Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, recently invested US$180 million into Retro Biosciences – a company seeking to extend human lifespans by ten healthy years.

One way it plans to achieve this is by “rejuvenating” blood. This idea is based on studies that found old mice showed signs of reversed ageing when given the blood of young mice.

Altman isn’t the only Silicon Valley entrepreneur supporting life extension efforts. PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Google cofounder Larry Page have poured millions into projects that could profoundly affect how we live our lives.

The first question raised is scientific: could these technologies work? On this front the jury is still out, and there are grounds for both optimism and scepticism.

Read more:
Can ageing really be ‘treated’ or ‘cured’? An evolutionary biologist explains

The second question is just as important: even if lifespan extension is feasible, would it be ethical?

We explain why some common ethical arguments against lifespan extension aren’t as solid as they might seem – and put forth another, somewhat overlooked explanation for why trying to live forever might not be worth it.

Is it worth it if you still die anyway?

One might argue lifespan extension merely pushes back the inevitable: that we will die. However, the problem with this view is that any life saved will only be saved temporarily.

A lifespan extension of ten years is akin to saving a drowning swimmer, only for them to die in a traffic accident ten years later. Although we might be sad about their eventual death, we’d still be glad we saved them.

The same is true of conventional medicine. If a doctor cures my pneumonia, I will eventually die of something else, but that doesn’t mean the doctor or I will regret my being saved.

It’s also worth taking a longer view of where lifespan extension research could lead us. In the most optimistic scenarios put forth by experts, even modest short-term gains could help people add centuries to their life, since the benefits of each intervention could cascade. For example, each extra year of life would increase the likelihood of surviving until the next big breakthrough.

Is it worth it if immortality could get boring?

Many have argued against lifespan extension on ethical grounds, saying they wouldn’t use these technologies. Why might somebody be opposed?

One worry is that a very long life might be undesirable. Philosopher Bernard Williams said life is made valuable through the satisfaction of what he calls “categorical desires”: desires that give us reason to want to live.

Williams expects these desires relate to major life projects, such as raising a child, or writing a novel. He worries that, given a long enough life, we will run out of such projects. If so, immortality would become tedious.

It’s unclear whether Williams is right. Some philosophers point out human memories are fallible, and certain desires could resurface as we forget earlier experiences.

Others emphasise that our categorical desires evolve as our life experiences reshape our interests – and might continue to do so over the course of a very long life.

In either case, our categorical desires, and hence our reason for living, would not be exhausted over a very long life.

Even if immortality did get tedious, this wouldn’t count against modest lifespan extensions. Many would argue 80-something years isn’t enough time to explore one’s potential. Personally, we’d welcome another 20 or even 50 years to write a novel, or start a career as a DJ.

Is it worth it if poor people miss out?

Another worry regarding lifespan extension technologies is egalitarian.

These technologies will be expensive; it seems unjust for Silicon Valley billionaires to celebrate their 150th birthdays while the rest of us mostly die in our 70s and 80s.

This objection seems convincing. Most people welcome interventions that promote health equality, which is reflected in broader societal demands for universal healthcare.

But there’s important nuance to consider here. Consider that universal healthcare systems promote equality by improving the situation of those who aren’t well off. On the other hand, preventing the development of lifespan extension technologies will worsen the situation of those who are well off.

The ethical desirability of equality based on “levelling down” is unclear. The poorest Australians are twice as likely to die before age 75 than the richest. Yet few people would argue we should stop developing technologies to improve the health of those aged over 75.

Moreover, the price of lifespan extension technologies would eventually likely come down.

The real problem

However, we think there’s one serious ethical objection that applies to extreme cases of life extension. If humans routinely lived very long lives, this could reduce how adaptable our populations are, and lead to social stagnation.

Even modest increases in life expectancy would radically increase population size. To avoid overpopulation, we’d need to reduce birth rates, which would drastically slow generational turnover.

As one of us (Chris) has explored in previous research, this could be incredibly harmful to societal progress, because it may:

1. increase our vulnerability to extinction threats
2. jeopardise individual wellbeing, and
3. impede moral advancement.

Many fields benefit from a regular influx of young minds coming in and building on the work of predecessors.

Even if the brains of older scientists remained sharp, their “confirmation bias” – a tendency to seek and interpret information in ways that confirm one’s prior beliefs – could slow the uptake of new scientific theories.

Moral beliefs are also prone to confirmation bias. In a world of extended lifespans, individuals whose moral views were set in their youth (perhaps more than 100 years ago) will remain in positions of power.

It seems likely our society’s moral code is badly mistaken in at least some respects. After all, we think past societies were catastrophically mistaken in theirs, such as when they endorsed slavery, or rendered homosexuality illegal.

Slowing generational turnover could delay the point at which we recognise and fix our own moral catastrophes, especially those we can’t yet see.

Read more:
Life extension: the five most promising methods – so far

Julian Koplin receives funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

Christopher Gyngell via his affiliation with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute received funding from the Victorian State Government via the Operational Infrastructure Support Program. He also receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. The rich are pouring millions into life extension research – but does it have any ethical value? – https://theconversation.com/the-rich-are-pouring-millions-into-life-extension-research-but-does-it-have-any-ethical-value-201774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia Hurst, Faculty of Arts Indigenous Postdoctoral Fellow, Indigenous and Settler Relations Collaboration, The University of Melbourne

This is the third article in our series explaining Voice, Treaty and Truth. Read the other articles in the series here and here.

Australia has never been good at listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Despite the truths that have already been told in processes like the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody or the Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, time and again governments have ignored recommendations designed to address the impacts of Australia’s settler-colonial past and present.

State refusals to respond to truth have led to renewed calls for processes that will detail the impacts of colonisation in the everyday lives of Indigenous people. These calls were an important part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which sought “the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”, complimented by “a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history”.

As legal scholars Gabrielle Appleby and Megan Davis have commented, the call for truth-telling in the Uluru Statement is just one part of a wider call for structural reform intended to ensure improvement in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Read more:
What actually is a treaty? What could it mean for Indigenous people?

Why truth?

Beginning in the 1980s, formal truth-telling processes (usually called truth commissions) emerged as a method of reckoning with the past in deeply divided societies around the world. Perhaps the most famous example is the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which aimed to address the gross violations of human rights that happened under apartheid.

Truth commissions like this are generally temporary, state-sanctioned inquiries that typically last from one to five years, with a remit to investigate particular events and examine specific violations over a defined period of time. This typically involves collecting testimony from victims and (sometimes) perpetrators.

It is only relatively recently that truth-telling processes have been used as a response to settler colonial violence, most notably via Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which arose after a class action lawsuit on behalf of the roughly 150,000 First Nations children taken from their familes and placed in residential schools.

The Uluru Statement isn’t the first time First Nations on this continent have called for truth-telling. Since colonisation, Indigenous peoples have insisted that Australia must not look away from their experiences of dispossession and survival.

When these truths have been told, however, they have all too often been met with denial, defensiveness or even aggression. For example, when the Stolen Generations inquiry pointed to evidence of the forcible removal of Indigenous children that, it charged, constituted a breach of the UN Convention on Genocide, there was an immediate conservative backlash. The Howard government rejected the findings of the inquiry in one of the earliest salvos against what conservatives have termed a “black armband” view of Australian history.

There is a reason settler governments have been reluctant to engage in truth-telling. First Nations often seek truth as a means of changing an untenable status quo, reshaping society’s attitudes so as to improve their own future prospects and reaffirm their distinct sovereignties and their right to self-determination.

As the non-Indigenous Canadian political scientist Courtney Jung has argued, while settler governments may try to use the conclusion of a truth commission to “draw a line through history”, First Nations seek to build “not a wall but a bridge”, using truth-telling to “draw history into the present, and to draw connections between past policy, present policy, and present injustices”.

Whose truths? What truths?

Broadly speaking, First Nations peoples seek truths that address three key themes: narrative and memory; trauma and healing; and responsibility and justice.

We have described this potential as “the promise of truth”, in which truth-telling leads to a kind of agreement between Indigenous and settler peoples, rather than being a process centred on the state and its violence.

The promise of truth is that it will change national narratives and produce a new, shared collective memory that acknowledges crimes of the past; it will contribute to the healing and recovery of Indigenous people who have been harmed by colonisation and dispossession; and it will compel settlers and their institutions to take responsibility for the harms of colonisation.

This approach stands in contrast to what we have called the “colonisation of truth”, through which truth-telling is seen primarily as rehabilitative of the settler colonial state while obscuring ongoing injustices. When truth is colonised, it may reproduce narratives that restore aspects of settler legitimacy and treat injustices as being solely in the past. Alternatively, this version of truth may treat First Nations people merely as victims, telling stories of harm and trauma without delivering reparation. Or it may suggest that the demand for responsibility and justice has been fulfilled simply by engaging in the truth-telling process, rather than treating the telling of truth as a starting point for a fairer future.

Truth, then, is complex, and what it may achieve in the Australian context is not yet clear. As treaty processes progress in several Australian jurisdictions, the commitment to truth-telling seems likely to be a part of future negotiations. This close connection between treaty and truth is unique to the Australian case and confirms the strongly held belief that truth has transformative potential. We do not yet know whether the linking of truth and treaty will produce the transformation in relationships that is so urgently needed.

Victoria, which announced a commitment to treaty in 2016, is the jurisdiction most advanced in testing this proposition. In 2022, Victoria established the Yoorrook Truth and Justice Commission (Yoorrok is a Wemba Wemba word meaning “truth”), marking a new era in Australian truth-telling focused on the history of invasion and colonisation of First Nations’ territories. Until the creation of Yoorrook, no previous commission, royal commission or inquiry into colonisation in Australia has included the word “truth” in its official title.

Yet still, truth is not a straightforward proposition. “Truth burns,” as Indigenous academic Marcia Langton recently put it. Sometimes, truth-telling is painful and connects directly to harm and injustice.

Read more:
The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve?

Truth is tricky. It can appear to open spaces for new understandings, while simultaneously shutting these spaces down and reinforcing the colonial status quo.

Ultimately, truth-telling is uncomfortable but necessary, as change in any relationship inevitably is. But this is where the possibility lives. As new truth-telling takes place across this continent we have an opportunity to imagine what it might mean to be in a relationship that does not deny the truth of First Nations’ lives, or the truth of how Australia has come to be.

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. First Nations people have made a plea for ‘truth-telling’. By reckoning with its past, Australia can finally help improve our future – https://theconversation.com/first-nations-people-have-made-a-plea-for-truth-telling-by-reckoning-with-its-past-australia-can-finally-help-improve-our-future-202137

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Boraman, Lecturer in Politics, Massey University

Most people today are coping with the rising cost of living individually: cost cutting, looking for a better paid job, taking on “side hustles”, and so on. But not so long ago, many workers globally and in Aotearoa New Zealand approached the same problem in far more collective ways.

From the late 1960s to the early 1980s – sometimes referred to as “the long 1970s” – the union movement used strikes to combat the effects on workers of chronic inflation and a deep economic crisis. These were often successful, both in Aotearoa and around the world.

In many ways, the long 1970s were similar to today, a turbulent era of wide-ranging transformation, social polarisation and economic decline. After the long post-war economic boom, the so-called “golden age” of capitalism came to a halt in the late 1960s. A long-term social and economic decline set in after the oil shocks of the 1970s.

Largely in response to this, strike levels reached historic peaks in many countries. As British journalist Andy McSmith wrote of the UK’s 1978-1979 “winter of discontent”, it was simply “irrational not to strike”, given how inflation was eroding pay packets. In Aotearoa New Zealand, for example, inflation averaged 11.5% in the 1970s and peaked at 17.2% in 1980.

Collective resistance wasn’t only organised in workplaces. There were also consumer campaigns such as the Campaign Against Rising Prices in the 1960s and 1970s, mostly organised by (unpaid) women domestic workers, and often supported by unions.

Many unions mobilised to obtain better pay – often because of workers’ demands over declining real incomes. Millions of workers around the world struck to keep their wages level with inflation, in many instances securing pay increases above inflation rates.

Defending living standards

In Aotearoa New Zealand, as historian Ross Webb has argued, the Federation of Labour (FOL) adopted a largely successful strategy of “defending living standards” from the late 1960s to about 1984. They argued that employers and governments were trying to place the burden of the recession on workers and their families.

Union tactics were reasonably canny. They did not simply butt heads with employers set on reducing costs, or governments intent on restricting wage increases through incomes policies.

Instead, they contested the assumption of employers and politicians that inflation was mainly caused by wage increases (the wage-price spiral), rather than a result of companies raising prices, profiteering and passing on the cost of the oil shocks.

Read more:
Inflation is raising prices and reducing real wages – what should be done to support NZ’s low-income households?

There were two tactics in particular that don’t seem to exist in Aotearoa today. The first was targeting stoppages against a particular employer. Once a breakthrough was achieved at one workplace, unions would ensure the gain was made into a broader industry, regional or national standard. Targeted strikes were not as costly or as risky as national or industry-wide strikes, with striking workers supported through weekly union levies.

The second tactic involved broad, nationally-coordinated, cross-union mobilisations. These included general strikes (either city-wide or national) and nationwide demonstrations. These solidarity actions generally focused on unsympathetic or intransigent governments intent on clamping wage increases.

When the Arbitration Court announced a nil general wage order in 1968 (meaning wages couldn’t rise), despite inflation running at about 5%, the FOL organised a limited campaign of targeted strikes against certain employers. Its Wellington Trades Council held a one-day, general, city-wide strike and a stormy protest outside parliament.

General strikes and export bans

Targeted stoppages were often highly effective, especially in strategic industries where profits and production could be quickly halted. For example, meatworkers banned all meat exports to counter the nil wage order. This was the country’s biggest export at the time, accounting for 40% of export revenue.

The export ban, together with many other stoppages, quickly brought results. Workers were granted a 5% increase nationally, just two months after the nil order was announced.

In 1979-1980, a union campaign successfully saw the repeal of the 1979 Remuneration Act, imposed by Robert Muldoon’s authoritarian populist-right government and which enabled the state to unilaterally lower negotiated wage increases between employers and unions.

Read more:
Strikes: how rising household debt could slow industrial action this year

The campaign involved a one-day national general strike in 1979. Some 340,000 to 400,000 workers (75-80% of the FOL’s membership) participated, according to reasonably reliable estimates. It was the most well-supported strike in local history, followed in 1980 by a successful three-month strike by paper mill workers at Kinleith that gained substantial national support.

The final nail in the coffin for the Remuneration Act was the living standards campaign organised by the FOL and the Combined State Unions in 1980. Large protest marches were held around the country, including one that attracted up to 45,000 people during a three-hour, city-wide stop-work action in Auckland.

There were also smaller shop-floor strikes aimed at achieving localised pay agreements to keep up with inflation. These often resulted in piecework or bonus payment schemes, or allowances for clothes, boots and working in dirty or dangerous condition. They all helped enormously with take-home pay.

Read more:
Debate: The forward march of labour restarts with historic strikes in France and the UK

Disputed strategies

These actions drew strong reactions from employers, the state, and from some sections of the community. Conservatives – such as those who took part in the “Kiwis Care” march in 1981 – claimed strikers were greedy, disruptive, destroying the “national interest” and holding the country to ransom. Yet the law-and-order measures employed to contain or repress strikes usually just inflamed unrest.

A more effective response came in the form of economic restructuring and de-industrialisation in the 1980s. Neoliberals argued strikes squeezed profits and production, and restricted management’s “right to manage” the factory and office floor. Employers and politicians used various tactics, such as factory closures, to successfully break unions and undermine workers’ power.

While inflation was tamed in Aotearoa by the early 1990s, it came at the expense of dramatically increased class inequality.

Read more:
Recent pay rises suggest that collective bargaining may be on the way back

Worker resistance to the cost-of-living crisis in the long 1970s is still a polarising and contested subject. Probably the dominant view, voiced by the neoliberal right as well as some on the moderate left, is that workers caused their own demise by striking too much.

Some argued that unions had adopted an “immature” conflict-based strategy that could never win, and that neoliberal restructuring was the inevitable response and outcome. Such a view tends to demonise the strike-prone 1970s as the “bad old days” when supposedly thuggish “unions ran the country”.

But it’s overly simplistic to blame workers for simply trying to keep their pay up with inflation after negotiation strategies failed. Those on the activist wing of unions would counter by arguing workers fought back en masse in the long 1970s to defend living standards. But they were simply defeated in the 1980s by more powerful global and local forces.

The diminished collective

Globally, strikes are perhaps back in vogue. In early 2023, there have already been a “mega-strike” in Germany, a “protect the right to strike” action in the UK, and mass strikes against the raising of the pension age in France. In Aotearoa, teacher unions have mounted a rare coordinated strike. As economic problems deepen, it’s likely more will occur.

So far, however, these strikes against the cost-of-living crisis have not been as large or as widely supported as those of the long 1970s. In high-income countries, strike levels today are generally nowhere near the peaks of that period.

This is, of course, directly related to the astonishing decline of union membership since the 1970s. As a proportion of the whole workforce, union membership in Aotearoa has fallen from a peak of 57.5% in 1979 to 17% in 2021. Strikes are therefore limited to a minority of the workforce, especially in the underfunded public sector.

Little wonder, then, that most people these days are coping with soaring costs by taking individual rather than collective action. It’s also one of many reasons why so many feel powerless to effect deeper and lasting change.

Toby Boraman receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund. He is a member of the Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. Strikes, protests and collective action: how fighting a cost-of-living crisis wasn’t always about tightening your own belt – https://theconversation.com/strikes-protests-and-collective-action-how-fighting-a-cost-of-living-crisis-wasnt-always-about-tightening-your-own-belt-203402

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Jongenelis, Associate Professor, Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, The University of Melbourne

You’re driving your teen home from school when they open up to you about their vaping. What started off as an occasional puff of an e-cigarette has turned into something more serious.

“I was curious and just wanted to try it,” they say. “All my friends were doing it and I wanted to do it too.”

But now they are vaping more often and getting anxious when they can’t access their vape. They want to quit but they aren’t sure how.

Here are some practical tips to help your teen stop vaping.

Read more:
Sex and lies are used to sell vapes online. Even we were surprised at the marketing tactics we found

I don’t want to lecture. But what can I do?

You’ve seen the news and you know e-cigarettes are harmful.

You might want to reprimand your child, or say “If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it?”. But you know criticism and lecturing don’t work. So, what do you do?

First, acknowledge it’s a great sign your teen wants to quit and is asking for help. We know motivation is critical to behaviour change.

But if you’re a parent of a teen who isn’t ready to try quitting, you need to work on boosting their motivation to quit first.

Read more:
My teen’s vaping. What should I say? 3 expert tips on how to approach ‘the talk’

Boost their motivation to quit

Talk with your teen about their vaping. Ask them what led to them wanting to quit and their reasons for wanting to give up. You can both use those reasons to help motivate quitting.

Use that knowledge to balance the benefits of quitting with the costs of not quitting. You can do this using a practical exercise.

Discuss potential barriers that might get in the way of quitting.
What is your teen worried will happen if they try to quit? Have they been using vaping to relax and are worried they will become more anxious? Are they worried about losing friends? Do they think they won’t be able to quit?

Once you have an idea of the costs and benefits your child perceives, you’ll be in a better position to help them. For example, if they have been using vapes to relax, help them find other ways of reducing stress.

It might also help to tap into their values and use these to highlight that their vaping isn’t aligned with who they want to be.

For example, if they are skipping class to vape but are usually a diligent student, discuss this discrepancy and the longer-term impact of their dependence (for example, not getting into uni).

Read more:
A parent’s guide to why teens make bad decisions

Set a goal

Once your child is motivated, it’s time to set a goal to quit. Work with your teen to develop a SMART goal that is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, with a Timeframe.

That goal might be to quit vaping by a certain date. But your teen may need to set smaller goals first. This might mean “This week, I will only vape on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.”

Once achieved, these goals can be made more challenging until gradually, your teen has succeeded in quitting vaping.

Make sure you reward your teen or they reward themselves for achieving their goals, even the small ones.

Next, if your teen has been using nicotine vapes – and many vapes contain nicotine even if they are not labelled as such – they may be addicted.

Contact the Quitline (details below) or see your GP to discuss support for your teen. They may need extra help weaning off e-cigarettes. A nicotine tapering plan may help.

How to handle the setbacks

Your teen will likely have some trouble quitting. Remember those barriers from earlier? Create coping plans. What will your teen do if they are feeling stressed and want to reach for their vape? What will your teen do if they are at a party and are offered a puff?

These strategies may help your teen:

• keeping busy by doing puzzles, drawing, or playing games on the phone

• changing locations. Encourage your teen to get out and about. They can go to the gym, outside for a walk, or head to the footy

• reminding your teen about the reasons they want to quit and the costs of not quitting

• helping them practise saying “no” to a vape

• having snacks or gum they can grab when they have the urge to vape.

Show compassion

There are many reasons people vape. Among them is a vaping industry, with deep pockets, that’s expert at manipulating young people to start and continue vaping.

So be compassionate and try not to judge your teen. Lecturing, criticising and being punitive won’t help them quit. Position yourself as someone they can rely on.

More support and information about quitting vaping is available from
Lung Foundation Australia and
Quitline (ph: 13 7848).

Associate Professor Michelle Jongenelis receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the World Federation of Public Health Associations’ Tobacco Control Working Group.

– ref. How can I help my teen quit vaping? – https://theconversation.com/how-can-i-help-my-teen-quit-vaping-201558

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Selinske, Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University

Last month, Sir David Attenborough called on United Kingdom residents to “go wild once per week”. By this, he meant taking actions which help rather than harm the natural world, such as planting wildflowers for bees and eating more plant-based foods.

Australia should follow suit. We love our natural environment. But we have almost 10 times more species threatened with extinction than the UK.
How we act can accelerate these declines – or help stop them.

We worked with 22 conservation experts to identify 10 actions which actually do help nature.

Why do we need to act for nature?

If you go for a bushwalk, you might wonder what the problem is. Gums, wattles, cockatoos, honeyeaters, possums – everything is normal, right? Alas, we don’t notice what’s no longer there. Many areas have only a few of the native species once present in large numbers.

We are losing nature, nation-wide. Our threatened birds are declining very rapidly. On average, there are now less than half (48%) as many of each threatened bird species than in 1985. Threatened plants have fared even worse, with average declines of over three quarters (77%).

Biodiversity loss will have far-reaching consequences and is one of the greatest risks to human societies, according to the OECD.

The small choices we all make accumulate to either help or harm nature.

Our top ten actions to help biodiversity

1. Choose marine stewardship council certified seafood products

Why? Overfishing is devastating for fish species. By-catch means even non-food species can die in the process.

Where to start: Look for the blue tick of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) or the green tick of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) approval on seafood products where you shop, or use the Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide. Certified products are caught or farmed sustainably.

2. Keep your dog on a leash in natural areas – including beaches

Why? Off-leash dogs scare and can attack native wildlife. When animals and birds have to spend time and energy fleeing, they miss out on time to eat, rest and feed their young.

Where to start: Look for local off-leash areas and keep your dog leashed everywhere else.

3. Cut back on beef and lamb

Why? Producing beef and lamb often involves destroying or overgrazing natural habitat, as well as culling native predators like dingoes.

Where to start: Eat red meat less often and eat smaller portions when you do. Switch to poultry, sustainable seafood and more plant-based foods like beans and nuts. Suggest a meatless Monday campaign in your friend and family group chat to help wildlife – and your own health.

Read more:
How to get the nutrients you need without eating as much red meat

4. Donate to land protection organisations.

Why? These organisations protect land in perpetuity. Donations help them expand and do important on-ground biodiversity management.

Where to start: Check out organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Bush Heritage Australia, Trust for Nature, and Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

5. Make your investments biodiversity-friendly

Why? Many funds include companies whose business model relies on exploiting the natural environment. Your money could be contributing. Looking for biodiversity-positive investments can nudge funds and companies to do better.

Where to start: Look at the approach your superannuation fund takes to sustainability and consider switching if you aren’t impressed. You could also explore the growing range of biodiversity-friendly investment funds.

6. Donate to threatened species and ecosystem advocacy organisations

Why? These groups rely on donations to fund biodiversity advocacy, helping to create better planning and policy outcomes for our species.

Where to start: Look into advocacy groups like WWF Australia, Birdlife Australia, Biodiversity Council, Environment Centre NT, and the Environmental Defenders Office.

7. Plant and maintain a wildlife garden wherever you have space

Why? Our cities aren’t just concrete jungles – they’re important habitat for many threatened species. Gardening with wildlife in mind increases habitat and connections between green space in suburbs.

Where to start: Your council or native nursery is often a great source of resources and advice. Find out if you have a threatened local species such as a butterfly or possum you could help by growing plants, but remember that non-threatened species also need help.

8. Vote for political candidates with strong environmental policies

Why? Electing pro-environment candidates changes the game. Once inside the tent, environmental candidates can shape public investment, planning, policy and programs.

Where to start: Look into local candidate and party policies at every election. Consider talking to your current MP about environmental issues.

9. Desex your cat and keep it inside or in a cat run

Why? Research shows every pet cat kept inside saves the lives of 110 native animals every year, on average. Desexing cats avoids unexpected litters and helps to keep the feral cat population down.

Where to start: Keep your cat inside, or set up a secure cat run to protect wildlife from your cute but lethal pet. It’s entirely possible to have happy and healthy indoor cats. Indoor cats also live longer and healthier lives.

Read more:
One cat, one year, 110 native animals: lock up your pet, it’s a killing machine

10. Push for better control of pest animals

Why? Pest species like feral horses, pigs, cats, foxes and rabbits are hugely destructive. Even native species can become destructive, such as when wallaby populations balloon when dingoes are killed off.

Where to start: Look into the damage these species do and tell your friends. Public support for better control is essential, as these issues often fly under the radar.

Making a difference

Conservation efforts may seem far away. In fact, our daily choices and actions have a considerable effect.

Talking openly about issues and actions can help these behaviours and habits spread. If we all do a small part of the work and support others to do the same, we will see an enormous effect.

Matthew Selinske receives funding from the Australia Research Council. The research cited in this article was undertaken by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub with funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (Phase 1) and from the Victorian Government. Matthew is a board member of the Society for Conservation Biology’s Social Science Working Group.

Georgia Garrard receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Research cited in this article was undertaken by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub with funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (Phase 1) and from the Victorian Government. She is chair of Birdlife Australia’s Research and Conservation Committee, a member of Zoos Victoria’s Scientific Advisory Committee and a member of the Sustainable Subdivisions Framework advisory group for the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment.

Jaana Dielenberg works for the Biodiversity Council and previously worked for the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. Research cited in this article was undertaken by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub with funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (Phase 1) and from the Victorian Government.

Sarah Bekessy receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ian Potter Foundation and the European Commission. She is a Councillor of the Biodiversity Council, a Board Member of Bush Heritage Australia, a member of WWF’s Eminent Scientists Group and a member of the Advisory Group for Wood for Good.

– ref. Nature is in crisis. Here are 10 easy ways you can make a difference – https://theconversation.com/nature-is-in-crisis-here-are-10-easy-ways-you-can-make-a-difference-202855

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Jefferson, Senior Lecturer in Education, Edith Cowan University

Many Year 10 students are beginning to think seriously about what subjects they might pick for years 11 and 12.

These are important decisions – not just because they may form the basis of further university study and career paths. They will also be the focus of the final years of schooling and could turn into the skills students carry forward into their adult lives.

Read more:
Choosing your senior school subjects doesn’t have to be scary. Here are 6 things to keep in mind

This reminds me of a school awards night I once attended. The keynote speaker was a former student who now worked as an emergency trauma surgeon. In Year 12, he studied typical pre-medical school subjects like maths, physics and chemistry. But he also did drama – a choice that was questioned by the school at the time.

The doctor told us how drama turned out to be the most useful subject for him. It had given him the ability to work well with a diverse team in a highly-charged space, whether it be a stage or an emergency room.

This shows how important it is to make informed choices and how it is worth encouraging children to think outside the box.

What’s happening to teenage brains as they decide?

These decisions are happening as teenagers’ brains are going through significant changes. This includes “pruning” of the teenage brain where it gets rid of grey matter it isn’t using.

Alongside this, new neural pathways and connections are created. This means information processing is becoming more efficient.

All this pruning, developing and strengthening varies from person to person and means their interests and passions can change considerably over this period.

What are the rules?

There are a huge number of options to study, from academic subjects that contribute to your ATAR, to vocational education and training courses.

Students and families should familiarise themselves with the core requirements (all students need to study English, for example). Also note some degrees need you to have studied certain subjects or have assumed knowledge prior to commencing study.

Read more:
What actually is an ATAR? First of all it’s a rank, not a score

How can parents help?

Here are some ideas for parents and carers who want to help their children navigate what’s best for them in the final years of school:

• Chat with your child about their interests and passions: it’s understandably challenging for a 15-year-old to map out their life too far ahead. A good place to start is a comprehensive site such as Your Career. This can be a constructive way to together have a look at fields that fall in their line of interest and then discuss

• Be informed of the options: attend any parent information sessions held by the school to ensure you are up to speed with the choices it is offering. Be prepared to advocate for your child when appropriate to enable them to study subjects they enjoy or show and interest in. Remember there is a great deal more flexibility with pathways today and just because someone says your child “has” to do a subject it doesn’t mean it has to be done now

• See the big picture: what does your child want out of the final years of school? Is it the highest possible university entrance rank? Do they want to start developing workplace or trade skills? Understand there are plenty of options beyond school – whether it be vocational training, an apprenticeship, university via an ATAR or going to university via a non-ATAR pathway

• Get input from others: school careers counsellors can provide excellent advice. If your school has one, encourage your child to make an individual appointment. See if your child can talk to people working in fields they may be interested in.

Read more:
‘Thinking about my future is really scary’ – school leavers are not getting the careers support they need

• Be flexible and patient: it’s highly likely your child will change their mind with their subject choices. This is absolutely normal and it’s important for you to listen to and support them as they navigate these challenges. If we are meant to undergo five to seven career changes during our lifetime, then we need to make it safe for our children to do so from the start.

One last thing

Our children are unique and will have their own dreams and aspirations. So their subject choices may not reflect what we’ve done or want them to do and it is important to take a breath and step back from imposing our views on them.

We can point things out like, “if you really want to do engineering it might make sense to study maths now, so you don’t have to do a bridging course”. Or, “you seem to really love design and technology and visual arts”. But ultimately the choice is theirs.

And in fostering our children’s sense of ownership of these choices, we are contributing to their ability to become lifelong learners.

Sarah Jefferson 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. Year 10 students are thinking about their final subjects – here’s how parents can help – https://theconversation.com/year-10-students-are-thinking-about-their-final-subjects-heres-how-parents-can-help-203164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ou Yang, Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

The best word to describe the way Australia taxes alcoholic drinks is “incoherent”.

It was the word used by the 2010 Henry Tax Review to describe a system in which some wine effectively faces no alcohol tax, expensive wine is taxed heavily and cask wine lightly, beer (but not wine) is taxed by alcohol content, brandy is taxed less than other spirits, and cider is taxed differently to beer.

Industry calculations suggest cask wine is taxed at as little as six cents per standard drink, mid-price wine at 26 cents, bottled beer at 56 cents, and spirits at $1.24.

And yet it is cask wine that is often said to do the most damage.

The Henry Review recommended taxing all drinks containing more than a small amount of alcohol at the same rate per unit of alcohol, regardless of type. It was a recommendation backed by specialists in Australia’s tax system.

Implicit, and largely unexamined, in these recommendations is the assumption that alcohol does the same damage in whatever form it is taken.

Our new study, linking drinkers’ risky behaviours to the types of alcoholic beverages they mostly consume, finds this isn’t so.

Damage depends on the type of drink

Using data from six waves of an Australian recreational drug survey, we find that regular-strength beer and pre-mixed spirits in a can rank among the highest in their links to both drink-driving and hazardous, disturbing or abusive behaviours.

Mid-range are mid-strength beer, cask wine, and bottled spirits and liqueurs.

At the bottom are low-strength beer and pre-mixed spirits in a bottle, which have the weakest links to risky and abusive behaviours when intoxicated.

Probability of drink driving, by age and beverage type

Some of the relationships vary with the type of damage. While bottled wine is linked to a moderate to high probability of drink-driving, it is also linked to a low probability of hazardous, disturbing or abusive behaviours.

Pre-mixed spirits in a bottle are related to a low probability of both drink driving and hazardous, disturbing and abusive behaviours. But when account is taken of the gender of the drinkers (so-called alcopops are typically drunk by females), we find them no longer as safe.

Probability of hazardous, disturbing or abusive behaviour

Our study suggests that Australia’s haphazard system of taxing alcohol might have got some things right. Beer, which is typically taxed more highly than wine, seems to do more damage.

But it has got some things wrong. Cask wine appears to be significantly undertaxed relative to the damage it does.

More broadly, our findings suggest that if alcohol is to be taxed according to the damage it does, the tax system we adopt will need to be more complicated than a single rate for every unit of alcohol regardless of the form in which it comes.

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

– ref. Australia’s system of taxing alcohol is ‘incoherent’, but our research suggests a single tax rate isn’t the answer – https://theconversation.com/australias-system-of-taxing-alcohol-is-incoherent-but-our-research-suggests-a-single-tax-rate-isnt-the-answer-195907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lewis Fitz-Gerald, Lecturer, Screen Studies, University of New England

At the beginning of the first John Wick film, the tools of his deadly trade lie entombed beneath concrete, buried alongside Wick’s worst self – the pitiless assassin only his happy marriage permitted him to retire.

Fans of the series know what happened next. In order to exact his revenge, he destroys his vault with a sledgehammer, revealing an arsenal of guns. The real John Wick is back. Carnage ensues.

The carnage continues in John Wick 4, which is currently in cinemas. The franchise owes much to acclaimed Hong Kong action film director John Woo and the “gun-fu” fighting style his films established, which blends slick pistol skills with kung-fu.

Revenge narratives share well-recognised tropes: a murder, a ghost, madness, a stronger enemy and a vengeful hero. Each Wick film honours these elements separately, while at the same time containing them within Wick himself. Murder is Wick’s business. Motivated by murders, he commits them as revenge. Often.

Visited by the “ghost” of his dead wife (videos of her on his phone), he also functions as a ghost in the minds of his enemies, the mythic Baba Yaga of their nightmares. Driven to extremes, others believe him mad. He is both the vengeful hero and the stronger enemy.

Wick is by turns all these things because in seeking his own revenge, he becomes the object of the revenge of others.

Revenge and consequence

Keanu Reeves’ performance in the first Wick film is never more powerful than when, tied to a chair by his captors, he bellows the righteous justifications of his revenge. Wick does not threaten vengeance, he promises it, shouting “you can either give me your son, or die screaming alongside him!” All that follows in the subsequent films is consequence – the price Wick pays for seeking revenge in the first place.

Revenge tales are deeply satisfying because they permit us to imagine the retribution we might mete out for our own hurts – how we might right perceived wrongs if we only had the courage to act. We cheer on steely heroes and count the cost later. The cost is always high.

The John Wick saga harvests Western tropes, beginning much as Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992) does, with the mute burial of a wife and reluctant retrieval of weapons. Eastwood’s William Munny is not bent on revenge. Munny is revenge’s servant, a gun for hire, coaxed out of retirement by others. The grim events that follow are awful enough, but it is only when Munny’s friend Ned (Morgan Freeman) is murdered that Munny exacts a terrible revenge all his own.

Read more:
Revenge: the neuroscience of why it feels good in the moment, but may be a bad idea in the long run

The Coen brothers’ fine re-make of True Grit (2010) re-visits the theme. Again, the gunman is a servant (Jeff Bridges’ Marshal Cogburn), this time of 14-year-old Mattie Rose’s (Hailee Steinfeld) revenge. Mattie enlists Cogburn to pursue her father’s killer and pays a terrible price. She loses an arm to snakebite, leads a spinster’s life without hope of family, and in the film’s bleak denouement, arrives too late to even thank Cogburn for saving her life.

Wick is likewise too late to save or thank Marcus (Willem Defoe) in film one, loses a finger in film three, and throughout the series is without hope of family.

In Christopher Nolan’s puzzle film Memento (2000), Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) is the amnesiac captive of a revenge narrative he barely comprehends. Nolan’s confounding circular design has Leonard pursuing himself, as both perpetrator and avenger, in perhaps the surest cinematic examination of revenge’s futility.

In the John Wick series, the narrative may be linear, but revenge’s cyclic, repetitive nature is amply demonstrated, confirming John Ford’s quote that “revenge proves its own executioner.”

Revenge as a propellant

In Keanu Reeves, Wick had an established star around whom The Matrix Trilogy had already been built. Mad Max (George Miller, 1979), and Taken (Pierre Morel, 2008), had already confirmed revenge as a kind of industrial propellant, possessing the capacity to launch or re-launch stellar careers like those of Mel Gibson and Liam Neeson.

Mad Max grew so successful it outlasted its star, a role in which other actors have since flexed their muscles. The Taken series neatly resolved the problem of the revenge plot’s exhaustion in advance, by kidnapping rather than murdering Bryan Mills’ (Neeson) family members. After all, family members can always be kidnapped again. They are in Taken 2, before Taken 3 brings the series to its climax.

Read more:
‘Rape-revenge’ films are changing: they now focus on the women, instead of their dads

In these ways, revenge is passed between protagonist and antagonist, from film to film, like a baton, as it is in the John Wick series. The series’ accomplishment is that it synthesises its many influences while asserting its originality.

Audiences have responded. In welding his diverse, multi-cultural world to the revenge narrative, director Chad Stahelski (accomplished martial artist and former stunt double/coordinator for Reeves), has built a billion dollar box-office behemoth as dominant as Wick himself.

At the end of John Wick 4, Wick’s fate is uncertain. While it is determined, the Wickiverse continues to expand. A baton will soon be passed in the spin-off film Ballerina. Now in post-production, it is set between John Wick 3 and John Wick 4. Reeves will play a supporting role. Surely only an epic, deeply personal revenge story could rouse Reeves one more time.

If there is to be a John Wick 5, it will only be because success is the best revenge, and just as surely, revenge is the best success.

Lewis Fitz-Gerald 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. How the John Wick franchise fits into the bloody tradition of the revenge film genre – https://theconversation.com/how-the-john-wick-franchise-fits-into-the-bloody-tradition-of-the-revenge-film-genre-203136

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

Ken Wyatt made history when he became the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives in 2010. In 2019, he became the first Indigenous federal cabinet minister when he was appointed minister for Indigenous Australians in the Morrison government.

On Thursday, he made history again, quitting the Liberal Party over its decision to oppose the referendum for the Voice.

Wyatt, who lost his Western Australian seat at the election, had stood beside Prime Minister Anthony Albanese when last month he announced the wording for the referendum. In government, he had battled, against internal Coalition headwinds, to advance Indigenous recognition and a Voice.

Wyatt is a cautious, patient man. That he has left the Liberal Party is an indictment of his former colleagues. He told the West Australian:

“I still believe in the Liberal Party values, but I don’t believe in what the Liberals have become”.

A day earlier, faced with a choice on the Voice between the mood in the parliamentary Liberal Party and the mood in middle Australia, especially among people under 40, Opposition leader Peter Dutton opted for the party.

That was probably inevitable. After all, only days ago, after the Aston by-election loss, Dutton said his biggest preoccupation as leader had been holding the party together.

We can’t predict what the Liberals’ rejection of the Voice will do for the referendum, or, ultimately, for the opposition and Dutton’s leadership.

Certainly it will be unhelpful for the “yes” case. Dutton might be out of sync with the community vibe on this issue, but his becoming a leading light of the “no” campaigners – a rag-tag lot at present – will encourage a swag of voters to have doubts and vote no. The question is, how many?

The latest Newspoll shows the yes vote with an overall majority and winning in a majority of states – which it has to do in order to pass.

But the national yes vote was only 54%, and that is before the majority has been stress-tested by a campaign. There is a very long way to go in this marathon.

First Nations people’s call for the Voice has been extraordinarily hard for the Liberals to handle, not just for those from the right, like Dutton. Who can forget Malcolm Turnbull, prime minister at the time of the Uluru Statement from The Heart, declaring that a Voice would be seen as a “third chamber” of the parliament? (Turnbull has sent a “big hug” to Wyatt after his resignation.)

Dutton is often a pragmatist. Thus he was a driver of finding a way through the marriage equality issue. He hadn’t been a supporter of gay marriage, but for him, settling the issue was more important than his personal view. Hence he promoted the idea of the postal plebiscite, admittedly a second-best route to just legislating first up, but a way of getting the job done.

If “Peter the pragmatist” had been uppermost, you’d think he would have sought a non-confrontational way through the Voice issue.

Senior Liberals could have been left to make up their own minds, as in the republic referendum. Dutton could have said he had reservations about central features of the government’s proposal, but for the greater good – for the unity of the country and the pursuit of reconciliation – he would be voting yes although not campaigning.

Critics may or may not be right about the risks in the current wording of the constitutional change, which provides for the Voice to make representations to executive government. Equally, they may or may not be correct in claiming the Voice would make little difference to closing the gap.

But when Indigenous people have invested so much in the Voice, the question becomes: is the downside of denying it to them more damaging than the possibility of it being risky or impotent?

Some Liberals may be worried about its dangers. Others, more likely, just don’t like the idea of it, or want to play politics, and would probably have rejected any wording. Too often, the Liberals simply like to say no, and dig in, as they did (and still do) over measures to address climate change.

A Liberal pragmatist who was also sceptical about the Voice might have calculated that if it were going to present as many difficulties as the critics foresee, it would be a (likely) second-term Labor government that would initially have to deal with them.

Mention of a second-term Albanese government reminds us that, if the Voice referendum is successful, the next term would likely see another referendum – for an Australian republic. That would divide the opposition and present a nightmare for whomever led it at that time.

Dutton has promised to campaign against the Voice, but what does this mean? Will the Liberal Party be spending its scarce funds on the no campaign – money that could be better kept for the next election?

A few Liberal MPs, like Tasmanian Bridget Archer, are signed up to the yes campaign. Others will be active for no. A third group will prefer to keep their heads down, but could find themselves under pressure as the media compile lists of who is on which side and doing what.

The shadow minister on Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser, has been left in an invidious if not an impossible position.

When he delivered a critique of the Voice to the National Press Club on Monday, Leeser suggested that Wednesday’s party meeting mightn’t make a final decision (after all, a parliamentary committee is examining the legislation, and it’s crazy to have a position ahead of that inquiry reporting); he also indicated he favoured frontbenchers being given freedom to support either side in a referendum campaign.

Leeser didn’t appear with Dutton at Wednesday’s news conference. It was explained he had to return to Sydney for Passover.

As the relevant shadow minister Leeser would be in high demand during the referendum campaign. How would he cope when he has serious reservations about the Liberals’ position?

Jeremy Rockliff might not be a household name to many Australians, but the Tasmanian premier leads the sole Liberal government in the country. He is a declared yes campaigner. Western Australian Liberal leader Libby Mettam has also declared for the yes case.

Fred Chaney, a former federal minister for Indigenous Affairs, has denounced Wednesday’s decision as pandering to the most extreme elements in the party, and called on small “l” liberals – who he said had been “supine” in recent years – to follow Archer’s lead in standing up for the yes case.

Dutton’s success in holding the Liberal show together has been strictly limited. And it has come at the cost of deepening the division in the country.

Michelle Grattan 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. Grattan on Friday: the high cost of the Liberals’ Voice rejection – for both Peter Dutton and the party – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-the-high-cost-of-the-liberals-voice-rejection-for-both-peter-dutton-and-the-party-203419

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

The Liberals have formally decided to oppose the Voice. Peter Dutton has declared he will campaign against it, a high risk strategy when polls are showing a majority of Australians currently support a “yes” vote.

Noel Pearson was scathing of the Liberal Party, calling the decision not to support the Voice “a Judas betrayal of our country”. Moderate Liberal MP Bridget Archer will campaign for the “yes” case.

In this podcast, Michelle Grattan and Senator Simon Birmingham, leader of the opposition in the senate, and one of the few remaining moderates in the party, discuss the Voice, the Aston byelection defeat and “where to now?” for the Liberal Party.

Birmingham wishes more had been done by previous governments, “in the Rudd, Gillard, or Abbott years,” to advance Indigenous recognition.

“If we look at the substance of recognition and Voice, there are vexing issues.”

“They’re also vexing in regards to how you apply them against certain philosophical traits as to whether embedding a different platform for one part of the community in terms of engagement is a liberal or an illiberal concept […] I think there are serious questions there around this.”

“And sadly, as I look at it, I think that achieving national consensus on this topic has only gotten harder and harder over the many years since constitutional recognition was first discussed actively in the Howard government. And in many ways I wish it had been acted upon back then in the Rudd, Gillard or Abbott years.”

Birmingham doesn’t see the Liberal Party being on the wrong side of history in the referendum, but wants to see an open debate. “Australians will make their own mind up and that is at least the beauty of a referendum – we’ll get a clear and decisive result one way or the other as to where Australians stand.”

When asked if a pollster were to call him asking which way he would vote, Birmingham avoids a straight answer, but says he is open to “bipartisanship in working through the details in any referendum”.

“I hope that if there is something that can still be salvaged for national unity out of having a clear bipartisan constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, that that is achieved.”

“I hope if clear evidence comes forward during the parliamentary committee process to narrow the scope of the constitutional change that the government has put forward, that I listen to that evidence and try to convince a reconsideration around some of those factors.”

Birmingham concedes the Liberal Party has a lot of rebuilding to do, a point reinforced by the Aston trouncing. Areas needing attention include the migrant vote, women, and the younger generations, he says.

“We do face a vastly different electorate today to the one of some decades ago, and even not that long ago. If you look at some of the rate of change, the fastest growing segment of the workforce are professional women. And urbanisation has only continued to occur at a higher rate, particularly driven by waves of migration with significant numbers of Chinese Australians, Indian Australians and other cohorts growing in number.”

“Now those changes don’t mean that Liberal values are any less relevant today than they have been in the past […] but we do have to make sure that they are framed in a way that is relevant and engaging to electorates and to the modern electorate that we need to appeal to.”

“I think that means looking at how we can engage younger families and younger voters with effective policies about their economic security and especially in relation to the pursuit of home ownership.”

“That means ensuring that in all of those cases about job security, home ownership aspirations, the other aspirations they have that need to be underpinned by a strong economy. We also need to make sure that all feel included in those discussions, regardless of the background they come from, the migrant background or the construct or nature of their family”.

There’s a big push within the Coalition at the moment to embrace nuclear energy.

Birmingham sees the acceptance of nuclear-powered submarines as pointing to a wide change in attitudes towards nuclear technology.

He says: “I was surprised to be honest, when the AUKUS announcement was first made by the Morrison Government and of course with the recent announcements […] just how accepting and supportive the electorate has been of the use of nuclear technologies in the propulsion of our submarine fleet.”

“From a South Australian perspective, the reality [is] that that will mean work on the installation of the nuclear reactor component of submarines taking place at Osborne in suburban Adelaide moving forward. So I think there is a degree of maturity and understanding attached to these debates, but obviously there are lots of safeguards that need to be attached to any nuclear consideration”.

“Way back in my first speech, [I] was clear that I thought nuclear technology should be on the table with how we tackle some of the challenges of our time and how much has happened in the intervening sixteen years. The affordability and growth of renewable energies has changed dramatically and changed the energy landscape dramatically in that time.”

“I don’t think it makes sense per se to just have a ban on nuclear technologies.”

Michelle Grattan no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Simon Birmingham on the Voice, Aston, the Liberals, Uranium – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-simon-birmingham-on-the-voice-aston-the-liberals-uranium-203416

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gavin Rowell, Professor in High Energy Astrophyics, University of Adelaide

Long gone are the days when astronomers only studied the skies with simple optical telescopes. Today, unveiling the mysteries of the Universe involves ever-larger and more complex facilities that detect things like gravitational waves and different forms of electromagnetic radiation – the spectrum of energy that includes visible light and X-rays.

One particularly specialised branch of astronomy is gamma-ray astronomy. It does what is says on the tin, searching for gamma rays, which are the most energetic photons (light particles) on the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact, they are millions of times more energetic than the light we can see.

In astronomy, gamma rays are produced by some of the hottest, most energetic events in the universe, such as star explosions and black holes violently “feeding” on surrounding matter. While gamma rays are now linked to dozens of different types of sources, in many cases we still don’t know conclusively what kinds of energetic particles are creating these rays.

Excitingly, gamma-ray astronomy is due to get a massive leg up with a new facility. Once the globally distributed Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA) is complete, it will view the gamma-ray sky with ten times more sensitivity than what’s currently possible.

With more than 60 telescopes, the CTA is expected to provide deep insight into the nature of dark matter – an invisible, hypothetical type of matter making up about 85% of the mass of the Universe. The array could also help solve one of the longest-running mysteries in astronomy: where cosmic ray particles (energetic nuclei and electrons in our galaxy and beyond) come from. Gamma rays are linked to these particles, providing a means to trace them.

Read more:
Why do astronomers believe in dark matter?

Flashes from outer space

Gamma-ray astronomy was born in the early 1960s as space-based satellites were developed to look for energetic radiation from outer space.

NASA’s Fermi mission, launched in 2008 to a low-Earth orbit, has so far catalogued several thousand gamma-ray sources. The Fermi spacecraft continues to provide 24-hour live coverage of the sky, measuring gamma rays with energies reaching several 1,000 giga-electron volts in energy. That’s about one trillion times the energy of visible light.

To study gamma rays with even higher energies, we need to use ground-based methods. Although Earth’s atmosphere shields us against radiation from outer space, we can still detect the secondary effects of this shielding on the ground.

That’s because when a gamma ray interacts with Earth’s atmosphere, it sparks an electromagnetic cascade or “air shower” of more than a billion secondary particles. These particles are mostly electrons and their anti-matter partners, called positrons. These air showers contribute about 30-50% of the natural radiation we experience in our lives.

Making the invisible visible

While nothing can go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, charged particles such as electrons and positrons (anti-electrons) can actually move faster than light when moving through air.

When this happens, a shockwave is created as a flash of blue and ultraviolet light. This flash, called Cherenkov radiation, is named after Soviet physicist Pavel Cherenkov who first detected the phenomenon in 1934 (and received the 1958 Nobel Prize in Physics for it alongside two colleagues). The blue glow of Cherenkov radiation can be seen in water cooling ponds surrounding nuclear power reactors.

At ground level, telescopes with large mirrors and sensitive cameras can detect the Cherenkov light produced by a gamma ray striking our atmosphere. These cameras need just about ten nanoseconds to capture a Cherenkov flash against the bright background of starlight and moonlight.

The first Cherenkov telescopes were developed in the 1960s. After many variants, it was the Whipple Telescope in the United States that in 1989 discovered gamma-ray photons coming from the Crab Nebula.

This was the first time gamma rays with energies of more than 1,000 giga-electron volts (or 1 tera-electron-volt, TeV) were detected. Thus, tera-electron-volt gamma-ray astronomy was born.

Searching for the extremes

Today, all three of the world’s best TeV gamma-ray facilities – HESS in Namibia, MAGIC in La Palma, Spain and VERITAS in Arizona – have discovered more than 200 TeV gamma-ray sources. These powerful rays are linked to cosmic regions of particle acceleration, such as pulsars, supernova remnants, massive star clusters, and supermassive black holes in the Milky Way and other galaxies.

HESS has shown our Milky Way galaxy is rich in TeV gamma-ray “light”, including in the centre of the galaxy.

TeV gamma-rays are also seen from mysterious gamma-ray bursts and other fleeting, transient events. These are now informing our understanding of the extreme conditions in which gamma rays are created.

The next-generation CTA will use the lessons learnt from HESS, VERITAS and MAGIC, by extending the number of telescopes deployed on the ground to over 60 telescopes. CTA will also use a combination of three different telescope sizes optimised for three gamma-ray energy bands, providing unprecedented performance and “sharpness”.

It will have arrays at two sites on the ground: one in Paranal, Chile (51 telescopes) in the Southern Hemisphere, and one in La Palma (13 telescopes) in the Northern Hemisphere.

CTA has attracted membership from more than 1,000 scientists, including Australian scientists from seven universities. It’s progressing well, with the first northern telescope already detecting gamma rays from the Crab Nebula and several gamma-ray flares from active galaxies powered by supermassive black holes.

Within a few years we expect to see the first southern telescopes also detecting gamma rays, yielding many more discoveries. With CTA, we will have new insights into where extreme particle acceleration is taking place in our Milky Way.

Read more:
New era of astronomy uncovers clues about the cosmos

Gavin Rowell receives funding from the Australian Research Council to support the Cherenkov Telescope Array.

– ref. A ‘next-generation’ gamma-ray observatory is underway to probe the extreme Universe – https://theconversation.com/a-next-generation-gamma-ray-observatory-is-underway-to-probe-the-extreme-universe-191772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arantxa Vizcaíno-Verdú, Phd Student in Communication, Universidad de Huelva

Spanish millennial users on TikTok claim they are not Spanish if they do not know eight mythical songs from their country’s history.

Japanese users show their passion for anime by singing any opening or ending song upon randomly reading the title of the series on a piece of paper.

One day, users are creating continuous videos with the “Corn Kid” audio meme. The next, users turn Shakira and BRZP’s song love and breakups into a meme satirising relationships.

These are all examples of “music challenge” memes on TikTok: resharing and remixing responses to music and sharing personal stories.

In our new research, we wanted to find how these challenges have taken over the internet.

Read more:
It’s corn! How the online viral ‘Corn Kid’ is on a well-worn path to fame in the child influencer industry

A social activity

Music has always been a form of expression for humans, even considered as a language itself. It has also been a social activity. Music memes allow this social activity to be global.

We no longer share our musical interests with just our family, friends or colleagues. We now share it with people we barely know from the internet.

And we’re not just sharing the songs, but also the ways we react to them. This gamified angle of sharing music memes on TikTok increases our entertainment value – a competitive element that entices users to participate even more.

Our research looked at the global impact of these memes, collecting music challenges in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French. We wanted to know how users used visual, audio, textual and narrative elements to tell stories through music.

The users are not just sharing their knowledge of music. Instead, through music they share insights into who they are as people.

The challenges that bring us together

These memes can be self-referential, like the meme which asks “how addicted are you to TikTok?”

Using songs which have gone viral on TikTok, the meme asks users to identify how many they recognise. The more you know, the more “addicted” you are to the app. This challenge has become a game to demonstrate our self-professed love for – or addiction to – TikTok.

These songs could also represent a certain fandom, asking users to “put a finger down” for each Disney song they recognise in a playlist, or how many K-pop songs they can name.

Other music challenges focus on testing your level of belonging to a group, like “how millennial you are” by the number of songs you know.

Another type of music challenge focuses on users’ musical aptitudes. Can they follow the rhythm by sketching the time signature of the song? Can they skillfully lip-sync without missing any words? Can they sing a song just given its title?

These music challenges can also be a unique form of storytelling: sharing your past heartaches through how many love songs you recognise.

Read more:
Encanto, TikTok and the art of social storytelling: why music is not just for listening anymore

Group connections

By closely studying these trends, we learnt music challenge memes are a way for us to move away from egocentric social media based on likes and comments.

Instead of simply aiming for the most likes and the most comments, users participating in TikTok music challenge memes trends focus on identifying with and fostering a sense of community, connected by their collective interests.

TikTok features a “For You Page” (colloquially known as the FYP) as its main tab: an algorithmically-curated feed programmed uniquely for each user. This algorithm directs us towards subcultures that specifically intersect with our interests, thoughts, tastes and experiences.

Being featured on the FYP is often an accelerated way for users to be noticed by others. As music challenge memes rise in popularity, participating in them is one of the ways to maximise our chances of being algorithmically recommended. And jumping onto viral trends are a way for users to break into other subcultures and genres on TikTok.

Music challenge memes on TikTok foster community connections that flow across musical genres, languages, racial identities and generations. This transforms the “For You Page” system into a “For Us Network” that drives and inspires people through music.

Read more:
How ‘TeachTok’ is helping teachers connect with their students on TikTok

Crystal Abidin receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DE190100789). She has previously consulted for ByteDance as an independent researcher on best practices regarding the wellbeing and safety of child influencers, but is not otherwise affiliated with the company.

Arantxa Vizcaíno-Verdú 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. Put a finger down if you know this song: how TikTok music challenge memes build community – https://theconversation.com/put-a-finger-down-if-you-know-this-song-how-tiktok-music-challenge-memes-build-community-201385

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Kettlewell, Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Economics Discipline Group, University of Technology Sydney

During the Easter school holidays, scores of learner drivers will hit the roads, with parents carefully logging all their driving hours. Many of us have experienced this process, whether as a learner, a supervisor, or both.

The requirement is particularly high in New South Wales and Victoria, where learners must complete a minimum of 120 hours of supervised driving before they can drive without supervision. This one of the highest requirements for learner drivers in the world.

We set out to answer whether this supervised driving practice actually makes for safer drivers.

Our study evaluated the effect of two significant increases in the minimum supervised driving hours mandate in New South Wales: the 2000 reform from zero to 50 hours, and the 2007 reform from 50 to 120 hours.

Read more:
There’s little to gain and much to lose from lowering the minimum driving age

What we found

By comparing people who turned 16 – the minimum age to obtain a learner permit – just before the policy changed to people who turned 16 just after, we were able to isolate the effect of these policy changes on motor vehicle accidents, while abstracting from other factors that might affect accidents.

Our dataset contained all licensing and crash records in New South Wales over the reform periods. The crash data include all serious crashes – those that led to a hospitalisation and/or a vehicle being towed.

Consider people born in July 1991, or later. They were subject to the 120-hour mandate. But those born slightly earlier were subject to the 50-hour mandate if they obtained their learners’ permit relatively quickly.

If the policy was effective, we would expect to see a sharp drop in crash rates for people who turned 16 after the 120-hour rule came in. But we discovered there was no such drop.

We analysed the data in several ways, all of which suggested no effect of the 2007 reform on crash rates. Because of our large sample size, we were confidently able to rule out any meaningful effects. We did observe a small delay in the average age of obtaining a provisional (P1) license of around one month.

In contrast, the first policy change was effective. We found that increasing supervision from zero to 50 hours reduced the probability of a motor vehicle accident in the first year of unsupervised driving from 6.9 to 5.4 percentage points, a reduction of 21%. However, there was no reduction in the probability of an accident beyond this 12-month window, suggesting the extra experience is helpful initially, but does not change long-term driving habits.

Since young males are at higher risk of crashing than females, we thought there might be differences by sex. In fact, the results were very similar for males and females.

It is important to note that we evaluated the policy mandate, but we cannot guarantee compliance with it. In practice, people may do more hours than required, or may over-report their hours, risking penalties if caught. Widespread non-compliance could undermine the effect of the mandate. However, available evidence suggests that drivers in Australia are largely truthful in their reporting.

Why does this matter?

Motor vehicle accidents are the second leading cause of death for people aged 15-24 years in Australia. Many policies have aimed to lower the risk for young drivers, including the introduction of graduated driver licensing and associated features such as provisional speed limits, passenger restrictions and engine restrictions.

Minimum supervised driving hours is a potentially important tool for improving road safety, but until now has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation. Evaluating this policy is important, as there are costs involved with the mandate.

The obvious cost is the time of learners and supervisors. However, there may be other social costs as well. For example, by placing barriers to obtaining a licence, such policies can limit young people’s access to work and education, and entrench disadvantage, particularly for those from single parent and low income families, or those who have moved out of home and lack access to a licenced driver.

Read more:
What parents need to know about learner drivers: four key lessons

How many hours should the mandate be?

Our findings suggest there are benefits to supervised driving experience. Moving from a regime of zero hours to 50 hours meaningfully reduced the risk of motor vehicle accidents. But moving from a regime of 50 to 120 hours provided no further benefits, suggesting the benefits are diminishing, and the mandate might be too high in New South Wales.

Like us, you might wonder where the 120 hours figure came from. We’re not certain, but a 2011 review by the NSW auditor-general points to a Swedish study. A group of young drivers who reported completing 118 hours of learner practice had a 35% lower accident risk than those reporting between 41-47 hours.

The problem is that it’s hard to attribute this difference in accident risk to the difference in reported hours, because the two groups of drivers were fundamentally different, having self-selected into different policy regimes and having experienced other policy differences as well. In particular, the former group were allowed to start driving a full 1.5 years before the latter group.

Where possible, policy changes should be informed by high-quality empirical evidence, and subjected to rigorous evaluation after they are implemented. For almost 25 years, teenagers in New South Wales have been logging their driving hours, but with little evidence on the benefits, until now.

Our results call for a re-think on how many hours learners should be required to complete, and suggest exploring other avenues for further improvements in the safety of young drivers.

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. 120 hours of supervised learner driving: our research suggests it may be too many – https://theconversation.com/120-hours-of-supervised-learner-driving-our-research-suggests-it-may-be-too-many-203225

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fuller, Charles Perkins Centre Research Program Leader, University of Sydney

It’s no surprise exercise is one of the first things we turn to when we decide it’s time to lose weight.

We readily sign up for that gym membership and commit to extra walks with the dog, believing if we exercise enough, the number on the scales will drop.

Perhaps also unsurprisingly, many of us are disheartened when we follow this routine for months and don’t see any change on the scales. This is why I’m frequently asked: does exercise help you lose weight, or is it just diet?

Like all things related to weight loss, the short answer is: it’s complicated.

Read more:
What’s the ‘weight set point’, and why does it make it so hard to keep weight off?

What does the research say about exercise and weight?

There have been many studies over the past 70 years examining the role exercise plays in weight management. Recent research on the topic has predominantly found exercise alone has minimal impact on weight loss.

This includes a meta study examining all the relevant studies in the area, which found those who used exercise alone lost minimal weight compared with those who exercised and also reduced their energy intake.

A 2018 study found substantial weight loss was unlikely when participants followed the minimum governing guidelines for physical activity. This prescribes 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity each week. The overall volume of exercise had to be significantly above the minimum recommended levels in order to achieve significant weight loss without dieting.

Studies show you need to be doing about 60 minutes of moderate activity per day to achieve significant weight loss.

But before you cancel that gym membership, we also need to consider the substantial body of research confirming it’s vital to focus on exercise as part of any weight loss program.

Exercise helps keep weight off long term

Exercise will improve your body composition and prevent muscle decline. Our metabolic rate – how much energy we burn at rest – is determined by how much muscle and fat we have, and muscle is more metabolically active than fat, meaning it burns more kilojoules.

Relying on diet alone to lose weight will reduce muscle along with body fat, slowing your metabolism. So it’s essential to make sure you’ve incorporated sufficient and appropriate exercise into your weight-loss plan to hold onto your muscle mass stores.

Incorporating strength-building resistance training is also important. This doesn’t mean you need to be in the gym every day. Just two days per week and in the comfort of your own home is perfectly fine.

Research confirms moderate-volume resistance training (three sets of ten repetitions for eight exercises) is just as effective as high-volume resistance training (five sets of ten repetitions for eight exercises) for maintaining lean mass and muscle when you’re following a diet incorporating moderate calorie restriction.

Studies also show physical activity and exercise have a substantial effect in preventing weight regain after weight loss. A longer-term study found those sustaining high exercise levels (expending more than 10,500 kilojoules or 2,500 calories each week, for example by walking 75 minutes per day) maintained a significantly larger weight loss than participants exercising less.

Read more:
Taking a break from your diet helps long-term weight loss

Exercise has overall health benefits

Before you start to see the results of exercise on the scales, you’re almost guaranteed to experience the many physical and mental health benefits that come with exercise.

Even low levels of exercise reduce your chance of developing diseases such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Research shows exercise is just as important as weight loss for improving health, because most diabetes and heart disease risk markers associated with obesity can be improved with exercise, even if you don’t lose weight.

A physically active person with obesity can be considered metabolically healthy if they maintain good blood pressure, cholesterol and insulin levels. There is good evidence to show the risk of early death associated with obesity is largely reduced or eliminated by moderate-to-high levels of fitness.

Alongside improving your health, regular exercise has other physical benefits, such as improving strength and mobility. It also reduces stress levels, and even low levels of exercise will prompt a decrease in depressive symptoms, improve mood and promote better sleep.

This, in turn, will help you manage your diet better, with the boost to your mood helping you choose healthier foods and prevent impulsive food choices.

The bottom line?

Exercise will help you lose weight and prevent you putting on weight again – it’s just that it won’t help you achieve your weight loss goals in isolation.

Exercise is one of the key pillars of long-term weight management. It plays an essential role in weight loss and maintenance, as do our diet and sleep choices.

To encourage more exercise, take up something you enjoy. Be sure to include variety, as always doing the same daily routine is a surefire way to get bored and give up.

Read more:
The last 5 kilos really are the hardest to lose. Here’s why, and what you can do about it

Dr Nick Fuller works for the University of Sydney and has received external funding for projects relating to the treatment of overweight and obesity. He is the author and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program.

– ref. Does exercise help you lose weight? – https://theconversation.com/does-exercise-help-you-lose-weight-198292

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Stevens, Professor in Ocean Physics, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

The latest synthesis report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear we need to prepare for intensifying impacts, while also cutting emissions dramatically.

One beacon of hope is the global growth in renewable energy, with offshore wind in particular with new installations increasing almost six-fold in 2021 compared to 2020.

Aotearoa New Zealand is one of a few regions – with Norway, Iceland, Brazil and Canada – with an already high proportion of electricity coming from renewable sources. However, electricity does not equal total energy and New Zealand must consider a fundamental shift for other parts of its energy spectrum, including industrial heat.

There is no shortage of energy in New Zealand’s marine environment. A current discussion document (calling for public submissions by April 14) signals that offshore wind is poised to build a beachhead in a renewables market historically dominated by hydro power and underpinned by coal.

The technical and environmental challenges of offshore wind power are complex and expensive. Countries such as China, Denmark, Ireland and the UK currently lead the way, but New Zealand’s position in the southwest Pacific Ocean means there’s plenty of wind energy, both on land and at sea.

À lire aussi :
Ireland has the wind and seas to become an offshore superpower

A shift in energy supply

Ara Ake, an energy innovation centre with a mission to assist New Zealand’s decarbonisation, recently held a forum on offshore renewable energy in New Plymouth, the country’s centre for the natural gas sector.

The discussions centred around upcoming changes to the Resource Management Act, which will affect how development in the environment proceeds, and the recognition that any new initiatives need to engage with Te Tiriti and Māori perspectives on how resources are used and who benefits.

The discussion document highlights two regions: the Taranaki Bight and Foveaux Strait. Both locations are relatively shallow and well suited to installations of current technology.

A NZ$4 billion project to build the country’s first 65-turbine offshore wind farm off the Taranaki coast could be completed within a decade, but the document also identifies some potential future regions that are deeper and more exposed to the Southern Ocean.

Potential impacts of offshore wind farms

New Zealand is watching developments at a large Australian offshore wind farm off the coast of Gippsland, which aims to supply 20% of the electricity for the state of Victoria.

But offshore wind generation presents environmental challenges, including possible impacts of large arrays of wind turbines on seabirds and marine mammals. The seas around Aotearoa are home to a greater proportion of seabirds than almost any other populated centre, including many seabird species that breed nowhere else.

À lire aussi :
Australia is poised to be a world leader in offshore wind, but any potential risks to marine life remain poorly regulated

Other potential impacts extend to fisheries. But these depend on the location as ecosystems, fisheries and regulatory structures are unique to specific regions.

But one set of impacts has so far received little consideration. As tides push water past turbine pylons, the resultant wakes affect ocean stirring. This effect can be seen from space.

A recent study for UK offshore wind farms identified how large arrays are affecting the biological functioning of coastal seas.

With growing impacts from a changing climate, we need to ask more nuanced questions. For example, when considering environmental impacts, what baseline should we consider? Will the impacts of any particular development exceed the projected impacts of climate-driven extremes for that region?

Another compound question is how offshore renewables infrastructure will cope with a changing ocean. Climate projections are unequivocal about increasing future storminess and stronger or more frequent tropical cyclones. These will be challenging for all infrastructure, not just marine.

Future thinking

A notable aspect of the current discussions in New Zealand is the use of the term “offshore renewables” rather than “offshore wind”. This allows the focus to include a wider set of renewable energy resources, including next-generation ocean renewables such as wave and tidal energy.

While these approaches are niche compared to established offshore wind power, they bring a diversity of supply that will be vital when building a portfolio of renewable resources to move away from fossil fuels.

À lire aussi :
Offshore wind turbines could number 30,000 by 2030 – new ideas in ocean engineering are needed to install them

This evolution will require people, but New Zealand’s education sector is not producing enough graduates with a speciality in marine engineering. Beyond engineering, there are opportunities for data science, industrial services and infrastructure – and the possibility to develop a research initiative to foster long-term capability and ideas.

The climate emergency is upon us now and the rapidly closing window of opportunity requires a shift in energy perspective if we are to give future generations the best chance of a liveable and sustainable planet.

Craig Stevens receives funding from the Marsden Fund and MBIE (Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment). He is affiliated with AWATEA (Aotearoa Wave and Tidal Energy Association) and the NZ Association of Scientists. He is on the Interim Science Advisory Panel for the CE of the Ministry for the Environment.

– ref. The untapped power of ocean winds – why New Zealand is looking offshore for future renewable energy – https://theconversation.com/the-untapped-power-of-ocean-winds-why-new-zealand-is-looking-offshore-for-future-renewable-energy-202335

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Senior Research Associate, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne

When I was growing up monsteras (sometimes known as monsteria) were not all that common, but neither were indoor plants. In fact, monsteras were out of fashion back then – but now monsteras are back and, appropriately, in a big way.

The plants that we know as monsteras, fruit salad plant or Swiss cheese plants (due to their holey leaves) are a rainforest plant called Monstera deliciosa.

They’re originally from Central America, around Mexico, but their iconic large leaves can now be found everywhere in popular culture – from fabric prints and earrings to tattoos and mugs.

So, what’s special about this large and lovely plant? And what’s the secret to keeping one happy and healthy?

Read more:
Multi-coloured plants are suddenly a home decor ‘must-have’. Here’s how to keep them alive

Rainforest climbers

In their natural habitat, monstera are climbers that can scramble through rainforest trees to heights of 25 metres or more.

Their large perforated leaves can be over a metre long, with regular nodes along the stem and roots often growing from these nodes. The roots help them hook onto other plants as they climb to access light.

There are about 50 species in the Monstera genus and some – such as Monstera adansonii (Adanson’s monstera or five holes plant) and Monstera siltepecana (silver monstera) – are popular indoor plants.

The name Monstera dates back to the 1700s, but these days most people associate this part of the name with its massive leaves. They are, after all, real monsters.

These huge leaves develop wherever there is a patch of light and allow the plant to grow quickly and shade out nearby competition.

The species name, deliciosa, refers to its fruit, which tastes a little like a cross between banana and pineapple.

Monsteras are related to the arum lilies and produce white flowers on a fleshy stem (known as a “spadix”) that is surrounded by a cream or white leaf-like structure or bract (known as a “spathe”).

Our first and only monstera began its life with us as a rather small indoor plant given as a gift in 1980. It remained indoors for a year or two, growing well, but then proved too great a temptation for a curious young son.

It was moved in its container (which was, by then, larger than its original pot) into a protected corner of an outside patio.

It had done well indoors, growing in a good quality potting medium, getting plenty of sunlight and regular water. Its leaves had gone from small philodendron-like features into the large and perforated foliage of the Swiss cheese plant.

The move outdoors did it no harm. Good light, regular water, fresh air and protection from winds and frosts saw it flourish into a plant with many large leaves and measuring nearly two metres in height. It filled a corner beautifully.

A forgiving plant

Monsteras are quite forgiving indoor plants. They are quite hardy (like many climbers) but as a tropical plant they like warm, humid conditions and moist, well-drained soils.

They also tolerate shade and so it’s not surprising they do well indoors.

If you have a humus-rich potting medium and provide a climbing frame for them, they can thrive and survive for many years inside. However, you may need to give them a liquid fertiliser every year or two and re-pot them into a larger container.

While they are hardy and relatively easy to cultivate, Monsteras can decline if they become waterlogged.

This can easily happen if you over-water plants and have the container on a dish that gathers water.

Direct sunlight near a window can burn their leaves or lead to scorched patches. Leaves can also be damaged by warm dry air if plants are placed too close to heaters or heating ducts.

Their large leaves may also need dusting as the surfaces can become quite dirty, especially in bathrooms. The occasional prune will prevent the plant becoming too big indoors and removes yellow, burnt and older leaves.

Like many indoor plants, monsteras can benefit from a bit of R-and-R outdoors in a warm, sheltered spot for a few days.

Easily propagated

As a fashionable plant, large monsteras can be quite pricey and variegated forms which grow more slowly are even more expensive.

However, Monstera deliciosa can be readily propagated from cuttings.

The easiest and quickest way of getting a new plant is to take a section of stem with a leaf or two attached and, if possible, with a few developing roots. Place it in a good quality potting mix in a large container.

You can also aerial layer monsteras, which is where you wrap potting mix or sphagnum moss around a node, preferably with some roots, in plastic or cling wrap. Make a couple of slash-like cuts in the stem and when roots develop, take your cutting from the stem.

They grow and establish quickly. So quickly, in fact, they’re considered a weed along some New South Wales rivers.

After being on the patio for several years, the patio was to be demolished for an extension and our monstera either had to go or be planted in the garden.

We chose the latter and planted it in what we thought was an appropriate spot.

The monster responded as only a successful rainforest climber could. It spread, it climbed, it fruited and wherever there was a patch of light, it oriented a giant Swiss cheese leaf to gain maximum benefit for photosynthesis.

It is now over 40 years old, many metres long as it meanders its way through the garden and has been the source of several successful cuttings for family and friends.

Read more:
Trees can be weeds too – here’s why that’s a problem

Gregory Moore 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. I’ve created a monstera! How to care for the ‘Swiss cheese plant’ in your life – https://theconversation.com/ive-created-a-monstera-how-to-care-for-the-swiss-cheese-plant-in-your-life-202851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Zouwer, Visual Artist and Lecturer in Teacher Education, University of Canberra

School holidays can feel like a marathon if all the kids want to do is watch TV, play Minecraft or repeatedly ask you for the iPad.

There are lots of things you can do inside the house that do not involve a screen. And will help ward off any whines along the lines of: “I’m booooooored”.

In a previous piece I talked about how to set up an art studio at home. This time, here are five creative ideas to try in every room of the house.

Read more:
How to set up a kids’ art studio at home (and learn to love the mess)

In the kitchen: make your own paint

Kids enjoy making potions in the garden by adding dirt and flowers and you can have similar fun in the kitchen making paint from ingredients in the cupboard.

Paint is made with pigment and a binder. The first paint on cave walls was made with charcoal, ochre, minerals mixed with water, saliva, blood, animal fat and even wee. The history of paint is fascinating and kids are intrigued by the stories, like how a certain purple (tyrian) comes from the glands of sea snails and how a type of yellow was cruelly made from cow wee, after forcing them to eat mango leaves.

You can make your own paint with spices like turmeric, curry powder and cinnamon or hunt through the house for chalk and eye shadow for a variety of colours.

Grind the pigments up with a mortar and pestle (some will need this more than others but it’s a fun part of the process). Then in a glass or jar, mix your ground pigments with a bit of egg yolk, a teaspoon of vinegar and a small amount of water as a binder and you have made egg tempera – a type of paint the Egyptians discovered and some artists still use today.

Experiment with other spices, berries, grass or charcoal. If it’s colourful, you can grind it and its not too lumpy, give it a go. See how many colours you can make, then make a painting.

Read more:
‘Screen time’ for kids is an outdated concept, so let’s ditch it and focus on quality instead

In the living room: create a box masterpiece

Kids who may not like to draw or paint often love construction. So, collect different types of boxes and see what your child can create.

Apart from the boxes, you will also need masking tape. Kids can tear it themselves, or use a dispenser. Staplers and hole punchers are good connectors too. Also give them some thick markers, fabric scraps and glue to add details to their creations.

One holiday, we lived around my daughter’s construction zone as she worked with cardboard, other items from the recycling bin and things from around the house to make her own house.

In your child’s bedroom: paint a mural

This won’t be possible for everyone, but think about letting your child paint a mural in their bedroom. My mum let us create fantastic scenes in our bedrooms growing up.

Start by mapping out a basic design on paper. This slows the process down, allowing the child to think about what they would like on their walls. But be prepared for the plan to go out the window. Sometimes as artists we respond to the materials when we get them in our hands.

The trick to creating a successful mural with kids is selecting a good colour palette and you really can’t go wrong.

Get some sample-sized pots of water-based interior paint and bristle brushes from the hardware shop. Then tape a drop sheet to the floor and cover anything else you don’t want covered in paint and go for it!

If this is too freestyle for you, have a look at the wonderful “field of flowers” activity in Hervé Tullet’s book, Art Workshops for Children. This is a more structured approach to a collaborative painting and yields beautiful results (it starts with dots, then dots within dots and you end up with a field of flowers).

If this is not possible where you live, consider liquid chalk pens to create murals on the windows. This is so much fun and you can play with tracing things outside the window.

Pick an array of colours and overlap line drawings to build up patterns on the glass. This is so easy to clean too – just wipe it off with a wet cloth.

In the dining room: make a comic

The dining table is the perfect spot for projects and drawing. I find kids love creating comics. The book Making Comics by Lynda Barry has excellent exercises to get you started on comic strips, storyboards and zines.

Zines are mini DIY booklets. You can fill them with ideas using drawing, collage and words. Check out my how to make a zine video done for the National Museum of Australia’s Ancient Greeks exhibition last year.

You could do something similar: take your young person to see an exhibition, collect some flyers or postcards, and then at home cut them up and stick them into a zine. This can extend your child’s museum experience, and provides a chance to discuss and make sense of what you saw together.

Children use drawing to make sense of the world around them. When my son was five, he made a comic about a gallery experience: how he didn’t want to go, how he felt about some of the artworks, and how he was relieved to get out because he was scared by some of the work.

This gave me the opportunity to see how strongly he was affected by the exhibition and we were able to talk about those feelings.

In the bathroom: crack open the shaving cream

Shaving cream is a great medium with endless possibilities for sensory play, which helps brain development, motor skills and more.

You can make slime by adding a cup of glue to two cups of shaving cream and sprinkling a teaspoon of baking powder in the mix, plus two teaspoons of saline solution. Add food dye for a marble effect, make prints and paint with it onto a mirror or bathtub.

You can also use it to make sculptures. Start with a shampoo bottle as your armature (inner structure) and build your form around it. Take photos of the sculptures as a way of recording the ephemeral creations.

Try adding cornstarch to the shaving cream and play with the proportions until you have developed a malleable substance. The transformation of the substance is quite remarkable and kids love the tactile quality of this mixture.

In the end, kids have the best ideas, so just take some time to ask them what kinds of creative activities they might like to explore over the holidays and let them take the lead. The important thing here is to let go, enjoy the process and play – worry about cleaning up later!

Read more:
How to get the most out of sand play: 4 tips from a sculptor

Naomi Zouwer 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. Holiday help! An art expert suggests screen-free things to do in every room of the house – https://theconversation.com/holiday-help-an-art-expert-suggests-screen-free-things-to-do-in-every-room-of-the-house-202947

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Agustin Chevez, Workplace Futures Research Lead, Centre for the New Workforce., Swinburne University of Technology

Sixty years ago the animated series The Jetsons finished its first and only season before being cancelled. Just 24 episodes were broadcast between September 1962 and March 1963. Despite this the cartoon has achieved huge influence in popular culture, with countless reruns, a reboot in the mid-1980s (51 episodes over two seasons) and a feature-length movie in 1990.

The Jetsons was created by the Hanna-Barbara animation studio in Los Angeles as a futuristic version of the studio’s hit series The Flintstones, the first cartoon series to gain a prime-time slot.

But whereas The Flintstones was set in a distant, mythical stone age thousands of years in the past, The Jetsons was set in a very near future – in 2062.

Like The Flintstones, the show was aimed mostly at children, and played with ideas about the future for laughs. It’s not a serious work of futurology. Even so, it’s still an interesting cultural artefact, helping us appreciate our present and our expectations of the future.

The first episode was broadcast just a few weeks after US president John F. Kennedy gave his famous “Moon speech”, promising “to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.

While that promise was motivated by fears of the Soviet Union winning the Space Race, the future depicted is mostly optimistic. Technology holds the promise of a better world.

Among the whimsical technology imagined are flying cars, robot maids, video calls, smartwatches, food printing and space tourism. Some of this seems far-sighted. But there are big blind spots. Those flying cars, for example, still need a driver.

There are three things its creators got glaringly wrong: the place of women in the workforce, how much we will work, and where we work.

Gender stereotypes

Like the Flintstones, The Jetsons revolves around a nuclear family in mid-20th century industrialised society. There’s George (aged about 40), his wife Jane (about 33), their teenage daughter Judy (15), younger son Elroy, a dog named Astro, and a robot maid.

We can calculate that Jane was still in her teens when she became a mother. She’s the head of a recycling company but it doesn’t seem to involve much work. For most part she’s typical TV homemaker.

This is now the norm in only a small number of societies. It seems unlikely the trend in women’s workforce participation will reverse in the next 40 years.

Had the show been made a decade later it’s possible the influence of the women’s liberation movement and books such as Germain Greer’s The Female Eunuch (published in 1970) would have altered this vision of 2062.

In the 1990 movie, for example, Jane is an environmental activist. In a 2017 relaunched comic she is a scientist working on the International Space Station.

Working hours

One explanation as to why Jane doesn’t work is that George, the breadwinner, barely has to work either.

He goes to work just two days a week, for one hour a day, as a “digital index operator”. This involves him pushing buttons to maintain an atomic supercomputer named RUDI (short for “Referential Universal Digital Indexer”).

George’s working hours reflect the optimism of the 1960s that gains made by workers in the first half of the 20th century – with a 40-hour, five-day workweek becoming the norm by the 1950s – would continue in the second half of the century. Optimists hoped productivity gains from automation would mean a “leisure society” by the year 2000.

This has not proved the case, with only marginal reductions in working hours for most since then.

As US economist and sociologist Juliet Schor noted in her 1991 book The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, the idea technology alone can lead to working less fails to account for the economic system in which work is done. That is, capitalism is geared towards increasing consumption (and thereby profits). The emphasis has therefore been on making more money as the key to happiness, and therefore working even harder, not less.

We can see this even in the current four-day week movement, which promises the prospect of cutting the 38-hour, five-day workweek to 32 hours and four days, but only so long as the same productivity is maintained.

Trials of this 100:80:100 model (100% of the pay, 80% of the hours, 100% of the productivity) have been heralded a great success, but as work researcher Anthony Veal has noted, big questions remain as to whether these results are applicable across the economy.

Read more:
4-day work week trials have been labelled a ‘resounding success’. But 4 big questions need answers

At this stage, the likelihood of significant reduction in working hours for most people over the next 40 years looks dubious.

Remote work

Even though George only has to work two hours a week, he still has to go to an office (at Spacely Space Sprockets) to push his buttons.

This may reflect the fact the internet and the personal computing revolution were yet to occur. Futurologists didn’t start enthusing about the prospects of remote working until the 1970s.

More importantly, that’s just how things were conceived – work was something done under the watchful eye of management. It also created opportunities to play with familiar motifs involving George’s boss, the short-tempered Mr Spacely, a character similar to Fred Flintstone’s boss, Mr Slate, and Mr Burns in The Simpsons.

Read more:
A short history of the office

Management resistance to remote work was strong up until the COVID-19 pandemic forced a cultural shift.

The future of where and how much we work will no doubt be shaped by technology. But our perceptions and expectations about what can be achieved are just as important.

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

– ref. What The Jetsons got right, and very wrong, about the future of work – https://theconversation.com/what-the-jetsons-got-right-and-very-wrong-about-the-future-of-work-202608

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toner Stevenson, Honorary history affiliate in the School of Humanities, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sydney

A total solar eclipse is a remarkable alignment of our Sun, Earth and the Moon, as the latter casts a perfect shadow across the former.

If you’re in the narrow path of the shadow of the Moon, at the moment of totality you are plunged into darkness. Stars and planets emerge in the sky, and the entire atmosphere changes. This immersion in a total solar eclipse is unforgettable.

As 21-year-old Australian Miriam Chisholm reported in 1922,

I looked up from the telescope just an instant before totality and thought I saw the Corona, a pale fringe around the Sun […] and then the light went out and we saw it in all its glory.

Historically, total solar eclipses were a unique opportunity to conduct scientific research about our Sun, the closest star. Using special instruments called spectroscopes, it was possible to decipher the chemical composition of the gases emitted by the Sun – but only during a total eclipse.

As I write in my recently co-authored book Eclipse Chasers, perhaps the best-known eclipse experiment was the proof of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. In the early 20th century this theory could only be tested during the minutes of totality, requiring a clear sky around the covered Sun so you could photograph the stars.

Women in the field

Accounts of well-known historic discoveries in astronomy might leave the impression this work was only undertaken by men. But in the late 19th and early 20th century, women in Australia already participated in astronomy as female “computers” and amateur astronomers. They were deeply involved in scientific expeditions to view total solar eclipses, but it was not easy.

The living conditions were rough, in tents with poor amenities open to the weather, and little or no privacy. The months needed to travel on solar eclipse expeditions meant leaving family responsibilities, one of the reasons it was unusual to find women in the field. When women did participate, they were usually the wives and daughters of male astronomers.

The first Australian woman whose total solar eclipse observations were officially reported was Annie Louisa Virginia Dodwell. She had a Bachelor of Science from the University of Adelaide and gained astronomy knowledge working with her husband George Dodwell, the South Australian Government Astronomer.

Together, they organised the Adelaide Observatory expedition to Bruny Island in Tasmania for the 1910 total solar eclipse. The party arrived by ship and for a month they camped in tents in almost constant rain to prepare. The eclipse day was clouded, nonetheless Annie successfully recorded the change in temperature, the only science of value that was achieved.

In the following years she presented talks about astronomy, published poems and participated in the inaugural International Astronomical Union assembly at the Vatican Observatory in 1922. She arranged the logistics for her husband’s total solar eclipse expedition later that year, during which she transcribed his observations to the newspapers.

Read more:
A century ago, Australia was ground zero for eclipse-watchers – and helped prove Einstein right

Seasoned eclipse chasers in the 1920s

In 1922 an international team of astronomers, led by William Campbell, Director of Lick Observatory, and assisted by the Australian Navy, travelled to a remote location in Western Australia to confirm Einstein’s general theory of relativity during the September 21 total solar eclipse.

There were five women participating in this expedition: Elizabeth Campbell, Jean Chant with her daughter Elizabeth, Eleanor Adams and Mary Acworth Evershed.

While they were the wives and daughter of respective male astronomers, each woman was a seasoned eclipse observer in her own right. They knew how to operate and use technical equipment and contributed substantially to reporting the scientific work.

Elizabeth Campbell organised the supplies and operated spectroscopic and photographic telescope equipment during the eclipse. Eleanor Adams worked with her husband on the large 12-metre eclipse camera. Jean Chant observed the shadow bands and changing brightness of the sky, and Elizabeth Chant operated a prism that polarised light.

Mary Acworth Evershed was an established expert in solar physics and worked alongside her husband, director of the Kodaikanal solar observatory in India. She photographed the spectra of the Sun’s corona. In 1896, on return to England, she published a pocket-sized Easy Guide to the Southern Stars with star maps of the constellations visible from the southern hemisphere.

A long drive across the country

On the other side of the continent, a very different eclipse expedition was organised by 21-year-old Miriam Chisholm with her school friend Frida Tindal. Chisholm’s father, Frank, drove them over 950 kilometres from Goulburn to southern Queensland.

They lost four days when their car was bogged in mud and almost didn’t make it to the line of totality. Thankfully, due to excellent time-keeping and navigation they had a successful eclipse. They drew the Sun’s corona, measured the temperature, observed how animals and birds became quiet and timed the shadow bands. Their report is descriptive, inspiring and filled with detailed observations. It is still a useful guide on how to make the most of a total solar eclipse experience.

On April 20 2023 a total solar eclipse will be visible from Exmouth in Western Australia. This is the first total solar eclipse in Australia since 2012, when thousands of people flocked to northern Queensland. I was there, and for two minutes and five seconds of totality, I experienced a beautiful “diamond ring” effect as the Moon totally covered the Sun, revealing its misty corona.

There are four more total solar eclipses in the next 17 years. Following in the footsteps of early 20th century eclipse chasers, large numbers of Australians will soon be able to share a total solar eclipse experience they will treasure, record and retell throughout their lives.

Toner Stevenson is affiliated with the University of Sydney, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, School of Humanities.
She is currently Vice President of Sydney City Skywatchers, an amateur astronomy society, not-for-profit, and in voluntary capacity. The society was previously called the British Astronomical Association, NSW Branch. This society will be mentioned in the article. She is on the Board of the Australian National Committee of the International Council of Museums, voluntary role.
She is a co-author of the recently published ‘Eclipse Chasers’ book, the research for which informed this article.

– ref. Since the late 19th century, adventurous female ‘eclipse chasers’ have contributed to science in Australia – https://theconversation.com/since-the-late-19th-century-adventurous-female-eclipse-chasers-have-contributed-to-science-in-australia-200552

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saman Khalesi, Postdoctoral Fellow of the National Heart Foundation & Senior Lecturer and Discipline Lead in Nutrition, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity Australia

Australians are predicted to spend around A$1.7 billion on chocolates, hot cross buns and other special foods this Easter season.

Chocolate has a long history of production and consumption. It is made from cacao beans that go through processes including fermentation, drying, roasting and grounding. What is left is a rich and fatty liquor that is pressed to remove the fat (cocoa butter) and the cacao (or “cocoa”) powder which will then be mixed with different ingredients to produce dark, milk, white and other types of chocolates.

There are several health benefits and potential problems that come in these sweet chocolatey packages.

Read more:
At chocolate time, we’ve discovered what the brands that score best on child labour and the environment have in common

The good news

Cacao beans contain minerals like iron, potassium, magnesium, zinc and phosphorus and some vitamins. They are also rich in beneficial chemicals called polyphenols.

These are great antioxidants, with the potential to improve heart health, increase nitric oxide (which dilates blood vessels) and reduce blood pressure, provide food for gut microbiota and promote gut health, boost the immune system and reduce inflammation.

However, the concentration of polyphenols in the chocolate we eat depends largely on the cocoa solid amounts used in the final product.

In general terms, the darker the chocolate, the more cocoa solids, minerals and polyphenols it has. For example, dark chocolates may have around seven times more polyphenols compared to white chocolates and three times more polyphenols compared to milk chocolates.

Read more:
Health Check: the good and bad of Easter eggs, chocolate and hot cross buns

But also some bad news

Unfortunately, the health benefits of cocoa solids are easily offset by the high sugar and fat content of modern-day chocolates. For example, milk and white chocolate eggs are on average 50% sugar, 40% fat (mostly saturated fats) – which means a lot of added kilojoules (calories).

Also, there may be some side effects that come with ingesting chocolate.

Cocoa beans include a compound called theobromine. While it has the anti-inflammatory properties responsible for some of the health benefits of chocolate, it is also a mild brain stimulant that acts in a similar way to caffeine. The mood boost it offers may also be partly responsible for how much we like chocolate. Dark chocolate has higher theobromine compared to milk and white chocolate.

But accordingly, overindulging in chocolate (and therefore theobromine) may lead to feeling restless, headaches and nausea.

Read more:
What’s the white stuff on my Easter chocolate, and can I still eat it?

What else is in your chocolate?

Milk and dairy-based chocolates may also cause stomach upset, abdominal pain and bloating in people with lactose intolerance. This happens when we don’t produce enough lactase enzymes to digest milk sugar (lactose).

People with lactose intolerance can usually tolerate up to 6 grams of lactose without showing symptoms. Milk chocolate can have around 3 grams of lactose per 40 grams (the size of a standard chocolate bar). So two chocolate bars (or the equivalent in milk chocolate eggs or bunnies) may be enough to cause symptoms.

It’s worth noting that lactase enzyme activity dramatically declines as we age, with the highest activity in newborns and children. So lactose sensitivity or intolerance may not be such an issue for your kids and your symptoms may increase over time. Genetics also plays a major role in how sensitive people are to lactose.

Allergic reactions to chocolate are usually due to the added ingredients or cross-contamination with potential allergens such as nuts, milk, soy, and some sweeteners used in the production of chocolate.

Symptoms can be mild (acne, rashes and stomach pain) or more severe (swelling of the throat and tongue and shortness of breath).

If you or your family members have known allergic reactions, make sure you read the label before indulging – especially in a whole block or basket of the stuff. And if you or your family members do experience symptoms of an allergic reaction after eating chocolate, seek medical attention immediately.

4 take home tips

So, if you are like me and have a weakness for chocolate there are a few things you can do to make the experience a good one.

1. keep an eye out for the darker chocolate varieties with higher cocoa solids. You may notice a percentage on labelling, which refers to refers to how much of its weight is from cocoa beans. In general, the higher this percentage, the lower the sugar. White chocolate has almost no cocoa solid, and mostly cocoa butter, sugar and other ingredients. Dark chocolate has 50–100% cocoa beans, and less sugar. Aim for at least 70% cocoa
2. read the fine print for additives and possible cross-contamination, especially if allergies might be an issue
3. the ingredients list and nutrition information panel should tell you all about the chocolate you choosing. Go for varieties with lower sugar and less saturated fat. Nuts, seeds and dried fruits are better ingredients to have in your chocolate than sugar, creme, syrup, and caramel
4. finally, treat yourself – but keep the amount you have within sensible limits!

Read more:
The history of chocolate: when money really did grow on trees

Dr Khalesi is supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship (Award No. 102584) from the National Heart Foundation of Australia.

– ref. Here’s why having chocolate can make you feel great or a bit sick – plus 4 tips for better eating – https://theconversation.com/heres-why-having-chocolate-can-make-you-feel-great-or-a-bit-sick-plus-4-tips-for-better-eating-202848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill Bateman, Associate professor, Curtin University

Australia has an ambivalent relationship with dingoes – to some they are almost magical representations of our arid landscapes, responsible for holding back a tide of foxes and feral cats, as found in some studies.

To others they are pests, dangerous marauders of our cattle and sheep. We even argue about what to call them. They also loom large in our national conscience as potential killers of children, as shown by a recent dingo attack on a child on K’gari (Fraser Island).

Why do dingoes attack?

Dingo attacks on humans are very rare, and in most cases where humans have been attacked, the dingoes have become habituated to humans and have perhaps lost some fear of them.

This is usually because they have come to associate people with food, though not necessarily as food. This kind of habituation is seen in many animals across the world, including large carnivores such as bears and coyotes in North America, and even spotted hyaenas in Ethiopia.

The recent attack on K’gari has another facet, though. The child was attacked while sitting in shallow water at the beach, and the event highlights that dingoes can be predators. There is no indication the dingo was trying to take food from the child; it’s possible it was tentatively seeing if the child was suitable as prey.

Children as prey

A 2017 study of dingo attacks on K’gari showed most of the dingoes involved were young ones, and children who were some distance from an adult were often the recipients of attacks.

In 2001, a nine-year-old boy was tragically killed by two dingoes on K’gari when he was standing some distance away from the rest of his family and tripped and fell over. A five-year-old boy who was badly bitten by dingoes on K’gari in 2022 was attacked when his elder brother walked away from him.

In all these cases, although there were other people nearby, the dingoes selected the smallest and most separated person. This suggests that a hunting response was triggered – a child is not much bigger than normal dingo prey (such as wallabies). The dingoes involved were perhaps young and exploratory.

In fact, you can often see such reactions in zoo animals – lions, tigers and other big cats often ignore adult humans looking at them, but become excited when they see a child; the smaller size seems to trigger a predatory response.

How can you stay safe from dingoes?

The bottom line is dingoes are wild animals and can sometimes act as predators towards us, especially the smallest humans.

Dingoes are found across Australia, though they are less common in pastoral areas where lethal control occurs. They tend to avoid people wherever possible. K’gari dingoes are protected for their high conservation value, because they show little evidence of inbreeding with domestic dogs. As a result, these island dingoes are much bolder. Visitors need to treat them with respect.

So how do we stay safe? We should always be on high alert around such animals, especially in places where dingoes are more common and bolder. As with any wildlife, we should leave dingoes alone as much as possible, and keep a respectful distance. We also should avoid leaving food around, which could attract attention in the first place.

But if you do encounter a dingo (or several), here’s what to do:

• stay alert and keep a safe distance
• avoid being alone or, if in a group, don’t spread too far out
• stay close to any children in your group
• don’t run or turn your back on the dingo, as this may trigger an attack.

People often feel they should not act aggressively if approached by a carnivore, but studies on wolves and pumas suggest that shouting and throwing things is actually more likely to prevent an attack – don’t be afraid to resort to this if you feel threatened.

Anything that makes you, or the people with you, seem less like prey – less enticing – is good. Stay safe, but most importantly, respect these animals for the wild creatures they are.

Bill Bateman 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. Dingo attacks are rare – but here’s what you need to know about dingo safety – https://theconversation.com/dingo-attacks-are-rare-but-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-dingo-safety-203233

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn J. Whitaker, Associate Professor, New Testament, Pilgrim Theological College, University of Divinity

The cross, or crucifix, is arguably the central image of Christianity.

What’s the difference between the two? A cross is just that – an empty cross. It stands as a statement that Jesus is no longer on the cross and thus symbolises his resurrection.

A crucifix, on the other hand, includes the body of Jesus, to more vividly remind viewers of his death.

Many contemporary Christians, from bishops to ordinary folk, wear some kind of cross or crucifix around their neck and it would be rare to find a church that did not have at least one prominently displayed in the building.

While a symbol of faith, it is not just the pious who wear crosses. Madonna famously wore crucifix earrings and necklaces constantly throughout the 1980s and ‘90s. She is quoted as doing so because she provocatively “thought Jesus was sexy”.

The recent ubiquity of the cross as a fashion item means it is sold at everything from cheap tween fashion stores to that jeweller renowned for its little turquoise boxes, where a diamond cross necklace can run in excess of $10,000.

The 2018 Met Gala’s theme, Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and Catholic Imagination, further bestowed religious imagery with fashion icon status by making it central to one of the fashion industry’s key events.

Yet the cross was not always the dominant symbol of Christianity that it is now, and would certainly not have been worn as a fashion accessory by early Christians.

In fact, it took centuries for Christians to begin to depict the cross in their art.

Read more:
Jesus wasn’t white: he was a brown-skinned, Middle Eastern Jew. Here’s why that matters

An undignified death

While some want to credit Emperor Constantine for the use of the cross as becoming more widespread after the 4th century, it is not that simple. Part of the answer lies in the nature of crucifixion itself.

While crucifixion included some variety in antiquity, it was typically a form of execution reserved for non-elite, non-citizens in the 1st-century Roman Empire.

Slaves, the poor, criminals and political protesters were crucified in their thousands for “crimes” we might today consider minor offences. The types of cross structures might differ, but as a form of execution, crucifixion was brutal and violent, designed to publicly shame the victim by displaying him or her naked on a scaffold, thereby asserting Rome’s power over the bodies of the masses.

That Jesus suffered such an undignified death was an embarrassment to some early Christians. The apostle Paul describes Jesus’ crucifixion as a “stumbling block” or “scandal” to other Jews. Others would imbue it with sacrificial meaning to make sense of how the one claimed as God’s Son would suffer in this way. But the shame associated with this kind of death remained.

A now infamous piece of graffito, dating to the early 3rd century in Rome, arguably mocks Jesus’ manner of death. Sketched on a wall in Rome, the Alexamenos graffito portrays a donkey-headed male figure on a cross under which is written “Alexamenos, worship god”. The suggestion is that the parody was directed at Christians precisely because they worshipped a man who had died by crucifixion.

Christian images

Felicity Harley-McGowan, an expert on crucifixion and early Christian art, argues Christians began to experiment with making their own specifically Christian images around 200 CE, roughly 100-150 years after they began writing about Jesus.

The slowness to depict Jesus on a cross was not about a general sensibility to the visual arts, although they do seem to have been very selective in what they did portray. Artwork typically depicted biblical stories and used bucolic imagery to show others being rescued from death or to tell the stories of biblical heroes like Daniel or Abraham.

In the 4th century, Christians began to depict other death scenes from the Bible, such as the raising of Jairus’ daughter, but still not Jesus’ death. Harley-McGowan writes:

it is clear that the earliest representations of deaths in early Christian art were pointed in their focus on actions after the event.

Such depictions emphasised healing, new life and resurrection from death. This emphasis is one explanation for why Christians were slow to depict Jesus’ actual death.

One of the earliest extant depictions of Jesus can be found in the Maskell Passion Ivories dating to the early 5th century CE, more than 400 years after his death. These ivories formed a casket panel that includes one death scene amid a range of scenes telling the Jesus story.

Like much previous Christian art, the emphasis remained on Jesus’ victory over death rather than any desire to depict the reality or violence of his crucifixion. One way to show this was to portray Jesus on a cross but with his eyes open, alive and undefeated by the cross; in the Maskell Ivory, Jesus’ alertness is contrasted with the clearly dead Judas.

While there is a 3rd-century magical amulet that includes crucifixion imagery (and there may have been other gems and amulets lost to history that associated his resurrection from death in magical terms), depictions of the cross only began to emerge in the 5th century and would remain rare until the 6th.

As churches began to be built, crucifixes appeared on engraved church doors and would remain the more standard image until the Reformation emphasis on the empty cross.

The cross continues to have a complex history, being used as both a symbol of Christian ecclesial power and of white supremacy by groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

There can be beauty, intrigue, magic and terror in these cross traditions.

On one hand, it stands as a symbol of Christian belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection. On the other, it is a reminder of the violence of the state and capital punishment.

Perhaps, 2,000 years later, it is always both – even when diamond-encrusted.

Read more:
Baby Jesus in art and the long tradition of depicting Christ as a man-child

Robyn J. Whitaker 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 crucifixion gap: why it took hundreds of years for art to depict Jesus dying on the cross – https://theconversation.com/the-crucifixion-gap-why-it-took-hundreds-of-years-for-art-to-depict-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-202348

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor emerita, University of Sydney

Despite the political acrimony over the Voice referendum, what’s most striking is the similarities between the positions of the Coalition and the Labor government.

Both agree Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be recognised in the Constitution. Both agree practical outcomes are needed to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. Both agree parliament and the executive government need to be better informed about the laws and policies they make, and that they need to hear the voices of those on the ground who are affected by those laws and policies.

Given this agreement about what needs to be done, why is there disagreement about the referendum?

Recognition and practical outcomes

The key sticking point seems to be the relationship between constitutional recognition and achieving practical outcomes. The Albanese government proposes to achieve practical outcomes by establishing a constitutional means by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can influence the laws and policies that affect them.

This is the form of constitutional recognition supported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in consultations held across Australia by the Referendum Council, culminating in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It wasn’t invented and imposed top-down by the Albanese government.

In contrast, the Coalition proposes that constitutional recognition be split from practical outcomes. It would instead legislate to establish local and regional Voices, but not a national Voice.

It’s unclear what kind of constitutional recognition the Coalition proposes. But it would appear to be symbolic recognition, such as a reference in a preamble. This could be in either the existing preamble in the British Act that contains the Australian Constitution, or in a new preamble inserted in the Constitution itself.

Such an approach, however, was rejected by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives at the consultations held by the Referendum Council, and at Uluru.

Read more:
The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve?

Constitutional recognition needs the support of those recognised

History and common sense tell us there’s no point in seeking to recognise a group in the Constitution in a manner they reject. Voters will justifiably ask why they should vote for a form of recognition opposed by the people who are to be recognised.

The 1999 preamble referendum shows us the futility of engaging in a top-down process. Then-Prime Minister John Howard decided to run a second question at the republic referendum that would insert a new preamble in the Constitution. He ignored the elements of a preamble that had been agreed upon by the 1998 Constitutional Convention. Instead, he prepared his own draft, in consultation with the poet Les Murray.

The exposure draft of that preamble included the words:

Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines [sic] and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups criticised this wording. In particular, the word “inhabited” wasn’t seen as properly respecting the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their lands and waters.

A new draft was then developed by Howard in conjunction with the Australian Democrats Senator, Aden Ridgeway, who was the only Aboriginal member of the parliament at the time.

It included the phrase:

honouring Aborigines [sic] and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country.

But the failure to consult more widely with Indigenous leaders, and the inappropriate application of the word “kinship”, resulted in some Indigenous groups campaigning against it.

The preamble referendum failed. It achieved support from only 39% of the people and fared poorly in seats with a high Indigenous population.

The chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Gatjil Djerrkura, welcomed the defeat of the referendum. He said that while the preamble was meant to unite the nation, it had been drafted without any meaningful discussion with the Australian people – both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. He said this lack of consultation was a clear lesson for future referendums.

A Coalition commitment to Indigenous constitutional recognition will be a hollow one if it doesn’t involve engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and provide a form of recognition that’s acceptable to them.

A headless Voice?

The other plank of the Coalition’s policy is legislating to establish local and regional Voices.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton observed, quite rightly, that most laws affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are state or local laws. But the Commonwealth creating local and regional Voices won’t have any effect on those state and local laws.

Commonwealth law can only deal with how the representations made by these Voices affect Commonwealth policies and laws. It’s a matter for the states whether they create their own Voices, as South Australia has done, or seek representations from Commonwealth bodies.

Second, creating local and regional Voices is a recipe for chaos if there’s no way of channelling their representations through to the parliament and executive government in an orderly way.

Is it really sensible for a national decision-maker to receive 72 different representations direct from local Voices, which say different things? How effective would that be, and what would be the administrative burden of such an unwieldy system? Wouldn’t it be more rational to have a national body which receives input from all the local and regional Voices, and can provide comprehensive and well-considered advice?

The current proposal of the Albanese government is to have a national Voice which receives input from local communities so it can make practical and well-informed representations to the Commonwealth.

Whether separate local and regional Voices are established, or existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bodies are used to provide that local input, will be a matter for parliament.

Such an approach has been anticipated. The Referendum Working Group asked the Constitutional Expert Group for advice on this, with that advice confirming parliament would have the power “to establish sub-national Voices”.

Read more:
The Liberal Party’s ‘no’ position on Voice signals it’s primarily interested in speaking to a nation that no longer exists

The campaign

The campaign is likely to be rancorous, but the similarities between the major parties’ policies should negate some of the arguments.

For example, it would be difficult for the Coalition to run arguments that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should not be treated differently in the Constitution, or given any special capacity to influence parliament and the executive. This is because the federal Liberal Party has said it supports constitutional recognition, and supports local and regional Voices to influence Commonwealth laws and policies.

While the referendum vote itself will be between the status quo and the proposed amendment, the people now have a clearer view of the political alternatives and can judge for themselves which would lead to better outcomes.

Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and sometimes does consultancy work for governments and Parliaments. She was a member of the Constitution Expert Group which advised the Referendum Working Group on the proposed referendum.

– ref. How does the Liberal Party’s Voice policy stack up against the proposed referendum? – https://theconversation.com/how-does-the-liberal-partys-voice-policy-stack-up-against-the-proposed-referendum-203352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Possingham, Professor, The University of Queensland

Australia has embarked on an experiment to create a market for biodiversity. No, we’re not talking about buying and selling wildlife, although, sadly, there is a black market for that. This is about repairing and restoring landscapes, providing habitat for threatened species and getting business and philanthropy to help pay for it.

When Environment and Water Minister Tanya Plibersek introduced the Nature Repair Market Bill to parliament last week, she said:

Just because something is difficult, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. It means we should do it properly.

I agree. We have been publishing research on this topic for decades, discussing the issue with scientists, social scientists and economists. Now as chief scientist at the not for profit environmental accounting organisation Accounting for Nature and chief councillor at the Biodiversity Council, we are working hard to help turn the theory into reality.

There is, rightfully, a lot of concern about the integrity of biodiversity markets. However, with appropriate processes in place from governments, including independent authorities that verify biodiversity outcomes, and vigilance from the community, there is potential to create a well-behaved, net-positive biodiversity market in Australia.

Read more:
The historic COP15 outcome is an imperfect game-changer for saving nature. Here’s why Australia did us proud

What does a biodiversity market look like?

Australia has signed up to the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity, which commits us to protecting and restoring 30% of the land for nature. This means 30% of every kind of habitat – it can’t just be deserts and salt lakes, for example.

That’s a big task, and governments can’t do it alone. It’s going to have to be the entire community, every single individual. This isn’t just about protection, a lot will be habitat restoration which needs serious investment.

Read more:
The new major players in conservation? NGOs thrive while national parks struggle

The general public is increasingly concerned about the decline of nature in their local parks and backyards. One example is a nationwide concern about the disappearance of willie wagtails, a bird many Australians have grown up with. The loss of nature affects everyone, and can harm our mental health. It is not just about threatened species.

Concern for the cassowarry in the wet tropics region of far north Queensland prompted environmental management organisation Terrain NRM (natural resource management) to create a new biodiversity market scheme called Cassowary Credits. Terrain NRM says this is:

a mechanism that enables investors such as governments, philanthropists or corporates to pay landholders and land managers to undertake habitat restoration activities.

Australia has well over half a million different species, and about a third of them have a name. You can’t run a market for that many species – so the challenge will be to develop ways of quantifying biodiversity that are credible and simple.

Trial and error

A credible market needs a credible biodiversity currency (let’s call it a token). Such a token requires many attributes to make it work. The token should be awarded for measurable outcomes, like an increase in the abundance of hooded robins (a recently listed threatened woodland bird and one of my favourites) on your property, or an improvement in the extent and quality of native vegetation.

These outcomes need to be “additional”, outcomes that would not have otherwise happened without the investment. Ideally outcomes are permanent, and above and beyond what would have happened if we did nothing.

And finally, someone has to want to buy them – there is no point in creating a product when there is no demand. Making a trusted and valuable biodiversity currency is going to take time.

Almost 3,000 years ago the Lydians invented a currency based on metal coins with a ruler’s face stamped on it. That’s still roughly how it works, even with most of our money now being digital, rather than physical in coins and notes. However, even after 3,000 years, money is not yet perfect. Its value constantly changes, and it can collapse, too. There’s still fraud and scams – despite a global army of accountants, financial advisors, mathematicians and lawyers paid to assure integrity.

By comparison, creating a biodiversity market is more complex than stamping a face on a coin. Turning a million-dimensional object – the biodiversity of Australia – into a market will require biodiversity accountants, and biodiversity auditors, and strong laws to govern the new biodiversity markets. However, too much is at stake, and too many species will continue to disappear if we don’t try.

Read more:
Losing the natural world comes with major risks for your super fund and bank

Rivers of gold

The government points to a 2022 PricewaterhouseCoopers report that found a biodiversity market could unlock A$137 billion to repair and protect Australia’s environment by 2050.

It sounds fanciful but it could be even bigger than that. The demand is there, internationally, and it’s growing. Can we bring this investment to Australia?

The idea is companies who want to prove they’re “nature positive” will pay for the privilege; some investment could also come from philanthropy. (Notably this is not about “biodiversity offsetting” where people are forced to compensate for the damage they cause.)

The most important issue is integrity – it is transparent proof that actions have delivered additional permanent outcomes – much like biting a coin in 500 BCE to check it is really gold. And that’s the system we’re still struggling to create.

We’re getting there. A lot of smart people in the finance sector and the ecology sector are coming together to resolve some of these issues. I find it both exciting and uncertain.

Time to be bold

The federal government’s nature repair bill is not perfect. Many submissions have pointed out problems. But it’s a bold effort. And we need bold efforts like this to start taking off.

When you get down to it, everybody really does care a lot – about huge trees, cassowaries and coral reefs, the nature that inspires them, every single day. We all love willie wagtails and want to make a contribution. While governments still need to massively increase investments to repair landscapes and restore habitat for Australian native species, biodiversity markets could be a big part of a zero extinction Australia. So there’s every reason to give biodiversity markets a go.

Editor’s Note: This article has been adapted from an interview with the author published today on the Eco Futurists podcast.

Hugh Possingham works for The University of Queensland (40%), is Co-chair of the Biodiversity Council (10%) and consults for Accounting for Nature (10%) and the Intervention Risk Review Group (IRRG) for the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP) managed by the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences. He is paid (sitting fees) to Chair the board of The Environment Institute of The University of Adelaide, and was on the Biodiversity Offsets Committee of the Queensland Government. He is also affiliated with, or an advisor to: Conservation International (science advisory council), BirdLife Australia (Board of Directors), Nature Conservation Society of SA, AgForce, Birds Queensland, Birds SA, Invasive Species Council, Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Society for Growing Australian Plants, Friends of Sherwood Arboretum, Friends of Oxley Creek Common, etc. and the list goes on. Relevant to this article, he was a past Chief Scientist of The Nature Conservancy (globally). He is an active and substantial donor to Nature Glenelg Trust, The University of Adelaide, The Nature Conservation Society of SA and BirdLife Australia. He has received numerous (>25) Australian Research Council grants, directed an ARC Centre of Excellence, directed three separate NESP (National Environmental Science Program) centres and received over 80 grants from diverse other sources – three of those ARC grants that have been fellowships (QEII, Professorial, Federation and Laureate) have directly altered his salary. He has provided pro bono advice to a wide diversity of organisations. He indirectly owns shares via UniSuper.

– ref. Can a ‘nature repair market’ really save Australia’s environment? It’s not perfect, but it’s worth a shot – https://theconversation.com/can-a-nature-repair-market-really-save-australias-environment-its-not-perfect-but-its-worth-a-shot-203126

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hallam Stevens, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, James Cook University

Last week, an Australian “cultured meat” company called Vow made headlines with a meatball made from the flesh of a woolly mammoth – or something very much like it. Combining the technologies of lab-based cell culture and “de-extinction,” Vow scientists grew muscle proteins based on DNA sequences from the long-dead proboscideans.

The meatball was not intended for human consumption, but Vow hoped the gimmick would highlight the lighter environmental footprint of lab-grown meats, using the mammoth as a “a symbol of diversity loss and a symbol of climate change”. The meatball also hinted at a possible new variety and playfulness in meat consumption.

But is lab-grown meat really likely to put mammoths, dodos and other exotica on the menu? Taking into account the safety and economic hurdles the industry will have to clear, the result seems more likely to follow the pattern of genetically modified crops: less diversity, and unforeseen social and environmental effects.

Healthy and safety risks

As Queensland scientist Ernst Wolvetang, who helped to engineer the mammoth-ball, acknowledged:

We haven’t seen this protein for thousands of years, so we have no idea how our immune system would react when we eat it.

Wolvetang thinks any such problems could quickly be solved. But even for lab-grown meat that uses conventional livestock such as beef or chicken, the health and safety risks are far from understood.

Existing concerns include the use of growth hormones in cultured meat, the potential for new or unexpected allergens, the way lines of cultured cells change their shape and function over time, the likelihood of microbial contamination, and uncertainty around the nutrient content.

Even changing the texture or composition of meat may have health effects for our digestive system. These problems are likely to be exacerbated for foods based on resurrected proteins from the distant past.

Consider the ‘meat-systems’

But health and safety aren’t the only issues.

Critics of the de-extinction movement have argued that reintroducing animals like the woolly mammoth into the environment may have unpredictable and disruptive effects.

Would predators adapt? Would grasslands be trampled to oblivion? Should we devote our efforts to preserving still-live animals like rhinoceroses instead? Does the possibility of de-extinction make us less worried than we should be about the effect of humans’ actions on biodiversity?

We should also think in similarly broad terms about the impacts of lab-grown meats. In other words, we shouldn’t just think about meat itself, but about the “meat-systems” that produce it.

What will the economic system of lab-grown meat production look like? How will lab-grown meat disrupt farming and farming communities? How might it affect consumption? Will we eat more meat or less if we can gain access to “ethical” meat?

The lesson of GMOs

The development and rollout of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) over the past three decades can give us some important clues as to how such things may play out. Like lab-grown meats, GMOs at first promised the possibilities of diverse crops that would offer health benefits (like Golden Rice) or benefits to the consumer (like the Flavr Savr tomato).

Few of these possibilities were realised. Instead, most of the benefits of GMOs accrued to agricultural companies who developed and sold the seeds.

Rather than increasing the diversity of foods, GMOs have increased monocultures and reduced the variety of foods. This, in turn, has led to negative environmental and social consequences for agricultural communities.

Read more:
The race to protect the food of the future – why seed banks alone are not the answer

Lab-grown meats face a similar risk. Despite the promise of Vow’s mammoth, in the short-term at least, it is likely that lab-grown meats will only become economical for consumers when produced at scale.

This suggests the most likely cultured meats on our menus won’t be alligator or dodo, but standardised versions of beef, chicken or pork. Production is also likely to focus on muscle tissue, rather than offal, feet, bone marrow, or the other diverse parts of animals many of us consume.

The most likely outcome of lab-grown meat is not more diversity in protein, but significantly less.

The Italian response

Just as the mammoth meatball was making its debut, the Italian government moved to ban lab-grown meat, citing health and the nation’s food heritage. Synthetic foods, government ministers argued, would undermine Italian food traditions, threatening mortadella, pancetta and guanciale.

Coldiretti, an Italian farmers’ association that supported the ban, added the move would protect agriculture from “the attacks of multinational companies”.

Read more:
Ultra-processed foods are trashing our health – and the planet

Italy’s proposed ban has been branded “anti-innovation” and a setback for animal rights, but they are right to be cautious about the disruption that lab-grown meat could cause.

The history of GMOs has also shown how turning food into a technology has not only made produce less diverse but also consolidated corporate control over the food supply. Even if lab-grown meats are shown to be physiologically safe, we need to establish that they are economically, politically and culturally safe too.

Hallam Stevens has previously received funding from the National Heritage Board (Singapore), the Ministry of Education (Singapore) and the Research Grants Council (Hong Kong).

– ref. A mammoth meatball hints at a future of exotic lab-grown meats, but the reality will be far more boring, and rife with problems – https://theconversation.com/a-mammoth-meatball-hints-at-a-future-of-exotic-lab-grown-meats-but-the-reality-will-be-far-more-boring-and-rife-with-problems-203243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alix Woolard, Postdoctoral research fellow, Telethon Kids Institute

Traumatic experiences are surprisingly common, with about three-quarters of the population dealing with some form of trauma at least once in their lives. This might mean experiencing things like abuse, violence or natural disasters.

Experiencing a traumatic event alone is not enough to cause traumatic stress (a “trauma”). The person experiencing the trauma needs to view the event as highly distressing or life-threatening.

While trauma can be incredibly difficult to process and can leave lasting scars, there is another side to the story: post-traumatic growth.

Post-traumatic growth is the positive psychological change that can occur in response to a traumatic event. It is often mistaken as resilience, which means bouncing back to baseline following adversity. Post-traumatic growth, on the other hand, refers to an improvement in your life or outlook.

Read more:
More than half of Australians will experience trauma, most before they turn 17. We need to talk about it

What does this growth look like?

People who have experienced post-traumatic growth describe having a greater appreciation for life, increased personal strength, deeper relationships, a greater sense of spirituality or meaning, or a new sense of possibilities for the future.

Someone who has experienced a traumatic event may decide, for example, to make a career change or start a new hobby. Some people report wanting to give back to the community or others in need after experiencing situations where they needed help after trauma. Or they may begin to prioritise their relationships more or focus on personal growth and self-improvement.

While post-traumatic growth can be a powerful force for positive change, it’s not guaranteed. About one in two people who experience trauma will undergo post-traumatic growth. Younger people and those who experienced trauma recently are more likely to have post-traumatic growth.

Our research has found some common elements that make it more likely for a person to experience post-traumatic growth, regardless of the type of trauma experienced.

1. Strong social supports

The most important factor promoting post-traumatic growth is support from friends, family, and those around you after you have experienced a traumatic event. Seeking and accepting social support are crucial, and it can be helpful to reach out to people who have experienced similar trauma through things like support groups.

Research shows the quality of social support is important too. People report more post-traumatic growth if the support they receive comes from people they trust.

Social support is so crucial that some treatments interventions have focused on the use of social networks to improve the recovery of people who have experienced trauma. For example, some post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recovery programs include support groups to help people heal.

Read more:
Explainer: what is post-traumatic stress disorder?

2. Coping skills

Coping strategies such as humour, acceptance and focusing on the future are effective at reducing our distress after trauma, and they make it more likely we will heal and find positive aspects in our experiences.

People who experience post-traumatic growth often say they have a greater sense of inner strength and feel better equipped to handle stress and hardship in the future. These types of coping strategies are sometimes inherent, but often they can also be enhanced by therapy.

3. Personality traits

People who tend to be optimistic are more likely to experience post-traumatic growth. Instead of seeing the traumatic event as purely negative, optimistic people are able to find some positive aspects of their experience.

This can be difficult, as traumatic experiences often involve loss, pain, and suffering. However, by finding meaning and purpose in the experience – for example, by sharing their story with others going through similar experiences – people can begin to see themselves and the world in a new light.

Again, this is sometimes inherent, but can be enhanced by engaging with a mental health professional.

Read more:
For people with chronic pain, flexibility and persistence can protect wellbeing

Some studies have also found being more extroverted can help people experience post-traumatic growth. This may be because extroverted people are more likely to seek social support because they tend to find themselves in more social situations.

4. Religion or spirituality

Religion often teaches that transformation and power can arise in the face of suffering.

Research shows people who are religious (or spiritual) often experience post-traumatic growth because they have a greater sense of community, pastoral support and a higher meaning behind hardship.

Treatment also prioritises the same factors

The ways people flourish after adversity have helped inform researchers and clinicians on the best ways to treat post-traumatic stress.

Social support, helpful coping and finding meaning are core components of therapies commonly used by people who have experienced adversity, such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy, family therapy, and trauma-focused acceptance and commitment therapy.

Of course, post-traumatic growth is only part of the story, and it is an ongoing process. Trauma impacts people in many different ways. Sometimes healing from trauma or experiencing post-traumatic growth can be related to factors outside of a person’s control, such as their resources or socioeconomic status.

There are no guarantees a person will experience growth after trauma, but factors like social support, helpful coping, personality traits, and finding meaning make it more likely.

Read more:
‘The reporting process was more traumatising than the assault itself’: LGBTQ+ survivors on accessing support after sexual violence

Alix Woolard receives funding from the Perth Children’s Hospital Foundation and Channel Seven Telethon Trust.

– ref. Experiencing trauma can change some people’s outlook on life – sometimes for the better – https://theconversation.com/experiencing-trauma-can-change-some-peoples-outlook-on-life-sometimes-for-the-better-199088

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Beck, Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash University

There’s a good chance your local council starts each official council meeting with a religious prayer – and it’s almost always a Christian prayer.

Around one-third of Australian local governments have a prayer, with the figure rising to more than half of councils in New South Wales and Victoria.

These are just some of the findings reported in my recent article in the Journal for the Academic Study of Religion.

The issue of council prayers is highly contentious. Here’s why it is probably unlawful, and why I think councils should stop.

How many councils have official prayers?

It’s difficult to find up-to-date figures about the number of local councils with official prayers, as things are changing all the time.

But figures from mid-2019 show council prayers are most common in the more populous states.

There are variations in how councils go about praying. The most common method is for the mayor to lead the council in prayer (88 councils do this, out of the 522 councils looked at). The next most common is for a guest preacher to lead the council in prayer (55 councils), followed by a councillor other than the mayor leading the prayer (28 councils), followed by a council official leading the prayer (19 councils).

For 91% of Australian councils, the prayer is always a Christian one. Usually this is because the council has a prescribed prayer that’s used every time.

Even when guest preachers are invited, diversity isn’t the goal. Many councils invite only Christian guests. One council even had a policy of inviting preachers from non-Christian faith groups on condition they recite a Christian prayer.

The best way to find out whether and how your council prays is to check the video recording of a recent council meeting. These can be found in the meetings section of your council’s website.

A contentious practice

Adelaide City Council is currently considering whether to stop its practice of praying as part of its official meetings.

The Australian Christian Lobby is running a campaign trying to persuade Adelaide councillors to keep the prayer. It argues that “prayer reminds people that our democracy was founded on Christian truth” and that it is “standing up for religious freedom”.

In January, a group of 21 councillors from various Victorian councils wrote an open letter to the state government and human rights commission asking that guidance be issued to councils about the appropriateness of council prayers.

They wrote that some councillors “object to being compelled […] to participate in a religious ritual as part of their role”, that others think it is unfair and inconsistent with multiculturalism to favour one religion over others, and that others think governmental bodies should be “neutral in matters of religion”.

Census figures show that most Australians today are not Christian. About 44% of Australians report being Christian, while 39% report being not religious at all.

Is it even legal?

England’s High Court ruled in 2012 that official prayers in English local councils were unlawful. The High Court pointed out that governmental bodies like councils can only do things the law says they can do.

The High Court found there was no law allowing English councils to have prayers, which meant that councils having prayers was unlawful. The British Parliament later passed a law to expressly allow councils to have prayers.

Last year, I published an article in the Alternative Law Journal arguing that the logic of the English High Court decision applies in Australia too. There’s no law in any Australian jurisdiction allowing local councils to include religious prayers as part of the official business of council meetings. Indeed, Australian local government legislation emphasises the importance of equality and councils respecting the diversity of their populations.

Australian councils know there are legal risks in continuing to include religious prayers as part of their official meetings.

In Queensland, Fraser Coast Regional Council’s chief executive told that council in January 2023 he had received legal advice that their Christian prayer practice may be discriminatory under Queensland’s religious discrimination laws.

Read more:
A ‘Christian nation’ no longer: why Australia’s religious right loses policy battles even when it wins elections

The corporate governance manager of Banyule City Council in Victoria reported to that council in July 2022 that its prayer

raise[s] human rights implications as a person, particularly councillors or staff, who identify as being of no religion or holding secular beliefs or other non-Christian beliefs, may feel coerced by having to recite a Christian prayer as part of the council meeting formalities.

And just last month, Boroondara Council in suburban Melbourne halted its practice of praying during council meetings in response to a legal letter from Maurice Blackburn lawyers representing a non-religious councillor.

Maurice Blackburn’s Jennifer Kanis told The Age newspaper that having religious prayers as part of official council meetings was “beyond the powers given to council” as well as being in contravention of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

A council may well find itself in court over this issue. But instead of dealing with court cases, our elected representatives should simply choose to open their official council meetings with something more inclusive and representative of the whole community.

Luke Beck is a board member of the Rationalist Society of Australia Inc.

– ref. Many local councils still officially pray to God. Here’s why this may be unlawful and should be abandoned – https://theconversation.com/many-local-councils-still-officially-pray-to-god-heres-why-this-may-be-unlawful-and-should-be-abandoned-203192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sana Nakata, Principal Research Fellow, James Cook University

The Liberal Party’s decision to formally oppose the federal government’s model for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament amounts to a resounding “no” position – but perhaps not in the way party leader Peter Dutton thinks.

It’s a “no” to the proposed Voice model, obviously, but it’s also a “no” to the Australia we live in today. This position bets against Australia and its First Peoples.

The party’s decision comes on the heels of a decisive loss in the Aston by-election, and polling that continues to show majority support for the Voice in five of the six states.

This decision further signals the Liberal Party is primarily interested in speaking to a nation that no longer exists.

We are not the nation we were when we voted “no” to a republic – but this seems to be the nation the Liberal Party insists on speaking to.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Peter Dutton’s risky call to campaign for ‘No’ in Voice referendum

Symbolic recognition isn’t enough

Dutton yesterday attempted to put a positive spin the party room’s decision, announcing:

The Liberal Party resolved today to say yes to constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, yes to a local and regional body, so we can get practical outcomes for Indigenous people on the ground, [but] there was a resounding no to the prime minister’s Voice.

This position emphasises “yes” to constitutional recognition but only in its symbolic form.

Australia has already tried symbolic recognition. Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in a preamble to the Constitution was proposed at the 1999 republic referendum; the referendum was unsuccessful.

Symbolic recognition has been abandoned as a goal by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Voice proposal arises out of the 13 national dialogues, and its 1,200 delegates, who rejected symbolic recognition in favour of structural change.

The Liberal Party has said “no” to this call for structural change that redresses the torment of our powerlessness.

Local and regional voices have gone unheard in Canberra

Dutton said he wanted to get the “best possible outcomes for Indigenous Australians” but proposes nothing new to achieve this.

He emphasised “yes” to a local and regional body. But this fails to account for the fact that the many existing local and regional bodies have expressed time and time again that their voices are not heard in Canberra.

The design principles that have shaped the proposed Voice model already commit to local decision-making in determining its membership, and to working alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. This model proposes connecting local and regional voices to the national Voice.

Across the Coalition, Nationals leader David Littleproud, whose party had already decided against supporting the Voice proposal, has described the proposed Voice model as just “another layer of bureaucracy here in Canberra”. But that fails to account for the fact it is aiming for the kind of structural change that has not been tried before.

The Coalition has consistently called for more detail on the model and expressed concern the proposed Voice model goes too far, and could potentially undermine parliament’s authority.

This is despite the overwhelming legal advice to the contrary.

Read more:
What happens if the government goes against the advice of the Voice to Parliament?

In all, these arguments amount to a confusing position.

Yes to constitutional recognition, but only if it doesn’t change anything.

No to the proposed referendum, because it’s not going to change anything.

No to the proposed referendum, but because the changes actually go too far.

Despite the consistently supportive polling, the Voice referendum is far from a sure thing.

When the 1967 referendum provided powers to the Commonwealth to make laws about us at the national level, it was yet to be made clear that did not necessarily mean they had to be made to our benefit.

When the former Abbott government consolidated Indigenous programs into the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, cutting more than A$500 million from programs with little to no notice to communities, the Recognise campaign for symbolic recognition (established by former prime minister Julia Gillard) was still active.

Time and time again, we have seen the failure of symbolic recognition.

Australia has changed

In the 24 years since Australia last voted in a referendum, the nation has changed.

So-called “Howard’s Australia” has been transformed, with a majority of Australians either now a migrant or the child of migrants.

Younger generations are more cynical than idealistic about political life and their own futures.

The Liberal and National parties are banking on the nostalgia of a nation of old, in which responsible political leadership stays the course, and repeatedly calls for trust in systems they say are not broken.

Anyone paying attention knows these systems have never worked for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. And that every success we have had has been in spite of this broken political system that was never meant to hear our many voices.

The “yes” campaign is banking on a nation that knows this.

Sana Nakata receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The Liberal Party’s ‘no’ position on Voice signals it’s primarily interested in speaking to a nation that no longer exists – https://theconversation.com/the-liberal-partys-no-position-on-voice-signals-its-primarily-interested-in-speaking-to-a-nation-that-no-longer-exists-203397

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Breen, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The New Zealand government’s sanctioning of Russian commissioner for children’s rights Maria Lvova-Belova is a further demonstration of its concern over alleged war crimes in Ukraine. But it is only a small step in what will likely be a very long road to justice.

In March, the reported removal of Ukrainian children from Russian-occupied territory to Russia itself triggered the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Russian president Vladimir Putin and Lvova-Belova.

The warrants allege the transfer of children to the Russian Federation is unlawful: such actions are war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Lvova-Belova and Putin have rejected the accusations, with Putin having claimed the
issue would be raised at the United Nations Security Council in early April.

Russia – controversially – now holds the council presidency for the month, but has faced immediate resistance. Because of Lvova-Belova’s involvement, Britain has blocked a planned UN webcast of an informal council meeting to discuss the deportation issue.

Meanwhile, the war continues to have a profound impact on children. Hundreds have been killed in indiscriminate attacks, schools have been disrupted, some two million have been made refugees or are living in extreme poverty. The deportation of children simply piles misery onto misery.

Families during war

The issue of unlawful deportation or transfer of children goes to the heart of international law around the protection of children, which dates back almost a century. The 1924 Declaration on the Rights of the Child originated in efforts to look after the child victims of World War I.

After World War II, the impact of war on humanity in general was recognised in the UN Charter, which aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights”.

À lire aussi :
International Criminal Court has cited Russia’s deportation of Ukrainian children a war crime: on Russia’s long history of weaponising deportation

Those twin ideals were further elaborated on in a number of international legal instruments. Protection of the family, as the natural and fundamental social unit, and of children and childhood, is central to these. Such rights and obligations apply in peacetime as well as during war.

The importance of these values accumulated over decades until the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was agreed in 1989. The deportation of children violates various fundamental children’s rights, including their right to:

• know and be cared for by their parents

• preserve their identity, including their name, nationality and family relations

• be free from unlawful interference with their family.

There are strict rules around the separation of children from their parents. Adoption is permitted only in certain circumstances, with inter-country adoption a last resort.

Special protection for children

As the arrest warrants attest, the deportation of children is a grave breach of international humanitarian law (the rules countries must obey during war). At the centre sit the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and their additional protocols from 1977. The specific aim of these treaties is to protect those who do not take part in hostilities, known as “protected persons”.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, children are entitled to special protection, with rules aimed at protecting their relationships with their parents and families. States must ensure the welfare of children who have been orphaned or separated from their families, and must attempt to reunite families separated by conflict.

À lire aussi :
Are Russian transfers of Ukrainian children to re-education and adoption facilities a form of genocide?

The evacuation of children is permitted during the course of hostilities, although the rules around this were tightened in 1977.

But it is the rules around occupied territories that are key to the arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova. Occupying powers are prohibited from deporting protected persons, including children, from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power (or to any other country).

Occupying powers must also facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parents, and they must not change children’s personal status. Essentially, they must not fracture the relationship between children and their families.

À lire aussi :
Family separations in Ukraine highlight the importance of children’s rights

No impunity

Deportation to the territory of an occupying power heightens the risk that the identity and nationality of such children will be erased, particularly where the deported children are adopted.

But the implications don’t stop at the children themselves, because the continued existence of any group depends on its children. This means the forcible transfer of children from one group to another may also violate the 1948 Genocide Convention if done with the intent to “destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, completely or partially”.

The Rome Statute also includes the forcible transfer of children within the crime of genocide, which is a crime against humanity. But the arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova do not include these particular crimes.

À lire aussi :
Prosecuting Putin for abducting Ukrainian children will require a high bar of evidence – and won’t guarantee the children can come back home

It’s sadly ironic, in light of the arrest warrants and Russia’s presidency of the Security Council this month, that the council not long ago stated “the protection of children should be part of a comprehensive strategy to resolve conflict and sustain peace”.

Russia’s actions must also be examined in light of legal obligatons under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Genocide Convention. There is a long legal road ahead, but the principle is clear: impunity for crimes committed against children in times of war is not an option.

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. Russia’s alleged deportation of Ukrainian children has caused a UN standoff – what international law says and why it matters – https://theconversation.com/russias-alleged-deportation-of-ukrainian-children-has-caused-a-un-standoff-what-international-law-says-and-why-it-matters-202430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camilla Nelson, Associate Professor in Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Just over 10 years ago, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard stood up in the House of Representatives to deliver one of the most unforgettable political speeches in recent memory.

Office workers shared it at the water cooler and over coffee cups. Mothers shared it with their daughters. The speech went viral on the internet. And was watched by women around the world.

Gillard’s “misogyny speech” forms the inciting incident and climatic ending of Joanna Murray-Smith’s new play Julia, produced by the Sydney Theatre Company, featuring actors Justine Clarke and Jessica Bentley.

Only this time – on opening night at the Sydney Opera House – Gillard’s words arrived in a changed world, receiving a standing ovation that was equally for Clarke’s 90-minute virtuoso performance and Murray-Smith’s impassioned writing.

This play is not just about the extraordinarily toxic sexism that Gillard endured, but how she endured it.

Murray-Smith powerfully imagines the felt life, memories and emotions of the woman behind the words, in a work that is avowedly fictional even if built from the facts of Gillard’s life.

‘I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man’

The opening lines of the play set the scene: Canberra, October 9, 2012. Gillard, as prime minister, is squaring off with the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, in the House of Representatives, across the dispatch box.

The first three words of the speech – “I will not” – welling up, from deep inside, send her hurtling back through time and memory. She finds herself in a childhood conversation with her mother, whose lilting Welsh accent is seamlessly reproduced by Clarke, as is the voice of a primary-school-aged Gillard, who insists “I will not” have children: there are better things to do.

Clarke proves herself an actor of extraordinary range in what is essentially a one-woman play, with Bentley playing a silent part, as a younger woman, looking on.

Clarke segues from Gillard as a child to a young woman caught up in the “big hair” and dance moves of the 1980s, a successful corporate lawyer and then prime minster. Astonishingly Clarke twists her face into a deeply familiar, lopsided smirk, and there is Tony Abbott, to whom she says:

“I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.”

Read more:
Julia Gillard hits back at a long history of sexism in parliament

Entrenched prejudice against women

Gillard’s speech erupted onto a political stage when misogyny – redefined by the Macquarie Dictionary, in the wake of her speech, as “entrenched prejudice against women” – was so omnipresent, so normal, so expected that it was invisible to many.

It was five years before #MeToo, six years before Liberal MP Julia Banks quit her seat in the House of Representatives, alleging sexual harassment, including actual groping. It was nine years before Brittany Higgins reported her alleged sexual assault to federal police, and ten years before the sex discrimination commissioner reported on the systemic and entrenched sexism that paralyses the Australian political system.

It was also ten years before a “teal wave” of female independents swept to power, eviscerating the male-dominated Liberal Party in its metropolitan base.

It was a time when the Australian media was happy to amplify sexist insults about Gillard’s clothes, hair, makeup and the shape of her hips. Even the allegedly progressive Age equated her life achievements to a fruit bowl, minus “the bananas”.

In a much-repeated statement, a Liberal MP described her as “deliberately barren”. And Abbott happily posed for television cameras before a clutch of waving placards saying, “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s Bitch”.

Not unexpectedly, when Gillard delivered her speech, most of the Canberra press gallery – with a front row seat – entirely missed the point.

Courage without power

Gillard, with only a slender grip on power, mostly as leader of a minority government, passed a phenomenal 543 individual pieces of legislation in 1,098 days, making her the nation’s most productive prime minister, if the passage of legislation is understood as a government’s measure of effectiveness.

And it’s Gillard’s extraordinary capacity as a negotiator, underpinned by her deep pragmatism, that provides Murray-Smith’s most piercing insights.

It also supplies the play’s most memorable lines. “Courage” without “power” is “just a figment”, she tells us, explaining how heart flutters in those moments when political pragmatism lifts up on “wings of idealism”. It’s a portrait of politics and policymaking as the art of the possible, driven by a concern for what or how much can be achieved – not necessarily what one thinks, wants or most desires.

The ideas gain power from the way in which Murray-Smith contrasts Gillard’s controlled workday exterior with the her night-time flights of fancy – dreaming that radio shock jocks and puerile Young Liberals will cast aside their toxic vitriol.

The play is concerned with Gillard’s reservoirs of emotional strength but does not shy away from where she failed, or what she got wrong. This includes a failure to act on refuges, gay marriage and the extension of punitive Howard-era “welfare to work measures” to single-parent families (which ironically passed through the Senate on the day of the “misogyny speech”).

It also shows a clear awareness of what was lost. And what should have been done but wasn’t.

Perhaps, at the end of the play, what lingers is not the anger and passion and rage, but the sense of hope and the fragile optimism. An idea that we can be better, do better.

It was, I suspect, hope that brought the opening night audience to its feet.

Camilla Nelson 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. Sydney Theatre Company’s Julia powerfully imagines the life and emotions of the woman behind the ‘misogyny speech’ – https://theconversation.com/sydney-theatre-companys-julia-powerfully-imagines-the-life-and-emotions-of-the-woman-behind-the-misogyny-speech-199674