensive, often brutal retribution and cleansing all over Europe that brought tens of thousands of war criminals and collaborators to justice. Not only Germans, but also representatives of occupied nations accused of war crimes and collaboration, sat in the dock. Nazi war crimes trials, on a smaller scale, continued for decades.

In fact, just a few years ago, in 2022, 97-year-old Irmgard Furchner, a former secretary at a Nazi concentration camp, Stutthof, was found guilty of complicity in the murder of more than 10,500 people. She received a two-year suspended sentence.

‘History will judge us’

Nuremberg’s significance was political, legal, moral and historical. The tribunal prosecuting major war criminals “whose offenses have no particular geographical location” was jointly led by the four main Allied powers: the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. Each had representatives among the judges and prosecution teams. The prosecutors also represented the interests of other, minor allies, such as Poland or Czechoslovakia, who could provide evidence for the trial.

The indictment listed four counts: conspiracy to commit crimes, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the first trial, 22 Nazis were in the dock.

In his opening speech, US Chief of Counsel for Nuremberg, Justice Robert H. Jackson, stressed:

the wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.

He continued, “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.”

The confirmation of the Nazi crimes that came with the liberation of Europe had shocked the world. When pushing the Wehrmacht (the armed forces of Germany’s Third Reich) from the east and west, seasoned Allied troops liberated destroyed villages and towns, coming across evidence of mass murder of civilians. In 1944 and 1945, the Red Army and western Allies liberated Nazi concentration camps, confirming the mass extermination of Jews and other groups.

At Nuremberg, the charge of “crimes against humanity”, in particular, punished crimes against civilians, such as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts”. The promoter of this term was lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht, who was born in Galicia (then part of Austria-Hungary) and lived in the UK.

A competing legal terminology had been developed by another Galician-born lawyer, based in the US, Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide”. While the concept supported by Lauterpacht focused on the persecution of individuals, Lemkin stressed that the Nazi crimes were committed with the intent to destroy whole groups, particularly the Jews.

Although Nuremberg mentioned genocide on several occasions, the judges preferred “crimes against humanity” when characterising Nazi crimes. This legal concept allowed the Allies to punish German leaders for the persecution of their own citizens, even before the war.

As international lawyer and author Philippe Sands has said, this decision mean that “no longer would a state be free to treat its people entirely as it wished”.

A refined version of Lemkin’s term for genocide was officially enshrined in international law by the United Nations in 1948. It has been criticised for establishing a high threshold of proof. As a result, only a few cases of mass violence against civilians meet the criteria.

There were several notable moments during the trial. Göring, the former head of the Luftwaffe (German airforce), was considered the main defendant, and dominated the trial. Eventually, he had to be isolated from the other defendants, to allow them to speak more freely.

His questioning by Justice Jackson has been characterised as one of the worst cross-examinations in history. US attorney Robert Hedrick said, in 2016, that Göring was a “slippery” witness, who often complained about the translation of questions to buy time to think of an answer – and Jackson “did not control his witness”. But the prosecution had enough evidence to sentence him to death on all four counts, including crimes against humanity.

Rudolf Hess, deputy leader of the Nazi Party, escaped on a plane to Britain in 1941, allegedly with the aim to negotiate peace. He was imprisoned and kept in custody until the end of the war. In Nuremberg, Hess claimed amnesia and mental problems to avoid accountability for his crimes. In the end, he was sentenced to life in prison and died at Spandau prison in Berlin, in 1987.

Architect Albert Speer, who from 1942 became Hitler’s armament minister, cooperated with the court. He expressed remorse for the crimes he committed, though denied any knowledge of the Holocaust. These claims have later been disputed.

For instance, in 1971, Harvard University historian Erich Goldhagen found that Speer had attended a conference of senior Nazis in October 1943, at which SS head Himmler had spoken openly about “the extermination of the Jewish people”. (Though his biographer couldn’t confirm he had heard the speech in person, she concluded “he knew”.) He was sentenced to 20 years and was released in 1966, aged 61.

The judges sentenced 12 defendants to the death penalty. Martin Bormann, the head of the Nazi Party Chancellery and Secretary to Hitler, was sentenced in absentia. Although it was believed he was at large, it was later confirmed he died in the battle of Berlin in early May 1945.

Three defendants, Hitler’s minister of economics Hjalmar Schacht, propagandist Hans Fritzsche, and Hitler’s erstwhile conservative ally Franz von Papen were acquitted, despite the protest of the Soviet judge. Göring, sentenced to death, escaped justice by dying by suicide the night the execution was ordered.

International war crimes trials since Nuremberg

Nuremberg was the first major international trial for war crimes. It was followed by others. At around the same time, beginning in 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East met in Tokyo, judging Japanese war criminals. The Tokyo Charter closely followed the Nuremberg Charter.

In the 1990s, in the post-Cold War period, the UN Security Council established two more ad hoc international criminal tribunals.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was set up in the Hague, for war criminals from the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Its mandate lasted from 1993 to 2017. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convened in Arusha, Tanzania, to prosecute persons responsible for genocide and war crimes in the Rwandan civil war, committed in 1994. Both men and women were sentenced to long prison terms at these trials, including for the crime of genocide.

In 2002, the UN General Assembly approved the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). Based on the Rome statute, the ICC can judge genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. However, some of the major world powers, such as the US, Russia, China and India, do not recognise its jurisdiction and do not cooperate with the court.

The ICC is currently investigating several states and their leaders, including Russia, Israel and a Hamas representative. Usually, only heads of smaller states, who lack strong international partners, sit in the dock. More powerful actors ignore the extradition requests, accusing the court of either pro-western bias, “neo-colonialist repression” or antisemitism.

Almost 80% of all indictments issued by the court have been against African leaders. The court has not opened one single case against leaders from the West.

Because of the indictment against Israeli leaders, the US has threatened the court with sanctions, and Hungary has withdrawn from the ICC. The ICC lacks the instruments to enforce extradition and can only rely on members’ cooperation. State leaders sought by the ICC travel relatively freely around the world, visiting major international states including permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Could the Nuremberg trials happen today?

A major trial of international significance – comparable to the Nuremberg Trials – would only be possible in the case of a major military defeat of the investigated government, and its occupation by those willing to bring the leading politicians to justice.

This is unlikely to happen. Countries are unwilling to extradite their leaders to international courts, unless they are coerced by circumstances. Many prefer to settle the scores on their home turf.

The Allies organised the Nuremberg trials with the hope of bringing the horrible chapter of Nazism to an end and sending a clear message for the future. The destruction, war crimes and crimes against humanity revealed at the end of the war truly shocked the world.

Even so, the East and West were only able to meet and sentence the German leaders during this brief historical moment before the outbreak of the Cold War.

With growing divisions in the world today, another Nuremberg is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Jan Lanicek receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Friday essay: the Nuremberg Trials at 80 – could such a reckoning ever happen again? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-nuremberg-trials-at-80-could-such-a-reckoning-ever-happen-again-267313

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Magnesium supplements are everywhere – lined up on pharmacy shelves and promoted on wellness blogs and social media.

Maybe you have a friend or family member who swears a daily tablet will help everything, from better sleep to alleviating muscle cramps.

But do you really need one? Or it is just marketing hype?

What is magnesium and why do we need it?

Magnesium is an essential metal the body needs to make and operate more than 300 different enzymes.

These enzymes build protein, and regulate muscle and nerve function, help in the release of energy from our food, and help to maintain blood function. The body doesn’t produce magnesium so we need to get it from external sources.

The government recommends a daily magnesium dose of 310–420 mg a day for adults and 30–410 mg for children, depending on age and sex.

This is easily met through a good diet. Foods rich in magnesium include nuts and seeds, whole grains, seafood, meat, legumes and green leafy vegetables.

You can even get some of your magnesium needs met through dark chocolate. It has 146 mg per 100 g of chocolate.

How do I know if I’m deficient?

People at risk of experiencing magnesium deficiency include people with restricted diets, gastrointestinal problems such as Crohn’s and coeliac diseases, type 2 diabetes, and alcohol dependence. Older adults are also more likely to be deficient.

You will only need a magnesium supplement if you show signs of low magnesium. One of the most common signs is muscle spasms and twitches. Other symptoms to look out for include low appetite, nausea and vomiting, or your heart beating abnormally.

Magnesium deficiency can be properly diagnosed by a blood test ordered by your doctor. If you need this test, it’s covered by Medicare.

What conditions can it help?

Commercially available magnesium supplements have been promoted to prevent muscle cramps, manage insomnia and help with migraines.

While magnesium deficiency is linked to muscle cramps, the cause of most muscle cramps is unknown.

And the current evidence does not demonstrate that magnesium supplements can prevent muscle cramps in older adults.

There is conflicting data as to whether the use of magnesium helps with sleep. One study reported magnesium was able to reduce the time for a person to fall asleep by 17.4 minutes while others didn’t show an effect.

For migraines, the most recent research suggests taking 122-600 mg of magnesium supplements daily for 4–24 weeks may decrease their frequency and severity.

Are magnesium supplements safe?

Magnesium supplements are generally well tolerated.

However, they can cause gastrointestinal discomfort such as nausea, abdominal cramping and diarrhoea. Magnesium causes diarrhoea by drawing water into the intestine and stimulating movement in the gut.

It is possible to take too much magnesium and you can overdose on it. Very large doses, around 5,000 mg per day, can lead to magnesium toxicity.

Most of the research investigating the clinical use of magnesium focuses on magnesium in oral formulations.

What other formulations are available?

As magnesium is a small metal ion, it can pass through skin – but not easily.

Magnesium bath salts, patches and topical cream-based formulations may be able to raise your blood magnesium levels to some extent.

But due to the amount needed each day, tablets and foods are a better source.

Things to watch out for when taking magnesium

Commercially available magnesium products can vary widely in dose, formulation and cost. Magnesium supplements have between 150 to 350 mg of the metal per tablet. Your required dose will depend on your age and sex, and whether you have any underlying health problems.

Magnesium supplements sometimes contain other vitamins and minerals, such as vitamins C and D, and the metals calcium, chromium and manganese. So it’s important to consider the total quantities if you’re taking other vitamins and supplements.

Many magnesium supplements also include vitamin B6. While this vitamin is important for supporting the immune system, high intakes can it can cause serious health issues. If you’re already taking a B6 supplement, a magnesium supplement that also includes it can put you at risk.

What if you’re considering supplements?

If you think you might be deficient in magnesium, speak to your doctor who can order a blood test.

If you suffer from migraines, cramps, or poor sleep, talk to your doctor or pharmacist who can advise on and monitor the underlying cause. It may be that a change in lifestyle or an alternative treatment may be more appropriate for you.

If you do decide to take a magnesium supplement, check you won’t be taking too much of any other vitamin or mineral. A pharmacist can help select a supplement that suits you best.

Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

Wai-Jo Jocelin Chan 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. Should I take a magnesium supplement? Will it help me sleep or prevent muscle cramps? – https://theconversation.com/should-i-take-a-magnesium-supplement-will-it-help-me-sleep-or-prevent-muscle-cramps-267542

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hamish Clarke, Senior Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

We’ve all seen the alarming images. Smoke belching from the thick forests of the Amazon. Spanish firefighters battling flames across farmland. Blackened celebrity homes in Los Angeles and smoked out regional towns in Australia.

If you felt like wildfires and their impacts were more extreme in the past year – you’re right. Our new report, a collaboration between scientists across continents, shows climate change supercharged the world’s wildfires in unpredictable and devastating ways.

Human-caused climate change increased the area burned by wildfires, called bushfires in Australia, by a magnitude of 30 in some regions in the world. Our snapshot offers important new evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme fires. And it serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The evidence is clear – climate change is making fires worse.

Clear pattern

Our study used satellite observations and advanced modelling to find and investigate the causes of wildfires in the past year. The research team considered the role that climate and land use change played, and found a clear interrelationship between climate and extreme events.

Regional experts provided local input to capture events and impacts that satellites did not pick up. For Oceania, this role was played by Dr Sarah Harris from the Country Fire Authority and myself.

In the past year, a land area larger than India – about 3.7 million square kilometres – was burnt globally. More than 100 million people were affected by these fires, and US$215 billion worth of homes and infrastructure were at risk.

Not only does the heating climate mean more dangerous, fire-prone conditions, but it also affects how vegetation grows and dries out, creating fuel for fires to spread.

In Australia, bushfires did not reach the overall extent or impact of previous seasons, such as the Black Summer bushfires of 2019–20. Nonetheless, more than 1,000 large fires burned around 470,000 hectares in Western Australia, and more than 5 million hectares burned in central Australia. In Victoria, the Grampians National Park saw two-thirds of its area burned.

In the United States, our analysis showed the deadly Los Angeles wildfires in January were twice as likely and burned an area 25 times bigger than they would have in a world without global warming. Unusually wet weather in Los Angeles in the preceding 30 months contributed to strong vegetation growth and laid the foundations for wildfires during an unusually hot and dry January.

In South America, fires in the Pantanal-Chiquitano region, which straddles the border between Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay, were 35 times larger due to climate change. Record-breaking fires ravaged parts of the Amazon and Congo, releasing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Not too late

It’s clear that if global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, more severe heatwaves and droughts will make landscape fires more frequent and intense worldwide.

But it’s not too late to act. We need stronger and faster climate action to cut fossil fuel emissions, protect nature and reduce land clearing.

And we can get better at responding to the risk of fires, from nuanced forest management to preparing households and short and long-term disaster recovery.

There are regional differences in fires, and so the response also need to be local. We should prioritise local and regional knowledge, and First Nations knowledge, in responding to bushfire.

Action at COP30

Fires emitted more than 8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2024–25, about 10% above the average since 2003. Emissions were more than triple the global average in South American dry forests and wetlands, and double the average in Canadian boreal forests. That’s a deeply concerning amount of greenhouse pollution. The excess emissions alone exceeded the national fossil fuel CO₂ emissions of more than 200 individual countries in 2024.

Next month, world leaders, scientists, non-governmental organisations and civil society will head to Belem in Brazil for the United Nations annual climate summit (COP30) to talk about how to tackle climate change.

The single most powerful contribution developed nations can make to avoid the worst impacts of extreme wildfires is to commit to rapidly cutting greenhouse gas emissions this decade.

Hamish Clarke receives funding from the Westpac Scholars Trust (HC) and the Australian Research Council via an Industry Fellowship IM240100046. He is a member of the International Association of Wildland Fire, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the Australian Science Communicators, and a member of the Oceania Regional Committee of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management.

– ref. The climate crisis is fuelling extreme fires across the planet – https://theconversation.com/the-climate-crisis-is-fuelling-extreme-fires-across-the-planet-267626

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By John Tookey, Professor of Construction Management, Auckland University of Technology

The Gaza Strip is a tortured piece of land that is about 40km long and 11km wide. Some 2.3 million souls are crammed into a space of around 360 square kilometres. This is barely larger than central Sydney.

People and empires have lived in, built on, fought over and destroyed the area for thousands of years.

The dire situation in Gaza

The consequences of the Israel-Palestine war have been catastrophic.

The human toll is immense: the United Nations estimates more than 67,000 Palestinians have been killed and almost 170,000 wounded. About 1,200 Israelis have been killed and 5,400 injured since October 7, 2023.

Gaza itself has been razed to the ground in many areas. The United Nations estimates 83% of all structures and housing units have been damaged in Gaza City.

The ability of Gaza to support life is in question.

The recent ceasefire could see longer-term peace. At the time of writing it continues to hold, but optimism is not high.

If peace is to hold in the long term, there is a need to look into reestablishing the means by which Gaza can sustain its population.

---

Read more:
Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ foreign policy achieved a breakthrough in Gaza – but is it sustainable?

---

Priorities in rebuilding Gaza

Gaza is a disaster zone. Infrastructure has been dramatically impacted.

The damage is similar in scale and scope to a Category 4 or 5 hurricane.

Like any disaster, food, medicine and bottled water are the immediate priorities. This will sustain life in the short term.

Assuming a major effort can be made to open border crossings, lives will be saved by bringing immediate relief to victims of food and medical supply shortages.

Engineers will be a key resource in reconstructing Gaza.

After sustained bombing, priorities will be reconstituting buried assets such as power, water and sewerage, and pumping stations. While the original lines of buried pipes will be known from city mapping, much of the infrastructure will be cracked, broken or destroyed.

Failure to do so will lead to outbreaks of diseases such as typhus and dysentery.

Unexploded bombs and ammunition will need clearance.

Damaged houses and public buildings will present huge public safety risks of collapse.

Massive demolition and clearance will be required for millions of tonnes of debris.

Following these immediate priorities will be the construction or repair of hospitals, houses, schools, road systems and governance infrastructure – all of which will have been massively compromised.

A daunting challenge

Realistically, it will take decades to design, finance and reconstruct infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. Emergency fixes can be made in the short term (3–6 months) but winter could extract a further toll if delays occur.

Demolition requires specialist equipment and heavy goods vehicles. The required work is daunting.

Just up the coast, Beirut is facing the problem of what to do with 32 million tonnes of demolition waste from the latest Israel-Lebanon conflict, not long after rebuilding from its civil war.

Gaza may face a similar dilemma considering how much demolition waste there is on the ground.

It is likely a housing prefabrication scheme and a massive logistical effort will be needed at the least.

Historical precedents outline the scale of the rebuilding task: Stalingrad took more than 20 years to reconstitute after World War II and Warsaw did not finish postwar reconstruction until the 1980s.

Power, fuel and water issues

Creating a future Gaza is dependent on funding and access to resources.

This is more than just money – it will need materials, skills and labour on the ground.

It requires a sustainable peace, a disentanglement of existing infrastructure and a creation of new options for supply.

All critical supplies and infrastructure are not under the control of its government: power, fuel and water currently come from Israel.

Logistically, aid agencies are on the ground to maintain some services. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is foremost among these. It is a program mandated to provide basic humanitarian assistance and services to Palestinian refugees.

In two weeks in September, UNWRA provided access to 18 million litres of water to 370,000 people in Gaza, as well as removing 4,000 tonnes of solid waste.

This implies 3 billion litres of water – equivalent to filling around 1,200 Olympic swimming pools annually – and removing in excess of 600,000 tonnes of waste every year as a minimum requirement to sustain the Gazan society.

Any engineering solution will need to provide this level of support if not substantially more. This is a huge commitment for funders and engineers.

New port infrastructure needs to be developed as a priority. Supply infrastructure such as roads and ports independent of outside controls will be essential to sustain any society in a post-war setting.

Potentially, much of the demolition waste from Gaza’s damaged buildings could be used to reclaim land from the sea and provide breakwaters for this.

However, this waste is heavily contaminated, creating further problems.

A challenging future

To achieve these reconstruction outcomes simultaneously will require billions of dollars in aid over many decades.

Without serious aid coming to the region, the cost of construction materials will inevitably soar and there will be shortages of engineers and technicians accordingly.

All in all, the undertaking is likely to be a major mobilisation exercise for a number of years – no matter how much money is thrown at it by donors.

John Tookey 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. With 83% of its buildings destroyed, Gaza needs more than money to rebuild – https://theconversation.com/with-83-of-its-buildings-destroyed-gaza-needs-more-than-money-to-rebuild-267431

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Steven Lockey, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Melbourne Business School

Have you ever used artificial intelligence (AI) in your job without double-checking the quality or accuracy of its output? If so, you wouldn’t be the only one.

Our global research shows a staggering two-thirds (66%) of employees who use AI at work have relied on AI output without evaluating it.

This can create a lot of extra work for others in identifying and correcting errors, not to mention reputational hits. Just this week, consulting firm Deloitte Australia formally apologised after a A$440,000 report prepared for the federal government had been found to contain multiple AI-generated errors.

Against this backdrop, the term “workslop” has entered the conversation. Popularised in a recent Harvard Business Review article, it refers to AI-generated content that looks good but “lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task”.

Beyond wasting time, workslop also corrodes collaboration and trust. But AI use doesn’t have to be this way. When applied to the right tasks, with appropriate human collaboration and oversight, AI can enhance performance. We all have a role to play in getting this right.

The rise of AI-generated ‘workslop’

According to a recent survey reported in the Harvard Business Review article, 40% of US workers have received workslop from their peers in the past month.

The survey’s research team from BetterUp Labs and Stanford Social Media Lab found on average, each instance took recipients almost two hours to resolve, which they estimated would result in US$9 million (about A$13.8 million) per year in lost productivity for a 10,000-person firm.

Those who had received workslop reported annoyance and confusion, with many perceiving the person who had sent it to them as less reliable, creative, and trustworthy. This mirrors prior findings that there can be trust penalties to using AI.

---

Read more:
Being honest about using AI at work makes people trust you less, research finds

---

Invisible AI, visible costs

These findings align with our own recent research on AI use at work. In a representative survey of 32,352 workers across 47 countries, we found complacent over-reliance on AI and covert use of the technology are common.

While many employees in our study reported improvements in efficiency or innovation, more than a quarter said AI had increased workload, pressure, and time on mundane tasks. Half said they use AI instead of collaborating with colleagues, raising concerns that collaboration will suffer.

Making matters worse, many employees hide their AI use; 61% avoided revealing when they had used AI and 55% passed off AI-generated material as their own. This lack of transparency makes it challenging to identify and correct AI-driven errors.

What you can do to reduce workslop

Without guidance, AI can generate low-value, error-prone work that creates busywork for others. So, how can we curb workslop to better realise AI’s benefits?

If you’re an employee, three simple steps can help.

1. start by asking, “Is AI the best way to do this task?”. Our research suggests this is a question many users skip. If you can’t explain or defend the output, don’t use it

2. if you proceed, verify and work with AI output like an editor; check facts, test code, and tailor output to the context and audience

3. when the stakes are high, be transparent about how you used AI and what you checked to signal rigour and avoid being perceived as incompetent or untrustworthy.

What employers can do

For employers, investing in governance, AI literacy, and human-AI collaboration skills is key.

Employers need to provide employees with clear guidelines and guardrails on effective use, spelling out when AI is and is not appropriate.

That means forming an AI strategy, identifying where AI will have the highest value, being clear about who is responsible for what, and tracking outcomes. Done well, this reduces risk and downstream rework from workslop.

Because workslop comes from how people use AI – not as an inevitable consequence of the tools themselves – governance only works when it shapes everyday behaviours. That requires organisations to build AI literacy alongside policies and controls.

Organisations must work to close the AI literacy gap. Our research shows that AI literacy and training are associated with more critical AI engagement and fewer errors, yet less than half of employees report receiving any training or policy guidance.

Employees need the skills to use AI selectively, accountably and collaboratively. Teaching them when to use AI, how to do so effectively and responsibly, and how to verify AI output before circulating it can reduce workslop.

Steven Lockey’s position is funded by the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia.

Nicole Gillespie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia.

– ref. AI ‘workslop’ is creating unnecessary extra work. Here’s how we can stop it – https://theconversation.com/ai-workslop-is-creating-unnecessary-extra-work-heres-how-we-can-stop-it-267110

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gwyn McClelland, Senior Lecturer, Japanese Studies, University of New England

At first, there might not seem to be any immediate similarities between a devastated Nagasaki after the US atomic bombing in 1945 and Gaza today, aside from massive destruction.

But in considering Gaza’s recovery from war – should the current ceasefire hold – much may be gleaned from Nagasaki’s experience and how it managed the painful process of starting over and rebuilding from virtually nothing.

Damage and destruction

The estimates of those killed from the atomic bombings in 1945 range widely from 70,000–140,000 at Hiroshima and 40,000–70,000 at Nagasaki.

In Gaza, the Palestinian health authorities say more than 67,000 Palestinians have died, with many more perhaps buried in the rubble.

In 1945, the US Army dropped an atomic bomb close to the centre of Hiroshima. But in Nagasaki’s case three days later, the plutonium bomb fell a few kilometres to the north of the city in a suburb called Urakami.

The bombing destroyed an area that was socio-economically less well-off, which had an impact on Nagasaki’s recovery, compared with Hiroshima.

Many of those who lived there were minorities, including colonised Korean people, Catholics and outcasts known as buraku.

And just as in Gaza, much of the city infrastructure was decimated. An atomic archive estimates that in Nagasaki, around 61% of city structures were damaged in the bombing, compared with 67% in Hiroshima.

In Gaza, the United Nations Satellite Centre estimates 83% of structures have been damaged from Israeli bombing.

Recovering bodies in a war zone

The aftermath of the bombing shows just how great the needs of the people were in Nagasaki. I conducted an oral history survey with bombing survivors between 2008 and 2016. Twelve of them – mostly children from Catholic families close to Ground Zero at the time of the bombing – detailed their experiences before and after.

After the bombing, many said the unburied dead was a confronting aspect, both physically and spiritually “dangerous”. One survivor, Mine Tōru, told me:

The dead bodies were piled in carts used for rubbish collection and dumped out in an outer area.

Barrels were placed at intersections for the collection of ashes and bones. Meanwhile, the occupying US Army cleared Urakami with bulldozers.

In Swedish journalist Monica Brau’s book, a man named Uchida Tsukasa remembered those bulldozers driving over the bones of the dead in the same way as sand or soil. When someone tried to take a photo, a soldier pointed his gun and threatened to confiscate the pictures. Brau argued that US censorship grossly impaired the recovery in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The clean-up and retrieval of human remains took time. Some six months after the bombing, bones were still being pulled out of the river by a Buddhist Ladies’ Association.

This process is beginning in Gaza today, too. According to news reports, scores of bodies have already been pulled from the rubble since the ceasefire took hold. Estimates suggest there could be as many as 14,000 bodies in the rubble, many of which will never be recovered.

The political challenges of rebuilding

In rehabilitating Gaza, those overseeing the process will also need to ensure the civil liberties of the poor – children and women, in particular – are not infringed upon.

In Nagasaki, some bomb survivors were forced to live in caves that had previously been bomb shelters, including three of those I interviewed.

Fukahori Jōji, who was 16 at the time of the bombing, lost his whole family, including three siblings and his mother. He told me that after the bombing, urban revitalisation and road-widening took over part of his family’s land.

Nagasaki officials were alleged to have used the reconstruction to “clean up” an outcast community.

A writer, Dōmon Minoru, explained how land was acquired compulsorily and cheaply by the council, forcing many residents out: “the Urakami burakumin (outcasts) were neutralised”.

Their landlords sold the land where they had lived and the Nagasaki Council even did away with the name, Urakami town.

As will likely be the case in Gaza, the people of Nagasaki also had to rebuild under an occupation.

US historian Chad Diehl’s powerful book about the rebuilding highlighted the “disconnect” between the American occupiers and Nagasaki residents.

The rebuilding took decades. Diehl explained there are two words for recovery often used in Nagasaki, saiken (reconstruction), which usually refers to the physical rebuilding, and fukkō (revival), which refers to wellbeing – psychological, social and physical.

The wellbeing recovery will surely take even longer than the rebuilding of the physical infrastructure in Gaza.

Hope among the rubble

Another important aspect in recovery from war: the people need to have agency over the process. They shouldn’t just be thought of as survivors of a tragedy – they are integral to the revival of their communities.

Reiko Miyake, a teacher who was 20 at the time of the Nagasaki bombing, told me she returned to teaching at her elementary school a few months later. Only 100 of the 1,500 students at the school survived, and just 19 showed up on the first day.

As holders of memory, these people took on new roles of service for their communities. They were storytellers and rebuilders seeking hope in the face of unbearable loss and ongoing lament.

May such stories of the past encourage the difficult task of recovery in what is a bereft Gaza today.

Gwyn McClelland is the former recipient of a National Library of Australia Fellowship and a Japan Foundation Fellowship. He is the president of the Japanese Studies Association of Australia.

– ref. As Gaza starts to rebuild, what lessons can be learned from Nagasaki in 1945? – https://theconversation.com/as-gaza-starts-to-rebuild-what-lessons-can-be-learned-from-nagasaki-in-1945-267437

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Martin Kear, Sessional Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Despite the euphoria surrounding the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, Gaza is still wracked with violence.

More than two dozen Palestinians have been killed in recent days in clashes between Hamas and members of various clans. Hamas has also reportedly executed blindfolded men in a public square.

With the Israeli military withdrawing to pre-determined ceasefire lines, Hamas members are beginning to re-assert their control. However, powerful clans are also jockeying for position – some allied to Hamas’ ideological rival, the West Bank-based Fatah movement, and some backed by Israel.

So, who are these clans? What role do they play in Gaza? And how much of a threat are they to Hamas?

Who are the clans?

Familial clans have existed in Palestinian society for centuries. In recent decades, they have come to play a key role in Palestinian politics.

The clans are primarily collections of family groups in various parts of Gaza. One of the largest and most well-armed is the Dughmush clan in Gaza City, headed by Mumtaz Dughmush. This clan was immediately targeted by Hamas after the ceasefire.

The al-Majayda clan also holds sway in part of Khan Younis. Hamas forces raided their neighbourhood earlier this month, killing several family members. This week, however, the clan publicly supported Hamas’ effort to regain control over Gaza.

Importantly, these clans and their relationships with Hamas and Fatah are dynamic and constantly evolving. Members of both Hamas and Fatah also belong to clans. This often leads to clashes over territory and control, with clan loyalties often outweighing movement allegiances.

As Israeli historian Dror Ze’evi notes, any attempt by Hamas or Fatah to disarm the clans would be seen as an affront and met with serious opposition.

A long history of entrenched power

After the 1948 war that saw the creation of Israel and the Palestinian al-naqbah (or Nakba), around 750,000 Palestinians fled Israel to the Gaza Strip, West Bank and neighbouring Arab states.

This was when clans began to assume traditional roles of mediators and patrons. Their organised structures made them best-placed to provide welfare and assistance to a shattered Palestinian society.

As law and order, security and financial independence improved in the territories in the subsequent decades, Palestinians came to rely less on their support. This brought a decline in their power and influence.

This changed, though, during the First Intifada (1987–93) and Second Intifada (2000–05) when Palestinian society was again plunged into crisis. This was especially true in the Gaza Strip, which was known as the engine room of organised Palestinian resistance.

The Second Intifada, in particular, changed the role of the clans significantly, after Israel destroyed much of the organised Palestinian security forces and infrastructure in the territories.

With neither Hamas nor Fatah able to ensure the safety of Palestinians, this created a security vacuum. And some of the clans exploited this by transforming into paramilitary organisations. Again, this was especially true in the Gaza Strip, where Israel’s efforts to crush Palestinian resistance were felt most intensely.

When the Second Intifada ended, the Gazan clans retained a significant amount of political influence and military power. After Hamas won the 2006 elections, some Fatah-aligned clans tried to prevent it from taking power.

So entrenched were these clans that when Hamas finally assumed control of Gaza in 2007, it took the movement a year to effectively bring the more powerful clans under its authority. Even then, it was more of a truce than a victory for Hamas.

Israel backing Hamas rivals

This status quo remained until Hamas’ October 7 2023 terrorist attacks on Israel. Israel’s revenge for these attacks devastated the Gaza Strip, once again robbing Gazans of any semblance of safety and security.

Now, with Israel’s partial troop withdrawal, another security vacuum has been created. And many clans appear keen to fill it, some with the help of Israel.

In June, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted his government was arming some Gazan clans, gangs and militias, such as the Popular Forces, led by Yasser Abu Shabab.

Netanyahu’s rationale was that any opposition to Hamas helped Israel and saved soldiers’ lives. It also pitted Palestinian against Palestinian, placing additional pressure on Hamas.

After the ceasefire came into effect, Hamas began targeting what it called
“collaborators and traitors” – an apparent reference to those clans and gangs cooperating with Israel.

The Popular Forces, meanwhile, have refused to lay down their arms. A dozen other new militias have also reportedly emerged across the strip in recent days, including one led by Hossam al-Astal, who said:

Hamas was always betting that there won’t be any alternative to replace them in Gaza, but now I’m telling you, today, there is an alternative force to Hamas. It could be me or Abu Shabab or anyone else, but alternatives today exist.

While this violence between Hamas and rival groups does not directly affect the ceasefire that ended the war, it is evidence that Israel is still attempting to meddle in Gaza’s security and exert its control.

But the peace plan negotiated by US President Donald Trump looks shakier by the day, given its call for Hamas to disarm. Trump said this week if Hamas refused to disarm themselves, “we will disarm them […] perhaps violently”.

The peace plan also calls for Hamas to withdraw from Palestinian politics, to be replaced eventually by the Palestinian Authority, which currently administers parts of the West Bank. However, Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected the Palestinian Authority assuming control of Gaza.

This ambiguity over the future governance of Gaza opens the possibility that the more powerful clans could become alternate centres of political power, as they had during the Second Intifada. This time they may do so under the auspices of Israel’s military occupation.

This would further fracture Gaza and weaken any effort by the Palestinian Authority to reunite the territories under a single governance structure. It would also make a future Palestinian state tenuous.

Also, Hamas will not go quietly. And this is a very real danger to peace and security in Gaza, especially if Hamas sees any resistance to its authority from the clans as little more than a proxy war with Israel.

Martin Kear 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. Hamas is battling powerful clans for control in Gaza – who are these groups and what threat do they pose? – https://theconversation.com/hamas-is-battling-powerful-clans-for-control-in-gaza-who-are-these-groups-and-what-threat-do-they-pose-267446

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney

The price of gold surged above US$4,100 (A$6,300) an ounce on Wednesday for the first time, taking this year’s extraordinary rally to more than 50%.

The speed of the upswing has been much faster than analysts had predicted and brings the total gains to nearly 100% since the current run started in early 2024.

The soaring price of gold has captured investors’ hearts and wallets and resulted in long lines of people forming outside gold dealers in Sydney to get their hands on the precious metal.

What explains the soaring price of gold?

A number of reasons have been suggested to explain the current record run for gold. These include greater economic uncertainties from ballooning government debt levels and the current US government shutdown.

There are also growing worries about the independence of the US Federal Reserve. If political interference pushes down US interest rates, that could see a resurgence in inflation. Gold is traditionally seen as a hedge against inflation.

But these factors are unlikely to be the main reasons behind the meteoric rise in gold prices.

For starters, the price of gold has been on a sustained upward trajectory for the past few years. That’s well before any of those factors emerged as an issue.

The more likely explanation for the current gold price rally is growing demand from gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

These funds track the movements of gold, or other assets such as stocks or bonds, and are traded on the stock exchange. This makes assets such as commodities much more accessible to investors.

Before the first gold ETF was launched in 2003, it was considered too difficult for regular investors to get gold exposure.

Now gold ETFs are widely available, gold can be traded like any other financial asset. This appears to be changing investors’ view of gold’s traditional role as a safe-haven asset in times of political or financial turmoil, when other assets such as stocks are more risky.

In addition to retail investor demand, some emerging market economies – notably China and Russia – are switching their official reserve assets out of currencies such as the US dollar and into gold.

According to the International Monetary Fund, central bank holdings of physical gold in emerging markets have risen 161% since 2006 to be around 10,300 tonnes.

To put this into perspective, emerging market gold holdings grew by only 50% over the 50 years to 2005.

Research suggests the reason for the switch into gold by emerging market economies is the increasing use of financial sanctions by the US and other governments that represent the major reserve currencies (the US dollar, euro, Japanese yen, and British pound).

Indeed, Russia became a net buyer of gold in 2006 and accelerated its gold purchases following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. It now has one of the largest stockpiles in the world.

Meanwhile, China has been selling down its holdings of US government bonds and switching to buying gold in a process referred to as “de-dollarisation”. It wants to reduce its dependency on the US currency.

Emerging market central banks also lifted their gold holdings after Russia’s exclusion from the international payments system known as SWIFT and a proposal by US and European governments to seize Russian central bank reserves to help fund support for Ukraine.

Further de-dollarisation efforts by emerging market economies are expected to continue. Many of these economies now view the major Western currencies as carrying unwanted risk of financial sanctions. This is not the case with gold. This could mean financial sanctions become a less effective policy tool in the future.

Could gold have further to run?

Ongoing demand from Russia and China, and investor demand for gold ETFs, means the gold price could rally further. Both factors represent sustained increases in demand, in addition to existing demand for jewellery and electronics.

Further price rises will likely fuel increased ETF inflows via the “fear of missing out” effect.

The World Gold Council last week reported record monthly inflows in September. For the September quarter as a whole, ETF inflows topped US$26 billion and for the nine months to September, fund inflows totalled US$64 billion.

In contrast, emerging market central bank demand for gold is less affected by price and more driven by geopolitical factors, which supports increasing demand for gold.

Based on these two drivers, analysts at Goldman Sachs have already revised up their price target for gold to US$4,900 an ounce by the end of the 2026.

Why gold’s rise is a win for Australia

What does the current gold rally mean for Australia?

As the world’s third-largest producer of gold, with at least 19% of known deposits, Australia will benefit from further increases in gold prices.

In fact, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources now expects the value of gold exports to overtake liquefied natural gas exports next year.

This will see gold become our second-most important export behind that other “precious” metal: iron ore.

Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP230100959).

– ref. The price of gold is skyrocketing. Why is this, and will it continue? – https://theconversation.com/the-price-of-gold-is-skyrocketing-why-is-this-and-will-it-continue-267004

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Professor in Geochronology and Geochemistry, Southern Cross University

When we think of lead poisoning, most of us imagine modern human-made pollution, paint, old pipes, or exhaust fumes.

But our new study, published today in Science Advances, reveals something far more surprising: our ancestors were exposed to lead for millions of years, and it may have helped shape the evolution of the human brain.

This discovery reveals the toxic substance we battle today has been intertwined with the human evolution story from its very beginning.

It reshapes our understanding of both past and present, tracing a continuous thread between ancient environments, genetic adaptation, and the unfolding evolution of human intelligence.

A poison older than humanity itself

Lead is a powerful neurotoxin that disrupts the growth and function of both brain and body. There is no safe level of lead exposure, and even the smallest traces can impair memory, learning and behaviour, especially in children. That’s why eliminating lead from petrol, paint and plumbing is one of the most important public health initiatives.

Yet while analysing ancient teeth at Southern Cross University, we uncovered something wholly unexpected: clear traces of lead sealed within the fossils of early humans and other ancestral species.

These specimens, recovered from Africa, Asia and Europe, were up to two million years old.

Using lasers finer than a strand of hair, we scanned each tooth layer by layer – much like reading the growth rings of a tree. Each band recorded a brief chapter of the individual’s life. When lead entered the body, it left a vivid chemical signature.

These signatures revealed that exposure was not rare or accidental; it occurred repeatedly over time.

Where did this lead come from?

Our findings show that early humans were never shielded from lead by the natural world. On the contrary, it was part of their world too.

The lead we found wasn’t from mining or smelting – those activities are from relatively recent human history.

Instead, it likely came from natural sources such as volcanic dust, mineral-rich soils, and groundwater flowing through lead-bearing rocks in caves. During times of drought or food shortage, early humans might have dug for water or eaten plants and roots that absorbed lead from the soil.

Every fossil tooth we study is a record of survival. A small diary of the early life of the individual, written in minerals instead of words. These ancient traces tell us that even as our ancestors struggled to find food, shelter and community, they were also navigating a world filled with unseen dangers.

From fossil teeth to living brain cells

To understand how this ancient exposure might have affected brain development, we teamed up with geneticists and neuroscientists, and used stem cells to grow tiny versions of human brain tissue, called brain organoids. These small collections of cells have many of the features of developing human brain tissue.

We gave some of these organoids a modern human version of a gene called NOVA1, and others an archaic, extinct version of the gene similar to what Neanderthals and Denisovans carried. NOVA1 is a gene that orchestrates early neurodevelopment. It also initiates the response of brain cells to lead contaminants.

Then, we exposed both sets of organoids to very small, realistic amounts of lead – what ancient humans might have encountered naturally.

The difference was striking. The organoids with the ancient gene showed clear signs of stress. Neural connections didn’t form as efficiently, and key pathways linked to communication and social behaviour were disrupted. The modern-gene organoids, however, were far more resilient.

It seems that somewhere along the evolutionary path, our species may have developed a better built-in protection against the damaging effects of lead.

A story of struggle

The environment – complete with lead exposure – pushed modern human populations to adapt. Individuals with genetic variations that help them resist a threat are more likely to survive and pass those traits to future generations.

In this way, lead exposure may have been one of the many unseen forces that sculpted the human story. By favouring genes that strengthened our brains against environmental stress, it could have subtly shaped the way our neural networks developed, influencing everything from cognition to the early roots of speech and social connection.

This didn’t change the fact lead continues to be a toxic chemical. It remains one of the most damaging substances to our brains.

But evolution often works through struggle – even negative experiences can leave lasting, sometimes beneficial marks on our species.

New context for a modern problem

Understanding our long relationship with lead gives new context to a very modern problem. Despite decades of bans and regulations, lead poisoning remains a global health issue. Most recent estimates from UNICEF show one in three children worldwide still have blood lead levels high enough to cause harm.

Our discovery shows human biology evolved in a world full of chemical challenges. What changed is not the presence of toxic substances, but the intensity of our exposure.

When we look at the past through the lens of science, we don’t just uncover old bones, we uncover ourselves.

In the industrial age, we’ve massively amplified what used to be short and infrequent natural exposure. By studying how our ancestors’ bodies and genes responded to environmental stress, we can learn how to build a healthier, more resilient future.

Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Manish Arora receives funding from US National Institutes of Health. He is the founder of Linus Biotechnology, a start-up company that develops biomarkers for various health disorders.

Alysson R. Muotri 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. Human ancestors were exposed to lead millions of years ago, and it shaped our evolution – https://theconversation.com/human-ancestors-were-exposed-to-lead-millions-of-years-ago-and-it-shaped-our-evolution-267318

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By George Buchanan, Deputy Dean, School of Computing Technologies, RMIT University

The hope of the world wide web, according to its creator Tim Berners-Lee, was that it would make communication easier, bring knowledge to all, and strengthen democracy and connection. Instead, it seems to be driving us apart into increasingly small and angry splinter groups. Why?

We have commonly blamed online echo chambers, digital spaces filled with people who largely share the same beliefs – or filter bubbles, the idea that algorithms tend to show us content we are likely to agree with.

However, these concepts have both been challenged by a number of studies. A 2022 study led by one of us (Dana), which tracked the social media behaviours of ten respondents, found people often engage with content they disagree with – even going so far as to seek it out.

When an individual engages with a disagreeable post on social media – whether it’s “rage bait” or something else that offends you – it drives income for the platform. But on a societal scale, it drives antisocial outcomes.

One of the worst of these outcomes is “affective polarisation”, where we like people who think similarly to us, and dislike or resent people who hold different views. Research and global surveys both show this form of polarisation is growing across the world.

Changing the economics of social media platforms would likely reduce online polarisation. But this won’t be possible without intervention from governments, and each of us.

How our views get reinforced online

Social media use has been associated with growing affective polarisation.

Online, we can be influenced by the opinions of people we agree or disagree with – even on topics we had previously been neutral towards. For instance, if there’s an influencer you admire, and they express a view on a new law you hadn’t thought much about, you’re more likely to adopt their viewpoint on it.

When this happens on a large scale, it gradually separates us into ideological tribes that disagree on multiple issues: a phenomenon known as “partisan sorting”.

Research shows our encounters on social media can lead to us developing new views on a topic. It also shows how any searches we do to get more insight can solidify these emerging views, as the results are likely to contain the same language as the original post that gave us the view in the first place.

For example, if you see a post that inaccurately claims taking paracetamol during pregnancy will give your baby autism, and you search for other posts using the key words “paracetamol pregnancy autism”, you will probably get more of the same.

Being in a heightened emotional state has been linked to higher susceptibility to believing false or “fake” content.

Why are we fed polarising content?

This is where the economics of the internet come in. Divisive and emotionally laden posts are more likely to get engagement (such as likes, shares and comments), especially from people who strongly agree or disagree, and from provocateurs. Platforms will then show these posts to more people, and the cycle of engagement continues.

Social media companies leverage our tendency towards divisive content to drive engagement, as this leads to more advertising money for them. According to a 2021 report from the Washington Post, Facebook’s ranking algorithm once treated emoji reactions (including anger) as five times more valuable than “likes”.

Simulation-based studies have also revealed how anger and division drive online engagement. One simulation (in a yet to be peer-reviewed paper) used bots to show that any platform measuring its success and income by engagement (currently all of them) would be most successful if it boosted divisive posts.

Where are we headed?

That said, the current state of social media need not also be its future.

People are now spending less time on social media than they used to. According to a recent report from the Financial Times, time spent on social media peaked in 2022 and has since been declining. By the end of 2024, users aged 16 and older spent 10% less time on social platforms than they did in 2022.

Droves of users are also leaving bigger “mainstream” platforms for ones that reflect their own political leanings, such as the left-wing BlueSky, or the right-wing Truth Social. While this may not help with polarisation, it signals many people are no longer satisfied with the social media status quo.

Internet-fuelled polarisation has also resulted in real costs to government, both in mental health and police spending. Consider recent events in Australia, where online hate and misinformation have played a role in neo-Nazi marches, and the cancellation of events run by the LGBTQIA+ community, due to threats.

For those of us who remain on social media platforms, we can individually work to change the status quo. Research shows greater tolerance for different views among online users can slow down polarisation. We can also give social media companies less signals to work from, by not re-sharing or promoting content that’s likely to make others irate.

Fundamentally, though, this is a structural problem. Fixing it will mean reframing the economics of online activity to increase the potential for balanced and respectful conversations, and decrease the reward for producing and/or engaging with rage bait. And this will almost certainly require government intervention.

When other products have caused harm, governments have regulated them and taxed the companies responsible. Social media platforms can also be regulated and taxed. It may be hard, but not impossible. And it’s worth doing if we want a world where we’re not all one opinion away from becoming an outcast.

Dana McKay has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Digital Health Agency, and Google (this last ruing her PhD).

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

– ref. The world wide web was meant to unite us, but is tearing us apart instead. Is there another way? – https://theconversation.com/the-world-wide-web-was-meant-to-unite-us-but-is-tearing-us-apart-instead-is-there-another-way-266253