Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kokho Jason Sit, Senior Lecturer in Marketing; Associate Head (Global), University of Portsmouth

Virtual reality has been fashionable for a while now. So perhaps it was only a matter of time before fashion became virtual.

Instead of spending your money on actual clothes to wear on your actual body, you can now buy garments (and accessories) that you will never touch. Also known as digital fashion, this is a world where clothes are “worn” only in virtual spaces, such as online games or in the metaverse.

Like virtual travel where you never leave your sofa, or a virtual bungee jump without risk of injury, virtual fashion is convenient and accessible. It is also getting more popular, with some sources forecasting that this particular side of the fashion industry could soon be worth tens of billions of dollars every year.

The growth potential predominantly comes from fashion brands using virtual products to advertise and innovate, and ultimately generate more sales. They can use digital clothes to experiment, gauge interest and explore new markets.

Vans, for example, created a virtual skatepark in collaboration with the game developer Roblox where users could practice their online skating skills, and buy exclusive clothing, shoes and other gear. A backpack here would cost 400 Roblox units of online currency, equivalent to around £5.

Meanwhile, the luxury brand Gucci created a virtual gallery (also with Roblox) where visitors could view, “try on” and buy digital items using blank, genderless, humanoid mannequin avatars.

The gallery had different themed rooms from which the avatars would absorb certain visual elements. Users could then screenshots to share on social media.

Zara has collaborated with Zepeto, a South Korean metaverse platform, to do something similar.

All these companies have seen how e-fashion can serve as a useful strategy to engage with consumers and promote imaginative products – and ultimately drive brand awareness and sales.

---

Read more:
3D printing in fashion promises to be huge – so what’s holding us back?

---

Elsewhere, some have previously argued that e-fashion could actually help to make the fashion industry more sustainable by eliminating some of the environmental issues associated with the industry like waste and carbon footprints.

The theory was that if people spent most of their working day in the virtual world, then digital fashion could be a more sustainable alternative to real-world fashion. You could effectively wear the same old jeans and hoodie day after day, while dressing in the latest trends online.

But ideas of a fully immersive digital world have so far not materialised, and fashion’s issues with sustainability remain, driven by the widespread impulse to keep up with the latest fashion, dress cheaply and dispose of items quickly.

The real-world presents digital fashion with further hurdles in its bid to become mainstream.

Some critics would argue that e-fashion lacks “touch authenticity” – the chance to feel and try a design before buying. Others, more simply, would point out that the biggest problem with digital clothes is that you can’t actually wear them.

And our research suggests that the market for e-fashion remains relatively niche. So far, it appeals mostly to hardcore enthusiasts who enjoy exploring new shopping experiences.

These consumers, often passionate about fashion, expression and technology, are the ones most likely to pay for and use e-fashion. They see it as a fun and effective way to combine their interests.

With a few clicks, they can “try on” e-fashion items, personalise them, and then capture and share the results, enjoying a creative outlet for their desire to try new clothes, styles and colours. And it provides brands and designers a way of trying out new ideas, some of which may be impossible to produce in the real world.

Kokho Jason Sit is affiliated with the Chartered Institute of Marketing (UK).

Giovanni Pino and Marco Pichierri 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. Running out of wardrobe space? Maybe you should follow the growing trend for clothes you can’t actually wear – https://theconversation.com/running-out-of-wardrobe-space-maybe-you-should-follow-the-growing-trend-for-clothes-you-cant-actually-wear-255338

Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Edward Brereton, PhD student, Nottingham Trent University

What’s lurking in your freezer: a lasagne or deep-frozen pizza? Conservationists rely on freezers too – but they run much cooler than your model, with the thermostat set to a frosty -196°C, the temperature of liquid nitrogen. You won’t find any burgers in there.

Conservationists use these freezers, known as “biobanks”, to store animal cells including oocytes (egg cells), sperm and somatic cells (for example, skin cells). In the future, lost genetic diversity could be safeguarded in this way. This could be vital for the preservation of endangered species – and species that are not yet endangered, but soon could be.

Over the last 50 years, tissues of many animals have been frozen, including tigers, pandas and rhinos. But many other species have never been archived in this way, including some of the most threatened species on the planet, such as mountain gorillas. The consequences of not banking key species could well be their extinction.

A recent collaboration between researchers at Chester, Dublin and Toronto zoos and Nottingham Trent and York St Johns Universities has investigated the priorities for biobanking wildlife species. My supervisors and I worked with colleagues at these zoos to address the long-held assumption that wildlife organisations prioritise endangered species as the most important species for biobanking.

We found that several prioritisation methods are used for selecting cell types and species. The local availability of cell samples was a key factor, as was the extent of reproductive science knowledge about a species.

---

Read more:
‘Return’ of the dire wolf is an impressive feat of genetic engineering, not a reversal of extinction

---

In the 20th century, the most common priorisation method was to select endangered species. But conservationists would also prioritise the sampling of species that were local to them (for example, in a zoo), as well as sampling opportunistically – for instance, when an animal was undergoing veterinary care.

We tend to think of biobanking as a futuristic, science fiction concept, but these techniques have been developed over many decades. The earliest paper we found was from 1975 on wildlife cryopreservation.

In terms of species and material, cells from mammals were the most frequently biobanked throughout the study period, mirroring the pervasive taxonomic biases in conservation efforts globally.

It’s also more straightforward to bank samples from, say, a gaur (a wild buffalo) because they are physiologically similar to domesticated cattle, which we know a lot about. A rare insect would be a different story.

Historically, biobanking efforts concentrated on saving sperm samples, which made sense as scientists could draw on generations of livestock husbandry methods to use the samples for artificial insemination. But that only captures part of the genetic picture, even for well-represented species.

Today, other cell types, such as somatic cells (body cells, such as skin cells or fibroblast cells that form connective tissue), are becoming increasingly valuable, as they capture a lot more genetic information.

From agoutis to acropora coral

There is a diverse array of species featuring in the biobanking literature. Previous studies cover species ranging from agoutis (a small rodent native to the rainforests of Central and South America) to acropora corals, harpy eagles to hellbender salamanders. For these species, tissue is therefore effectively saved for use in future conservation work.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, an organisation dedicated to assessing wildlife threat status, established its Animal Biobanking for Conservation specialist group in 2022. This network aims to foster cooperation a broader approach to biobanking, which has until now been carried out on an individual, organisational basis.

Enabling scientists to coordinate their efforts internationally could help cryobanking organisations be more strategic about acquiring genetic material, avoiding duplicating samples and identifying species at risk of being left out.

Researchers also need to think about species that aren’t critically endangered right now but might become so, such as partula snails (tropical tree snails native to Polynesia). By the time a species becomes endangered, the genetic diversity of the population has already significantly reduced.

Even if we do save their gametes and somatic cells, there will still be a genetic bottleneck among the remaining live animals. This can lead to reproductive and health issues in already small populations, further reducing the likelihood of the species’ survival.

If we take samples from animals that are not yet critically endangered, those samples are likely to become valuable in the future. Ultimately, we need a unified plan so we don’t let bias and a lack of strategy shape which species we see in the future – and which we lose.

---

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.

---

James Edward Brereton 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. Animals on ice: how conservationists use freezers to ‘biobank’ wildlife – https://theconversation.com/animals-on-ice-how-conservationists-use-freezers-to-biobank-wildlife-263363

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Long, Associate Professor of American History and Politics, University of East Anglia

Donald Trump is attempting to sue the New York Times. In a lawsuit filed on September 15 the US president charged that the paper, two Times journalists and also the publisher Penguin Random House committed libel and defamation against him in series of articles and a book discussing his business experience and time on The Apprentice TV show.

Trump claims the publications were designed to damage his business reputation, sabotage his candidacy in the 2024 election, and interfere with the election. According to the lawsuit, they were published in “bad faith, out of hatred and ill-will directed towards President Trump without any regard for the truth”.

A federal judge threw out the lawsuit on September 19, but did so on a legal technicality without addressing the content of the allegations. Trump’s lawyers have said they will refile so the issues involved remain active.

Trump’s lawsuit is governed by a 1964 Supreme Court ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan. One of the most celebrated of cases handed down by the court during the era known as the rights revolution, the ruling has provided the press in the US with one of the most protected spaces in the world in which to operate.

---

Read more:
The case that saved the press – and why Trump wants it gone

---

The Sullivan case

On March 29 1960, the New York Times published an advertisement funded by northern supporters of Martin Luther King. Headlined Heed Their Rising Voices, it described a number of actions the city government of Montgomery, Alabama had taken to thwart the civil rights movement’s anti-segregation protests and to punish those involved. The city’s police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, sued the paper for defaming him, even though he was not mentioned by name.

His case rested on the fact there were a small number of factual inaccuracies in the advertisement and that it undermined his professional reputation. A southern jury, upholding Sullivan’s claim, awarded him damages of US$500,000 (£371,000) – roughly equivalent to US$5 million today.

Dismissing Sullivan’s claim, a unanimous Supreme Court established the key test that has governed US press freedom regarding public officials ever since. The “actual malice” test requires evidence that information was published “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”.

This means that by themselves, factual inaccuracies are not sufficient to make a case. And since most journalists and commentators seek to be diligent about the material they publish, the ruling has historically created an extremely high bar for litigants. This has granted the media in the US freedoms that extend well beyond those in many other nations.

In legal terms, then, Trump’s case is highly likely to fail.

Wider context

Sullivan also has important things to say in a country currently embroiled in debates about the scope of free political speech and press commentary.

Under pressure from Trump, broadcaster CBS cancelled The Late Show in July, hosted by frequent Trump critic Stephen Colbert, while ABC has now suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show. The latter move followed a furore over comments the host made about Trump’s reaction to the death of far right conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

The debates have also been driven by Trump’s history of lawsuits against those who disagree with him – including, most recently, the Wall Street Journal, and also against ABC and CBS over issues separate to the rows over their talkshow hosts. He has also launched an investigation into former special prosecutor Jack Smith and taken action to put pressure on law firms representing Trump critics as well as against Harvard University, among others.

In 1964, the Supreme Court understood the importance of the context in which the case had been brought, namely the civil rights movement. In the 1960s, libel suits were used by southern states to attempt to control news coverage of civil rights demonstrations. Officials knew that white southern juries would not find in favour of northern newspapers sympathetic to desegregation.

When the Supreme Court considered its judgment in Sullivan, the New York Times was facing 11 other libel suits in Alabama alone with a total of more than US$5 million at stake. CBS was defending five libel suits in southern states with a total cost of almost $2 million.

Fearful of unfavourable verdicts and monetary damages that risked bankruptcy, some media outlets limited or stopped outright coverage of civil rights protests, just as southern segregationists wanted. This was what the court called a “chilling effect … on First Amendment freedoms”. Fear of consequences can limit people’s willingness to speak out, and self-censorship takes the place of official regulation.

In such a context of intimidation, warned the court, “the pall of fear and timidity imposed upon those who would give voice to public criticism is an atmosphere in which the first amendment freedoms cannot survive”. Americans today of all political persuasions would be wise to pay attention. Good, effective political debate can only happen when participants do not fear or risk retaliation for critical commentary.

Politics was also no place for the thin-skinned, warned the justices in 1964. The commitment to first amendment freedoms meant debate “should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and […] it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials”. A public official, wrote Justice Arthur Goldberg in concurrence, “must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticised”.

While unlikely that they anticipated the type of vitriol increasingly familiar to us in the age of social media, the principle nevertheless remains: criticism of job performance is inherent in public roles. If you don’t like it, don’t get involved, and certainly don’t use the law of libel and defamation to seek redress for hurt feelings.

In its Sullivan judgment, the Supreme Court understood the dangers to free speech in a time of polarised debate. Its ruling contains important warnings for Americans that extend well beyond the latest Trump lawsuit.

Emma Long 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. New York Times v Sullivan: the 60-year old Supreme Court judgment that press freedom depends on in Trump era – https://theconversation.com/new-york-times-v-sullivan-the-60-year-old-supreme-court-judgment-that-press-freedom-depends-on-in-trump-era-265598

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Peter Coppola, Visiting Researcher, University of Cambridge

What gives rise to human consciousness? Are some parts of the brain more important than others? Scientists began tackling these questions in more depth about 35 years ago. Researchers have made progress, but the mystery of consciousness remains very much alive.

In a recently published article, I reviewed over 100 years of neuroscience research to see if some brain regions are more important than others for consciousness. What I found suggests scientists who study consciousness may have been undervaluing the most ancient regions of human brains.

Consciousness is usually defined by neuroscientists as the ability to have subjective experience, such as the experience of tasting an apple or of seeing the redness of its skin.

The leading theories of consciousness suggest that the outer layer of the human brain, called the cortex (in blue in figure 1), is fundamental to consciousness. This is mostly composed of the neocortex, which is newer in our evolutionary history.

The human subcortex (figure 1, brown/beige), underneath the neocortex, has not changed much in the last 500 million years. It is thought to be like electricity for a TV, necessary for consciousness, but not enough on its own.

There is another part of the brain that some neuroscientific theories of consciousness state is irrelevant for consciousness. This is the cerebellum, which is also older than the neocortex and looks like a little brain tucked in the back of the skull (figure 1, purple). Brain activity and brain networks are disrupted in unconsciousness (like in a coma). These changes can be seen in the cortex, subcortex and cerebellum.

What brain stimulation reveals

As part of my analysis I looked at studies showing what happens to consciousness when brain activity is changed, for example, by applying electrical currents or magnetic pulses to brain regions.

These experiments in humans and animals showed that altering activity in any of these three parts of the brain can alter consciousness. Changing the activity of the neocortex can change your sense of self, make you hallucinate, or affect your judgment.

Changing the subcortex may have extreme effects. We can induce depression, wake a monkey from anaesthesia or knock a mouse unconscious. Even stimulating the cerebellum, long considered irrelevant, can change your conscious sensory perception.

However, this research does not allow us to reach strong conclusions about where consciousness comes from, as stimulating one brain region may affect another region. Like unplugging the TV from the socket, we might be changing the conditions that support consciousness, but not the mechanisms of consciousness itself.

So I looked at some evidence from patients to see if it would help resolve this dilemma.

Damage from physical trauma or lack of oxygen to the brain can disrupt your experience. Injury to the neocortex may make you think your hand is not yours, fail to notice things on one side of your visual field, or become more impulsive.

People born without the cerebellum, or the front of their cortex, can still appear conscious and live quite normal lives. However, damaging the cerebellum later in life can trigger hallucinations or change your emotions completely.

Harm to the most ancient parts of our brain can directly cause unconsciousness (although some people recover) or death. However, like electricity for a TV, the subcortex may be just keeping the newer cortex “online”, which may be giving rise to consciousness. So I wanted to know whether, alternatively, there is evidence that the most ancient regions are sufficient for consciousness.

There are rare cases of children being born without most or all of their neocortex. According to medical textbooks, these people should be in a permanent vegetative state. However, there are reports that these people can feel upset, play, recognise people or show enjoyment of music. This suggests that they are having some sort of conscious experience.

These reports are striking evidence that suggests maybe the oldest parts of the brain are enough for basic consciousness. Or maybe, when you are born without a cortex, the older parts of the brain adapt to take on some of the roles of the newer parts of the brain.

There are some extreme experiments on animals that can help us reach a conclusion. Across mammals – from rats to cats to monkeys – surgically removing the neocortex leaves them still capable of an astonishing number of things. They can play, show emotions, groom themselves, parent their young and even learn. Surprisingly, even adult animals that underwent this surgery showed similar behaviour.

Altogether, the evidence challenges the view that the cortex is necessary for consciousness, as most major theories of consciousness suggest. It seems that the oldest parts of the brain are enough for some basic forms of consciousness.

The newer parts of the brain – as well as the cerebellum – seem to expand and refine your consciousness. This means we may have to review our theories of consciousness. In turn, this may influence patient care as well as how we think about animal rights. In fact, consciousness might be more common than we realised.

Peter Coppola 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. Major theories of consciousness may have been focusing on the wrong part of the brain – https://theconversation.com/major-theories-of-consciousness-may-have-been-focusing-on-the-wrong-part-of-the-brain-264609

Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Kyris, Associate Professor in International Politics, University of Birmingham

The UK, Canada and Australia are among a group of nations that are moving to formally recognise the state of Palestine like most other states have done over the years. This move is a major diplomatic shift and turning point in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Here’s what it means.

What does it mean to recognise Palestine?

Recognising Palestine means acknowledging the existence of a state that represents the Palestinian people. Following from that, it also means that the recogniser can develop full diplomatic relations with representatives of this state – which would include exchanging embassies or negotiating government-level agreements.

Why have these countries moved together – and why now?

Diplomatic recognition, when done in concert, carries more heft than isolated gestures – and governments know this. A year or so ago, Spain tried to get European Union members to recognise Palestine together and when this was not possible opted to coordinate its recognition with Norway and Ireland only. Further away, a cluster of Caribbean countries (Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, the Bahamas) also recognised Palestine around the same time.

By acting together, countries amplify the message that Palestinian statehood is not a fringe idea, but a legitimate aspiration backed by a growing international consensus. This collective recognition also serves to shield individual governments from accusations of unilateralism or political opportunism.

This wave of recognition comes now because of concern that Palestinian statehood is under threat, perhaps more than ever before. In their recognition statements, the UK and Canada cited Israel’s settlements in the West Bank in their reasoning.

The Israeli government has also revealed plans that amount to annexing Gaza, the other area that ought to belong to Palestinians. This is after months of assault on its people, which the UN commission of inquiry on the occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel found amounts to genocide. Public sentiment has also shifted dramatically in support of Palestine, adding to the pressure on governments.

Why do some say recognition isn’t legal?

Israel and some of its allies argue that the recognition is illegal because Palestine lacks the attributes of a functioning state, such as full control of its territory or a centralised government. Legal opinion on whether Palestine meets the criteria of statehood is divided. But, regardless, these criteria are not consistently used to recognise states.

In fact, many states have been recognised well before they had complete control over their borders or institutions. Ironically, the US recognised Israel in 1948, refuting critics that this was premature due to the lack of clear borders. Recognition has, therefore, always been political.

But even if we take a more legal perspective, the international community, through numerous UN and other texts has long recognised the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own.

Does recognition ‘reward Hamas’, as Israel claims?

Recognising a state does not mean you recognise those who govern it. At the moment, for example, many states do not recognise Taliban rule, but this doesn’t mean they have stopped recognising the existence of Afghanistan as a state.

Similarly, the fact that Netanyahu is under arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity has not resulted in states withdrawing their recognition of the state of Israel and its people. Recognising a state is not the same as endorsing a specific government.

Not only that but all of the states that recently recognised Palestine have explicitly said that Hamas must play no role in a future government. France said that although it recognises the state of Palestine it won’t open an embassy until Hamas releases the hostages.

Will recognition make a difference?

The past few years have laid bare the limits of diplomacy in stopping the horrific human catastrophe unfolding in Gaza. This doesn’t leave much room for optimism. And, in a way, states taking brave diplomatic steps are, at the same time, exposing their reluctance to take more concrete action, such as sanctions, to press the government of Israel to end its war.

Still, the recognition brings the potential for snowball effects that would enhance the Palestinians’ international standing. They will be able to work more substantively with those governments who now recognise their state. More states may now also recognise Palestine, motivated by the fact others did the same.

And more recognition means better access to international forums, aid and legal instruments. For example, the UN’s recognition of Palestine as an observer state in 2011 allowed the International Court of Justice to hear South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide and the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.

The implications for the Israeli government and some of its allies could also be significant. The US will now be isolated as the only permanent member of the UN Security Council not recognising Palestine. States that do not recognise Palestine will be in a dissenting minority and more exposed to critiques in international forums and public opinion.

This growing isolation may not force immediate changes and may not bother the current US administration, which often does not follow the logic of traditional diplomacy. Still, over time, the pressure on Israel and its allies to engage with a peace process may grow.

In the end, recognition from some of the world’s biggest players breaks their longstanding alignment with consecutive Israeli governments. It shows how strongly their public and governments feel about Israel’s threat to Palestinian statehood through annexation and occupation. For Palestinians, recognition strengthens their political and moral standing. For the government of Israel, it does the opposite.

But recognition alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by sustained efforts to end the war in Gaza, hold perpetrators of violence accountable and revive peace efforts towards ending the occupation and allow Palestinians their rightful sovereignty alongside Israel.

George Kyris 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, Canada and Australia have recognised Palestine – what does that mean? Expert Q+A – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-canada-and-australia-have-recognised-palestine-what-does-that-mean-expert-q-a-265790

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amy Burge, Associate Professor in Popular Fiction, University of Birmingham

Stephenie Meyer’s debut novel, Twilight, was published in 2005 – the first in a series that went on to sell over 100 million copies worldwide. Twenty years, six novels and five movie adaptations later, it is clear that Twilight has permanently changed the shape of young adult (YA) fiction.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, most of the successful YA titles tended to be coming-of-age stories, such as The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky (1999), that focused on regular teenagers learning how to become independent. However, the popularity of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series (1997-2007) and Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy (1995-2000) primed a generation of readers for YA stories that embraced fantasy as a genre.

The stage was set for Twilight to emerge, combining YA romance and coming-of-age narratives with supernatural characters. Whereas Rowling and Pullman subordinated romance for adventure stories, Meyer made romance central to her plot, winning a vast readership among adolescent girls – and not a few adult women.

Following Twilight’s success, similar books flooded the market, leading to a decade-long YA paranormal romance boom. Among many examples were L.J. Smith’s Vampire Diaries series, originally published in the early 1990s but re-imagined in 2009 with new novels and a TV adaptation. And there was Richelle Mead’s Vampire Academy series (2007-2010), which was subsequently adapted into a film (2014) and television series (2022).

Suddenly, sexy vampires were everywhere – to the joy of many YA readers, and the alarm of many critics.

---

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

---

During the years of its greatest popularity, from 2008-12, everyone seemed to have an opinion on the Twilight series, including journalists and academics.

While Twilight clearly struck a chord with its fans, it was widely critiqued in the media for what were perceived to be its regressive depictions of race and gender. Such critiques often combined feminist concerns over dangerous messages the series might convey to its readers with a reflexive scorn for romance media that lent into traditional gender roles – and for the women who enjoyed it.

Despite (or because of) its vast popularity, Twilight was dismissed by some as “bad literature”. Fans of the series became the butt of a joke, caricatured as impressionable illiterates who needed to be saved from their own bad taste – and their assumed inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Consequently, many readers who devoured the books in their early teens distanced themselves from the franchise as they got older. They appeared keen to disavow any association with a series condemned as both aesthetically and ideologically worthless.

Twilight’s impact on YA fiction

Not everyone liked Twilight, but its impact was such that no author writing YA fiction could afford to ignore it. Indeed, much 2010s YA fiction can be understood as a mass of Twilight rewritings.

In these books, the same elements repeatedly appear – supernatural boyfriends, love triangles, seemingly-normal-but-actually-special heroines – but rearranged by each author to provide whatever they felt Twilight didn’t offer.

Even Meyer published two response novels to her original trilogy that addressed criticisms about their gender roles. Life and Death (2015) is a gender-swapped retelling of Twilight, featuring new characters, and Midnight Sun (2020) recounts the events of Twilight from vampire Edward Cullen’s point of view. Meyer was, in essence, writing fan fiction of her own works.

Much of the reader-response to Twilight emerged through fan fiction. Twilight is consistently one of the most popular fandoms: in August 2025, there were 13,067 fan fiction works based on the Twilight book series on Archive of Our Own, an open-source fan fiction archive. Some 1,814 of these works have been written or updated in 2025.

Famously, one such Twilight fan fiction – Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James – went on to become the fastest-selling novel in history on its release in 2011.

While the 2010s saw a reaction against Twilight, in the 2020s it has experienced a revival, as the books and (especially) films are being discovered by a new generation who interpret them as camp classics. As one modern Twilight fan on Reddit writes:

Twilight has dialogues that hold the power of making each and every one of us cringe – it’s amazing. We laugh because it’s so cringey. We love it because it so cringey. It’s iconic.

The YA publishing industry has also changed enormously. In 2005, the fact that Twilight openly courted an adolescent female readership made it a target for mockery. Today, that same demographic is the most coveted audience in publishing, and YA and “new adult” romances dominate the bestseller charts.

Modern YA fiction is far more diverse than it was in 2005, but there is still a clear line of descent from Twilight to the viral sensation A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas (2015), and to the modern romantasy genre.

Adult concerns over adolescent reading habits persist, and the critiques of 2020s romantasy as “fairy porn” closely mirror the attacks made on paranormal romance 20 years ago. But despite such criticism, modern YA fiction is to a great extent still the industry that Twilight created – one in which romance plots are foregrounded, female protagonists are the norm, and supernatural elements taken from the traditionally male-dominated genres of science fiction and fantasy are repurposed to tell stories by, for and about women.

Any comparison of the genre before and after Twilight makes clear how huge its influence has been. You might legitimately criticise Twilight’s prose style, its gender politics or its handling of race, but after 20 years, there is no doubt as to the extent of its legacy.

---

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.

---

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.

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. Twilight at 20: how Stephenie Meyer’s vampire saga changed young adult fiction forever – https://theconversation.com/twilight-at-20-how-stephenie-meyers-vampire-saga-changed-young-adult-fiction-forever-263459

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jason Gilchrist, Lecturer in the School of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University

A century ago, half a million rhinos roamed Africa and Asia. Today, just 27,000 remain.

The latest annual State Of The Rhino report, released this week by the International Rhino Foundation, shows no dramatic declines in population numbers in the past year. On the surface, this might seem like good news: after decades of poaching, habitat loss and trafficking, rhino numbers are holding steady.

But that stability masks something darker. We may be falling victim to what conservation scientists call “shifting baseline syndrome”, where our expectations deteriorate over time as conditions get worse. Accepting 27,000 as a new normal – something to be celebrated, even – could spell disaster for the long-term future of the rhino.

The report tracks population estimates, threats and conservation progress for all five rhino species:

In Africa, black rhinos numbers have risen slightly to 6,788 (from 6,195), a welcome recovery from the 1990s when they plummeted to just 2,300. But as recently as 1960 there were more than 100,000. White rhinos, the most numerous species, fell to 15,752 (from 17,464). This continues a long-term decline, despite continued efforts to reduce poaching.

In Asia, greater one-horned rhino edged up to 4,075 (from 4,014), but the number of Sumataran rhinos remains perilously low at between 34 and 47, while Javan rhinos have crashed to 50 down from 76 due to illegal hunting.

The report also highlights concerns that rhinos in South Africa – home to most of the world’s rhinos – face long-term genetic risks from inbreeding and will struggle to adapt to change. South Africa’s rhino now survive only in fenced reserves, unable to roam naturally, and therefore live mostly in isolated small populations.

Radioactive rhino horn

The lack of encouraging increases in rhino populations is concerning, as governments and conservationists have made serious efforts to tackle poaching. In South Africa in particular, rhino have been translocated (sometimes by helicopter) to somewhere safer, they’ve had their horns removed, or laced with poison, and/or microchipped, or fitted with GPS trackers. Some are even under guard from dedicated military-grade anti-poaching teams.

Arguably, these actions have had some effect in stemming the loss of African rhino to poachers. But rhino horn is worth so much on the illegal market (between about US$11,000 and US$22,000, or £8,000 to £16,000, per kilogram) that the illegal killing continues.

So, what next? The latest application of tech is injecting harmless radioactive isotopes into rhino horn to help customs officials detect trafficked horns at borders. This won’t stop poachers killing rhino. But it should make life more difficult for illegal trafficking syndicates.

The case of John Hume

The report is published amid a fresh scandal in South Africa, the epicentre of both rhino conservation and rhino crime.

John Hume, a South African businessman, was the world’s largest private rhino owner with 2,000 animals. He was controversial, as he publicly advocated for an end to the national and international bans on the sale of rhino horn.

Financial difficulties led to Hume selling his herd to NGO African Parks in 2023. Now, he and other alleged syndicate members face charges of fraud and theft over the illegal trafficking of nearly 1,000 rhino horns. Cases like this highlight the scale of the alleged organised crime networks driving the trade – and why it is so hard to police across borders.

What next for rhino?

To save the rhino, we’ll need to disrupt all parts of the illegal rhino horn chain, prevent and catch poachers and traffickers, and put the kingpins behind transnational syndicates out of commission. However, the most impactful long-term action remains comparatively under-resourced: reducing demand.

Large-scale, long-term, well-backed “demand reduction” campaigns to deter ownership and use of rhino horn are needed, especially in Asia where demand is highest. It may take years to shift attitudes. But demand reduction is much safer. Rangers, anti-poaching team members and poachers themselves have all been killed in the protection and pursuit of rhino in the African savanna.

Most importantly, we must not give up. Recovery is possible. For instance, white rhinos bounced back from under 200 animals to over 20,000 before a poaching resurgence this century. With enough resources and effort, rhinos could thrive again.

For the sake of the rhino, their ecosystems and us, we need to reverse habitat loss, bring rhino together into larger healthier populations, and undermine poaching and trafficking of rhino horn. Ultimately, the goal is to bring rhino back from the brink of extinction and toward historical baseline population sizes.

If we accept today’s numbers as “normal”, we risk condemning rhinos to at best permanent near-extinction, with populations only ever a bad government or anarchic war, or a poaching spike or natural disaster, away from being wiped out. And if we can’t save such a huge, charismatic and ecologically important animal, what hope for other species?

Jason Gilchrist 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 near-extinction of rhinos is at risk of being normalised – https://theconversation.com/the-near-extinction-of-rhinos-is-at-risk-of-being-normalised-265792

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth

Following the shooting of his political ally, the far-right activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, on September 10, Donald Trump has signalled his intention to pursue his political enemies – what he refers to as the “radical left”. In the days following Kirk’s assassination, the US president took to social media to announce he was planning on designating the antifa movement a terrorist organisation.

Calling antifa a “SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER”, Trump also threatened to investigate any organisations funding antifa. And when Kirk’s widow, Erika, said she forgave the person who has been arrested for the murder, Trump said he did not. “I hate my opponent,” he told people at a memorial event for Kirk at the weekend.

But Trump’s decision to target his ideological opponents faces significant legal and constitutional issues.

It’s not the first time that Trump has threatened such action. In 2020, he threatened the same thing on social media in response to the widespread protests following the death of George Floyd. But just as is the case in the present day, there was no legal process to designate any domestic group as a terrorist organisation.

Trump also appears to have misunderstood what antifa is. He represents it as a defined organisation, when it is more like a broad ideology. Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University, New Jersey, described the movement as similar to feminism. “There are feminist groups, but feminism itself is not a group. There are antifa groups, but antifa itself is not a group,” he said.

Antifa is shorthand for “anti-fascist”. It has no centralised leadership or defined structure. Despite being able to mobilise to oppose far-right groups with protests and counter-demonstrations, the movement’s dispersed character hampers efforts to classify it as an organisation of any formal kind.

Plans to use Rico laws

One of the laws Trump has suggested that US attorney-general Pam Bondi could use against antifa is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Rico) Act of 1970. This was passed by Richard Nixon to tackle organised crime, but its application has since been extended to investigate various other organisations and individuals. This has included Donald Trump himself, over alleged irregularities in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election.

Although it would be challenging, the Trump administration might try to use Rico laws to break up antifa’s network if the movement is classified as a terrorist organisation. Authorities could argue that specific individuals are engaged in a series of racketeering activities, including any acts of violence or other criminal behaviour linked to the movement. But this method would undoubtedly face considerable legal challenges.

If the US government finds a way to define antifa as a group and identify people as members – it’s not clear at the moment whether this might be possible – it would then be possible to seek out and attempt to prosecute anyone who facilitates their activities or gives them funds. But as David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, North Carolina, told the BBC this week: “Under the First Amendment, no one can be punished for joining a group or giving money to a group.”

Nevertheless, antifa activists may be subject to increased surveillance if the movement is proscribed. Such actions would mirror the FBI’s extra-legal counterintelligence programme (Cointelpro) that targeted the new left in America during the 1960s. Civil rights groups and Democrats would inevitably raise serious questions concerning executive overreach and possible violations of civil liberties.

Power grab

Labelling antifa as a terrorist group would allow the federal government to circumvent state-controlled law enforcement. It may seek to do so especially in Democrat states and cities where authorities might be hesitant to act against liberal or left-wing demonstrators. Federal agencies such as the FBI and Department of Homeland Security might be drafted in to lead investigations and prosecutions, superseding state authorities.

This consolidation of power would create further legal and political difficulties. While the Posse Comitatus Act is supposed to bar the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement, there are exceptions. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807 it would give him the power to deploy troops to restore order.

Antifa’s classification as a terrorist organisation could have profound effects on the first amendment rights of large numbers of law-abiding US citizens. It would be a serious danger to American democracy if US citizens were unable to voice their protest and exercise their right to free speech because of this classification.

A decision to vilify anti-establishment rhetoric would set a dangerous precedent for silencing dissent and infringing fundamental constitutional rights in the US during the 21st century.

The administration’s position on domestic extremism has changed significantly with Trump’s plan to label antifa as a terrorist organisation. The political consequences are far-reaching, potentially setting important precedents for the balance between civil liberties and US national security. This could shift the focus more toward security and potentially harm individual freedoms.

But it’s unlikely that the Trump administration will be deterred by any constitutional considerations. This is an executive branch that has acted first and sought justification through the courts. There will be a lengthy legal process if Trump follows through on this. But by the time courts make their final decision, the damage will already have been done to the US political system.

Dafydd Townley 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. Going after ‘antifa’: Donald Trump’s plans to crush his political foes – https://theconversation.com/going-after-antifa-donald-trumps-plans-to-crush-his-political-foes-265686

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Nicolau, Reader, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London

A £150 billion technology prosperity deal between the US and the UK was announced during President Donald Trump’s recent state visit to the UK.

But what kinds of technologies could it advance and how will these benefit the British public?

The Conversation asked Dr Dan Nicolau, who researches the interface of biology and computing, medical science and artificial intelligence (AI), at King’s College London for his thoughts.

AI has been the focus of this deal, but what other technologies could it benefit?

It’s a large amount of money, even for a wealthy medium-sized country like the UK. The big unknown is whether the various technical challenges associated with these technologies are overcome. It’s a big bet. It’s important if you want to see big economic benefits over the next ten years, say.

Those challenges include hallucinations by AI, where they invent information. The other thing relates to whether we have enough electricity. The government could build nuclear power plants. But that’s a big commitment over many years.

It’s also not totally clear that some of these tech advances directly translate to economic growth. There’s a quantum computing component to this deal and it’s directed towards developing lots of new medicinal drugs.

It’s not completely clear that if you had 100 new drugs for cancer that you would have the capacity to do the clinical trials to see that they worked. Maybe AI can accelerate the clinical trials but all of this is a big question mark. It’s a big bet that we can solve these problems in three to four years so we can get some economic growth over the next ten years.

Occasionally, there is some big breakthrough with quantum computing. Last year, Google announced that it had built a processor that drastically reduces the errors that quantum computers are prone to. But it’s not clear that running quantum computers at very cold temperatures or scaling or reducing the error rates translate into concrete breakthroughs. It might do, but it’s a little bit of a gamble. We don’t necessarily know if we’ll have answers in the next five years, but I think we’ll know a lot more in the next two.

Of the potential technologies, such as self-driving cars, drones and advanced chips, which could yield real benefits to people?

The question is about timescale. If I knew that I had a drug that could cure breast cancer or lung cancer, say. Even if I could prove that scientifically, it would be ten years before anyone could receive that drug. That’s because I’d have to publish the paper, it would have to be tested in mice, then clinical trials in humans.

In other areas, like for example, accounting, planning, contracts in law – all of that stuff, things can be done now. Some things can be done so much faster, it’s hard to imagine there wouldn’t be major economic impact in two years. Because AI tools are able to accelerate writing computer code, I think that’s an area where we’d see half of code, maybe, being automated in the next two years. Whether that’s good for people in coding jobs, let’s see.

With drones, there are a couple of challenges – they can’t operate alone so they need constant human supervision. We’re working on a project where we’re trying to upload a fly brain into a drone. The fly already knows how to fly so if you put its brain into a drone, the drone will be able to fly on its own. AI tools can really help with that and making cheap, genuinely autonomous drones and other things like mini submarines for example.

Also, drones can only operate for short periods of time. So if AI tools were able to help them recharge on their own or share tasks, they could go from something that’s used by hobbyists and the military to self-driving cars, drug delivery to people at home, all of that stuff becomes much much easier. It opens up infrastructure development for drones, like highways in the sky specifically for drones. The potential economic openings are huge, but each of them has a question mark over them.

How likely is it that some of these problems can be overcome, do you think?

The billion pound question. With the hallucination problem with AI, there is no viable solution on the horizon. There are lots of patches and some of them are quite clever.

We don’t understand the reason hallucinations are happening because it’s a science problem and there are hardly any scientists working on it. OpenAI has 100 scientists in that team and 1,000 engineers. Google is the same. The engineers can’t fix it because it’s not an engineering problem.

But it’s wider than that. LLMs will provide answers based on the data that they’ve been fed, but they’re missing common sense. Until these problems are solved they’re not going to be able to operate without loads of human oversight.

Dan Nicolau 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 US-UK tech deal could yield significant benefits for the British public – expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/how-us-uk-tech-deal-could-yield-significant-benefits-for-the-british-public-expert-qanda-265707

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Bailey, Professor of Business Economics, University of Birmingham

Car manufacturing at Jaguar Land Rover recently ground to a halt after a “catastrophic” cyber-attack.

Forced to shut down plants in the UK, Slovakia, Brazil, India and China, the disruption comes at a challenging time for the company. It had already postponed the launch of new models after the uptake of electric vehicles stalled. And Donald Trump’s tariffs have been a major cause of concern for the British car industry as a whole.

Profits at Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) will undoubtedly take a hit, as they did at M&S and Co-op when they were the victims of cyber-attacks earlier this year.

Normally, JLR makes around 1,000 cars a day, with the average price of a new vehicle around £72,000. That means JLR is missing out on daily sales of some £72 million, and profits of £5 million a day.

The firm has now extended the shutdown to September 24 2025, by which time the loss of revenues will be around £1.7 billion and the hit to profits some £120 million. There are even fears that this could go on until November, and restarting production will be a complex business given the “build to order” nature of premium cars (when vehicles are only manufactured after a customer purchase is confirmed).

But the longer the shutdown goes on, the more likely it is that those customers will simply decide to go elsewhere. For the time being, spare parts can’t be ordered, cars can’t be serviced, and new car sales will stall, in what is usually a particularly busy month.

The firm’s brand image will take a battering too, to add to recent social media derision which has included an attack from Donald Trump and a much maligned brand relaunch last year which centred on the controversial design of its “Type OO” concept car.

There are also livelihoods at stake. The company’s supply chain, centred in the west Midlands region of the UK, supports as many as 200,000 jobs.

The longer the shutdown goes on the bigger the impact on the supply chain. Firms have already sent staff home, while others are running out of money. According to the Unite union, some supply chain workers have been told to apply for state benefits.

Road ahead

For its part, JLR has said that it can survive the shutdown but that its supply chain will need help – a call echoed by the union and some members of parliament.

And the UK government really needs to start thinking about a financial lifeline to keep the supply chain going. That could be in the form of a furlough scheme to keep workers in place or some sort of loan scheme for supply chain firms.

Both were used during COVID and thought to have safeguarded some 4 million jobs.

Emergency support in response to shocks is common in other countries like Germany, and has been used in the UK car manufacturing supply chain before, after the MG Rover closure in 2005, and also after the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami which saw the interrupted flow of key components from Japan shut down production at Honda.

That support came via the regional development agency Advantage West Midlands (in the case of MG Rover) and later the Manufacturing Advisory Service (after the Japanese earthquake).

Both agencies have since been scrapped, underscoring the lack of any “place-based” or region-specific industrial policy capacity in England. That really needs to change.

The Department for Business and Trade and its new secretary of state Peter Kyle need to be doing more than just monitoring the situation. It needs to start thinking about how emergency support could be provided to the supply chain. A huge number of jobs depend on JLR getting up and running again – and quickly.

David Bailey receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council through the UK in a Changing Europe Programme.

– ref. Cyber-attackers slammed the brakes on Jaguar Land Rover’s manufacturing – here’s why the UK government should step in – https://theconversation.com/cyber-attackers-slammed-the-brakes-on-jaguar-land-rovers-manufacturing-heres-why-the-uk-government-should-step-in-265126