Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Hargy, Visiting Research Fellow in International Studies, Queen’s University Belfast

The US president, Donald Trump, signed an executive order on August 5 to set up a government taskforce to manage the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. During the White House announcement, Trump said: “We’ll do anything necessary to keep the Olympics safe, including using our National Guard or military.”

This move may go some way to addressing international concern over the Trump administration’s tough immigration polices, which include a travel ban on 12 countries. There were fears that this could make it difficult for some international supporters to attend the games (although athletes and coaches are exempt).

A report earlier this year by the US Travel Association also flagged concerns over the US’s ability to logistically manage an event on this scale.

The upcoming Fifa World Cup in 2026 will be seen as a dry run for the Olympics in terms of handling large numbers of international visitors. Thousands of supporters are likely to travel between co-hosts, the US, Canada and Mexico, to attend different matches.

Victor Matheson, a professor at College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts, who specialises in sports economics, has said: “You could have significant immigration problems with fans and players going across borders.”

---

Read more:
Masked and armed agents are arresting people on US streets as aggressive immigration enforcement ramps up

---

There are, however, a number of political factors at play in Trump’s decision to create a special task force. Its formation comes in the wake of Trump’s contentious decision in June 2025 to order the deployment of National Guard troops and US Marines onto the streets of Los Angeles. This was in response to protests against immigration raids launched by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) across the city.

Since then, relations between the Trump administration and Los Angeles municipal officials, including the mayor Karen Bass, have been fairly frosty. After arrests by federal authorities in LA, Bass accused Trump of “ratcheting up chaos”, and perpetuating a “political agenda of provoking fear and terror”. Trump referred to Bass as “not very competent” during the recent White House event.

At a separate event, administration spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the task force would “coordinate across federal, state and local agencies to ensure streamlined visa processes, robust security and efficient transportation”.

It is not unprecedented for a US administration to assume this type of role over a major event. The military and National Guard have previously provided support to state and municipal agencies when US cities have hosted major sporting fixtures.

This will partly be about the memory of what happened at the Altanta games in 1996, when a bomb attack killed two people and injured 111. The 2028 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games had already been designated a “national security event”.

The scale of security planning for the Los Angeles Olympics will be huge. And Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act has already set aside US$1 billion (£745,190,000) in federal government funding for security at the 2028 games.

Jules Boykoff, a professor of politics and government at Pacific University, has said that designating Los Angeles 2028 a national security special event gives the federal government broader latitude to have control over the organisation of the games, and that he expects to see “President Trump flexing like that more and more, the closer that we get to the Olympic Games”.

Boykoff also warned that the national special security event status now given to the LA Olympics may provide an opportunity for further crackdowns in the city.

There are also political risks for the Trump administration if immigration policies throw up issues for people attending the games, or it is not seen as successful. The president has made reducing immigration a priority policy, but his way of doing this and sending in masked Ice agents is losing support.

William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, pointed out recently that the way it is being carried out is not necessarily popular. Galston pointed to a YouGov poll taken in July which found that 52% of Americans said Trump’s immigration policy was “too harsh”, while 54% said Ice agents have gone “too far” in enforcing immigration laws.

In dealing with international apprehension about who can attend and travel restrictions, the White House has said that the new task force will “streamline visa processing and credentialing” for participants and media. Despite this assurance, there are concerns from some Los Angeles officials that the administration’s immigration policies could deter tourists and complicate the issuing of visas for Olympic teams.

Earlier this year, the man in charge of the Los Angeles Olympics, Casey Wasserman, sought to allay these worries. In an address to the International Olympic Committee in Pylos, Greece, Wasserman said that he had received assurances from Trump and the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and that he did not “anticipate any problems from any country to come and participate and have their delegations in full force.”

Trump clearly wants to host a triumphant Los Angeles 2028, and hopes that a successful games will boost his popularity. He will expect his new task force to smooth the way for that to happen.

Richard Hargy 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. Donald Trump to chair new Olympic taskforce in bid to allay international visitor concerns ahead of 2028 Los Angeles Games – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-to-chair-new-olympic-taskforce-in-bid-to-allay-international-visitor-concerns-ahead-of-2028-los-angeles-games-262831

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amelia Hadfield, Founding Director, Centre for Britain and Europe, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Surrey

Sovereign states are not only responsible for tackling fossil fuel damage, they have to make redress, according to a recent ground-breaking ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ruling makes clear that the court believes states must actively prevent harm to the world’s climate system. States that fail to act accordingly may have to pay compensation, restore damaged ecosystems, rebuild infrastructure or face further legal challenges.

The ruling came in the form of an advisory opinion, which is a legal interpretation provided by a high-level court or tribunal with a special mandate, in response to a specific question of law. Simply put, an advisory opinion is not legally binding in the way a court judgment between two nations would be.

However, as an expert in international relations, I believe the consequences of this ruling are significant, both legally and politically.

Politically, states are now in the firing line as the main agents of harm. States and the public and private sector energy companies that states contract, licence or subsidise are now more visible in terms of the kind of climate harm they permit.

As stated by the ICJ president, Yūji Iwasawa, the advisory opinion emphasises the “urgent existential threat” affecting nature and people, alongside the disproportionately intense effect upon vulnerable countries, including small island states, that brought the claim on the basis of years of campaigning.

For climate campaigners the ruling that “states do have legal obligations to act on climate change” is a definitive win. It’s also only the first step in a much larger challenge to prompt real change around fossil fuel usage and damage.

---

Read more:
Three secrets to successful climate litigation

---

The possibility of big emitters being successfully sued is certainly the most tangible takeaway from the ruling.

But from an international relations standpoint, the question is the degree to which the ruling works with similar judgments to shift international behaviour overall. States can choose to make immediate changes in upcoming climate negotiations, but also within the fabric of global environmental governance overall.

Legally, the ruling itself is potentially seismic. First, for those regarding international rules on climate change as unimportant in law, the ICJ’s advisory opinion will be a wake-up call. This ruling may be advisory but it indicates the rules on climate change are legal, enforceable and substantive in the eyes of the court.

Second, states failing to abide by international rules on climate change can now be held to account. For national governments, this means that countries should no longer treat climate change rules as aspirational or discretionary. Instead, the ruling pushes each state to treat the 1.5°C target for limiting global warming as fixed, however challenging.

While advisory opinions are not legally binding, they represent a unanimous opinion on the key issues from the ICJ, and effectively gather together all previous rulings and law. In doing so, such rulings arguably drive forward climate change law – and litigation – now a growth industry in its own right.

Even for states that are not signatories to various climate treaties or party to various international courts, the ICJ ruling makes for tough reading. States do have legal obligations to act on climate change, regardless of the treaties that have been signed.

The ICJ’s ruling is vital in this respect, because it outlines how countries that are not part of climate change treaties still have to show that their climate policies and practices are consistent with other parts of international law.

In doing so, the ICJ makes clear that a whole range of treaties now applies to states (from the UN convention on the law of the sea to the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer) and that principles such as intergenerational equity must be upheld.

The political implications for states arising from this advisory opinion are twofold: states can be sued as fossil fuel emitters, and countries can sue harm-inducing emitters for failure to comply.

A turning point

I argue the ICJ ruling represents a turning point. It illustrates a growing difference between international judicial attitudes to climate change, and the attitudes of individual states.

The ruling also aligns with similar judgments emerging from other international courts, including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. They show a consistent approach and clarity on the question.

Last year, the European Court of Human Rights declared that Switzerland had “failed to comply with its duties” and violated the right to respect for private and family life by failing to combat climate change.

Some state governments remain largely defiant. The US has withdrawn from the Paris agreement and global plastics treaty negotiations. Brazil is progressing a devastation bill that allows projects classified as having “medium” polluting potential to obtain an environmental licence through a self-declared online form and could lead to lead to vast deforestation.

---

Read more:
Older Swiss women just set a global legal precedent for challenging their nation’s climate change policy

---

The ICJ ruling pushes states to sensibly redesign their systems of energy, trade and investment with justice and equity at the forefront, helping move towards a just transition to greener energy. The opinion opens legal space for vulnerable nations and displaced communities to seek remedy and restitution.

It could also affect international laws on everything from human rights and ocean health to the ozone layer and desertification. And have a knock-on effect on treaties currently under negotiation such as the global plastics treaty.

Can the ICJ ruling become a practical framework for accountability, and truly support UN Secretary General António Guterres’ vision of “energy security and people’s security”? The jury on that is still out.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Amelia Hadfield is working with environmental law researchers Rosalind Malcolm and Feja Lesniewska to explore both the political and legal implications of the ICJ’s recent ruling on state behaviour at national and global levels.

– ref. A new global ruling shows states are legally responsible for tackling climate change – https://theconversation.com/a-new-global-ruling-shows-states-are-legally-responsible-for-tackling-climate-change-261896

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jane Wright, Commissioning Editor, Arts & Culture, The Conversation

I do love a good, proper horror film that puts a bony, creepy hand of unease on your shoulder. With a strange mystery and growing sense of distrust at its heart, Weapons appears to be just that – and going by the trailer, it will scare the bejasus out of us too.

Critics are claiming director Zach Creggers is paying homage to Stephen King with his latest horror. It certainly feels very Stephen King-y. An ordinary teacher (the brilliant Julia Garner) comes to school one day to find her classroom completely empty and her pupils vanished. The distressed parents and assorted angry townsfolk immediately get all suspicious – why just her class? But the truth is altogether more strange and terrifying as we find out what happened to these children.

Psychology researcher Edward White describes the film as a psychological nightmare that serves a twisted exploration of human behaviour. White points to the concept of Social Identity Theory that posits the human brain is wired to divide the world into “us” (good people) and “them” (threats), and things tend to escalate when humans are afraid.

Perhaps real horror lies in the way ordinary people can turn to cruelty when fear is weaponised – while believing they are solidly in the right. But to say more would be to give things away, and we want you to enjoy Weapons without prejudice. The trailer alone will let you know how high you will jump.

Weapons is in cinemas now

Virtual Beauty, the big summer show at Somerset House features a fascinating collection of visual work by artists examining the connection between technology and beauty. The works focus on the way access to digital technology has literally reshaped the human face and form.

Who can forget the first smartphones that allowed us to flip the camera’s focus to ourselves, or the apps that followed, enabling us to reimagine ourselves as fairies, pets or even just drop-dead gorgeous. To me, it feels like a collective experience that has increasingly warped the way we look at each other and configure who we are, caught up in the whims of viral trends. If you’re in London, take this chance to see these thought-provoking show.

Virtual Beauty is on at Somerset House, London, until September 28 2025

Decolonising perspective, telling different stories

Reaching back more than two millennia, the British Museum’s Ancient India Living Traditions exhibition unites the sacred art of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, exploring how the devotional art of these traditions spread to other parts of the Asian subcontinent. Revealing a rippling out along the Silk Road to east Asia and across the Indian ocean to south-east Asia, the exhibition showcases 180 objects (from its own collection and international loans) including sculptures, paintings, drawings and manuscripts – but crucially seeks to highlight their provenance.

Religious philosophy expert Ram Prasad explains that the complex history of India’s ancient multi-spiritual traditions requires skilled narration, and finds the museum is at least starting to acknowledge and respond to the post-colonial cultural reckoning that institutions can no longer ignore.

Ancient India Living Traditions is on at the British Museum, London, until October 19, 2025_

Y Wladfa in Patagonia is home to the famous Welsh community created almost two centuries ago in an effort to preserve Welsh language and culture. But in doing so, a small country that had been itself colonised became a coloniser, and the local Indigenous people that helped the incoming population adjust and adapt have since been marginalised and forgotten.

Now, a new digital exhibition commemorating 160 years since the first settlers arrived restores some balance in perspective. Problematising History: Indigenous perspectives on Welsh settlement in Patagonia presents the experience of the Indigenous Tehuelche people, challenging notions that the largely peaceful co-existence of the two populations was down to the benevolence of the Welsh.

Problematising History can be found on the National Library of Wales website here

By the mid 19th-century, as slavery was being abolished, romanticism had spread across Europe. Affecting every aspect of culture from art and literature and music to philosophy, science and politics, an idealised notion of human freedom lay at its centre. But rarely is this romantic freedom considered in the context of the slavery question.

Now The Trembling Hand, a new book by comparative literature expert Mathelinda Nabugodi is addressing that omission. Nabugodi explores how the proceeds of slavery underpinned literary works, and how received ideas about slavery permeated European culture in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, shaping public understanding.

But chiefly her book seeks to make the presence and contribution of black people visible in this history. Responding to calls to decolonise and diversify the curriculum, a new canon of black romantic writing is beginning to be taught. But, says Nabugodi, it is crucial that we examine the ideas of race and slavery that were baked into the traditional literary canon.

The Trembling Hand is out now

– ref. Horror, beauty and reframing colonial histories – what to watch, see and read this week – https://theconversation.com/horror-beauty-and-reframing-colonial-histories-what-to-watch-see-and-read-this-week-262672

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Louise Curran, Lecturer in Eighteenth-Century and Romantic Literature, University of Birmingham

In Ang Lee’s adaptation of Sense and Sensibility (1995), the handsome cad Willoughby (played by Greg Wise) rescues Marianne (Kate Winslet) on horseback in the middle of a raging storm. Pathetic fallacy has rarely looked so good.

Marianne locks eyes with him and falls passionately in love. In Austen’s version, though, it is Marianne’s mother and sister who first register his attractions. “The eyes of both were fixed on him with an evident wonder and a secret admiration … his person, which was uncommonly handsome, received additional charms from his voice and expression.”

Willoughby has “exterior attractions” that the two women quickly notice. Once Marianne can master her own confusion, she rapidly constructs him in her mind as the ideal romantic protagonist.

“His person and air were equal to what her fancy had ever drawn for the hero of a favourite story … Her imagination was busy, her reflections were pleasant, and the pain of a sprained ankle was disregarded.”

Yet despite such auspicious beginnings, by the end of the novel Willoughby has proved to be feckless, shallow and passively cruel. The actual leading man turns out to be the respectable, yet taciturn, Colonel Brandon (played in the film by Alan Rickman).

---

This article is part of a series commemorating the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. Despite having published only six books, she is one of the best-known authors in history. These articles explore the legacy and life of this incredible writer.

---

In his introduction to the 1895 edition of Sense and Sensibility, the poet and essayist Henry Austin Dobson remarked upon the shrewd realism at work in Austen’s ending: “Every one does not get a Bingley, or a Darcy (with a park); but a good many sensible girls like Elinor pair off contentedly with poor creatures like Edward Ferrars, while not a few enthusiasts like Marianne decline at last upon middle-aged colonels with flannel waistcoats.”

For many modern readers, Brandon remains a disappointing compromise when compared with Willoughby’s flagrant virility.

Austen’s heartthrobs

All of Austen’s leading men are rich, which certainly helps to intensify their charms. Fitzwilliam Darcy of Pride and Prejudice is the wealthiest man of Austen’s fiction.

Initially he draws local attention for his “fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien, and the report, which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year”, until he is quickly “discovered to be proud”.

One of the key debates of Pride and Prejudice (1813) concerns marriage for love versus convenience and financial security. Elizabeth Bennet’s pragmatic best friend Charlotte Lucas argues that the phrase “violently in love” is “so hackneyed, so doubtful, so indefinite” and “often applied to feelings which arise only from a half hour’s acquaintance”.

She eloquently expresses the problematic nature of infatuation and the fictional construction of the heroic ideal so prevalent in Regency culture.

The phrase recurs right at the end of the novel, at the moment Elizabeth discloses her feelings for Darcy, producing a happiness in him that he “had probably never felt before; and he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do”.

The repeated phrase is a lovely touch, hesitating as it does between endorsing Darcy as a swoon-worthy leading man, burning with passion, and holding back from such excesses through the suggestion of a faint ridiculousness.

The 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice gave visual language to this conjunction of intrepid yet hesitant masculinity. Darcy (played memorably by Colin Firth) emerged from water like an Adonis in a wet shirt, only to face an embarrassed encounter with Elizabeth (Jennifer Ehle). Though usually handsome and always relatively rich, Austen’s leading men are also unconventional in that they can be awkward, mistaken, tongue-tied – even a bit dull.

When Darcy’s housekeeper at Pemberley describes him as “handsome”, this adjective, as Austen expert Janet Todd has noted, “extends over physical, social and moral qualities”. This conjunction of qualities shapes the leading men of Austen’s fiction not so much as suitors as familiar figures who come to be transformed by love.

Uncomfortable matches

Some aspects of this heroism might strike modern readers as odd, and they alert us to changing perceptions of the romantic hero since Austen’s time.

The age difference in Emma between Emma Woodhouse (21) and George Knightley (37) was not uncommon in the Regency era, when marriage was often predicated on women’s reproductive value and men’s financial security.

It can be uncomfortable for some readers when Knightley emphasises the fact that he was 16 years old when Emma was born (as he is cradling his baby niece). And when he jokes about having been in love with her since she was “13 at least”. Rather than suggesting anything dubious, this was intended to draw attention to the incremental steps the couple make from brother and sister-in-law to friends and then lovers.

Recent adaptations of Emma seem uncomfortable with this age gap. Despite the fact that both Jeremy Northam and Johnny Flynn were in their mid-30s, and of similar age to Knightley in their respective versions (1996 and 2020), Flynn gives off a younger, more virile energy. He punches the air in joy when he realises Emma will marry him, in contrast to Northam’s emotional restraint.

Maria Edgeworth, a contemporary novelist and important influence on Austen, was struck by the way Austen’s leading men were supportive in private as much as in public.

In a letter, Edgeworth referenced the moment in Persuasion (1817) where Captain Wentworth shows his feelings for Anne by submitting to domestic chores: “The love and lover [are] admirably well drawn: don’t you see Captain Wentworth, or rather don’t you in her place feel him taking the boisterous child off her back as she kneels by the sick boy on the sofa?”

In figures such as Emma’s Mr Knightley, who represents the landed English class, and Persuasion’s Frederick Wentworth, a naval hero of the Napoleonic wars, Austen put emphasis on a new kind of domestic masculinity as a source of female desire and national pride.

Like Austen’s heroines, her leading men are not superlatively good. Their enduring appeal lies more in their capacity for self development and their acceptance of change and adaptation. Austen depicts love as the awakening of mutual esteem. It’s something to be worked on rather than something that magically arrives.

---

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

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

– ref. Why Jane Austen’s leading men are such enduringly popular heartthrobs – https://theconversation.com/why-jane-austens-leading-men-are-such-enduringly-popular-heartthrobs-253578

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Karin Modig, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet

Humans may be living longer on average these days, but, even so, only a fraction of us will live to see our 100th birthday. Yet the reasons why only a select few will become centenarians still remains a mystery to scientists.

But the latest work published by myself and my colleagues has just uncovered one factor that may be key to the long lives that centenarians experience. My research team has found that people that live to 100 seem to possess the superhuman ability to avoid disease.

Centenarians are of such great interest to scientists because they may hold the key to understanding how we can live longer — and live longer in better health. Some questions researchers have long pondered is whether one of the keys to a centenarian’s resilience mainly lies in their ability to postpone major diseases, or whether they’re simply better at surviving them. Or, could it be that they avoid certain diseases altogether?

Understanding the answer to these questions would bring us at least one step closer to figuring out what specific factors contribute to longevity. So my colleagues and I set out to see if we could find the answers. In two recent studies, we analysed and compared long and shorter-lived people born in the same year.

The results from the two studies showed that centenarians not only suffer from fewer diseases overall throughout their lives, they also develop them more slowly. They’re also less likely to experience deadly conditions, such as major cardiovascular disease, compared to their shorter-lived peers.

The first study included 170,787 people born in Stockholm County, Sweden between 1912 and 1922. Using historical health data, residents were followed for 40 years – either from age 60 until their death, or up to age 100.

We calculated each participant’s risks of stroke, heart attack, hip fracture and various cancers, and compared those who survived to the age of 100 with their shorter-lived counterparts.

We found that centenarians not only had lower rates of disease in late-midlife, but they continued to have lower rates of disease throughout their life overall.

For example, at the age of 85, only 4% of those who lived to be centenarians had experienced a stroke. In comparison, around 10% of those who almost became centenarians – living to ages 90–99 – had experienced a stroke by age 85.

Moreover, despite living longer, their lifetime risk for most diseases never reached those of their shorter-lived peers. At the age of 100, 12.5% of centenarians had experienced a heart attack, compared to just over 24% among people who lived between the ages of 80 and 89. This suggests that centenarians delay – and in many cases even avoid – major age-related diseases, rather than simply surviving them more effectively.

One limitation of this study is that it only focused on analysing more serious diagnoses of major diseases. But what if the real key to longevity isn’t that centenarians avoid disease entirely – rather, it’s that they’re able to avoid developing serious diseases?

To explore this, we conducted a second study that included 40 different medical conditions. These conditions ranged from mild to severe – such as hypertension, heart failure, diabetes and heart attacks.

We looked at 274,108 participants who were born between 1920 and 1922 and who lived in Sweden. We followed participants for around 30 years – either from the age of 70 until their death or until they turned 100. A total of 4,330 people became centenarians – just 1.5% of the participants we looked at for the study.

Even after including a wider range of diseases and allowing participants to have more than one health condition in the analysis, our team came to the same conclusions as we did in the first study: centenarians developed fewer diseases – and their rate of disease accumulation was slower across their lifetime.

We also found that centenarians were more likely to have conditions limited to a single organ system. This is a sign of this group’s health and resilience, since diseases that affect one organ system are much easier to treat and manage in the long term.

For instance, while cardiovascular conditions were the most common diagnoses across all age groups, centenarians were less likely overall to be diagnosed compared to their short-lived companions. At the age of 80, around 8% of centenarians were diagnosed with cardiovascular disease. In comparison, more than 15% of people who died at the age of 85 had been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease by 80 years of age. The lower rates of cardiovascular disease appear to be central to the centenarians’ extended survival.

Centenarians also demonstrated greater resilience to neuropsychiatric conditions – such as depression and dementia – throughout life.

Although most centenarians eventually developed multiple health conditions, they did so much later in life than non-centenarians – usually around the age of 89. This was thanks to having fewer diseases and a slower rate of disease accumulation.

Notably, non-centenarians typically experienced a sharp increase in the number of health conditions they suffered with in the final years of their lives. But centenarians did not experience this same sharp decline in health – even from their 90s onward.

The secret to a long life?

The finding that centenarians manage to delay, and in some cases avoid, disease despite living longer is both intriguing and encouraging. It shows it’s possible to age more slowly than is typical – and challenges the common belief that a longer life inevitably comes with more disease.

Our findings suggest that exceptional longevity isn’t just about postponing illness but reflects a distinct pattern of ageing. But whether this is mainly due to genetics, lifestyle, environment or a combination of these factors remains unknown. The next step in our research will be to explore what factors predict living to 100 – and how such predictors operate during a person’s life.

Understanding the mechanisms behind healthy ageing in centenarians may offer valuable insights for promoting longer, healthier lives for all.

Karin Modig receives funding from Karolinska Institutet and Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.

– ref. The key to a centenarian’s long life may be their superhuman ability to avoid disease – new research – https://theconversation.com/the-key-to-a-centenarians-long-life-may-be-their-superhuman-ability-to-avoid-disease-new-research-262645

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elizabeth Nicholls, Senior Research Fellow in Ecology, University of Sussex

Few things are as satisfying as pulling a potato from the soil with your bare hands. But in Britain’s cities this small joy – and the many health and environmental benefits that come with it – is under threat.

Recent news that the Labour government has allowed eight allotment sites across the UK to be sold off since the 2024 general election has sparked fierce criticism. Former party leader Jeremy Corbyn, an allotment grower himself, declared it “the battle for the grass roots”. And he may have a point.

Writing in the Telegraph (not usually a friendly platform for left wingers) Corbyn outlined the health, environmental and social benefits of community growing. These notions aren’t hyperbole or romanticised – they’re backed by serious evidence. Allotments have been shown to improve diets, support mental health, boost biodiversity and make cities more sustainable.

And they matter most where green space is in short supply. One in eight people have no access to a garden (that figure rises to one in five in London). The most deprived communities are often hit hardest when these spaces disappear. With around 100,000 people currently on the waiting list for allotments, the demand is clear. It’s worth asking why the UK is cutting back, instead of creating more.

Growing your own food is good for you

People who grow their own food consume a whopping 70% more fruit and vegetables than the average person – an impressive health outcome in a nation struggling with obesity and poor diets. They also waste 95% less food, making home growing a powerful tool for both health and sustainability.

The benefits don’t end there. Studies show that older allotment growers are fitter than their peers, while spending time in community gardens is linked to better mental health and lower stress.

Urban wildlife hotspots

Allotments aren’t just good for people. They’re vital for wildlife too. A study of four UK cities found that allotments host more pollinators such as bees and hoverflies (and more species) than any other type of urban land, including nature reserves.

At the University of Sussex, the ecologist Dave Goulson and I have demonstrated how crucial these insects are for urban food production. We worked directly with allotment growers, training them to collect data on pollinators. This had additional benefits: growers became more aware of insect diversity, they grew more bee-friendly flowers, and even took a more “inclusive” attitude towards pests like slugs. Their allotments became richer ecosystems.

The business case for allotments

The government says the decision to sell off allotments is necessary to raise funds. A spokesperson from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government said it should only happen “where it is clearly necessary and offers value for money”.

But evidence suggests these sites already do offer value – just not in ways easily measured by a sale price. In my own city of Brighton, researchers and the local allotment federation have put a figure on the benefits: allotments are worth at least £386k a year to the city in health, wellbeing and environmental gains (around £166 per plot) – even before counting the food grown. When food is factored in, the total rises to £1.1 million annually.

These figures might be modest compared to the potential commercial value of the land but they represent a long-term investment in social and environmental benefits that are hard to replicate in a business park or housing estate.

As Corbyn pointed out, losing these spaces doesn’t just cost us money. It cuts us off from how food is grown and our connection to nature. And in the longer run, that may be a much higher price.

Cities could easily grow more food

In Sheffield, allotments make up less than 2% of the city’s available green space, yet they already produce enough fruit and veg to meet the daily needs of 3% of the city. That figure could double if just a small portion of the remaining green space suitable for allotment growing was converted.

With huge waiting lists, public demand for allotments is clear. What’s needed now is political will, and an ability to reimagine cities not just as places to live and work, but as places to grow.

Because as Corbyn warned: once these spaces are lost, they’re rarely replaced.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Elizabeth Nicholls receives funding from UKRI and the Royal Society.

– ref. Allotments are vanishing when the UK urgently needs more of them – https://theconversation.com/allotments-are-vanishing-when-the-uk-urgently-needs-more-of-them-262844

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Primrose Freestone, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Microbiology, University of Leicester

Air conditioning can feel heaven-sent on hot summer days. It keeps temperatures comfortable and controls humidity, making indoor environments tolerable even on the most brutally warm days.

But some people avoid using air conditioning (AC) no matter how hot it gets outside, out of fear that it will make them sick. While this may sound far-fetched to some, as a microbiologist I can say this fear isn’t altogether unfounded.

If an air conditioning system malfunctions or isn’t properly maintained, it can become contaminated with infectious microbes. This can turn your AC unit into a potential source of numerous airborne infections – ranging from the common cold to pneumonia.

Sick buildings

“Sick building syndrome” is the general name for symptoms that can develop after spending extended periods of time in air-conditioned environments. Symptoms can include headaches, dizziness, congested or runny nose, persistent cough or wheeze, skin irritation or rashes, trouble focusing on work and tiredness.

The condition tends to occur in people who work in office settings, but can happen to anyone who spends extended periods of time in air-conditioned buildings such as hospitals. The symptoms of sick building syndrome tend to get worse the longer you’re in a particular building, and are alleviated after you leave.

A 2023 study from India compared 200 healthy adults who worked at least six-to-eight hours per day in an air-conditioned office with 200 healthy adults who didn’t work in AC. The AC group experienced more symptoms consistent with sick building syndrome over the two-year study period – particularly a higher prevalence of allergies. Importantly, clinical tests showed those who were exposed to AC had poorer lung function and were absent from work more often, compared with the non-AC group.

Other studies have confirmed that AC office workers have a higher prevalence of sick building syndrome than those who do not work in an air-conditioned environment.

It’s suspected that one cause of sick building syndrome is malfunctioning air conditioners. When an AC unit isn’t working properly, it can release allergens, chemicals and airborne microorganisms into the air that it would normally have trapped.

Malfunctioning air conditioners can also release chemical vapours from AC cleaning products or refrigerants into the building’s air. Chemicals such as benzene, formaldehyde and toluene are toxic and can irritate the respiratory system.

Poorly maintained air conditioning systems can also harbour bacterial pathogens which can cause serious infections.

Legionella pneumophila is the bacteria that causes Legionnaires’ disease – a lung infection contracted from inhaling droplets of water containing these bacteria. They tend to grow in water-rich environments such as hot tubs or air conditioning systems.

A Legionella infection is most often caught in communal places such as hotels, hospitals or offices, where the bacteria have contaminated the water supply. Symptoms of Legionnaires’ disease are similar to pneumonia, causing coughing, shortness of breath, chest discomfort, fever and general flu-like symptoms. Symptoms usually begin to show between two and 14 days after being exposed to Legionella.

Legionella infections can be life-threatening and often require hospitalisation. Recovery can take several weeks.

Fungal and viral infections

The accumulation of dust and moisture inside air conditioning systems can also create the right conditions for other infectious microbes to grow.

For instance, research on hospital AC systems has found that fungi such as Aspergillus, Penicillium, Cladosporium and Rhizopusspecies commonly accumulate within the water-rich areas of hospital ventilation systems.

These fungal infections can be serious in vulnerable patients such as those who are immunocompromised, have had an organ transplant or are on dialysis – as well as babies who were born premature. For example, Aspergillus causes pneumonia, abscesses of the lungs, brain, liver, spleen, kidneys and skin, and can also infect burns and wounds.

Symptoms of fungal infections are mostly respiratory and include persistent wheeze or cough, fever, shortness of breath, tiredness and unexplained loss of weight.

Viral infections can also be caught from air conditioning. One case study revealed that children in a Chinese kindergarten class were infected with the norovirus pathogen from their AC system. This caused 20 students to experience the stomach flu.

While norovirus is usually transmitted through close contact with an infected person or after touching a contaminated surface, in this instance it was confirmed, unusually, that the virus was spread through the air – originating from the air conditioning unit in a class restroom. Several other cases of norovirus being spread this way have been reported.

However, air conditioners can also help stop the spread of airborne viruses. Research shows AC units that are regularly maintained and sanitised can reduce circulating levels of common viruses, including COVID.

Another reason AC may increase your risk of catching an infection is due to the way air conditioners control humidity levels. This makes inside air drier than outside air.

Spending extended periods of time in low-humidity environments can dry out the mucus membranes in your nose and throat. This can affect how well they prevent bacteria and fungi from getting in your body – and can leave you more vulnerable to developing a deep-tissue infection of the sinuses.

Air conditioners are designed to filter air contaminants, fungal spores, bacteria and viruses, preventing them from entering the air we breathe indoors. But this protective shield can be compromised if a system’s filter is old or dirty, or if the system isn’t cleaned. Ensuring good AC maintenance is essential in preventing air-conditioner-acquired infections.

Primrose Freestone 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. Can air conditioning really make you sick? A microbiologist explains – https://theconversation.com/can-air-conditioning-really-make-you-sick-a-microbiologist-explains-260648

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Torbjörn Tännsjö, Professor of Practical Philosophy, Stockholm University

Calls for electoral reform are rising in the UK, where a majority of people are now in favour of a different system. It’s easy to see why. A voting system based on having one MP for one constituency, elected via one-person-one-vote, only works well when there are two political parties competing for a position in each constituency rather than multiple parties.

The two-party system invites an unsound party culture in which “entryism” – infiltrating a party to subvert it – is the only method left for people who want to take part in politics but who don’t feel attached to any party. The system also brings little incentive for the two main parties to develop particularly different stances on any issue because they are competing for the same electorate.

Is there an alternative? Of course, there is. Just look at the Scandinavian countries, where a representative method is used for electing parliaments.

The parties present lists of candidates, and they are elected in groups to represent each constituency in proportion to how the electorate votes. For example, in Sweden there are 29 constituencies (valkretsar) and the total number of representatives to the parliament is 349. This means that the main parties gain proportionate representation in all constituencies.

There are also a few extra seats in the parliament given to the parties in order to rectify a remaining slight lack of proportionality. There is a 4% hurdle however, which means a slight distortion – in the interest of efficiency – of the idea of perfect proportionality.

This system means that, figuratively speaking, the people in Scandinavia rule themselves through their parliaments.

---

Read more:
Survey shows support for electoral reform now at 60% – so could it happen?

---

There are many positive aspects to such systems and hardly any principled drawbacks. At least this is the judgement I make as a philosopher. I leave the empirical matter to political scientists.

Democratic decision-making

To decide which system is, philosophically speaking, more desirable, we first need to define what it means for a collective of people to reach a decision in a democratic manner.

You could say that a collective decision made by a group has been made in a democratic manner if it has been reached by a mechanism guaranteeing that, if a majority exists in the group, then the collective decision is in accordance with this majority will. The standard mechanism is to rely on majority voting, of course.

We should also add that it is because the final decision is the will of the majority that it has prevailed.

What if no unique majority will exists because of a draw? In that case, it is left for the chairman to decide. Sometimes this happens – and it is a theoretical problem for majoritarian democratic decision-making – but in practice it is always possible to handle it.

A democratic decision can only be reached if there are political agents such as voters or members of the parliament prepared (and allowed) to voice their opinions (in an appropriate manner).

The representative ideal

Once democratic decision-making has been defined, it is possible to articulate different ideals in terms of democracy. In each political ideology there is some room for democratic decision-making.

It is therefore possible to specify which decisions should, and which decisions should not, according to a certain political ideology, be taken in a democratic manner – as well as who should make those decisions. In some systems the president is democratically elected by the people directly, in other systems a prime minister is democratically elected by a parliament, and so forth.

The British parliament uses a democratic method of decision-making. The election of a representative in each constituency is also democratic – so long as only two candidates are in serious competition for the position. Either your candidate wins or your candidate loses because the majority want the other person to represent them.

The will of the majority is decisive. But when there are more than two candidates (and of course, in practice there are), a candidate lacking support from a majority can be – and often is – elected.

The representative model is different. The parliament reaches decisions through a democratic decision process but elections to that parliament are not democratic. Instead, they are proportionate, meaning candidates disliked by a majority can be elected. Even small parties get (proportionate) representation.

There is a democratic rationale behind a system of this kind, where representatives of the people gather, put forward proposals, discuss them, and have a vote. This is the idea that the decision the representatives reach will be the one those who are represented would also have reached, had they been able to gather in the same manner.

A proportionate system also guarantees representation for politically disliked minorities. They can enter the parliament even if no constituency exists where they are liked by a majority.

In parliament they can at least argue their case and, if it is a good one, gain support for it in the long run. This system is the best answer to Aristotle’s fear that a majority may come to oppress various minorities. It is not foolproof – but collective decision-making is a risky business in the first place.

Finally, the system meets the Platonist elitist objection that people aren’t good enough to rule themselves. In the proportionate system they rule themselves, but indirectly, and through trusted political experts. There is little reason to believe that the single individual who gets the upper hand in a single-member constituency is good enough to be your ruler.

So, my friendly advice to the people of the UK, at least from a philosophical perspective, is to adopt some version of the Scandinavian model.

---

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.

---

Torbjörn Tännsjö 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 UK needs a new electoral system – should it copy Scandinavia? – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-needs-a-new-electoral-system-should-it-copy-scandinavia-262670

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kerry Brown, Professor of Chinese Politics; Director, Lau China Institute, King’s College London

Taiwan has often compared itself to being a “shrimp between two whales”. That expression has never been more apt than today with the US and China – which considers Taiwan to be part of its territory – locked in a standoff over the future of the island.

At an event I attended some years ago, a Chinese scholar remarked when the issue of the US-China rivalry came up that they believed there was an African saying: “When two elephants are either having a fight, or making love, the grass around them gets trampled.”

It was best for everyone, they advised the other attendees, for the two superpowers to have a workmanlike, unexciting relationship rather than take the risk of things getting too friendly or hostile.

But whether or not the current period of conflict continues or the US and China magically become more aligned, the challenges facing Taiwan are severe.

First off, Taiwan is itself in a period of domestic turbulence. The government of Taiwanese president William Lai Ching-te, leader of the Democratic Progressive party, was elected in January 2024 with a little over 40% of the vote. This was considerably less than his predecessor from the same party, Tsai Ing-wen.

One of the main opposition leaders, Ke Wen-je of the Taiwan People’s party, has since then been arrested on corruption charges. He is accused of accepting half a million US dollars in bribes during his term as mayor of Taipei as well as misreporting campaign finances during his presidential run.

Most recently, in late July, recall votes were held where citizens in 24 districts of Taiwan chose whether or not to remove their legislator from office. This is the result of a law in Taiwan stipulating a new vote if 10% of the electorate in a specific constituency express dissatisfaction at the previous outcome. Activists supporting the government mobilised to achieve this.

The votes seem to be associated with frustration that, while the Democratic Progressive party controls the presidency, it cannot get legislation through a parliament dominated by its opponents. All of the votes were directed at seats held by the Kuomintang, the main opposition party in recent years that is accused by its critics of being pro-China. Not a single seat was overturned.

When the steady nationalism of Xi Jinping’s leadership in Beijing is factored in, with its conviction that the global influence of the west is slowly declining and the east – dominated by China – is in the nascent, one can see why the issue of Taiwan might look more precarious and worrying. This is regardless of the various predictions that 2027 is the date that China has set to go for reunification.

Ambiguous US position

For the US, President Donald Trump’s fixation has remained on correcting what he sees as China’s unfair trade advantages with its largest single economic partner – something he has long talked about.

The White House proclaimed in March, when the first set of trade negotiations with China concluded after tariffs were imposed by both sides, that: “for too long, unfair trade practices and America’s massive trade deficit with China have fuelled the offshoring of American jobs and the decline of our manufacturing sector.”

The aim at the most recent set of talks in Stockholm, Sweden, in late July was to drive towards a new deal. Trump has also reportedly talked of taking a huge delegation of business people to China at some point later in 2025. This is despite the fact that so far since his inauguration in January, and despite many reasons to talk, Xi and Trump have yet to physically meet.

Taiwanese people are therefore right to feel increasingly uneasy. Under Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, they received verbal commitments that the US would come to Taiwan’s aid if it was attacked. This was not formal US policy, which has long maintained an ambiguous stance on Taiwan.

Ambiguity has returned with a vengeance under Trump. His secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, has said that the US stands by Taiwan. But these days in Washington all roads lead to the Oval Office, and Trump’s stance is far harder to predict.

If China were to dangle a trade deal in front of the US president – committing to buy more US goods, put in more investment that is non-problematic on security grounds in the US and generally abide by American demands – would Trump be able to resist?

It could be presented as a historic achievement, a new concordant between the world’s two greatest powers who had seemed until then set on conflict and clash. There might even be the much desired Nobel Peace Prize in it for the US leader.

Trump, for his part, appears increasingly reluctant to back Taiwan in ways that risk provoking Beijing. Lai delayed a trip to Latin America in July after the Trump administration reportedly told him to cancel a proposed stopover in New York. And the US cancelled a meeting with Taiwan’s defence minister one month earlier.

The likelihood remains that, if a real crisis occurs, then the US will climb down from the middle wall and do something to defend Taiwan. Any trade deal between Beijing and Washington will also probably be a highly circumscribed one. China is not an easy partner to negotiate with, and it is unlikely to offer Trump the kind of capitulation he is seeking.

Even so, these are very unpredictable times. The key calculation going forward will be the simple one of what the US gains and loses from all its relationships – and that includes Taiwan.

Kerry Brown 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. Taiwan faces a precarious future – whether or not US and China continue on path to conflict – https://theconversation.com/taiwan-faces-a-precarious-future-whether-or-not-us-and-china-continue-on-path-to-conflict-262294

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

In the 2024 UK general election, Reform came third with a 14% share of the vote, capturing five seats in the House of Commons. This was a breakthrough election for the party. In the previous general election in 2019, when it was known as the Brexit party, it won a 2% vote share and captured no parliamentary seats at all.

This success is part of a trend. Radical right-wing populist parties are making gains in elections across many democracies and, in plenty of cases, they’re winning power. Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy has been in government in Italy since the election of September 2022, when they took 26% of the vote and captured 119 seats in the national parliament.

In the National Assembly elections of June 2024, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally increased its representation from 89 seats to 125 seats. And in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party (PVV), led by right-wing populist Geert Wilders won the largest vote share in 2023 with 24%, capturing 37 seats in the House of Representatives.

Perhaps most significantly, Donald Trump won the US presidential election in November 2024 with a rightwing populist agenda – a victory that has created turmoil in American politics and the economy, along with the rest of the world.

Expert views

The American political scientist, Larry Bartels, argued in a recent book that democracy erodes from the top. He explains that contemporary democracies die not by military coups or revolutionary overthrows but by populist leaders winning elections and then subverting the institutions of democracy from within. Once in power, they restrict the freedom of the courts, squeeze the fairness out of elections and attack the press.

The Chapel Hill expert surveys, a database that classifies political parties into ideological groupings, helps illustrate the stakes at play here.

The 2024 survey data covers 31 countries and it was administered in all the European Union member states plus a few others including Britain, Norway and Turkey. It shows that there are more radical right-wing parties than any other kind of party in these countries and they are growing in number and in support.

The 2024 data was compiled by 609 political scientists, who looked at party ideologies, their policy preferences, electoral performances and the extent to which they participate in government. There are 279 parties in the database altogether and so they are classified into “party families” to make the analysis manageable.

A party family is a grouping of parties which the experts think are similar to each other, even though there may be some differences between them. For example, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the National Rally (RN) in France, the Party for Freedom (VVD) in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party in Austria (FPO) and Reform in Britain are all classified as right-wing populist parties in the dataset. The chart shows the extent to which these 11 party families have been successful in winning votes in the most recent elections.

The Performance of Party Families in 31 Countries in 2024:

The radical right family consisted of 48 parties, and on average they won 11% of the votes and 17% of seats in the various national legislatures. They are growing in support and influence, coming fourth after the conservative, socialist and Christian democrat party families in voting support and representation in parliaments.

The threat to democracy

We can get some idea of how likely such parties are to undermine democracy by looking at responses to a question in the Chapel Hill survey. This asked the experts to judge the extent to which parties think power should or should not be concentrated in the executive. It is measured on a ten-point scale where zero means that the party is strongly in favour of constraining the power of the executive, whereas ten means that a party opposes any restrictions on executive powers.

The chart shows the average scores for each of the party families on this executive power scale. It is readily apparent that the radical right parties are significant outliers on the scale, being very much more likely to support executive dominance than the other party families.

Scores on the Executive Power Scale

The survey showed that parties of the right such as the Conservatives, Agrarian and Religious parties are rather more likely to support executive dominance than parties of the centre or left. But the radical right parties stand out as really strongly supporting this. This is in sharp contrast to radical left parties, which are quite suspicious of such executive dominance.

This is important since it shows that once in power these parties are tempted to subvert the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. This is likely to be accompanied by attacks on an independent media, the use of the courts against opponents and attempts to gerrymander elections.

All this comes from the belief that a strong leader is the best form of government, a sentiment shared by many Trump supporters in the United States. Anne Applebaum’s recent book Twilight of Democracy illustrates this dynamic in the case of eastern European countries such as Poland and Hungary.

The implication is that if these parties grow stronger and dominate governments they are quite likely to try to subvert democracy. Reform supporters in Britain could get more than they bargained for.

---

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.

---

---

This article contains references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and this may include links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.

– ref. Two charts that lay bare the threat posed by radical right parties to western democracies – https://theconversation.com/two-charts-that-lay-bare-the-threat-posed-by-radical-right-parties-to-western-democracies-262070