Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Walsh, Professor of AI, Research Group Leader, UNSW Sydney

Today, the federal Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic revealed an interim response from the Australian government on the safe and responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI).

The public, especially the Australian public, have real concerns about AI. And it’s appropriate that they should.

AI is a powerful technology entering our lives quickly. By 2030, it may increase the Australian economy by 40%, adding A$600 billion to our annual gross domestic product. A recent International Monetary Fund report estimates AI might also impact 40% of jobs worldwide, and 60% of jobs in developed nations like Australia.

In half of those jobs, the impacts will be positive, lifting productivity and reducing drudgery. But in the other half, the impacts may be negative, taking away work, even eliminating some jobs completely. Just as lift attendants and secretaries in typing pools had to move on and find new vocations, so might truck drivers and law clerks.

Perhaps not surprisingly then, in a recent market researcher Ipsos survey of 31 countries, Australia was the nation most nervous about AI. Some 69% of Australians, compared to just 23% of Japanese, were worried about the use of AI. And only 20% of us thought it would improve the job market.

The Australian government’s new interim response is therefore to be welcomed. It’s a somewhat delayed reply to last year’s public consultation on AI. It received over 500 submissions from business, civil society and academia. I contributed to multiple of these submissions.

What are the main points in the government’s response on AI?

Like any good plan, the government’s response has three legs.

First, there’s a plan to work with industry to develop voluntary AI Safety Standards. Second, there’s also a plan to work with industry to develop options for voluntary labelling and watermarking of AI-generated materials. And finally, the government will set up an expert advisory body to “support the development of options for mandatory AI guardrails”.

These are all good ideas. The International Organisation for Standardisation have been working on AI standards for multiple years. For example, Standards Australia just helped launch a new international standard that supports the responsible development of AI management systems.

An industry group containing Microsoft, Adobe, Nikon and Leica has developed open tools for labelling and watermarking digital content. Keep a look out for the new “Content Credentials” logo that is starting to appear on digital content.

And the New South Wales government set up an 11-member advisory committee of experts to advise it on the appropriate use of artificial intelligence back in 2021.

A little late?

It’s hard not to conclude then that the federal government’s most recent response is a little light and a little late.

Over half the world’s democracies get to vote this year. Over 4 billion people will go to the polls. And we’re set to see AI transform those elections.

Read more:
How AI could take over elections – and undermine democracy

We’ve already seen deepfakes used in recent elections in Argentina and Slovakia. The Republican party in the US have put out a campaign advert that uses entirely AI-generated imagery.

Are we prepared for a world in which everything you see or hear could be fake? And will voluntary guidelines be enough to protect the integrity of these elections? Sadly, many of the tech companies are reducing staff in this area, just at the time when they are needed the most.

The European Union has led the way in the regulation of AI – it started drafting regulation back in 2020. And we are still a year or so away before the EU AI Act comes into force. This emphasises how far behind Australia is.

A risk-based approach

Like the EU, the Australian government’s interim response proposes a risk-based approach. There are plenty of harmless uses of AI that are of little concern. For example, you likely get a lot less spam email thanks to AI filters. And there’s little regulation needed to ensure those AI filters do an appropriate job.

But there are other areas, such as the judiciary and policing, where the impact of AI could be more problematic. What if AI discriminates on who gets interviewed for a job? Or bias in facial recognition technologies result in even more Indigenous people being incorrectly incarcerated?

The interim response identifies such risks but takes few concrete steps to avoid them.

However, the biggest risk the report fails to address is the risk of missing out. AI is a great opportunity, as great or greater than the internet.

When the United Kingdom government put out a similar report on AI risks last year, they addressed this risk by announcing another 1 billion pounds (A$1.9 billion) of investment to add to the more than 1 billion pounds of previous investment.

The Australian government has so far announced less than A$200 million. Our economy and population is around a third of the UK. Yet the investment so far has been 20 times smaller. We risk missing the boat.

Read more:
AI: the real threat may be the way that governments choose to use it

Toby Walsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Google.org on grants to build trustworthy AI.

– ref. Australians are concerned about AI. Is the federal government doing enough to mitigate risks? – https://theconversation.com/australians-are-concerned-about-ai-is-the-federal-government-doing-enough-to-mitigate-risks-221300

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has approved a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Australia for the first time. The shot, called Arexvy and manufactured by GSK, will be available by prescription to adults over 60.

RSV is a contagious respiratory virus which causes an illness similar to influenza, most notably in babies and older adults.

So while it will be good to have an RSV vaccine available for older people, where is protection up to for the youngest children?

Read more:
What happens in our body when we encounter and fight off a virus like the flu, SARS-CoV-2 or RSV?

A bit about RSV

RSV was discovered in chimpanzees with respiratory illness in 1956, and was soon found to be a common cause of illness in humans.

There are two key groups of people we would like to protect from RSV: babies (up to about one year old) and people older than 60.

Babies tend to fill up hospitals during the RSV season in late spring and winter in large numbers, but severe infection requiring admission to intensive care is less common.

In babies and younger children, RSV generally causes a wheezing asthma-like illness (bronchiolitis), but can also cause pneumonia and croup.

Although there are far fewer hospital admissions among older people, they can develop severe disease and die from an infection.

RSV vaccines for older people

For older adults, there are actually several RSV vaccines in the pipeline. The recent Australian TGA approval of Arexvy is likely to be the first of several, with other vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna currently in development.

The GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines are similar. They both contain a small component of the virus, called the pre-fusion protein, that the immune system can recognise.

Both vaccines have been shown to reduce illness from RSV by more than 80% in the first season after vaccination.

Read more:
Is there a vaccine for RSV or respiratory syncytial virus? After almost 60 years, several come at once

In older adults, side effects following Arexvy appear to be similar to other vaccines, with a sore arm and generalised aches and fatigue frequently reported.

Unlike influenza vaccines which are given each year, it is anticipated the RSV vaccine would be a one-off dose, at least at this stage.

Protecting young children from RSV

Younger babies don’t tend to respond well to some vaccines due to their immature immune system. To prevent other diseases, this can be overcome by giving multiple vaccine doses over time. But the highest risk group for RSV are those in the first few months of life.

To protect this youngest age group from the virus, there are two potential strategies available instead of vaccinating the child directly.

The first is to give a vaccine to the mother and rely on the protective antibodies passing to the infant through the placenta. This is similar to how we protect babies by vaccinating pregnant women against influenza and pertussis (whooping cough).

The second is to give antibodies directly to the baby as an injection. With both these strategies, the protection provided is only temporary as antibodies wane over time, but this is sufficient to protect infants through their highest risk period.

Abrysvo, the Pfizer RSV vaccine, has been trialled in pregnant women. In clinical trials, this vaccine has been shown to reduce illness in infants for up to six months. It has been approved in pregnant women in the United States, but is not yet approved in Australia.

An antibody product called palivizumab has been available for many years, but is only partially effective and extremely expensive, so has only been given to a small number of children at very high risk.

A newer antibody product, nirsevimab, has been shown to be effective in reducing infections and hospitalisations in infants. It was approved by the TGA in November, but it isn’t yet clear how this would be accessed in Australia.

Read more:
How common are severe side effects from COVID vaccines? And how are they detected?

What now?

RSV, like influenza, is a major cause of respiratory illness, and the development of effective vaccines represents a major advance.

While the approval of the first vaccine for older people is an important step, many details are yet to be made available, including the cost and the timing of availability. GSK has indicated its vaccine should be available soon. While the vaccine will initially only be available on private prescription (with the costs paid by the consumer), GSK has applied for it to be made free under the National Immunisation Program.

In the near future, we expect to hear further news about the other vaccines and antibodies to protect those at higher risk from RSV disease, including young children.

Allen Cheng receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Government. He is a member of the Australian Technical Advsory Group on Immunisation. The views expressed in this article may not reflect those of ATAGI.

– ref. An RSV vaccine has been approved for people over 60. But what about young children? – https://theconversation.com/an-rsv-vaccine-has-been-approved-for-people-over-60-but-what-about-young-children-221311

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Mortlock, Adjunct Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Sea-level rise – along with increasing temperatures – is one of the clearest signals of man-made global warming. Yet exactly how rising water levels affect the coast is often misunderstood.

A new coastal hazard assessment for Victoria’s Port Phillip Bay has again thrown the spotlight on the impact of sea-level rise on coastal communities in Australia. Should we be worried? Or is the reality more nuanced?

While there are still many uncertainties, even a small change in sea level can have big impacts. We should be doing all we can to limit sea-level rise to protect our coastal cities and towns. And because sea levels will continue to rise for centuries after we cut emissions to net zero, planning decisions for coastal areas must factor this in.

Why are sea levels rising?

Global sea levels are rising for two main reasons: the oceans are getting warmer, and land-based ice sheets and glaciers are melting.

As ocean water warms, it expands. Because the ocean basins are finite (like a bathtub), this results in a rise in water levels.

Read more:
Ocean heat is off the charts – here’s what that means for humans and ecosystems around the world

Since the 1970s, thermal expansion of the oceans has accounted for roughly half of measured global sea-level rise. The other half is due to land-based ice melt from ice sheets and glaciers. Together, these make up what is known as “eustatic” sea level.

The rate of sea-level rise experienced at the coast also depends on whether the land is moving up or down. “Relative” or “isostatic” sea level is the sum of “eustatic” sea level plus local vertical land movement.

Australia is rising by about 0.3-0.4 millimetres a year due to glacial isostatic adjustment. This is the result of the land continuing to move upward following the loss of ice on land during previous glaciations. The land subsided under the weight of this ice and is now rebounding as the ice is gone. This slow rebound of the land provides a small offset to eustatic sea levels around Australia.

Read more:
Rising seas and melting glaciers: these changes are now irreversible, but we have to act to slow them down

Sea-level rise is accelerating

From 1900 to 2018, global sea levels rose by about 20cm (a long-term average of 1.7mm/yr), but almost everywhere the rate of rise is increasing. Measurements since 1993, when global satellite data became available, show the rate of global mean sea-level rise over the past decade has more than doubled to more than 4mm/yr.

Around Australia, sea levels are rising at or above this global average. Tide gauges indicate the rate of rise in northern Australia since the early 1990s is around 4–6mm/yr. Along the south-east coast of Australia, it’s about 2–4mm/yr. Rates of sea-level rise are not uniform around Australia because of local effects like ocean circulation and tidal processes.

Even if greenhouse gas emissions reached zero tomorrow, sea levels will continue to rise for several centuries because of the slow response of the ocean to warming. It’s a long-term trend that we must live with.

This is why is it important to factor in sea-level rise when we make planning decisions along the coast. Unfortunately, the rate of sea-level rise over the coming century remains highly uncertain, making it difficult to include in coastal planning.

The “likely” range of the most recent projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a rise of between 0.4 metres and 0.8m by 2100. However, a rise of nearly 2m by 2100 and 5m by 2150 cannot be ruled out. This is due to deep uncertainty about ice-sheet processes – so much so, that in 2021 the IPCC introduced a new high-end risk scenario to describe this.

Read more:
Coastal property prices and climate risks are both soaring. We must pull our heads out of the sand

Small rises have big impacts

The impact of sea-level rise at the coast is not just a gradual increase in water lapping at the shore. An increase in tide heights (both higher high tides and higher low tides) increases the probability of coastal flooding and erosion when storms come along.

As a rule of thumb, every 10cm of sea-level rise triples the frequency of a given coastal flood. Another rule of thumb, known as the Bruun Rule, suggests a 1cm rise in sea level leads to a 1m retreat of the coastline.

While these back-of-the-envelope estimates are often significantly reduced when local conditions are accounted for, it explains why a small shift in the mean sea level can have big impacts at the coast.

Read more:
Climate explained: why coastal floods are becoming more frequent as seas rise

Storms aren’t always bad for the beach

Most of the impacts of sea-level rise around Australia’s coast will be felt in combination with storm events, such as east coast lows or tropical cyclones. A high water level plus a storm surge on top leads to a storm or “king” tide. In combination with storm waves, it can cause significant coastal erosion and flooding.

However, storms also bring sand from deeper water towards the beach. Over the long term, this process can help beaches keep pace with sea-level rise. Fortunately for eastern Australia, we have a lot of sand sitting offshore which is slowly making its way back to our beaches. Other naturally regressive coastlines, such as many in Northern Europe, are not so lucky.

Read more:
Become a beach scientist this summer and help monitor changing coastlines

All eyes on Antarctica

Sea-level rise is here to stay and gathering pace, but the rate of future increase remains uncertain. It largely depends on what happens in Antarctica over the coming decades.

This in turn depends on land and sea temperatures around the southern continent, which are directly linked to our efforts to limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement.

With over 250 million people now living on land less than 2m above sea level, most in Asia, it is imperative we do everything we can to limit future sea-level rise.

Thomas Mortlock works as a senior analyst for Aon Reinsurance Solutions Australia.

– ref. How rising sea levels will affect our coastal cities and towns – https://theconversation.com/how-rising-sea-levels-will-affect-our-coastal-cities-and-towns-221121

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Ritchie, Senior Lecturer in History, Deakin University

The world has been shocked by images of wanton violence, looting and destruction on the streets of Papua New Guinea’s capital, Port Moresby, in the past week.

Prime Minister James Marape declared a state of emergency as shops were set on fire and citizens shot. At least 22 people have been killed as a result of the violence.

Several reasons have been put forward for the sudden eruption of violence. A “technical glitch” in the government’s payroll system, which cut public service pay packets was the official explanation, although this did little to quell rumours that the cut was due to a sudden tax increase.

Marape blamed political interference for spreading the rumours. The opposition blamed Marape for mismanagement. Whatever the reason, public servants, crucially including the beleaguered police force, promptly went on strike and abandoned their posts, leading to the violence and looting.

Whether Marape’s or the political opposition’s explanation is plausible is perhaps less important than trying to understand the underlying causes of such apparently spontaneous violence. We believe the roots lie in the rapid and uncontrolled growth of Port Moresby (and of other major urban centres such as Lae) that began before Papua New Guinea’s independence in 1975, when it was an Australian territory.

This growth has produced a swollen population that can quickly transform into an angry, riotous mob, especially when the instruments of civil control such as the police are withdrawn.

Now home to more than 400,000 people, Port Moresby owes its origins to the first European colonisers who settled there in the late 19th century. Prior to European contact, a total of about 2,000 Motu and Koita villagers lived in the Port Moresby area. By the end of the second world war, about 5,000 Indigenous people were there (and around 1,500 Europeans).

In the post-war years, there was a continuous and rapid increase in the Melanesian population. This was spurred primarily by increased Australian government spending and the accompanying need for labour.

By 1954, the Indigenous population of Port Moresby had expanded to 12,000. By 1966, it was 32,000. At the time of independence in 1975, the Indigenous population was 95,000.

Lack of land for housing was the main challenge for Indigenous people relocating to Port Moresby for employment. Unlike in Australia, most land in PNG has never been alienated and is customarily owned. Much of Port Moresby is still owned by its original Motu and Koita inhabitants.

The influx of internal migrants meant many people had little choice other than to squat on others’ land. As a result, during the post-war decades “temporary shanty towns, built from industrial scrap, the relics of war, packing cases and the like” grew up, as Charles Rowley wrote in the 1960s.

In the following decade, Australian economist Ross Garnaut noted that services and planning had failed to keep up with the influx.

Read more:
Where does Australia’s relationship with PNG go next? Less talk about China, more about our neighbour’s own merits

Despite repeated attempts to address this problem, it has never been satisfactorily resolved. As recently as October 2023, Port Moresby Governor Powes Parkop has pressed for squatters to be given title to their land.

In 2021, it was estimated nearly 50% of Port Moresby’s residents lived on informal settlements.

The traditional land owners, furious at what they regard as losing their land to “greed”, regularly demand the removal of the squatters. Evictions are frequent.

Further exacerbating the sense of hopelessness and precarity has been the chronic unemployment experienced by residents of the settlements, particular the young. Nearly 90% of Papua New Guineans earn less than A$10.40 per day. Faced with the day-to-day challenges of making ends meet, many see the huge gulf between rich and poor as rubbing salt into their wounds.

Luxury gated communities tucked behind high fences with private security guards are visible reminders of the wealth gap. It could be understood if the recent violence had been directed at these properties instead of at the more accessible, but perhaps less deserving, local trade stores. As is all too often the case with this kind of unrest, people will vent their rage wherever and whenever the opportunity arises.

Read more:
World leaders are flocking to Papua New Guinea. Here’s why

The crisis in Port Moresby has many causes, including the disparity in wealth, high unemployment and living conditions equal to some of the worst places in the world. We also know most of its residents are as shocked and appalled by the violence as we are.

We believe an understanding of the past will help to illuminate and explain the present, and that understanding the roots of the current crisis may help to prevent such events from happening in the future.

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

– ref. More than a pay dispute: what’s really behind the Papua New Guinea riots – https://theconversation.com/more-than-a-pay-dispute-whats-really-behind-the-papua-new-guinea-riots-221208

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leanne Hassett, Associate Professor in Physiotherapy, University of Sydney

Around 4.4 million Australians, or 18% of our population, live with disability. This number is likely to rise as our population ages.

Adults living with disability can experience a range of benefits from participating in community-based physical activities such as dance, Tai Chi and yoga, our recently published review found.

Yet adults with disability are less physically active than those without disability, with inclusive community-based physical activities few and far between. This puts people with disability at increased risk of further disability.

People with disability should be able to join a local club or group to participate in physical activity they enjoy, just like the rest of us. So how can we provide more physical activity options?

Read more:
Thinking of using an activity tracker to achieve your exercise goals? Here’s where it can help – and where it probably won’t

Benefits of physical activity

Our systematic review included 74 trials with 2,954 men and women living with mild-to-moderate physical and intellectual disability.

We looked at studies of Tai Chi, Qigong (which is similar to Tai Chi but more straightforward, using more repetitive movements), yoga, dance, water exercise, gym training, boxing, horse riding, Nordic walking and running. All but one of these physical activities were delivered in condition-specific groups (for example, a group for people with Parkinson’s disease).

People found benefits from participating in these recreation activities. Benefits included improvements in walking, balance and quality of life, and reductions in fatigue, depression and anxiety.

Dance was particularly beneficial for improving walking. Tai Chi, yoga, dance and water exercise were beneficial for balance. Yoga and water exercise were beneficial for fatigue and Tai Chi for depression.

Considerations for physical recreation in the community

Some people with disabilities prefer to be active with others who have similar conditions and abilities. Others prefer to be active locally with family and friends.

Travel to a disability-specific activity may increase the cost and time involved. The lack of choice puts people with a disability at a disadvantage compared to non-disabled people.

Some physical recreation activities included in the review used adjustments and extra equipment to be suitable for people with disability. These adjustments were usually only small (for example, seated options or spending a shorter time in a certain pose or position) and equipment was low cost (for chairs, exercise bands, and so on).

Most local community-based recreation groups should be able make simple adjustments to meet the needs of people living with mild to moderate disability. However this doesn’t routinely happen.

Read more:
Sport and physical activity play important roles for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, but there are barriers to participation

In the review, few activity leaders (37%) had experience and/or training working with people with disability. This may limit the confidence of the activity leader to include a person with disability in the class. It may also limit the confidence of the person with disability to join a local class.

Access to services is a basic right

Australia is a signatory on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Australia also has a Disability Discrimination Act (1992). But this seems to provide little incentive for services to take active measures to prevent disability discrimination.

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability confirmed people with disability were still excluded from many areas of society because of their disability.

The commission’s final report recommended strengthening laws to protect people with disability, prevent discrimination, and build a more inclusive society.

Momentum and expectation is growing in Australian society for better inclusion for people living with disability.

So what can we do for better physical activity inclusion?

First, more physical activity options suitable for people with disability are needed in the community. Guided by the inclusion spectrum, there should be options for both disability-specific and inclusive mainstream activities. People with disability will then be able to choose an activity that suits their needs and preference.

A handful of organisations are leading the way, often led by a person with disability or disability advocate, but more are needed.

Second, community-based physical activities need to enable the person with disability to access the setting safely and have equipment suitable to use. Community organisations can audit their service using online tools, such as AIMFREE (Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments), to evaluate and improve their accessibility.

Read more:
We need beach access for everyone, and that includes people with a disability

A welcoming environment can help ensure a positive experience for the person with disability. Disability Sports Australia offers a free online Accessibility Champion course for sporting clubs and recreation providers. This aims to improve staff and volunteer knowledge and confidence to welcome people with disability. All clubs and service providers should commit to completing this type of training.

Finally, we can all do better to ensure we are accepting and welcoming of people of all abilities in the community, especially in recreation or sporting activities we’re involved in. When this happens, Australia will take an important step to being a more inclusive society.

Leanne Hassett receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and Medical Research Future Fund.

Anne Tiedemann has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. She is an Executive Committee Member of the Australia and New Zealand Falls Prevention Society and the World Falls Prevention Society.

Cathie Sherrington has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. She is the voluntary secretary of the Cerebral Palsy Sport and Recreation Association of NSW and she is an executive member of the Australian and NZ Falls Prevention Society.

– ref. A new year means new fitness goals. But options for people with disability are few and far between – https://theconversation.com/a-new-year-means-new-fitness-goals-but-options-for-people-with-disability-are-few-and-far-between-220143

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ralph Trancoso, Adjunct Associate Professor in Climate Change, The University of Queensland

Three to five billion people – or up to two-thirds of the world’s population – are set to be affected by projected rainfall changes by the end of the century unless the world rapidly ramps up emissions reduction efforts, according to new research by myself and colleagues.

To date, the effects of climate change on global rainfall has been uncertain. This has hampered our capacity to adapt to climate change and prepare for natural disasters.

Our method overcomes this uncertainty. We identified the regions where multiple climate models make similar projections about future rainfall impacts, and so reveal the global hot spots for drier and wetter conditions in future.

Our findings have deep implications for a large proportion of the world’s population – including millions of Australians.

Navigating the uncertainty of rain projections

Climate models are one of the main ways scientists understand how the climate behaved in the past and might change in future. They comprise millions of lines of computer code and use mathematical equations to represent how energy and materials move through the ocean, atmosphere and land. For future projections, climate models are driven by emissions scenarios representing various possible emissions trajectories.

Using climate models to simulate future rainfall patterns is a difficult task. Rain is influenced by complex factors, such as radiative balance (how much of the Sun’s energy is coming in versus how much is leaving), as well as climate drivers linked to specific sea surface temperature patterns, such as El Niño and La Niña. This means different climate models often produce different rainfall projections, especially at a regional level.

We wanted to investigate the extent to which climate models “agree”, or produce similar projections, about how CO₂ emissions may affect future rainfall around the globe.

There are several ways to do this. The usual method is to average out data collected over time – say, two decades. But this approach can eliminate important information and obscure vital insights into how rainfall will behave in future.

We used an innovative and more comprehensive approach based on “time-series” data, or data collected at regular intervals over time – comprising historical and future projections from 1980 to 2100. This approach accounts for continual changes over time, both in the recent past and out to the end of this century.

We analysed both the current and previous generations of climate models – 146 in all.

Read more:
Yes, a few climate models give unexpected predictions – but the technology remains a powerful tool

The global hotspots

Our analysis showed several countries facing drier conditions in future. The top five most affected were Greece, Spain, Palestine, Portugal and Morocco, where at least 85% of models projected significantly reduced annual rainfall by the end of this century, under a worst-case scenario of very high emissions.

In contrast, for Finland, North Korea, Russia, Canada and Norway, more than 90% of models agreed on a trend towards increasing annual rainfall.

The picture was similar for most parts of the highly populated nations of China and India, which are together home to more than 2.7 billion people. In those nations, 70% of models agreed on projections for increasing rainfall.

Our analysis showed some European countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany and France, were generally projected to experience less rainfall in summer and more in winter. These increases and decreases offset each other, which means no change in total rainfall, but substantial changes in seasonal distributions over the year.

Using our approach, rainfall projections remained unclear for some parts of the world. These include most of Australia, as well as central Europe, southwest Asia and parts of the African west coast and South America.

All up, the regions getting wetter or drier under global warming cover a vast proportion of the globe. Under scenarios where emissions remain intermediate (where emissions decline to about half of 2050 levels by the end of the century), 38% of the current world’s population, or three billion people, would be affected by changes in rainfall.

If we experience very high emissions instead, 66% of the world’s population – or five billion people – would be affected. Many of these regions are already experiencing the wetting and drying effects of climate change.

A spotlight on Australia

Our analysis for Australia found climate models agree on a significant drying hotspot over the Indian Ocean, engulfing Australia’s southwestern and south coasts. Spring was the season with the greatest rainfall reduction over this region.

What about at a state level? Under a very high emissions scenario, half of models indicate future drier conditions for Victoria. This is driven by changes in winter and spring rainfall. Other states and territories with agreement for a drier future winter, also under a high emissions scenario, include the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia. The models also project a reduction in spring rainfall in Tasmania.

Some 1.9 million Australians would be affected by these drying patterns, under an intermediate emissions scenario. They comprise those in southwest WA including Perth and the Wheatbelt region. Under very high emissions, as the impacted region expands fourfold towards western Victoria, around 8 million Australians could be affected.

Looking ahead

As climate change accelerates, it’s essential to understand the potential changes in global rainfall and the consequences on human populations.

My colleagues and I hope our findings reduce uncertainty about how rainfall patterns will shift around the world, and help governments and communities to design effective ways to adapt.

Ralph Trancoso leads the Queensland Future Climate Science Program – a collaborative program between the University of Queensland and Queensland’s Department of Environment and Science undertaking applied climate science to support climate adaptation and natural disaster preparedness.

– ref. Up to 5 billion people to be hit by rainfall changes this century if CO₂ emissions are not curbed, research shows – https://theconversation.com/up-to-5-billion-people-to-be-hit-by-rainfall-changes-this-century-if-co-emissions-are-not-curbed-research-shows-221004

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ava Kalinauskas, Research Associate, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Former President Donald Trump’s commanding, and expected, victory in this week’s Iowa caucuses has confirmed his frontrunner status in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

With his closest rivals Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley lagging far behind, it seems the Republican primary contest is over before it has even begun.

Since the 1970s, Iowa has kicked off the US presidential election year with the first caucuses of the primary season. This changed for Democrats following the 2020 election, when the party ditched the first-in-the-nation caucuses for a mail-in vote. The results of this will be known on March 5 (often known as Super Tuesday).

Republicans, however, have stuck with the caucuses. With Republicans in 49 states still yet to cast a vote in the 2024 nominating contest, why is it that an overwhelmingly white state of 3 million continues to hold such sway over the fate of one of the world’s largest democracies?

Read more:
Donald Trump’s stroll to victory in Iowa was a foregone conclusion. This doesn’t make it any less shocking

How Iowa was put on the map

Iowa reached the top of the nominating calendar for a string of logistical reasons — some even say by accident — when the Democratic Party reformed its candidate selection procedures after the tumultuous 1968 Chicago party convention.

At first, few noticed or cared about the Iowa caucuses’ early position. But this all changed in 1976. Little-known presidential hopeful Jimmy Carter led a grassroots campaign in Iowa — and the next-in-line New Hampshire primary — to deliver unexpected early victories in the Democratic nominating contest. He seized upon these two early wins to catapult himself onto the national stage and ultimately win the White House.

Carter showed how these early testing grounds of voter support can propel candidates from obscurity to national fame. Once he put the Iowa caucuses on the map, the state sought to ensure they remained there.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties officially cemented Iowa’s first-in-nation status through state laws and party rules. Since then, the caucuses have become not just an opportunity for candidates to make their mark, but a boon for the state’s economy, raking in millions every cycle.

Read more:
The US presidential primaries are arcane, complex and unrepresentative. So why do Americans still vote this way?

An unrepresentative state

Iowa might be a big electoral prize, but the Mid-Western state itself is tiny and hardly representative of America as a whole. Iowa is more rural than the national average and among the country’s least diverse states.

The population in Iowa is about 90% white, compared to 76% nationally. Less than 4% of Iowans identify as Black or African American.

Many rightly point out that Iowa’s demographics more closely resemble the 19th-century United States than the America we know today. This is part of why the state’s outsized electoral role has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years.

In 2022, President Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee announced they would promote South Carolina to the front of the 2024 Democratic primary contests ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire (also small and overwhelmingly white).

While Iowa was successfully moved back in the schedule, New Hampshire held onto its first-in-the-nation status, prompting Biden to take his name off this year’s primary ballot. The vote will be held on January 23.

As Iowa and New Hampshire go, so goes the nation (sometimes)

Iowa has, at best, a patchy record of predicting party nominees and presidents.

In the ten contested Democratic Iowa caucuses since 1976, the winner has gone on to secure the Democratic nomination in seven instances. The most notable exception in recent times was Biden, who finished fourth in Iowa in 2020. Of these seven successful nominees, just two — Carter and Barack Obama — would go on to become president.

The state’s Republican results are significantly more mixed. Just three winners of the eight contested caucuses since 1976 became the party’s nominee. Two of those, George W. Bush and Gerald Ford, went on to win the White House.

Almost every major party nominee since 1972 has, however, won in either Iowa or New Hampshire. The only two exceptions were Bill Clinton in 1992 and Biden in 2020.

Iowans and New Hampshirites are not clairvoyants with their fingers on the pulse of the nation. Yet their influence helps determine the presidential frontrunners, media narratives, donor contributions and campaign expenditures before millions of other Americans are able to vote. This can shape the rest of the election.

The reason for this is the structure of the US primary calendar. Because the contests are drawn out over five months, establishing early momentum is essential to carving out a path to the nomination, particularly given the exorbitant cost of running for president.

Until the structure of the US primary system changes, or another state replaces both Iowa and New Hampshire at the top of the primary calendars, the eyes of the world will continue to turn to both of these tiny states every four years.

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

– ref. Why two largely white and tiny states still matter so much to the US presidential election – https://theconversation.com/why-two-largely-white-and-tiny-states-still-matter-so-much-to-the-us-presidential-election-221306

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felice Jacka, Alfred Deakin Professor, Deakin University

Feeding astronauts on a long mission to Mars goes well beyond ensuring they have enough nutrients and calories to survive their multi-year journey.

Providing astronauts with the right diet is also paramount in supporting their mental and cognitive health, in a way unlike previous missions.

So we need to radically rethink how we feed astronauts not only on a challenging mission to Mars, which could be on the cards in the late 2030s or early 2040s, but to prepare for possible settlement on the red planet.

That includes acknowledging the role of microbes in mental health and wellbeing, and providing astronauts with the right foods and conditions for a variety of these beneficial microbes to grow. Our research aims to do just that.

Here’s why a healthy balance of microbes is important under such challenging conditions, and how we could put microbes on the menu.

Read more:
Was going to space a good idea?

Why are missions to Mars so challenging?

Deep space missions will expose humans to immense physical and psychological challenges. These include prolonged isolation from loved ones, extreme space and resource constraints, and the difficulties of microgravity.

Disruption to astronauts’ circadian rhythms, prolonged radiation exposure and dietary changes can also lower their cognitive performance and wellbeing.

The hazardous conditions, combined with the psychological toll of potential spacecraft failures, can all contribute to mental health problems.

Read more:
How to live in space: what we’ve learned from 20 years of the International Space Station

Why is diet important for mental health?

We already know the quality of people’s diet not only influences their physical health, but also their mental and brain health.

Diet quality is consistently and independently linked to the risk of depression or anxiety. Clinical trials show improving diet quality can lead to profound improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms.

Diet also affects the size and function of a specific brain region – the hippocampus – that is crucial to learning and memory, as well as for maintaining mental health. When even young healthy adults eat “junk” foods, aspects of cognition linked to the hippocampus quickly decline.

On the other hand, research shows a diet containing more and varied plant foods and seafood (which are rich in components called long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and flavonoids) leads to better cognitive performance. This study was conducted in a closed chamber for 45 days, designed to mimic conditions in space.

Diet can have such consequences by altering:

• immune function
• the size and functioning of the hippocampus
• chemical messenger (neurotransmitter) systems
• how our bodies respond to stress.

Diet can also influence the many ways microbes in the gut affect the brain, a link known as the microbiota gut-brain axis.

Read more:
Essays on health: microbes aren’t the enemy, they’re a big part of who we are

Not all foods make the grade

Space foods need to appeal to a diverse crew and stay nutritious for an extremely long time (likely a three- to five-year mission). They also need to be lightweight and compact enough to fit on the spacecraft.

Once on Mars, challenges include growing fresh food and culturing protein sources. Beyond providing nutrients, we also need to consider providing more recently identified factors including phytonutrients (such as polyphenols), fermentation products and microbes. These will likely be crucial to sustain health and, indeed, life on deep space missions.

Read more:
Humans are going back to the Moon, and beyond – but how will we feed them?

Why are microbes so important?

If you’ve seen the film The Martian, you’ll know microbes are a crucial aspect of growing food, and are essential for keeping humans alive and functioning.

We have co-evolved with, and are hosts to, trillions of different microbes that live on our skin and in all our niches and cavities. This includes our mouths, nose, vagina, lungs and – crucially – our gut.

Most of these microbes are bacteria. The largest number are in the gut, where they influence our digestion, metabolism, and immune, endocrine (hormone) and nervous systems.

The relationship between gut microbes and mental health and behaviour goes both ways. Gut microbes influence our mental health and behaviour, and these, in turn, influence our gut microbes.

Other components of our microbiomes – viruses, fungi and even parasites – and the oral and lung microbiome are also linked to mental and brain health.

Importantly, we share microbes with others, including via the exchange of air, which is highly relevant in closed-environment systems such as inside spacecrafts.

So ensuring all astronauts have the healthiest and most diverse of microbes for the whole of the mission is vital.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why do some farts smell and some don’t? And why do some farts feel hot?

How could we encourage healthy microbes?

It’s not just the food itself we have to think about. We also need to think about how we grow the food if we are to support healthy microbiomes.

Indeed, microbes play an essential role in the nutrient and phytochemical content of plants, and the microbes in soil, plants and humans are interconnected. Research published in 2023 confirms bacteria on vegetables and other plant foods find a home in the human gut, enhancing microbe diversity.

But current ways of growing foods on spacecraft don’t use natural soil. Standard “vertical farming” methods grow plants in an alternative growth medium – imagine a next-generation hydroponics system. So we may need to add an optimised microbial cocktail to these systems to enhance the health properties of the foods astronauts grow and eat.

Fermented protein from microbes can be quickly produced in a bioreactor on board the spacecraft, even from food waste. Some types have a meat-like flavour and texture, and can provide all the amino acids humans need as well as useful byproducts from the microbes themselves.

Fermentation itself creates thousands of different bioactive molecules, including some vitamins, that have diverse beneficial effects on health, including possible benefits to mental health.

While we don’t yet know what types of fermented foods are possible in space, we could include fermented foods, such as kimchi and sauerkraut, in astronauts’ diets on Earth.

Probiotics and prebiotics as supplements may also be essential. Probiotics are live microbes that have demonstrated health benefits and prebiotics are food for these healthy microbes.

Read more:
What is kombucha and how do the health claims stack up?

Benefits on Earth too

We’re only at the start of learning how to optimise microbes to keep space crews healthy, which is crucial for long space flights and for possible settlement on other planets.

However, this research could have many other applications. We can use what we learn to help create self-sustaining and sustainable food systems on Earth to improve the environment and human health.

Felice N Jacka is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council investigator grant (#1194982). She has received: (1) competitive grant/research support from the Brain and Behaviour Research Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Rotary Health, the Geelong Medical Research Foundation, the Ian Potter Foundation, The University of Melbourne; (2) industry support for research from Meat and Livestock Australia, Woolworths Limited, the A2 Milk Company, Be Fit Foods, Bega Cheese; (3) philanthropic support from the Fernwood Foundation, Wilson Foundation, the JTM Foundation, the Serp Hills Foundation, the Roberts Family Foundation, the Waterloo Foundation and; (4) travel support and speakers honoraria from Sanofi-Synthelabo, Janssen Cilag, Servier, Pfizer, Network Nutrition, Angelini Farmaceutica, Eli Lilly, Metagenics, and The Beauty Chef. She is on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Dauten Family Centre for Bipolar Treatment Innovation and Zoe Limited. Felice Jacka has written two books for commercial publication.

Dorit Donoviel is Executive Director, NASA-Funded Translational (moving products from lab-bench to practice) Research Institute for Space Health at Baylor College of Medicine. Dorit receives funding from NASA through Cooperative Agreement NNX16AO69A and disburses this funding to research groups and companies performing work to safeguard the health of humans in deep space.

– ref. Space travel taxes astronauts’ brains. But microbes on the menu could help in unexpected ways – https://theconversation.com/space-travel-taxes-astronauts-brains-but-microbes-on-the-menu-could-help-in-unexpected-ways-216355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Clifton, Associate Professor of Practice, School of Health Sciences and the Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney

Dave Chappelle’s latest Netflix special, The Dreamer, opens with a story about meeting Jim Carrey, who, at the time, was method acting and portraying comedian Andy Kaufman.

Chappelle recalls being “very disappointed” at having to pretend to be speaking to Kaufman, when he could clearly see it was Carrey. The punchline? “That’s how trans people make me feel.”

Whether or not non-transgender people find it funny, it is a joke that stabs at the fundamental insecurity of being trans. It takes the stance of biological essentialism: that people have innate and intractable traits by virtue of their biology.

Biological essentialism has been used by the anti-trans lobby to deny that trans women are women and trans men are men, and to justify sexism and racism before that.

Read more:
What is essentialism? And how does it shape attitudes to transgender people and sexual diversity?

Chappelle’s Netflix specials have become notorious for his jokes targeting the transgender community, but Chappelle has claimed his comedy is more nuanced and artistic than his critics allow.

He claims to be an equal opportunity offender, “punching down” (his words) to all minorities equally. To prove this point, in The Dreamer he takes on what he calls “handicapped jokes”.

Mirroring prejudice

While the word “handicapped” was once used to describe people with disability, it is now considered offensive. Chappelle is either unaware or just doesn’t care that the term is decades out of date.

Comedy, at its best, draws from and reveals insight into the human condition. It slips into mockery when, bereft of understanding, it does nothing more than mirror prejudice.

Chappelle’s first disability joke has the potential to be clever and insightful. He says:

there’s probably a handicap in the back right now ’cause that’s where they make them sit.

A joke about the placement of people with disability at the back of the theatre is clever as it unmasks social disadvantage. In different hands, it could be a reflection on the social model of disability.

The social model of disability says the problem of disability is not “handicapped” bodies but the social environment designed to exclude and marginalise them. For example, a wheelchair user is not disabled because they cannot walk (they have wheels for mobility), but because of a lack of access to ramps – or a theatre which insists they sit at the back of the room.

But clever turns to mockery with a visual punchline, as Chappelle twists his hand and walks like a “cripple”. It is mockery bereft of understanding.

A crass attack on paraplegic sexual function follows: “Who the fuck invites a paraplegic to an orgy?”. It’s ableism masquerading as comedy.

Ableism refers to stereotypical attitudes and behaviours that dehumanise people with disability, treating them as different, less than, incapable, foolish, laughable, excludable. In this case, Chappelle repeats the damaging and false stereotype that people with disability are asexual and unsexy.

Read more:
Ableism and disablism – how to spot them and how we can all do better

Australia’s Disability Royal Commission heard how ableism, especially as propagated in the media, drives violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability. It noted we learn our language and attitudes from the media and popular culture, which often leads to abusive behaviour in public and online.

When comedy relies on humiliation and cruelty to earn its laughter it can have serious consequences. Rather than propagate ableism, comedy can deconstruct it, revealing the absurdity of discrimination, and questioning notions of normality, abnormality and ideas of difference.

But watching the special, it feels like disability is not Chappelle’s real target. Instead, it seems he embraces being an “equal opportunity” offender who mocks disability as a defence for his long-running transgender jokes.

The impacts of mockery

Witty transgender comedy might highlight the social issues trans people face, but Chapelle exemplifies those issues. In The Dreamer, he makes the tired joke that if he was arrested in California he’d claim in court that he identified as a woman to be sent to women’s jail so he could have sex with women.

His jokes rely on prevailing disgust about transgender bodies and increasingly politicised insistence that transgender people are not real women or men. These views shared in popular culture are coming to inform anti-trans policy in healthcare, education and the justice system.

As the majority of the general population do not know a trans person, the media has significant influence over perceptions of trans people.

Throughout four Netflix specials, Chapelle has made no effort to understand the object of his jokes or the impact of his mockery on their daily lives. While trans representation in the media is improving, trans people are still exposed to a plethora of negative depictions of their identities in the media across a range of mediums. Research shows this is significantly associated with clinical levels of depression, anxiety and psychological distress.

Near the end of The Dreamer, Chappelle paints himself as the victim of the “unjust” LGBTQI+ campaign against his comedy, which included Chappelle being physically attacked on stage at a 2022 show.

Physical violence is never justified. However it should be noted comedy which “punches down” on trans people helps to drive the negative perceptions that lead to violence against queer people that we see on social media feeds and in the daily experience of transgender people globally.

Chappelle is an influential comedian who proudly punches down. It is true he is an egalitarian bully. In The Dreamer, he laughs at disability, bisexuality and gay men. But his jokes continue to come back to one target: the transgender community. When will we say enough is enough? When will we stop laughing?

Read more:
Yes, words can harm young trans people. Here’s what we can do to help

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

– ref. Dave Chappelle has built a reputation for ‘punching down’ on trans people – and now he’s targeting disabled people – https://theconversation.com/dave-chappelle-has-built-a-reputation-for-punching-down-on-trans-people-and-now-hes-targeting-disabled-people-220774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Colin Bednall, Associate Professor in Management, Swinburne University of Technology

With the new year underway employers are beginning to resume normal business activities and restart their hiring process. Similarly, many school and university graduates are beginning their job search after a well-earned break.

While some employers are using increasingly sophisticated approaches to recruiting such as psychometric testing and artificial intelligence, interviews remain one of the most common selection methods.

If you have been invited to a job interview, congratulations, as it likely means you have been shortlisted for the role. However, for many people, interviews can be an unnerving process. Not only do they require candidates to think on their feet, but also to create a positive impression of themselves as a potential co-worker.

With that in mind, it always pays to prepare by anticipating what will be discussed and practising your answers. Here are six types of questions you may be asked:

1. Tell me a bit about yourself?

An interview will often start with broad questions about your background and interest in a job. These may include questions such as: “What motivated you to apply for this role?” or “Tell me about your long-term career aspirations”.

For these types of questions, a convincing answer will highlight relevant skills you can bring to the role. These professional experiences do not have to come from the same type of position. For instance, if you were applying for a customer service job, you might cite communication and problem-solving methods you used on a student team project.

A convincing answer will focus on intrinsic motivation: specifically, the aspects of the job you find interesting, enjoyable or otherwise rewarding. These could involve working with people, solving tricky business problems or making a social impact. Avoid negative remarks about your current employer and sources of extrinsic motivation – such as money or benefits – unless part of a salary negotiation.

Read more:
‘Computer says no’: more employers are using AI to recruit, increasing the risk of discrimination

Your answer will also show how the role aligns with your own values. For instance, if you are applying for a teaching position, you could highlight your belief in the importance of education, as well as anything about the school you admire, such as its program of extracurricular activities.

2. How did you resolve a particular problem in the past?

Behavioural questions require candidates to provide examples of the past actions they took to manage situations. For instance: “Tell me about a time when you received a customer complaint. What actions did you take, and what was the outcome?” Their objective is to predict how candidates will behave in similar situations.

You can prepare for these questions by studying the job selection criteria and anticipating the questions the interviewer may ask.

If you do not have the relevant experience for one of the questions, you can say that you can’t recall a specific example, but you could outline how you would deal with the situation described in the question.

3. What are your weaknesses?

Interviewers will often ask about what you see as your greatest strengths and weaknesses.

The strengths part of this question enables you to highlight your knowledge and skills most relevant for the role. In general, it is a good idea to provide examples of specific accomplishments that illustrate these capabilities.

The weaknesses can be addressed by framing “weaknesses” as professional aspirations. In general, it is a good idea to focus on a capability that is non-essential for the role, in which you would like to gain experience. For instance, if you are not a confident public speaker but recognise it as a necessary for your long-term career, you could say it is a skill you would like to work on.

By expressing willingness to receive further training and development, you can leave a much more positive impression than simply listing your current shortcomings.

4. What are your salary expectations?

Usually, pay negotiations will occur after an offer has been made, but sometimes the topic will come up during the interview.

Before stating your expectation, it is wise to find out the salary and other benefits associated with the role. If the salary has not been listed in the job description, you should ask the employer what the budgeted salary range for the position is.

Read more:
Plants and bookcases in, living rooms and blank walls out: how your Zoom background can make you seem more competent

Ahead of the interview, do some research and find out what is typical for the role you are applying for based on your level of experience.

Be careful about disclosing your current salary; this information can provide a baseline that can make it difficult to negotiate a higher salary. If you are asked this question, you can politely decline to answer or indicate the information is between yourself and your current employer.

5. Inappropriate or illegal questions

Unfortunately, some employers may ask inappropriate or illegal questions. These may relate to relationship status, carer responsibilities, childhood planning, physical or mental health, cultural or ethnic background and union activity.

If you are asked an inappropriate question, you can politely ask the interviewer how that information would be relevant to your ability to perform the job.

Ultimately, job candidates have a right to refuse to answer such questions, and employers who ask them may open themselves to legal action through the Fair Work Commission, Fair Work Ombudsman or the Australian Human Rights Commission.

6. Do you have any questions for me?

Often, the interviewer will invite the candidate to ask their own questions. Thoughtfully selected questions can leave a positive lasting impression.

In this part of the interview, you can clarify any aspect of the role you feel unsure about, such as the working hours. It can also be good to do some research on the organisation and to ask some more specific questions about its clients, projects, or long-term plans.

Beyond the specific requirements of the role, a good topic to ask about is the team and organisational culture. You could, for example, ask what a typical day in the life of a team member would look like.

Read more:
Job hunting: why taking regular breaks is vital for your well-being and success

At the end of the interview, you should ask about the next steps including when you should expect to hear back from them.

One final thing to consider about an interview is that it is a two-way process; you are also interviewing the employer to see if the job would be a good fit for you personally and professionally. If the role, organisation or people seem unappealing after the interview process, then it is wise to look elsewhere.

Timothy Colin Bednall 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. 6 questions you should be ready to answer to smash that job interview – https://theconversation.com/6-questions-you-should-be-ready-to-answer-to-smash-that-job-interview-220848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Of course, on the day of the first nominating contest for the 2024 US presidential election, there was a storm.

In Iowa over the weekend, blizzards described as “life-threatening” by the National Weather Service brought with them temperatures well below freezing, up to 25 centimetres of snow and ferocious winds.

In these terrible conditions on Monday night, Republicans in the Hawkeye state gathered to choose their preferred candidate for president of the United States. Polls had suggested for a long time that they had already made their choice – former President Donald Trump was set to win in a landslide. The only real question was who would snatch second place.

Iowa holds a caucus vote in presidential nominating contests, as opposed to most other states, which hold primary votes. In the Iowa caucuses, registered Republican voters gather in small groups in their local diners, schools and churches, hear from candidate representatives and each other, and vote privately for their preferred candidate.

As always in US electoral politics, turnout is the main game – which explains the focus on the weather and how it might impact voters’ willingness to turn up.

Iowa was always Trump’s for the taking

Trump, who led recent polls by double digits, did not feel the pressure to mount the type of intensive campaigning that might be expected of a nominee wanting to maximise turnout and make a statement in the first nominating contest.

Why would he? Even when he was not physically present in the state – which was a lot of the time – this contest was already all about Trump. Even when the focus was ostensibly on the other candidates, what Republican voters really wanted to know was how they felt about Trump and his many felonies and constitutional breaches, and how they could have the temerity to challenge someone who has come to dominate the Republican Party to such an unprecedented extent.

As the snow closed in and the roads iced over, those leading competitors – Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy – scrambled to reschedule and relocate their campaign events in the final days before the caucus. But they were fighting more than just the weather.

As bitter as the campaigning between these candidates has been, it has been almost entirely aimed at each other. Not one of them has been prepared to make a substantive critique of Trump and what he stands for. Each has sought to cloak themselves in at least part of his political aura. And each was battling for second place.

In the end, the winner was declared before the caucuses had even finished. Just as predicted, Trump won Iowa by an overwhelming margin, with DeSantis and Haley neck and neck for second place.

The extent of Trump’s power over the party

While the result may have been a foregone conclusion, it is still significant.

The vote shows that the majority of Republican participants in Iowa were willing to publicly declare their support for a candidate who has incited an insurrection and been charged with 91 separate felonies, threatened violent retribution against his political opponents and promised to act as a dictator on “day one” of a potential second term in office. His speeches are also steeped in overt racism that once thrived only on the political fringes.

It is no longer possible to deny this political reality. This election is not like any other that has come before. It is not business as usual.

To an extent that is almost impossible to fathom, Trump continues to dominate the Republican Party. After the Iowa caucuses, it can no longer be said that he does so in spite of the multiple felony charges he faces, his disdain for democratic processes or his overt racism. Rather, it is because of all these factors that he has maintained the loyalty of a substantial, noisy and mobilised majority of the Republican base.

Read more:
Beneath the Trump circus, American democracy faces up to a vital challenge

Some commentators hold out the forlorn hope that a Trump revival can still be averted. On current polling and performance, however, it is clear none of the other primary challengers are in a reasonable position to defeat him in the race for the nomination. Their only hope is that Trump may be tripped up by one of the multiple legal processes he is currently snared in. Though not impossible, nothing that has happened so far suggests this is likely.

But the size and extent of Trump’s victory in Iowa does not tell the whole story. Each of his challengers has defined their pitch for power largely in deference to Trump and have studiously avoided taking him on directly.

Haley, for instance, continues to pay obeisance to Trump’s accomplishments. Her recent refusal to name slavery as a fundamental cause of the US Civil War was not an act of historical ignorance. It was a signal sent to the Republican base that despite her previous positions on issues such as the Confederate flag, she is now willing to perpetuate and pander to the same racialised worldview as Trump.

DeSantis has frequently sought to position himself as the most activist anti-“woke” contender – a better Trump than Trump. Ramaswamy, meanwhile, has sought to present himself (with little success) as a sleeker, next-generation Trump.

What does Iowa portend for democracy itself?

The positioning around Iowa, and the result, consolidate dynamics that have been underway for some time. The Republican Party remains in the grip of Trump because he is the most effective avatar of a brand of racial revanchism with deep roots in the United States.

Read more:
Why ‘wokeness’ has become the latest battlefront for white conservatives in America

By mobilising against what they perceive as threats to the established social order, Trump’s conservative base has been determined to use the institutions of the American state to consolidate its positions of power. It can then impose its worldview on the entirety of the country. The overturning of Roe v Wade by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is a good example.

This is an explicitly racialised and anti-democratic movement that intends to impose the will of the minority over the lives of the majority. Every single Republican candidate who polled in Iowa is seeking to be the standard bearer of this movement.

The primary contest still has a long way to run. If there is any lesson from US political history, it is to expect the unexpected.

But this election is not business as usual. The current trajectory is clear, and it is dangerous: dangerous for American democracy, and as a result, dangerous for the world.

This storm is only just beginning.

Emma Shortis is senior researcher in international and security affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

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

– ref. Donald Trump’s stroll to victory in Iowa was a foregone conclusion. This doesn’t make it any less shocking – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-stroll-to-victory-in-iowa-was-a-foregone-conclusion-this-doesnt-make-it-any-less-shocking-221207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Of course, on the day of the first nominating contest for the 2024 US presidential election, there was a storm.

In Iowa over the weekend, blizzards described as “life-threatening” by the National Weather Service brought with them temperatures well below freezing, up to 25 centimetres of snow and ferocious winds.

In these terrible conditions on Monday night, Republicans in the Hawkeye state gathered to choose their preferred candidate for president of the United States. Polls had suggested for a long time that they had already made their choice – former President Donald Trump was set to win in a landslide. The only real question was who would snatch second place.

Iowa holds a caucus vote in presidential nominating contests, as opposed to most other states, which hold primary votes. In the Iowa caucuses, registered Republican voters gather in small groups in their local diners, schools and churches, hear from candidate representatives and each other, and vote privately for their preferred candidate.

As always in US electoral politics, turnout is the main game – which explains the focus on the weather and how it might impact voters’ willingness to turn up.

Iowa was always Trump’s for the taking

Trump, who led recent polls by double digits, did not feel the pressure to mount the type of intensive campaigning that might be expected of a nominee wanting to maximise turnout and make a statement in the first nominating contest.

Why would he? Even when he was not physically present in the state – which was a lot of the time – this contest was already all about Trump. Even when the focus was ostensibly on the other candidates, what Republican voters really wanted to know was how they felt about Trump and his many felonies and constitutional breaches, and how they could have the temerity to challenge someone who has come to dominate the Republican Party to such an unprecedented extent.

As the snow closed in and the roads iced over, those leading competitors – Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy – scrambled to reschedule and relocate their campaign events in the final days before the caucus. But they were fighting more than just the weather.

As bitter as the campaigning between these candidates has been, it has been almost entirely aimed at each other. Not one of them has been prepared to make a substantive critique of Trump and what he stands for. Each has sought to cloak themselves in at least part of his political aura. And each was battling for second place.

In the end, the winner was declared before the caucuses had even finished. Just as predicted, Trump won Iowa by an overwhelming margin, with DeSantis and Haley neck and neck for second place.

The extent of Trump’s power over the party

While the result may have been a foregone conclusion, it is still significant.

The vote shows that the majority of Republican participants in Iowa were willing to publicly declare their support for a candidate who has incited an insurrection and been charged with 91 separate felonies, threatened violent retribution against his political opponents and promised to act as a dictator on “day one” of a potential second term in office. His speeches are also steeped in overt racism that once thrived only on the political fringes.

It is no longer possible to deny this political reality. This election is not like any other that has come before. It is not business as usual.

To an extent that is almost impossible to fathom, Trump continues to dominate the Republican Party. After the Iowa caucuses, it can no longer be said that he does so in spite of the multiple felony charges he faces, his disdain for democratic processes or his overt racism. Rather, it is because of all these factors that he has maintained the loyalty of a substantial, noisy and mobilised majority of the Republican base.

Read more:
Beneath the Trump circus, American democracy faces up to a vital challenge

Some commentators hold out the forlorn hope that a Trump revival can still be averted. On current polling and performance, however, it is clear none of the other primary challengers are in a reasonable position to defeat him in the race for the nomination. Their only hope is that Trump may be tripped up by one of the multiple legal processes he is currently snared in. Though not impossible, nothing that has happened so far suggests this is likely.

But the size and extent of Trump’s victory in Iowa does not tell the whole story. Each of his challengers has defined their pitch for power largely in deference to Trump and have studiously avoided taking him on directly.

Haley, for instance, continues to pay obeisance to Trump’s accomplishments. Her recent refusal to name slavery as a fundamental cause of the US Civil War was not an act of historical ignorance. It was a signal sent to the Republican base that despite her previous positions on issues such as the Confederate flag, she is now willing to perpetuate and pander to the same racialised worldview as Trump.

DeSantis has frequently sought to position himself as the most activist anti-“woke” contender – a better Trump than Trump. Ramaswamy, meanwhile, has sought to present himself (with little success) as a sleeker, next-generation Trump.

What does Iowa portend for democracy itself?

The positioning around Iowa, and the result, consolidate dynamics that have been underway for some time. The Republican Party remains in the grip of Trump because he is the most effective avatar of a brand of racial revanchism with deep roots in the United States.

Read more:
Why ‘wokeness’ has become the latest battlefront for white conservatives in America

By mobilising against what they perceive as threats to the established social order, Trump’s conservative base has been determined to use the institutions of the American state to consolidate its positions of power. It can then impose its worldview on the entirety of the country. The overturning of Roe v Wade by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is a good example.

This is an explicitly racialised and anti-democratic movement that intends to impose the will of the minority over the lives of the majority. Every single Republican candidate who polled in Iowa is seeking to be the standard bearer of this movement.

The primary contest still has a long way to run. If there is any lesson from US political history, it is to expect the unexpected.

But this election is not business as usual. The current trajectory is clear, and it is dangerous: dangerous for American democracy, and as a result, dangerous for the world.

This storm is only just beginning.

Emma Shortis is senior researcher in international and security affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

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

– ref. Donald Trump’s stroll to victory in Iowa was a foregone conclusion. This doesn’t make it less shocking – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-stroll-to-victory-in-iowa-was-a-foregone-conclusion-this-doesnt-make-it-less-shocking-221207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgie Russell, Senior Lecturer, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University

In January, many people are setting new year’s resolutions around healthy eating. Achieving these is often challenging – it can be difficult to change our eating habits. But healthy diets can enhance physical and mental health, so improving what we eat is a worthwhile goal.

One reason it’s difficult to change our eating habits relates to our “food environments”. This term describes:

The collective physical, economic, policy and sociocultural surroundings, opportunities and conditions that influence people’s food and beverage choices and nutritional status.

Our current food environments are designed in ways that often make it easier to choose unhealthy foods than healthy ones. But it’s possible to change certain aspects of our personal food environments, making eating healthier a little easier.

Unhealthy food environments

It’s not difficult to find fast-food restaurants in Australian cities. Meanwhile, there are junk foods at supermarket checkouts, service stations and sporting venues. Takeaway and packaged foods and drinks routinely come in large portion sizes and are often considered tastier than healthy options.

Our food environments also provide us with various prompts to eat unhealthy foods via the media and advertising, alongside health and nutrition claims and appealing marketing images on food packaging.

At the supermarket, unhealthy foods are often promoted through prominent displays and price discounts.

We’re also exposed to various situations in our everyday lives that can make healthy eating challenging. For example, social occasions or work functions might see large amounts of unhealthy food on offer.

Read more:
No, it’s not just a lack of control that makes Australians overweight. Here’s what’s driving our unhealthy food habits

Not everyone is affected in the same way

People differ in the degree to which their food consumption is influenced by their food environments.

This can be due to biological factors (for example, genetics and hormones), psychological characteristics (such as decision making processes or personality traits) and prior experiences with food (for example, learned associations between foods and particular situations or emotions).

People who are more susceptible will likely eat more and eat more unhealthy foods than those who are more immune to the effects of food environments and situations.

Those who are more susceptible may pay greater attention to food cues such as advertisements and cooking smells, and feel a stronger desire to eat when exposed to these cues. Meanwhile, they may pay less attention to internal cues signalling hunger and fullness. These differences are due to a combination of biological and psychological characteristics.

These people might also be more likely to experience physiological reactions to food cues including changes in heart rate and increased salivation.

Other situational cues can also prompt eating for some people, depending on what they’ve learned about eating. Some of us tend to eat when we’re tired or in a bad mood, having learned over time eating provides comfort in these situations.

Other people will tend to eat in situations such as in the car during the commute home from work (possibly passing multiple fast-food outlets along the way), or at certain times of day such as after dinner, or when others around them are eating, having learned associations between these situations and eating.

Being in front of a TV or other screen can also prompt people to eat, eat unhealthy foods, or eat more than intended.

Read more:
Appetite for convenience: how the surge in online food delivery could be harming our health

Making changes

While it’s not possible to change wider food environments or individual characteristics that affect susceptibility to food cues, you can try to tune into how and when you’re affected by food cues. Then you can restructure some aspects of your personal food environments, which can help if you’re working towards healthier eating goals.

Although both meals and snacks are important for overall diet quality, snacks are often unplanned, which means food environments and situations may have a greater impact on what we snack on.

Foods consumed as snacks are often sugary drinks, confectionery, chips and cakes. However, snacks can also be healthy (for example, fruits, nuts and seeds).

Try removing unhealthy foods, particularly packaged snacks, from the house, or not buying them in the first place. This means temptations are removed, which can be especially helpful for those who may be more susceptible to their food environment.

Planning social events around non-food activities can help reduce social influences on eating. For example, why not catch up with friends for a walk instead of lunch at a fast-food restaurant.

Creating certain rules and habits can reduce cues for eating. For example, not eating at your desk, in the car, or in front of the TV will, over time, lessen the effects of these situations as cues for eating.

You could also try keeping a food diary to identify what moods and emotions trigger eating. Once you’ve identified these triggers, develop a plan to help break these habits. Strategies may include doing another activity you enjoy such as going for a short walk or listening to music – anything that can help manage the mood or emotion where you would have typically reached for the fridge.

Write (and stick to) a grocery list and avoid shopping for food when hungry. Plan and prepare meals and snacks ahead of time so eating decisions are made in advance of situations where you might feel especially hungry or tired or be influenced by your food environment.

Rebecca Leech receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1175250).

Georgie Russell 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. Our ‘food environments’ affect what we eat. Here’s how you can change yours to support healthier eating – https://theconversation.com/our-food-environments-affect-what-we-eat-heres-how-you-can-change-yours-to-support-healthier-eating-220770

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karen Scott, Professor in Law, University of Canterbury

In 2023 the world witnessed a sustained attack on the very foundations of the international legal order.

Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, continued its illegal invasion in Ukraine. Israel’s response to the October terrorist attack by Hamas exceeded its legitimate right to self-defence. And Venezuela threatened force against Guyana over an oil-rich area of disputed territory.

But is it all bad news for the international legal order?

There are six ongoing international court cases initiated by states or organisations seeking to clarify the law and hold other states to account on behalf of the international community.

These cases offer smaller countries, such as New Zealand, an opportunity to have a significant role in strengthening the international legal order and ensuring a pathway towards peace.

A departure from the legal norm?

Normally, cases are brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when a state’s direct interests are impacted by the actions of another state.

However, six recent court cases reflect a significant departure from this tradition and mark an important development for international justice.

Read more:
South Africa has made its genocide case against Israel in court. Here’s what both sides said and what happens next

These cases argue the international community has a collective interest in certain issues. The focus of the cases range from Israel’s actions in Gaza (brought by South Africa) through to the responsibility of states to ensure the protection of the climate system (brought by the United Nations General Assembly).

Holding states accountable for genocide

Three of the six cases seek to hold states accountable for genocide using Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Put simply, Article IX says disputes between countries can be referred to the ICJ.

In late December, South Africa asked the court to introduce provisional measures – a form of international injunction – against Israel for genocidal acts in Gaza.

These proceedings build on the precedent set by a 2019 case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya people.

In 2022, the ICJ concluded it had jurisdiction to hear The Gambia’s case on the basis that all parties to the Genocide Convention have an interest in ensuring the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide.

According to the ICJ, The Gambia did not need to demonstrate any special interest or injury to bring the proceedings and, in effect, was entitled to hold Myanmar to account for its treatment of the Rohingya people on behalf of the international community as a whole.

South Africa has made the same argument against Israel.

In the third case, Ukraine was successful in obtaining provisional measures calling on Russia to suspend military operations in Ukraine (a call which has been reiterated in several United Nations General Assembly resolutions).

While Ukraine is directly impacted by Russia’s actions, 32 states, including New Zealand, have also intervened. These countries have argued there is an international interest in the resolution of the conflict.

In November 2023, following the example of intervention in Ukraine v. Russia, seven countries – Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (jointly) and the Maldives – filed declarations of intervention in The Gambia v. Myanmar, in support of The Gambia and the international community.

States can apply for permission to intervene in proceedings where they have an interest of a legal nature that may be affected by the decision in the case (in the case of the ICJ, under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute). That said, intervening in judicial proceedings in support of the legal order or international community more generally was relatively rare until 2023.

Climate change obligations under international law

But it is not just acts of genocide that have attracted wider international legal involvement.

In 2023, three proceedings seeking advisory opinions on the legal obligations of states in respect of climate change under international law have been introduced before the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/request-for-an-advisory-opinion-submitted-by-the-commission-of-small-island-states-on-climate-change-and-international-law-request-for-advisory-opinion-submitted-to-the-tribunal/) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Read more:
Myanmar charged with genocide of Rohingya Muslims: 5 essential reads

These cases can be similarly characterised as having been brought on behalf of the international community for the international community. New Zealand has intervened in the ITLOS case.

Collectively, these six cases comprise actions taken on behalf of the international community with the overarching purpose of strengthening the international legal order.

They demonstrate faith in and support for that legal order in the face of internal and external challenges, and constitute an important counter-narrative to the prevailing view that the international legal order is no longer robust.

Instituting proceedings does not guarantee a positive outcome. But it’s worth noting that less than three years after the ICJ issued an advisory opinion condemning the United Kingdom’s continued occupation of the Chagos Archipelago, the UK is quietly negotiating with Mauritius for the return of the islands.

New Zealand’s support for the global legal order in 2024

The international legal order underpins New Zealand’s security and prosperity. New Zealand has a strong and internationally recognised track record of positive intervention in judicial proceedings in support of that order.

In 2012 New Zealand intervened in the case brought by Australia against Japan for whaling in the Antarctic. Following our contributions to cases before the ICJ and ITLOS in 2023, We are well placed to continue that intervention in future judicial proceedings.

Calls have already been made for New Zealand to intervene in South Africa v. Israel. Contributing to this case and to The Gambia v. Myanmar proceeding provides an important opportunity for New Zealand to make a proactive and substantive contribution to strengthening the international legal order.

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

– ref. New Zealand can learn from South Africa, The Gambia and others when it comes to international accountability – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-can-learn-from-south-africa-the-gambia-and-others-when-it-comes-to-international-accountability-221114

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick O’Connor, Associate Professor, University of Adelaide

Climate change and biodiversity loss are arguably the greatest environmental challenges the world faces. The way we use land is crucial in finding solutions to these problems. In theory, actions such as revegetation and avoiding land clearing can tackle both problems at once – for example, by simultaneously storing carbon in plants and providing habitat for animals.

Sometimes when taking these actions, however, carbon storage is prioritised at the expense of biodiversity. But that need not be the case. Our new research suggests we can act to boost the climate and nature at the same time.

We examined a financial incentive scheme in South Australia’s Mount Lofty Ranges. We found action by farmers to restore native woodlands on their properties also stored carbon in the vegetation. This carbon abatement, if converted into carbon credits, could have paid the farmers for their restoration activities. It suggests existing carbon markets can pay for biodiversity conservation.

To date, few market-based biodiversity schemes in Australia have been designed to reward farmers for delivering these twin benefits – and the same is true for carbon markets. This is a huge missed opportunity for both the climate and nature.

Carbon markets don’t always help nature

Carbon markets encourage farmers and other land managers to help mitigate climate change, through activities such as planting trees or avoiding land clearing. These activities are rewarded with “credits” which can then be sold to buyers wanting to reduce their carbon footprint, such as a polluting company. Similar schemes are emerging for biodiversity conservation.

Efforts to tackle climate change through land-based activities are welcome. But these interventions do not always lead to good biodiversity outcomes. For example, a particular tree species planted to store carbon may not be useful to animals in the area. It may even cause problems such as spreading weeds, which can add to biodiversity decline.

In Australia, the decline of native species and ecosystems is well-documented. The decline is marked in the eastern Mount Lofty Ranges where native vegetation – mostly eucalypt forests and woodlands – has been reduced to about 10% of its former extent.

It means many animal species in the Mount Lofty Ranges are falling in numbers. They include birds such as the diamond firetail, superb fairy-wren and purple-crowned lorikeet.

Reversing this decline requires restoring and protecting the native vegetation that feeds and homes these animals. We wanted to know if carbon markets could pay for such work.

What we found

We examined a payment scheme, known as BushBids, for farmers who manage the region’s degraded woodlands. It was funded by the federal government and administered by the state government.

The scheme, which began in 2006, invited private landholders to tender for ten-year contracts to undertake certain restoration activities. These included retaining fallen logs (instead of collecting them for firewood), limiting stock grazing, controlling weeds, and reducing grazing by both feral animals and overabundant native animals such as kangaroos. Such activities can lead to more carbon being stored in vegetation, debris and soils.

Monitoring showed the activities restored some components of the woodland systems – most notably the diversity of native plant species.

The activities also led to additional carbon being stored in the woodlands. Australia’s carbon market does not currently recognise this type of carbon gain.

But what if it did? We calculated how much carbon was stored by the restoration of degraded native vegetation across 12 sites. We then calculated how much of the cost of this work would have been covered by payments for that carbon storage.

We found the additional carbon stored in the woodlands could pay all, or a substantial proportion, of the price of restoring degraded native vegetation. The exact proportion covered depends on factors such as the carbon price, rainfall and rate of vegetation recovery.

Read more:
Carbon markets could protect nature and the planet, but only if the rights of those who live there are recognized too

Implications for Australia

Our study shows how the price of restoring native vegetation for biodiversity conservation could be covered by trading carbon credits created at the same time. This could be achieved either with separate markets, or markets that include both biodiversity and carbon.

But using markets for both nature repair and carbon storage will only work if the markets are designed well.

That means changes to Australia’s existing carbon market may be required. Research has cast doubt over the integrity of more than half the credits generated in that market. It found under one particular method – regrowing native forests to store carbon from the atmosphere – most carbon storage for which credits were issued either had not occurred, or would have occurred anyway.

Separately, the federal government has recently passed legislation to establish a biodiversity scheme known as the Nature Repair Market. For this scheme to avoid making the same mistakes as the carbon scheme, it should involve methods and standards that lead to the right kinds of biodiversity restoration in the right places.

This means focusing on which species and ecosystems need protection. For example, it should include not just those species listed as threatened with extinction, but species declining in their strongholds, and where the decline of a species would have broader impacts such as damage to agriculture.

Australian farmers have demonstrated that they can restore degraded ecosystems in a cost-effective way – and they should have better access to carbon funding to do it. Done right, this can be a huge win-win for both nature and the climate.

Read more:
‘Untenable’: even companies profiting from Australia’s carbon market say the system must change

Patrick O’Connor has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the South Australian, Victorian, New South Wales and Australian governments including the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust. He is a board director of the Nature Conservation Society of SA, a committee member of the Restoration Decade Alliance and a councillor of the Biodiversity Council..

Anthelia Bond received a postgraduate research scholarship from the School of Agriculture Food and Wine at The University of Adelaide, a supplementary scholarship from the South Australian Department for Environment and Water, and an Australia Awards Endeavour Research Fellowship. She is a board director of the Nature Conservation Society of SA, and a member of the Ecological Society of Australia, Modern Money Lab and Scientist Rebellion.

– ref. Climate change and nature loss are our biggest environmental problems – so why isn’t the market tackling them together? – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-nature-loss-are-our-biggest-environmental-problems-so-why-isnt-the-market-tackling-them-together-219899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Kettlewell, Senior lecturer, Economics Department, University of Technology Sydney

A new Netflix documentary, You Are What You Eat, showcases sets of identical twins as they adopt different diets. For eight weeks one twin follows a vegan diet while the other one follows an omnivorous diet. The experiment is compelling because, being genetically identical, the health of each twin is very similar before the trial.

I won’t spoil the ending for those who haven’t seen it, but if you prefer the drab writings of academics over the glitz and glamour of Netflix, you can read the published paper in the journal JAMA Network Open.

The documentary underscores the extraordinary contribution twin studies make to advancing our understanding of the world. But this goes well beyond comparing different diets.

British polymath Sir Francis Galton first documented the striking similarities of twins in 1875, arguing this proved “nature” was an important contributor to our dispositions and health. Since then, twins have been used extensively in research. What is it then that makes twins so special, and how do researchers harness the power of twins?

Twins as comparisons for each other

The Netflix documentary highlights one important feature of twins – they are good for making comparisons. Identical twins share nearly all of their genes, and usually grow up in the same household, meaning they experience the same parenting, schooling and so on.

The documentary is an example of a randomised controlled trial, where participants are selected at random for some intervention (like a new drug) and those not selected serve as controls (in drug trials they might get a placebo). Randomised trials are normally seen as the gold standard in evaluating what works.

Read more:
Randomised control trials: what makes them the gold standard in medical research?

We don’t actually need identical twins for such trials. In fact, relatively few trials use twins. But twins can help to ensure the treatment and control groups are as similar as possible. This is especially important when there are few participants. In the Netflix study, there were only 44. Without twins, their results would have been more uncertain.

For ethical reasons or just sheer practicality, we can’t always run randomised trials. This is where twins can help us out. Say we want to know the effect of education on earnings, or the effect of smoking on developing lung cancer.

These questions, and many more, have been tackled by comparing the differences within sets of identical twins (for example, where one twin smokes and the other doesn’t).

By focusing on differences between twins, we eliminate genetic and common family factors, and can be more confident about causality. Using twins doesn’t fully solve the problem of omitted factors, but it helps to reduce it.

Twins and heritability

Galton’s fascination with twins stemmed from wanting to know why we are the way we are. Is it our genes (nature), or is it our upbringing and personal experiences (nurture)? His early observations were informal, but eventually researchers developed sophisticated methods to disentangle genes and environment.

The main approach is essentially to see whether identical twins, who are genetically the same, are more similar than fraternal twins, who on average share only 50% of the gene variants that make us unique. If the identical twins are more similar, that indicates genes matter.

For example, twin studies have shown that around 40% of individual differences in personality can be explained by genes, along with as much as 80–90% of differences in height and weight at the end of childhood.

Read more:
Curious Kids: Why do people grow to certain sizes?

Limitations and misuse of twin research

One drawback to twin studies is that twins are a select group, and findings may not always generalise to the broader population. Only about 1.4% of births in Australia are twins.

Twin heritability studies also rely on strong assumptions, like that the common family environment matters to the same extent for identical and fraternal twins. This can be overcome by focusing on identical twins reared apart, but these studies are rare.

There has also been some misunderstanding and misuse of findings from twin studies. Galton’s belief in the power of nature led him to promote eugenics, the idea of selective breeding to achieve “genetic superiority”, which had devastating consequences in the 20th century.

But our genes are not our destiny. While a certain combination of genes may raise the likelihood you’re extraverted, who we grow up to be is a complicated interplay between genes, upbringing and personal experiences. Even disorders with a genetic basis, like Alzheimer’s, are rarely certain to occur, and we can take actions to reduce our risk.

The future of twin research

Twin studies have been conducted for decades, with more than 60 twin registries operating around the world. In Australia, the largest registry is Twins Research Australia, who have around 75,000 members.

With more opportunities to link data, genome mapping, and advances in machine learning, what we can learn from twins will only increase in the future. And we can expect twins to continue to play a key role in advancing our understanding of the world for many years to come.

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

– ref. Netflix’s You Are What You Eat uses a twin study. Here’s why studying twins is so important for science – https://theconversation.com/netflixs-you-are-what-you-eat-uses-a-twin-study-heres-why-studying-twins-is-so-important-for-science-221012

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Kirkland, Professor of Geochronology, Curtin University

Some half a billion years ago, life on Earth went through a huge transformation. In what is called the Ediacaran period, after billions of years of single-celled organisms, large multicellular organisms emerged in the fossil record.

These traces of the oldest complex ecosystems have been found in only a handful of locations around the world. The fossils were made by soft-bodied creatures covered by sand, creating impressions of their squashed remains imprinted into rock.

Evidence of these creatures was first found in the Ediacara Hills, in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges. The discovery was pivotal in defining the Ediacaran period: a time in Earth’s past characterised by a specific layer of rock which symbolises a significant change in history.

What was happening elsewhere at this time? Similar-looking fossils have been found in a disused quarry in a farmer’s field at Llangynog in Wales, but until now their precise age was unknown.

In a new study published in Journal of the Geological Society, we have dated these Welsh remnants of ancient marine life. Now, we can confirm they were near contemporaries of the famous South Australian fossils.

A bookmark for rocks

How do geologists figure out the age of fossils? Understanding the age of fossils is extremely useful for correlation and understanding how biological communities evolved.

Luckily, at least for us today, an environmental catastrophe loomed in the shallow sea where these Welsh organisms lived.

Volcanic explosions threw mineral particles over the surrounding landscape and polluted the atmosphere with toxic gases.

The billowing red hot clouds created ash layers. These ash layers contain mineral grains that are isotopically datable, acting like miniature stopwatches that record the time elapsed since they crystallised in a volcano. Hence, volcanic ash acts much like a bookmark in a sequence of rocks, tracking the moment of eruption.

A clock for rocks

A clock tick-tocks every second, but how do we measure time when each tick takes a million years? We use a mineral called zircon.

Trapped within zircon is some uranium that undergoes nuclear decay to lead over millions of years. Scientists know the rate at which this change occurs, so by analysing the composition of the crystal we can use the zircon as a geological clock.

The more precisely we measure the amount of uranium and lead, the more precise the clock. By carefully dissolving, heating and analysing zircon, we have dated the rocks in Wales to 565 million years (plus or minus 0.1%). That is a precise death certificate for the fossils.

Read more:
Scientists can’t agree on when the first animals evolved – our research hopes to end the debate

It’s life, but not as we know it

Evidence from Ediacaran fossils implies that after four billion years of oceans containing single-celled microbes, suddenly – in geological terms at least – the seas teemed with new complex life. Ediacaran life is odd, with strange soft-bodied forms whose interaction with the environment is unclear.

Were the creatures stationary, or did they move around and eat each other? In some ways these creatures would be strangely familiar, yet in another way, bizarre.

Some appeared fern-like, others like cabbages, and yet others were similar to modern sea pens, resembling fat, old-fashioned writing quills.

Nevertheless, fossils from this time preserve the earliest evidence for large-scale multicellular organisms, including the first animals.

A tropical paradise?

Half a billion years ago, Wales was not green and sheep covered and looked much more like a barren volcanic island. The Llangynog fossils are fascinating because they record a shallow marine ecosystem.

In contrast, other famous fossil sites like Charnwood Forest in the United Kingdom and Mistaken Point, Canada record deep-marine conditions.

In the shallow waters of the chain of tropical volcanic islands that’s now Wales, a creature called Aspidella terranovica felt the warmth of sunlight and the sway of the tides 565 million years ago. This fossil is rare and valuable because it shows evidence of movement.

Alongside Aspidella, other disc-like organisms are preserved; these could represent the anchor for fern-shaped filter feeders.

Hidden away in an unassuming quarry in Wales are the remnants of a diverse shallow marine ecosystem containing some of Britain’s oldest fossils, which we have proved have cousins of a similar age in Australia. This time in Earth’s history was just after a global glaciation so severe and widespread that some researchers consider the entire planet froze into a “snowball”.

The Ediacaran fossils show this thaw-out heralded evolutionary change, demonstrating a profound link between our planet’s geological processes and its biological cargo.

Read more:
Friday essay: the silence of Ediacara, the shadow of uranium

Chris Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council and various state government organisations within Australia.

Anthony Clarke receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. 565-million-years-old, some of the oldest UK fossils are eerily similar to famous Australian ones – https://theconversation.com/565-million-years-old-some-of-the-oldest-uk-fossils-are-eerily-similar-to-famous-australian-ones-218128

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Taucher, Lecturer in History, Murdoch University

Following the October 7 attack by Hamas, Israeli forces have carried out sustained attacks on the Palestinian controlled territory, dividing the international community.

Last week, the South African government presented a case to the International Court of Justice. They argued the Israeli government’s attack on Gaza, and especially the actions of its forces within Gaza since early October, could amount to genocide.

Few cases that have gone before the court are as explosive and potentially significant as this one.

Here’s how the hearings unfolded and what happens now.

Read more:
What enforcement power does the International Court of Justice have in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel?

Defining genocide

The crime of genocide is covered in the 1948 United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

It is defined as acts committed with intent to destroy, either in part or in whole, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, including:

• killing members of the group

• causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

• deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about a groups physical destruction, in whole or in part

• imposing measures to prevent births

• forcibly transferring children.

The Genocide Convention is designed to not only prosecute individuals and governments who committed genocide, but to prevent it from occurring.

Therefore, the Convention states that while genocidal acts are punishable, so too are attempts and incitement to commit genocide, regardless of whether they are successful or not.

The South African case

The South African government argued that Israeli forces had killed 23,210 Palestinians. Approximately 70% were believed to be women and children.

Crucially for the court, South Africa argued Israeli forces were often aware that the bombings would cause significant civilian casualties. It said many of the Palestinians were killed in Israeli declared safe zones, mosques, hospitals, schools and refugee camps.

Beyond the death toll, South Africa argued that there were 60,000 wounded and maimed Palestinians. The separation of families through arrest and displacement has caused large scale and likely enduring harm to civilians. South Africa highlighted the displacement of 85% of Palestinians, particularly the October 13 evacuation order which displaced over one million people in 24 hours.

Read more:
South Africa is taking Israel to court for genocide in Palestine. What does it mean for the war in Gaza?

The South African government also alleged the Israeli attacks and the actions of its forces were preventing the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people being met. It particularly emphasised the Israeli decision to cut off water supply to Gaza. The distribution of food, medicine and fuel were also hampered. Israeli attacks on hospitals were also highlighted.

South Africa alleged the denial of adequate humanitarian assistance, especially medical supplies and care, amounts to the imposing of measures to prevent births.

Finally, South Africa focused on speeches by Israeli political leaders and soldiers advocating for the erasure of Gaza. This included Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reference to the biblical destruction of enemies of ancient Israel and military commanders’ reference to Palestinians as “human animals” that need to be eliminated. These were used as evidence of incitement to genocide.

If the International Court of Justice doesn’t find that Israel is committing genocidal acts, South Africa has argued the Israeli forces have demonstrated an intent to commit genocide, and that there should be an interim order made to stop it.

The Israeli response

The Israeli government rejects all of the allegations by South Africa. Israel presented its arguments on January 12.

Israel’s overall argument is that the attacks on Gaza have been directed at Hamas soldiers. It says the civilian casualties have been an unfortunate consequence of carrying out military operations in an urban environment. Accordingly, the deaths, injuries and damage are not genocidal in nature, but instead, are incidental to military action.

Israel has presented evidence that it is delivering food, water, medical supplies and fuel to Gaza, demonstrating the opposite of genocidal intent. The Israeli Defence Force also runs a Civilian Harm Mitigation Unit.

These actions, according to Israel, are “concrete measures aimed specifically at recognising the rights of the Palestinian civilians in Gaza to exist”.

Finally, Israel has argued that the quotes South Africa have argued display incitement to commit genocide have been taken out of context. According to Israel, the court has no grounds to find that there are acts of genocide taking place, or that there is genocidal intent.

At this point, the court will not decide whether Israel has committed genocide or not. Determining that will likely take several years. Instead, the court will decide whether the allegations are at the least plausible, and if so, likely order that Israel and Palestine reach an interim ceasefire, and for Israeli forces to take all necessary steps to prevent genocide.

How significant is it?

If the court rules in favour of South Africa, a major world power – supported by the US and much of the Western world – will have been found to have committed what has, historically, been the most notorious of crimes.

That said, the prospect of any ruling by the International Court of Justice having a meaningful impact on the conflict in Gaza is remote.

The UN and its legal institutions are powered solely by a belief the international community is respectful of international institutions and international law. The problem is when a powerful country does not believe a ruling by a United Nations body applies to them, little can be done to enforce it.

Read more:
After 3 months of devastation in the Israel-Hamas war, is anyone ‘winning’?

The case of Nicaragua vs the United States in 1986 shows this in stark detail. The US initially indicated it would respect the decision of the court, but when the court found against the US, the US simply ignored the decision. For Israel and for its most powerful supporters, a finding against it by the court would likely be something they dispute and ultimately ignore.

Where does this leave Australia?

There is, however, a possibility the ruling could influence smaller powers.

Small to middle powers that rely on international rules to further their interests may be moved to support the cause for a ceasefire more vocally.

The Australian government would find itself in a particularly awkward position.

After all, the Australian government supported Ukraine’s case against Russia, also about genocide.

It has already made a public statement calling for restraint from Israel.

Australia would face a decision between unequivocal support for a country it sees as a partner, or support for a court it would otherwise see as a key arbiter in the international order.

Dean Aszkielowicz has received funding from the Army Research Scheme.

Paul Taucher 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. South Africa has made its genocide case against Israel in court. Here’s what both sides said and what happens next – https://theconversation.com/south-africa-has-made-its-genocide-case-against-israel-in-court-heres-what-both-sides-said-and-what-happens-next-221017

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corneel Vandelanotte, Professorial Research Fellow: Physical Activity and Health, CQUniversity Australia

It’s that time of year when many people are getting started on their resolutions for the year ahead. Doing more physical activity is a popular and worthwhile goal.

If you’re hoping to be more active in 2024, perhaps you’ve invested in an activity tracker, or you’re considering buying one.

But what are the benefits of activity trackers? And will a basic tracker do the trick, or do you need a fancy one with lots of features? Let’s take a look.

Read more:
How do I improve my motivation to exercise when I really hate it? 10 science-backed tips

Why use an activity tracker?

One of the most powerful predictors for being active is whether or not you are monitoring how active you are.

Most people have a vague idea of how active they are, but this is inaccurate a lot of the time. Once people consciously start to keep track of how much activity they do, they often realise it’s less than what they thought, and this motivates them to be more active.

You can self-monitor without an activity tracker (just by writing down what you do), but this method is hard to keep up in the long run and it’s also a lot less accurate compared to devices that track your every move 24/7.

By tracking steps or “activity minutes” you can ascertain whether or not you are meeting the physical activity guidelines (150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week).

It also allows you to track how you’re progressing with any personal activity goals, and view your progress over time. All this would be difficult without an activity tracker.

Research has shown the most popular brands of activity trackers are generally reliable when it comes to tracking basic measures such as steps and activity minutes.

But wait, there’s more

Many activity trackers on the market nowadays track a range of other measures which their manufacturers promote as important in monitoring health and fitness. But is this really the case? Let’s look at some of these.

Resting heart rate

This is your heart rate at rest, which is normally somewhere between 60 and 100 beats per minute. Your resting heart rate will gradually go down as you become fitter, especially if you’re doing a lot of high-intensity exercise. Your risk of dying of any cause (all-cause mortality) is much lower when you have a low resting heart rate.

So, it is useful to keep an eye on your resting heart rate. Activity trackers are pretty good at tracking it, but you can also easily measure your heart rate by monitoring your pulse and using a stopwatch.

Heart rate during exercise

Activity trackers will also measure your heart rate when you’re active. To improve fitness efficiently, professional athletes focus on having their heart rate in certain “zones” when they’re exercising – so knowing their heart rate during exercise is important.

But if you just want to be more active and healthier, without a specific training goal in mind, you can exercise at a level that feels good to you and not worry about your heart rate during activity. The most important thing is that you’re being active.

Also, a dedicated heart rate monitor with a strap around your chest will do a much better job at measuring your actual heart rate compared to an activity tracker worn around your wrist.

Maximal heart rate

This is the hardest your heart could beat when you’re active, not something you could sustain very long. Your maximal heart rate is not influenced by how much exercise you do, or your fitness level.

Most activity trackers don’t measure it accurately anyway, so you might as well forget about this one.

VO₂max

Your muscles need oxygen to work. The more oxygen your body can process, the harder you can work, and therefore the fitter you are.

VO₂max is the volume (V) of oxygen (O₂) we could breathe maximally (max) over a one minute interval, expressed as millilitres of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute (ml/kg/min). Inactive women and men would have a VO₂max lower than 30 and 40 ml/kg/min, respectively. A reasonably good VO₂max would be mid thirties and higher for women and mid forties and higher for men.

VO₂max is another measure of fitness that correlates well with all-cause mortality: the higher it is, the lower your risk of dying.

For athletes, VO₂max is usually measured in a lab on a treadmill while wearing a mask that measures oxygen consumption. Activity trackers instead look at your running speed (using a GPS chip) and your heart rate and compare these measures to values from other people.

If you can run fast with a low heart rate your tracker will assume you are relatively fit, resulting in a higher VO₂max. These estimates are not very accurate as they are based on lots of assumptions. However, the error of the measurement is reasonably consistent. This means if your VO₂max is gradually increasing, you are likely to be getting fitter.

Read more:
Health Check: do we really need to take 10,000 steps a day?

So what’s the take-home message? Focus on how many steps you take every day or the number of activity minutes you achieve. Even a basic activity tracker will measure these factors relatively accurately. There is no real need to track other measures and pay more for an activity tracker that records them, unless you are getting really serious about exercise.

Corneel Vandelanotte receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, and the Medical Research Future Fund. He also receives funding from Health and Wellbeing Queensland and Wellbeing SA for delivering the 10,000 Steps program.

– ref. Thinking of using an activity tracker to achieve your exercise goals? Here’s where it can help – and where it probably won’t – https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-using-an-activity-tracker-to-achieve-your-exercise-goals-heres-where-it-can-help-and-where-it-probably-wont-219235

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynette Washington, Research Fellow, UniSA Business, University of South Australia

A significant proportion of Australian workers – about one-fifth – would be prepared to sacrifice between 16% and 33% of their salaries for the right to work from home, which works out at A$12,000 to $24,000 of those workers’ salaries.

But a much larger proportion, more than one half, would be prepared to sacrifice nothing, being either not strongly convinced about the benefits of working from home or actively preferring to go into the workplace.

Surprisingly, our findings are consistent with those of other surveys conducted both during and before the pandemic, suggesting the widespread move to working from home during COVID hasn’t changed preferences.

Before COVID, on the day of the 2016 Australian census, only 2% to 8% of the workforce in major Australian cities worked from home.

During COVID, on the day of the 2021 census 21% worked from home. A Bureau of Statistics survey conducted amid lockdowns in late 2020 found 31% worked from home most days.

Our survey of 1,113 workers from Australia’s 17 largest urban areas was limited to those in jobs whose tasks could be done either remotely or in central locations.

What we found

We offered the workers surveyed a choice of eight job arrangements with different salary ranges calculated with reference to their current salaries, and different degrees of flexibility about working from home.

We also asked about attitudes to remote working, experience with remote working, commute patterns and age, gender, education and household size.

We found most workers – 55% – weren’t prepared to sacrifice salary for the right to work remotely. Most of these (31% of all workers) didn’t see significant benefits to working from home.

But a substantial proportion, 23.5% of all workers, while seeing benefits to their productivity and health and wellbeing from working from home, were concerned about what it would do to their organisational relationships, learning opportunities and prospects for advancement.

Interestingly, workers who had the most experience of working from home before the pandemic raised these concerns most often. Workers with the least experience of working from home pre-pandemic were the least likely to be concerned about its impact on their careers and work relationships.

This might be because before the pandemic we didn’t have great work-from-home policies and procedures to support remote workers.

Read more:
Remote working improves the lives of female managers – but at a cost

Gender matters, age matters

Women valued the ability to work from home far more than men, on average 28% more. This indicates that women are more likely to make a trade-off between long-term career prospects and the benefits of flexible work.

In terms of age, workers in their 30s and 50s valued the ability to work from home the most while workers in their 20s valued it the least. This might be because workers in their 20s at the start of their careers are the most likely to value direct interactions with their colleagues and supervisors.

Knowledge workers value remote work the most

Middle and high-income earners in white-collar “knowledge economy” jobs were the most likely to value working from home. They were willing to forgo $12,000 to $24,000 of their annual salary to have the ability to do it some of the time.

Workers in low-wage clerical or administrative jobs in sectors such as retail and training were among the least likely to value working from home. They were also among the most concerned about its impacts on their relationships with colleagues and opportunities for learning and advancement.

Workers in small firms also placed low values on the ability to work from home, perhaps because these firms lacked the technological capacity to fully support it.

Read more:
The shift to working from home will be difficult to reverse

Opinions split on productivity

About half of the workers surveyed thought they were less productive at home. About another quarter found no impact. The final quarter found a significant improvement in both the quality and quantity of their work.

Many said that while their working from home might cut the amount they got done per hour, it didn’t cut the total amount they got done because the flexibility it offered allowed them to catch up at other times.

High and medium-wage professionals were the most optimistic about their productivity at home, and workers in low and medium-wage service jobs the least optimistic – a pattern that mirrored what they were prepared to sacrifice for the right to work at home.

How to become an employer of choice

Our findings suggest many employers of knowledge economy workers might be able to attract and retain high-quality staff by offering the ability to work from home in lieu of higher salaries.

But this will not be the answer for all employers looking to retain the best staff.

With many workers wary of what could happen to their career prospects if they stayed at home, and 55% of workers placing no value on remote work, some employers will need to find other ways to attract the best workers.

Many workers value both face-to-face relations and flexibility. Finding the right balance will become increasingly important now that COVID has shown us how many of our jobs can be done from home.

This research wass funded by the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, and Transport for NSW.

Akshay Vij receives funding from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Transport for NSW, and the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre.

– ref. What’s it worth to work from home? For some, it’s as much as one-third of their wage – https://theconversation.com/whats-it-worth-to-work-from-home-for-some-its-as-much-as-one-third-of-their-wage-217554

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saskia Roberts, PhD Candidate, School of History, Australian National University

This piece contains spoilers for Poor Things.

Poor Things can be described in one word: polarising. Yorgos Lanthimos’ film follows Bella Baxter (Emma Stone), a scientist’s experiment created from a woman’s body and a child’s mind.

It won two Golden Globes and received a standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival.

Yet others walked out of the Venice screening during its many sex scenes, one which depicts a father teaching his two sons the birds and the bees by letting them watch him and Bella in the act. (This scene has been re-edited for the United Kingdom release to comply with local classification requirements.)

While some critics lauded Poor Things as a feminist exploration of sexual liberation, others saw it as a male director and screenwriter’s exploitative attempt to portray female sexuality. Vulture writer Angelica Jade Bastién took the latter view, arguing the film:

is not interested in the sex lives of women as much as the ways in which a young woman’s body can be positioned and used […] I want to see what a grown woman thinks and feels about sex!

But I think it is wrong to read Poor Things as a film about grown women. Its most controversial scene involves children witnessing sex, and Bella begins the movie with a child’s brain. Poor Things is about the sexuality of girls. It accurately depicts girls’ early sexual feelings and shows us some more positive ways of understanding girlhood sexual desire.

Discovering sexuality

I have interviewed 23 Australians who were teenage girls between 1970 and 2010 about how they learned about sex, and their experiences were echoed in Poor Things.

Early in the film, Bella teaches herself to masturbate and is delighted by her discovery. Many of my interviewees had similar memories, often describing themselves as “exploring” their bodies and finding enjoyable sensations in the process.

Nicole* grew up in the 2000s and told me she did not know what she was doing when she first masturbated, but

somehow when I was pretty young […] [I] discovered that it felt good.

Interviewees, including Nicole, were normally aged between five and 10 during these experiences (which are normal and common among children).

Interviewees regularly described their early forays into masturbation as disconnected from adult sexuality. These were simply experiments with their bodies.

But this also meant my interviewees often believed nobody else masturbated. Sue, born in the 1960s, even created her own term for masturbation, because she had never heard anyone speak about it before:

It was my bobble wobble. I had no idea that it had a name.

Bella also thinks she is the first person to masturbate, and humiliates her maid by demonstrating her newfound discovery. This is the first of many incidents in which she learns “polite society” does not speak about sex, let alone perform it in public. While Bella mostly ignores these warnings, many of my interviewees were acutely aware of societal expectations about girlhood sexual desire.

Read more:
‘Is it normal for girls to masturbate?’

Girls are interested in sex

In the recent past, the media depicted boys as much more sexual than girls, who were supposedly interested in romance instead. Even magazines like Dolly – which catered to girls and spoke openly about sex – assumed girls’ sexual impulses would be awakened by their boyfriends’ advances.

This is clear even in well-meaning advice to girls about not being “pressured” into sex, which presupposes girls would not initiate sex themselves. Studies about Dolly and Girlfriend have also found their columnists downplayed girls’ sexual desires and insisted they were responsible for controlling boys’ sexual behaviours.

These ideas clearly influenced my interviewees. Many were deeply ashamed of masturbating by the time they were teenagers. Some were told not to masturbate by their parents. Others became fearful when their friends called masturbation disgusting. Charlotte* even read a book that said masturbating children developed excess phlegm. She concluded:

obviously you’re not meant to have fun like that […] obviously you’re not meant to do it yourself.

None of this stopped my interviewees from masturbating. It only stopped them from talking about it or thinking anyone else did it too.

Read more:
Goodbye, Dolly, the magazine that helped so many young women grow up

A healthy sexuality

Teen media did not always have a negative influence. Several interviewees told me they learned the word “masturbation” from Dolly, which portrayed it as a normal and healthy practice. “Oh, that’s what I’ve been doing”, thought Nicole when she found instructions on how to masturbate in the magazine. This discovery was reassuring; so too were discussions about masturbation with friends (though very few people were brave enough to mention it out loud).

But my interviewees still felt conversations about sexual pleasure were missing from their media and their education. Jess, born in the 1990s, told me:

[In] high school, I had a great understanding of the mechanics. But pleasure had never been part of the discussion, you know?

Perhaps Poor Things could be instructive here.

Bella does not feel embarrassed about enjoying sex, nor in talking about it. This allows her to cast aside her controlling lovers and to question the conditions at her brothel workplace. She develops a healthy relationship to her sexuality; she knows sex should be enjoyable for her, not just for men, and that she should not be coerced into it.

Bella Baxter may be a fairy tale character who makes her own sexual rules. But we can learn from her. We can treat girls’ masturbation as natural and normal. We can show future generations there is nothing shameful about sexuality. And we can teach girls to know not just their sexual rights, but also their sexual pleasures.

Read more:
Poor Things: meet the radical Scottish visionary behind the new hit film

*Names have been changed.

Saskia Roberts 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 shame and pleasure of masturbation: Poor Things gets girls’ early sexual feelings right – https://theconversation.com/the-shame-and-pleasure-of-masturbation-poor-things-gets-girls-early-sexual-feelings-right-220662

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ray Kerkhove, Associate Professor (Adjunct), School of Education., University of Southern Queensland

Last year, chair of the Australian War Memorial Kim Beazley called for First Nations “guerilla campaigns” of the Frontier Wars to be included in the Australian War Memorial. His bid was criticised by the RSL Australia’s president Major General Greg Melick.

Melick argued Indigenous casualties of the Frontier Wars could not be honoured at the War Memorial because they did not fight “in uniform”. But the Australian War Memorial already honours “ununiformed” First Nations soldiers – namely Dayak people who assisted in Borneo during World War 2.

Major General Melick’s criticism highlighted a misconception that First Nations’ warriors are not comparable to ANZAC soldiers. Many Australians do not believe First Nations people had military-style practices. Rather, they are regarded as victims of genocide.

Co-author Ray Kerkhove’s book How They Fought places First Nations’ practices within the framework of military history. This debunks the idea First Nations people lacked the structures and disciplines necessary to organise meaningful responses to the invasion.

Read more:
In The Australian Wars, Rachel Perkins dispenses with the myth Aboriginal people didn’t fight back

Why recognition of First Nations’ fighting strategies matters

Australia is increasingly aware of the genocidal nature of its Frontier Wars. But as Historian Grace Karskens notes, this is often perceived as “no battles, no resistance and no survivors”.

Acknowledging massacres helps emphasise the inequalities in these conflicts. But categorising all skirmishes this way without acknowledging how First Nations people fought back, or were sometimes victorious, can indirectly imply First Nations peoples were always passive victims.

The broader implications of this narrative have impacted public education. Historians Matthew Bailey and Sean Brawley found both teachers and the wider community had difficulty accepting Australia’s frontier conflicts as “war”, because they had been presented to them as one-sided slaughter.

Thankfully, Arrernte and Kalkadoon director Rachel Perkins’ documentary series recently reinstated Aboriginal peoples’ resistance as historical reality. Even so, Australia’s collective understanding of how Aboriginal peoples fought back remains limited.

We still know quite little of the “guerrilla campaigns” Kim Beazley wants to honour. For instance, the complex inter-group negotiations across mobs.

Many other questions remain unanswered: how were warriors organised for attacks? How effective were their actions? What strategies were employed?

A small start was made in 2017 through a visiting fellowship with the Harry Gentle Resource Centre (Griffith University). This project mapped the role of Birn, Bugurnuba and other inter-tribal alliances in pushing back against the invasion of south-east Queensland.

Read more:
3 key moments in Indigenous political history Victorian school students didn’t learn about

First Nations’ perspectives of frontier wars

Another breakthrough came through reconstructing First Nations’ historical perspectives of these wars. Two examples are Ambēyaŋ historian Callum Clayton-Dixon’s work in 2019: Surviving New England and (the same year) co-author Ray Kerkhove and historian Frank Uhr’s The Battle of One Tree Hill.

To amplify the work of his colleague Clayton-Dixon, Gamilaraay/ Kooma co-author Boe Skulthorpe-Spearim began presenting his own research on this topic in a podcast series called Frontier Wars. Boe’s research methods included yarns with Elders and historians.

As a Knowledge sharer, Boe’s podcasts affirmed growing evidence the Frontier Wars were more than massacres. This was a truth historians Nicholas Clements and Henry Reynolds were also unveiling in Tasmania, as was historian Stephen Gapps in collaboration with Wiradyuri people in central NSW.

It’s becoming more and more apparent that First Nations resistance was organised and efficient. Co-author Ray Kerkhove’s How They Fought identified specific structures and tactics First Nations peoples’ employed during the Frontier Wars. Kerkhove analysed over 200 written reminiscences and hundreds of settler and First Nations accounts of skirmishes across Australia.

Kerkhove’s How They Fought suggests resistance was mostly a “slow drip” of constant harassment against the colonisers – but effective in halting settlement for many years in some regions. It identifies the complex tactics First Nations groups developed for raids, sieges, pitched battles and even their attempts to take over the pastoral industry of particular regions within the Northern Territory and South Australia.

Kerkhove’s research proposes First Nations’ forces had military-style training, ranking, “policing” patrols, defensive ‘bastions’, and intelligence networks. The research highlights the frequency and scale of inter-tribal meetings and partnerships during the Frontier Wars – for instance, in Tasmania, southern Queensland and western NSW. It finds traditional weapons were effective in causing many settler fatalities. The research also finds many new weapons, fire, steel, glass, guns and horses were adopted to halt the tide of settlement.

Read more:
The Australian War Memorial must deal properly with the frontier wars

The sophistication of First Nations warfare needs to be acknowledged

Australia needs to understand the Frontier Wars were more than a sequence of massacres. Mob fought back. They had victories. First Nations peoples quickly recognised they were dealing with an existential threat, and created widespread resistance. This history is finally being written.

Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples emphasise the deep pain they feel when ANZAC rolls around each year, knowing Australia still does not formally recognise or acknowledge the blood, battles, lives and land that were lost.

Often this lack of recognition stems from limited knowledge of the sophistication of First Nations’ resistance. These “ununiformed” warriors had their own insignia and protocols. They acted with great valour and genius, against incredible odds. First Nations warriors should receive the same dignity we accord our ANZAC fallen.

Boe Skulthorpe-Spearim is affiliated with Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance (WAR), and Treaty Before Voice.

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

– ref. Why First Nations ‘ununiformed warriors’ qualify for the Australian War Memorial – https://theconversation.com/why-first-nations-ununiformed-warriors-qualify-for-the-australian-war-memorial-219109

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Bell, Adjunct professor, Monash University

The Voice referendum was a disappointing result for many, but there is hope that much of its vision could be achieved via a different path. The Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has presented a report to federal parliament calling for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The committee was led by Uncle Patrick Dodson, a Yawuru poltician who is retiring from the senate on January 26, the anniversary of Australia’s invasion.

The declaration is essentially a list of human rights Indigenous peoples have under international law. These rights are presented as articles. These include the right to self-determination and participation in decision-making in matters that affect them.

If the committee’s call to implement the declaration is accepted by the federal government, this right to participation in decision-making could be achieved in many ways. This includes non-constitutional implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

A strong majority of the standing committee including the Greens’ members supported the implementation of the declaration. The coalition members dissented on the key recommendations. DjabWurrung Gunnai Gunditjmara senator Lidia Thorpe supported the recommendation but went further to propose the declaration be enshrined in federal legislation. Thorpe’s proposal was rejected by parliament.

Read more:
The political subjugation of First Nations peoples is no longer historical legacy

What is the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Indigenous peoples’ human rights in Australia (and elsewhere) were grossly violated by colonisation which resulted in past and ongoing injustices. The declaration recognises and lists those rights with the purpose of addressing those injustices.

A key right in the declaration is Article 4:

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

The declaration was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007 after 20 years of negotiation by Indigenous peoples and governments around the world.

Indigenous figures in Australia played leading roles in these processes. Development of the declaration involved people such as Uncle Les Malezer, a Gubbi Gubbi and Butchulla man who was the chair of the Indigenous peoples caucus and addressed the United Nations General Assembly when the declaration was adopted.

Yarawu barrister and academic Uncle Mick Dodson helped draft the declaration, and Professor Megan Davis, a Cobble Cobble woman, was part of the UN declaration working group.

The declaration has garnered strong support among Indigenous communities in Australia.

The Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report states applying the declaration could improve access to land rights, help combat racial discrimination and support Indigenous businesses, social services and cultural organisations.

We suggest it would also add great momentum to historic processes already underway, such as truth-telling and treaty-making in Victoria.

The main purpose of treaty-making is to give effect to Indigenous peoples’ self-determination. Implementing the declaration would support treaty-making because it would involve recognising self-determination as a right.

Read more:
Gaza update: deadlock in the UN security council means no relief for suffering Palestinian civilians

How the declaration could be implemented by law and/or policy

The Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs’ report examined how the declaration could be implemented in Australia and whether it should be through legislation, under policy, or both.

Senator Thorpe’s private member’s bill called for the declaration to be enshrined in federal legislation. The bill would have required the federal parliament to ensure its legislation was consistent with the declaration. It would also have required the federal government to adopt an action plan for its implementation. The bill was rejected.

The majority of the standing committee decided against supporting Thorpe’s approach, preferring a more flexible process. Their report examined how Canada and New Zealand’s legal and policy-based approaches for implementing the declaration appear to have been effective. This is different to senator Thorpe’s approach which requires legislating the declaration as an absolute minimum.

The standing committee recommend instead that Indigenous peoples have a choice of approach, through negotiations with governments and others, based on their right to self-determination. Whether this would need at least the minimum standards and essential framework to be set down in legislation is an open question yet to be answered.

The Voice offered a bold vision of a constitutionally protected say for Indigenous peoples in federal law-making and administration. This would have been consistent with the right to self-determination and to participation in decision-making specified in the declaration.

The committee’s report states the declaration offers a bigger vision than the Voice.

It recognises not only the importance of First Nations peoples’ self-determination and participation in decision-making, but also rights to housing, health, work and freedom from discrimination and other human rights.

Implementing the declaration does not necessarily require constitutional enshrinement.

While the Voice would have given Indigenous people a powerful say in those areas, implementing the declaration could elevate that say and those areas to the level of human rights. This is greatly needed in the aftermath of a disappointing and painful referendum result.

As a barrister in the 1990s Professor Bell represented the Yawuru People including Senator Dodson and Mick Dodson in their native title case in the Federal Court of Australia.

Wayne Atkinson 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. Following the Voice failure, Indigenous politicians are calling for the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to be implemented. What is it and what would it mean? – https://theconversation.com/following-the-voice-failure-indigenous-politicians-are-calling-for-the-uns-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-to-be-implemented-what-is-it-and-what-would-it-mean-219695

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A national Freshwater poll for The Sunday Telegraph had a 50–50 tie between Labor and the Coalition, unchanged from a Freshwater poll for The Financial Review in mid-December.

The Poll Bludger reported that primary votes were 39% Coalition (steady since December), 31% Labor (steady), 14% Greens (up one) and 15% for all Others (down one). This poll was conducted January 10–11 from a sample of 1,007.

Freshwater has had better results for the Coalition than other polls, so Labor would probably have led if there was a Newspoll.

Anthony Albanese led Peter Dutton by 47–38 as preferred PM (43–39 in December). On Labor’s target to achieve 82% renewables by 2030, 51% said it would mean higher energy costs while 16% thought their bills would be reduced. On the cost of living, 81% said Labor had not done enough and 68% said they would not do enough in the next six months.

Morgan polls, Resolve likeability and Newspoll aggregate data

In my last polls article I reported that Labor led by 51–49 in the Morgan poll conducted December 4–10. In the Morgan poll conducted December 11–17 there was a 50–50 tie. In the poll conducted January 2–7 from a sample of 1,716, the Coalition led by 51–49.

Primary votes were 39% Coalition (up one since mid-December), 29% Labor (down three), 13% Greens (up 1.5), 5% One Nation (up 0.5) and 14% for all Others (steady).

Nine newspapers released likeability ratings for various politicians from the early December federal Resolve poll on December 28. The most popular politicians were Foreign Minister Penny Wong (net +14 likeability), Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie (net +10), Nationals senator Jacinta Price (net +6), ACT independent senator David Pocock (net +5) and Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek (net +2).

The most unpopular politicians were former PM Scott Morrison (net -35), ex-Greens senator Lidia Thorpe (net -29), former deputy PM Barnaby Joyce (net -27) and Pauline Hanson (net -25).

Albanese had a net -3 likeability, much better than his net approval of -11 in the same poll, while Dutton’s net likeability was -12 (-8 net approval). Greens leader Adam Bandt was at -10 net likeability while Treasurer Jim Chalmers was at net zero.

Newspoll aggregate data for its three federal polls conducted from early November to mid-December was released on December 27. The overall sample was 3,655. In the previous aggregate data, from Newspolls conducted before the October 14 Voice referendum, Labor led by 54–46. In this release, Labor’s overall lead was down to 52–48.

The Poll Bludger said Labor’s lead or deficit in the various states was close to the margins at the 2022 federal election. Labor led by 51–49 in New South Wales, 55–45 in Victoria, 54–46 in Western Australia and 55–45 in South Australia. Queensland was the only state with a Coalition lead, by 54–46.

Trump set for big win in Iowa Republican caucus

The Iowa Republican caucus is the first presidential nominating contest of 2024, and it will occur Tuesday AEDT. In the FiveThirtyEight aggregate of Iowa polls, Donald Trump has 51.3%, Nikki Haley 17.3% and Ron DeSantis 16.1%. The next contest is the New Hampshire primary on January 23, where Trump is being challenged by Haley.

Read more:
US elections 2024: a Biden vs Trump rematch is very likely, with Trump leading Biden

I covered the Taiwan presidential election for The Poll Bludger on Saturday, in which the centre-left and pro-independence candidate won with 40.1% of the vote (first past the post was used). Three US and UK byelections that are to be held from February 13–15 were also covered.

Queensland UComms poll: 51–49 to LNP

The Queensland state election will be held in October. A UComms poll for The Courier Mail, conducted December 21–22 from a sample of 1,911, gave the Liberal National Party a 51–49 lead, from primary votes of 36.2% LNP and 34.4% Labor, with no other parties’ votes released. LNP leader David Crisafulli led new Labor premier Steven Miles by 52.2–47.8 as preferred premier.

An October YouGov Queensland poll gave the LNP a 52–48 lead, and a September to December Resolve poll implied a 50–50 tie, but Resolve has been much better for Labor federally than other polls.

Victorian Redbridge poll: Labor has large lead

A Victorian state Redbridge poll, conducted December 2–12 from a sample of 2,026, gave Labor a 55.9–44.1 lead, a 0.6-point gain for the Coalition since a September Redbridge poll. Primary votes were 37% Labor (steady), 36% Coalition (up two), 13% Greens (steady) and 14% for all Others (down two).

Voters were asked their ratings of political leaders on a five-point scale, with 3 being neither approve nor disapprove. Labor Premier Jacinta Allan was at net -6, Liberal leader John Pesutto at net -13, Nationals leader Peter Walsh at net -15 and Greens leader Samantha Ratnam at net -21.

On the main impact of protests over the Israel-Gaza war, 30% thought they had threatened the safety of Jewish and Palestinian Australians, 21% raised awareness of the conflict and 19% pressured the Australian government to call for an end.

Tasmanian YouGov poll: Lambie Network has 20%

A Tasmanian state YouGov poll, conducted December 21 to January 4 from a sample of 850, gave the Liberals 31%, Labor 27%, the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) 20%, the Greens 15% and independents 7%. Tasmania uses a proportional system for its lower house elections, so a two party preferred is not applicable.

If this were the election result, the JLN would hold the balance of power. By 53–26, voters thought it was time to give someone else a go over the Liberals deserving to be re-elected. A November EMRS Tasmanian poll had 39% Liberals, 29% Labor, 12% Greens and 19% for all Others with no JLN option.

Lawler replaces Fyles as NT chief minister

Eva Lawler replaced Natasha Fyles as Labor’s Northern Territory chief minister on December 21. Fyles had resigned two days prior owing to conflict of interest allegations, and Lawler was unanimously elected by Labor MPs. Fyles will continue as Member for Nightcliff, so there won’t be a byelection.

This is the second change in NT chief minister this term after Fyles replaced Michael Gunner in May 2022. The next NT election is in August, and a November Redbridge poll had Labor well behind the opposition Country Liberals.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Freshwater national poll holds steady at a 50–50 tie between Labor and the Coalition as Trump set for big win in Iowa caucus – https://theconversation.com/freshwater-national-poll-holds-steady-at-a-50-50-tie-between-labor-and-the-coalition-as-trump-set-for-big-win-in-iowa-caucus-220286

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Associate Professor, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

If you’ve watched cat videos on social media lately, you may have encountered the idea a cat’s coat colour tells us something about their personality.

Orange cats are supposedly “dumb”, always falling off beds or getting themselves stuck in awkward places. Tortoiseshell cats are often said to have a strong-willed attitude (sometimes referred to as “tortitude”). Black cats are “smarter”, if social media is to be believed.

The idea a cat’s personality is linked to their coat colour isn’t new. In 2012 a study of human perceptions of cats reported people generally believe ginger cats are friendly, while tortoiseshell cats are seen as aloof and intolerant.

It’s important to note this is a reflection people believe, rather than how cats are. So what does the research actually say?

Surveys on cat personality are filled out by people

Research suggests that cats, like people, have different personality types. One study proposed the “feline five” personality traits for cats: neuroticism, extraversion, dominance, impulsiveness and agreeableness.

The researchers linked “neuroticism” in cats with being anxious, insecure, fearful of people and tense. Cats low in neuroticism were associated with being stable, trusting, calm and self-assured.

Cats categorised as impulsive scored highly for being erratic, reckless and distractible, while those low in impulsivity were considered to be predictable and constrained.

You might get a sense from these studies that these are not terms cats would choose for themselves, and you’d be right.

Surveys on cat personality are filled out by people. As such, results are affected by human perspectives, projections and biases.

Indeed, a review of methods used to define personality in cats concluded studies reporting differences in personality due to coat colour were likely to be affected by owner bias.

Breed personality

Instead of colour, it’s possible breed is more important when it comes to cat personality.

One study found British Shorthair cats were least likely to seek human contact, while Korat and Devon Rex cats were most likely.

Another study, however, found substantial variation exists within breeds, suggesting a cat’s breed may not fully explain personality.

Both of these studies were once again survey-based and so, again, human bias is likely affecting the results.

If it’s not coat or breed, what else is it?

Genetics is not the only factor influencing personality. The environment and how an animal is raised also has a big effect.

If kittens are not socialised with people by the age of around nine weeks, they are more likely to be anxious and shy around humans and other animals.

Whether your cat was hand-reared, purchased from a breeder or found in a box, they will likely behave differently depending on time spent with their mother.

In reality, humans tend to ascribe certain meanings to particular behavioural traits.

For instance, if a cat is fearful, they may come across as lacking intelligence because they are less likely to interact with their environment in ways we recognise as “smart”.

On the flip side, confident cats comfortable in their environment may seem “dumb”, as they act in a carefree way that registers as “stupid” to the human eye.

Don’t judge a book by its cover – or a cat by it’s colour

While funny social media videos linking personality with cat coat colour might be harmless, the biases they create can have more harmful results. For instance, black cats take longer to adopt from a shelter than cats of other colours, and so are at higher risk of being euthanised.

Black animals are more difficult to photograph, meaning they may not look as attractive in adoption photos. Some people also believe black cats symbolise bad luck, or are associated with witchcraft or evil. Stereotypes of black cats being less friendly may also stem from facial expressions on darker fur being harder to read.

Before you dismiss this as speculation, a study did confirm human bias against black cats using photos of cats of different colours.

We shouldn’t be surprised people make judgements about cats based on their coat colour. We also make judgements based on human hair colour – take the baseless “dumb blonde” and “fiery redhead” stereotypes, for example.

And just like with human stereotypes, putting our cats into arbitrary boxes isn’t useful for anyone.

Instead, it’s best to think of your cat, and any cat, as the individuals they are.

Cats are much more than their coats. People and cats form close emotional bonds.

A cat can be the reason somebody gets up in the morning. Cats can also be fiercely loyal, unwavering companions, friends and family. Let’s not reduce their complex, wonderful individuality to just a colour or type.

Susan Hazel receives funding from the Waltham FoundationTM and is a member of the Dog & Cat Management Board of South Australia, RSPCA South Australia and Animal Therapies Ltd.

Julia Henning 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. TikTok says orange cats are ‘dumb’, and tortoiseshell cats have ‘an attitude’. But how true is that? – https://theconversation.com/tiktok-says-orange-cats-are-dumb-and-tortoiseshell-cats-have-an-attitude-but-how-true-is-that-218033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

Gathering for their annual World Economic Forum at Davos in Switzerland this week, the world’s business and political elite will be digesting some unpleasant reading courtesy of the aid agency Oxfam International.

Oxfam’s annual report on global inequality released this morning shows the wealth of the world’s five richest billionaires has more than doubled since the start of the decade, while 60% of humanity has grown poorer.

Among the findings of the report entitled Inequality Inc are that

• billionaires own US$3 trillion more than they did three years ago, meaning their wealth has grown at three times the rate of inflation

• even in Australia, the wealth of billionaires has climbed 70%

• five billion other people can’t afford what they could three years ago.

Progress in Africa, which seemed promising for much of this century, has stalled since COVID.

And large parts of the populations in wealthy countries, feeling left behind, have been lured by the appeal of rightwing populism – ironically, largely promoted by billionaires and their advocates.

Dreams of Davos past

This isn’t how things were supposed to turn out.

In its glory days in the 1990s, the Davos forum was the driving force promoting the idea of stakeholder capitalism in which corporations controlled by shareholders were supposed to advance the interests of everyone who had a stake in their activities: workers, consumers, communities and the environment.

The Forum still promotes the idea on its website.

Back then, as communism collapsed, everything seemed possible.

Pundits like Thomas Friedman spoke of a golden straitjacket in which universal prosperity could be achieved if only the world embraced liberal capitalism, overseen by an electronic herd of fund managers making investment decisions.

With appropriately-constrained policies, governments could ensure a rising economic tide lifted all boats.

In the UK and the US the so-called Third Way policies of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were seen as delivering capitalism with a human face.

Three decades on, that vision is looking increasingly threadbare.

From the left, there is increasing pressure for radical alternatives; from the right, there is increasing pushback against the Forum’s brand of “woke capitalism”.

Financial managers remain as powerful as ever, but in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and multiple exposures of criminal wrongdoing by their firms, there is less and less faith in their beneficence and collective wisdom.

Read more:
Brian Schmidt: my five days in Davos

Billionaires are becoming the problem

Billionaires were not important enough to be seen as a major problem back in the early 1990s. In 1991, as communism collapsed, Forbes Magazine assessed the total wealth of the world’s five richest people as less than $US70 billion.

And the most prominent billionaires at the time were relatively appealing figures like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

But since then, while US prices have doubled, the wealth of the top five has climbed tenfold. And they have become less interested in the idea that others should benefit from the system that has benefited them.

A case in point is Jeff Bezos who is number three on the rich list with net wealth of US$114 billion and runs Amazon whose brutal working conditions and anti-union stance are detailed in the Oxfam report.

Another is Elon Musk, number two on the rich list with US$180 billion, who could once have been seen as merely eccentric, but his recent embrace of neo-Nazis goes further.

And, appropriately for what Oxfam calls the gilded age of division, another is the very richest man in the world, Bernard Arnault, whose family owns luxury goods brands including Louis Vuitton and Sephora.

Arnault embodies the resurgence of what Thomas Piketty has called patrimonial society.

He took over the management of his father’s business and intends to pass his business on to his sons.

All have benefited from what is sometimes called neoliberalism: the mix of ideas including privatisation, financial deregulation and tax cuts that was meant to deliver stakeholder capitalism.

What neoliberalism has given us instead is greater division – something the billionaires gathered at Davos ought to consider this week as they reminisce about forums past.

A reasonable set of fresh ideas would be that put forward by Oxfam: direct government intervention to reduce inequality including but not limited to reasserting the roles of governments as regulators and service providers abdicated on the advice of gatherings such as the one in Davos.

John Quiggin 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. As the billionaires gather at Davos, it’s worth examining what’s become of their dreams – https://theconversation.com/as-the-billionaires-gather-at-davos-its-worth-examining-whats-become-of-their-dreams-220876

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Howard, Lecturer, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University

If you’ve ever been tricked by a visual illusion, you know the feeling of disconnect between what your eyes perceive and what is actually there. Visual illusions occur due to errors in our perception, causing us to misperceive certain characteristics of objects or scenes.

As it turns out, many non-human animals also experience these effects, including illusions of item size, brightness, colour, shape, orientation, motion or quantity. We study these illusions and the differences between animals as it can tell us how visual systems evolved.

Our latest study, published in iScience, shows that European honeybees and European wasps see illusions of quantity in a similar way to humans.

An illusion perceived by several species

The study of visual illusions provides interesting windows into how brains operate. Visual illusions are perceptual errors, which likely enable us to process complex natural information efficiently.

The Solitaire illusion causes a misperception of quantity based on the configuration of dots in an image. Those who perceive the illusion will overestimate the quantity of dots when they are clustered together and/or underestimate the number of dots when unclustered.

We know the Solitaire illusion is perceived by humans, capuchin monkeys, guppies and bumblebees. Chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys and domestic dogs do not appear to perceive the illusion. Interestingly, in humans age appears to impact the perception of the Solitaire illusion – younger children are less susceptible than older children.

A possible evolutionary reason humans and other species may experience this misperception of quantities is it may allow us to process and compare large numbers of items more efficiently and quickly.

For quantities greater than about five, fast decisions may be more important than absolute accuracy, which would require manual, sequential counting.

Read more:
One, then some: how to count like a bee

Testing honeybees

Some insects, including bees and wasps, are very “motivated” to participate in behavioural experiments. European honeybees and wasps are central-place foragers: they will return to the location of a high-quality food source.

We provided freely flying bees and wasps with a reward of sugar water for participating in experiments. This allows us to train and test individually colour-marked insects throughout a day, with them returning by their own choice.

We have used this method to show honeybees can perform a variety of numerical tasks such as understanding the concept of zero, discriminating between quantities, performing simple addition and subtraction, matching symbols with quantities, and categorising quantities as odd or even.

Honeybees are also known to perceive some spatial, movement and colour illusions. These past skills make them an ideal candidate to study and see if they are fooled by illusions of quantity.

Wasps are far less tested than honeybees for their behaviour and cognition, but recent studies show they are also capable of advanced learning.

Bees, wasps and the Solitaire illusion

We tested the European honeybee (Apis mellifera) and the European wasp (Vespula vulgaris) using an identical method for both species.

We presented each insect with images containing blue and yellow dots. For 70 trials, the insects were trained with a sugar reward to visit an image with a higher quantity of yellow dots versus blue.

We then presented them with the Solitaire illusion – one image with the yellow dots clustered in the middle and the blue dots unclustered, versus one image of the opposite.

The images actually contained an identical number of blue and yellow dots. So, if the insects perceived the illusion, they would choose the option with the yellow dots clustered in the centre, revealing an overestimation of the quantity of yellow dots.

We found both honeybees and wasps perceived the illusion in a similar way to humans, capuchin monkeys and guppies.

Is there an evolutionary clue here?

We now know the perception of the Solitaire illusion occurs across a range of species including humans, non-human primates, fish and insects. There are also primates and other mammals that appear not to perceive the illusion.

This could suggest two potential evolutionary pathways of experiencing the illusion.

One is convergent evolution, where different species separately developed the ability to perceive this illusion due to the requirements of their environment.

The other pathway is that the perception occurred through conserved evolution, where a common ancestor perceived the illusion, and subsequently some species either retained or lost the illusion perception.

One important consideration is that while the Solitaire illusion is considered an illusion of quantity, it could also be perceived as an illusion of colour area, size, line length, or perimeter. More research will be needed to determine whether the illusion induces the misperception of quantity or other cues that correlate with quantity.

Read more:
Which square is bigger? Honeybees see visual illusions like humans do

Scarlett Howard receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Monash University, Australian Academy of Sciences, and the Hermon Slade Foundation. She is affiliated with Triple R.

Adrian Dyer receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Do they see what we see? Bees and wasps join humans in being tricked by illusions of quantity – https://theconversation.com/do-they-see-what-we-see-bees-and-wasps-join-humans-in-being-tricked-by-illusions-of-quantity-219577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Reece, Principal Fellow, Melbourne School of Government, The University of Melbourne

2024 is going to be democracy’s biggest year ever. In a remarkable milestone in human history, over four billion people – more than half of the world’s population across more than 40 countries – will go to the polls.

National elections will be held in the United States, India, Indonesia, Russia, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Mexico, and South Africa to name just a few. The European Union will also go to the polls. This busy calendar of elections is as extraordinary for the diversity of nations and peoples participating as it is for its huge scale.

It’s tempting to see this record as a triumph for democracy as the dominant organising principle for governing people in the modern world.
But a closer examination shows democracy is at risk on many fronts. While these challenges take different forms in different jurisdictions, some clear patterns emerge. 2024 is going to be a rugged year for democracy, but there is still cause for cautious optimism about its future.

Here’s a rundown of just some of the significant elections that will shape the world in 2024.

Read more:
There will be more elections in 2024 than ever before – here’s how it could affect financial markets

United States

The most high-stakes election of 2024 will be the US general election for the president, house of representatives and senate in November. For decades America has stood as the world’s most powerful democracy and a guarantor (if a flawed one) of democratic governments the world over.

Donald Trump is the likely Republican nominee. In his previous term as President he did more than any previous chief executive to undermine democracy according to a Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) analysis.

Now he is promising to punish his political opponents, override the independence of the Department of Justice and extend presidential power into non-political areas of government administration.

This prompted President Joe Biden to warn that “Democracy is on the ballot” in the 2024 Presidential vote.

At this stage, US voters do not seem to care too much, with Trump ahead in many key opinion polls.

India and Indonesia

The rise of democracy in India and Indonesia, the world’s second and fourth most populous nations, has been a game changer for the global advancement of human freedoms. The sheer scale of the elections in these developing nations, with a combined population of 1.7 billion, is also a miracle in modern administration.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems almost certain to be returned for a third term in an election to be likely held between April and May.

While Indonesian Defence Minister, Prabowo Subianto, is the clear frontrunner to become the next president of the world’s largest Muslim nation in February.

In both cases, there is the risk these “strongman” leaders will win power in free and fair elections but then oversee illiberal policies that put democratic institutions under strain.

United Kingdom and Europe

The UK is likely to go to a general election in the second half of 2024. Current polling suggests it will result in the first change of government in 14 years with victory for the Labour Party led by Keir Starmer.

If that happens, it will be a reminder of democracy’s ability to enable the transfer of political power between opposing interests without widespread bloodshed – something humankind has failed at for most of history.

Other elections in Europe will be a barometer of the standing of the populist far right.

The success of anti-Islam extremist Geert Wilders in elections in the Netherlands in November means many analysts are now predicting the far right will enjoy a surge in support in European parliament elections in June, as well as national elections in Austria, Belgium, Croatia and Finland.

Read more:
Why the 2024 election cycle could result in more threats to US democracy

Africa

National elections are occurring in a dozen countries in Africa this year including Rwanda, Ghana, Tunisia, South Sudan and Algeria. But most attention will be on the mid-year election in South Africa which will be the most important since the end of apartheid in 1994.

Current polls suggest that after three decades in power the African National Congress (ANC) will not be able to garner the necessary 50% of votes needed to govern in its own right, bringing to an end 30 years of one-party rule.

Bogus elections

Special mention must be made of the 2024 elections which will not be free and will not be fair.

Russia, Rwanda and Belarus are governed by tyrannical rulers who jail opponents and run bogus elections that deliver 90% majorities or higher.

Then there is the charade elections occurring in Bangladesh, Iran and Tunisia where leaders allow the opposition to compete, but not to win.

Will democracy pass these tests?

Elections are taking place against a backdrop of spreading illiberalism around the world, the weakening of independent institutions in some of the big democracies, and a creeping disillusionment in advanced democracies, especially among younger people, about the benefits of a democratic system.

But there is also reason for cautious optimism that the long arc of history continues to steer determinedly towards a more democratic world.

Read more:
How religion and politics will mix in 2024 – three trends to track

Democracy remains the model that most developing nations strive for. According to Freedom House, there were 69 electoral democracies in 1990 rising to 122 by 2014. It is telling that even dictators and despots feel the need to give themselves the appearance of a democratic mandate. And surveys of citizens in advanced democracies continue to show high levels of support for the ideals of democratic government.

“Government of the people, for the people, by the people” still holds significant advantages over all the other alternatives currently being tried. But in 2024 it will be tested mightily.

Nicholas Reece 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. More than 4 billion people are eligible to vote in an election in 2024. Is this democracy’s biggest test? – https://theconversation.com/more-than-4-billion-people-are-eligible-to-vote-in-an-election-in-2024-is-this-democracys-biggest-test-220837

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Lim, Head of Young People’s Health Research, Burnet Institute

Unlike in previous generations, you’re unlikely to discover your adolescent’s first exposure to adult sexual content from finding a scrunched-up Playboy magazine under their mattress.

With easy access to the internet and the use of tablets and mobile phones, it’s more likely to be from free, mainstream online porn. And it can be a very shocking introduction to sex.

But it’s common and has become normalised among young people. The median age for boys to first view pornography is 13, while for girls it’s 16.

OK, so your child or adolescent has watched a porn video. First, stay calm.

Read more:
TikTok has a startling amount of sexual content – and it’s way too easy for children to access

Start a discussion about what porn is – and isn’t

How much detail you go into and what’s appropriate for them to know will depend on their age and level of maturity.

Many parents let their adolescents know porn is not real – it’s a fantasy. But it’s not enough to just say, “that’s not real”. They also need to know what reality is.

Explain that porn is not what sex is like – and what’s wrong with depictions of sex in porn: everyone who’s involved should be enjoying it, not just the man.

In porn, you don’t see all the normal things that happen around sex, like discussions on how to ask about consent, or even the bloopers of sex, such as when people change positions, negotiate, and move around.

Porn is not designed to show sex the way it would be experienced as pleasurable, or show what positive relationships are meant to look like. People don’t tend to ask, “do you want to do that?” And if they do, you won’t see what happens if someone says “no”. The performers aren’t doing it in a way that feels good, but instead focus on what is deemed to “look good”.

Porn doesn’t present sex in a real way, and it can change young people’s ideas and expectations about what sex is.

How are adolescents accessing porn?

Adolescents are used to discovering things on their own using the internet and are naturally curious about sex. Their exposure to porn can come from something as simple as googling a term they’ve never heard of before, or their friends sending them a link.

They’re most likely to come across mainstream porn. With lots of flesh, quick movements and closeups, it can be very graphic and can come across as violent to someone seeing it for the first time.

This becomes how adolescents, who don’t have personal experiences of sex, or have the information they need, learn about sex. Just as they go to YouTube to learn how to cook a meal or fix the tap, they are used to watching and following.

And for something private and stigmatised like sex, there are limited good alternatives for them to learn how it really works.

When should we have ‘the talk’?

An open conversation about safety, sex, consent and relationships and gender roles is important throughout their whole life. Introduce the topic of sex gradually, depending on your child’s age. It doesn’t have to be a big sit down, to have a big talk.

It’s best to bring it up in relevant situations, particularly on seeking ongoing consent, because that applies to all aspects of life. Everyone has the right to make decisions about their own body, and it’s up to them if they want to be touched, hugged, kissed or have sex. It’s also important to reinforce that women and girls have feelings and needs, and they’re not just there to look pretty.

Read more:
How do you teach a primary school child about consent? You can start with these books

If they’re asking questions, then they’re old enough to talk about it. Ideally, you won’t wait for them to ask. You should be having conversations about consent, positive relationships, and sex from an early age. But it’s important to talk about it earlier rather than later, even if you don’t think they’ve watched porn.

Instead of saying “have you heard about porn?”, let them know from a young age they can trust you if they see something online that they don’t like or confuses them. Assure them you can’t believe everything you see online and you’re a safe person to go to with any questions.

Let them know it’s not their fault if they see something they don’t like, make sure they are OK and ask how it made them feel. Remind them to simply close the browser or turn off the screen if they see something that upsets them or makes them feel yuck.

Can I prevent my child accessing porn?

Your children will probably see porn at some point, but the older they are when they first see it, the better.

Data shows watching porn is associated with poor mental health, riskier sexual behaviours, and attitudes supporting violence against women.

Unlike with adolescents where conversations are paramount, restrictions can prevent and protect young children from seeing porn. These include parental controls on devices, apps or browsers, or establishing rules about when, where and with whom they can access their phones, computers or tablets. Yes, older teenagers can probably get past them, but younger kids can’t.

Read more:
Why we need to talk about porn when we talk about Andrew Tate

Be open and honest with your kids about using internet restrictions – don’t spy on them. Let them know why you’re doing it, explaining there are bad things online you need to protect them from – it’s about building trust.

If you find your child showing unusual behaviour or acting out towards other children, or your teen shows signs of addiction (where their viewing activities interfere with their day-to-day lives), seek professional help.

The GIST is a great resource for parents and older teens about how to approach difficult topics like this. If you’re a child or adolescent and need support, you can call the Kids Help Line on 1800 55 1800.

Megan Lim receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, VicHealth, Westpac Foundation, and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner.

– ref. Help, I’ve just discovered my teen has watched porn! What should I do? – https://theconversation.com/help-ive-just-discovered-my-teen-has-watched-porn-what-should-i-do-215892

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn McCormack, Marketing and Finance Academic, Bond University

Giving kids pocket money can be a really challenging decision for families. It raises questions about when to start it, how much to give and whether it should be tied to chores.

As a finance researcher and parent, it’s also important to view pocket money as an educational opportunity. You can use it to teach children how to make informed financial decisions, set meaningful goals and develop responsible spending habits.

Here’s how you can approach it.

When should you start?

There is no one “right age” but you could reasonably consider pocket money when children start school and begin learning to add and subtract.

This means your child will be old enough to start grasping concepts like saving and spending.

As your child grows, you can move on from basic arithmetic and tailor your discussions to what your child is learning in maths.

How much should it be?

How much you give will depend on your family situation and finances.

A useful starting point is working out what the pocket money will be used for. Is it simply to give your child a bit of autonomy over spending (for example, buying an ice block from the canteen)?. Is it to try to save for something special? Or is it to be used for all entertainment, clothes and on-trend desires like fancy water bottles?

A long-held rule of thumb is giving $1 per week relating to your child’s age (so $5 for a five-year-old). But of course amounts tying pocket money to a child’s raw age may not work with today’s economic conditions. Three years ago, $10 bought a lot more than it does today.

Of course you will also need to consider pocket money within the context of your wider household budget. Down the track, there’s nothing wrong with talking to your child about adjusting their pocket money if your household budget needs changing.

Read more:
How do I tell my kids we are currently short on money – without freaking them out?

Cash or direct debit?

When your child is little, giving them pocket money in cash is a good way to help them start to understand money. It’s something they can see and hold in their hands.

As they get older and the amounts get larger, direct debits will become more convenient and can teach them about handling their money online.

Since getting your hands on cash is difficult these days, when they’re young you can also give your kids pocket money electronically but give them monopoly money or a similar representative of what they have earned. You can then progress to a spreadsheet as they get older.

What about tying it to chores?

Many parents like to provide pocket money in exchange for chores as they feel it might instil a work ethic in their kids and the idea you don’t get money for nothing.

If you are tying pocket money to chores, be very clear about what will be done for what money and when chores need to be reviewed. Follow-through is important for this structure to be effective, so if they don’t do the work, they don’t get paid. You can also give them bonuses for jobs that are particularly well done.

Personally, I find this process to be more work for parents than it’s worth. I prefer the children to simply help around the house because it’s a core family value rather than tying it to finances.

The bigger picture

However you structure pocket money in your family, it’s important to consider it an opportunity to learn about finances.

You might start with simple discussions around “do I have enough money to buy this packet of textas and that toy car?” or “how many weeks until I can afford that book?”. Then as your child develops, you can introduce concepts such as cash flow, interest rates and banking products.

For example, cash flow lessons can start with talking about the importance of spending less than you earn.

Teaching kids about goals

Pocket money is also a fantastic way to help kids learn how to save. Help them set a realistic goal to save up for something that matters to them. A pair of sneakers they want or a particular video game is likely to be more achievable than a new bike. This will help motivate and challenge your child, without overwhelming them.

As your child gets older, you can introduce more sophisticated notions of saving and funds.

For example, when my child started high school we talked about setting up an emergency fund. As she was going to catch buses, we worked out the fund should be $50 (based on missing the bus and needing a taxi home). This became her new “baseline” before spending on non-essential items such as food from the school canteen.

Barefoot Investor author Scott Pape recommends starting with physical buckets with “splurge” for every day little things, “save” for big goals, “give” for acts of kindness and “grow” for investing.

Shopping skills

Once your child has their own money to spend, a trip to the shops takes on a whole new significance.

Smart shopping is not just about comparing prices or where to find the best bargains. It is also learning what is worth spending your money on and when.

You can talk to your child about what they value and their emotional responses around buying decisions. For example, “how long was it before the excitement of your new T-shirt wore off?” Or “Did you feel differently when you spent your money on going to that movie (an experience) versus that box of Lego (a tangible product)?”

Read more:
We don’t need banks teaching kids about money. Schools have it covered

There are lots of things to consider (and no perfect formula) when it comes to pocket money. But if it means you can integrate financial skills into everyday life, it’s a fantastic investment in your kids’ education.

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

– ref. When should you start? How much should you give? How to make sure pocket money teaches your kids financial skills – https://theconversation.com/when-should-you-start-how-much-should-you-give-how-to-make-sure-pocket-money-teaches-your-kids-financial-skills-220279