Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Zachary Slepian, Associate Professor of Astronomy, University of Florida

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.

---

Are multiverses real? If so, what do they look like? How do you get there without disturbing time? – Emily, age 9, Pune, Maharashtra, India

---

The idea of a multiverse – a hypothetical collection of all possible universes – is one that
science fiction fans love to explore. But does the multiverse actually exist?

To answer the question of whether the multiverse is real, we first need to agree on what it means for something to be real. As an astrophysicist who studies cosmology – the large-scale history and structure of the universe – and the philosophy of physics, I’ve thought about this question more than a few times over my career.

The most immediate definition of “real” might be that you can see and touch it. My lunch is real in this sense, because I can taste it and you can hear me chewing it (hopefully not too loudly). So “real” might be defined as something you can perceive with at least one of your five senses.

But that would leave out a lot of things that are also real. The microwaves that heat up your food are real, but you can’t directly perceive them – only their effect, heated food. So some real things you can “see” only indirectly by the evidence they leave behind. The existence of dinosaurs is another example – you can see only their fossils.

So, you can ask two versions of the question of whether the multiverse is real. One: Can you see, hear, touch, smell or taste it? Two: Even if you can’t, is there any evidence of its effects?

Quantum mechanics of the multiverse

The answer most researchers would offer to whether you can perceive the multiverse with your five senses is probably not. But there are lots of real things that aren’t real in this sense, such as microwaves. So can we see any indirect evidence of the multiverse, such as the effects it might have on the observable world?

The short answer is yes, sort of.

The multiverse is one way to understand the behavior of very, very small things, such as atoms and subatomic particles. Scientists call the rules governing how these very small objects behave quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, it’s never certain what the outcome of an experiment will be. You can only write down the chance – that is, the probability – of something happening.

It’s like rolling dice: You can’t be sure what number you’ll get, but you can say you have an equal chance of getting one, two, three, four, five or six on top of the dice. However, if you knew enough information about the dice – such as its exact shape and mass, the air patterns around it and the exact way you threw it – you could predict exactly what side it would land on. It might take a big computer simulation to crunch the numbers, but it’s possible.

Now imagine really, really, really small dice. Even if you had a very powerful computer, you wouldn’t be able to predict which side this super small dice would fall on. That’s because it’s governed by quantum mechanics, where you can’t predict outcomes with complete certainty. You can predict only probability.

Many worlds and the multiverse

Quantum mechanics is only somewhat random – not everything has an equal chance of happening. We can predict the chance of each scenario happening, but not the actual outcome. In the case of quantum dice, all we could know about it is that there’s a 1 in 6 chance of it landing on any face.

One way scientists have interpreted this strange property of quantum mechanics is that each possible scenario actually does happen. But when it does, it creates another universe. This is called the many-worlds view of quantum mechanics.

In the case of our quantum dice, the many-worlds view would say there’s a 1 in 6 chance of rolling each number because six universes are created every time we roll the dice. Although we stay in one of them – say, the world where the dice comes up three – five other universes are also created where the dice comes up as one of the other numbers.

In this picture of quantum mechanics, universes branch off with every scenario. Of course, we cannot really make a quantum mechanical dice and roll it – just interacting with the dice would destroy its quantum nature.

Does this mean quantum mechanics is evidence that the multiverse is real? I would say no. While it’s a fascinating way to imagine quantum mechanics, it’s just one interpretation, not undeniable evidence of the multiverse.

The multiverse and string theory

Another relevant aspect of the multiverse is its role in string theory. String theory argues that the fundamental particles that make up matter are themselves made of vibrating strings of energy. Think of an elastic band vibrating inside each particle.

String theory also argues that the universe has more than three dimensions. Different string theories predict different numbers of extra dimensions. This means physical constants such as the speed of light and the charge of electrons could have different values. So could the amount of stuff in the universe, such as matter. That suggests a landscape of possible different universes, each with different conditions – a multiverse.

So far, there isn’t definite evidence of a multiverse based on string theory. These universes probably wouldn’t connect to each other, otherwise they wouldn’t count as separate universes – just part of our own. So even if they do exist, we may never get direct evidence for their existence.

However, there could be indirect evidence of the existence of multiple universes. For instance, string theory can help scientists predict the results of very high-energy experiments in our own universe. It can also make predictions for how matter behaves on very, very small scales. If these predictions turn out to be true, that could be evidence for string theory. And if string theory is possibly real in our universe, this indirectly means the multiverse may also be real.

While there hasn’t been any definitive evidence in our own universe for string theory, who knows what the future may hold.

---

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.

Zachary Slepian 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. Are multiverses real? An astrophysicist explains why it depends on how you define ‘real’ – https://theconversation.com/are-multiverses-real-an-astrophysicist-explains-why-it-depends-on-how-you-define-real-268357

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Maya Mueller, Ph.D. Candidate in Architectural Engineering, Drexel University

What does gentrification in Philadelphia look like?

“High-rise, modern apartment buildings.”

“(A) modern look that’s so out of place with our traditional row homes that have been here for a hundred years.”

“Six- to seven-floor high-rises with garages in the basement. They charge an extra $200 to park.”

“Gray, industrial looking.”

“The houses are ugly as heck. No architectural style. They’re probably two-bedroom, some probably one. And they usually put a deck up. It’s not geared for kids or families. A lot of steps.”

These are some of the descriptions that longtime residents of gentrifying neighborhoods in Philly used to describe the new construction popping up around them.

We are Ph.D. candidates in architectural engineering and geography, environment and urban studies at Drexel and Temple universities in Philadelphia. Working with a multidisciplinary team of professors and students, we recently developed a new way to map gentrification in Philly neighborhoods using a combination of accounts from longtime residents, Google Street View images and machine learning.

Using AI to spot gentrification

Our team posited that the best source for knowing what gentrification looks like comes from the perceptions of longtime residents in gentrifying neighborhoods.

So we held focus groups in three rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods – one in Northeast Philadelphia and two in the River Wards section north of Center City and along the Delaware River.

We asked residents to identify the visual cues of building designs, materials, colors and landscaping choices that they associate with gentrification.

Many of these residents could recount, in great detail, the exact street intersections where they saw gentrification-related development occur over the decades.

We corroborated each location they identified through historical Google Street View imagery. By examining the exteriors of these buildings, we could expand upon the more generalized language used in the discussions, such as “modern” or “boxy,” to , such as “presence of bump-out windows” and “increased floor area ratio,” which is a measure of how much of the surface area of a land parcel a building takes up.

When pulling panoramas of residential building exteriors from Google Street View, we looked at two distinct time periods: 2009-13 and 2017-21.

AI is getting better at spotting the visual signs of gentrification. Researchers refer to AI systems that categorize scenery according to certain characteristics, like seeming “gentrified” or “not-gentrified,” as “deep mapping” models.

Deep mapping models use neural network algorithms, which can pick up on patterns in big datasets. The particular model we used is able to pick up subtle, pixel‑level differences between two images.

The model learned to approximate how residents distinguish gentrified scenes from unchanged ones. When we tested the model’s output, we found that it was able to separate “gentrified” from “not‑gentrified” images with an accuracy of about 84%. This showed us that visual cues guided by residents’ observations can be translated into a reliable machine learning signal.

Gentrification doesn’t always look the same

As a neighborhood becomes gentrified, wealthier people move in and long-standing residents can be displaced through rent hikes or the loss of housing. Gentrification can also lead to the disappearance of a “sense of place” – characteristics that make a neighborhood feel familiar and like home.

With deep mapping models, researchers and neighborhood stakeholders can pull their own data on landscape changes related to gentrification and better understand how gentrification changes physical environments. With better data, they can map hot spots of new development and use machine learning models that predict future trajectories of change.

For example, several of our focus group participants in one neighborhood noted that gentrification was connected to the demolition of old buildings that likely contained hazardous substances, such as asbestos and lead. They wondered about the potential for air pollution. With accurate data on where development is occurring, researchers can model relationships between new construction and environmental conditions such as air quality.

Moreover, this process can also give legitimacy to neighborhood groups that may see changes occurring around them but lack the quantitative data to legitimatize their concerns to the media and to city government.

By being more explicit about how gentrification is defined when we categorize images and train our machine learning model, researchers can be more transparent about how image data is prepared and prevent personal biases from guiding the model and the patterns it learns.

For example, certain research finds that gentrification leads to increased greenery. However, some participants in our focus groups reported that gentrification resulted in the loss of community gardens and greenery. This experience runs contrary to common assumptions in gentrification research.

Transparency in training models builds trust

By defining how gentrification is perceived by residents, researchers like us can add clarity to how we prepare the model data. Even with more clarity, however, these AI systems are still “black box” in nature. A black box model means that the connection between inputs and outputs is unclear to the model user.

One way to make the model more transparent is by applying an additional model called XAI, or explainable artificial intelligence. Through XAI, there is potential to better understand which characteristics in an image are more important to the model prediction. For example, does the model focus on the windows of a building or the relative height of buildings?

Answering these questions will help researchers and stakeholders trust model predictions.

At the same time, one of us is leading a complementary line of research focused on explaining the reasoning behind the machine learning model decisions. In Philadelphia and many other U.S. cities, street scenes can have a dense mix of cars, vegetation and architectural styles that can confuse the model. There is a lot of complicated visual information to parse through, a lot of variety. Understanding the model’s internal logic helps ensure that its predictions reflect real neighborhood dynamics rather than irrelevant details in the imagery.

Together, these research directions aim to deepen our understanding of how gentrification unfolds on the ground and how AI can help illuminate patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Maya Mueller receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

Isaac Quaye received funding from the National Science foundation.

– ref. We analyzed Philly street scenes and identified signs of gentrification using machine learning trained on longtime residents’ observations – https://theconversation.com/we-analyzed-philly-street-scenes-and-identified-signs-of-gentrification-using-machine-learning-trained-on-longtime-residents-observations-277704

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Will Glovinsky, Research Assistant Professor of Humanities, Binghamton University, State University of New York

A story has been going around about artificial intelligence for the past decade: At some point, AI advances, robots and self-driving cars will throw countless people out of work.

The rich folks who control AI companies will get richer. Most other people’s fortunes will decline as their skills lose value and they fail to get new jobs. To prevent the U.S. from suffering mass hunger and political chaos, the story goes, it will need a new system: The government will provide many people, or maybe everyone, with no-strings-attached cash payments.

There are many names for this kind of policy, including “basic income.”

Backing from a diverse group

This is essentially the story told by 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang and by the labor leader Andy Stern. You may also hear it from an array of tech billionaires, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. In telling it, those moguls also get to hype their companies’ AI models.

Local governments from Stockton, California, to Atlanta are testing basic income programs by giving low-income residents cash. Across the Atlantic, British Investment Minister Jason Stockwood has said he and other leaders are “definitely talking” about the idea.

Meanwhile, social scientists are also interested. They point to basic income experiments that have found more tangible benefits, such as fewer hospitalizations and improved parenting practices.

Telling the ‘basic income’ origin story

I think this talk about basic income – as a solution to automation-driven job losses, or simply as a way to help people – misses something important.

As a scholar of British culture, literature and politics, I study the English thinkers and activists who first called for a form of basic income at the turn of the 19th century – an era of political turmoil, technological change and the global exchange of ideas. I believe that understanding the origins of basic income policies can help clarify what’s behind the current surge of interest in the idea.

This history suggests that basic income is not just about finding a solution to automation or efficiently reducing poverty, though it might do those things.

More fundamentally, calls for basic income respond to the sense that something has been unfairly taken from ordinary people.

AI’s ‘expertise theft’

The feared mass layoffs from AI have not yet materialized, though cracks may be forming in the job market for entry-level workers.

But technology is developing rapidly, making it hard to predict the future.

Meanwhile, another side of AI’s impact on workers is coming into focus.

Three MIT economists, including two Nobel laureates, published a paper in February 2026 in which they bluntly warned that current AI models are engaged in what they called “expertise theft.”

“AI systems,” they wrote, “freely scrape content from websites, social media, YouTube, newspapers, Wikipedia, and blogs, then statistically recombine this material and sell access to the results.”

The concern is that companies will sell all of us – or our former bosses – AI-mediated access to the very ideas, artwork and knowledge contributed by generations of skilled humans.

This large-scale appropriation of the resources that knowledge workers use to make a living – skills, styles, theorems, jokes, recipes – has a historical parallel. As the Oxford economist and machine learning expert Maximilian Kasy argues, AI companies’ wholesale data theft echoes the enclosure of common lands in England in the lead-up to the Industrial Revolution.

The loss of the commons

From 1604 to 1914, English landowners leveraged their control over Parliament to seize 6.8 million acres (275,186 square kilometers) of land once shared by commoners. In the mid-18th century, the process began to accelerate.

Previously, common people had shared the right to plow open fields, gather firewood, graze animals and cut peat from nearby bogs. Rules and fines had discouraged overuse.

Now, with these resources fenced off, commoners had to till someone else’s land for a wage. A communal inheritance was literally hedged in.

As with AI companies’ expertise theft today, the enclosure of the commons was defended by large landowners as a modernizing step. Experts debate the issue, but the economists Leander Heldring, James A. Robinson and Sebastian Vollmer found that English enclosures contributed to a 45% increase in farm yields.

But the enclosures of lands that previously belonged to all also reduced the economic independence of ordinary people. One observer summed up the feelings of commoners this way: “All I know is, I had a cow, and an act of Parliament has taken it from me.”

Amid this widespread dispossession, the first basic income proposals arose.

A response to losses due to enclosures

In the early 1770s, the magistrates of Newcastle attempted to enclose the town’s common land and keep its rental income for themselves.

The local townspeople successfully resisted. If they gave up their rights to use the land, they would divide its rent equally.

The struggle inspired a young Newcastle schoolmaster named Thomas Spence to develop the world’s first basic income proposal.

The son of an impoverished netmaker, Spence never left England. But he was intrigued by reports of Indigenous American systems of egalitarian land use.

His reading persuaded him that the English enclosures were designed to fence most people out from the very resources they needed to survive, rendering them dependent. “If Grass or Nettles they could eat,” he joked, landowners would fence them off, too.

Spence therefore called for the real estate of each parish, the ancient administrative unit in England, to be collectively owned by its residents. Farms would be leased out to the highest bidder, preserving competition.

But rather than accrue to landlords, the rents would fund parish-run schools, hospitals, courts and roads. The remainder would be distributed equally every three months to all residents of the parish, regardless of their age, occupation or gender. In one version of the plan, the local women would run the parish.

In 1798, Spence estimated the dividend at almost 10 pounds annually. In 1816, his followers proposed a version that would compensate former landholders but still yield a payout of 4 pounds.

Those 4 pounds in 1816 would be worth about 342 pounds, or US$456, as of February 2026. And 10 pounds in 1798 would equal 1,126 pounds, or $1,496.

Both were huge sums at a time when male farm laborers might make about 28 pounds annually if employed year-round. The economist Thomas Malthus, Spence’s contemporary, doubted the dividend would be so high.

Whatever the payment’s value, Spence argued that this money was owed to the people. If enclosing land they previously could farm forced commoners to work for landlords or move to northern factory towns, the payments would compensate them for the loss of their “natural rights” to the earth.

The first basic income movement

By the 1790s, Spence had landed in London.

There, hawking radical pamphlets and a sassafras-flavored beverage called saloop out of stalls and storefronts, he spread the gospel of basic income as the French Revolution raged.

A tireless propagandist, he published dialogues, handbills, ballads, anthologies and – when Spence was inevitably arrested – his own trial proceedings. He was imprisoned several times between 1792 and 1802, usually without any trial at all.

When he died in 1814, he had a loyal following of Spenceans, who chalked slogans on walls and sang ballads in the London taverns promoting his plan for unconditional cash dividends.

The doctrine of universal payments was considered so dangerous that the Spenceans were outlawed in 1817.

Basic income aims to address dispossession

Up until recently, Spence’s ideas had found their closest analog in Alaska, which since 1982 has paid several thousand dollars yearly to every resident out of the revenue generated from the drilling of oil on state-owned lands.

In my view, Spence’s writings are evidence that the concept of basic income is a response to pervasive dispossession. Two centuries ago, Spence and his followers fought for universal cash payments because enclosure had made ordinary people too dependent on landowners for their livelihoods.

They did not emphasize that money would be good for people, as proponents do now. They argued that money was owed to people.

Today, concerns about AI-driven automation are driving the discussion about basic income. But automation may also be how the 21st-century form of semilegal theft becomes visible. Mounting calls for an “AI dividend,” provided on a regular basis, or “universal basic capital,” received as a lump sum, or even public ownership of AI may all reflect a dawning awareness of a new wave of dispossession.

This time, it’s fueled by the appropriation of humanity’s next common resource: our knowledge and skills.

Will Glovinsky 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. Basic income’s appeal today is similar to its roots in 18th-century England – it’s a way to compensate people for a common good taken for private gain – https://theconversation.com/basic-incomes-appeal-today-is-similar-to-its-roots-in-18th-century-england-its-a-way-to-compensate-people-for-a-common-good-taken-for-private-gain-276950

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Mary Thurlkill, Professor of Religion, University of Mississippi

Several Shiite communities in South Asia recently refrained from celebrating Eid as they mourned the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. From Nigeria to Kashmir – well beyond the Gulf region – the assassination has stirred deep concerns among Shiite Muslims.

Shiite Islam is the official, and majority, religion of Iran. Shiite minorities in other countries tend to view Iranian leaders as protectors and have sometimes risked personal safety to protest the war.

As the violence expands around Tehran, Shiites are not only grieving the death of their leaders but also fear the loss of holy cities and shrines that anchor their collective memory.

Many of the cities targeted in the war today are home to these types of shrines, including Qom, Isfahan and Mashhad. In Isfahan, the 17th-century Jame Abbasi Mosque, also known as Shah Mosque, sustained damage during one of the airstrikes. After the ayatollah’s death, Shiites gathered at Imam Reza Shrine in Mashhad to mourn his loss. In a signal recognized by all Shiites, Iran raised the black flag at the shrine’s dome to mark the community’s shared grief.

Qom, located about 80 miles south of Tehran, has attracted much media attention because of the large-scale military attacks against it. Various social media platforms are showing destroyed buildings and plumes of smoke filling the skyline.

After Khamenei’s death, the city was targeted because the Assembly of Experts gathered there to elect his successor. Israel attacked Qom’s Shokouhiyeh Industrial Zone, known for its drone production companies.

With the news blackout in Iran and Gulf states, it’s impossible to know the impact of military operations on holy sites like Qom. Regardless of the level of material damage, Shiites are deploring the physical and spiritual assaults against their sacred landscape.

That’s because in Shiite Islam, grief is not only personal but collective. As a scholar of medieval Islam and Shiite piety, I have seen how this grief is expressed through rituals, pilgrimage and devotion to saints.

Redemptive suffering

Shared sorrow is a key part of Iran’s Twelver Shiite identity, which venerates the Prophet Muhammad’s family through daughter Fatima and cousin and son-in-law, Ali.

Fatima and Ali’s lineage is called the Imamate, with each individual imam recognized as a sinless spiritual leader. Each imam is responsible for providing guidance as the “proof of God” on earth.

Ali’s leadership and the imams’ leadership wasn’t recognized by all Muslims, however. Some of Muhammad’s companions and early leaders of the Umayyad dynasty, which ruled from 661-750 C.E., rejected their authority and punished their followers.

According to Shiite tradition, in 680 C.E. supporters of Ali’s family living in Kufa – in modern-day Iraq – appealed to Husayn, the prophet’s grandson, for assistance. They had refused to pledge their allegiance to the Umayyad Caliph Yazid because they viewed him as illegitimate and oppressive.

Husayn gathered a small group of friends and family, including wives, children and siblings, and headed to Kufa. Their party was intercepted outside the city, on the plains of Karbala, by Yazid’s forces led by Umar ibn Sa’d.

Cut off from water and vastly outnumbered, Husayn’s camp suffered for 10 days in the desert, and the Kufans never rallied to their defense. Desperate from thirst, Husayn rode out of the camp with his infant son to appeal for water, but an enemy archer shot an arrow through the child’s neck.

Tradition says that on the 10th of Muharram, Husayn and his companions met Yazid’s military on the battlefield and were massacred. Many of the men were beheaded and women captured; Umar ibn Sa’d marched the spiked heads and shackled women through various towns on the way back to Caliph Yazid in Damascus to deter further protest.

Husayn’s Kufan supporters acknowledged their failure to aid the imam and pledged to publicly atone. In 685 C.E. about 4,000 penitents revolted against Umayyads in Syria; the majority died.

Shiites worldwide still commemorate Husayn’s death at Karbala as a sacrifice for the community’s collective redemption.

Shiites frame their own suffering – from facing injustice to martyrdom – as symbolically participating in Husayn’s sacrifice. Public ceremonies include “taziyeh” plays performed during Muharram that recreate Husayn’s martyrdom and the public recitation of poetry dedicated to his family.

A sacred landscape

America and Israel associate holy sites such as Qom with underground bunkers, uranium plants and military headquarters. But for Shiites they are centers of pilgrimage, where the faithful seek connection with God, the imams and their sacred history.

Qom has universities and stunning sacred architecture that date back to the Safavids, a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 through 1736. Its seminary is the foremost clerical institution in the world, training students from Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan in a wide range of topics, including Shiite jurisprudence, Quranic interpretation and Arabic literature. Women also attend the seminary but with segregated classrooms and some course restrictions.

Qom’s primary sacred site, the shrine of Fatima bint Musa, who died in 816 C.E., is one of the most important sacred sites for Shii Muslims worldwide and attracts millions of pilgrims each year.

Popularly known as Fatima Masuma, she is the daughter of seventh imam Musa al-Kazim and sister to the eighth imam, Ali al-Rida.

Iranian Shiites – known as Twelvers – believe there are 12 imams in the Prophet Muhammad’s family lineage with exalted spiritual status, and that the 12th imam never died but went into “hiding.” Shiites know the 12th imam as al-Mahdi, or the messiah: they believe he will return at the world’s end times to restore God’s justice and peace.

According to Fatima’s hagiographies, or popular sacred stories, she remained unmarried and devoted herself to scholarship. She’s known as a trustworthy transmitter of hadith – sayings from the prophet and his family – and she studied the Quran and jurisprudence. She’s especially revered in Shiite Islam because of her kinship with the imams.

Tradition notes that when Fatima’s father, Musa al-Kazim, was unable to meet visitors with spiritual questions, he directed them to consult his daughter.

During her lifetime, the Abbasid dynasty rose to power in Baghdad and quickly sought to curtail the imamate’s popularity because many Muslims viewed Ali’s family as the only legitimate rulers.

Saintly intercession

Just on the outskirts of Qom is a village called Jamkaran, home to another important pilgrimage site. According to tradition, the 12th imam, or Imam al-Mahdi, appeared to a devotee in the 10th century and requested a shrine be constructed.

From 1995 to 2005 the Iranian government greatly expanded the mosque complex and city infrastructure to support the millions of pilgrims who visit annually.

Shiites believe al-Mahdi is mysteriously present at the site and listens to their concerns. In a popular ritual of prayer and piety, visitors write personal requests on bits of paper and drop them down the “Well of Requests.”

Shiites share political pain and injustice not only with each other but also with the imams, bound in collective grief and prayers for redemption. These traditions help explain the powerful reactions seen across Shiite communities following attacks on sacred sites and the killing of Grand Ayatollah Khamenei.

Mary Thurlkill 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. Shiite grief over attacks on Iran’s sacred cities has deep historical roots – https://theconversation.com/shiite-grief-over-attacks-on-irans-sacred-cities-has-deep-historical-roots-278799

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Dan Salas, Director of the Sustainable Landscapes Program, University of Illinois Chicago

There’s a well-worn debate in U.S. politics that goes something like this: Would you rather have abundant and affordable energy or a clean, healthy planet where wildlife can flourish?

It sounds like an either/or choice, but it doesn’t have to be.

Many corporate leaders, including those I’ve worked with, know that wildlife conservation can also be good business.

That’s worth remembering as the Trump administration prepares to convene, for the first time in over 30 years, a special committee known as the “God Squad” that has the power to override one of the nation’s most important environmental protection laws: the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

What is the God Squad?

The Endangered Species Act requires that federal agencies avoid any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the act. That includes federal permits for development, mining, drilling or logging.

To comply with the law, companies can be required to take actions to avoid harming protected species. Those steps can be frustrating when they add delays and costs to already costly development projects.

Early in the law’s history, Congress amended it to include an exemption. It authorized the creation of the Endangered Species Act Committee, made up of federal agency leaders, which could grant exemptions to this prohibition on federal actions considered likely to risk extinction of a listed species.

That committee – the God Squad – includes seven members, and a vote may succeed only if five or more committee members agree. The six permanent members are the secretaries of the interior, agriculture and Army; the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The seventh member of the committee is a designated individual from the affected state or states.

The committee’s rare actions in the past

Meetings of the God Squad are so rare that the committee has gathered only three times in its existence.

The committee’s authority is limited to very uncommon circumstances in which there are no “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that would avoid jeopardizing a listed species or impair a species’ critical habitat.

The committee’s first and most notable case was in 1979. It involved the snail darter, a tiny, then-endangered fish whose habitat would have been harmed by the proposed Tellico Dam in Tennessee. Around the same time, the committee also met to review an exemption application related to water management at the Grayrocks Dam in Wyoming and its effects on endangered whooping cranes downstream in Nebraska.

The third meeting of the committee was in the 1990s, when it considered exempting from the Endangered Species Act multiple timber sales in Oregon and Washington that would likely jeopardize the northern spotted owl.

For Tellico Dam, the committee denied the exception, but Congress later cleared the way for the dam to be completed. For Grayrocks Dam, the committee granted an exemption but required the Missouri Basin Power Project to preserve habitat and manage water to reduce harm to the cranes.

In the case of the northern spotted owl, exemptions were initially granted for timber sales in Oregon but later withdrawn due to legal challenges and procedural violations. No such exemptions were authorized in Washington state.

Why is it convening now?

The official notice says the meeting is “regarding an exemption under the Endangered Species Act” with respect to oil and gas activities.

In a court document responding to a lawsuit filed over the meeting by the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, the government wrote that the March 31 meeting was called because the “Secretary of War found it necessary for reasons of national security to exempt from the ESA’s requirements all Gulf of America oil and gas exploration and development activities” associated with the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Program.

That likely refers to a May 2025 biological opinion by NOAA Fisheries. That opinion found that oil industry operations, particularly vessels striking wildlife, could jeopardize the Rice’s whale and other rare species.

The committee could be considering exemptions to the requirements of that biological opinion, which is being challenged by both conservation groups that want more protections and by industries that consider it too restrictive.

Convening the committee also follows the mandate of President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order declaring a “national energy emergency.” That executive order directs the Endangered Species Act Committee to “identify obstacles to domestic energy infrastructure specifically deriving from implementation of the ESA.”

Changing the paradigm

While the common rhetoric often makes it seem like energy and environmental goals are at odds, examples among leading energy and transportation companies have shown otherwise.

At the University of Illinois Chicago’s Energy Resources Center, my colleagues and I find ways conservationists and energy companies can work together, such as through networks like the Rights-of-Way as Habitat Working Group, which focuses on habitat conservation in working landscapes.

Balancing ecological and economic interests is not just a “nice idea” – it’s shown to be good business.

Planning new projects in ways that avoid harm to wildlife and include proactive conservation plans can avoid lawsuits, permit delays, reputational risks and increased costs.

Companies we work with in the energy and infrastructure sectors are finding that integrating ecological principles into projects and conservation practices into operations avoids other business interruptions as well.

For example, maintaining green spaces as wildlife habitat can buffer infrastructure from severe weather, erosion or flooding. Restoring or improving habitats can also reduce legal risks from environmental damage.

Programs like the University of Illinois Chicago’s nationwide agreements for monarch butterflies and bumblebees help companies reduce regulatory delays and help conserve endangered and declining species at the same time.

For businesses, this can create positive connections with their employees and the communities where they operate. This, in turn, improves their reputations, which can help reduce project delays and encourage investment.

What happens when the Endangered Species Act Committee convenes may influence more than the future of a few species. It could affect broader actions concerning environmental stewardship, corporate responsibility and federal oversight.

If the committee focuses solely on removing protections for wildlife, it risks eroding public trust and could hinder efforts to foster conservation in the energy industry. If instead the committee considers how to increase cooperation among industry, conservation groups and federal agencies, it could have a lasting positive outcome.

Dan Salas 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. Trump’s ‘God Squad’ pits energy vs. endangered species, but it’s a false choice – protecting wildlife can be good for business – https://theconversation.com/trumps-god-squad-pits-energy-vs-endangered-species-but-its-a-false-choice-protecting-wildlife-can-be-good-for-business-279433

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Kyle B. Enfield, Associate Professor of Medicine, University of Virginia

A variant of COVID-19 called BA.3.2, which has circulated under the radar since late 2024, is now spreading quickly across the United States.

As a pulmonary and critical care doctor, I see many patients who are at high risk for severe COVID-19 due to chronic lung disease, as well as patients living with long COVID. All of them ask me how worried they should be about new variants of the virus.

There’s no sign so far that BA.3.2, nicknamed Cicada, is any more dangerous or causes more severe disease than the variants that were circulating in the winter of 2025-26. But because it’s significantly different from them, the current COVID-19 vaccine may not be as effective against it.

Where did the BA.3.2 variant come from?

BA.3.2 is descended from the omicron variant, which emerged in late 2021.

Compared to the current predominant strains of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, BA.3.2 carries 70 to 75 genetic changes in its spike protein, the part of the virus that helps it get into cells. The spike protein is also the part of the virus that vaccines rely on to coax people’s immune systems into recognizing the virus.

Researchers first identified BA.3.2 in November 2024 in Africa. It started its global trek in 2025 and had made it to 23 countries as of February 2026.

The first U.S. case was detected in a traveler coming into the U.S. in June 2025. Since then, it has been detected in patients and the wastewater systems of 29 states.

Wastewater monitoring is one of the best early methods of detecting strain shift, though the number of states submitting wastewater data to the CDC has declined since around 2022, after the height of the pandemic.

What makes BA.3.2 variant different?

All viruses change over time – and the type of virus that causes COVID-19 does so especially quickly. Every time the virus copies itself inside a cell, its DNA mutates. Most of these changes disappear, but occasionally one gives the virus an advantage over other variants, allowing that version to spread.

These changes make it harder for the immune system to recognize the virus.

Think of it like showing up to your 25th high school reunion and seeing people who have put on weight, dyed their hair and started wearing tinted contacts. You will recognize them, but it might take longer. Had you seen them every month or so for those 25 years, you would recognize them right away.

Similarly, changes to a virus’ DNA also affect how well vaccines work. Vaccines prime people’s immune systems by reminding them of what the virus looks like. Scientists design vaccines based on the most common versions of a virus circulating at a given time.

Current COVID-19 vaccines are made to protect against strains from the JN.1 lineage of the virus, which have been the most common strains in the U.S. since January 2024. However, BA.3.2 is the new kid in the block − it’s almost a complete stranger to residents of the U.S. It is different enough from the JN.1 strains that the vaccine may not do as good a job of priming the immune system against it, allowing it to evade detection.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get a vaccine – a large body of evidence shows that they reduce hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19. But a poorly matched vaccine simply won’t recognize the new variant as quickly, which means it takes longer for the immune system to mount its defense.

What dangers does the BA.3.2 variant pose?

Because people’s immune systems aren’t as good at detecting BA.3.2, this variant may infect people more widely, potentially leading to a spike in COVID-19 cases.

But even though BA.3.2 is spreading quickly, there’s no indication that it’s any more dangerous or that it causes more severe disease than the COVID-19 variants that have circulated widely over the past few years.

However, especially given that current vaccines may not be as effective against it, protection remains important. That’s particularly true for people with chronic health conditions, who can experience severe illness from a COVID-19 infection.

And while the number of people who develop long COVID has declined as the virus has changed since early in the pandemic, it still occurs in about 3 in 100 cases.

Protecting yourself and your community

People can take these commonsense steps to avoid getting or spreading COVID-19:

• First, wash your hands after using the bathroom, before preparing food or eating, and after being in contact with a sick person. Hand-washing decreases the chance of a respiratory infection by 16% to 21%.

• Second, if you feel unwell, stay home – not just to take care of yourself, but to prevent spreading disease. You may be hesitant to miss work or school, but the person sitting next to you might have a condition, such as cancer or chronic lung disease, that puts them at risk for severe infection, or they might live with someone who does.

• Third, get outside. Reducing your time in crowded environments reduces your chance of exposure.

• Finally, if you have concerns about your risk of developing a severe infection due to your own health conditions, talk to a trusted clinician who can offer advice that’s specific to your circumstances.

Kyle B. Enfield 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. COVID-19 variant BA.3.2 is spreading quickly across US – a doctor explains what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-variant-ba-3-2-is-spreading-quickly-across-us-a-doctor-explains-what-you-need-to-know-279447

Source: The Conversation – USA – By John Shattuck, Professor of Practice in Diplomacy, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University

On Feb. 24, The Conversation hosted a webinar titled, “What Americans can learn from other nonviolent civil activism movements.”

Executive editor and general manager Beth Daley interviewed John Shattuck, professor of practice at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and Oliver Kaplan, associate professor at Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs at the University of Denver and a visiting scholar at Stanford University.

Shattuck is the former president of Central European University in Hungary, where he defended academic freedom against a rising authoritarian government. Kaplan is the author of “Resisting War: How Communities Protect Themselves.” This interview has been condensed and edited for print.

Beth Daley: What is an authoritarian regime, and what are their characteristics?

John Shattuck: The authoritarian, often referred to as a “king,” is the ideal role from the point of view of the king, but certainly not from the point of view of the people. Authoritarian characteristics include centralized unlimited power, the opposite of democracy; no accountability and no rule of law; no independent courts; no checks and balances on how the king operates; rule by fear and coercion, and when necessary, in order to carry out the king’s orders, rule by by force. There are no individual rights or civil liberties except those the king decides to allow those who are loyal to him to have, at least until he decides to take them away.

That’s a nutshell informal description of an authoritarian regime. A special threat today is that an authoritarian can emerge from a democratic election, and, indeed, a democratic election can be used to turn a weak democracy into an authoritarian regime. But when this happens, it opens the door to challenge the authoritarian in a subsequent election if civic activism can defend the electoral process by which the authoritarian was elected.

BD: What are we seeing and not seeing in the U.S. that other countries have gone through in terms of authoritarian government?

Oliver Kaplan: I think we are heading toward an autocracy, if not there already. In their 2026 report, the Varieties of Democracy Project writes that the U.S. is no longer a liberal democracy and is moving into “competitive authoritarianism,” marked by executive overreach and erosion of judicial and legislative checks. The report notes that U.S. democracy is being dismantled at a speed that is “unprecedented in modern history.”

We are seeing shifts in terms of concentration of power to the executive branch and a disregard of the rule of law, things like ignoring court orders and difficulty with holding the executive branch accountable. We are also seeing the militarization of law enforcement, monitoring of U.S. citizens, and what some refer to as the dual state – that the state is working for some people while causing more challenges for or oppressing other people.

One of the things we’re not seeing at full force yet is a complete shutdown of civic space. We’re able to hold this kind of conversation, and people are still able to dialogue and go out on the street. There are some efforts at curtailing free speech, and I think there’s some self-censorship possibly happening. But there’s still this open space and a powerful mass movement growing in this country.

BD: John, you were on the front lines, particularly in Hungary as the head of Central European University. What did you see there that has parallels today to the U.S.?

JS: There’s certainly a parallel between Hungary and the U.S., even though the countries are very different in size, history and background. What I saw in Hungary when I became president of Central European University in 2009 was a weak, new democracy that was only established in 1990 after 70 years of fascism and communism.

I was in Hungary from 2009 to 2016 and, despite the differences, I could begin to see some parallels. Many people had grievances in Hungary about how their economy was operating, particularly after the global financial crisis that affected Hungary more than any other Eastern European country. Then there was an urban-rural divide, the urban elite versus the rural majority in the country.

Along came a cynical populist-nationalist politician, Viktor Orbán. Orban started manipulating these grievances, and did so to significantly divide Hungarian society. He attacked many of the institutions of democracy, which were increasingly unpopular because of people’s grievances. He went after elites, and foreigners, and migrants, and the media. And he blamed all of them for the country’s problems. He then was able to ride these grievances into office.

Once in office, Orban amended the constitution and laws relating to the parliament. He undermined the independence of the media and the judiciary so as to centralize power. All of this happened while I was running an international university in Budapest, which remained independent because it received no funding from the Hungarian government. We were able to resist the increasingly authoritarian regime over issues of academic freedom. The government tried to shut down our programs of migration studies and gender studies, and tried to censor aspects of our history department.

These authoritarian attacks are similar to what we’ve seen happening in the U.S., and in fact, Viktor Orban was greatly admired by Donald Trump, and a lot of the playbook that Orban has followed was mirrored in Project 2025 in the U.S. under Trump.

BD: How do communities respond in different ways to authoritarian regimes?

OK: Pro-democracy movements and protection types of movements at the local level often co-occur. For example, in Colombia there have been various leftist movements and political parties that have pushed for greater democratic opening while communities mobilize to keep people safe and help them cope with repressive conditions. In places like Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, communities built trust and support networks to provide aid, such as for people who needed food assistance. This provides space to independently operate and preserve the community.

The U.S. has parallels, such as innovating early warning networks to get advance notice of risks and threats, by communicating using the Signal app. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, villages set up radio networks, and in Ukraine they have sophisticated early warning networks to get word of airstrikes and drone attacks.

Fact-finding and countering stigma are important, and in the U.S. we’re seeing that in the form of the video recording and publicizing of harmful actions. This has played out similarly in Syria with fact-finding to protect nongovernment organizations.

There’s also accompaniment where outside actors come in to provide support to communities. Around the world, church organizations play important accompaniment roles. We’re seeing clergy in the U.S. step up and visit places that are at risk.

And then, there are protests, the most visible kind of action. In Minnesota, we’ve seen communities actually setting up community barricades, which has also happened in Mexico, Colombia and Northern Ireland. Communicating the nonviolent nature of these movements is important to avoid any pretext for additional crackdowns.

I think Americans have been taking similar actions to places around the world in part because there are some similar background conditions: repression and strong social capital networks. Those two things come together to produce these strategies.

BD: Could you speak more about the need to build a clear narrative and a positive one?

JS: There are two basic rules for how to resist authoritarianism that I’ve learned from experience: Build a diverse coalition and develop a unifying theme. You need a diverse coalition in order to appeal to a broad range of the public, and in order to do that, you need agreement on the goal and values of what you’re trying to accomplish. You need a clear and unifying narrative. The narrative often involves economic issues and issues of corruption, since there’s often a great deal of corruption in authoritarian regimes.

Hungary will have its next parliamentary election in April in which Orban will seek his fifth term as prime minister. The opposition has developed a broad coalition and a unifying theme, while Orban is using the centralized instruments of government and media that he controls to try to manipulate public opinion. The opposition coalition is headed by Peter Magyar, who was once a major supporter of Orban’s government. Magyar’s name can be magical in Hungary – sort of like a “Joe America” in the U.S.

With Magyar as its head, the opposition is aiming to peel off supporters of the regime. It’s campaigning on economic grounds, with a positive message and on moderate terms. And most importantly, it includes parties from the left, right and center.

Poland has succeeded in doing what the Hungarian opposition is attempting. It managed to vote out an authoritarian government by putting together a broad coalition to defend the independence of the Polish judiciary. That became a coalition to elect parliamentarians in 2023, and that succeeded in changing the government.

BD: How important is the preexisting social fabric of a community to the success of a protest movement?

JS: It’s important, but complicated. Hungary had a very weak civil society after 70 years of totalitarian fascism and communism. When I was there, the very word to “volunteer,” which we think of as the essence of community action and service, was seen to be a bad word in Hungarian because it was closely associated with collaborating with the regime.

In the U.S., we’re the opposite in a sense, although the U.S. is now slipping on this. We have a long history of volunteerism, we have all these civil society organizations, we have a tradition of barn raising, people getting together with their neighbors and doing things in their communities. This is very much a part of the American spirit and a core value.

But today, I would say a combination of consumerism and economic individualism coming out of decades of economic deregulation has caused our civil society to fray. But the authoritarian challenge that we face now, and the way in which we are beginning to respond to it, is in fact bringing communities back together again. I think what happened in Minneapolis is an example of that. And this may reflect a growing capacity to resist an authoritarian regime.

Former President, Central European University (2009-2016)

Oliver Kaplan 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. What Americans can learn from other civil activism movements against authoritarian regimes – https://theconversation.com/what-americans-can-learn-from-other-civil-activism-movements-against-authoritarian-regimes-277344

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Nitin Sanket, Assistant Professor of Robotics Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

To help small aerial robots navigate in the dark and other low-visibility environments, my colleagues and I developed an ultrasound-based perception system inspired by bat echolocation.

Current robots rely heavily on cameras or light detection and ranging, known as lidar, or both. But these sensors fail in visually challenging conditions, such as smoke, fog, dust, snow or complete darkness.

I’m a scientific engineer who develops bio-inspired microrobots. To solve this challenge, my research team looked at nature’s experts at navigating in poor visibility: bats. They thrive in dark, damp and dusty caves and can detect obstacles as thin as a human hair using echolocation while weighing as little as two paper clips. They emit sound waves and listen to weak echoes reflected from objects.

However, enabling this sensing on aerial robots is extremely challenging because propellers generate a lot of noise. It is a bit like trying to listen to your friend while a jet engine is taking off next to you.

To overcome this issue, we present two key ideas. First, a physical acoustic shield inspired by bat’s ear cartilage reduces propeller noise around the acoustic sensors, which act like the robot’s ears. Second, a neural network called Saranga recovers weak echo signals from very noisy measurements by learning patterns over time, inspired by how bats process sound.

Together, these enable the robot to estimate obstacle locations in 3D and navigate safely using milliwatt-level sensing power.

Why it matters

These types of drones are very useful for search and rescue, especially in confined, dynamic and dangerous environments, because they are small and inexpensive. Search-and-rescue operations often happen in environments where visibility is very poor, such as forest fires, collapsed buildings, caves or dusty outdoor conditions. In these scenarios, traditional sensors like cameras and lidar often become unreliable.

Bats do not rely only on vision and instead use echolocation to perceive the world. Ultrasound sensing doesn’t depend on lighting conditions and works in smoke, dust and darkness.

Our work shows that it is possible to bring this capability to aerial robots despite strong onboard propeller noise. Sonar boosted by noise shielding and machine learning promises to enable a new class of small, low-cost robots that can operate in environments where current systems fail.

This research can enable highly functional, autonomous, tiny aerial robots for critical humanitarian applications, such as search and rescue, combating poaching and cave exploration. AI-enabled sonar navigation could lead to safer, faster and more cost-effective robots for time-sensitive operations where human or larger helicopter access is limited. This is a step toward being able to deploy swarms of aerial robots, much like groups of bats, to explore hazardous environments and search for survivors.

Breakthroughs in mathematical modeling, neural network design and sensor characterization will enable other low-power applications for these drones, such as environmental monitoring. Our work can reduce power by 1,000 times, weight by 10 times and cost by 100 times compared to current solutions.

What other research is being done

Most aerial navigation systems rely on cameras, depth sensors or lidar, which degrade in low visibility. Radar works in these conditions but is power-intensive for small drones. Prior work has explored ultrasound sensing mainly on ground robots, but applying it to aerial robots has been difficult due to propeller noise and weak signals.

What’s next

We are working on improving flying speed, sensing range and system size. We are also exploring new bio-inspired designs and combining ultrasound with other types of sensing.

Ultimately, our goal is to build reliable, low-power aerial robots that can operate reliably in dynamic environments and enable real-world deployment in search and rescue.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Nitin Sanket receives funding from the National Science Foundation under CMMI 2516439 (https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award?AWD_ID=2516439).

– ref. Ultralightweight sonar plus AI lets tiny drones navigate like bats – https://theconversation.com/ultralightweight-sonar-plus-ai-lets-tiny-drones-navigate-like-bats-279287

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Debak Das, Assistant Professor, University of Denver

Operation Epic Fury – the latest round of military strikes against Iran – began when Iran was engaged in negotiations with the United States to renew restrictions on its nuclear program.

This is not the first time the United States has bombed Iran during nuclear negotiations.

In June 2025, while its representatives were in talks with Iran over that country’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, Washington launched Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Washington has been broader in its selection of targets in Iran this time around, even though one stated U.S. goal has been to ensure that Iran does not gain nuclear weapons capability.

Conducting military strikes against a country that is engaged in negotiations to reduce its nuclear capacity sets a dangerous precedent. As a scholar of the global nuclear order, I believe that the conflict has jeopardized all future diplomacy to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. military action during negotiations has also undermined Washington’s ability to conduct diplomacy to end the war. Iranian officials negotiating with mediators have expressed their concern that they “don’t want to be ‘fooled again,’” according to a report in Axios, and that any new set of negotiations might just be a ruse to conduct more attacks.

Breaking trust

The key components of any negotiations are trust and good faith.

Parties coming to a negotiating table to discuss their nuclear programs must trust that those across the table are acting in good faith. Past negotiations on nuclear arms control and risk-reduction measures between entrenched enemies, such as the U.S. and the Soviet Union or even India and Pakistan, have seen trust as a key component of coming to the table.

Trust has its own diplomatic cachet. It allows negotiating states to be a little more vulnerable, thus facilitating the possibility of softened positions leading to landmark agreements.

In the 1960s, negotiations were held to establish a global agreement – the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Nations without nuclear weapons had to trust that countries with them would not use their atomic arsenals to gain military advantage over them as they committed to forswear the possession and development of these weapons. Today all but one of the nonnuclear countries of the world – South Sudan – are signatories to the treaty.

The consequences of Washington’s military strikes would be even more grave if a new nuclear deal between Iran and the United States was truly within reach in the negotiations in Geneva days before the conflict started. This is because the reported concessions from Iran were substantial enough to have warranted a pause in Washington’s military strategy.

A day before Operation Epic Fury began, Oman foreign minister Badr bin Hamad al Busaidi, the principal mediator in the talks, announced that Iran had agreed to zero stockpiling. That is, Tehran would give up its enriched uranium, would down-blend – nuclear-speak for diluting – all material that was previously highly enriched to a neutral level, and be subject to “full and comprehensive verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

If true, these terms could have made any new agreement between the U.S. and Iran as consequential as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated between the United States and Iran under President Obama’s administration.

The violation of trust by the U.S. will be keenly observed by North Korea. In early March 2026, that country conducted tests of what it called “strategic cruise missiles” – missiles it suggests could have nuclear capability – stating that its ability to attack from under and above water was growing and that it was arming its navy with nuclear weapons.

Any possibility of bilateral negotiations between the United States and North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs will now be marked by the unreliability of the U.S. as a good faith negotiator.

Imperiled future

With its actions in Iran, the U.S. has lost credibility as a leading international interlocutor in service of global nonproliferation diplomacy.

Key to a nation’s credibility during negotiations is the reputation that it builds from its past actions. Both instances of the U.S. bombing Iran while negotiating with it will make it very unlikely that other countries will engage with Washington in future nuclear diplomacy.

Those countries that want to take part in nuclear diplomacy involving the U.S. will likely ask that other, trusted countries participate as well. They will also likely seek security guarantees before engaging in negotiations. This will mean that China and the European Union – countries, alliances or institutions that might help keep the United States accountable – will likely have to be a part of any such diplomacy.

Loss of trust in the United States’ good faith will likely continue across future U.S. administrations after the Trump presidency. This will be because of uncertainty over the credibility of international commitments made by the United States. An agreement made by one administration could be reneged on by the next.

Another area of concern is that in the future a country on the threshold of gaining nuclear weapons might not arrive at the negotiating table fully ready to give up all parts of its nuclear program. Even if a country does make concessions, it might choose to hold on to some part of its nuclear or missile program as a guarantee against a future American military strike.

The future of negotiations over nuclear proliferation may yet expand beyond that focus to ballistic missiles as well. Recall that Trump began the latest conflict saying that Iran’s ballistic missiles were an “imminent threat” to the U.S. and its bases abroad. Nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missile programs often go together. Countries with such missile programs that are not allied with the U.S. might also be future targets of bilateral diplomatic and military action.

The loss of trust and good faith has substantially reduced the ability of the U.S. to diplomatically address not only broader nuclear and missile nonproliferation concerns but also its own national security needs. Under these circumstances, military action might be the most tempting option for Washington to secure these goals – and that is dangerous.

Debak Das 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. War on Iran during nuclear negotiations undermines the US’s ability to talk peace around the world − and the effects won’t end when Trump leaves office – https://theconversation.com/war-on-iran-during-nuclear-negotiations-undermines-the-uss-ability-to-talk-peace-around-the-world-and-the-effects-wont-end-when-trump-leaves-office-279079

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Scott Solomon, Teaching Professor of BioSciences, Rice University

The central premise of the blockbuster film “Project Hail Mary” is a long-shot mission with a familiar goal: Save humanity from extinction. While the details of the threat facing humanity are new to this story, moviegoers are used to bingeing on popcorn while watching a heroic quest to save the Earth from certain doom. And like so many popular movies of this genre, from “Armageddon” to “Interstellar,” the hero’s journey involves a seemingly impossible mission into space.

The film’s release is well timed for the new era of space exploration. NASA’s Artemis II mission, scheduled to launch in early April, will send four astronauts around the Moon on a path that will take them deeper into space than any humans have ever traveled.

The flyby mission is primarily about testing equipment for a lunar landing in 2028. But the broader plan was outlined in detail in March 2026 by NASA officials: to establish a permanent base on the Moon.

NASA is not alone in its lunar ambitions. Private space companies SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing next-generation spacecraft, rovers and drones to facilitate the American Moon base. And other nations, notably China, are working toward their own lunar outposts.

These nations and corporations see the Moon as a stepping stone toward more ambitious goals: a major human migration into deep space, including Mars.

Given the moment, it’s worth reflecting on what those investing billions in human space exploration, whether tax dollars or private funds, are trying to accomplish. As a biologist, I recognize the limitations of humans as space explorers. As I explain in my book, “Becoming Martian: How Living in Space Will Change Our Bodies and Minds,” while biologists have learned a lot about how the conditions of space affect the human body and mind, sending people on longer missions deeper into space will expose people to unknown health risks.

Boldly going

Plans to send people to the Moon and beyond are accelerating. NASA’s new administrator, Jared Isaacman, has argued that beating China to the Moon is a matter of national security, calling the Moon “the ultimate high ground.” He has also promoted the economic benefits of establishing a space economy that includes mining and manufacturing on the Moon.

Subcommittees in both the House and Senate have passed bills to codify these initiatives into law – making the goal of creating a permanent base on the Moon official U.S. policy. They appear to have bipartisan support, and votes in both houses of Congress are expected soon.

The United States and China are targeting landing humans on Mars in the 2030s, with the intention of building infrastructure that enables long-term habitation.

In March 2026, NASA also announced that the agency intends to test nuclear propulsion during an uncrewed flight to Mars in 2028. Nuclear-powered rockets have the potential to substantially reduce the time it takes to reach Mars, which would make crewed flight to the red planet more feasible.

Humans or robots?

But why do people need to go to Mars? As with the Moon, the purported motivations for both the U.S. and China establishing a human presence on Mars are scientific, economic and geopolitical. Yet these are distinct objectives that are often conflated.

In terms of science, NASA has had dramatic success with its Mars rovers, including the discovery last year of a potential biosignature that could be the best evidence yet that the planet was once home to microbial life.

Robotic missions also have a lower price tag and a higher acceptable risk margin than human missions. While Isaacman remains publicly committed to the Artemis program and its human spaceflight goals, the agency’s plan also includes a suite of robotic missions to the Moon’s surface it hopes to develop in partnership with companies, universities and international partners.

Likewise, some economic objectives, such as establishing mining and manufacturing facilities, could be accomplished using AI-equipped robots, such as those Tesla is developing. Robots are a long way from being able to accomplish the full range of tasks that a human can do, but prioritizing robotic activities could lower the exposure that people have to the hazards of space.

If having people on the Moon and Mars is indeed necessary to achieve these objectives, let’s be clear about the risks that the people undertaking these missions will be assuming.

Space and the human body

While scientists have learned a lot about how space affects the body during the six decades of human spaceflight, there are still significant blind spots. Among them are the effects of deep-space radiation.

The 24 Apollo astronauts who traveled to the Moon are the only people who have ever been past the Van Allen radiation belts, an area of space surrounding our planet formed by Earth’s magnetic field.

By trapping radiation from the Sun and from deep space, our planet’s magnetic field is part of what makes Earth habitable for us and other life forms. The Moon and Mars lack magnetic fields, so radiation levels on their surfaces are substantial. NASA researchers are now conducting experiments on rodents using simulated galactic cosmic rays, which are largely blocked by Earth’s magnetic fields. Preliminary results suggest that this type of radiation may impair cognitive abilities, but the actual effects on people are unknown.

Similarly, while medical researchers know that floating in a zero-g environment causes muscle atrophy and bone density loss during long stays on the International Space Station, they know relatively little about how partial gravity affects muscles and bones. The Moon has one-sixth the gravity of Earth, and Mars has a little over one-third.

Pilots on Earth can simulate partial gravity for up to 30 seconds at a time during parabolic flights, but only the 12 Apollo astronauts who walked on the Moon have ever experienced it for longer than that. The longest they stayed was about three days. Scientists can only speculate about whether prolonged exposure to the partial gravity of the Moon or Mars would have consequential health effects.

Human interest

Sending robots to space avoids having to deal with risks to human health. But there are downsides. Not only do robotic space missions have fewer capabilities than crewed missions, they often fail to capture interest and imagination and demonstrate national prestige in the same way that human missions can.

The four members of the Artemis crew will captivate people worldwide watching their daring mission around the Moon, much like moviegoers root for Ryan Gosling’s character in “Project Hail Mary” as he boldly seeks to save humanity from certain doom on the big screen.

That human interest is the common link that ties together public and private space ambitions worldwide. While robotic missions are more practical and cost effective, they simply don’t inspire the masses the way a human crew can. Beyond achieving any economic, political or scientific goals, space exploration is ultimately about people doing difficult things.

I am the author of the book Becoming Martian published by MIT Press

– ref. From ‘Project Hail Mary’ to Artemis II, spaceflight captures audiences when it centers on people because human space travel is hazardous – https://theconversation.com/from-project-hail-mary-to-artemis-ii-spaceflight-captures-audiences-when-it-centers-on-people-because-human-space-travel-is-hazardous-279147