Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Huma Tariq Malik, Ph.D. Student in Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University

As the world’s climate warms and droughts and water shortages are becoming more common, farmers are struggling to produce enough food. Farmers continue to adapt, but there are ways for you to help, too.

For decades, farmers have sought to conserve water in agriculture, with a focus on improving irrigation efficiency. That has included decreasing the practice of flood irrigation, in which water flows through trenches between rows of plants. Instead, many farmers are adopting more precise methods of delivering water to plants’ roots, such as sprinklers and drip systems.

In recent years, policymakers, researchers and consumers have come to look more closely at opportunities to conserve water throughout the entire process of growing, shipping, selling and eating food. Working with colleagues, we have identified several key ways to reduce water used in agriculture – some of which directly involve farmers, but two of which everyone can follow, to help reduce how much water is used to grow the food they eat.

Some work for farmers

Farmers can match crops to local land, water and climate conditions to reduce stress on scarce resources and make food production more sustainable in the long run. That could include reducing the amount of alfalfa and other hay crops used to feed livestock, or swapping out wheat and sorghum and instead planting corn and potatoes.

The condition of the soil also matters. Many farmers have focused on short-term productivity, relying on fertilizers or frequent tillage to boost yields from one season to the next. But over time, those practices wear down the soil, making it less fertile and less able to hold water.

Soil is not just a surface to grow things on. It is a living system that can be built and fed or depleted. Practices such as planting cover crops in the off-season to protect the soil, reducing tillage, applying compost and rotating different types of crops can all help soil hold more water and support crops even during droughts.

A choice for consumers

Adapting on-farm practices addresses only part of the water conservation effort. While crops are grown in fields, they move through a vast network of processors, distributors, supermarkets and households before being eaten, wasted or lost. At each link in this chain, consumers’ choices determine how much agricultural water is ultimately saved.

People’s dietary preferences, in particular, play a major role in agricultural water use. Producing meat requires significantly more water than growing plant-based foods.

Per capita, Americans consume nearly three times the global average amount of meat each year.

While eliminating meat altogether is not everyone’s goal, even modest shifts in diet, whether reducing overall meat consumption or selecting proteins that use less water to produce, can ease the strain. Producing a pound of beef requires an estimated 1,800 gallons of water, compared with about 500 gallons for a pound of chicken.

Replacing all meat with the equivalent quantities of plant-based foods with comparable nutrition profiles could cut the average American’s food-related water use by nearly 30%. Even replacing a small amount of meat with plant-based foods or meats that require less water can make a difference.

While a single meal may seem inconsequential, if multiplied across millions of households these choices translate into meaningful water savings.

A second savings opportunity

Perhaps the simplest and most powerful step people can take to save water used in agriculture is to cut back on food waste.

In the United States, 22% of total water use is tied to producing food that ultimately goes uneaten.

In developing countries, losses often result from limited storage and transportation, but in high-income nations like the United States, most waste happens at the retail and household level. In the U.S., households alone account for nearly 50% of all food discarded nationwide.

This creates a major opportunity for everyone to contribute to water conservation. Understanding the water embedded in different foods can make people more mindful about what ends up in the trash.

And on top of feeling good about helping the environment, there’s a financial reward: Wasting less food also means saving the money spent on food that would have gone to waste.

Huma Tariq Malik receives funding from USDA.

Thomas Borch receives funding from NSF, USDA, and NOAA.

– ref. 2 ways you can conserve the water used to make your food – https://theconversation.com/2-ways-you-can-conserve-the-water-used-to-make-your-food-267501

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Emery Petchauer, Visiting Professor, Teachers College, Columbia University

Oklahoma has become a testing ground for reshaping public school curriculum to reflect conservative viewpoints, Make America Great Again priorities and a push for Christian nationalism in the classroom.

Oklahoma’s former state education Superintendent Ryan Walters oversaw several controversial education policies in recent years, including mandating in 2024 that all Oklahoma public teachers incorporate the Bible into their lesson plans.

Walters resigned from his position in September 2025 to lead Teacher Freedom Alliance, a conservative advocacy group that opposes teachers unions.

One unprecedented move Walters made was adopting a teacher assessment called The America-First Assessment, designed by PragerU, a conservative nonprofit media company. Walters said the purpose of this exam, which went live in August 2025, was to screen out “woke indoctrination.”

By authorizing this assessment, Walters signed off on a conservative and far-right political organization having a say in which prospective teachers from out of state receive their Oklahoma teaching licenses.

The exam was short-lived. Walters’ replacement, Lindel Fields, announced at the end of October 2025 that Oklahoma would no longer use this assessment. Fields also rescinded the Bible mandate for Oklahoma schools.

But other states could still adopt the exam, free of charge. The exam and its controversy offers a window into the current politicization of state education systems, this time with respect to the licensing of teachers.

As an education researcher, I have written about other teacher assessments and some of the issues surrounding them, such as screening out Black teachers.

Walter’s “anti-woke” teacher exam is a unique kind of experiment. The test was not made by a professional assessment company and does not legitimately assess professional knowledge related to the subjects teachers teach.

A politicized test for teachers

The America-First exam consists of 34 multiple-choice questions that ask about the U.S. Constitution, government, religious liberty, history and Supreme Court cases. One question asks, “What are the first three words of the Constitution?” Another question asks, “What does the Second Amendment protect?” Other questions inquire about gender and sex, with questions like, “What is the fundamental biological distinction between males and females?” and “Which chromosome pair determines biological sex in humans?”

Walters made the political purpose of the exam clear.

“We have to make sure that the teachers in our classrooms, as we’re recruiting these individuals, aren’t a bunch of woke, Marxist activists,” Walters said in August 2025.

Walters has also said the exam was designed to specifically root out liberal teacher applicants who might fill teacher vacancies in Oklahoma and bring progressive training on race and gender with them, or what Walters called “blue state indoctrination.”

When the test went live in August, it expanded to all teachers from other states trying to get a license to teach in Oklahoma.

An exam you cannot fail

The America-First Assessment is not like the typical licensure exams made by professional assessment companies. These other exams cover the specific subject matter teachers should know to do their job: math for math teachers, science for science teachers, and so on.

Instead of a subject-specific focus, the America-First Assessment is mostly aligned with President Donald Trump’s “America first” talking points, particularly through its focus on gender and sex.

The most striking aspect of the exam, however, is that it is impossible to fail. If you don’t know the first three words of the U.S. Constitution, you can guess answers until you get it right. In fact, the test will advance to the next question only after you register a correct answer. Everyone who finishes the test will get 100% correct.

As a result, as some observers have pointed out, the exam resembles a political ideology test and not a legitimate assessment of professional knowledge.

Unlike the SAT, which considers its content proprietary, legally protected information, many of the America-First Assessment questions are publicly available.

Further, unlike established exams such as the SAT and GRE, the America-First exam has no technical information about how it was designed or what the questions are supposed to measure. As a result, the exam resembles a “MAGA loyalty test,” according to American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten.

A conservative media company expands into teacher assessment

The America-First Assessment’s unique format and political content reflect the priorities of PragerU, the conservative media company that created it.

Conservative radio host Dennis Prager founded PragerU in 2009. The company produces educational and entertainment videos rooted in conservative ideology.

PragerU’s more than 5,000 online videos include short segments such as “Make Men Masculine Again,” “How Many Radical Islam Sleepers are in the United States?” and “America Was Founded on Freedom Not Slavery.” Prominent far-right influencers including Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk have appeared in videos.

PragerU’s primary YouTube page has more than 3.4 million subscribers.

Scholarly analysis of PragerU videos have found the content minimizes the impact of slavery and promotes misinformation on topics including climate change.

In its children’s video “Frederick Douglass: The Outspoken Abolitionist,” the fictionalized cartoon of Douglass warns children to “stay away from radicals” who want to change the American system rather than work within it. “Our system is wonderful, and our Constitution is a glorious liberty document. We just need to convince enough Americans to be true to it,” he concludes.

In 2021, the company launched PragerU Kids, an offshoot targeting school-age children and educators with lesson plans, worksheets and other learning materials tied to its videos. Some other states, including Florida, New Hampshire and Montana, have approved PragerU’s videos as curriculum for their public schools to consider using since 2023.

The company’s move into teacher assessments in 2025 expands its influence beyond curriculum into who can earn a teaching license.

A possible strategy for other states

Both Walters and PragerU CEO Marissa Streit pitched the exam as an option for all “pro-America” states at its launch in August 2025. Some conservative policy analysts have also praised this strategy’s goals of ridding public schools of all “woke” teachers.

As a result, it is unlikely this is the last people will hear of PragerU or other private media companies trying to screen teachers.

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

– ref. Oklahoma tried out a test to ‘woke-proof’ the classroom. It was short-lived, but could still leave a mark – https://theconversation.com/oklahoma-tried-out-a-test-to-woke-proof-the-classroom-it-was-short-lived-but-could-still-leave-a-mark-266546

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Peter McGraw, Professor of Marketing and Psychology, University of Colorado Boulder

On Nov. 11 each year, a curious holiday takes over China. What began among Nanjing University students in the 1990s as a tongue-in-cheek counter to Valentine’s Day has exploded into the world’s largest shopping event: Singles’ Day.

The date, 11/11, was chosen because the four ones resemble “bare sticks,” Chinese slang for singles. Today, the holiday generates more than US$150 billion in annual sales, exceeding those on Black Friday and Amazon Prime Day combined.

As a bachelor, behavioral economist and business school professor, I study how single living is transforming consumer behavior and market dynamics. My work has convinced me that Singles’ Day, or something like it, could resonate far beyond Asia. Here’s why.

A profitable solo boom, starting in Asia

The unmarried will soon make up the majority in many countries, and this shift is already reshaping culture and commerce across Asia.

It’s not a coincidence that Singles’ Day emerged in China. The country’s one-child policy, in effect from 1980 to 2015, led many families to prefer sons – creating a gender imbalance that left millions of men without potential female partners. At the same time, rising education and career opportunities have given many women the independence to forgo traditional marriage altogether.

You can see a similar pattern across East Asia. In Japan, single-person households now outnumber those of married couples with children. In South Korea, one-person households reached nearly 36% in 2023, the highest share on record. Together, these shifts are fueling what Japanese call “ohitorisama,” or the “party of one,” and what Koreans describe as “honjok,” or “alone tribe,” cultures: movements that celebrate independence and self-reliance.

Businesses across Asia have seized the opportunity, catering to independent lifestyles with offerings such as single-seat karaoke booths and movie theaters designed for solo patrons. Singles’ Day is a prime example of companies capitalizing on this shift.

Each year, retailers across Asia embrace the occasion with themed promotions, presales and limited-edition product launches. Companies such as Xiaomi release exclusive smartphones, while Nike introduces new sneakers every Singles’ Day. Even airlines have joined in: Singapore’s Jetstar Asia once offered 111,111 discounted seats, positioning solo travel as an empowering experience.

Singles’ Day channels massive spending power – reframing singlehood as something to celebrate rather than lament – and shows how a retail event can feed a cultural shift. In the U.S. and across much of the rest of the world, meanwhile, businesses remain wed to an outdated assumption: that marriage is everyone’s destiny. It’s not.

Single in America

Right now, half of American adults are unmarried, and half of those singles aren’t seeking a relationship.

In 1960, only 10% of American adults would remain single for life. Today, some forecasts show that 25% of millennials, who are now between 29 and 44, and 33% of Gen Z who are 13 to 28, will never marry. While the average age of first marriage was just 21 in 1960, today it has risen to 29.

Through my Solo project – which includes a book, podcast and TED talk – I explore how widely single people’s goals vary, both in relationships and beyond.

By understanding singles’ diverse goals and lifestyles, American businesses can gain a competitive edge with targeted communication, innovative products and tailored services. Singles aren’t a monolith. My research identifies four main types:

• “Somedays” aspire to find “the one” and settle down. They are the group businesses usually market to.

• “Just Mays” share that goal but aren’t waiting around for it – they’re investing in homes, traveling solo and pursuing independent ambitions in the meantime.

• “New Ways” reject the idea that traditional marriage is the default, experimenting with models such as “living apart together,” polyamory or platonic partnerships.

• “No Ways” are opting out of the dating market entirely. Most do so not out of bitterness but because they have more important goals – or because they simply enjoy single life.

This diversity matters. “Somedays” may respond to dating apps and matchmaking services. “Just Mays” and “New Ways” gravitate toward experiences, hobbies and personal growth. “No Ways” are alienated by romance-centric messaging and instead embrace autonomy and community.

To explore how Singles’ Day might be received in North America, I surveyed nearly 400 U.S. singles ages 24 to 59. The most common ways they said they’d celebrate were by finding a date, treating themselves to a gift or practicing self-care.

American companies and the solo economy

In many industries, a 2% demographic shift ought to trigger an all-hands marketing meeting. So how can the decades-long rise of single living still go largely overlooked by most companies in the U.S.?

To be fair, there have been glimmers of recognition in recent years. For example, in 2021, Visible Wireless repositioned its “family plans” to “friends and family plans without the family drama.” In 2024, Norwegian Cruise Line introduced studio cabins for solo travelers, tackling the long-standing and dreaded “single supplement.” Similarly, IKEA, after offering a Valentine’s dinner only for couples in 2024, pivoted this year to an inclusive promotion: “Bring a loved one, a good friend, or the whole family.”

But those are the exceptions rather than the rule. What should U.S. brands do to appeal to this growing market? Here’s my advice:

• Rethink assumptions about dating and belonging. Not all singles seek romance. Create meaningful nonromantic experiences that reflect solo lifestyles – singles-themed events, community nights or “bring-a-friend (or don’t)” offers.

• Segment by goals, not just age. A 25-year-old solo traveler and a 60-year-old empty-nester may both respond to a message about independence.

• Tailor offerings for people who live – and do things – alone. The “rightsizing” trend is already underway: smaller grocery packs, single-serve meal kits, compact appliances and studio-friendly furniture. Travel and entertainment can follow suit with solo pricing, seating and perks that don’t penalize independence.

I teach my business students to ask, “Is there a market?” and “Can we serve it profitably?” The answers here are obvious. Singles are everywhere. They’re dining alone, traveling solo, buying homes and spending billions. And yet they remain largely overlooked in a world built for two.

The rise of Singles’ Day in Asia shows what happens when businesses take singles seriously: consumer innovation, cultural relevance and record-breaking profits. I expect the U.S. will follow – whether reluctantly or enthusiastically. The only question in my mind is: When?

I have a book (“Solo: Building a Remarkable Life of Your Own”) and a podcast (“Solo – The Single Person’s Guide to a Remarkable Life”) that are relevant to this article.

– ref. Singles’ Day is a $150B holiday in China. Here’s why I think ‘11/11’ will catch on in the US – https://theconversation.com/singles-day-is-a-150b-holiday-in-china-heres-why-i-think-11-11-will-catch-on-in-the-us-266566

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Samia Islam, Professor of Economics, Boise State University

When fewer people belong to unions and unions have less power, the impact goes beyond wages and job security. Those changes can hurt public health and make people more unhappy.

We’re economists who research labor and health issues. Those are two of the main findings of studies that we have conducted.

More unionization, more happiness

In the first study on this topic that we published in 2023, we found that increasing levels of union membership tends to make working-class people happier.

We zeroed in on a question in the General Social Survey, which the University of Chicago makes available. It asks respondents to choose whether they are “very happy,” “somewhat happy” or “not at all happy” with their life.

We found that, from 1993 to 2018, when the share of workers in counties along the borders of states with and without right-to-work laws who belong to unions rose by 1 percentage point, the average level of happiness for low-income residents moved 15% closer toward being “very happy” – a seemingly modest but noticeable change.

Right-to-work laws let workers skip paying union dues when they’re employed by a company that has negotiated a contract with a labor union. In states without right-to-work laws, those dues are mandatory. As a result, right-to-work laws weaken unions’ ability to negotiate better working conditions and reduce the share of workers who belong to unions.

But a higher rate of union membership didn’t significantly affect the happiness of higher-income people.

Right-to-work laws

The first right-to-work laws were adopted by states in the 1940s. After a long lull, the pace picked up around 2000. These laws were in force in 26 states as of late 2025.

Four of those states made the switch between 2001 and 2015: Oklahoma in 2001, Indiana in 2012, Michigan in 2012 and Wisconsin in 2015. We used data collected in these four states to conduct what is known in economics as an “event study” – a research method that provides before-and-after pictures of a significant change that affects large numbers of people.

Michigan repealed its right-to-work law in 2024, but our data is from 2001-2015, and Michigan became a right-to-work state during that period and remained one for the rest of that time.

Less unionization, more opioid overdoses

In a related working paper that we plan to publish in an upcoming edition of an academic journal, we looked into other effects of right-to-work laws. Specifically, we investigated whether, as more states adopted those laws, the gradual decline in union strength those statutes produce was contributing to an increase in opioid overdoses.

We used a research technique called the synthetic control method to assess whether declining union power has affected the number of opioid overdoses.

We drew our data from a variety of sources, including the Treatment Episode Data Set, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Multiple Cause of Death database, the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, the union membership and coverage database, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illness and Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries.

We found that both fatal and nonfatal opioid overdoses increased within six years of the enactment of right-to-work laws in all four of the states we studied.

We primarily found a connection between opioid overdoses and right-to-work laws among men and male teens between ages 16 and 64 – making them of working age – with dangerous jobs, such as roofing or freight moving, and little job security. They were people who tend to feel more job stress because they don’t have control over their work tasks and schedules.

We didn’t observe those same results for women or deaths from non-opioid drugs, such as cocaine.

Lower levels of unionization are linked to weaker job security and reduced workplace protections, previous research has shown. Our work suggests these factors may play a role in increasing demand for opioids.

Declining union membership

The share of U.S. workers who belong to unions has fallen by half in the past four decades, declining from just over 20% in 1983 to a little under 10% in 2024.

Because unions advocate for better and safer working conditions, they can raise wages and living standards for their members. Interestingly, some of these benefits can also extend to people who don’t belong to unions.

An opioid use disorder crisis has devastated communities across the U.S. for more than 25 years. The death toll from drug overdoses soared from 17,500 in 2000 to 105,000 in 2023. The number of overdose deaths did fall in 2024, to about 81,000, but it remains historically high. Most fatal drug overdoses since the crisis began have been caused by opioids.

Throughout this crisis, government policies have focused largely on reducing the supply of prescription opioids, such as OxyContin, and illegal opioids, especially fentanyl, distributed outside the health care system.

Causes of despair

Despite successful interventions to shut down pill mills – clinics that prescribe opioids without a valid medical reason – and expand access to prevention and treatment, drug overdoses remain a leading cause of death.

And we believe that our findings support results from earlier studies that determined despair is not just an emotional or biological reaction – it can also be a response to social and economic conditions.

We are continuing to research the connections between union membership and public health. The next question we are working on is whether a decline in union membership can have a multigenerational impact, going beyond the workers employed today and affecting the lives of their children and grandchildren.

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

– ref. Declining union membership could be making working-class Americans less happy and more susceptible to drug overdoses – https://theconversation.com/declining-union-membership-could-be-making-working-class-americans-less-happy-and-more-susceptible-to-drug-overdoses-264970

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Allison Anna Tait, Professor of Law, University of Richmond

Diane Keaton loved her dog, Reggie.

The award-winning actor, director and real estate entrepreneur frequently posted photos and video clips of the golden retriever on her social media accounts. After she died on Oct. 11, 2025, at 79, some news outlets reported that she left US$5 million of her estimated $100 million estate to her dog.

I’m a law professor who teaches about wills, trusts and other forms of inheritance law. Every semester, I teach my students how they can help clients provide for their pets after death. Because they, like many Americans, love their pets and want to know how to take care of them, this topic always piques their interest.

Writing pets into a will

An estimated 66% of all U.S. households include at least one pet. Many Americans consider their cats, dogs, tortoises or other animals to be part of their family, and their spending on those nonhuman relatives is immense. In 2024, they paid a total of about $152 billion for goods and services to feed and otherwise support their pets.

Taking good care of your pets can go beyond buying them treats and sweaters. It can include leaving clear directions to ensure their needs are met once you’re gone. There are several ways that you can do this.

The first is through your will. You can’t give your pet money directly in your will, because the law says that pets are property, like your books or your dishes.

You can, however, leave a bequest, the technical term for a gift to a person or a cause listed in a will, to someone who will be the animal’s caretaker. That bequest can include directions that the money be spent meeting the pet’s needs.

It’s worth it to also name an alternate or contingent caretaker in case the first person you name does not want to or cannot take on that responsibility, or they die before you or the animals you’ve provided for in the will.

Choupette’s life of luxury

German fashion designer, photographer and creative director Karl Lagerfeld, who died in 2019 at 85, was someone who made the mistake of leaving money directly to his fluffy Birman cat, Choupette. It worked out for Choupette, though.

The cat was, according to several reports, still alive in 2025 and eating meals out of the porcelain bowls that Lagerfeld bought for her. Choupette is cared for at great expense and in the utmost luxury by Françoise Caçote, the designer’s former housekeeper. The cat even had a 13th birthday party at Versailles.

Another pet owner who did right by her pet was the comedian, producer and red carpet interviewer Joan Rivers.

Rivers had two rescue dogs in Manhattan and two more dogs in California when she died in 2014 at age 81. Rivers had made provisions for their care in her will.

Creating pet trusts

If you’d like an arrangement that’s more secure than a will, then you might want to opt for a pet trust, another celebrity favorite. These kinds of trusts were not possible until the 1990s, because pets were not considered true beneficiaries – meaning they couldn’t sue the trustee.

But in the 1990s, states began to change their rules to allow for pet trusts. Today, pet trusts are valid in the whole country, although the rules vary slightly from state to state.

To establish a pet trust, you or a lawyer must draw up a trust document that names two important people: a trustee and a caretaker. The trustee is the person who will manage the money you leave in trust. They will make distributions to the caretaker that you select.

You must also specify how the money is to be spent meeting the animal’s needs and who would get any money that could be left in the trust when the pet dies. Typically, these trusts take effect at the owner’s death, just like other provisions in a will.

Drafting a pet trust can be free, if you use an online template and get no legal guidance. The same thing might cost around $100 if you use an online service such as Legal Zoom that provides directions. More commonly, however, pet trusts are part of a broader estate plan, and costs range depending on how complicated your estate is.

When the rich go overboard

One of the most over-the-top pet trusts came from Leona Helmsley, the New York hotel and real estate mogul known widely as the “Queen of Mean.” She was famous for her pettiness and tough management style and for landing in prison for tax evasion.

When Helmsley died in 2007, she left her dog, a Maltese named Trouble who had reportedly bitten members of her staff, a $12 million trust fund. Most of Helmsley’s estate went to the Helmsley Charitable Trust, but she made individual gifts to several relatives, and the gift to Trouble was larger than any of those.

The grandchildren, upset that Trouble got more money than they did, took the case to court, where the probate judge was less than impressed by Trouble’s luxury lifestyle and knocked down the amount in trust to $2 million. The other $10 million flowed back to her family’s foundation, where the bulk of the estate went in the first place.

Lesson learned: Your dog can have a trust fund, but don’t go overboard.

Bequests for pets can be challenged – in which case it’s up to courts to determines how much they think is reasonable for the pet’s need. In Helmsley’s case, $12 million was found to be excessive. And maybe with good reason. Trouble still had a nice life with fewer millions. The dog died in December 2010 after several years in Sarasota, Florida, at a Helmsley-owned hotel.

Other pet owners who aren’t celebrities have used pet trusts as well, such as Bill Dorris, a Nashville businessman without any human heirs. He left his dog, Lulu, $5 million.

Pet-loving celebrities who loved all the pets

Finally, there’s a lesson to be learned from British fashion designer and icon Alexander McQueen, who was worth £16 million ($21 million) when he died in 2010 at the age of 40. McQueen left £50,000 ($66,000) in a trust for his two bull terriers so that they would be well cared for during the remainder of their lives.

McQueen also included a bequest of £100,000 ($132,000) to the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in his will to help fund the care of some of the millions of other animals out there that need the basics of food and shelter.

Animal shelters, in the U.K., the United States and other countries, help rescue and protect animals, and these animals need more help than the Choupettes and Troubles of the world.

So, my advice is that you go ahead and create a pet trust for your cat. But don’t forget to give some money in your will – and ideally while you’re alive – to help the vast majority of the millions of companion animals who need new homes every year. None of them have trust funds.

What becomes of Reggie, Keaton’s golden retriever, and her estate remains to be seen. Keaton, who starred in hit movies such as “Annie Hall,” “Reds” and “The First Wives Club,” isn’t the first celebrity to leave millions of dollars to a pet. And it’s unlikely that she will be the last.

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

– ref. Diane Keaton’s $5M pet trust would be over the top if reports prove true – here’s how to ensure your beloved pet is safe after you are gone – https://theconversation.com/diane-keatons-5m-pet-trust-would-be-over-the-top-if-reports-prove-true-heres-how-to-ensure-your-beloved-pet-is-safe-after-you-are-gone-268173

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jeff Kruth, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Miami University

For much of the 20th century, teaching was a stable, middle-class job in the U.S. Now it’s becoming a lot harder to survive on a teacher’s salary: Wages have been stagnant for decades, according to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, and teachers earn 5% less than they did a decade ago when adjusting for inflation.

That’s one reason why there’s a widespread teacher shortage, with tens of thousands of positions going unfilled. At the same time, according to a 2022 report from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, there are more than 160,000 underqualified teachers in the classroom, meaning they don’t meet full certification or credentialing standards.

This issue has become particularly acute as housing costs have risen sharply across the country over the past decade. Why become a teacher if it means you’ll struggle to put a roof over your head?

In response, many states and cities, from California to Cincinnati, are exploring ways to attract and retain teachers by developing education workforce housing – affordable housing built specifically for public school teachers and staff to make it easier for them to live near where they work. In doing so, they seek to address aspects of both the teacher shortage and housing crisis.

Fertile land for housing

At Miami University in Ohio, we work to make it easier for students to pursue teaching careers – and that includes addressing affordable housing issues in communities where they work.

A key element of this work involves collaborating with local education agencies to either build, subsidize or find housing for teachers.

Local education agencies are tasked with the administrative functions of a school district, and they often own large tracts of land.

This land can be used to build new school buildings or community health clinics. But it can also be used to build housing – a particularly attractive option in cities where land can be scarce and expensive.

California has been at the forefront of these efforts. The state’s school districts own more than 75,000 acres of potentially developable land. Meanwhile, more than one-third of the state’s public school employees are rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs.

California’s Teacher Housing Act of 2016 set up a framework for local education agencies to build and develop housing on their land. Since then, education workforce housing complexes have been developed across the state, ranging from San Francisco’s Shirley Chisolm Village to 705 Serramonte in Daly City, California.

The nuts and bolts of education workforce housing vary.

It can be financed by traditional sources, such as private philanthropy and government funds. But it can also be funded through financial tools such as certificates of participation, which allow outside investors to provide funding up front and later receive a return on their investment through rental income.

In some cases, teachers are offered reduced rents for just a few years as they start their careers. In others, they’re given the opportunity to purchase their home.

Third party management companies often oversee the projects, since local education agencies usually aren’t interested in property management. This also reduces the potential for any direct disputes between employer and employee. Many programs require only that residents be employees of the school district when they enter the program, meaning if someone leaves their job, they will not be displaced.

In April 2025, UCLA’s CITYLab and the Center for Cities and Schools published a study highlighting some of the benefits and challenges of nine educator workforce housing projects built in California.

The complexes ranged in size, from 18 to 141 dwelling units, with heights that ranged from two to six stories. The researchers found that tenants were largely satisfied with their living situations: They paid rents at far below market rate, and they praised the apartment design. They also highlighted their shorter commutes.

From tiny homes to factory conversions

Since 2020, educator housing has been proposed or developed in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and South Carolina.

In Fort Stockton, a small, rural town in West Texas, the school district bought a motel in 2022 and converted it into teacher housing. In Arizona, the Chino Valley Unified School District built tiny homes for its teachers in 2023, renting them at US$550 per month.

In Baltimore, more than 775 teachers have recently been housed thanks to initiatives such as the Union Mill project, an 86,000-square-foot historic building converted into teacher apartments that range in price from $700 to $1200 per month.

Teacher housing does more than give educators an affordable place to live. It can forge lasting relationships. A recent assessment of teacher housing in Los Angeles found that the community spaces and programs offered on site strengthened bonds among the residents, leading to friendships and working relationships that lasted for years.

Building community inside and outside the classroom

Here in Cincinnati, our own graduates now working in schools also benefit from affordable housing options.

Through a partnership between Miami University and St. Francis Seraph, early career teachers from our TEACh and Urban Cohort programs have access to affordable housing.

In 2024, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati converted an old church property in Cincinnati’s Over-the-Rhine neighborhood into teacher apartments, which recent graduates can rent at a reduced rate. Most young teachers otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford living in this area.

“I wouldn’t be able to spend my beginning years as an educator in the community without access to affordable housing,” Nicholas Detzel, a graduate teacher now living in the converted space, told us in an interview.

“Living in the community has been an amazing experience and helps you know your students on a completely different level,” he added. “It has also helped me relate to students about knowing what is going on in our community.”

Teachers like Detzel who live in Over-the-Rhine can walk or take public transportation to the local schools where they work.

Perhaps more importantly, they can better understand the world of their students. They can learn the streets that students avoid, the parks and community spaces that become popular after-school hangouts, and what community organizations offer summer programming. Ultimately, teachers grounded in the life of the community can build relationships outside of the walls of school that contribute to more trust in the classroom.

Providing affordable housing for teachers and staff also helps retention rates, particularly as many younger teachers leave the profession due to low pay and burnout.

Teacher housing programs are still in their infancy. There are roughly 3.2 million public school teachers nationwide, and there are probably fewer than 100 of these developments completed or in progress.

Yet more and more districts are expressing interest, because they help alleviate two major concerns affecting so many American communities: affordable housing and a quality education.

While the need for affordable housing spans both lower- and middle-class families, teachers or not, forging alliances between schools and affordable housing providers can serve as one path forward – and possibly serve as a model for other trades and professions.

Jeff Kruth is affiliated with Affordable Housing Advocates in Cincinnati, Ohio.

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

– ref. America’s teachers are being priced out of their communities − these cities are building subsidized housing to lure them back – https://theconversation.com/americas-teachers-are-being-priced-out-of-their-communities-these-cities-are-building-subsidized-housing-to-lure-them-back-263510

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Bedassa Tadesse, Professor of Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth

On Nov. 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of the most consequential trade cases in decades. The justices will decide whether a president can rely on a Cold War–era emergency law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose sweeping import duties on a vast share of what the United States buys from abroad.

At stake is more than the scope of presidential power. The case highlights a deeper question of accountability: Who should decide what Americans pay for imported goods – the president acting alone, unelected judges reading emergency laws broadly, or the elected representatives who must face voters when prices rise?

When tariffs end up in court, it’s usually because Congress has failed to act. Over the past few decades, lawmakers have ceded much of their trade authority to presidents eager to move quickly – and the courts have been left to clean up the mess. Each new lawsuit makes it seem as though judges are running the economy when, in fact, they’re being pulled into policy questions they’re neither trained nor elected to answer.

As an economist, not a lawyer, I view this as more than a constitutional curiosity. It’s about how the world’s largest economy makes decisions that ripple through global markets, factory floors and family budgets. A duty on steel may help a mill in Ohio while raising bridge-construction and car-buying costs everywhere else. A tariff on electronics might nudge assembly onshore yet squeeze hospital and school budgets that depend on those devices.

These are choices about distribution – who gains, who pays, and for how long – that demand analysis, transparency and, above all, democratic ownership.

How did the US get here?

Congress didn’t exactly lose its tariff power; it gave it away.

The Constitution assigns “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” to Congress, not the White House. Historically, Congress set tariff lines in law – consider the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The pivot began with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934, which let presidents adjust rates within limits via executive agreements. In the 1960s and ’70s, Congress passed laws expanding the president’s authority over trade, granting new powers to restrict or adjust imports without a separate congressional vote if certain conditions are met.

In my view, two key incentives drove the drift: blame avoidance and gridlock. Tariffs are redistributive by design: They benefit some sectors and regions while imposing costs on others. Casting a vote that helps steelworkers in one state but raises prices for builders in another is politically risky. Delegating to the White House allowed lawmakers to sidestep the fallout when prices rise or when jobs shift.

And as polarization intensified, the bargaining that once produced workable compromises became increasingly complex. Broad emergency statutes and open-ended delegations became the path of least resistance – fast, unilateral and insulated from negotiation. Over time, exceptions became the norm, and courts were tasked with resolving the gray areas.

That’s a poor way to run economic policy.

Judges interpret statutes and precedent; they don’t run general equilibrium models, forecast inflation paths or map supply chain rerouting. Evidence in court is confined to a single case file. Remedies are blunt: They are either to uphold, strike down or send back. Tariff design, by contrast, is about calibration: how high, how long, which sectors, which exclusions, what off-ramps, what triggers for renewal or repeal.

When lawsuits substitute for legislation, countries drift into policy by injunction. Companies see rules whipsaw; projects are delayed or shelved; households experience price swings that feel arbitrary; trading partners retaliate against policies they see as improvisational.

A matter of accountability

Accountability sits at the center of the problem. Most judges aren’t elected; lawmakers are. Lifetime tenure protects judicial independence – good for rights, bad for setting taxes. No one can vote out a court when tariffs push up the price of a school Chromebook or a contractor’s rebar.

Members of Congress, by contrast, must explain themselves. They can hold hearings, commission impact analyses, hear from unions and small businesses, and then defend the trade-offs. If tariffs save jobs in one town but raise prices nationwide, voters know exactly whom to reward or punish. That democratic link is why the Constitution places “Duties and Imposts” in the hands of Congress.

None of this means paralysis when it comes to trade policy. The United States has done this before – via trade-promotion and fast-track authorities that set clear goals and required renewal votes – while the EU and Japan have paired swift action with built-in legislative oversight.

Congress can be nimble without being reckless. Best practices for tariffs include setting clear targets using accessible language, having independent analysts conduct reviews before and after a tariff is put in place, and having diplomacy baked into a broader trade-security strategy that reports retaliation risks.

The challenge facing the court

In my view, the Supreme Court’s role here is both modest and vital: to enforce the statute and the constitutional line.

If a general emergency law doesn’t clearly authorize sweeping, long-duration tariffs, it’s not activism to say so plainly. It’s boundary-keeping that returns the pen to Congress. What I think the court should avoid is appearing to write the tariff code from the bench. That swaps democratic ownership for judicial improvisation and guarantees more litigation as a strategy.

In theory, a more public, accountable system would also free everyone to focus on what they do best. That means economists measuring who gains and who pays, lawmakers weighing trade-offs and answering to voters, and courts enforcing the rules – not designing the policy.

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

– ref. Congress has been dodging responsibility for tariffs for decades – now the Supreme Court will decide how far presidents can go alone – https://theconversation.com/congress-has-been-dodging-responsibility-for-tariffs-for-decades-now-the-supreme-court-will-decide-how-far-presidents-can-go-alone-268555

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kenneth M. Evans, Fellow in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

U.S. science always suffers during government shutdowns. Funding lapses send government scientists home without pay. Federal agencies suspend new grant opportunities, place expert review panels on hold, and stop collecting and analyzing critical public datasets that tell us about the economy, the environment and public health.

In 2025, the stakes are higher than in past shutdowns.

This shutdown arrives at a time of massive upheaval to American science and innovation driven by President Donald Trump’s ongoing attempts to extend executive power and assert political control of scientific institutions.

With the shutdown entering its fifth week, and with no end in sight, the Trump administration’s rapid and contentious changes to federal research policy are rewriting the social contract between the U.S. government and research universities – where the government provides funding and autonomy in exchange for the promise of downstream public benefits.

As a physicist and policy scholar, I both study and have a vested interest in the state of U.S. science funding as a recipient of federal grants. I write about the history and governance of American science policy, including the nation’s investments in research and development.

In the context of broader policy reforms to federal grantmaking, student and high-skilled immigration, and scientific integrity, this shutdown has both known and unknown consequences for the future of U.S. science.

Funding freezes, data gaps and unpaid workers

Over the past two decades, the story of government shutdowns has become all too familiar. Shutdowns occur when Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, and, paraphrasing Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, the government can no longer spend money.

This funding gap affects all but essential government operations, such as the work of postal workers, air traffic controllers and satellite operators. Nonessential employees, including tens of thousands of government scientists, are barred from working and stop receiving paychecks.

With scientists and program officers at home, activities at the nearly two dozen federal agencies participating in research and development, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, come to a halt. New grant opportunities and review panels are postponed or canceled, researchers at government laboratories stop collecting and analyzing data, and university projects reliant on federal funding are put at risk.

Extended shutdowns accelerate the damage. They leave bigger gaps in government data, throw federal employees into debt or lead them to dip into their savings, and force academic institutions to lay off staff paid through government grants and contracts.

Funding, public services and the rule of law

Even for shutdowns lasting a few days, it can take science agencies months to catch up on the backlog of paperwork, paychecks and peer review panels before they return to regular operations.

This year, the government faces mounting challenges to overcome once the shutdown ends: Trump and the director of the White House budget office, Russell Vought, are using the shutdown as an opportunity to “shutter the bureaucracy” and pressure universities to bend to the administration’s ideological positions on topics such as campus speech, gender identity and admission standards.

As the budget standoff nears the record for the longest shutdown ever, agency furloughs, reductions in force, canceled grants and jeopardized infrastructure projects document the devastating and immediate damage to the government’s ability to serve the public.

However, the full impact of the shutdown and the Trump administration’s broader assaults on science to U.S. international competitiveness, economic security and electoral politics could take years to materialize.

In parallel, the dramatic drop in international student enrollment, the financial squeeze facing research institutions, and research security measures to curb foreign interference spell an uncertain future for American higher education.

With neither the White House nor Congress showing signs of reaching a budget deal, Trump continues to test the limits of executive authority, reinterpreting the law – or simply ignoring it.

Earlier in October, Trump redirected unspent research funding to pay furloughed service members before they missed their Oct. 15 paycheck. Changing appropriated funds directly challenges the power vested in Congress – not the president – to control federal spending.

The White House’s promise to fire an additional 10,000 civil servants during the shutdown, its threat to withhold back pay from furloughed workers and its push to end any programs with lapsed funding “not consistent with the President’s priorities” similarly move to broaden presidential power.

Here, the damage to science could snowball. If Trump and Vought chip enough authority away from Congress by making funding decisions or shuttering statutory agencies, the next three years will see an untold amount of impounded, rescinded or repurposed research funds.

Science, democracy and global competition

While technology has long served as a core pillar of national and economic security, science has only recently reemerged as a key driver of greater geopolitical and cultural change.

China’s extraordinary rise in science over the past three decades and its arrival as the United States’ chief technological competitor has upended conventional wisdom that innovation can thrive only in liberal democracies.

The White House’s efforts to centralize federal grantmaking, restrict free speech, erase public data and expand surveillance mirror China’s successful playbook for building scientific capacity while suppressing dissent.

As the shape of the Trump administration’s vision for American science has come into focus, what remains unclear is whether, after the shutdown, it can outcompete China by following its lead.

Kenneth Evans receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the American Institute of Physics, and the Clinton Foundation. He is affiliated with Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

– ref. All government shutdowns disrupt science − in 2025, the consequences extend far beyond a lapse in funding – https://theconversation.com/all-government-shutdowns-disrupt-science-in-2025-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-a-lapse-in-funding-267182

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeremiah Favara, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, Gonzaga University

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump addressed hundreds of military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia in late September 2025.

Before the meeting, journalists speculated about which urgent issues might require such a costly and unusual gathering, to which the assembled military leaders had been summoned from across the globe.

Rather than a major shift in national security strategy, a loyalty oath or mass firing, Hegseth and Trump railed against what they see as the military’s primary enemy: diversity.

Hegseth claimed the Department of Defense became “the woke department” infected by “toxic political garbage” and the “insane fallacy that ‘our diversity is our strength.’”

Trump argued that the military “went, in a way, woke” and called for armed forces that would “not be politically correct.” Hegseth similarly called for a shift in military thinking about diversity saying, “No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. … As I’ve said before and will say again, we are done with that shit.”

Having spent years studying the U.S. military and writing a book on diversity and military recruiting, the speeches made clear to me that Hegseth and Trump fundamentally misunderstand military diversity. Both men see it as a symptom of “woke” culture rather than as a long-standing practice driven by the very nature and history of the all-volunteer force.

Embracing diversity

During times of war and between 1948 and 1973, the U.S. military drafted enlistees to fill the ranks. After years of debate, the draft was ended and the U.S. established an all-volunteer force in 1973.

The demographic makeup of the military quickly changed as more Black Americans and women chose to join the military. In a 2007 study of representation in the military, scholars found that Black Americans had been overrepresented in the military for much of the span of the all-volunteer force. And the percentage of Latino service members more than doubled from the late 1980s to the 2000s.

Additionally, Latino service members made up 25% of new enlistees in 2022.

While women remain underrepresented in the military compared with the U.S. population, the shift to the all-volunteer force led to a steady increase in women’s military participation. Women made up 3% of military personnel in 1973 and 17% in 2022.

The military would not have been able to meet personnel needs and recruitment goals without the disproportionate representation of women, Black Americans, and Latino service members during this post-draft period.

The U.S. military embraced this diversity long before the influence of “woke” politics and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives that Hegseth and Trump claim have undermined the institution.

That embracement has helped the military enlist between 128,000 and 190,000 new service members annually since the 1990s, even though some armed forces, especially the Army, have struggled to meet their recruiting goals in the past few years.

Expanding the scope

To fully understand how the military became one of the most diverse American institutions, you need to go back to the foundations of the all-volunteer force.

The primary challenge the military faced in the implementation of the all-volunteer force was how to persuade young Americans to enlist. Large budgets were set aside for advertising, and military branches worked with advertisers to reach potential recruits.

One of the first steps advertisers took in the mid-1970s was to identify “vulnerable target groups.” These groups were targeted based on propensity – the likelihood that an individual would serve regardless of their desire to do so.

The likelihood of service increased when people felt they had little opportunity outside of the military – whether that meant financial struggles or an inability to afford higher education.

Based on ideas of recruit quality and the traits the military sees as best suited to success in the ranks, the military has mostly desired to recruit straight and white young men. But these people were more likely to have opportunities outside of the military. So, military leaders had to expand the scope of potential recruits to reach out to groups previously excluded – namely, Black Americans, other people of color and women.

When Hegseth talks about “fixing decades of decay” in a department gone “woke,” and when Trump argues that the military will now be “all based on merit,” they both fail to understand military diversity.

The military didn’t become diverse because it went “woke” or abandoned a merit-based system of promotions.

Military diversity resulted from the exploitative nature of military recruiting. In the all-volunteer force, the most easily persuaded recruits are those in most need of opportunities they can’t find in the civilian world. The very logic behind an all-volunteer force means that the military can’t fill their ranks with white men alone.

Central casting

Hegseth and Trump, additionally, have framed their criticism of the military with an obsessive focus on looks.

Hegseth criticized the “bad look” of the current military, saying “it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formations, and see fat troops.” He also railed against “an era of unprofessional appearance” indicated by “beards, long hair and superficial individual expression.”

Trump has consistently talked about wanting military leaders to look like they are out of “central casting”, a phrase he uses almost exclusively to talk about white men.

The firings of Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General CQ Brown Jr., the second Black Chair of the Joint Chiefs, appear to reflect this vision of the military in practice.

When Trump and Hegseth attack military diversity, they harm individuals who made the choice to serve. They also perpetuate the myth that military diversity was enforced from outside the military by liberal “woke” politics rather than born of necessity for the military’s very survival.

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

– ref. The military’s diversity rises out of recruitment targets, not any ‘woke’ goals – https://theconversation.com/the-militarys-diversity-rises-out-of-recruitment-targets-not-any-woke-goals-267205

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kaleb Demerew, Assistant Professor of Political Science, West Texas A&M University; Institute for Humane Studies

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

---

Why can’t every country get along with each other? – Dale T., age 11, Helena, Montana

---

Countries often share similar goals, such as peace and prosperity for their citizens, so it might seem strange that they find it hard to get along. Cultural differences may sometimes cause countries such as China and the United States to compete for global influence, but even countries sharing similar values or cultures still find reasons to clash.

So why do countries compete or even go to war? As a political science scholar researching some of the most conflict-prone regions in the world, I find that the answer often comes down to three factors: scarcity, uneven distribution and perception.

Scarcity leads to hard choices

Scarcity is the reality that there are not enough resources – such as food, oil, water and land – to go around. While countries would prefer to pursue all the resources they need, they are forced to prioritize the resources that will make them most secure.

For instance, the Nile River serves as a water resource for more than 300 million people in 11 countries in Africa. However, because water is a scarce resource used for drinking, irrigation farming and hydroelectric power, countries such as Egypt and Ethiopia have often fought about using the river.

Uneven distribution means relying on others

Uneven distribution means that not everyone starts off with the same resources. Nations have different levels of power and capabilities, and this shapes how they calculate risk and opportunity when dealing with each other.

For instance, countries concerned about the United States’ dominant power joined together in a rival international organization known as BRICS+ in 2009. Its founding members include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and several other countries have joined over the years.

Perception can lead to misunderstanding

Perception is how countries view each other’s actions. A nation can build up its weapons to be safe from potential attacks, but another nation might view this move as threatening rather than defensive.

For instance, India developed nuclear capability in the 1970s to protect itself, but neighboring Pakistan perceived this as a threat and soon developed its own nuclear weapons. The two countries have since engaged in occasional conflict.

Classroom international relations

Countries have leaders with different personal experiences and backgrounds. To understand how countries interact, it is useful to draw an analogy to a classroom simulation I use in my courses.

Annabelle and Morgan are two good friends who are taking a course in international relations. For a simulation game, their teacher assigns Annabelle and Morgan to lead two different groups. Their classmates are also assigned to be leaders of a handful of other groups. Each group must decide how to spend its resources, build its industries and form partnerships.

In the game, scarcity was represented by a set number of points both groups could use to purchase resources. Since there were not enough points to provide everyone with everything they desired, each group had to prioritize needs. Should they invest more points in defense, social goods or industry?

Annabelle’s team started with 100 points and Morgan’s team started with 30. That uneven distribution mattered. Annabelle’s group could comfortably invest in industry, while Morgan’s had to focus on survival. Morgan’s group had to decide whether to trust more resource-rich groups and grow their industry points through trade, or find allies among groups with lots of military resources to prepare for potential conflict.

Perception came in when Morgan’s team was not sure how Annabelle’s team was spending its points. If they were spending many points on military, they could attack another group and steal its points. To protect her group, Morgan decided to form an alliance with two other groups. In return, Annabelle’s group perceived the alliance as a threat and started spending more points on military.

In the final round of the game, Morgan’s new alliance invaded Annabelle’s group and took most of their resource points. Annabelle felt betrayed, since she assumed her friendship with Morgan would allow their groups to work together. Morgan felt uneasy but also justified. She did not know how other members of Annabelle’s group would decide to act, so she prioritized her own group’s safety.

By the end of the game, Annabelle and Morgan were angry and frustrated with each other and their friendship was strained.

Cooperation turns into conflict

Even countries that share common goals or values sometimes compete, and the motivations are rarely simple.

Nations cooperate because it helps them grow, but they also take actions to protect themselves. When two countries compete over similar resources, and when their power balance is not clear, they can get the wrong idea about each other’s actions and engage in conflict. At the extreme, they may even go to war.

Competition and mistrust can arise even among friends who share similar goals. Similarly, while every country might want peace and stability, the forces of scarcity, uneven distribution and perception make it impossible for everyone to get along all the time.

Still, understanding these realities can help countries to build trust and work toward a shared respect that makes peace more likely.

---

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

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

– ref. Why can’t every country get along with each other? It comes down to resources, inequality and perception – https://theconversation.com/why-cant-every-country-get-along-with-each-other-it-comes-down-to-resources-inequality-and-perception-268538