Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily Hammer, PhD Candidate in Theological Ethics, University of St Andrews

Most debates about the depiction of consent in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga, which turns 20 this month, focus on the age gap between Bella Swan and Edward Cullen. For the uninitiated, Edward is an undead vampire who has been frozen at age 17 for 87 years, and falls in love with 17-year-old human schoolgirl Bella.

However, I want to discuss another question – whether Bella can consent to becoming a vampire (a transformation she begs Edward for throughout the series, and is finally granted in the final novel) at all. Philosopher L.A. Paul calls such decisions “transformative experiences” – choices you can’t fully evaluate beforehand because they will permanently change who you are.

The challenge of the choice to become a vampire or not, an example Paul uses in her book, Transformative Experience (2014), is two-part, according to her transformative experience framework. First, you can’t give the experience of becoming a vampire a personal value because you have no comparable experience (such as changing species). This makes it impossible for you to choose rationally as you would in other choices, by, for example, visualising what it might be like or making a pros and cons list.

Unlike being in a love triangle (albeit with a vampire and a werewolf, the plot of the second Twilight novel, New Moon), becoming a vampire is an irreversible event you can’t test or gather data on.

---

This article is part of a mini series marking 20 years since the publication of Stephenie Meyer’s first Twilight novel.

---

Second, given that your preferences will change in ways unknown upon becoming a vampire, you can’t choose which choice – vampire or human – you would prefer. For instance, human Bella enjoys sitting in the sun reading, while her vampire lover looks on from the trees. Vampire Bella might not miss this, however, as she now is consumed by blood-lust.

Consent, or informed consent, a term often associated with sex or medical interventions, considers whether someone is able to agree to something happening to them. A valid consent is one that is informed, voluntary, and capacitous – given by someone who is capable of giving consent.

In Bella’s choice to become a vampire, and in fact most transformative experience choices, capacity and voluntariness are easily established. At 18, Bella has reached the age of majority in Washington state, where she lives, meaning she can make her own autonomous decisions. She does not suffer from any current mental health conditions – her months-long depressive episode in New Moon, from which she has recovered by the time she becomes a vampire, notwithstanding. Her choice is also voluntary. In fact, throughout most of the saga, she is the main person pushing for her vampirism, with Edward and his adopted sister Rosalie being thoroughly opposed.

The issue with consent in transformative experience decisions is with the information. By their very nature, we do not have enough facts to make a rational choice. According to at least one major informed consent framework, this does not satisfy the condition of substantial understanding of “the foreseeable consequences and possible outcomes that might follow as a result of [(not)] performing the action”. The question of whether Bella can consent to becoming a vampire is misleading then.

In fact, all transformative experiences that require a consent transaction are not doing what they purport to be doing, as there is no way to understand what the consequences and possible outcomes will be. The more everyday transactions Paul discusses in her book are: getting a cochlear implant as person who is Deaf from birth, or choosing to have a child. There is a moment of consent, of no return, involved in both of these choices, and as both are transformative experiences, there is a lack of information for you personally making the choice.

Paul’s solution to this is to reframe the question from choosing, say, vampirism or not vampirism, to choosing “revelation” – or not. “If you choose to undergo a transformative experience and its outcomes,” she writes, “you choose the experience for the sake of discovery itself, even if this entails a future that involves stress, suffering, or pain.”

This is exactly what Bella does. She chooses to become a vampire because she wants to be with Edward forever, something she reveals to him at her prom in the epilogue of the first book.

As comes to light at the end of New Moon, she also wants to protect Edward’s family from the Volturi (the vampire government). She accepts that this means leaving her own loved ones behind. She says: “This was always the hardest part […] The people I would lose, the people I would hurt [by becoming a vampire].”

However, as is the nature of transformative experiences, she ends up being wrong about her assessment of losing people. She gains her daughter Renesmee, her werewolf love interest Jacob sticks around and her dad Charlie is still in her life. In short, the outcomes were not as she feared, in part because she had no data to truly make a rational judgment about them.

So, can Bella consent to becoming a vampire? She can’t consent to vampirism in the usual informed consent sense, and as Paul argues, neither can people making other significant choices. But she can consent to revelation, which reframes what a meaningful transformative choice looks like.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Emily Hammer 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. Consent issues in the Twilight saga extend far beyond Bella and Edward’s age gap – https://theconversation.com/consent-issues-in-the-twilight-saga-extend-far-beyond-bella-and-edwards-age-gap-263760

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Belinda Zakrzewska, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Birmingham

Peruvians are rightly passionate about food. Their pride in Peruvian cuisine has been fuelled in the past two decades or so by a wave of international culinary awards that has forged sense of belonging and visibility on the world stage. Yet, behind this “gastronationalism” lies a more complex story about inequality and exclusion.

The rise to international prominence of Peruvian cuisine, often referred to as the “gastronomic boom”, started to gather pace in the late 20th century. It was spearheaded by Peruvian chefs who studied or trained abroad and returned to Lima, the capital of Peru, with new culinary ideas.

There is a clear consensus among Peruvians that the pioneer of this movement was Gastón Acurio. He created upscale Peruvian restaurants at a time when Lima’s elite favoured French and Italian restaurants. His efforts extended beyond the kitchen. He published books, was a key figure in organising Mistura (Lima’s first major culinary festival) and co-founded Apega (the society of Peruvian gastronomy). Throughout his endeavours, his message was clear: “Cuisine unites Peruvians in a shared sense of pride and faith in ourselves.”

Acurio’s success inspired a new generation of celebrity chefs, among them chef Virgilio Martínez, owner of Central, and chef Mitsuharu “Micha” Tsumura, owner of Maido. Both restaurants have secured the top spot in the list compiled by industry bible, The World’s 50 Best Restaurants: Central in 2023 and Maido in 2025. This has reinforced Peru’s place on the global culinary map. The South American country has earned the title of the World’s Best Culinary Destination 12 times since 2012 (only missing out in 2020).

Peru’s gastronomic boom offered a powerful unifying narrative in a country whose national identity has been fragmented by class, racial, and ethnic inequalities due to the Spanish colonisation in 1532. Peru’s sense of itself was further shattered by two devastating decades of internal terrorism and economic crisis in the 1980s and 1990s. A recent Ipsos survey has confirmed this, revealing that Peruvian cuisine is the number one reason for national pride, with 48% of Peruvians citing it.

Hard-to-swallow truths

Gastronationalism can easily morph into chauvinism. Last month, Spanish influencer Ibai Llanos organised the “World Breakfast Cup” on his social media platforms, an online voting contest featuring breakfasts from 16 countries including the UK, Japan, Peru and other countries in Latin America. Peru’s pan con chicharrón (fried pork belly and sweet potato sandwich) won the tournament, defeating dishes from Mexico, Ecuador, Chile and Venezuela.

The victory sparked a national celebration and boosted delivery orders of pan con chicharrón. But it also revealed a less savoury side of the competition. Some Peruvians took to the internet to mock rival cuisines, even going as far as to compare Ecuador’s bolón de verde to faeces.

It’s important to note that this gastronationalism – and the high-end cooking which has pushed Peru to the top of the world cuisine charts – occurs in a country where 17.6 million Peruvians (51% of the population) suffer from moderate or severe food insecurity and are unable to access a healthy diet because food costs have risen faster than wages. In a country that is rightly celebrated for its cuisine, which is attracting growing numbers of visitors specifically for its food, 43.7% of children under three suffer from anaemia and 12.1% of children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition.

Many people depend on community soup kitchens. In 2020 it was estimated there were more than 15,000 community kitchens providing for nearly 800,000 people. But there are concerns that all-too-often these community kitchens are unable to cater for the cultural and nutritional needs of Peru’s diverse population, particularly its Indigenous groups.

Peru’s gastronationalism also risks reproducing colonial hierarchies that promoted some people to elite status while, at the same time, marginalising Andean and Amazonian communities. In the food landscape, celebrity chefs from Lima often profit from Indigenous ingredients and techniques without providing fair compensation to the Indigenous communities that have safeguarded them for centuries.

A prime example is the guinea pig, (in Spanish: cuy). This has been a staple protein served and eaten whole in Andean communities for millennia. In the hands of elite restaurateurs, this has been transformed into delicacies such as cuy pekinés (a guinea pig prepared in the style of Peking duck) or as filling for ravioli.

Due to the sort of exorbitant prices charged for these dishes, these communities are excluded from tasting the reinterpreted versions of their own cultural expressions. Thus, celebrity chefs’ endeavours are built on an intricate dynamic of cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation – where a “borrowed” recipe or idea becomes more valuable the further it is taken from its Indigenous origins.

The paradox of Peru’s gastronationalism is that while it promotes a narrative of unity it simultaneously reinforces the divisions it claims to overcome. Celebrating food is not the issue. The issue is allowing that celebration to become an excuse for inaction over food poverty and inequality.

True culinary success will be measured not by more awards. It should be judged on whether the prosperity of the “gastronomic boom” can be extended beyond Lima’s elite restaurants to tackle the foundational inequalities upon which the current system is built.

Belinda Zakrzewska 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. Peru’s gastronomic boom risks excluding the Indigenous people whose food it celebrates – https://theconversation.com/perus-gastronomic-boom-risks-excluding-the-indigenous-people-whose-food-it-celebrates-265896

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kimberley Hardcastle, Assistant Professor in Business & Marketing, Northumbria University, Newcastle

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude are now used by students and teachers at every level of education.

According to a report by Anthropic, the company behind Claude, 39% of student interactions with the AI tool involve creating and improving educational content, such as practice questions, essay drafts and study summaries. A further 34% interactions seek technical explanations or solutions for academic assignments – actively producing student work.

Most responses to this from schools and universities have been to focus on immediate concerns: plagiarism, how assessments are conducted and job displacement. They include teaching AI literacy or developing courses for students on how to use and understand AI tools.

While these are important, what’s being overlooked is how evolving generative AI systems are fundamentally changing our relationship with knowledge itself: how we produce, understand and use knowledge.

This isn’t just about adding new technology to classrooms. It changes how we think about learning and challenges the core ideas behind education. And it risks granting power over how knowledge is created to the tech companies producing generative AI tools.

The bigger shift

Generative AI tools, including ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, can now create content, combine information and even mimic reasoning. As these AI systems are used more in classrooms and lecture theatres, they start to challenge the traditional ways we think about knowledge and learning.

My research focuses on what’s known as AI epistemology. Epistemology is the study of the origins and nature of knowledge. AI epistemology in education means grappling with new questions about how knowledge is produced.

Generative AI can instantly generate seemingly authoritative text on any subject. This forces us to reconsider what constitutes “original thought” versus “assisted thinking”. Traditional skills such as source evaluation, logical reasoning and weighing up evidence, need to be reconsidered when the “source” is a complex AI system trained on huge amounts of data that we can’t fully see or understand.

This represents a profound departure from centuries of education built on human-to-human knowledge transmission. Generative AI doesn’t just change what students learn but fundamentally alters how they come to know anything at all.

Students are increasingly likely to validate ideas by how well generative AI explains them, and increasingly less through their own analysis.

Traditional education relies on learning activities and assessments that align with what teachers want students to be able to do or understand. For example, if the goal is critical thinking, students practice analysing texts and are tested on their analysis skills, not just memorisation, to build deep understanding. But this framework assumes students construct knowledge independently through experience and reflection.

Generative AI fundamentally disrupts this model. Students can produce sophisticated outputs without the cognitive journey traditionally required to create them.

Students are now becoming co-creators of knowledge in a machine-mediated system. Co-creation means these groups work together to produce learning outcomes. But co-destruction occurs when their conflicting goals undermine the educational experience. My research on value co-creation and co-destruction in higher education reveals that students, educators, administrators and technology providers with competing interests are shaping educational value.

For example, students might want efficiency, educators want deep learning, and tech companies want engagement metrics. These tensions can either enhance or erode learning quality. This framework now applies to AI integration. When generative AI helps students genuinely understand concepts, it creates value. When it enables shortcuts that bypass learning, it destroys value. Co-creation in education isn’t new, but generative AI as a co-creator changes everything.

Human thought survival

While often framed as the fourth industrial revolution, the current AI shift is more accurately an intellectual revolution. When we outsource thought unthinkingly to machines, we hand unprecedented power to shape knowledge to the technology companies developing this evolving technology.

Tech companies already turn our online behaviour into profit by collecting data to predict and influence what we do next, but we now face something deeper. If a handful of companies own the primary means of knowledge production, they control how we understand the world. Their algorithms’ biases, training data choices, and commercial incentives will determine what is produced and disseminated.

We’ve been here before. Social media exploits our cognitive vulnerabilities to capture our attention. But this time, the stakes are higher. It’s not just our attention at risk, but our capacity to think independently.

This isn’t about whether traditional education remains relevant. It absolutely does. It’s about educators defining what meaningful learning looks like now it’s accompanied by AI.

Generative AI isn’t just a sophisticated calculator; it changes how we understand knowledge. It’s reshaping how students conceptualise expertise, creativity, and their own cognitive capabilities. This will fundamentally change how young people think and learn.

Educators must ensure pedagogical wisdom, not commercial interests, guides this transformation. Encouragingly, this work has started. Centres for responsible AI, such as the one at my own university, ensure educators are driving these critical conversations rather than simply responding to them.

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

– ref. How generative AI is really changing education by outsourcing the production of knowledge to big tech – https://theconversation.com/how-generative-ai-is-really-changing-education-by-outsourcing-the-production-of-knowledge-to-big-tech-263160

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

Food allergies are no longer limited to the usual suspects. Peanuts and shellfish may still dominate the headlines, but a growing number of people are reacting to foods not currently recognised in UK allergen laws.

As cases of severe allergic reactions rise, experts are urging policymakers to rethink which foods require mandatory labelling. As someone who has been caught out more than once by hidden allergens, I welcome the move.

Nearly one third of the UK population – around 21 million people – live with some form of allergy. Between 1998 and 2018, more than 100,000 people were hospitalised for food allergies, and 152 died as a result. About 6% of UK adults – roughly 2.4 million people – have a medically confirmed food allergy.

Under the Food Information Regulations 2014, food businesses must clearly label 14 major allergens when used as ingredients. These include cereals containing gluten (such as wheat, barley and rye); crustaceans (for example crabs and prawns); molluscs (such as mussels and oysters); fish; peanuts; tree nuts (including almonds, hazelnuts and walnuts); soya; milk; eggs; mustard; sesame; celery; sulphur dioxide or sulphites; and lupin. The allergens must be declared on packaging or made available to diners when eating out.

A major advance came in October 2021 with Natasha’s Law. It requires all pre-packed foods for direct sale (PPDS) to display a full ingredients list, with the 14 major allergens clearly highlighted. This reform closed a dangerous loophole and greatly improved transparency and safety for people living with food allergies.

But recent clinical research suggests that even this updated list may no longer be enough. A large study analysed almost 3,000 cases of food-induced anaphylaxis reported to the Allergy Vigilance Network (a European database that collects and monitors severe allergic reactions to food and other triggers) between 2002 and 2023.

It identified eight foods not currently on the EU and UK mandatory labelling list that were responsible for at least 1% of anaphylaxis cases. These include goat’s and sheep’s milk (2.8%), buckwheat (2.4%), peas and lentils (1.8%), pine nuts (1.6%), kiwi (1.5%), apple (1%), beehive products (1%), and alpha-gal – a sugar found in red meat – (1.7%).

The study’s authors argue that at least four of these (goat’s and sheep’s milk, buckwheat, peas, lentils and pine nuts) should be considered for mandatory labelling because of their frequency, severity and potential for hidden exposure.

The popularity of vegan and plant-based diets is increasing the use of ingredients such as pea protein, lentil flour and buckwheat – all linked to allergic reactions. A 2022 study found that pea protein, now common in meat substitutes, triggered reactions in people with legume allergies. Some allergens share similar protein structures, leading to cross-reactivity, which raises concerns about hidden allergens even in “healthy” foods.

It’s important to distinguish a true food allergy from a food intolerance. Intolerance does not involve the immune system and typically causes digestive issues, such as bloating, diarrhoea or stomach pain, because the body struggles to digest certain foods.

A food allergy, by contrast, occurs when the immune system mistakenly identifies specific proteins as harmful. This triggers an immune response involving immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies, which release chemicals such as histamine. The symptoms can range from mild itching, hives or nausea to severe swelling, breathing difficulties and anaphylaxis, usually within minutes or within two hours after exposure.

Anaphylaxis is a medical emergency. Symptoms can include swelling of the throat or tongue, difficulty breathing or swallowing, dizziness, fainting, pale or blue skin, and loss of consciousness. Immediate treatment is vital: the Resuscitation Council UK advises giving intramuscular adrenaline into the outer thigh, using an auto-injector such as an EpiPen, and repeating the dose after five minutes if symptoms persist, while calling emergency services.

Beyond the physical risks, food allergies carry a heavy emotional and social burden. Studies show that children and their parents often experience heightened anxiety around eating out, attending school or travelling. The constant vigilance required to avoid a serious reaction can erode quality of life and mental health.

The 14 allergens currently enshrined in UK law were a landmark in consumer protection. But science doesn’t stand still – and neither do allergies. As new triggers emerge, food safety regulations must adapt. Updating the allergen list isn’t just administrative housekeeping; it’s about preventing the next emergency and making sure everyone can eat with confidence.

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

– ref. From pea protein to buckwheat: surprising foods that can trigger severe allergic reactions – https://theconversation.com/from-pea-protein-to-buckwheat-surprising-foods-that-can-trigger-severe-allergic-reactions-263935

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Holmes, Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice, Bangor University

The UK’s new digital ID card scheme, announced by Keir Starmer on September 26, has two big questions swirling around it. Is it a solution to illegal immigration? And will it give the government too much power to monitor people?

These questions are likely to dominate discussion and debate for some time. A petition has been posted and civil liberty groups and politicians are already questioning the value of the scheme. But what is the reality?

What is a digital ID card?

Similar to the NHS app and various other existing digital cards, the new scheme will create a universal form of identification stored on mobile phones. When accessing public services, the ID could be used in the same way similar schemes are used across Europe, offering the promise of a more efficient process. Estonia has famously operated a digital ID system since 2002.

One of the aspects of the new scheme that may be overlooked in the forthcoming debate is the benefits this would have in potentially reducing bureaucracy, cost, fraud and waiting times when people are trying to prove they are eligible for certain services. While there are concerns over ID cards from a civil liberties point of view, their use in improving efficiency is something to bear in mind.

---

Read more:
A national digital ID scheme is being proposed. An expert weighs the pros and (many more) cons

---

The other imperative in this scheme is monitoring who has the right to work in the UK. Anyone wanting to work or rent a home in the UK would need one, replacing the current practice of using a variety of documents such as driving licences, national insurance numbers and gas bills.

There is therefore an expectation that this will affect illegal immigration by deterring people who don’t have the right to be in the UK from trying to get jobs. Employers and landlords would need to examine ID cards to confirm the identity of applicants.

Illegal immigration and the shadow economy

Combating the flow of illegal immigrants has been a consistent problem for both the current Labour government and the previous Conservative regime. The appeal of the UK is related in part to the work opportunities available to those who can make it to the country and blend in.

In principle, the current eVisas scheme and the new digital ID card would cut off access to legitimate work for those entering the country illegally – although groups such as Migrants’ Rights Network have questioned the value of the eVisas scheme for those wanting to prove their immigration status.

With the political debate focusing on trying to stop small boat crossings, this may seem like an indirect way to address a problem – but cutting off access to work could have an impact on the appeal of the UK in the first place.

Those trying to stay in the UK undetected would need to work in the shadow economy and live in accommodation that did not check ID. The shadow economy is estimated to be 10.8% of GDP in the UK. Both activities could lead to increased dependency on organised crime groups and human traffickers.

Research suggests technology has been key in reducing crime over the past 20 years. Solutions to fraud have often been focused on improving security around identification processes, such as the introduction of facial recognition technology in passports. Perhaps digital ID cards are the next hi-tech solution needed to address illegal immigration.

Stepping into the future

ID cards have been tried and proposed before with similar intentions, so this is not a radical new idea. Also, we all carry a collection of digital ID on our phones, so in many respects, people are not being asked to do something we do not already do.

---

Read more:
Blair’s ID cards failed in the 2000s – could Starmer’s version fare better?

---

What could capture the public’s attention and concern, however, is the idea that the card is mandatory and universal. If it is only used in the specified circumstances of accessing public services, seeking employment or rented accommodation, then there is no need to see the scheme as anything more than a new way to be efficient.

But will the demand to produce the card outside of these situations become a common practice in efforts to seek out illegal immigrants? What happens to those who do not have access to their digital ID card, or do not want one? Will it create a rift in society by providing more protection from illegal immigration?

These questions are certain to be raised as the government moves ahead with its plan.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

Tim Holmes 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. Digital ID cards: what are they and how will they help the UK deal with illegal immigration? – https://theconversation.com/digital-id-cards-what-are-they-and-how-will-they-help-the-uk-deal-with-illegal-immigration-266194

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daanish Mustafa, Professor in Critical Geography, King’s College London

For ten days in April 2025, Pakistan almost came to a standstill. No freight was moving from its only port city, Karachi, towards the population centres in the north. The cause was the government’s announcement of a project to build six canals to irrigate the Cholistan Desert in the east of the country.

Protesters in the southern Sindh province, fearing diminished water supplies, demanded the immediate cancellation of the project and blocked all highways running northwards. The government soon relented, with prime minister Shehbaz Sharif announcing the project’s suspension in early May.

This was probably, at least in part, because the government was anticipating Indian military action. India blamed Pakistan for the Pahalgam terrorist attack, in which 26 people were killed in Indian-administered Kashmir the previous month. Internal squabbles had to be diffused in the face of external threats.

Geopolitics handed a temporary victory to the protesters. But the potential of water to cause conflict in Pakistan remains a live issue, from households using suction pumps to draw more than their share, to large inter-provincial disputes.

---

Wars and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change can increase the likelihood of violent conflict by intensifying resource scarcity and displacement, while conflict itself accelerates environmental damage. This article is part of a series, War on climate, which explores the relationship between climate issues and global conflicts.

---

As someone who has researched water scarcity in Pakistan for 30 years, I argue that water conflict there is entirely avoidable. It is largely a function of the state’s obsession with supply-side mega projects and a lack of attention to questions of equitable access and quality.

At a time when the effects of climate change are becoming more severe, Pakistan can ill afford to continue its engineering-based approach to water if it is to ensure sufficient access for all.

According to the Pakistani government’s own figures, more than 95% of the available water in Pakistan is devoted to agriculture. It is used to cultivate water-guzzling crops, including rice and sugarcane. Pakistan is the fifth-largest producer and fourth-largest exporter of these crops.

Meanwhile the country’s teeming commercial centre of Karachi, with a population of 18 million, suffers from acute water shortages. Affluent neighbourhoods have water intensive date palms, exotic gardens, golf courses and swimming pools.

But for more than 80% of the city’s poorer neighbourhoods, there is almost complete dependence on water from tankers at up to 30 times the price richer neighbourhoods pay for regular piped water.

Water mains often become battle fronts in Karachi. My own research has documented many instances of violent conflict between different ethnicities and groups around manipulating water mains to gain access.

The minority Christian community in the Gujjar Nala neighbourhood of Karachi, for example, has engaged in violent clashes with the neighbouring Pashtun community over the operation of the regulating valve for allocating water to the two communities.

Conflict has also arisen between the city’s predominantly Urdu-speaking communities of Orangi Town and Altafnagar. Orangi residents attacked and destroyed the overhead water dispenser at the Altafnagar pumping station in early 2015 as it was siphoning water for Orangi to commercial water tankers.

Conflict between provinces

Pakistan is dependent on the Indus River and its tributaries for water. The system recharges the extensive Indus aquifer, which provides up to 80% of the water required for crops in the country.

Inter-provincial conflict over the distribution of Indus River water between upstream Punjab province, where several of Pakistan’s largest cities are located, and downstream Sindh province is an ongoing saga.

Sindh resents any new water mega projects in the powerful Punjab province. Along with the central government, Punjab wants to push forward dams and infrastructure projects in the name of development.

The Sindh-Punjab water conflict had a resolution of sorts in 1991, when the Inter-provincial Water Accord was signed. The agreement allocated water from the Indus River system among Pakistan’s four provinces.

However, Sindh’s civil society and government frequently accuse Punjab of violating the agreement by diverting water from the Indus River without the permission of the chief minister of Sindh, as required by the accord.

Sindhi and Punjabi nationalist politics heavily feature the water conflict in their rhetoric, which is proving corrosive for the federation of Pakistan.

Numerous dams and mining projects in the restive Balochistan province have also alienated the populace against the Pakistani government. They argue that dams are built with little local consultation and become hazards when they are swept away in flash floods. Around 30 dams in Balochistan were swept away during the 2022 floods.

At the same time, massive amounts of water are appropriated by foreign-owned mining operations there. These operations are of little benefit to local populations. The ongoing insurgency in the province, and the associated human rights abuses by the Pakistani state, are not divorced from the politics of water.

Pakistan’s water development paradigm is based on engineering and infrastructure. But under the greater uncertainty of climate change, what is needed is more adaptive and flexible management of water at the local scale.

The current approach locks the state into fixed management based on assumptions underlying the design parameters of the infrastructure.

During flood season, which typically runs from July to September, the design parameters of dams and other infrastructure are now routinely exceeded. Water has to be released to save the infrastructure, thereby accentuating flood peaks.

The bulk of agricultural water also comes from groundwater, but all the investment is in surface water. It is a common lament in Pakistan that groundwater has been left for unregulated exploitation by private electric pumps, with all the attention devoted to surface water.

In domestic water supply, the obsession for photogenic urban green spaces and mega supply projects also take away water from poor areas and resources from the much-needed maintenance of the distribution infrastructure.

Climate change is a wicked problem that defies centralised decision making in a country the size and diversity of Pakistan. Local knowledge and democratic decision making are the best arbiter of adjustment to climate change and equitable water access.

Yet, in a praetorian state like Pakistan, military-dominated governance is unfortunately moving in exactly the opposite direction.

The research cited in this article emerged from grants funded by United States Institute for Peace (USIP) & Royal Geographical Society.

– ref. How water fuels conflict in Pakistan – https://theconversation.com/how-water-fuels-conflict-in-pakistan-262628

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Naporn Popattanachai, Lecturer in Environmental and Marine Law, University of Galway

Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond national borders, an unregulated expanse under growing pressure from mining, fishing and climate change. Now, a new UN treaty promises to change that – but could also trigger fresh conflicts over who controls the high seas.

The high seas treaty, formally known as the BBNJ Agreement, has finally crossed the threshold to become international law after Morocco became the 60th country to ratify it. This triggers its entry into force in January 2026, opening a new era of ocean governance.

At the heart of the treaty is a plan to create protected areas on the high seas, similar to national parks on land. The goal is to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, a target agreed under the UN’s global biodiversity framework.

Only countries that sign and ratify the treaty will be bound by its rules (with some exceptions). Those that stay outside the agreement, like China or the US, won’t have to follow the treaty – but will lose a say in shaping the multilateral system of ocean governance. The could act unilaterally, but other states would be able to challenge them under the UN convention on the law of the sea.

The new treaty also lays down very detailed processes, thresholds, and other requirements for environmental impact assessments for activities that could harm the high seas. Countries can expect more regulations for activities – especially offshore activities – in their waters if they could cause damage beyond their maritime borders.

The high seas are a huge source of genetic resources. That means any plant, animal or microbe that could lead to new medicines, crops or industrial materials.

The treaty sets out rules for sharing both the materials and the potentially-lucrative scientific information they generate, so that poorer countries can also benefit from discoveries made in these waters. Detailed rules on access and benefit-sharing will be further developed by the countries that have signed the treaty.

However, the treaty will not apply to fishing already covered by international regulations, or to fish or other marine life caught through such activities on the high seas. Effectively, commercial fishing falls outside the scope of this treaty.

Mining pitted against conservation

But conservation isn’t the only activity on the high seas. Mining companies are keen to extract minerals such as nickel, cobalt or copper from below the deep seabed – often in the same areas where fragile ecosystems and valuable genetic resources can be found.

Deep-sea mining is already regulated by the International Seabed Authority, a separate specialised body established by a UN convention that has already granted many exploration contracts and is now drafting new rules for commercial extraction.

The two regimes – the high seas treaty and the seabed authority – compete and conflict with one another. Protecting marine life may significantly limit (if not prohibit) deep-sea mining, and vice versa.

It’s not yet clear how the new treaty will resolve this potential conflict. The only clue we have is that article 5 (2) of the treaty states it shall be interpreted in a way that “does not undermine” other relevant legal and political bodies. It remains to be seen how the two regimes will coordinate in practice, as well as how these competing interests can be reconciled, where the stakes are very high. When protecting biodiversity could stop lucrative mining projects, tensions seem inevitable.

Before the treaty takes effect in 2026, countries that have signed and ratified the treaty will meet again to agree on details: how protected areas will be chosen, how genetic resources will be shared, and how to handle conflicts with activities like fishing and mining.

For anyone involved in marine conservation and governance, this is an exciting moment. The high seas treaty could transform the way we look after the oceans. It gives us the chance to protect vast, vulnerable ecosystems and ensure the benefits of ocean science are shared more equally. But whether it will deliver on that promise depends on whether states can balance conservation with a growing scramble for deep-sea resources.

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

– ref. A landmark treaty could protect the high seas – and spark new conflicts – https://theconversation.com/a-landmark-treaty-could-protect-the-high-seas-and-spark-new-conflicts-265908

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Montgomery, Lecturer in Work and Organisations, University of Stirling

Nigel Farage’s proposal to abolish indefinite leave to remain is a shifting of the goalposts for those who have already come to the UK legally and settled.

Framing issues of migration as a crisis has been beneficial for Farage and other British politicians as a political strategy. However, on this occasion there are early indications that these proposals may provoke a more negative reaction from the British public.

The idea that even those already granted leave to remain would have to reapply creates insecurity for thousands of people who have come to call the UK home, which speaks to some of the human costs of such proposals.

We should also consider the potential implications for the economy. Reform claims billions could be saved by ending the right to apply for permanent residency in the UK – a claim that was called into question within days.

This indicates a pressing need for scrutiny of the economic impact a Reform government would have, particularly given that the party leading in polls.

Polls are not just indicators of who may next occupy 10 Downing Street. They also send signals to key actors in the economy about the country’s potential future direction of travel. And these signals matter. To understand how, we can turn our attention to the questions that an end to indefinite leave to remain may pose for the UK labour market.

There is already a problem with skills investment in the UK. Decisions to invest in skills and training often require a commitment to long-term investment before the employer and the employee realise the benefits.

But what happens to such investment when employers are unsure if their staff may be forced to leave? This is particularly relevant for those key sectors where there is a greater reliance on migrant workers.

Then there is the issue of job creation. If an employer is currently deciding where to invest and create new jobs, one aspect they will consider is access to the skills they need.

We know that there are key areas where employers are concerned about skills shortages in the UK. Would the potential end of leave to remain make it riskier to invest in creating jobs in the UK? This is a question employers will already be asking.

And if you are a worker from another country with skills that are in high demand, would these proposals make the UK more, or less attractive as a destination to bring skills?

These economic implications lead us to a key political question: who did Reform consult before making this announcement?

Reform has consistently sought to position itself as on the side of British business. Did they speak to the Confederation of British Industry about whether scrapping indefinite leave to remain would be a good idea? The Federation of Small Businesses? Did they speak to industry federations in the care sector, the hospitality sector, the education sector, or the health sector, where employers rely upon migrant workers?

Farage has also been keen to present himself as standing up for British workers and has in the past year been seeking to win support of grassroots union members. Did he consult any of the trade unions that represent millions of workers across the UK? Or did he consult trade union representatives in sectors that may be affected by these new proposals?

What type of consultation has informed these new proposals matters because it sends an important signal on the approach to governing that Farage intends to adopt should he become the next prime minister. Such signals are also likely to inform decisions made before the next election by employers and workers sustaining the UK economy.

Perhaps owing to the rapid rise of the Reform party and the dominance of two parties in government for generations, it has not received the same degree of scrutiny that previous “governments-in-waiting” have received. But given its dominance in the polls, careful consideration of the impact of its proposals is more necessary than ever.

If we look closer at these latest proposals, we see that they will create a more hostile and uncertain environment for those who have lived and worked in the UK for some years and those considering coming to the country. That may have already created risks for the UK economy.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

Tom Montgomery works in higher education. He has conducted research on issues of social care, migration and labour markets that has been funded by the European Commission.

– ref. Nigel Farage’s pledge to end indefinite leave could hurt the economy even before an election – https://theconversation.com/nigel-farages-pledge-to-end-indefinite-leave-could-hurt-the-economy-even-before-an-election-266174

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jenni Ramone, Associate Professor of Postcolonial and Global Literatures, Nottingham Trent University

The Times has described the 2025 Booker Prize shortlist as “revenge of the middle-aged author”“. If the phrase sounds derogatory, it isn’t meant that way: the review also describes the shortlist as “novels for grown-ups”, with the prize privileging “maturity over novelty” and supporting “unpretentious, old-fashioned literary fiction”.

This is reinforced by the Booker Prize website, which highlights the previous winner (Kiran Desai) and two previously shortlisted authors (Andrew Miller and David Szalay) on the list, while noting that all six authors have long-established literary careers.

A book prize should reward novelty, though – and the Booker is, after all, a book prize, not an author prize like the Nobel. But if novelty isn’t obvious from the authors themselves, it can be detected in their books.

Their ages should not be a big surprise. Several literary prizes focus on older writers, including the newly launched Pioneer Prize for female writers over 60, established by Bernardine Evaristo to “acknowledge and celebrate pioneering British women writers” in all genres. Evaristo notes that the prize intends to correct the problem that “older women writers tend to be overlooked” – 91-year-old Maureen Duffy was its first recipient.

Perhaps these prizes and Booker nominations respond in part to society’s emphasis on youth, reflected in publishing initiatives such as Granta’s best young novelists, Penguin’s authors under 35 to watch and previously, The New Yorker’s 20 under 40 list.

It will be interesting to see whether the Booker winner this year reflects the suggested trend of overlooking older women writers, or responds to it. Three of the shortlisted authors are women, and according to my students and the bookies’ odds, Desai’s The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny and Susan Choi’s Flashlight are likely contenders for the prize, with Ben Markovits’ The Rest of Our Lives behind them.

My students were drawn to the specific historical context of Flashlight, which conveys the lives of several generations of a family beginning in 1940s Japan, then moving through suburban America and North Korea. They valued the less-documented migration story, and suggested the mystery fiction aspect added wide appeal.

Markovits’ The Rest of Our Lives was seen as a typical Booker shortlist by my students, who identified the extra-marital affair, the road trip across America, and the internal-monologue narration of the eloquent and thoughtful university lecturer protagonist as factors which might make the book very popular.

Beyond this, the plot shares with Flashlight a fundamental uncertainty, with characters feeling out of place in their own lives. In The Rest of Our Lives, Tom’s life is gradually unbuttoned when he and his wife decide to stay together until their youngest child leaves home, following her affair. Rather than a dramatic upheaval, the narrator decides to undertake a picturesque road trip.

An extra-marital affair is also at the centre of Miller’s The Land in Winter, in which the harsh winter of 1962-63 in England’s West Country forces two couples to confront their uncomfortable relationship dynamics, when they are forced to stay indoors to avoid the weather.

Disaster looms in the countryside through unpredictable people like Alison Riley, who is “the kind of person who might choose to bring the house down simply to find out what kind of noise it made”.

The uncertainty of individual identity, driven by unconventional and challenging family relationships, is the fundamental connecting factor between all six books, and Katie Kitamura’s Audition expresses this most directly.

Written in two parts, the novel considers the relationship between its protagonist and a younger adult male who may or may not be her son. The novel suggests, as the Booker judges note, that we play roles every day, like the actor protagonist of this novel – who first rejects the suggestion that the young man is her son, then later changes position to live alongside him as if he were.

But perhaps the novel that stands out most to me is Szalay’s Flesh. While this book likewise conveys the unravelling of life into uncertainty and risk, its plot concerns a 15-year-old boy in a relationship with a woman of his mother’s age. Flesh is written in lengthy dialogue, rendering the story sparse and sharp.

Having written about both of Desai’s previous novels as a scholar of post-colonial studies, I am eager to read The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia, which was published on the day of the Booker shortlist announcement – an auspicious sign perhaps.

Only her third novel in a long career, it is described as a romance. Publishers have recently pointed to an upturn in the popular romance genre fiction, including subgenres like romantasy. This might offer favourable conditions for the book – helped by judge Sarah Jessica Parker’s association with romance, and a new wave of literary romance screen adaptations including Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights and a new Netflix series of Pride and Prejudice in 2026.

The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia begins with a 55-year-old protagonist whose parents control minute details of her life, but is centrally concerned with the epic and transnational love affair of its two eponymous characters.

The novel maintains Desai’s trend of changing literary direction between novels. Having herself lamented Hullaballoo in the Guava Orchard as “exoticist”, she responds to that accusation in The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia, where protagonist Sonia is accused of writing “orientalist nonsense”. In a Guardian interview, Desai explained that the character expresses her own concern about how to write about India for a western readership.

Desai’s second novel, The Inheritance of Loss, was set in the aftermath of violence resulting from the claim for a separate state in post-Partition India. It won the Booker Prize in 2006 when Desai was 35, then the youngest woman to win the award – in 2013, it went to an even younger Eleanor Catton. This statistic suggests the Booker winner, at least, tends to be an older author.

The novels in this year’s shortlist all convey the overwhelming impact of uncertainty and change, and privilege introspective responses to disruptions that are sometimes hidden for decades. While (mostly) stories about middle age, they are anything but safe and comfortable.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Jenni Ramone 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. Booker shortlist 2025: six novels (mostly) about middle age that are anything but safe and comfortable – https://theconversation.com/booker-shortlist-2025-six-novels-mostly-about-middle-age-that-are-anything-but-safe-and-comfortable-266184

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gregory Frame, Teaching Associate in Film and Television Studies, University of Nottingham

Champions of free speech will have breathed a sigh of relief when The Walt Disney Company returned Jimmy Kimmel Live! to air on its US broadcast network, ABC, on September 23. Disney claims to have made this decision for the “right reasons” – but it was also driven by reports that creatives and, perhaps more importantly, consumers would abandon it in droves if the late-night US TV host was not restored. As always, the economic considerations had as much weight as political ones – if not more.

In the short term, Disney’s change of heart was rewarded. Kimmel’s return created a roughly threefold bump in its ratings – this despite 70 of ABC’s affiliated networks, owned by Sinclair and Nexstar, refusing to broadcast it. While it’s just one show with considerable news currency behind it, this bucks a long-term trend that has seen the decline of late-night political comedy on US broadcast television.

Falling advertising revenue was CBS’s stated reason for not renewing Stephen Colbert’s contract to host the Late Show when it expires in June 2026. But Colbert has been a longstanding critic of Donald Trump, and his show’s cancellation in August 2025 occurred alongside the finalisation of a merger between CBS’s parent company, Paramount, and Skydance Media, which required the approval of the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In an article about topical political comedy in the UK, we argued that the cancellation of BBC shows such as Mock the Week, The Mash Report and Frankie Boyle’s New World Order were driven by the UK’s public broadcaster desire to neutralise claims it was too left-wing or “woke” in the eyes of the right-wing press and the then-Conservative government.

But while this pressure remains real, these shows also fit uncomfortably in a television ecosystem dominated by streaming where the moment of broadcast is of rapidly diminishing importance. Topical comedy’s connection to a particular time and space means it struggles to capture attention from, and remain relevant to, audiences who are used to binge-watching and time-shifting.

So, while the return of Jimmy Kimmel Live! to ABC may be good news for those who fear the US’s descent into authoritarianism, we should consider what other factors may have been at stake in the decision.

For now, Disney cannot afford to offend the creative community that produces content for the more lucrative areas of its business, from Walt Disney Studios and Marvel to Star Wars. Nor can it alienate its consumers who subscribe to Disney+ or visit its theme parks every year. Many members of both groups are not fans of Donald Trump or Maga.

But in the medium and long term, Disney might question whether going all-in for late-night comedy hosts is worth it when this could harm other, more valuable parts of its business. For example, Disney is unlikely to sacrifice its ability to get FCC approval for future acquisitions – such as the rights to broadcast live sports on ESPN – for the sake of satirical critique of the Trump administration.

Free speech flourishes online

Tellingly, Kimmel’s opening monologue on his return broke records on YouTube, with more than 15 million views in its first 16 hours. There remains a significant audience for satirical political content, even if not through traditional linear broadcast. Whatever Disney decides in future about Jimmy Kimmel Live! or its ownership of ABC (which is not for sale at present), this trend is likely to continue.

In this age of political polarisation and cultural fragmentation, topical political comedy and satire in the US and beyond are arguably better suited to the online environment. This is – for now – a safe space outside the purview of Trump’s FCC, where commentators and other content creators can say the unsayable largely unencumbered by regulatory oversight on social media and YouTube.

Whatever the right-wing suggests, free speech is alive and well – for good or ill – online. Recommendation algorithms can find content for you whatever your political proclivities.

The Walt Disney Company does not want to be part of a culture war. It has sought to avoid it in these first months of Trump’s second term, from settling his defamation lawsuit against TV anchor George Stephanopoulos and ABC to the tune of US$15 million (£11.23 million) in December 2024, to erasing queer and environmentalist themes from Pixar’s Summer 2025 release Elio.

Despite taking meaningful steps towards diversity and inclusion in recent years, Disney has responded to the US’s rightward turn by concluding that politics is bad for business.

So while it is heartening that, in this instance, Disney has chosen to back free speech and liberal values against right-wing authoritarianism, it would be naive to think this portends a major sea-change in its approach. As former CEO Michael Eisner said in an internal memo in 1981: “We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.”

The future of topical political comedy and satire on broadcast television will be decided by this cold, hard reality. Indeed, while this particular battle may have been won by Kimmel and his fans, the larger war may already be over.

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. Jimmy Kimmel is back, but how much longer will late-night comedy last? – https://theconversation.com/jimmy-kimmel-is-back-but-how-much-longer-will-late-night-comedy-last-266013