Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania

Cricket’s third World Test Championship final will begin on Wednesday night in London. Reigning champions Australia will compete with South Africa to be crowned the world’s best men’s Test cricket team.

This new tournament has faced controversy because of the points system used to determine the two finalists, with South Africa also criticised in recent years for allowing many key players to compete in T20 tournaments instead of Test matches.

Despite this, South Africa has earned its right to take on the Australians at Lord’s Cricket Ground.

What is the World Test Championship?

The World Test Championship is a tournament played between nine full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC): Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies.

The previous winners were New Zealand (2021) and Australia (2023).

The ICC introduced this tournament as a way to increase the relevance and importance of Test cricket in a world dominated by popular Twenty 20 tournaments such as the Big Bash and Indian Premier League.

Each country plays three series of between two and five Test matches at home, and three away.

The tournament takes two years to complete because each Test match can take five days and there are no dedicated times for Test match cricket throughout the year. This is because many cricketers also play in T20 and one-day tournaments.

Teams are awarded points for wins (12 points), ties (six) and draws (four) – there are zero points for a loss. Teams lose points if they bowl their overs too slowly.

While this point system is simple enough, ranking teams in the results table is more confusing, because some teams play more Tests than others.

Bigger, wealthier countries such as England, India and Australia commonly play four or five Tests in a series, whereas less affluent countries often play series with only two or three Tests.

Because of this difference, the results table is based on the percentage of points teams have won (how many points they won divided by how many points they could have won).

For example, if a team played ten tests, the maximum points they could earn would be 120 (10 x 12 points for each win). If they earned 60 points, then they would be ranked on the results table as winning 50% (60 divided by 120).

How did Australia and South Africa reach the final?

South Africa finished on top of the table by winning series against the West Indies, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. They also drew with India and lost to New Zealand.

Australia beat Pakistan and India at home and New Zealand and Sri Lanka away. They also drew series with England (away) and the West Indies (home).

The final will be played at the “home of cricket”: Lord’s in London.

Neutral territory

Test matches are rarely played at neutral venues but the World Test Championship final is played in England for a variety of reasons.

The current two-year World Test Championship cycle ends in June, which is early summer in England and winter or monsoon season in most other major cricket nations.

England also offers good infrastructure, strong crowds, a time zone that aligns favourably with prime time viewing hours in India, and pitches that offer a fair contest between bat and ball, allowing for exciting and competitive cricket.

Despite these reasons, the repeated scheduling of finals in England has been criticised, predominantly by India.

Criticisms of the championship

South Africa’s qualification for the final has been criticised because they have played the least number of Tests and avoided playing some stronger teams.

While these criticisms are not unfounded, they are also not South Africa’s fault: the ICC is responsible for ensuring scheduling is fair.

Richer countries such as Australia, England and India face a dilemma in that five-Test series between them are generally high quality, exciting and profitable but are also difficult to win.

Smaller nations playing two-Test series receive less interest and money but also easier opponents and less fixture fatigue. This situation can make it easier for smaller, less affluent teams to have a higher winning percentage.

Other criticisms have focused on the points deductions for slow overs and the exclusion of Test playing nations Afghanistan, Ireland and Zimbabwe. When the World Test Championship was launched in 2019, only the nine full members were included. No specific reasons were given for the exclusion of Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland.

Including these countries and having two six-team divisions – with teams being relegated and promoted each year – has been suggested as way to make the Test championship more fair and more competitive.

However, this idea has also been criticised as focusing on profits instead of protecting and nurturing the game around the world.

These deductions and divisions, and other potential changes, were considered at a recent ICC meeting but no changes were made.

Final preparations

Australian players have prepared for the final in a variety of ways, such as playing in the IPL, county cricket in the United Kingdom and practice sessions at home.

They are favourites for the final and have a strong squad to choose from.

South Africa also has a strong team with several key players returning from injuries and a drugs ban.

A win for Australia would solidify its standing as the premier Test cricket team in the world. For South Africa, a victory would showcase a remarkable turnaround after being criticised for picking a weak squad for a tour of New Zealand, with most of its better players instead competing in T20 tournaments.

There is also record prize money at stake.

If the match is a draw, tie or washed out, Australia and South Africa will share the trophy. But there is a reserve day available in case of wet weather.

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

– ref. What is the World Test Championship and how did Australia qualify for the final? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-world-test-championship-and-how-did-australia-qualify-for-the-final-256999

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Poropat, Research Associate, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University

Since the late 19th century, sauropod dinosaurs (long-necks like Brontosaurus and Brachiosaurus) have been almost universally regarded as herbivores, or plant eaters.

However, until recently, no direct evidence – in the form of fossilised gut contents – had been found to support this.

I was one of the palaeontologists on a dinosaur dig in outback Queensland, Australia, that unearthed “Judy”: an exceptional sauropod specimen with the fossilised remains of its last meal in its abdomen.

In a new paper published today in Current Biology, we describe these gut contents while also revealing that Judy is the most complete sauropod, and the first with fossilised skin, ever found in Australia.

Remarkably preserved, Judy helps to shed light on the feeding habits of the largest land-living animals of all time.

Plant-eating land behemoths

Sauropod dinosaurs dominated Earth’s landscapes for the entire 130 million years of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Along with many other species, they died out in the mass extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous 66 million years ago.

Ever since the first reasonably complete sauropod skeletons were found in the 1870s, the hypothesis that they were herbivores has rarely been contested. Simply put, it is hard to envisage sauropods eating anything other than plants.

Their relatively simple teeth were not adapted for tearing flesh or crushing bone. Their small brains and ponderous pace would have prevented them from outsmarting or outpacing most potential prey.

And to sustain their huge bodies, sauropods would have had to eat regularly and often, necessitating an abundant and reliable food source – plants.

Although the general body plan of sauropods seems pretty uniform – stocky, on all fours, with long necks – these behemoths did vary when we look more closely.

Some had squared-off snouts with tiny, rapidly replaced teeth confined to the front of the mouth. Others had rounded snouts, with much more robust teeth, arranged in a row that extended farther back in the mouth. Neck length varied greatly (with some necks up to 15 metres long), as did neck flexibility. In addition, a few of them had taller shoulders than hips.

Absolute size varied too – some were less enormous than others. All of these factors would have constrained how high above ground each species could feed and which plants they could reach.

Food in the belly

Sauropod discoveries are becoming more regular in outback Queensland, thanks largely to the Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum in Winton.

In 2017, I helped the museum unearth a roughly 95-million-year-old sauropod, nicknamed Judy after the museum’s co-founder Judy Elliott.

We soon realised this find was extraordinary. Besides being the most complete sauropod skeleton and skin ever found in Australia, Judy’s belly region hosted a strange rock layer. It was about two square metres in area and ten centimetres thick on average, chock-full of fossil plants.

The fact this plant-rich layer was confined to Judy’s abdomen and located on the inside surface of the fossil skin, made us wonder – had we unearthed the remains of Judy’s last meal or meals?

If so, we knew we had something special on our hands: the first sauropod gut contents ever found.

Multi-level feeding

Analysis of Judy’s skeleton, which was prepared out of the surrounding rock by volunteers in the museum’s laboratory, enabled us to classify her as a Diamantinasaurus matildae.

We scanned portions of Judy’s gut contents with X-rays at the Australian Synchrotron in Melbourne and at CSIRO in Perth, and with neutrons at Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in Sydney.

This enabled us to digitally visualise the plants – which were preserved as voids within the rock – without destroying them.

We did destructively sample some small portions of the gut contents to figure out their chemical make-up, along with the skin and surrounding rock.

This revealed the gut contents were turned to stone by microbes in an acidic environment (stomach juices, perhaps), with minerals likely derived from the decomposition of Judy’s own body tissues.

Judy’s gut contents confirm that sauropods ate their greens but barely chewed them – their gut flora did most of the digestive work.

Most importantly, we can tell Judy ate bracts from conifers (relatives of modern monkey puzzle trees and redwoods), seed pods from extinct seed ferns, and leaves from angiosperms (flowering plants) just before she died.

Conifers then, as now, would have been huge, implying Judy fed well above ground level. By contrast, flowering plants were mostly low-growing in the mid-Cretaceous.

Based on other specimens (especially teeth), scientists previously thought Diamantinasaurus browsed plants relatively high off the ground. The conifer bracts in Judy’s belly support this.

However, Judy was not fully grown when she died, and the angiosperms in her belly imply lower-level feeding, as well. It seems likely, then, that the diets of some sauropods changed slightly as they grew. Nevertheless, they were life-long vegetarians.

Judy’s skin and gut contents are now on display at the Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum in Winton. I’m not sure how I’d feel about having the remains of my last meal publicly exhibited for all to see posthumously, but if it helped the cause of science, I think I’d be OK with it.

Stephen Poropat receives funding from the Australian Research Council through an ARC Laureate awarded to Prof. Kliti Grice, “Interpreting the molecular record in extraordinarily preserved fossils”.

– ref. For the first time, fossil stomach contents of a sauropod dinosaur reveal what they really ate – https://theconversation.com/for-the-first-time-fossil-stomach-contents-of-a-sauropod-dinosaur-reveal-what-they-really-ate-258183

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Azadeh Dastyari, Director, Research and Policy, Whitlam Institute, Western Sydney University

On June 11, Australia marks 50 years since the Racial Discrimination Act became law. This important legislation helps make sure people are treated equally no matter their race, skin colour, background, or where they come from.

But the act didn’t happen overnight. It took nearly ten years for Australia to follow through on the promises it made to the world to fight racism when it signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1966.

When Australia first signed that agreement, it still had laws and attitudes shaped by the White Australia Policy.

Even after Australia started moving away from the White Australia Policy, federal leaders held off on making anti-racism laws. They weren’t sure it was allowed under the Constitution, worried about the cost, and didn’t want to upset the states. Many also feared that Australians wouldn’t support it.

It took the courage of Gough Whitlam, Australia’s 21st prime minister, to pass Australia’s first anti-discrimination law. Between 1973 and 1975, Whitlam and his government made four attempts to pass laws against racial discrimination. The act was the result of their fourth try – this time, it worked.

An uphill battle

The first time the Racial Discrimination Bill was introduced was in 1973, it was alongside a Human Rights Bill. Together, they were part of a bigger plan to give people in Australia more rights and fair treatment.

People had mixed feelings about the idea of a law to protect individual rights. Most of the concern was about the Human Rights Bill, but some also doubted whether a Racial Discrimination Act was needed.

There was debate about whether it would really work or just be a symbolic step, and whether or not it would take away from people’s freedoms.

In the end, the 1973 bill lapsed and did not become law.

The Whitlam government reintroduced the bill twice more in 1974, once in April and then again in October.

The April version added protections for immigrants and focused more on conciliation and education, but it wasn’t debated before an election.

The bill returned in October with minor updates, mainly to strengthen education efforts and clarify that it used civil, not criminal, enforcement.

Still, it was withdrawn in early 1975 because of ongoing political instability.

The 1975 Racial Discrimination Bill was the Whitlam government’s final, and successful, push to make laws tackling racism.

Familiar debates

Labor MPs backed the 1975 version of the bill, highlighting its importance for Indigenous people and other marginalised groups.

But the Liberal–Country Party Coalition, then in opposition, pushed back hard.

While the opposition claimed to support equality, they questioned the legal basis of the bill, feared it gave too much power to the race relations commissioner and warned it might threaten free speech.

Some opposition voices, especially in the Senate, went further, downplaying racism altogether. Senator Ian Wood claimed Australia was “singularly free of racial discrimination”.

Senator Glen Sheil argued immigration was the issue:

Australia over recent years has adopted an immigration policy that has allowed the immigration into this country of blacks, whites, reds, yellows and browns […] because of these problems, once again created by governments, we are now faced with this Racial Discrimination Bill. In my opinion if this bill is implemented it will create more discrimination, not less.

The opposition successfully weakened the bill by removing several key parts, including:

• criminal penalties for inciting racial discrimination

• the ability of the commissioner to start legal proceedings in court or ask a court to make someone give evidence

• and criminal penalties for publishing, distributing or expressing racial hostility.

Despite these setbacks, the Racial Discrimination Act passed.

Change takes time

Even with all the compromises, the passing of the act was a major moment in Australian history.

As Whitlam acknowledged:

it is of course extraordinarily difficult to define racial discrimination and outlaw it by legislative means. Social attitudes and mental habits do not readily lend themselves to codification and statutory prohibition.

The act has not erased racial discrimination, nor is it perfect.

It continues to spark debates and needs to be further strengthened to meet the changing needs of our society.

However, the laws have been used in real cases to protect people’s rights, shown the federal government does have the power under the Constitution to make laws about human rights, and has sent a strong message that everyone deserves to be safe and free from discrimination, regardless of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

The story of the Racial Discrimination Act is a reminder that real change takes time, resolve and tenacity.

While the laws finally passed, the Human Rights Bill introduced alongside it in 1973 did not.

More than 50 years later, Australia still does not have a national Human Rights Act. As more people call for stronger human rights protections in our laws, the Racial Discrimination Act stands as both a reminder of what progress can look like and a challenge to imagine what bold leadership could achieve today.

A Human Rights Act is now needed more than ever to protect those most at risk. It will take the same political will, moral clarity, and bravery that brought the Racial Discrimination Act to life.

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

– ref. The Racial Discrimination Act at 50: the bumpy, years-long journey to Australia’s first human rights laws – https://theconversation.com/the-racial-discrimination-act-at-50-the-bumpy-years-long-journey-to-australias-first-human-rights-laws-257245

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Waikato

The Dutch Golden Age, beginning in 1588, is known for the art of Rembrandt, the invention of the microscope, and the spice trade of the Dutch East India Company. It ended a little under a century later in a frenzy of body parts and mob justice.

In 1672, enraged by a fake news campaign, rioters killed the recently ousted head of state Johan de Witt and his brother Cornelis. The mob hung them upside down, removed their organs, ate parts of the corpses, and sold fingers and tongues as souvenirs.

Even in a period characterised by torture and assassination, this grisly act stands out as extreme. But it also stands as a warning from history about what can happen when disinformation is allowed to run rampant.

The attack on Johan and Cornelis de Witt was fuelled by a relentless flood of malicious propaganda and forgeries claiming the brothers were corrupt, immoral elitists who had conspired with enemies of the Dutch Republic.

The anonymous authors of the smear campaigns blamed Johan for war with England and “all the bloodshed, killing and injuring, the crippled and mutilated people, including widows and orphans” that allegedly kept him in power.

According to one pamphlet, the violence was legitimate because the ends justified the means: “Beating to death is not a sin in case it is practised against a tyrant.” The sentiment echoes a quote frequently attributed to Napoleon, recently shared by US President Donald Trump on social media: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.”

‘Fight like hell’

These days, of course, we’ve become accustomed to the dangers fake news (and deepfakes) pose in the promotion of political violence, hate speech, extremism and extrajudicial killings.

In March, for example, historical footage of war crimes in Syria was manipulated by generative AI to appear as current events. Combined with disinformation in chat rooms and on social media, it incited panic and violence.

The effects were magnified in a country with no reliable independent media, where informal news is often the only source of information.

But even in a superpower with an established media culture, similar things happen.
Before the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol in 2021, Trump called on thousands of supporters at a “Save America” rally to “fight like hell” or they were “not going to have a country anymore”.

This was shortly before Congress verified the presidential election result, which Trump alleged was invalid because of voter fraud. Addressing the same crowd, Trump advisor Rudolph Giuliani called for “trial by combat”.

What happened might not have been as extreme as the events in the Netherlands 350 years earlier, but a violent mob fired up on disinformation still shook the foundations of US democracy.

The ‘disaster year’

The deeper forces at work in the US were and still are complex – just as they were in the 17th-century Dutch Republic. What brought it down was a volatile mix of power struggles, geopolitical rivalries and oligarchy.

William of Orange had been excluded from the office of stadtholder, the hereditary head of state, by a secret treaty with England under Oliver Cromwell to end the First Anglo-Dutch War.

When the English monarchy was restored, however, the treaty became invalid and the Orangists attempted to reinstate William. Johan De Witt represented the States Party, made up of wealthy oligarchs, whereas William was seen as a man of the people.

The republic had built an impressive navy and merchant fleet but neglected its army. A land invasion by France and allies was supported by the English navy. To prevent the invasion from advancing, land was flooded by opening gates and canals.

The combination of floods and an occupying army threw the economy into chaos. The Orangists wouldn’t cooperate with the States Party, and the republic was on the brink of collapse. The Dutch referred to 1672 as the Rampjaar, the “disaster year”.

Historical rhymes

Satirists, pamphleteers and activists seized on the crises as an opportunity to ramp up their campaign against the de Witt brothers. Political opposition turned into personal attacks, false accusations and calls for violence.

Johan was assaulted and stabbed in an attempted assassination in June 1672, resigning from his role as head of state two months later. Cornelis was then arrested for treason. When Johan went to visit him in prison, the guards and soldiers disappeared, and a conveniently positioned mob dragged the brothers into the street.

The rest, as they say, is history. William III was strongly suspected of orchestrating the brothers’ gruesome murder, but this was never confirmed.

Is there is a moral to the story? Perhaps it is simply that, in a time of crisis, a campaign of disinformation can transform political opposition and rebellion into assassination – and worse.

Pamphlets – the social media of their day – manipulated public perception and amplified popular anxiety into murderous rage. A golden age of prosperity under a republic headed by oligarchs ended with ritualised political violence and the return of a monarch who promised to keep the people safe.

They say history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. As ever, the need to separate fact from fiction remains an urgent task.

Garritt C. Van Dyk has been a recipient of Getty Research Institute funding.

– ref. Fake news and real cannibalism: a cautionary tale from the Dutch Golden Age – https://theconversation.com/fake-news-and-real-cannibalism-a-cautionary-tale-from-the-dutch-golden-age-257104

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Venkat Narayanan, Senior Lecturer – Accounting and Tax, RMIT University

Earlier this year, I attended a housing conference in Sydney. The event’s opening address centred on the way Australia seems to be becoming like 18th-century England – a country where inheritance largely determines one’s opportunities in life.

There has been a lot of media coverage of economic inequities in Australian society. Our tax system has been partly blamed for this problem. The case for long-term, visionary tax reform has never been stronger. And one area of tax reform could be a wealth tax.

First, let’s be clear about one thing. Unlike the superannuation tax reforms currently being debated for those with more than A$3 million in superannuation, the wealth tax we’re talking about would apply to a very different cohort: billionaires.

A recent article in the Financial Times re-examined a proposal to impose such a tax on the world’s highest-net-worth individuals. It also pointed out these efforts would need to be globally coordinated.

Such taxes could collect significant sums of money for governments. It’s previously been estimated a billionaire tax could raise US$250 billion (more than A$380 billion) globally if just 2% of the net worth of the world’s billionaires was taxed each year.

The case for a wealth tax

Inequality is on the rise and the argument for a wealth tax can’t be ignored – not least here at home. According to the Australia Institute, the wealth of Australia’s richest 200 people has soared as a percentage of our national gross domestic product (GDP) – from 8.4% in 2004 to 23.7% in 2024.

If that sounds dramatic, the picture is far worse in the United States. So, what would a wealth tax look like in Australia (noting that in reality a globally coordinated effort would be needed)?

The starting point for this is understanding of why high-net-worth individuals seemingly pay very low taxes.

High net worth, low tax rate

Income taxes only take into account any amounts that are received in the hands of the taxpayer – whether that is a company, a person or a trust.

Most high-net-worth individuals do not receive much income directly but “store” their wealth in companies and other corporate structures.

In Australia, the maximum applicable tax rate for companies is 30%. Note that the highest tax rate in Australia for individuals is 45% plus the 2% medicare levy, effectively 47%.

Assets such as real estate may also be held by companies or trusts, and the increase in value of these assets is not taxed until they are sold (through capital gains tax).

Even then, those gains may not be paid out directly to the high-net-worth individual who owns these entities.

Unrealised gains

So, how do we tax wealth that is sitting in various businesses (company structures) or other entities, but isn’t taxed at present because the “income” or “gains” from these are not taxable in the hands of the wealthy individuals who own them?

This goes into the murky area of taxation of unrealised gains. Here, we need to tread very carefully. But we also need to recognise that we already do this, albeit rather subtly, and most of us are not billionaires.

In your rates notice from your local council, for example, the increase in value of your residence or investment property is used to calculate your rates.

The real difficulty, to carry on with this example, is that your residence or investment property is typically held in your name and so the tax can be directly levied on you.

Making tax unavoidable

As we’ve already explained, the bulk of the assets or net worth of wealthy individuals is not directly attributable to them. Does this mean we should give up altogether?

Not quite. UNSW professor Chris Evans has pointed out that while we may not be able to effectively tax all the net worth of the wealthy, there are some things we can tax and they can’t avoid it.

An obvious example is real estate. You can pack your bags and bank accounts and move to a low-tax country, but you can’t move your mansion overlooking Sydney Harbour.

Real estate, both residential and commercial, provides one clear way in which we could implement a partial wealth tax. This method (which also has fewer valuation issues than value stored in a company in the form of retained profits) also counters the argument that the wealthy will simply move to other jurisdictions that won’t tax them.

There is plenty of academic research looking at various wealth tax initiatives in other countries. We should learn from these, including the experience in Switzerland and Sweden.

In Sweden, for instance, research found the behavioural effects of wealth taxation were less pronounced than those of income taxation, but the system had so many loopholes that evasion was an option for some people.

Change faces headwinds

In a very uncertain world that features ongoing wars and an unpredictable US president, any change that seeks to address issues of inequity is going to be met with resistance by those who hold power.

Some billionaires in the US, however, have expressed their support for being taxed more in a letter signed by heirs to the Disney and Rockefeller fortunes. That offers some hope, and suggests the discussion about wealth taxes should not be relegated to the “too hard” basket.

Some steps towards taxing the uber-rich would be better than the status quo.

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

– ref. Some economists have called for a radical ‘global wealth tax’ on billionaires. How would that work? – https://theconversation.com/some-economists-have-called-for-a-radical-global-wealth-tax-on-billionaires-how-would-that-work-257632

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niall Johnston, Conjoint Associate Lecturer, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney

Whooping cough (pertussis) is always circulating in Australia, and epidemics are expected every three to four years. However, the numbers we’re seeing with the current surge – which started in 2024 – are higher than usual epidemics.

Vaccines for this highly infectious respiratory infection have been available in Australia for many decades. Yet it remains a challenging infection to control because immunity (due to prior infection, or vaccination) wanes with time.

In 2025, more than 14,000 cases have been recorded already. Some regions, including Queensland and Western Australia’s Kimberley region, are seeing a marked rise in cases.

In 2024, more than 57,000 cases of whooping cough were reported in Australia – the highest yearly total since 1991 – including 25,900 in New South Wales alone.

What is causing the current surge?

A few factors are driving numbers higher than we’d expect for an anticipated epidemic.

COVID lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 reduced natural immunity to many diseases, disrupted routine childhood vaccination services, and resulted in rising distrust in vaccines. This has meant higher-than-usual numbers for many infectious diseases.

And it’s not only Australia witnessing this surge.

In the United States, whooping cough cases are at their highest since 1948, with deaths reported in several states, including two infants.

In Australia, vaccine coverage remains relatively high but it is slipping and is below the national target of 95% .

Even small declines may have a significant impact on infection rates.

Who is at risk of whooping cough?

Young babies, especially those under six weeks of age, are extremely vulnerable to whooping cough because they’re too young to be vaccinated.

Infants under six months of age are also more likely to require hospitalisation for breathing support or have severe outcomes such as pneumonia, seizures or brain inflammation . Some do not survive.

However, the greatest number of cases occur in older children and adults. In fact, in 2024, more than 70% of cases occurred in children 10 years and older, and adults.

Can you get whooping cough even if you’re vaccinated?

The whooping cough vaccine works well, but its protection fades with time. Babies are immunised at six weeks, four months and six months, which gives good protection against severe illness.

But without extra (booster) doses, that protection drops, falling to less than 50% by four years of age. That’s why booster doses at 18 months and four years are essential for maintaining protection against the disease.

A whooping cough vaccine is also recommended for any adult who wishes to reduce the likelihood of becoming ill with pertussis. Carers of young infants, in particular, should have a booster dose if they’ve not received one in the past ten years.

A booster dose is also recommended every ten years for health-care workers and early childhood educators.

One of the best ways we can protect babies from the life-threatening illness of whooping cough is vaccination during pregnancy, which transfers protective antibodies to the unborn baby.

If a woman hasn’t received a vaccine during pregnancy, they can be vaccinated as soon as possible after delivery (preferably before hospital discharge). This won’t pass protective immunity to the baby, but reduces the likelihood of the mother getting whooping cough, providing some indirect protection to the infant.

How contagious is whooping cough?

Whooping cough is extremely contagious – in fact, it is up to ten times more contagious than the flu.

If you’re immunised against whooping cough, you’re likely to have milder symptoms. But you can still catch and spread it, including to babies who have not yet been immunised.

Data shows siblings (and not parents) are one of the most common sources of whooping cough infection in babies.

This highlights the importance of on-time vaccination not just during pregnancy, but also in siblings and other close contacts.

How do I know it’s whooping cough, and not just a cold?

Early symptoms of whooping cough can look just like a cold: a runny nose, mild fever, and a persistent cough.

After about a week, the cough often worsens, coming in long fits that may end with a sharp “whoop” as the person gasps for breath.

In very young babies, there may be no whoop at all. They might briefly stop breathing (called an “apnoea”) or turn blue.

In teens and adults, the only sign may be a stubborn cough (the so-called “100-day” cough) that won’t go away.

If you have whooping cough, you may be infectious for up to three weeks after symptoms begin, unless treated with antibiotics (which can shorten this to five days).

You’ll need to stay home from work, school or childcare during this time to help protect others.

What should I do to reduce my risk?

Start by checking your vaccination record. This can be done through the myGov website, the Express Plus Medicare app or by asking your GP.

If you’re pregnant, get a whooping cough booster in your second trimester. A booster is also important if you’re planning to care for young infants or meet a newborn.

Got a cough that lasts more than a week or comes in fits? Ask your GP about testing.

One quick booster could help stop the next outbreak from reaching you or your loved ones.

Phoebe Williams receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Gates Foundation, and the Medical Research Future Fund.

Helen Quinn and Niall Johnston do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australia’s whooping cough surge is not over – and it doesn’t just affect babies – https://theconversation.com/australias-whooping-cough-surge-is-not-over-and-it-doesnt-just-affect-babies-257808

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clive Phillips, Adjunct Professor in Animal Welfare, Curtin University

As a teenager in the 1970s, I worked on a typical dairy farm in England. Fifty cows grazed on lush pastures for most of their long lives, each producing about 12 litres of milk daily. They were loved and cared for by two herdsmen.

About 50 years later, I visited a dairy farm in China. There, 30,000 cows lived indoors. Most of these selectively bred animals wore out after two or three years of producing 30–40 litres of milk every day, after which they were unceremoniously killed. The workers rarely had contact with the cows. Instead, they sat in offices, programming machines which managed them.

This speaks to a huge and very recent shift in how we treat animals. Over the last half century, the human population has soared – and so too our demand for meat, milk and many other animal products. As a result livestock populations have ballooned while living conditions for animals permanently kept inside have drastically worsened.

Even as farmed animals have multiplied, populations of wild animals have crashed. The two trends are deeply connected. Humans convert wildlife habitat into pastures and farms, expanding living space for farm animals at the expense of many other animals.

This cannot continue. Humans must reckon with how we treat the myriad other species on the planet, whether we rely on them or not. As I argue in my new open access book, the growing scarcity of animal species should make us grasp our responsibility towards the welfare of all animal species on the planet, not just those in farms.

Efforts to enshrine rights for animals is not enough. The focus has to be on our responsibilities to them, ensuring they lead good lives if in our care – or are left well alone if they are not.

Should we care?

In the last 50 years, two-thirds of all wild animal populations have been lost.

The main cause is habitat loss, as native forest is felled to grow grass for cattle or corn and soya for livestock.

By weight, the world’s farm animals and humans now dwarf the remaining wild animals. Farm animals weigh 630 million tonnes and humans 390 million tonnes, while wild land mammals now weigh just 20 million tonnes and marine mammals 40 million tonnes.

Wildlife numbers have fallen off a cliff across many kingdoms of life. Three quarters of flying insects are gone from monitored areas of Western Europe. One in eight bird species is threatened with extinction worldwide.

On animal welfare, philosophers have long argued one of two positions. The first is known as “utilitarianism”. This approach argues for minimising the bad things in the world and maximising the good things, regardless of who benefits from them, humans or other animals. This theory-heavy approach does little to restore our relationship with wild animals because of the difficulties in deciding what is good and bad for animals.

The second has more to recommend it. This is the view that animals have the right to be looked after well. This approach has also been used to give rights to rivers, nature and even the atmosphere.

But this doesn’t recognise the fact that only humans can attribute such rights to animals, who themselves do not have any concept of “rights”. It also doesn’t tackle the issue that most humans would not accord the same rights to a blue whale and an insect.

A better approach might be to recognise our responsibilities to animals, rather than attribute rights to them.

This would acknowledge the increasing rarity of animal species on Earth and the fact that – as far as we know – they’re unique in the universe. So far, no reliable signs have been found indicating life evolved on any other planets.

Earth formed just over 4.5 billion years ago. Some evidence suggests simple animal life began just 400 million years later.

The evolution of complex multicellular life on earth probably only happened once when a single celled organism – one of the ancient archaea, perhaps – engulfed a bacterium without digesting it. Instead, it found something better: putting it to work as an internal energy factory as the first mitochondrion. After that came life’s great flowering.

But now we’re currently losing between 0.01–0.1% of all species each year. If we use an average species loss rate of 0.05% and assuming human pressures remain similar, life on Earth could have only 2,000 years left.

Do we have responsibility to care for something just because it’s rare? Not always. But life is beautiful. We marvel when we are able to connect with wildlife. Other social animals also appear to derive pleasure from such relationships.

If we destroy wild animal life, we could undermine the natural systems humans depend on. Pollinators are essential for orchards, forests protect topsoil and produce clean drinking water and predators prevent herbivore populations from soaring out of control and destroying crops. As wilder areas shrink, the chance of another animal virus spillover into humans increases.

From small scale to industrial

For almost all of human history, livestock herds were small enough that people could build relationships with the animals they depended on.

But in only a couple of human generations, we’ve turned farm animal production into a factory process with billions of animals.

For centuries, farm animals were walked to market. That, too, has changed. In 2005, I was undertaking research on a livestock ship alongside 80,000 sheep being transported from Australia to the Middle East. Hundreds of sheep die from the stress of these journeys, while many survivors arrive exhausted and terrified.

These changes have made it possible for humans all around the globe to eat meat or dairy products at every meal. But it has come at a real cost to livestock and wild animals.

Correcting this will not be easy. We have to learn to eat fewer animals or preferably none at all, restore habitat for wildlife and curb our consumption of the world’s natural resources.

It’s not too late to restore animal habitat. Rewilding efforts are drawing back long-missing wild animals. There are hopeful signs for farm animal welfare too. The live export of Australian sheep will end in 2028. Battery cage production of eggs is dying out.

These are big issues. But to paraphrase a quote reputedly by Confucius:

The man who asks big questions is a fool for a minute. The man who does not ask, is a fool for life.

Clive Phillips has received funding from several not-for-profit groups, including Voiceless and AnimalKind, to help make this book open access. He has previously had funding from several government and livestock industry organisations, as well as the World Organisation for Animal Health and Open Philanthropy. He was, until recently, a director of Humane Society International and chair of the Queensland and Western Australia government animal welfare boards. He is editor of the animal welfare book series of Springer Nature and another book series, Letters in Animal Welfare and Ethics for CABI, as well as editor-in-chief of the journals Animals, and Animal Behaviour and Welfare Cases.

– ref. As livestock numbers grow, wild animal populations plummet. Giving all creatures a better future will take a major rethink – https://theconversation.com/as-livestock-numbers-grow-wild-animal-populations-plummet-giving-all-creatures-a-better-future-will-take-a-major-rethink-256891

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip Harrison, Professor School of Architecture and Planning, University of the Witwatersrand

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa met senior leaders of Johannesburg and Gauteng, the province it’s located in, in March 2025 to discuss ways to arrest the steep decline in South Africa’s largest city.

Ramaphosa announced a two-year-long presidential intervention to tackle some of the city’s most pressing issues. It is to be led by the Presidential Johannesburg Working Group with eight cross-governmental and multi-stakeholder workstreams.

Johannesburg was established 130 years ago, where the world’s largest-ever gold deposits were discovered. It grew rapidly in the early 20th century and became the country’s economic heartland and largest population centre. Like all South African cities, it was deeply scarred by apartheid policies. People were divided by racially defined groups. Good services and a strong economy benefited a minority, and a black majority were pushed into impoverished ghettos.

But, for about the first two decades of post-apartheid rule from 1994, Johannesburg led the country with innovation and progressive change. It pioneered the new local government system, institutional reforms, new practice on city strategy and planning, pro-poor service delivery, and modern transport infrastructure.

Today, however, the city is in a dire state. Over the past decade, roughly coinciding with the arrival of messy coalition governance in 2016, sound political leadership, administrative stability and financial management have crumbled. Underinvestment in infrastructure maintenance has led to collapsing services. Public trust is deteriorating among increasingly frustrated communities. This was evident in local election results. It also shows up in recent data released by the Gauteng City-Region Observatory on public trust in local government.

The local economy has stagnated. The city’s official unemployment rate of 34.3% is higher than the national average of 32.9%. Mounting joblessness and dwindling incomes have intertwined with depleted trust to knock levels of payment for property rates and service charges. In turn this has deepened the financial and service maintenance crisis.

Corruption in many parts of the city is an endemic complicating factor.

The presidential intervention is designed to address this complex interplay between embedded legacies and failings post-apartheid. The workstreams involving city officials and concerned stakeholders are generating ideas for priority actions. There is also a new energy in the city government, with the executive mayor and members of his mayoral committee making turnaround promises.

This long overdue attention is heartening. But some caution is called for. While some “quick wins” are needed, there will be no easy turnaround. The best prospect is likely to be a process of recovery that will require patience and methodical attention over the long term. A city cannot be repaired in the way an automobile can. A city has a trillion moving parts and is in a constant state of makeover, as dynamics of economy, technology, demography, environment, society, politics, and more, interact and produce change.

The question is not whether a city is fixed – it can never finally be – but rather what trajectory it is on. For Johannesburg, the question is how to exit the downward spiral and begin the process of reconstruction.

We are a group who previously worked in the City of Johannesburg as officials, who are now academics with decades of experience observing local governance trends and dynamics, or scholars engaged in civil society coalitions or communities mobilising around the crisis. Some of us have been involved in the Presidential Johannesburg Working Group over the last few months.

Our view is that there are four areas needing urgent but sustained attention.

Focus areas

The first is the need for a joint effort across national, provincial and municipal government to resolve the crisis. We are pleased that this has begun. The political leadership in the city (and of the province) failed to grasp the opportunity provided by the post-2024 election national compromises to put together a broad-based government of local unity to lead reconstruction. There is no option now but to pursue an inter-governmental initiative led by national government with the committed involvement of the other spheres.

Only genuine collaboration will succeed.

In this respect, the Presidential Johannesburg Working Group holds promise. But what will be needed is careful, concerted work focused first on short-term priorities. Then, over years, on key structural challenges facing the city.

Second, the city needs civil society in all its forms to hold a careful balance between keeping up the pressure on municipal government, constantly holding it accountable to its residents, and working with government to help it solve problems. The Joburg Crisis Alliance, Jozi-my-Jozi, WaterCAN and similar initiatives are claiming well-recognised and respected voice in the affairs of the municipality.

Johannesburg needs a city government that is open to this scrutiny, accepting the need for transparency, and open to the help that civil society can offer.

To raise the level of accountability and collaboration, a clear programme of restoration has to be communicated openly to the public. Milestones and expenditure requirements need to be set that allow for constant monitoring. There must be open council meetings, and regular online and in-person briefings.

Also required are new mechanisms for citizen-based monitoring. These may include trained citizen monitors reporting on service delivery. Alternatively, the establishment of a sort of “Citizen’s Council” which meets regularly to receive reports from these monitors and the city administration.

International examples include the Bürgerrat model. This is now fully institutionalised in parts of Germany and Austria to strengthen local democracy and accountability. In this model, citizens are randomly selected to sit on a council which monitors performance of local government and provides new ideas.

Another approach could be for civil society organisations to be invited to a Citizen’s Council that would act in support of the oversight processes of the elected Municipal Council.

Third, there has to be a solution to unstable coalition governments. These seem to be structured to facilitate separate political fiefdoms where spoils can be divided in the allocation of portfolios. At minimum, the presidential intervention must provide for a check and balance on processes where bureaucratic appointments and budgetary allocations may serve the interests of cronyism. For example, there should be transparency and rigour in appointments to the boards of Johannesburg’s municipally owned companies.

Regulatory reforms are required in the political arena. This should include rules for the distribution of seats on the municipal executive and the election of mayors. Between January 2023 and August 2024 a tiny minority party held the mayoralty because the larger parties could not agree on a mayoral selection or, more cynically, to ensure that the executive mayor could not call large parties to account.

More importantly, though, there has to be a change in political culture. This is a longer-term process.

Fourth, the problems run far deeper than what bureaucratic reorganisation can achieve.

The longer-term project is to build a capable administration with clear political direction and oversight but insulated from personal agendas and factional battles. The administration became confused and demoralised because of the political instability over an extended period. There are, however, still many capable and committed public servants in the city bureaucracy. The focus should be on working with them to rebuild the administration, making it a place where talent and initiative are recognised and rewarded.

Restored political leadership and a rejuvenated administration is needed for a long term process, extending far beyond the quick wins. This process will involve refurbishing the decaying network infrastructure, restoring financial stability, reestablishing social trust and returning confidence to the city’s economy.

2025 marks 30 years since the first democratic local elections. National government is looking seriously at sweeping municipal reforms. And the next municipal election – likely to be held at the end of 2026 – is an opportunity to make a deep transformation effort. Citizens can ensure that parties contesting the election place Johannesburg’s recovery at the heart of their agenda.

Philip Harrison has received funding from South Africa’s National Research Foundation in support of the South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning.

The Gauteng City-Region Observatory receives core grant funding from the Gauteng Provincial Government.

Lorena Nunez Carrasco received funding from the National Research Foundation in support of research on the South African response on COVID-19

Rashid Seedat receives funding from Gauteng Provincial Government for the Gauteng City-Region Observatory. He is affiliated with the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation as a member of the Board of Trustees.

– ref. Johannesburg’s problems can be solved – but it’s a long journey to fix South Africa’s economic powerhouse – https://theconversation.com/johannesburgs-problems-can-be-solved-but-its-a-long-journey-to-fix-south-africas-economic-powerhouse-256013

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says his second term government is “focused on delivery” of its commitments, declaring this is important not only for the economy but also for Australians’ faith in our democracy.

In a speech to the National Press Club on Tuesday, partially released ahead of delivery, Albanese warns that the present era of global uncertainty reaches beyond just economic uncertainty.

“It is the more corrosive proposition that politics and government and democratic institutions, including a free media, are incapable of meeting the demands of this moment.

“Some simply dismiss such sentiment. Others cynically seek to harvest it. Our responsibility is to disprove it.

“To recognise that some of this frustration is drawn from people’s real experience with government – be it failures of service delivery, or falling through the cracks of a particular system.

“And to counter this, we have to offer the practical and positive alternative.To prove that a good, focused, reforming Labor government can make a real difference to people’s lives.”

Albanese’s speech comes ahead of his departure later this week for the G7 summit in Canada, where he is expected to meet US President Donald Trump on the sidelines.

Their talks are set to cover, in particular, the Albanese government’s bid for relief from the Trump tariffs and the president’s desire for Australia to significantly boost its spending on defence.

Australia is subject to both the general US 10% tariff and the separate tariff on steel and aluminium, which the president has just increased to 50%.

Australia will put on the table a proposal for arrangements on access to our critical minerals and rare earths, that will favour the US. The government has also been examining a way to give access to US beef, which currently faces an effective ban on biosecurity grounds.

Albanese has stressed that any change would not compromise Australian biosecurity.

The Trump administration has flagged it would like to see Australia boost defence spending to 3.5% of GDP. Albanese has said Australia makes its own defence decisions and that spending should be based on capability needs rather than a set percentage.

Albanese’s stress, in his speech, on “delivery” of commitments is partly to manage expectations in the wake of the government’s massive majority.

The unexpected election result has led to some pressures on the government to use its position to undertake a more radical agenda than the one it put at the election.

Albanese says: “Our government’s vision and ambition for Australia’s future was never dependent on the size of our majority.

“But you can only build for that future vision if you build confidence that you can deliver on urgent necessities.

“How you do that is important too – ensuring that the actions of today, anticipate and create conditions for further reform tomorrow.”

He says the government’s second-term agenda has been shaped by Australians’ lives, priorities and values.

“It is the mission and the measure of a Labor government to give those enduring ideals of fairness, aspiration and opportunity renewed and deeper meaning, for more Australians.

“To deliver reforms that hold no-one back – and drive progress that leaves no-one behind.

“This is no small task. It demands we aim high and requires us to build big.”

He points to the government’s promised big investment in Medicare as well as its commitments on housing and the energy transition.

“Our vision is for a society that is a microcosm for the world – where all are respected and valued and our diversity is recognised as a strength.

“Where our international relationships in the fastest growing region of the world in human history benefit us, but also provide a platform for us to play a stabilising global role in uncertain times.”

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

– ref. Albanese says the government’s focus on delivering commitments is essential to reinforce faith in democracy – https://theconversation.com/albanese-says-the-governments-focus-on-delivering-commitments-is-essential-to-reinforce-faith-in-democracy-257331

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Tookey, Professor of Construction Management, Auckland University of Technology

New Zealand has just been hit by the first big cold snap of 2025 and, like every year, many New Zealanders will be reaching for an extra jumper, slippers and maybe a blanket to try and keep warm.

New Zealand’s housing stock has long been criticised for being damp, cold and ill-suited to the climate.

In the 2018 Census, households were asked about the state of their homes. According to Stats NZ, 318,891 homes in New Zealand (21.5%) were affected by dampness and 252,855 (16.9%) had visible mould larger than A4 size at least some of the time.

While the World Health Organization recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 18˚C, many homes in New Zealand fall below these thresholds, with some experiencing temperatures less than 16°C.

Even when homes are built to code, there can still be issues and health risks. A lot of New Zealand’s housing is not fit for purpose – particularly at this time of the year.

While improving heating and standards is a homeowner choice, for landlords it is increasingly a requirement. Over recent years landlords have faced increasing costs to achieve legal heating, ventilation and insulation requirements within 90 days of a new or renewed tenancy.

For everyone else, there are ways to make homes more efficient to heat and comfortable to live in. Here are four ways to keep heat in your home this winter – some simple and affordable, while others are more of an investment.

Insulation is your friend

Firstly, insulation is our friend in winter. Double glazing is excellent but expensive (between NZ$450/m2 and $1500/m2) and subject to restrictions in heritage buildings. There are other options.

Secondary glazing with glass, acrylic or applique plastic sheets can be a significantly more cost-effective option.

Where possible, home owners should be looking at ways to add to thermal efficiency by increasing insulation.

Walls can be retrofitted with cavity fillers. If your budget can stretch to it, rigid insulation board is also effective. Under the floor and in the roof spaces are favourites for these upgrades. They are relatively cheap improvements to make and generally pay for themselves.

Target draughts

Secondly, a warm and dry home requires finding and eliminating draughts.

For many years, building scientists have sought to achieve airtight homes. An airtight home substantially reduces heat loss in winter.

Temporary and permanent improvements can be made by buying or making some draught excluders and door sweeps for doorways. But specialist products such as adhesive-backed foam tape or V-strip weatherstripping around door and window frames are also very effective.

Even just using masking tape during winter to seal the gaps in unused windows can help keep warmth in the home.

Windows and a compass

Third, use your window orientation strategically. Invest in heavier curtains (or blinds) that insulate windows. Then use a compass (you probably have a compass app on your phone) to work out which way is north.

North-facing windows catch the sun during the day, and contribute to thermal gain in a house. South-facing windows are in shadow all day and tend to act as a heat sink, losing energy throughout the day.

During the day, ensure curtains and blinds are open on the north side and closed on the south side. As soon as night falls, close the curtains to retain maximum heat. Try to keep unused rooms closed off and stick to the naturally warmer spaces.

Move heat around

Fourth, use ceiling fans, heat pumps, and dehumidifiers to maximise the available heat in your house.

Heat will stratify into layers in your house. It is always going to be warmer near the ceiling of each room. Usually, the loft space is the warmest of all through maximum thermal gain during the day.

Using a ducted heat pump can recycle that heat to the living spaces. Similarly, if you set the ceiling fan to move air around the room you will make the most of what you have. Ideally, run the ceiling fan backwards (clockwise) if it has that option, to create an updraught rather than a downdraught to aid circulation.

Dehumidifiers are extremely useful in increasing the feeling of warmth in a house. During operation, they release some latent heat while condensing water. Dry air is easier to heat, making your heating more efficient.

Your home can make you sick

Cold damp homes can have significant health impacts, including respiratory issues, rheumatic fever and skin infections – particularly for children and vulnerable people.

Targeting heat loss and dampness can help improve conditions. Will it ensure every home is warm and toasty? No. But these steps can make their homes just a little bit warmer – and healthier – this winter.

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

– ref. NZ homes are notorious for being cold and damp. Here are 4 ways to make yours feel warmer this winter – https://theconversation.com/nz-homes-are-notorious-for-being-cold-and-damp-here-are-4-ways-to-make-yours-feel-warmer-this-winter-257893

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Towle, Research Fellow in Biological Anthropology, Monash University

The enamel that forms the outer layer of our teeth might seem like an unlikely place to find clues about evolution. But it tells us more than you’d think about the relationships between our fossil ancestors and relatives.

In our new study, published in the Journal of Human Evolution, we highlight a different aspect of enamel. In fact, we highlight its absence.

Specifically, we show that tiny, shallow pits in fossil teeth may not be signs of malnutrition or disease. Instead, they may carry surprising evolutionary significance.

You might be wondering why this matters. Well, for people like me who try to figure out how humans evolved and how all our ancestors and relatives were related to each other, teeth are very important. And having a new marker to look out for on fossil teeth could give us a new tool to help fit together our family tree.

Uniform, circular and shallow

These pits were first identified in the South African species Paranthropus robustus, a close relative of our own genus Homo. They are highly consistent in shape and size: uniform, circular and shallow.

Initially, we thought the pits might be unique to P. robustus. But our latest research shows this kind of pitting also occurs in other Paranthropus species in eastern Africa. We even found it in some Australopithecus individuals, a genus that may have given rise to both Homo and Paranthropus.

The enamel pits have commonly been assumed to be defects resulting from stresses such as illness or malnutrition during childhood. However, their remarkable consistency across species, time and geography suggests these enamel pits may be something more interesting.

The pitting is subtle, regularly spaced, and often clustered in specific regions of the tooth crown. It appears without any other signs of damage or abnormality.

Two million years of evolution

We looked at fossil teeth from hominins (humans and our closest extinct relatives) from the Omo Valley in Ethiopia, where we can see traces of more than two million years of human evolution, as well as comparisons with sites in southern Africa (Drimolen, Swartkrans and Kromdraai).

The Omo collection includes teeth attributed to Paranthropus, Australopithecus and Homo, the three most recent and well-known hominin genera. This allowed us to track the telltale pitting across different branches of our evolutionary tree.

What we found was unexpected. The uniform pitting appears regularly in both eastern and southern Africa Paranthropus, and also in the earliest eastern African Australopithecus teeth dating back around 3 million years. But among southern Africa Australopithecus and our own genus, Homo, the uniform pitting was notably absent.

A defect … or just a trait?

If the uniform pitting were caused by stress or disease, we might expect it to correlate with tooth size and enamel thickness, and to affect both front and back teeth. But it doesn’t.

What’s more, stress-related defects typically form horizontal bands. They usually affect all teeth developing at the time of the stress, but this is not what we see with this pitting.

We think this pitting probably has a developmental and genetic origin. It may have emerged as a byproduct of changes in how enamel was formed in these species. It might even have some unknown functional purpose.

In any case, we suggest these uniform, circular pits should be viewed as a trait rather than a defect.

A modern comparison

Further support for the idea of a genetic origin comes from comparisons with a rare condition in humans today called amelogenesis imperfecta, which affects enamel formation.

About one in 1,000 people today have amelogenesis imperfecta. By contrast, the uniform pitting we have seen appears in up to half of Paranthropus individuals.

Although it likely has a genetic basis, we argue the even pitting is too common to be considered a harmful disorder. What’s more, it persisted at similar frequencies for millions of years.

A new evolutionary marker

If this uniform pitting really does have a genetic origin, we may be able to use it to trace evolutionary relationships.

We already use subtle tooth features such as enamel thickness, cusp shape, and wear patterns to help identify species. The uniform pitting may be an additional diagnostic tool.

For example, our findings support the idea that Paranthropus is a “monophyletic group”, meaning all its species descend from a (relatively) recent common ancestor, rather than evolving seperatly from different Australopithecus taxa.

And we did not find this pitting in the southern Africa species Australopithecus africanus, despite a large sample of more than 500 teeth. However, it does appear in the earliest Omo Australopithecus specimens.

So perhaps the pitting could also help pinpoint from where Paranthropus branched off on its own evolutionary path.

An intriguing case

One especially intriguing case is Homo floresiensis, the so-called “hobbit” species from Indonesia. Based on published images, their teeth appear to show similar pitting.

If confirmed, this could suggest an evolutionary history more closely tied to earlier Australopithecus species than to Homo. However, H. floresiensis also shows potential skeletal and dental pathologies, so more research is needed before drawing such conclusions.

More research is also needed to fully understand the processes behind the uniform pitting before it can be used routinely in taxonomic work. But our research shows it is likely a heritable characteristic, one not found in any living primates studied to date, nor in our own genus Homo (rare cases of amelogenesis imperfecta aside).

As such, it offers an exciting new tool for exploring evolutionary relationships among fossil hominins.

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

– ref. 2-million-year-old pitted teeth from our ancient relatives reveal secrets about human evolution – https://theconversation.com/2-million-year-old-pitted-teeth-from-our-ancient-relatives-reveal-secrets-about-human-evolution-258390

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharina J. Peters, Lecturer in Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong

Why do dolphins jump out of the water?

Charlize, age 8, Melbourne

Have you ever seen images of dolphins jumping out of the waves and performing impressive acrobatics in the air? Or maybe you’ve seen it in real life?

When a dolphin jumps, it can launch its whole body out of the water. While it looks like fun, it must also be hard work!

So, why do dolphins jump out of the water? There are several possible reasons. Let’s jump in and explore them.

To stay in touch

Dolphins are social animals and live in groups. But it’s hard to see long distances underwater. So, they use the power of sound to stay in contact with each other.

Sound travels much farther underwater than through the air. When dolphins jump, the slap of the landing makes a loud noise, and would be heard some distance away.

Some species, such as spinner dolphins, use jumping to communicate their location to other group members, especially at night. This helps them keep track of each other.

As an aside, spinner dolphins are very skilled jumpers. As the name suggests, they spin up to seven times in the air before landing back in the water!

The need for speed

Have you ever tried to walk underwater? You will have felt how hard it is. That’s because water is more dense than air, which creates a “drag”, or resistance.

Dolphins have streamlined bodies to reduce drag, but they still feel it. So, if they want to travel quickly – for example, if they are trying to escape a predator or hunt fish – they sometimes jump.

While in the air, they travel faster than they would through water, and also save energy.

To gather food

Some dolphins weigh less than 50 kilograms, such as the Hector’s dolphin. Others weigh several tonnes, such as an orca.

Either way, when a dolphin crashes back into the water, you can be sure it makes quite a noisy splash.

Some dolphin species, such as dusky dolphins, use this noise to herd fish at the surface to make them easier to capture.

Shaking off hitchhikers

Fish called remoras can attach themselves to dolphins using a sucker on their head. This is good for the fish, because it can keep them safe and they have plenty to eat, such as small parasites and old bits of dolphin skin.

While the remoras don’t hurt the dolphin, they probably slow it down. So dolphins may try to get rid of the little hitchhikers by jumping to dislodge them.

Fighting and frolicking

Dolphins are highly intelligent animals. They have big brains and can learn tricks and solve puzzles. With intelligence also come other traits: playfulness and social behaviour.

Sometimes, that social behaviour can end in a “fight”. Dolphin experts say two dolphins jumping around together might be actually trying to hit each other!

Dolphins also love to frolic – not just with each other but with other marine mammals such as whales and sea lions, with turtles – or even just a piece of seaweed! So they might jump as some sort of “game”.

As you can see, dolphins may jump for a range of reasons – sometimes just because it’s really fun!

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

– ref. Curious Kids: Why do dolphins jump out of the water? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-dolphins-jump-out-of-the-water-256462

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mona Mashhadi Rajabi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs.

However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning – far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years.

Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump’s first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit.

This trend accelerated with the newer “reciprocal” tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative.

From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days

Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A $5 dress or $3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot.

Much of Shein’s production takes place in the so-called “Shein village” in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items.

When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145% (since paused), and closing the “de minimis” loophole, which had allowed imports under US$800 to enter tariff-free.

But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17%, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can’t provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer.

So why does Australia matter?

Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia.

Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally.

Just 3% of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis.

The hidden costs of cheap clothes

The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump’s tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies – together with the retreat from climate commitments – worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion.

The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia.

Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage.

Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions.

Will ethical fashion ever compete?

Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates.
Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards.

Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential.

Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing.

Australia’s new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way.

Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a $5 t-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step.

Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm.

Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game

Trump’s trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than US$34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was.

Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it.

Mona Mashhadi Rajabi receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ), and a Business Research Grant from the University of Technology Sydney.

Lisa Lake previously received funding from NSW Department of Education Innovation and Collaboration grant to establish the Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Fashion + Textiles.

Martina Linnenluecke receives funding from The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Research Council. Her work is also supported by a Strategic Research Accelerator Grant from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

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

– ref. How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-trade-war-is-supercharging-the-fast-fashion-industry-257727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Errmann, Senior Lecturer, Marketing & International Business, Auckland University of Technology

Living forever has become the wellness and marketing trend of the 2020s. But cheating death – or at least delaying it – will come at a price.

What was once the domain of scientists and the uber rich is increasingly becoming a consumer product. Those pushing the idea, spearheaded by tech billionaire Bryan Johnson’s “Don’t Die” movement, believe death isn’t inevitable, but is a solvable problem.

The global longevity market – spanning gene therapies, anti-ageing drugs, diagnostics and wellness plans – is projected to hit US$610 billion this year. At its core, the marketing of these products feeds off the age-old fear of mortality and the desire to stay young.

But while the marketing is reaching the masses, this is still very much a luxury product. Immortality is being sold as exclusive, aspirational and symbolic. It’s not just about living longer – it’s about signalling status, controlling biology and being your “best future self”.

Tapping into long-held fears

What’s known as “terror management theory” puts forward the idea that humans and other animals have an instinctive drive for self-preservation. But humans are not only self-aware, they are also able to anticipate future outcomes – including the inevitability of death.

The messaging behind the push to extend life taps into this internal tension between knowledge of our own mortality and the self-preservation instinct. And to be fair, it is not a new phenomenon.

Cryonics – the preservation of bodies and brains at extremely low temperatures with the hope medical advancements will allow for their revival at some point in the future – was first popularised in Robert Ettinger’s 1962 book The Prospect of Immortality.

Since then, the super-rich have invested in various companies promising to preserve their bodies for some unknown future date. It now costs US$200,000 to freeze your body, or $80,000 for just your brain.

What’s truly new is how death is being marketed – not as fate, but as a flaw. Longevity isn’t just about living longer; it’s about turning mortality into a design problem, something to delay, manage and eventually solve.

“Biohacking” sells the idea that with the right data, tools and discipline, you can upgrade your biology – and become your best, most future-proof self.

This pitch targets high-income consumers aged 30 to 60, people already fluent in the language of optimisation – a mindset focused on maximising performance, productivity and longevity through data.

The brands behind the living forever movement sell control, optimisation and elite identity. Ageing becomes a personal failure. Anti-ageing is self-discipline. Consumers are cast as CEOs of their own health – tracking sleep, fixing their gut and taking supplements.

From biohacks to consumer branding

There are now more than 700 companies working in the longevity market. Startups such as Elysium Health and Human Longevity Inc. offer DNA testing, supplements and personalised health plans.

These aren’t medical treatments – they’re sold as tools to age “smarter” or “slower” and are pitched with the language of control over what once might have seemed uncontrollable.

Don’t Die’s Bryan Johnson spends over US$2 million annually on his personal anti-ageing experiment.

But the real pitch is to consumers: buy back time, one premium subscription at a time. Johnson’s company Blueprint offers diagnostics, supplements and exercise routines bundled into monthly plans starting at $333 and climbing to over $1,600.

Longevity products promise more than health. They promise time, control and even immortality. But the quest to live forever, or at least a lot longer, raises moral and ethical questions about who benefits, and what kind of world is being created.

Without thoughtful oversight, these technologies risk becoming tools of exclusion, not progress. Because if time becomes a product, not everyone will get to check out at the same counter.

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

– ref. Immortality at a price: how the promise of delaying death has become a consumer marketing bonanza – https://theconversation.com/immortality-at-a-price-how-the-promise-of-delaying-death-has-become-a-consumer-marketing-bonanza-257009

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zhanna Lyubykh, Assistant Professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University

“You always mess things up. Why are you even on this project? Just quit already.” Demeaning, hostile or undermining behaviour like this is more common in the workplace and damaging than many people realize. One in three employees experience such behaviours, and almost half witness them.

Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, research shows bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment.

As our recent study shows, this is largely because when mistreatment seems inevitable or commonplace, bystanders are psychologically motivated to justify it rather than challenge it.

Why do bystanders rationalize mistreatment?

Humans are hardwired to see mistreatment as wrong. Most of us value fairness and want to punish wrongdoing. But if this is the case, why do bystanders so often fail to act when they witness mistreatment?

Our recent research explores this question drawing on system justification theory — the idea that people are motivated to see the systems they live and work in as fair, legitimate and stable.

When mistreatment seems inevitable — when people think “that’s just how things work around here” — bystanders face a psychological dilemma. They can either challenge the behaviour and risk conflict, exclusion or backlash, or they can rationalize it as normal or deserved.

Most people, often without realizing it, choose the latter. This mental shortcut allows them to preserve the comforting belief that the system is fair and people get what they deserve.

Witnessing workplace mistreatment

We interviewed 554 employees who had witnessed workplace mistreatment within the past two weeks at the time the survey was conducted. They shared their thoughts on how inevitable they believed the mistreatment incident was, and how tolerant they felt their organization was toward such behaviour.

In a follow-up survey, we asked these employees whether they felt the incident they witnessed was justifiable and the target as deserving. A week later, in a third survey, we asked these bystanders to report how they behaved toward the target, and whether they tried to address or minimize the incident.

We found that when bystanders perceived mistreatment as inevitable, they were more likely to see the incident as justified and targets as deserving of that treatment. These bystanders were more likely to socially distance themselves from the target, engage in negative gossip about them and were less willing to offer help.

Bystander inaction wasn’t due to cowardice or callousness, but was often a defence mechanism. Rationalizing mistreatment allowed bystanders to preserve the belief that their workplace was just. But this coping strategy can deepen harm for those who experience mistreatment, who may be further marginalized, isolated or discredited.

How mistreatment is normalized

Workplace climates play a key role in the normalization of mistreatment. Our findings indicate when employees believed their workplace tolerated mistreatment, they were more likely to rationalize it and less likely to support the person being mistreated.

In these contexts, mistreatment isn’t just ignored, but is quietly accepted. Tacit acceptance sends a powerful message: this is normal, this is deserved, this is not worth challenging.

What does a toxic, permissive workplace look like? Warning signs include staff who feel anxious about coming to work and leaders who publicly criticize employees or tell them to “toughen up” or “not take it personally.”

If negative gossip is tolerated, or reports of mistreatment are ignored or delayed, these are also strong indicators that mistreatment has been normalized.

Organizations may fail to acknowledge these patterns for a variety of reasons, including resistance, denial or a lack of readiness. But surfacing these issues is a strength, not a weakness. It allows organizations to address root causes, retain valuable employees, and foster a more respectful environment.

4 ways to create positive change

Even in workplaces where mistreatment has become normalized, positive change is possible. Research shows that effectively managing everyday incidents can create bottom-up effects that support broader positive change within the workplace, ultimately improving workplace climate.

Managers have a particularly pivotal role to play. When they respond quickly, support targets openly and hold perpetrators accountable, they challenge the perception that mistreatment is inevitable. They also send a broader message about what behaviours are and aren’t acceptable in the workplace.

Here are four evidence-based strategies that can help disrupt the bystander dynamic and improve workplace culture:

1. Challenge the narrative of inevitability

Organizations should clearly signal that mistreatment will not be tolerated in their workplace. This includes explicitly communicating behavioural expectations, investigating reports quickly and transparently, and ensuring senior leaders model respectful behaviour. These small but visible actions disrupt the sense that mistreatment is “just how things work.”

2. Reduce ambiguity

When organizations don’t define behavioural norms clearly, bystanders are more likely to rationalize mistreatment. Organizations should define what mistreatment includes, such as exclusion and sarcastic comments, and distinguish it from tough feedback or constructive conflict. Training can help employees recognize subtle forms of harm and reflect on how their reactions would appear to someone they respect.

3. Enforce consequences consistently

When policies exist but aren’t enforced, bystanders learn that mistreatment carries no cost. Organizations need to follow through on mistreatment policies, protect those who report it and make it clear that retaliation is unacceptable. Visibility matters: people need to see that action is taken.

4. Support targets openly and meaningfully

System justification often works by undermining the credibility of those being mistreated. Managers can counteract this by affirming the value of a person targeted, encouraging reintegration and monitoring their teams for subtle social exclusion. When targets are supported by respected leaders, bystanders are more likely to follow suit because people tend to look to leader behaviour towards employees as a sign of their value to the group.

Why this matters

Much of the existing research on workplace mistreatment has focused on the importance of bystander and leader intervention. Our research adds a deeper layer by illustrating that bystanders may not intervene because they are subconsciously defending their belief in a fair and legitimate system.

This defence mechanism is especially dangerous when mistreatment is common, creating a cycle in which the most vulnerable employees are harmed twice: first by the perpetrator, and then by those who fail to stand by them.

Breaking this cycle requires more than training videos or one-off statements. It requires reshaping the climate that makes mistreatment seem normal, inevitable or trivial.

The encouraging news is that even small, consistent actions can begin to shift these dynamics. Research has shown that incivility training that teaches people how to engage in civil ways, for example, has lasting effects on employee well-being and relationships. When these harmful dynamics are shifted, it improves the workplace for everyone.

Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Laurie J. Barclay receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Guelph’s Research Leader Award.

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Sandy Hershcovis receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Why bystanders defend bad behaviour at work — even when they know it’s wrong – https://theconversation.com/why-bystanders-defend-bad-behaviour-at-work-even-when-they-know-its-wrong-257941

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

A no-holds-barred and very public blow-up between the world’s richest man and the president of the United States has had social media agog in recent days, with each making serious accusations against the other.

And while tech billionaire Elon Musk appears to have cooled the spat somewhat – deleting some of his more incendiary social media posts about Donald Trump – the president still appears to be in no mood to make up, warning Musk of “very serious consequences” if he backs Democrats at the mid-term elections in 2026.

Tensions erupted over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). The OBBB proposes extensive tax cuts which could add roughly US$3 trillion (A$4.62 trillion) to the US national debt.

After stepping down from his role as advisor to Trump, Musk criticised the OBBB as “disgusting abomination” that would “burden America [sic] citizens with crushing unsustainable debt”. Trump returned fire, suggesting “Elon was ‘wearing thin’, I asked him to leave […] and he just went CRAZY!”.

In a dramatic escalation, Musk responded by calling for Trump’s impeachment. Musk also tweeted allegations that Trump was implicated in the Epstein files related to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since deleted those tweets.

Why has the much-hyped “bromance” between Musk and Trump suddenly ended? And what was the basis of their alliance in the first place?

Musk in politics

Like many billionaires, Musk had previously been hesitant to get involved in frontline politics. He says he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, but claimed in 2021 “I would prefer to stay out of politics”.

In early 2024, Musk was still claiming to be politically non-aligned, suggesting he would not donate to either presidential campaign.

This apparent neutrality ended following the attempted assassination of Trump at a July 2024 campaign rally, with Musk immediately endorsing Trump.

In reality, Musk’s conversion to the MAGA movement long predated the assassination attempt. Musk’s hyperactive Twitter/X account shows a steady radicalisation.

Across 2020-2024, Musk engaged with accounts sharing MAGA and far-right conspiracy theories. These include the antisemitic Great Replacement Theory, and the related South African white genocide conspiracy. Musk’s posts also show the obsession with opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies characteristic of the MAGA movement.

After endorsing Trump, Musk spent US$288 million (A$444 million) supporting Trump’s election and appeared at campaign events around the country.

Musk’s support for Trump was both ideological and pragmatic.

From tax cuts to immigration restrictions to opposing DEI, there were clearly many ideological commonalities between Musk and Trump.

There were also clear practical benefits for both men. Trump gained the financial backing of the world’s wealthiest man. Musk gained not only unparalleled access to the US president, but also a role leading the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

DOGE: success and failure

Early reporting on the second Trump presidency noted the omnipresence of Musk, who at one point moved into Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to be close to the president.

However, observers were sceptical about the potential effectiveness of DOGE, and Musk’s claim it would save the government US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion).

In the early months of the Trump administration, Musk cut government programs and employees at a remarkable rate. The USAID program was particularly hard hit, as were the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

As the spending cuts picked up pace, Musk began to attract more controversy. Critics questioned the apparent power wielded by the unelected billionaire. Musk’s ties to the far right were also in the spotlight after he appeared to perform two “Roman salutes”, which many observers believed to be a Nazi salute.

Trump clips Musk’s wings

Musk’s apparent rampage through government did not last long. As Trump’s executive appointees assumed control of their departments, Musk and DOGE experienced increasing resistance. After a series of fractious cabinet meetings, Trump reportedly reduced the power of DOGE in March.

Political attention was also clearly affecting Musk’s businesses. The negative publicity has significantly damaged the Tesla brand, leading to declining sales around the world and repeated falls in Telsa’s share price.

On May 1, Musk announced he would be leaving DOGE, claiming the department had saved the government US$180 billion (A$277 billion) in spending. This number is likely an exaggeration, but still falls well short of his original target.

Musk has learned a harsh lesson in politics – that the complexities of government resist simple reform and cannot be easily rolled back in the way a CEO might slim down a company.

For Trump, his manoeuvring of Musk appears to be another smart political move. As the public face of DOGE, Musk bore the negative wrap for early government cuts and chaos. Having used his money and reputation, Trump dispensed with Musk as he has with so many advisers and appointees before.

The falling out

Musk departed his role in a muted White House ceremony, where Trump thanked him for his service and presented him with a ceremonial “golden key” to the White House.

However, behind the public show of civility, tension was brewing over Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

Trump and Musk had originally claimed that the US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion) in DOGE savings could be used to fund a substantial tax cut. With the efficiency savings not eventuating, Musk worried the OBBB would significantly increase US public debt.

Unable to convince Trump or other Republican legislators, Musk took to X, launching a “Kill the Bill” campaign that ultimately led to his incendiary showdown with Trump.

For his part, Trump has belittled Musk, suggesting Musk only opposed the OBBB because it cut subsidies for electric vehicles.

Though the subsidy cuts will affect Tesla, Musk has previously supported eliminating subsidies. Musk’s anger at the OBBB is more likely driven by the realisation he has been played by Trump.

What now?

Trump has used and discarded many other powerful figures in his chaotic political career. Musk has more power than most, and might be able to strike back at Trump.

Yet, with his public reputation and brands already tarnished, Musk would be ill-advised to pick further fights with Trump and his adoring MAGA movement.

Accordingly, Musk has indicated over the weekend he is open to a détente. Tesla investors will no doubt be relieved if Musk makes good on his pledge to step back from politics and return to his businesses.

More concerning are the prospects for democracy. With wealth and power continuing to concentrate in a handful of billionaires, voters appear reduced to the role of viewers forced to watch the reality TV drama unfold.

Though Trump appears to have won this round of billionaire battle royale, whatever happens next, democracy is the real loser.

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

– ref. The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast? – https://theconversation.com/the-blow-up-between-elon-musk-and-donald-trump-has-been-entertaining-but-how-did-things-go-so-bad-so-fast-258394