Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Legg, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin University

The human eye registers three colours of light: red, green and blue. But pigeons (and many other animal species) can also see a fourth colour, ultraviolet.

The “four-dimensional” colour space pigeons see may contain millions more colours than ours. To a pigeon, for example, many flowers show patterns that are invisible to us.

Despite the long history of close association between our species, we might say humans and pigeons live in quite different worlds. If different species effectively live in different worlds, does that mean our biology constructs reality?

The question of whether reality exists outside or inside our heads has troubled philosophers for millennia. In a recent paper, my colleague André Sant’Anna and I propose a pragmatic way to resolve this dilemma, based on inquiry and action.

How many worlds are there?

There is a long tradition in philosophy called “realism”. In the realist view, there is just one world with pre-given features that are independent of the mind observing them – and discovering these features is the job of science.

But if something is entirely independent of our minds, how can we know it with our minds? Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?

So there is an equally long history of philosophical argument that the features of reality somehow depend on experience. These thinkers claim that reality does not come pre-carved (at what Plato famously described as a natural set of “joints”). There are as many worlds as there are sets of experiences, and each set of experiences creates a unique perspective (or what Edmund Husserl called a “life-world”).

This deep dispute over the nature of reality and worlds has arisen in almost every generation of philosophers.

How do our bodies shape our experience of the world?

There is an increasingly popular alternative to traditional realism called “enactivism”, which draws inspiration from cognitive science.

Enactivism made its debut in 1990, in a book by Francisco J. Varela, Eleanor Rosch and Evan Thompson called The Embodied Mind. Bringing together scientific biology, Husserl’s life-worlds and Buddhist philosophy, the authors theorised that just as a living creature grows and repairs its own body, it “enacts” its own environment as having features of importance to itself, such as food or danger.

As Thompson later wrote,

a cognitive being’s world – whatever that being is able to experience, know, and practically handle – is conditioned by that being’s form or structure.

The limits of the life-world

On the face of it, though, enactivism leaves certain important questions unanswered.

First, how do species successfully interact with each other when their perceptual capacities seem to put them in quite different life-worlds? For instance, during the first world war, a pigeon named Cher Ami heroically carried a message that saved the lives of 200 British soldiers despite being shot down by enemy fire, for which he was awarded a gold medal.

Second, it seems scientists should be able to investigate how different species’ different bodies create different perceptual experiences. But if all species – including ourselves – are “locked up” in their own life-worlds, such inquiry is impossible.

These two issues are what we set out to resolve in our recent paper.

Do shared experiences and actions create reality?

We propose a new alternative to the dilemma of understanding reality as either pre-given or located in subjective individual experiences, drawing on the ideas of pragmatist philosopher Charles Peirce. We argue for an inquiry-based realism, whereby reality depends on our minds but is still public and objective.

As we explain it, reality is grasped through pragmatic agreement. This means individuals align their expectations about what others will do in similar lived situations.

So, for instance, although a WWI soldier and a pigeon with their different eye structures perceive a shooting enemy quite differently, they pragmatically agree that he is dangerous when they both move away. As we saw with Cher Ami, humans and pigeons can also agree on the supreme importance of reaching “home base” with a delivery.

This highlights a key characteristic of pragmatist philosophy. It does not define cognition as a kind of consciousness, an idea that has led to apparently insoluble philosophical problems.

Rather, pragmatists view knowledge of reality as implicit in what we can do, most especially what we can do with others.

Pragmatic agreement with other species

Of course, there will be many matters on which different species do not currently have pragmatic agreement. For instance, while humans and pigeons both understand the danger of an enemy firing a gun, it would be lost on a dung beetle happily feeding in the same WWI trench.

But we should not hastily conclude from this that reality must always be plural. Peirce’s inquiry-based account of reality expresses an optimistic hope that over time we can find ways to bring species into ever greater pragmatic agreement.

What is required is that we put ourselves into the same environments, do similar things, and develop shared goals. Thus Peirce defined truth as “the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate”.

We believe our account provides a nuanced and original vision of reality for enactivism. It allows creatures’ unique perceptual powers a role in shaping their own reality, but it also allows that reality is objective, in a different way than traditional realism.

We are arguably only beginning to understand how to understand the realities in which non-human animals live. Peirce’s philosophy shows us how such understanding can be achieved over time. And if we can manage to increase our pragmatic agreement with other species, we stand to receive many gifts in widening the reality in which we ourselves live.

Catherine Legg 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. Your world is different from a pigeon’s – but a new theory explains how we can still live in the same reality – https://theconversation.com/your-world-is-different-from-a-pigeons-but-a-new-theory-explains-how-we-can-still-live-in-the-same-reality-232479

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Damien Fordham, Associate Professor of Global Change Ecology, Adelaide University

New Zealand was once home to giant flightless birds called moa. They had grown accustomed to life without predators. So the arrival of humans in the mid-13th century presented a massive – and ultimately insurmountable – challenge to their existence.

Moa were unable to cope with even low levels of hunting by people. All nine species of moa were driven to extinction soon after first contact with humans. These moa populations collapsed and disappeared so swiftly it seemed impossible to trace their declines, until now.

In our new research, we reconstructed patterns of population decline, range contraction and extinction for six moa species. We simulated interactions of moa with humans and their surroundings using hundreds of thousands of scenarios. Then we validated these simulations against information from fossils.

We found all six species collapsed and converged on the cold, isolated mountains of New Zealand’s North and South Islands. These happen to be the same sites where the last of New Zealand’s flightless birds can be found today.

The Polynesian colonisation of New Zealand

Oceanic islands tend to be hotspots of biodiversity, harbouring some of the most bizarre evolutionary marvels on Earth. They include daisies the size of trees, elephants the size of great Danes, and countless species of flightless birds.

Unfortunately, islands are also hotspots of extinction. This is particularly true for oceanic islands in the Pacific, which were among the last areas on the planet to have been settled and transformed by humanity.

Human expansion across the Pacific began some 4,000 years ago, when people set out on extraordinary sea voyages from Taiwan. They first headed south into the Philippines, and then onto some of the most isolated islands on the planet.

These daring journeys required impressive seafaring vessels and navigational skills to cross thousands of kilometres of open waters.

Migration into central and east Polynesia was the final phase of these ancient voyages. It culminated in the colonisation of the New Zealand Archipelago in the mid-13th century by Polynesians, the ancestors of Māori.

People started fires, hunted animals and introduced invasive species – including Pacific rats. Accordingly, New Zealand’s unique biodiversity was decimated in one of the largest and most rapid collapses of native wildlife in the Pacific.

Range collapses and extinctions of moa

Moa disappeared within three centuries of human arrival. But they didn’t all go at once.

Our research suggests Mantell’s moa went first, within just 100 years. Almost another 100 years would pass before the extinction of any other moa species.

Mantell’s moa was especially vulnerable to extinction because of its slow population growth rate. Unfortunately, even low but sustained harvesting well exceeded the bird’s capacity to reproduce and compensate for these losses.

Other species were slightly more resilient. They benefited from attributes such as higher growth rates, larger ranges, bigger populations or better abilities to live at higher altitudes (far from people).

The stout-legged moa lasted the longest. It finally disappeared some three centuries after human arrival.

Our research suggests all moa disappeared from high-quality lowland habitats first. These were places favoured by people.

The rate of population decline then decreased as you go higher into the mountains and further away from the coastline.

It was previously thought the ranges of species under pressure would contract to their optimal or preferred habitats, where they were most abundant, rather than as far away from people as they could get.

Today’s flightless birds cling to moa refuges

Our research also took a closer look at the distribution of New Zealand’s living flightless birds.

It turns out ancient moa refuges now harbour populations of endangered native flightless birds including the takahē, weka and great spotted kiwi. Moa refuges were also the last mainland habitats for the critically endangered kākāpō.

These sites do not provide optimal habitat for living flightless birds either. Rather, they remain the most isolated and relatively untouched by humanity.

While New Zealand’s remaining flightless birds are no longer being hunted to extinction, threats to their survival still align with human activity.

Habitat loss and impacts of invasive species follows waves of European settlement across New Zealand, which gradually progressed from lowland sites to the less hospitable, cold and mountainous regions.

Efforts to conserve New Zealand’s remaining flightless birds can heed lessons from the ghosts of species past. The sad demise of the moa highlights the immense importance of isolated areas. If we are to prevent future extinctions, we need to protect and preserve these remote, wild places.

Our research also offers a new approach to understanding past extinctions, especially on islands where fossil and archaeological data are limited.

Damien Fordham receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jamie Wood, Mark V. Lomolino, and Sean Tomlinson 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. Ghosts of species past: shedding new light on the demise of NZ’s moa can help other flightless birds – https://theconversation.com/ghosts-of-species-past-shedding-new-light-on-the-demise-of-nzs-moa-can-help-other-flightless-birds-228362

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joseph Ibrahim, Professor, Aged Care Medical Research Australian Centre for Evidence Based Aged Care, La Trobe University

Elder abuse is an emerging public health and safety issue for communities of high-income countries.

The most recent data from Australia’s National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study, which surveyed 7,000 older people living in the community, found one in six self-reported being a victim of some form of abuse. But this did not include older people living in residential aged care or those with cognitive impairment, such as dementia – so is likely an underestimate.

This week the Australian government announced a multi-million dollar advertising campaign it hopes will address this serious and abhorrent abuse.

But is investing in community awareness of elder abuse the best use of scarce resources?

What is elder abuse?

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines elder abuse as

[…] a single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person.

Australia usually defines older people as those over 65. The exact age varies between countries depending on the overall health status of a nation and its vulnerable population groups. The WHO definitions of an older adult for sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is over 50. And there are communities with poorer health status and shorter lifespans within country borders, including our First Nations people.

Elder abuse can take on many different forms including physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, or financial abuse and neglect.

Living longer and wealthier

The number of older people in our society is greater than it has ever been. Around 17% Australians are aged 65 and over. By 2071, older Australians will make up between 25% and 27% of the total population.

People are living longer, accumulating substantial wealth and are vulnerable to abuse due to cognitive, physical or functional limitations.

Longer lifespans increase the time of possible exposure to abuse. Australian men aged 65 can expect to live another 20.2 years, while women aged 65 are likely to live another 22.8 years. (Life expectancy for First Nations men and women remains significantly shorter.)

Australian men are now 143 times more likely to reach the age of 100 than they were in 1901. Women are 82 times more likely.

Older people hold a large proportion of our nation’s wealth, making them vulnerable to financial abuse. Recent research by the Australian Council of Social Service and UNSW Sydney reveals older households (with people over 65) are 25% wealthier than the average middle-aged household and almost four times as wealthy as the average under-35 household.

Finally, older people have higher levels of impairment in their thinking, reasoning and physical function. Cognitive impairment, especially dementia, increases from one in 67 Australians under 60 to almost one in two people aged over 90.

Over half of Australians aged 65 years and over have disability. A particularly vulnerable group are the 258,374 older Australians who receive government-funded home care.

Who perpetrates elder abuse?

Sadly, most of the perpetrators of elder abuse are known to their victims. They are usually a member of the family, such as a life partner, child or grandchild.

Elder abuse causes significant illness and even early death. Financial abuse (across all ages) costs the community billions of dollars. Specific data for financial elder abuse is limited but indicates massive costs to individual survivors and the community.

Despite this, the level of awareness of elder abuse is likely to be much lower than for family violence or child abuse. This is partly due to the comparatively recent concept of elder abuse, with global awareness campaigns only developed over the past two decades.

Is an advertising campaign the answer?

The federal government has allocated A$4.8 million to an advertising campaign on television, online and in health-care clinics to reach the broader community. For context, last year the government spent $131.4 million on all media campaigns, including $32.6 million on the COVID vaccination program, $2 million on Japanese encephalitis and $3.2 million on hearing health awareness.

The campaign will likely benefit a small number of people who may be victims and have the capacity to report their perpetrators to authorities. It will generate some heartbreaking anecdotes. But it is unlikely to achieve broad community or systemic change.

There is little research evidence to show media campaigns alter the behaviour of perpetrators of elder abuse. And suggesting the campaign raises awareness of the issue for older people who are survivors of abuse sounds more like blaming victims than empowering them.

We don’t know how the government will judge the success of the campaign, so taxpayers won’t know whether a reasonable return on this investment was achieved. There may also be opportunity costs associated with the initiative – that is, lost opportunities for other actions and strategies. It could be more effective and efficient to target high-risk subgroups or to allocate funding to policy, practice reform or research that has direct tangible benefits for survivors.

But the campaign can’t hurt, right?

Actually, the dangers that could come with an advertising campaign are two-fold.

First it may well oversimplify a highly complex issue. Identifying and managing elder abuse requires an understanding of the person’s vulnerabilities, their decision-making capacity and ability to consent, the will and preferences of victim and the role of perpetrator in the older person’s life. Abuse happens in the context of family and social networks. And reporting abuse can have consequences for the victim’s quality of life and care.

Consider the complexities of a case where an older person declines to have her grandson reported to police for stealing her money and medication because of her fear of becoming socially isolated. She might even feel responsible for the behaviour having raised the grandson and not want him to have a criminal record.

Secondly, a public campaign can create the illusion government and our institutions have the matter “in hand”. This might slow the opportunity for real change.

Ideally, the campaign will strengthen the argument for better policies, reporting procedures, policing, prosecution and judgements that are aligned. But these ends will also need investment in more research to build better communities that take good care of older people.

Joseph Ibrahim previously received funding from state and federal governments.

– ref. Older people’s risk of abuse is rising. Can an ad campaign protect them? – https://theconversation.com/older-peoples-risk-of-abuse-is-rising-can-an-ad-campaign-protect-them-235303

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn MacCallum, Associate Professor of Digital Education Futures, University of Canterbury

The government recently announced ambitions to expand the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in New Zealand’s classrooms. But as the technology rapidly changes, it is not clear how this would work or what it will mean for teachers and learners.

Science Minister Judith Collins’ vision is for every student to have their own AI tutor. As Collins explained in a recent interview,

So instead of having to be wealthy enough to employ a tutor to help the children with the maths or science questions, or something else that the parent doesn’t know much about maybe, is to enable that child to have their own [AI] tutor.

But like AI itself, the concept of an AI tutor is still evolving. The idea of creating a “teaching machine” has been around for 100 years or so, and “intelligent tutoring systems” have been around since the 1980s with limited results.

The more recent advances of AI have rekindled the elusive promises of these systems. But while the technology has evolved, the basic concept of a machine taking over some of the responsibilities of the teacher has remained the same.

The risk of replacing human tutors

An AI tutor is a proxy for a human tutor — supporting and “scaffolding” a student’s learning. Scaffolding is the space between what a learner can do without assistance and what they can learn next with the support of someone who is more knowledgeable.

In theory, an AI Tutor can play this role. But there are inherent dangers. What if your more knowledgeable tutor is not, in fact, more knowledgeable, but just makes things up? Or shows bias? Or favours uncritical, shallow material over more reliable resources?

The features that give generative AI its capabilities to interact with users also create its flaws. AI relies on the data it is trained on. However, this data can be wrong, and AI neither validates what goes into it, nor what comes out.

This issue has raised concerns about fairness. As AI tools consume quantities of unfiltered data, the risk is they will reinforce existing biases in this data, perpetuating gender stereotypes and other negative outcomes.

For people from Indigenous cultures, including Māori and Pacific peoples, AI provides both opportunities and threats.

If AI systems are trained on biased data or without considering diverse perspectives, there is a high likelihood decisions being made based on these systems will favour one group over others, reinforce stereotypes, and ignore or undervalue different ways of living and thinking.

The concern isn’t just about the influence AI can have on us but also how AI consumes and processes data. AI systems are trained on vast amounts of data, often without properly acknowledging the sources or respecting creators’ copyrights.

For Indigenous peoples, this can infringe upon their data sovereignty rights and exploit their cultural and knowledge heritage. This exploitation can perpetuate inequality and undermine the rights and contributions of Indigenous communities.

A “walled garden” approach

A commonly proposed answer to this problem is to train AI systems on carefully curated data.

Book publisher Pearson, for example, has recently integrated AI in 50 of their textbooks. This allows students to use AI chatbots to engage with the texts.

According to Pearson, these tools are developed using a “walled garden” approach. The AI is trained only on the contents of these books. This, Pearson claims, reduces the risks of inaccuracies.

However, the walled garden approach also has major drawbacks, since it limits content to that selected and approved by the supplier. What does this mean for cultural knowledge and rights? Critical perspectives? Innovation in learning?

Pearson has, for example, been criticised for the content of some of its books. In 2017, the company apologised for a medical textbook considered “racist”.

If a New Zealand AI tutor were to be created from local data, how could we ensure tikanga Māori protocols are safeguarded? As highlighted by Māori scholar Te Hurinui Clarke, there are significant challenges around the respectful and ethical handling of Māori knowledge.

Protecting knowledge

When it comes to AI tutors, policy makers need to ask who would be the custodians of this data, whose knowledge would be used and who has the rights to access?

If done well, a walled garden approach might provide a comprehensive, inclusive, culturally sustaining pathway to better learning. However, given the challenges of such an undertaking (never mind the expense), the chances of success in practice are extremely small.

Meanwhile, we can’t just wait for AI tutors. AI is a reality in schools, and we need to prepare students for what they face now and in the future. Specific tools are important, but our focus should be on developing AI literacy across the educational sector.

This is why we are researching what it means to be AI literate and how this can empower critical evaluation and ethical use, ensuring AI complements rather than replaces human teaching.

We see the development of AI literacy, supported by suitable frameworks, as a priority, something all students, no matter their age, need to have. It is only through this that we can harness AI’s benefits while safeguarding the core values of education.

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. AI tutors could be coming to the classroom – but who taught the tutor, and should you trust them? – https://theconversation.com/ai-tutors-could-be-coming-to-the-classroom-but-who-taught-the-tutor-and-should-you-trust-them-234660

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Humphery-Jenner, Associate Professor of Finance, UNSW Sydney

ANZ is being investigated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) amid serious allegations the bank manipulated markets when it facilitated a A$14 billion sale of government bonds in April last year.

ASIC has now publicly stated it suspects ANZ broke the law. Speaking to the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday, ASIC Chairman Joe Longo said:

It’s a matter for the CEO of ANZ how he wants to characterise it, but it’s on the public record that it is an investigation, which means by definition we suspect a contravention of the law.

Earlier this month, ANZ launched its own internal probe into alleged misconduct within its markets division. ANZ says it is treating the allegations “with the utmost seriousness” and has engaged external legal counsel to assist with its investigations.

ANZ has also been accused of inflating the value of its bond trading by billions of dollars to win “lucrative” government mandates that accrue to firms trading big quantities.

Bond markets? Government mandates? You’d be forgiven for feeling a bit lost.

On its face, the alleged wrongdoing might seem quite esoteric and technical. But the Australian Financial Review has suggested the matter could end up becoming “the biggest scandal” in ANZ’s 182-year history.

To be clear, these are allegations amid an ongoing investigation by Australia’s corporate regulator. But it’s important to understand exactly what the bank has been accused of here, and how what happens in the bond market has the potential to affect us all.

It’s all about government borrowing

To understand the allegations against ANZ, you need a good grasp of a slightly dry-sounding and fairly routine transaction.

The Australian government often borrows money. It does this by selling so-called “bonds” to investors.

An investor buys a bond – which used to be a piece of paper but is now electronic – and in return receives (usually fixed) interest payments called “coupons”, one each month or year.

At the expiry of the bond, be it after three years, ten years, 20 years or more, the investor gets her or his money back.

You don’t need to understand everything about the way bonds work. You just need to know that bonds are traded in an open market – investors can sell them to other investors, and their price can fluctuate.

The investors’ returns come from a combination of both (a) receiving those coupons, and (b) the difference between what they pay for the bond and the final principal amount they receive at maturity.

If general interest rates climb above the coupon rate on the bond, the price of the bond will fall. This is because the bond simply would not pay enough relative to what they demand for an investment with that level of risk.

Conversely, if general interest rates fall, the bond price is likely to climb.

Banks are appointed to manage bond issues

New government bonds are issued by an arm of the Commonwealth Treasury, known as the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM). For big bond sales, AOFM typically appoints a bank – or banks – to manage the process and engage with investors.

In April 2023, the government contracted ANZ to help manage a large A$14 billion bond sale. This gave ANZ access to confidential information, including details about when the offering would occur.

As part of the role, ANZ was to buy bonds from investors who wished to exchange them for the new bonds. The price of those bonds would depend on the return investors require on government bonds. Recall that if a bond is paying a return that is too low relative to what is required, its price falls. Thus, if the required return increases, the price ANZ has to pay decreases.

You might have heard the adage: buy low and sell high. Well, ANZ allegedly sought to do just that.

It’s alleged ANZ sought to raise bond yields by trading in what is called the “futures market”, which is essentially a market that allows traders to bet on future interest rate moves.

Those bets also influence the reference rate that is used to set the price of new bonds. This is because the government looks to the futures rate to assess what return the market requires on its debt and to set the coupon rate on the bonds it issues.

If that futures rate climbs, then so too does the coupon rate on the government’s new bond issues. This increases the government’s total interest bill.

ANZ is alleged to have manipulated futures yields higher, enabling it to buy bonds from investors at a low price.

ANZ allegedly then reversed its futures trades, letting general interest rates fall and the price of the bonds it held climb, giving it a profit.

If the allegations are true, then ANZ would have engaged in both market manipulation and insider trading. This would be illegal.

The Australian Financial Review says trading data points to unusual price movements on and around April 19 last year.

Market ten-year bond yields either side of April 19 issue being priced

The data appears to show bond prices falling (yields rising) up until the bond was issued on April 19, then climbing as yields fell.

But it’s important to note this graph says nothing about causation. Prices might have fallen for reasons completely unrelated to ANZ.

Overstated success

ANZ has also been accused of overstating its trading success to the government, to secure lucrative bond management opportunities.

The government selects managers based on their experience and activity in trading government bonds. It is alleged ANZ misrepresented how much trading it did.

According to the Australian Financial Review, ANZ told the government it had “facilitated” $137.6 billion in bond trades to the year ended June 2023, when it had really only facilitated $83.2 billion – a discrepancy of $54.4 billion.

It might feel far removed from everyday life, but what happens in the bond market has the potential to affect us all.

If found to be true, ANZ’s alleged manipulation could reportedly have cost taxpayers as much as A$80 million.

That figure reflects how much extra interest the government might be having to pay if it issued bonds with a higher interest rate than it needed to.

Mark Humphery-Jenner 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. ANZ is embroiled in allegations it manipulated government bond sales – what exactly does that mean? – https://theconversation.com/anz-is-embroiled-in-allegations-it-manipulated-government-bond-sales-what-exactly-does-that-mean-234486

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Troon, Research Assistant and Sessional Teaching Associate, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

For decades, the “disaster” film genre has been critically overlooked yet perennially popular.

These movies, which usually depict some kind of global catastrophe, deal with a number of social and ecological issues. But they’ve historically done so in socially conservative ways, veering away from politics.

The latest disaster blockbuster, Twisters, has also omitted any explicit mention of climate change. Some outlets have called this a missed opportunity.

But I’d argue the movie still gets the climate message across in other ways. Director Lee Isaac Chung’s take on the genre updates the old formulaic approach, adapting it – with notable nuance – to suit the current climate crisis.

Disaster movies and the environment

Quite often, disaster movies will feature catastrophic scenarios with tenuous scientific plausibility. Nonetheless, these rich melodramas tap into complex social tensions relating to gender, race, class and environmental and climate issues.

The environment has been a core theme of disaster movies since the 1970s. Films such as The Poseidon Adventure (1972), Towering Inferno (1974) and Earthquake (1974) showed the forces of nature as out-of-control, threatening the advancement of human society.

During the 1990s, natural disaster movies such as Volcano (1997) and the original Twister (1996) came alongside apocalyptic sci-fi spectacles including Independence Day (1996) and Armageddon (1998).

Blockbusters in the 2010s upped the ante yet again with the likes of San Andreas (2015) and Independence Day: Resurgence (2016), in which parts of Earth are literally turned upside down.

The disasters in these films set the stage for contests of human bravery and ingenuity. Macho heroes played by men such as Charlton Heston, Bruce Willis, Will Smith and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson (with his equally earth-shattering muscles) emerge to save the citizens from doom and display their mastery of the natural environment.

The less worthy candidates perish spectacularly, like the cowardly property developer in San Andreas who is crushed by a shipping container on the collapsing Golden Gate Bridge.

Since disaster movies are incredibly formulaic, their heroes conform to particular archetypes: they are men, usually white, who are frequently either ex-military or scientists. In this way, disaster movies consolidate the idea that major ecological threats can be overcome with a gung-ho attitude, brute strength and military and scientific power.

How Twisters is different

Twisters joins the disaster movie canon by partly conforming to these norms, but also departs from them in key ways.

The film’s male leads, Tyler (played by Glenn Powell) and Javi (Anthony Ramos), reflect the masculine heroes of previous disaster movies. Tyler is a maverick, tornado-wranglin’ YouTuber and former cowboy. Javi is an ex-military tech entrepreneur backed by a disaster capitalist.

The hero, however, is a young woman marked by traumatic loss. Kate (Daisy Edgar-Jones) retired from storm chasing after her hubristic early scientific ambition led to the deaths of her friends. But her desire to save the people of Oklahoma (her home state) from increasingly devastating tornadoes pulls her back into the fold with Tyler and Javi.

While Tyler and Javi use scientific equipment, drones and data to predict the appearance of tornadoes, Kate relies on intuitive genius – the film repeatedly shows her gazing perceptively at imposing clouds.

As a character, Kate reflects certain stereotypes about women and the environment, including the notion that women are caregivers. That said, in a genre that is so patently chauvinistic, her inclusion at the heart of Twisters is significant.

She is motivated not by vainglorious self-promotion like Tyler, or monetary gain like Javi’s financier, but by a sincere care for the people and communities she grew up with. The film seems to suggest scientific and technological solutions to environmental problems are futile if they don’t come with genuine human empathy.

Focusing on maternal care also leads the film to point towards climate change, albeit not by name, but still rather overtly. Later in the plot Kate retreats to her mother’s house, where her mother (Maura Tierney), a farmer, attests very clearly to a recent increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

Hollywood and climate change: a way forward?

Since the 2000s, disaster movies have been linked in various ways to climate action efforts and awareness campaigns.

The 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth (2006) was partly inspired by producer Laurie David viewing The Day After Tomorrow (2004).

Don’t Look Up (2021) – a film about an approaching comet – is widely understood as allegorical of the climate crisis. And the film’s star, Leonardo DiCaprio, is a notable climate campaigner.

Behind the scenes, various international initiatives are addressing how the theme of climate change can be incorporated into filmmaking. Locally, for instance, Sustainable Screens Australia encourages Australian filmmakers to embed sustainable practices and storytelling.

There’s no shortage of ways through which cinematic storytelling might deal with the climate crisis and related issues.

Twisters director Lee Isaac Chung has spoken about not wanting to make the film “message-oriented”. Instead, he posits that films “should be a reflection of the world”. While criticism of various approaches is valid, reckoning with an issue as significant and severe as climate change will require the full array of approaches.

Simon Troon has received funding from Australian Research Council Discovery Projects funding schemes (project DP190101178 and DP200103360).

– ref. The twist in Twisters: for a film that doesn’t mention climate change, the latest disaster flick is both nuanced and effective – https://theconversation.com/the-twist-in-twisters-for-a-film-that-doesnt-mention-climate-change-the-latest-disaster-flick-is-both-nuanced-and-effective-235408

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Moro, Associate Professor of Science & Medicine, Bond University

Cranberry juice has been used medicinally for centuries. Our new research indicates it should be a normal aspect of urinary tract infection (UTI) management today.

While some benefits of cranberry compounds for the prevention of UTIs have been suspected for some time, it hasn’t been clear whether the benefits from cranberry juice were simply from drinking more fluid, or something in the fruit itself.

For our study, published this week, we combined and collectively assessed 3,091 participants across more than 20 clinical trials.

Our analysis indicates that increasing liquids reduces the rate of UTIs compared with no treatment, but cranberry in liquid form is even better at reducing UTIs and antibiotic use.

Are UTIs really that bad?

Urinary tract infections affect more than 50% of women and 20% of men in their lifetime.

Most commonly, UTIs are caused from the bug called Escherichia coli (E.coli). This bug lives harmlessly in our intestines, but can cause infection in the urinary tract. This is why, particularly for women, it is recommended people wipe from front to back after using the toilet.

An untreated UTI can move up to the kidneys and cause even more serious illness.

Even when not managing infection, many people are anxious about contracting a UTI. Sexually active women, pregnant women and older women may all be at increased risk.

Why cranberries?

To cause a UTI, the bacteria need to attach to the wall of the urinary bladder. Increasing fluids helps to flush out bacteria before it attaches (or makes its way up into the bladder).

Some beneficial compounds in cranberry, such as proanthocyanidins (also called condensed tannins), prevent the bacteria from attaching to the wall itself.

While there are treatments, over 90% of the bugs that cause UTIs exhibit some form of microbial resistance. This suggests that they are rapidly changing and some cases of UTI might be left untreatable.

What we found

Our analysis showed a 54% lower rate of UTIs from cranberry juice consumption compared to no treatment. This means that significantly fewer participants who regularly consumed cranberry juice (most commonly around 200 millilitres each day) reported having a UTI during the periods assessed in the studies we analysed.

Cranberry juice was also linked to a 49% lower rate of antibiotic use than placebo liquid and a 59% lower rate than no treatment, based on analysis of indirect and direct effects across six studies. The use of cranberry compounds, whether in drinks or tablet form, also reduced the prevalence of symptoms associated with UTIs.

While some studies we included presented conflicts of interest (such as receiving funding from cranberry companies), we took this “high risk of bias” into account when analysing the data.

So, when can cranberry juice help?

We found three main benefits of cranberry juice for UTIs.

1. Reduced rates of infections

Increasing fluids (for example, drinking more water) reduced the prevalence of UTIs, and taking cranberry compounds (such as tablets) was also beneficial. But the most benefits were identified from increasing fluids and taking cranberry compounds at the same time, such as with cranberry juice.

2. Reduced use of antibiotics

The data shows cranberry juice lowers the need to use antibiotics by 59%. This was identified as fewer participants in randomised cranberry juice groups required antibiotics.

Increasing fluid intake also helped reduce antibiotic use (by 25%). But this was not as useful as increasing fluids at the same time as using cranberry compounds.

Cranberry compounds alone (such as tablets without associated increases in fluid intake) did not affect antibiotic use.

3. Reducing symptoms

Taking cranberry compounds (in any form, liquid or tablet) reduced the symptoms of UTIs, as measured in the overall data, by more than five times.

Take home advice

While cranberry juice cannot treat a UTI, it can certainly be part of UTI management.

If you suspect that you have a UTI, see your GP as soon as possible.

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. Cranberry juice really can help with UTIs – and reduce reliance on antibiotics – https://theconversation.com/cranberry-juice-really-can-help-with-utis-and-reduce-reliance-on-antibiotics-235314

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Grantham, Lecturer in communication, Griffith University

The Liberal National Party Queensland (LNP) has recently taken a bold step in its political strategy by employing artificial intelligence (AI) to shape public perception of the current premier, Steven Miles. This move has not only highlighted the innovative potential of AI in political campaigning but also sparked significant debate about its ethical implications.

Globally, the use of AI in political campaigns is on the rise. In recent elections worldwide, AI has been harnessed to analyse voter behaviour, craft targeted messages, and even generate persuasive content.

We saw the use of AI in the UK general elections through the development of an AI-generated politician. In February 2024, there was another powerful use of AI in Pakistan when Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party generated an AI video of Khan to deliver a victory speech written while in prison.

However, the LNP’s approach in Queensland marks a notable escalation in the Australian context, albeit with a much more light-hearted approach. This video depicts Miles in a realistic portrayal of dancing to a popular early 2000s song with the caption:

POV: my rent is up $60 a week, my power bill is up 20%, but the premier made a sandwich on TikTok.

It aims to sway voter opinion by casting doubt on Miles’ leadership.

It’s clever, but is it ethical?

While technologically impressive, the role of AI in political campaigning is in question. Negative campaigning is a common strategy used worldwide. Society has come to expect negative posts or commentary from opposing parties. For instance, during the 2022 Australian federal election, the Labor Party used technology and video editing tools to manipulate images of then prime minister Scott Morrison.

What makes the Queensland LNP example unique is the use of AI to manipulate the individual’s actual form.

The Labor Party also came under scrutiny recently for an AI-generated TikTok video featuring opposition leader Peter Dutton.

This video leverages AI to manipulate Dutton’s appearance and behaviour. It also exemplifies how AI technology can be used to create realistic and persuasive content.

AI’s ability to be convincing yet misleading at the same time challenges the boundaries of acceptable political debate. It also underscores the need for robust regulatory frameworks.

The Electoral Commission of Queensland has said that while the state’s electoral act does not explicitly mention AI, it does cover the publication of false statements about a candidate’s character or conduct. However, political freedom of expression does allow for negative campaigning.

When politics and pop culture collide

From an election campaigning perspective, there has been a significant shift towards a more lighthearted and culturally relevant approach. Short-form video platforms serve as an excellent method to engage a generation of people who may not yet be politically aligned.

These platforms are exceedingly powerful tools. But platforms like TikTok are driven by algorithms, requiring content to be crafted to capture the algorithm’s interest. One effective strategy to achieve this is incorporating elements of popular culture and current trends. This can transform a serious topic into more entertainment-driven content.

Consequently, for politicians, governments, and large organisations to use these platforms effectively, they must adopt these popular culture methods, regardless of the seriousness of the topics being addressed. This has resulted in a rising trend of “politainment” by political figures.

However, politicians are also increasingly engaging with these platforms to develop a sense of authenticity. In Queensland, the two party leaders are using personal accounts to portray themselves as an “ordinary” Australian. The techniques they use to do this centre around domestic tasks such as cooking. A connection to food has been seen internationally, particularly in Italy, but is a relatively new approach in Australia.

Scott Morrison used to delight in showcasing his cooking skills. However, this was not always to positive effect.

Ultimately, political parties are not new to using digital manipulation for strategic purposes. However, the question remains whether there should be rules governing the use of AI in election campaigns.

AI is mostly fine – but it should be clearly labelled as such

While freedom of speech in political campaigning is crucial, clear identification of AI use is essential to maintain transparency and trust. Restricting official accounts might push AI-generated content to more unofficial, harder-to-regulate sources, complicating the issue further.

The case in Queensland highlights the opportunities and challenges of integrating advanced technologies into political campaigns. As AI continues to evolve, its role in shaping political landscapes will grow.

Political parties, regulators, and the public must navigate this terrain carefully, ensuring that the integrity of democratic processes is upheld while embracing the innovative potential of AI.

Susan Grantham 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. When it comes to political advertising, is AI ever OK? – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-political-advertising-is-ai-ever-ok-235323

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Iryna Skubii, Mykola Zerov Fellow in Ukrainian Studies, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne

Russia’s war in Ukraine has caused immense suffering to the civilian population. Tens of thousands are believed to have been killed, though an exact figure is impossible to know. Russia’s aggression has also sparked the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since the second world war, with 6.5 million people fleeing Ukraine since February 2022.

What has received far less attention has been the impact of the war on the country’s animal population.

With an estimated 25% of Ukraine’s protected nature areas occupied by Russian forces, entire ecosystems have been disrupted or destroyed. Some biologists believe tens of thousands of Black Sea dolphins have been killed, though verifying this has proved to be difficult.

Given the destruction to natural landscapes and wildlife, Ukrainian authorities have discussed ways to pursue a war crimes case against Russia based on “ecocide” – unlawful attacks on the environment that can lead to long-term impact on ecosystems and wildlife.

As for domestic animals, there were approximately 5.5 million cats and 750,000 dogs in Ukraine before the war. Many have been killed or abandoned by their owners, causing the stray population to explode.

In response, many organisations have launched efforts to help shelter and treat wounded animals.

When Russia launched a new offensive in the Kharkiv region in May, for instance, local authorities and volunteers leapt into action to try to evacuate pets left behind, some locked in cages or chained in yards, others roaming free.

Many Ukrainians fleeing the country, meanwhile, have taken their pets with them, as the only remaining connections to their homes and their pasts.

Animal refugees and evacuation efforts

Within days of Russia’s invasion in February 2022, instructions were being circulated to residents on how to prepare to evacuate with their pets in tow.

For those fleeing abroad, animals were initially allowed to pass through borders without meeting European Union veterinary requirements. The regulations were tightened again, however, after a fierce debate over the biosecurity risks, given the prevalence of rabies in Ukraine.

Although it is hard to provide an exact number of refugee animals, in 2022 alone, more than 10,000 animals are believed to have crossed the Ukrainian-Polish border. Some pets later came back to Ukraine with their owners, while others stayed in Europe or were moved further around the globe.

Among them was my cat Tyhra, a female cat named after her tiger-coloured fur (tyhr means tiger in Ukrainian), who was evacuated in September 2022 from the Kharkiv region. Her story is unique, as she was initially taken to Canada, and recently relocated with me to Australia.

A few of the more fortunate animals have even become social media celebrities. A cat named Stepan, whose fame on Instagram (with 1.5 million followers), for example, helped its owners to escape from Kharkiv to Monaco when it was intensively shelled in early 2022.

And in June 2023, when Russia’s army destroyed the Kakhovka Dam on the Dnipro River, an image of a rescued dog hugging the leg of a man went viral, becoming a vivid illustration of how the war has affected Ukraine’s animals.

After the dam was blown up, animals rights activists asked people to take their pets with them if possible, and if not, to “untie them and let them go. Give them a chance to save themselves.”

Evacuating animals from the frontline is not enough. It is becoming even more important to provide those who have been abandoned with accommodation and food.

Most shelters are now very overcrowded. And in some cities and villages near the frontline, the problem of stray dogs is becoming a major problem.

Animals and the army

Some of the cats and dogs that have been left in the combat zone have even become “active members” of the Ukrainian army. Many were rescued by soldiers from abandoned houses or after their owners had been killed in the fighting.

Cats are particularly valued for their skills in preventing the spread of mice in trenches. Cats are also excellent for fundraising – so much so, they’ve been called “Ukraine’s secret weapon”.

Trained dogs, meanwhile, are adept in demining. One of the most widely known examples is the terrier dog Patron (which means bullet or cartridge in Ukrainian). After the Chernihiv region was liberated in 2022, Patron became a celebrity for his skills in sniffing out landmines.

Livestock become targets

The fate of livestock is much grimmer. Many barns, for example, have become direct targets of Russian army shelling and missiles.

In March 2022, for example, the Russian army killed 100 cows and calves on a farm as they advanced in the Chernihiv region. Later that year, a missile strike killed 45 cows and injured a dozen and a half in another village in the region.

Earlier this year, a dairy industry figure estimated that some 200,000 cows in total had been killed.

And at a chicken factory in the Kherson region – then the biggest in Europe – four million chickens died when the feeding system was disabled due to the destruction of a nearby power station.

There are many more tragic stories like these about the ecological toll of the war across the entire frontline area of Ukraine.

And despite the efforts being made in Ukraine and on the international level to help these animals, they still remain in dire need of care and protection.

Iryna Skubii 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. Russia’s war in Ukraine has been devastating for animals – but they’ve also given the nation reason for hope – https://theconversation.com/russias-war-in-ukraine-has-been-devastating-for-animals-but-theyve-also-given-the-nation-reason-for-hope-231929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamie Pittock, Professor, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

The condition of Australia’s environment continues to decline. Many Australians wonder if it’s possible to reverse this depressing trajectory – and our landmark assessment released today shows the answer is yes.

Our report, launched today by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, demonstrates how repairing Australia’s landscapes is not only achievable and affordable, it’s in the national interest.

Using the best available science and expert advice, we identified 24 actions worth
A$7.3 billion each year over 30 years, which could repair much of the past two centuries of degradation.

For context, the investment amounts to about 0.3% of Australia’s gross domestic product. It’s also far less than the estimated $33 billion a year Australians spend on their pets.

This report is the most comprehensive of its kind undertaken in this country. It is a tangible, practical pathway which challenges the notion that repairing our continent is a task too big and expensive to tackle.

The strong case for repair

Australia’s population is projected to grow to 37 million by 2052.
Earth’s population will reach ten billion in the same period. Global food demand will increase and competition for land will intensify.

Climate change makes the environmental repair task more pressing. The Australian continent has already warmed almost 1.5°C since records began. We have experienced shifts in rainfall patterns, droughts, bushfires, flooding and more. Extreme weather is predicted to become even more frequent and severe.

About half Australia’s land surface has been significantly modified
since European settlement, and at least 19 ecosystems are collapsing due to climate change and other pressures.

And the capacity of agricultural landscapes to maintain productivity has significantly declined, and they are becoming less able to support native species and ecosystems.

Our key findings

Our assessment focuses on five key landscape components identified as
degraded in successive State of the Environment reports: soils, inland
water, native vegetation, threatened species and coastal environments.

We defined objectives for each component, and actions to meet them, based on public policy ambitions and expert advice. We then sourced data to identify where in the landscape each action is required, and the spending it would entail. Independent experts reviewed our findings.

Our blueprint identifies 24 practical actions needed now to repair Australia’s degraded landscapes. See the below infographic for full details.

The list includes:

• applying lime and gypsum to agricultural soils to improve productivity

• remediating high-risk gullies

• encouraging landholders to restore vegetation along the banks of rivers, streams,
  lakes and wetlands

• restoring 13 million hectares of degraded native vegetation

• addressing key threats and restoring habitat for threatened species

• maintaining or improving the condition of degraded salt marsh ecosystems.

We estimate investment of $7.3 billion each year (in 2022 dollars) is needed from 2025 to 2054 to deliver these all actions. That includes:

• $580 million to repair the productive base of agricultural soils

• $2.9 billion to fix fragmented, degraded river systems

• $1.7 billion to restore ecosystems to at least 30% of their pre-1750 extent

• $1.2 billion to mitigate imminent extinction risk and ensure medium-term survival of Commonwealth-listed threatened species

• $35 million to maintain and improve estuary health

• $640 million in transaction costs (such as legal fees, data and compliance)

• $250 million a year to maintain the improvements (such as monitoring, and management of pests, weeds and fire).

How will Australia pay for this?

We cannot accurately measure the true cost of environmental degradation to the environment, people and the economy. But evidence suggests these costs far outweigh the cost of nature repair.

Our report proposes measures for Australia that are feasible and fiscally responsible.

And they also address multiple objectives. For example, restoring native vegetation across 13 million hectares would also abate almost one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent – equal to 18% of Australia’s net emissions over the next 30 years.

Through carbon markets, private landholders could be paid to regenerate native vegetation. Our analysis shows this could generate 7% to 15% of the investment needed.

The investment we propose would also support employment and jobs in the short- and
long-term. This would promote a strong circular flow of income, generating government revenue in the form of income tax, GST and associated revenues.

A broad range of financing mechanisms is needed to enact this plan. As a starting point, we suggest:

• significantly increased public investment for stewardship programs, Indigenous land managers and threatened species recovery

• revenue-neutral changes to the tax system to encourage conservation and remove subsidies that degrade the environment

• public investment in the federal government’s green bond program, which will enable investors to back public projects that contribute to environmental repair

• using markets and other emerging private sector solutions to encourage conservation on private land

• fundraising via philanthropy.

Indigenous Australians are key

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been stewards of Country for more than 60,000 years and have continuing cultural connections to land and waters.

We propose four key measures to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples leading roles in managing and repairing landscapes:

• increase Indigenous ownership and management of land and water

• recognise the value of traditional knowledge in areas such as managing species and using fire to maintain the health of Country

• establish and improve programs to employ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to repair and manage Country, such as expanding Indigenous ranger programs and providing resources and long-term funding

• ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are supported to generate meaningful, commercially sustainable employment and businesses on Country through land and water ownership.

A healthier, more resilient Australia

All Australians are stewards of this unique land and seascape. It is our responsibility to ensure nature is preserved for its own sake, and for current and future generations.

Our plan expands on successful efforts to conserve the environment. It won’t fix everything – for instance, it did not address air quality, urban settlements or marine environments.

But the actions we propose – if done together, at scale, and built into broader public policy reforms – will leave our landscapes healthier and more resilient.

Australians don’t have to choose between a healthy environment and a productive economy – we can have both.

The report underpinning this article was prepared by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists with input from more than 60 experts. See the report for the full list of contributors.

Jamie Pittock is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. He also chairs the ACT Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee, is on the board of NRM Regions Australia, and is a member of the Biodiversity Assessment Expert Reference Group advising the federal government. He holds other roles with environmental non-government organisations. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

Bradley J. Moggridge is affiliated with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, WWF Australia and the Biodiversity Council. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

Martine Maron is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and co-authored the report mentioned in this article. She has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, and the federal government’s National Environmental Science Program, and has advised both state and federal government on conservation policy. She is a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, a councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a governor of WWF-Australia, and leads the IUCN’s thematic group on Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation under the Commission on Ecosystem Management. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

– ref. Yes, Australia’s environment is on a depressing path – but $7 billion a year would transform it – https://theconversation.com/yes-australias-environment-is-on-a-depressing-path-but-7-billion-a-year-would-transform-it-235305

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Davis, General paediatrician and paediatric infectious diseases specialist, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

What’s the difference? is a new editorial product that explains the similarities and differences between commonly confused health and medical terms, and why they matter.

It’s the time of the year for coughs, colds and sore throats. So you might have heard people talk about having a “strep throat”.

But what is that? Is it just a bad sore throat that goes away by itself in a day or two? Should you be worried?

Here’s what we know about the similarities and differences between strep throat and a sore throat, and why they matter.

How are they similar?

It’s difficult to tell the difference between a sore throat and strep throat as they look and feel similar.

People usually have a fever, a bright red throat and sometimes painful lumps in the neck (swollen lymph nodes). A throat swab can help diagnose strep throat, but the results can take a few days.

Thankfully, both types of sore throat usually get better by themselves.

How are they different?

Most sore throats are caused by viruses such as common cold viruses, the flu (influenza virus), or the virus that causes glandular fever (Epstein-Barr virus).

These viral sore throats can occur at any age. Antibiotics don’t work against viruses so if you have a viral sore throat, you won’t get better faster if you take antibiotics. You might even have some unwanted antibiotic side-effects.

But strep throat is caused by Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria, also known as strep A. Strep throat is most common in school-aged children, but can affect other age groups. In some cases, you may need antibiotics to avoid some rare but serious complications.

In fact, the potential for complications is one key difference between a viral sore throat and strep throat.

Generally, a viral sore throat is very unlikely to cause complications (one exception is those caused by Epstein-Barr virus which has been associated with illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and certain cancers).

But strep A can cause invasive disease, a rare but serious complication. This is when bacteria living somewhere on the body (usually the skin or throat) get into another part of the body where there shouldn’t be bacteria, such as the bloodstream. This can make people extremely sick.

Invasive strep A infections and deaths have been rising in recent years around the world, especially in young children and older adults. This may be due to a number of factors such as increased social mixing at this stage of the COVID pandemic and an increase in circulating common cold viruses. But overall the reasons behind the increase in invasive strep A infections are not clear.

Another rare but serious side effect of strep A is autoimmune disease. This is when the body’s immune system makes antibodies that react against its own cells.

The most common example is rheumatic heart disease. This is when the body’s immune system damages the heart valves a few weeks or months after a strep throat or skin infection.

Around the world more than 40 million people live with rheumatic heart disease and more than 300,000 die from its complications every year, mostly in developing countries.

However, parts of Australia have some of the highest rates of rheumatic heart disease in the world. More than 5,300 Indigenous Australians live with it.

Why do some people get sicker than others?

We know strep A infections and rheumatic heart disease are more common in low socioeconomic communities where poverty and overcrowding lead to increased strep A transmission and disease.

However, we don’t fully understand why some people only get a mild infection with strep throat while others get very sick with invasive disease.

We also don’t understand why some people get rheumatic heart disease after strep A infections when most others don’t. Our research team is trying to find out.

How about a vaccine for strep A?

There is no strep A vaccine but many groups in Australia, New Zealand and worldwide are working towards one.

For instance, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Telethon Kids Institute have formed the Australian Strep A Vaccine Initiative to develop strep A vaccines. There’s also a global consortium working towards the same goal.

Companies such as Vaxcyte and GlaxoSmithKline have also been developing strep A vaccines.

What if I have a sore throat?

Most sore throats will get better by themselves. But if yours doesn’t get better in a few days or you have ongoing fever, see your GP.

Your GP can examine you, consider running some tests and help you decide if you need antibiotics.

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. What’s the difference between ‘strep throat’ and a sore throat? We’re developing a vaccine for one of them – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-strep-throat-and-a-sore-throat-were-developing-a-vaccine-for-one-of-them-230292

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bayu Anggorojati, Assistant Professor, Cyber Security, Monash University

The internet, a vast and indispensable resource for modern society, has a darker side where malicious activities thrive.

From identity theft to sophisticated malware attacks, cyber criminals keep coming up with new scam methods.

Widely available generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools have now added a new layer of complexity to the cyber security landscape. Staying on top of your online security is more important than ever.

The rise of dark LLMs

One of the most sinister adaptations of current AI is the creation of “dark LLMs” (large language models).

These uncensored versions of everyday AI systems like ChatGPT are re-engineered for criminal activities. They operate without ethical constraints and with alarming precision and speed.

Cyber criminals deploy dark LLMs to automate and enhance phishing campaigns, create sophisticated malware and generate scam content.

To achieve this, they engage in LLM “jailbreaking” – using prompts to get the model to bypass its built-in safeguards and filters.

For instance, FraudGPT writes malicious code, creates phishing pages and generates undetectable malware. It offers tools for orchestrating diverse cybercrimes, from credit card fraud to digital impersonation.

FraudGPT is advertised on the dark web and the encrypted messaging app Telegram. Its creator openly markets its capabilities, emphasising the model’s criminal focus.

Another version, WormGPT, produces persuasive phishing emails that can trick even vigilant users. Based on the GPT-J model, WormGPT is also used for creating malware and launching “business email compromise” attacks – targeted phishing of specific organisations.

What can we do to protect ourselves?

Despite the looming threats, there is a silver lining. As the challenges have advanced, so have the ways we can defend against them.

AI-based threat detection tools can monitor malware and respond to cyber attacks more effectively. However, humans need to stay in the mix to keep an eye on how these tools respond, what actions they take, and whether there are vulnerabilities to fix.

You may have heard keeping your software up to date is crucial for security. It might feel like a chore, but it really is a critical defence strategy. Updates patch up the vulnerabilities that cyber criminals try to exploit.

Are your files and data regularly backed up? It’s not just about preserving files in case of a system failure. Regular backups are a fundamental protection strategy. You can reclaim your digital life without caving to extortion if you are targeted by a ransomware attack – when criminals lock up your data and demand a ransom payment before they release it.

Cyber criminals who send phishing messages can leave clues like poor grammar, generic greetings, suspicious email addresses, overly urgent requests or suspicious links. Developing an eye for these signs is as essential as locking your door at night.

If you don’t already use strong, unique passwords and multi-factor authentication, it’s time to do so. This combination multiplies your security, making it dramatically more difficult for criminals to access your accounts.

Read more:
What is multi-factor authentication, and how should I be using it?

What can we expect in the future?

Our online existence will continue to intertwine with emerging technologies like AI. We can expect more sophisticated cyber crime tools to emerge, too.

Malicious AI will enhance phishing, create sophisticated malware and improve data mining for targeted attacks. AI-driven hacking tools will become widely available and customisable.

In response, cyber security will have to adapt, too. We can expect automated threat hunting, quantum-resistant encryption, AI tools that help to preserve privacy, stricter regulations and international cooperation.

The role of government regulations

Stricter government regulations on AI are one way to counter these advanced threats. This would involve mandating the ethical development and deployment of AI technologies, ensuring they are equipped with robust security features and adhere to stringent standards.

In addition to tighter regulations, we also need to improve how organisations respond to cyber incidents and what mechanisms there are for mandatory reporting and public disclosure.

By requiring companies to promptly report cyber incidents, authorities can act swiftly. They can mobilise resources to address breaches before they escalate into major crises.

This proactive approach can significantly mitigate the impact of cyber attacks, preserving both public trust and corporate integrity.

Furthermore, cyber crime knows no borders. In the era of AI-powered cyber crime, international collaboration is essential. Effective global cooperation can streamline how authorities track and prosecute cyber criminals, creating a unified front against cyber threats.

As AI-powered malware proliferates, we’re at a critical junction in the global tech journey: we need to balance innovation (new AI tools, new features, more data) with security and privacy.

Overall, it’s best to be proactive about your own online security. That way you can stay one step ahead in the ever-evolving cyber battleground.

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. FraudGPT and other malicious AIs are the new frontier of online threats. What can we do? – https://theconversation.com/fraudgpt-and-other-malicious-ais-are-the-new-frontier-of-online-threats-what-can-we-do-234820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

The speed, skill and flair on display in rugby sevens makes it an ideal Olympic sport. The Paris games should be no exception, especially given France’s own great rugby tradition.

While the conventional 15-a-side game has only ever featured at four Olympics (1900, 1908, 1920 and 1924), sevens debuted at the Rio de Janeiro games in 2016, capturing fans with its festive atmosphere and fast-running athleticism.

And although the traditionally strong rugby-playing nations tend to dominate the sevens version, it also allows the “minnows” to compete and sometimes surprise the heavyweights.

So, which teams are favourites to win medals in Paris? To answer this we’ve used a suite of statistical models known as Rugby Vision. This modelling system has outperformed bookmakers when forecasting outcomes for Rugby World Cup games.

How the prediction model works

Rugby Vision has three components:

• an algorithm uses past game statistics to rate the strength of each sevens team, based on results from the 2023–24 SVNS international tournaments and other Olympic qualification rounds

• the ratings (and home advantage for France) are then used to simulate the expected outcome of each game

• the tournament is simulated 10,000 times to account for uncertainty around expected outcomes.

By examining the number of times in the 10,000 simulations that each team “wins” the tournament, we can calculate the probability of each team winning the gold medal. Both the men’s and women’s tournaments have been analysed this way.

Argentina lead the men’s pack

Medal probabilities for each of the 12 qualified teams in the men’s tournament, which begins on July 24, are displayed below.

Argentina, which dominated the 2023-24 SVNS, is favourite to win (28.1%) and has a 60.4% chance of earning any medal. France, which has home advantage and won the 2023-24 SVNS grand final, is second favourite (22.3%), followed by Ireland (12.5.%), which was a consistent performer in the 2023–24 SVNS.

Traditional sevens powerhouses Fiji (which won gold at the two previous Olympics) and New Zealand are fourth and fifth favourites respectively. This reflects mixed performances by both teams at the 2023–24 SVNS.

NZ versus Australia for the women’s gold

The women’s tournament kicks off on July 28, with New Zealand (34.8%) and Australia (31.1%) most likely to win gold. Between them, these two teams won seven of the eight 2023–24 SVNS tournaments.

France is third favourite (25.9%), with the USA (4.0%) and Canada (2.2%) rounding out the five most likely winners.

Although New Zealand has a higher chance than Australia of winning gold, Australia has a higher chance of winning any medal. This is because the algorithm rates Australia a (slightly) stronger team than New Zealand – but New Zealand is expected to have an easier semi-final opponent.

Of course, the algorithm’s favourite does not always win. At the 2023 Rugby World Cup, for example, Rugby Vision ranked New Zealand likeliest to win, with South Africa second. South Africa beat New Zealand in the final.

The same uncertainty applies at the Olympic sevens. While Argentina is favourite to win the men’s tournament, there is still a 72% chance another team will take home the gold. Upsets should be expected – that is why watching sport is so enthralling.

The author acknowledges the assistance of Jensen Fiskin, whose data collection contributed to the forecasts included in this article.

Niven Winchester 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. Who will win Olympic rugby sevens gold? Our algorithm uses 10,000 simulations to rank the teams – https://theconversation.com/who-will-win-olympic-rugby-sevens-gold-our-algorithm-uses-10-000-simulations-to-rank-the-teams-235095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karley Beckman, Senior Lecturer in Digital Technologies for Learning, University of Wollongong

If you search most primary or high school websites, you will likely find a images of happy, smiling children.

Students images are also used publicly for school newsletters, social media accounts and other school publications like annual reports.

Parents could reasonably expect schools and educations departments have conducted thorough checks and evaluations to do this. To some degree this is true, but a recent AI scare where children’s images were used in a massive training data set included some photos from school websites.

Research also shows schools can do more to promote children’s rights to privacy.

Parents and governments are already concerned about children’s safety online. As part of this, we need to look more closely at how students’ information and images are being used by their schools.

Why is online information an issue?

Publication of children’s images and personal information on social media platforms generates a trail of information or profile of that child. This information is permanent and may have implications for children now and in the future, including on their self-esteem.

This data also contributes to a “digital shadow”. This is the digital data associated with individuals we cannot see. It can can be sold and used to profile and target individuals for advertising or dictate what information and content we see online through recommender systems.

What are schools required to do?

In Australia, the publication of a child’s personal data, which includes images and video, is protected by the Australian Privacy Principles. This is underpinned by the Privacy Act or state and territory privacy laws.

This means all schools need to have the consent of the child and/or their parent/caregiver to publish images, videos and personal information on learning platforms, school websites, advertising and social media accounts and in school newsletters and news media.

This is why parents are asked to sign a “consent to publish” form, usually at the start of each school year.

Privacy laws outline how consent needs to be voluntary, current and provide sufficient and specific information about the different uses of personal data.

But publicly available policies show schools differ in the way they inform parents about the uses of children’s data. This is because Australia has a state-based education system with a variety of school types that are all governed differently.

While current policies may align with federal and state laws, they do not necessarily promote children’s right to privacy or consider their best interests considered. There are three issues that need more attention.

1. More specific consent

At the moment we don’t have enough detail about the different ways children’s data is handled across different platforms.

For example, publishing a photo of a child will have different privacy risks, if it’s published on a school’s Facebook page, on a class learning platform or in a hard-copy school newsletter.

Parents should be able to refuse consent in one context but provide it for another.

2. What happens if you say no?

We also don’t have a clear understanding about how schools deal with children of families who do not consent

We know there is some increased work for teachers to identify children who do not consent and without clearly communicated procedures there is uncertainty about how to engage with and manage online publication processes. For example, how does a teacher treat a non-consenting child when taking a whole class photo?

There are also reports children can be excluded from some school experiences, such as large music and dance performances.

3. Do students have a say?

The eSafety Commissioner says adults should seek consent from children of all ages when taking their photo or video and explain the purpose.

This is something we also teach children as part of consent education as they get older.

But many current policies do not require children to give their consent. Nor do they require schools to talk to students about what consent means if an image is used online. This is because it is assumed many students are too young to understand.

This suggests current approaches around gaining consent are more about legal compliance, rather than truly promoting children’s rights to privacy.

What should schools do differently?

This is not a question for individual schools to solve on their own. This issue needs to be tackled by governments, education departments and independent school associations (who represent private schools). Education departments and associations can review existing policies to:

• improve schools’ understanding of the way images/videos are used by platforms

• improve communication with families about this information

• provide clearer procedures for non-consenting children, developed in partnership with families

• improve children’s capacity to understand consent around the way their image is used as a part of digital literacy education.

What can parents do?

Parents and teachers can model safe and healthy digital habits. If you are taking an image of a child, ask for verbal consent and explain your purpose. For example, “is it OK if I talk this photo of you, I want to show Grandma how you look in your soccer uniform.”

For parents and caregivers who sign consent to publish forms, it is perfectly reasonable to have questions or concerns. If you have any doubts about how your child’s images or data will be used, talk to your school.

Karley Beckman is an Associate Investigator with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

Tiffani Apps is an Associate Investigator with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

– ref. Is your child’s photo on their school Facebook page? What does this mean for their privacy? – https://theconversation.com/is-your-childs-photo-on-their-school-facebook-page-what-does-this-mean-for-their-privacy-234153

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

Our bodies are delightfully ridiculous.

When God created humanity, they knew our short lives would be full of pain, hardship and horror. So they created our bodies absurdly – clumsy, squidgy and bouncy, messy and noisy, with weird dangling protuberances – so we could laugh our way through challenges and crises and find the moments of joy and beauty that make it all worthwhile.

Rowan Atkinson’s face is their comedic masterpiece, but we all have bodies designed for comedy.

This is especially true for those of us with disability.

I have quadriplegia, and my body – which has a life of its own – is a jester. It makes fart noises during serious meetings; it spasms and kicks at unwary helpers; it leaks so disturbingly you can but laugh; its capacity to fall asleep in strange places provides my family with a stream of photos they share with glee.

The genius TikTok account for the Paralympics melds memes and trending audio to draw on the comedic beauty of physically disabled bodies.

The comedic genius of @Paralympics

My descriptions can’t do it justice, but by way of example, in a reel of comedic gold, blind American triathlete Brad Snyder waves his hands in the air like a pianist, fruitlessly “looking” for his helmet while Beethoven plays in the background.

In another, we have a clip of German wheelchair basketball Mareike Miller shooting a three-point hoop, followed by a clip of her clumsily rolling over the basketball and falling on her arse.

In one clip, one-legged Australian cyclist Darren Hicks races to the finish line, while a voiceover sensually repeats the phrase, “excuse me, I’m going to make a left, left, left”.

It’s hilarious.

But you can’t laugh at disability, can you?

Who tells the joke makes a difference

In a previous article for The Conversation, Jemma Clifton and I took Dave Chappelle to task for that very thing.

In his latest Netflix special, Chappelle told jokes about disabled people’s walking and sexual function.

You might ask: what’s the difference between Chappelle’s jokes and those of the Paralympics TikTok account? Both draw comedy from disabled bodies.

Indeed, the line between appropriate and inappropriate comedy is subtle. But while the difference may be subtle, it is not unimportant.

Chappelle mocks and demeans disabled people, “punching down”, while the Paralympics TikTok account humanises them.

Who it is who tells the joke makes a difference. Disabled people lead the Paralympics movement, and a former Paralympian is in charge of the TikTok account.

The mantra of the disability rights movement is “nothing about us without us”. This recognises it is not well-meaning charities, professionals and politicians who know best, but people with disability know best what services and support they need.

This applies to comedy, too.

People with disability know disability can be funny and are the first to laugh at the weirdness of their daily lives. They use laughter to cope with difficulty, pain, lack of privacy, ableism and social exclusion.

They also know best which jokes are dehumanising, which mock and belittle them, and which reflect ableist stereotypes and assumptions.

Not a hint of inspiration from pity

While well-informed non-disabled people can distinguish dehumanising from life-promoting jokes about disability, it also makes a difference when people joke about themselves.

It’s appropriate for me to yarn about my disability and the strangeness of my body. When I do so, I give permission for outsiders to laugh.

I hope the Paralympics TikTok account has sought consent from the athletes they use in their promotions. Several featured athletes have confirmed their support, saying they don’t feel mocked and believe humour can help normalise the disabled difference.

It is a relief to see a promotion of the Paralympics that avoids the usual stereotypes.

Inspiration porn is a too-common disability trope, and it inevitably shapes mainstream media coverage of the Paralympic games.

Australian comedian and journalist Stella Young spoke of inspiration porn as objectifying people with disability for the benefit of non-disabled people.

Inspiration porn relies on pity and assumptions about the horror and impossibility of disabled life to motivate non-disabled people. It uses images of disabled athletes for inspirational quotes, such as “the only disability in life is a bad attitude”, or “your excuse is invalid”.

Mainstream media too often falls into this trap, not realising labelling disabled athletes as inspiring “because they run with disability” is a backhanded declaration of the disabled difference.

When the Paralympics account shows Tunisian athlete Reja Jebali slapping her face and screaming to motivate herself before throwing the shot put (with an overlaid soundtrack: “Now somebody, anybody, everybody scream … there’s squirrels in my pants!”), there is not a hint of inspiration from pity.

Instead, we laugh with joy as we admire the determination and strength of an athlete who just happens to be disabled.

Shane Clifton 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. People with disability know bodies can be funny – so it’s OK that you’re laughing at the Paralympics TikTok account – https://theconversation.com/people-with-disability-know-bodies-can-be-funny-so-its-ok-that-youre-laughing-at-the-paralympics-tiktok-account-234926

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, The University of Melbourne

The first recorded victor at the Olympics was Coroebus of Elis. A cook by profession, Coroebus won the event called the “stadion” – a footrace of just under 200 metres, run in a straight line.

Coroebus was victorious in the year 776 BC, but this was probably not the year of the first Olympic games.

A few ancient writers, such as the historian Aristodemus of Elis (who lived in the 2nd century AD or earlier), believed there had been as many as 27 Olympic contests prior to 776 BC, but the results had never been recorded because people before that time did not care about recording the names of the winners.

The games were held every four years at Olympia, a site in Western Greece that had a famous temple to the god Zeus.

The games started in mid-August and were part of a religious festival dedicated to Zeus.

Competing for glory

In the early days of the Olympics, there was only one event (the “stadion”) and one victor.

Over the centuries, other events were added, like chariot races, wrestling, long-distance running and boxing. The Roman emperor Nero (37-68 AD) even “introduced a musical competition at Olympia”, as the biographer Suetonius (1st/2nd century AD) informs us.

Victors at Olympia won a wreath of wild olive. Unlike today, there were no prizes for second or third.

The athlete Iccus of Tarentum, who lived in the 5th century BC and won victory in the pentathlon at the Olympics of 476 BC, apparently said that for him “the prizes meant glory, admiration in his lifetime, and after death an honoured name”.

Mostly men competed for the prizes but some women took part.

Cynisca, daughter of King Archidamus II of Sparta, was the first woman to achieve an Olympic victory. She got the prize because the horses she trained won the chariot racing event in the year 396 BC, as the traveller Pausanias (2nd century AD) writes:

Cynisca was exceedingly ambitious to succeed at the Olympic games and was the first woman to breed horses and the first to win an Olympic victory. After Cynisca, other women have won Olympic victories but none of them was more distinguished for their victories than her.

But competing in the games could be dangerous.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 50 BC-c. 40 AD) describes how a father lost both sons in the “pancration”, a type of combat sport that was a violent mixture of boxing and wrestling:

A man trained his two sons as pancratists, and presented them to compete at the Olympic games. They were paired off to fight each other. The youths were both killed together and had divine honours decreed to them.

Going to the games

People travelled far to see the athletes competing in the famous games.

The rhetorician Menander (3rd/4th century AD) said of the Olympic games: “the journey there is very difficult but nevertheless people take the risk”.

In 44 BC, the Roman statesman Cicero (106-43 BC) wrote a letter to his friend Atticus about planning a trip to Greece to see the games:

I should like to know the date of the Olympic games […] of course, as you say, the plan of my trip will depend on chance.

Cicero never made it to the Olympics – he was interrupted by other business. If he had gone, the trip would have involved a voyage by sea from Italy to Greece, then a carriage ride to Olympia.

Once at Olympia, travellers stayed at lodging houses with other travellers. There they mixed with strangers and made new friends.

There is a famous story about what happened when the philosopher Plato (428/427-348/347 BC) stayed at Olympia for the games.

Plato lived there with others who did not realise he was the celebrated philosopher and he made a good impression on them, as the Roman writer Claudius Aelian (2nd/3rd century AD) recalled:

The strangers were delighted by their chance encounter […] he had behaved towards them with modesty and simplicity and had proved himself able to win the confidence of anyone in his company.

Later on, Plato invited his new friends to Athens and they were amazed to find out he was in fact the famous philosopher who was the student of Socrates.

It’s unclear how many people actually visited the ancient games each time they were held, although some modern scholars think the number could have been as high as 50,000 in some years.

Watching the games

The Greek writer Chariton (1st century AD) in his novel Callirhoe wrote how athletes – who had often also made a long journey to get to the games – arrived at Olympia “with an escort of their supporters”.

Athletes competed naked, and women were usually not permitted to watch.

But there were some exceptions. For example a woman called Pherenice, who lived in the 4th century BC, was permitted to attend the Olympics as a spectator. As Claudius Aelian explains:

Pherenice brought her son to the Olympic festival to compete. The presiding officials refused to admit her as a spectator but she spoke in public and justified her request by pointing out that her father and three brothers were Olympic victors, and she was bringing a son who was a competitor. She won over the assembly and she attended the Olympic festival.

As the contest was held in the middle of summer, it was usually extremely hot. According to Claudius Aelian, some people thought watching the Olympics under “the baking heat of the sun” was a “much more severe penalty” than having to do manual labour such as grinding grain.

The site at Olympia also had problems with freshwater supply. According to the writer Lucian of Samosata (2nd century AD), visitors to the games sometimes died of thirst. This problem was fixed when Herodes Atticus built an aqueduct to the site in the middle of the 2nd century AD.

The atmosphere of the crowd was electric.

The Athenian general and politician Themistocles (6th/5th century BC) apparently said the most enjoyable moment of his life was “to see the public at Olympia turning to look at me as I entered the stadium”.

They praised him when he visited the games at Olympia because of his recent victory against the Persians at the battle of Salamis (480 BC).

When the games were over, winning athletes returned home to a hero’s welcome.

According to Claudius Aelian, when the athlete Dioxippus (4th century BC) returned to Athens after being victorious in the pancration at Olympia, “a crowd collected from all directions” in the city to celebrate him.

The end of the ancient games

The Roman historian Velleius Paterculus (born 20/19 BC) called the Olympic games “the most celebrated of all contests in sports”.

Current research suggests the ancient games probably ended in the reign of the Roman emperor Theodosius II (reigned 408-450 AD).

There may have been a number of reasons for the demise but some ancient sources specifically say it was caused by a fire that destroyed the temple of Zeus at Olympia during Theodosius II’s reign:

After the temple of Olympian Zeus had been burnt down, the festival of the Eleans and the Olympic contest were abandoned.

The Olympics were not revived again until 1896, the year of the first modern Olympics.

Konstantine Panegyres 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. Nude athletes and fights to the death: what really happened at the ancient Olympics – https://theconversation.com/nude-athletes-and-fights-to-the-death-what-really-happened-at-the-ancient-olympics-234912

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University

Australia’s clean energy transition is already underway, driven by solar, wind, batteries and new transmission lines.

But what about nuclear? Opposition leader Peter Dutton last month committed to building nuclear reactors on the site of retired coal plants – triggering intense debate over whether this older low-carbon power source is viable in Australia due to cost and long timeframes. Dutton proposed building a mix of traditional large nuclear plants alongside small modular reactors (SMRs).

Over the last decade, there’s been growing interest in SMRs. These reactor designs are meant to tackle known problems with traditional large reactor designs, namely cost, perceived safety and lengthy build times.

Are SMRs ready? Experts from the the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering have done a deep dive on the state of the technology and market considerations in a new report, summing up the state of the technology.

What’s the answer? SMRs are not ready for deployment yet. The earliest they could be built in Australia would be in the 2040s. That’s too late to help with the push to net zero by 2050.

As our report notes, the “least risky option” would be to buy them after the technology has been commercialised and successfully operated overseas. But once the technology is proven, they could be used for specific circumstances, such as powering energy-intensive manufacturing and refining.

What is a small modular reactor?

Small modular reactors are a range of new nuclear reactors currently being designed.

SMRs involve standardised components produced in factories and assembled on-site. As the name suggests, they are smaller than traditional large nuclear reactors, which have to be custom built. They are also, in theory, cheaper and safer.

Traditional nuclear plants can generate between 1 and 8 gigawatts of power. By contrast, each SMR would generate 50-300 megawatts.

Between three to 20 SMRs would be needed to provide the amount of power produced by a traditional nuclear power station. Many designs incorporate in-built passive cooling in case of power failure to avoid the risk of meltdown. They could be daisy-chained – or connected up – with multiple reactors cores inside a single power plant.

They are currently at the design stage in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Korea, with no models yet operating in OECD countries. Publicly available information about SMRs being developed elsewhere is limited.

What’s behind this interest? Key factors include:

• very low carbon emissions
• ability to support intermittent power sources such as renewables
• potential for easier and faster construction than conventional nuclear
• ability to provide heat as a key input to industrial processes.

At present, we know of 14 different designs at a comparatively advanced stage of development globally. That means the designs are undergoing detailed simulations, evaluation of components and creation of small-scale replicas for testing and evaluation. None have yet been licensed for construction in any OECD countries.

How would SMRs stack up against other power sources?

Given the fact SMRs are still a while away from prime time, we estimate the earliest Australia could have one built would be during the 2040s.

At this time, Australia’s grid is projected to have 6 gigawatts of renewables added every year, along with a large amount of dispatchable energy in the form of battery storage, and a small amount of new gas generation.

Given renewables and battery technologies get cheaper every year, expensive new sources of power may well struggle to break in.

Because SMRs are still at the design stage, we have no operating data to assess the cost of their electricity.

Even so, CSIRO’s latest GenCost study illustrates the scale of the challenge. In 2030, the agency forecasts the cost of power from solar and wind, firmed by storage to firm capacity, to be A$89-125 per megawatt hour. By contrast, GenCost estimates large-scale nuclear would cost $141-233 a megawatt hour – and $230-382 for SMRs.

SMRs could conceivably contribute to the energy grid in the future, providing some steady power to energy-intensive industries. As the technology matures and proves itself in testing, these reactors may represent a lower-cost, shorter build-time,
smaller terrestrial footprint alternative to traditional, large-scale nuclear power plants.

But they won’t replace our need for a major expansion of renewable energy, and not in the next 20 years.

A market for SMRs?

This new report on SMRs in Australia makes clear that a mature SMR market will not emerge in time for Australia to meet its international commitment of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

The barriers to adoption in Australia are substantial. Significantly, there are bans on nuclear power federally and in many states. These would need to be overturned before any work could commence.

A regulator would need to be created to oversee all aspects of the delivery, safety, workforce needs and environmental impact of any SMR installation. We’d need to train an appropriately skilled workforce.

Most importantly, nuclear energy (large or small) is a divisive issue. Australia would need to secure the social licence to operate nuclear.

It would also be financially and technically risky for Australia to pursue SMRs before a mature global market for the technology emerges.

Proponents expect SMRs will gradually drop in price as the technology matures, expertise develops and economies of scale take root.

This will take time – there’s no shortcut.

First, developers would have to progress designs and acquire licenses, funding and sites for construction. In Australia, this would require building a nuclear energy regulator and selecting locations with community support.

Second, developers would build a full-scale working prototype. SMR developers worldwide have indicated this is around ten years away.

Third, developers would have to convert the knowledge gained from full-scale prototypes into an accepted commercial package. This could take three to five years after prototyping.

Finally, developers would become vendors and compete for contracts to build SMRs, creating a global market. We expect the first commercial releases of SMRs between the late 2030s and mid 2040s.

There are many questions still to be answered for SMRs to be seriously considered as part of the power mix of the future: cost, construction time, waste disposal, water use, integration with the grid, First Nations sovereignty, skills and workforce and more. But companies around the world are making progress.

The next ten years will bring a much stronger evidence base on whether SMRs could be useful in powering Australia in the future.

Ian Lowe received funding from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council in 1983 for a project on Australia’s energy needs to 2030. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.

As CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Kylie Walker receives funding from the federal Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and the Department of Education.

– ref. Small modular reactors have promise. But we found they’re unlikely to help Australia hit net zero by 2050 – https://theconversation.com/small-modular-reactors-have-promise-but-we-found-theyre-unlikely-to-help-australia-hit-net-zero-by-2050-235198

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brigitte Viljoen, Psychotherapist and Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

Humans are interacting more than ever with artificial intelligence (AI) – from the development of the first “social robots” (a robot with a physical body programmed to interact and engage with humans) like Kismet in the 1990s to smart speakers such as Amazon’s Alexa.

But this technology is changing how humans relate with it – and with each other.

Our new research looked at how humans experience interacting with AI social robots or digital avatars – AI virtual chatbots designed to look and interact like a human on a device. These are designed to increase human interaction with them.

Social robots such as ElliQ and Pepper are popular in Europe, Japan and the United States, particularly as aids for the elderly. New Zealand has been slower to adopt these technologies.

Since the pandemic, social robots and digital avatars have been used to address issues such loneliness and mental health issues. In one Scottish experiment during the pandemic, people were introduced to social robot “Pepper” over regular video chats. The researchers found the interactions lifted the mood of the participants.

Given the uncertainties around the long-term usage of these types of technologies, researchers and policymakers have a responsibility to question how these will affect humans, individually and in wider society.

Human responses to AI

Research has already established these types of technology are playing a greater role in human social relations, leading to changes in how people form connections and relationships.

Our research involved detailed interviews with 15 participants from New Zealand, Australia and Europe, coupled with broader data analysis. We found when people interact with AI social robots or digital avatars, two things happened at the same time.

Firstly, users had physical reactions and feelings towards the AI technology. These responses were largely unconscious.

One user, for example, said they “unconsciously reached out, wanting to touch the [AI avatar’s] hair” on the screen. This was an instinctive response – the participant wanted to use their senses (such as touch) to engage with the digital avatar. Another participant unconsciously smiled in response to a smile from a social robot.

Secondly, users also derived meaning from their interaction with the AI technology through the use of shared language, concepts and non-verbal communication. For example, when one participant frowned, the digital avatar responded by getting “glassy eyes” as if it was upset by the participant’s expression.

These shared non-verbal forms of communication allowed the participants to have meaningful interactions with the technology.

Participants also developed a level of trust in the AI social robot or digital avatar. When the conversation flowed, users would forget they were relating to a machine.

The more human the AI social robots and digital avatars looked, the more alive and believable they seemed. This resulted in participants forgetting they were engaging with technology because the technology felt “real”.

As one participant said:

Even cynical people forget where they are and what they are doing. Somewhere between suspending disbelief that a system could have such a sophisticated conversation and enjoying the feeling of being in relationship with an “other”.

AI social robots and digital avatars are increasingly sharing the same spaces online and “in-person” with humans. And people are trying to physically interact with the technology as if it were human.

Another participant said:

I’ve got a bit of a spiritual connection (with the AI digital avatar) because I spent a lot of time with her.

In this way, the function of the technology has changed from being an aid in connecting humans to being the subject of affection itself.

Navigating the future of AI

While acknowledging the benefits of AI social technologies such as addressing loneliness and health issues, it is important to understand the broader implications of their use.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed how easily people were able to shift from in-person interactions to online communications. It is easy to imagine how this might change further, for example where humans become more comfortable developing relationships with AI social technology. There are already cases of people seeking romantic relationships with digital avatars.

The tendency of people to forget they are engaging with AI social technologies, and feeling as if they are “real”, raises concerns around unsustainable or unhealthy attachments.

As AI becomes more entrenched in daily life, international organisations are acknowledging the need for guardrails to guide the development and uses of AI. It is clear governmental and regulatory bodies need to understand and respond to the implications of AI social technologies for society.

The European Commission’s recently passed AI Act offers a way forward for other governments. The AI act provides clear regulations and obligations regarding specific uses of AI.

It is important to recognise the unique characteristics of human relationships as something that should be protected. At the same time, we need to examine the probable impact of AI on how we engage and interact with others. By asking these questions we can better navigate the unknown.

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. Social robot or digital avatar, users interact with this AI technology as if it’s real – https://theconversation.com/social-robot-or-digital-avatar-users-interact-with-this-ai-technology-as-if-its-real-229798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Social media is a problem for economists. They don’t know how to value it.

It has long been argued that it ought to be in the national accounts as part of gross domestic product. One 2019 study estimated Facebook alone is worth US$40 to US$50 per month for consumers in the United States.

But that’s not what we pay. Social media isn’t charged for, and the national accounts measure only the things we pay for, no matter how significant they are in our lives and how many hours per day we spend using them.

As the Australian Senate prepares to hold an inquiry into the impact of social media, economists meeting in Adelaide at the annual conference of the Economic Society of Australia have been presented with new findings about the value of social media that point in a shocking direction. They suggest it is negative.

That’s right: the findings suggest social media is worth less to us than the zero we pay for it. That suggests we would be better off without it.

Better off without social media?

Leonardo Bursztyn of the University of Chicago presented the findings in the keynote address to the conference.

The findings are shocking because they upend one of the tenets of modern economics – that we value the things we do. Put differently, it’s that our behaviour is the best indication of our preferences. The man who developed this theory of revealed preference went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Here’s what Bursztyn and his colleagues did.

They surveyed more than 1,000 US university students, asking a series of questions about TikTok, Instagram and Google Maps (more about maps later).

The first set of questions was designed to ascertain how much they would need to be paid (or would be prepared to pay) to be off TikTok and Instagram for a month.

What’s it worth to disconnect for a month?

The questions get at the answer by repeatedly offering different prices until one is accepted. The students are told one of them will be chosen at random to actually get (or pay) the money and be monitored to ensure they stick to the deal.

The answers suggest users value these platforms a lot, on average by US$59 per month for TikTok and $47 for Instagram. An overwhelming 93% of TikTok users and 86% of Instagram users would be prepared to pay something to stay on them.

Encouragingly, these figures are in the ballpark of those found by other studies.

Then Bursztyn and colleagues asked a second set of questions:

If two-thirds of the students on your campus sign up to deactivate, how much would you need to be paid (or be prepared to pay) to sign up too?

Here the answers – obtained by the same sort of repeated offers and an assurance that that previous studies had found nearly all of those who signed up would comply – were in the opposite direction.

Most of the TikTok users (64%) and almost half of the Instagram users (48%) were prepared to pay to be off them, so long as others were off them, resulting in average valuations across all users of minus US$28 for TikTok and minus $10 for Instagram.

Many users would prefer TikTok didn’t exist

The finding is a measure of the extent to which many, many users hate TikTok and Instagram, even though they feel compelled to use them.

To make clear the bizarre nature of his finding, Bursztyn drew the the conference’s attention to another product, a refrigerator.

Could you imagine, he asked, 60% of refrigerator owners saying they wished fridges didn’t exist?

The relationship he has uncovered is more like the co-dependence seen in a destructive relationship, or the way we relate to addictive products such as tobacco that we know are doing us harm.

Bursztyn and his colleagues wanted to make sure it wasn’t repugnance towards technology and big tech that was driving their findings. So they asked questions about digital maps.

Whereas 57% of Instagram users would prefer a world without Instagram, only 4% of maps users would prefer a world without digital maps.

Fear of missing out drives staying in

Asked why those users who would prefer a world without their platform continued to use it, three-quarters of Instagram users and one-third of TikTok users gave an answer that was coded as fear of missing out, or FOMO.

The phrases used included “if I stop using it, I will be completely out of the loop”.

Other important reasons were classified as “entertainment” (37% for TikTok, 21% for Instagram) and “addiction” (34% and 10%).

To test for these product market traps outside of social media, Bursztyn and colleagues surveyed owners of luxury brands such as Gucci, Versace, Rolex and found 44% would prefer to live in a world without them.

That non-users would like to wipe these brands from the face of the earth isn’t new. What seems to be new is the finding that actual users feel the same way.

iPhone users want fewer new models

In the case of iPhones, users would simply like fewer new models. Bursztyn and colleagues found an astonishing 91% of iPhone owners would prefer Apple to release a new model only every second year, instead of every year.

It’s advice Apple doesn’t need to heed. Many of these customers will keep buying the new models because they don’t want to miss out, even though they would rather not be placed in that situation.

For economists, the findings suggest there’s an unusual class of products that are worth less than people are prepared to pay for them, even when that price is zero.

For the Australian Senate, about to begin an inquiry, the findings suggest that it’s okay to crack down hard on social media, even though a lot of people use it. Many of them would be grateful.

Peter Martin is Economics Editor of The Conversation and serves on the central council of the Economic Society of Australia.

– ref. Would you pay to quit TikTok and Instagram? You’d be surprised how many would – https://theconversation.com/would-you-pay-to-quit-tiktok-and-instagram-youd-be-surprised-how-many-would-235180

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

The 2024 US election took another dramatic turn when President Joe Biden withdrew his re-election bid, endorsing his Vice President, Kamala Harris, to take his place.

The quick switch from Biden to Harris has reinvigorated the Democratic Party and their donors behind a younger candidate. It has thrown up a new challenge for Donald Trump who, however, is still election favorite. It’ll be up to Harris to define her campaign before Trump is able to define her.

To discuss the fast-changing play, we’re joined by Lester Munson, a fellow with the United States Studies Centre.

Munson is a long-time Washington insider, having worked with George W. Bush’s administration, been chief of staff for a Republican senator, and serving as Staff Director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He now works at BGR Group, a leading government relations firm in Washington, DC, and he joined from there on the podcast.

On Kamala Harris having locked in the nomination, set to be ratified at the Democratic convention next month:

There’s no real opposition to her candidacy at this point. She has earned the endorsement of scores of senior Democratic officials if not hundreds. She has raised a significant amount of money and appears to be really dominating the political landscape for Democrats right now. It seems like she’s going to become the nominee by acclamation and with almost unanimous support behind her.

On what kind of candidate Harris might be:

She’s certainly younger than the previous Democratic candidate. She’s substantially younger than Donald Trump. She’s a fresher face. She has a different way of conducting herself in public. That is a radical departure from both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

And as a Republican, I will just tell you, I think she’s a relatively attractive persona in that she’s got some charisma, she’s got some magnetism, she can light up a room, there’s no doubt about it. And I think people are going to give her a chance to earn their vote. Whether she’s able to do that is a separate question.

Some people have said the failed assassination attempt has changed Trump and Munson agrees:

I think he is changed. […] If you just watch the acceptance speech at the [Republican] convention, you can see like kind of a different look on his face. He seems more at peace with the universe, he seems grateful to be alive. I think that seems genuine to me.

In the event of a second Trump term, Munson gives his advice on what Anthony Albanese should do,

My advice to the Prime Minister would be, work on the relationship part, work on your personal face-to-face time with President Trump. Find the things that he cares about and find a way to deliver some sort of win for him, if that’s useful to you.

If he comes back into office, he’s not going to rely on international law or written agreements or treaties or trade deals. He is going to make decisions based on looking someone in the eye, their body language, the way they shake hands, how attractive they are on TV, how tall they are – very superficial things, but you know that going in, so use that to your advantage and be in the right place at the right time to try to get the the result you want out of the relationship.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Lester Munson on Kamala Harris’s style and a changed Trump – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-lester-munson-on-kamala-harriss-style-and-a-changed-trump-235320

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Headlines are again warning of a new COVID variant in Australia. This time it’s LB.1, or as some experts have dubbed it, “D-FLiRT”.

Emerging evidence suggests LB.1 could be more transmissible than earlier Omicron subvariants, though there’s nothing to suggest it will cause more severe disease.

But before we look more closely at LB.1, how did we get here in the first place? The COVID virus is a crafty thing, continuing to evolve so it can keep infecting us.

From XBB to JN.1 to FLiRT to FLuQE

Our current COVID vaccines are based on XBB.1.5, a subvariant of Omicron. Along with other XBB subvariants, XBB.1.5 caused a wave of COVID cases around the world in 2023.

In August 2023, a new subvariant called JN.1 was discovered in Luxembourg. Until that point, new Omicron subvariants only had small genetic changes from their predecessors (called genetic drift).

However, JN.1 was unusual in that it was 41 mutations away from XBB.1.5 (big changes like this are called genetic shifts). Because of these changes, it was expected that JN.1 would take off, and indeed, JN.1 caused another wave of infections in Australia and around the world at the end of 2023 and the beginning of this year.

JN.1 then mutated further, giving us the “FLiRT” subvariants such as KP.1.1, JN.1.7 and KP.2.

Proteins including the spike protein (a protein on the surface of the virus which allows it to attach to our cells) are made up of amino acids, essentially molecular building blocks. When scientists “sequence” new variants, they work out the exact order of amino acids in the spike protein, as this can change the behaviour of the virus.

Each amino acid has its own letter abbreviation. The FLiRT variants were named for two genetic mutations to the spike protein. The sequence changed from phenylalanine (F) to leucine (L) at position 456 (genetic mutation F456L), and from arginine (R) to threonine (T) at position 346 (R346T).

Research yet to be peer-reviewed suggests these genetic changes gave the FLiRT subvariants better capacity to evade our immune responses, but slightly poorer ability to establish an infection once they get into our cells (sometimes called binding efficiency).

The FLiRT subvariants have themselves now mutated. Some of these new subvariants are called FLuQE, and include KP.3, which along with KP.2 is currently dominating around the world.

These are similar to the FLiRT subvariants with additional genetic mutations. One is called Q493E – hence the name FLuQE. Along with another mutation, F456L, these changes appear to have helped the virus regain some of its reduced ability to infect cells compared to FLiRT by increasing binding efficiency.

From FLiRT to LB.1

Reports suggest LB.1 was first detected in March 2024. LB.1 is similar to the FLiRT subvariants but with an additional mutation in the spike protein called S:S31del. The “del” refers to a deletion – a genetic change where a part of the virus’ genetic sequence is removed or lost during replication. In this case, the 31st amino acid (serine) in the spike protein is removed.

For this reason, it’s been given the nickname “D-FLiRT” or “DeFLiRT”. This also covers other variants carrying the same mutations as FLiRT but with this deletion, such as KP.2.3.

Preliminary results from a research group at the University of Tokyo, who conducted modelling and lab experiments with these emerging subvariants, indicate the transmissibility of LB.1 and KP.2.3 may be higher than both KP.2 and KP.3.

Should we be worried about LB.1?

LB.1 has been detected in multiple countries, including Australia, and is being monitored closely by bodies like the World Health Organization and the CDC.

In the United States, as of July 15, KP.3 accounted for about 37% of cases, KP.2 for 24% and LB.1 for another 15%, having been steadily rising over recent weeks.

KP.3 and its descendants such as KP.3.2 and KP.3.2.1 (FLuQE subvariants) are similarly dominating in Australia, accounting for at least 50% of cases. We don’t know what proportion of cases LB.1 is making up in Australia at present. It’s possible LB.1 infections are still negligible, but they may well grow over time.

While COVID cases appear to be declining after a recent wave in Australia, LB.1 may eventually out-compete KP.3, and between them, cause another wave of cases.

We are already seeing a bad season for respiratory viruses with both RSV and influenza cases higher than last year. So a variant with increased transmissibility could add to our winter woes.

The good news is there’s no evidence to suggest LB.1 causes any different symptoms or more severe illness than previous Omicron subvariants.

The current vaccines based on XBB.1.5 should still give some cross immunity against LB.1, and oral antivirals such as Paxlovid and Lagevrio should still work. We will likely be getting an updated vaccine based on KP.2, probably towards the end of the year. That should provide better protection against these new subvariants since genetically, they’re very similar to KP.2.

Adrian Esterman receives funding from the MRFF, NHMRC and ARC.

– ref. LB.1, or D-FLiRT, is the newest COVID subvariant. What do we know about it? Where has it come from? – https://theconversation.com/lb-1-or-d-flirt-is-the-newest-covid-subvariant-what-do-we-know-about-it-where-has-it-come-from-235217

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Flowers, Senior Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University

Vice President Kamala Harris had only just been endorsed by Joe Biden to take his spot as the Democratic nominee for president when she forcefully reminded Americans “what’s at stake in November” in a post on X:

Let’s be clear: Donald Trump would sign a national abortion ban and restrict access to contraception if given the chance.

Abortion has long been a hot-button election issue in the United States, but in the first presidential election since Roe v Wade was overturned, it could be the defining issue.

With Harris now the presumptive Democratic nominee, former President Donald Trump could be more vulnerable on the issue, particularly given his selection of J.D. Vance as his Republican running mate.

What Americans think about abortion

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, finding there was no constitutional right to abortion and returning regulation to the states.

Since then, public anger has resulted in Democratic successes in multiple state elections. Every time reproductive rights have been on the ballot, abortion opponents have lost, even in conservative states like Kansas and Kentucky.

Although some of the initial fury has diminished, polls this year show a majority of voters still support reproductive rights.

According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 63% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, which is up four percentage points from 2021. Notably, two-thirds of moderate Republicans also say they support abortion rights.

In another poll by Gallup, nearly a third of registered voters said they would “only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion”. This is the highest percentage since Gallup began tracking voter sentiment on abortion in 1992. Back then, only 13% of voters agreed with the statement.

And in key battleground states for this year’s presidential election, 64% of residents agreed abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Harris’s stance on abortion

Democrats are keenly aware abortion matters. In the presidential debate last month, however, Biden floundered on the issue. Trump set the terms of the discussion, and Biden failed to convincingly defend reproductive rights or rebut falsehoods about later abortion care that Trump has been recycling since 2016.

Harris, by contrast, is far more assertive and confident when talking about abortion.

After she was elected to the US Senate in 2017 – the same year Trump entered the White House – she was the only senator who had a reproductive rights lawyer on staff, according to one activist.

She voted regularly against anti-abortion bills and cosponsored abortion rights legislation. A leading right-to-life group gives her Senate record an “F” grade.

During Supreme Court nomination hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, Harris displayed the rhetorical talents she honed as a prosecutor and California’s attorney general. She repeatedly challenged him to name “any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body”. Trump later complained that Harris was “the meanest, the most horrible, most disrespectful” senator.

Harris was central to the Biden administration’s response after the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v Wade – both as the public face speaking to Americans, and as the leader in policy discussions about how to claw back protections.

And she was the point person on abortion in Biden’s re-election campaign. On January 22, the anniversary of the 1973 Roe decision, Harris embarked on a “fight for reproductive freedom” tour, giving stump speeches on abortion in multiple battleground states.

Then, in March, she toured a Minnesota abortion clinic, the first US president or vice president to do so.

Republicans’ shifting tone

Republicans, meanwhile, have radically revamped their usual electoral strategies.

At the 2020 Republican National Convention, abortion was a prominent theme in Trump’s speech and right-to-life leaders were given coveted speaking slots.

But at this year’s convention, almost no one mentioned the topic. That included Trump and Vance, who has been outspoken in his opposition to abortion.

The Republican Party platform has also significantly trimmed back its language on the issue, abandoning a more than 40-year-old promise to support national restrictions on abortion. (The platform instead contains language about the 14th Amendment, which is a veiled nod to the argument that fetuses have personhood rights).

Trump is manoeuvring awkwardly on the issue, as well. He has claimed to be the “MOST pro-life President in history,” taking sole credit for the end of Roe.

Yet, simultaneously, he has eschewed responsibility for the abortion bans now in place in almost half the country.

Trump has spent the last year casting himself as an abortion “moderate”, arguing that regulation should be left to the states. But he has angered some anti-abortion groups by refusing to endorse a national ban and by describing Florida’s six-week ban as “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

Contrasting views on the Trump-Vance ticket

Trump’s selection of Vance as his running mate has made things more complicated. Vance’s stances on reproductive health care are extreme even for a Republican.

Vance voted against a law protecting in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) rights. He also called on the attorney general’s office to enforce a 151-year-old “zombie law” that would criminalise the delivery of medication abortion through the mail.

Trump, meanwhile, has said he “strongly supports” IVF, and has promised he would “not block” medication abortion.

Vance said in 2022 he would like “abortion to be illegal nationally”, and has argued against rape and incest exceptions in abortion law.

Trump compares himself to former President Ronald Reagan in his support for abortion exceptions.

Vance now claims to share Trump’s approach to abortion but given both of them have such shifting views, it’s impossible to gauge what this means in practice. As Trump has repeatedly told his right-to-life supporters, “you got to win elections”.

If he does win, however, it seems almost certain he will attempt to advance the anti-abortion agenda outlined in Project 2025. Central to this is a multi-pronged attack on medication abortion.

Harris has the capacity to bring the abortion fight to Trump and wage it with a prosecutor’s zeal. It will likely be a crucial part of her arsenal if she becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

Prudence Flowers has received funding from the South Australian Department of Human Services. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.

– ref. 6 in 10 Americans support abortion rights. This could be the advantage Kamala Harris needs against Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/6-in-10-americans-support-abortion-rights-this-could-be-the-advantage-kamala-harris-needs-against-donald-trump-235208

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

The modern Olympic Games offer a window into almost 130 years of social and cultural change.

They reflect the fall of nations, war, the shifting winds of culture and the way people engage with sports, fitness and competition.

We’ve taken data from every modern summer Olympics to see which sports have stood the test of time, the changing age of athletes, and whether hosting really gives your team an advantage.

Sports come and go

The Olympics have evolved dramatically over the years, gaining new sports and dropping others.

The 2020 Tokyo Olympics had the largest number of sports of any games, with 33 sports (and 339 medal events), while the first modern games in Athens in 1896 only had nine.

Some sports that are no longer in the Olympics include ballooning, fishing, firefighting, alpinism (mountain climbing, judged by the mountains climbed in the four years between games), kaatsen (a type of handball) and bicycle polo.

New sports that entered recently are surfing, sports climbing and, in the 2024 Paris games, breaking (known by some as breakdancing).

Olympics are a young person’s game

On average, since the start of the modern Olympics in 1896, about two-thirds of athletes who competed were 20–30 years old. Most athletes compete in their first games between the ages of 20–25. Very few athletes compete over the age of 40: fewer than 4% of all athletes.

Age, and death, didn’t stop John Quincy Ward, however. Though he died in 1910 at the age of 79, his artwork competed at the 1928 Olympics in the (now defunct) sculpture event – he didn’t win. Ward is one of only 24 other athletes who have competed posthumously, mostly in the arts though a few were part of the alpinism event and died while climbing mountains.

While the vast majority of athletes only compete in one or two Olympics, almost 900 people attended five or more games. Incredibly, three athletes have competed in nine games and one athlete, equestrian athlete Ian Millar, has competed in 10 Olympics.

The most competitive events

Athletics events attract the most competitors through the history of the modern Olympics.

However, digging deeper into the data reveals some countries have cumulatively sent more athletes in different sports:

• Argentina, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Malaysia and New Zealand sent more hockey players than any other sport
• Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Mongolia, Syria and Türkiye mostly send wrestling athletes
• around 9,385 footballers from around the world have competed at the games – but almost 20% (1,632) of those came from just 18 nations, including Brazil (341), Korea (209) and Egypt (195).

Australia’s medal tally is on the rise

Australia has hosted two Olympic Games – Melbourne in 1956 and Sydney in 2000 – and its medal numbers shot up in the games before and after. However, Australia had its best gold medal run in the 2020 Tokyo and 2004 Athens games.

Medals can bring big money to the athletes who win them. Since 2019, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) pays A$20,000, $15,000 and $10,000 for gold, silver and bronze medals, respectively. This is likely to go up as Australia prepares to host the 2032 games.

Home team advantage

Hosting the Olympics seems to deliver a hometown advantage an edge.

The chart below shows the top 12 countries by medal tally and how they stacked up when they hosted the Olympics. Almost all of them have a meaningful boost, either making or breaking their top tallies during a home games.

There is one unique standout, though. Hungary has become a powerhouse in picking up medals – astounding considering it hasn’t hosted an Olympics.

France is about to embark on its third Olympic games, sharing the silver medal for number of games hosted with the UK – gold goes to the US, which has hosted four times. It remains to be seen if France can live up to their incredible medal success in the 1900 Paris games but the data shows that 2024 is their best hope.

– ref. Do hosts win more medals? Are athletes getting older? 128 years of Olympic history in 5 charts – https://theconversation.com/do-hosts-win-more-medals-are-athletes-getting-older-128-years-of-olympic-history-in-5-charts-233979

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley Boxall, Research Fellow, Australian National University

Recent survey results show 25% of Australians agree that women who do not leave abusive relationships are partly responsible for the abuse continuing. This stubbornly common attitude demonstrates that victim-survivors are still being held responsible for the abuse they experience and for keeping themselves safe.

However, this is starting to change. Against the backdrop of what has been a horror year for violence against women and children, conversations have pivoted sharply to focus on making men accountable for their use of violence.

This is reflected in a new campaign by the Daily Telegraph. The masthead recently published the photos and names of 18 men charged with or accused of domestic or family violence offences in New South Wales. The media outlet has also started using the term “coward’s attack” in lieu of domestic violence.

On the face of it, this campaign appears to be an innovative approach to holding men accountable. But will it make women and children safer?

Public shaming doesn’t work

Publicly naming and shaming perpetrators and calling them “cowards” will not reduce domestic and family violence.

We have learned this after numerous reviews of public sex offenders registries, which similarly make people convicted of terrible crimes visible to the public. Instead, these strategies can make future abuse more likely.

This is because name-and-shame campaigns stigmatise, ostracise and demonise their targets, effectively “othering” them within the community. However, community reintegration – where someone becomes an active member of and is accepted back into the community – is an important part of preventing reoffending.

Being part of a community can help address structural factors that may contribute to some men’s use of violence, such as unemployment and social isolation.

Also, men who use violence need to be surrounded by people who believe they’re capable of change. Investment in the community and relationships can increase men’s motivation to stop using violence because they don’t want to disappoint their community. How people see us is also important for how we see ourselves: if our community says we are capable of change, then maybe we are.

But are these men likely to see community reintegration as possible when they have been shamed in such a public way? Probably not.

Who can I be?

Believing in the potential for change is not enough on its own. Men who use violence also need an alternative self that they can aim for: a clear vision of the version of themselves they’d like to be.

Name-and-shame campaigns do a great job of condemning behaviours, but they don’t provide an alternative self to work towards. It is this piece of the puzzle – who can I be if I don’t use violence anymore? – that is needed for behaviour change to occur.

This is the point made by some commentators who have said that, rather than condemnation, we need to provide men who use violence with alternative models of positive masculinity that provide them with an alternative to which to aspire.

The power of language

The move towards the term “coward attacks” has been justified on the basis that “domestic” minimises the abuse and makes it everyday.

However, the term “coward” is also problematic as it perpetuates traditional gender norms. Men who use violence are “lesser” because they are not strong or brave.

Men who feel like they are not living up to their own ideal version of manhood, for example if they feel like they are a coward, may use violence to deal with the emotional distress they feel because of this disconnect, which we call “gender role strain”. As one man who participated in a men’s behaviour change program reflected:

I think that my violence […] sustained an inflated version of myself. Otherwise I would feel worthless […] where I’m rotten to the core.

By calling men cowards, we reinforce their own views of themselves as weak, pathetic and lesser, making it more likely they will continue to use violence.

When shaming can help

Pivoting to focusing on perpetrators reflects our increasing frustration that victim-survivors are being held responsible for reducing their risk of domestic and family violence. It also recognises that perpetrator accountability could be a crucial piece of the puzzle for keeping women and children safe. By increasing the negative consequences, we can deter people from using violence.

We need to hold men who use violence accountable for their behaviours, but there are ways we can do this that aren’t stigmatising. This would provide them with a pathway back into the community and to a non-violent future. Reintegrative shaming, which underpins most models of restorative justice in Australia and internationally, encourages us to condemn the behaviour, not the person.

Shame can be a powerful tool in our arsenal for responding to domestic and family violence in Australia, but only if we provide men who use violence with alternative visions of masculinity and believe they are capable of change. Shame for shame’s sake is counterproductive.

Hayley Boxall has received funding to undertake domestic and family violence research from the Australian National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety and the Queensland and ACT Governments.

– ref. Naming and shaming domestic violence perpetrators doesn’t work to keep women safe. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/naming-and-shaming-domestic-violence-perpetrators-doesnt-work-to-keep-women-safe-heres-why-234911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy-Lee Bowler, Lecturer, School of Health, Nutrition & Dietetics, University of the Sunshine Coast

Many people living with diabetes use continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) to track their blood sugar levels. These small devices, often attached to the back of your upper arm or abdomen, send data to an app on your phone. This allows you to see, in near real-time, how your blood sugar levels spike or drop depending on what you eat or how active you have been.

The benefits for people living with diabetes are obvious, as failing to keep abreast of blood sugar levels can be dangerous. But these devices are increasingly being advertised as health aids to the broader community, including health-conscious non-diabetics and elite athletes.

But our own research has found using these pricey devices provides little benefit for healthy athletes without diabetes. And there’s very little research to support their use in healthy active people with normal glucose control.

That said, there are several areas which warrant further research.

Do these devices benefit athletes without diabetes?

If your blood sugar levels drop below normal range (known as hypoglycaemia) during endurance exercise, your athletic performance suffers.

So it’s easy to see why it might seem logical to track blood glucose in real time during endurance exercise. Many assume this data could signal when it’s time to consume more carbohydrates during or after exercise. Carbs help maintain your blood sugar levels, fuelling your body to ensure it has enough energy to complete the session.

However, glucose regulation during exercise is incredibly complex. It is influenced by a range of factors such as how much and what you eat or drink, recovery and stress. Even exercise can sometimes make your blood sugar readings go up. Results from current studies have reported mixed findings when exploring fuelling practices (meaning what or how they eat and drink).

Despite enthusiastic marketing and athlete testimonials about the use of continuous glucose monitors, our research concluded there’s not enough clear evidence to support the use of continuous glucose monitors as a tool to improve an athlete’s fuelling practices

We need more research before we can promote these devices as a useful addition to the athlete toolbox.

What are the possible downsides of using continuous glucose monitors?

Using continuous glucose monitors presents several practical limitations.

First, they’re expensive. These monitors may cost around A$90-$100 per fortnight (as monitors last a maximum of 14 days) and may require costly subscriptions to certain mobile apps.

They can also be knocked out of place if you’re training, in competition, sweating, or even doing everyday tasks such as showering.

It’s also easy to misinterpret the data, which can cause unnecessary anxiety. Our initial studies stress the importance of working with a sports nutrition professional when wearing a continuous glucose monitor to ensure you’re not misinterpreting the data.

Elite athletes may also find their sport’s governing body has restrictions around these devices. For instance, the world governing body for sports cycling, Union Cycliste International, has banned the use of continuous glucose monitors during sanctioned races.

Healthy people obsessing over blood sugar readings

As these devices make glucose readings available 24 hours a day, it’s also easy to end up obsessing over the data.

This can cause people to make unnecessary and overly strict changes to eating behaviours, leading to what some doctors have termed “glucorexia”.

It’s quite natural for your blood glucose to go up in response to eating carbohydrate-rich foods and fluids.

Alarmingly, there are influencers suggesting glucose should never “spike” and should always remain within a very tight range, even during the window immediately after meals.

In fact, it is prolonged increases in glucose levels outside of normal range that are the concern to health and wellbeing.

This underscores the danger of people without robust nutrition and physiology knowledge misinterpreting data from continuous glucose monitors.

If you’re active and plan to trial a continuous glucose monitoring device, you should consider consulting an accredited sports dietition so you’re properly informed about what’s a normal response.

More research is needed

Given the utility of continuous glucose monitors and the fact they can be worn by athletes while training and resting, we have started to explore whether data from these monitors can help elite athletes adjust their diet in response to exercise.

In our studies, we have been particularly interested in tracking how data from continuous glucose monitors changes in response to a day of training and eating. They may also be useful for exercise scientists trying to understand whether an athlete has been overtraining.

But the fact is, most people are not elite athletes.

Ordinary people who have the cash to splash on these devices should understand there’s not much research showing a benefit to healthy individuals using continuous glucose monitors.

If you are particularly concerned about your own blood sugar levels, we recommend seeing a GP and/or a dietitian. That’s better than stressing about and scrutinising yet another data set that isn’t yet particularly useful.

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. Non-diabetics are buying continuous glucose monitors – but are there actually any health benefits? – https://theconversation.com/non-diabetics-are-buying-continuous-glucose-monitors-but-are-there-actually-any-health-benefits-232171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tiggy Grillo, COO, Wildlife Health Australia; Adjunct Lecturer, Charles Sturt University

Avian influenza viruses have infected the world’s birds for millennia. We first became aware of them in the 19th century, when mass deaths of poultry triggered interest in what was then called “fowl plague”.

But in 2021, something fundamental changed. As the world grappled with COVID lockdowns and economic chaos, the birds of the world were encountering a new strain, known formally as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 2.3.3.4.b. It spread easily and was capable of causing disease and death in a far wider number of bird species than previously seen before.

So far, it has triggered the culling of half a billion farmed birds and killed millions of wild birds. (This is a different strain to the HPAI H7 strains which have infected poultry farms in Australia).

If this new strain gets to Australia, carried on a migratory wild bird, it could pose similar risks to our unique wildlife. But we haven’t been sitting still. Australian researchers, governments, veterinarians and wildlife rehabilitators have been urgently preparing for its arrival.

Why is this strain so bad?

This strain has now made it to every part of the world bar Australia, New Zealand and Pacific nations. The virus killed many birds in the northern hemisphere before crossing to the Americas. In South America it proved particularly lethal, infecting and killing massive numbers of birds and marine mammals such as sea lions.

Many strains of bird flu are “low pathogenicity”, meaning they tend not to cause severe disease. But these strains can evolve into highly pathogenic strains if they spill over from wild birds into poultry, as we’re seeing with the current outbreaks in poultry farms in Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT.

Prior to 2024, Australia had experienced eight previous outbreaks of H7 HPAI in poultry, all of which were eradicated by culling poultry and isolating farms.

This new H5N1 2.3.3.4.b strain is much more worrying for our wildlife, because it transmits very easily between wild birds. It has proven it can kill mammals, including marine mammals, predators and scavenger species that eat birds.

It also poses a real threat to our poultry industries. If H5N1 2.3.4.4b were to enter Australia, we could see more outbreaks in domestic poultry, which in turn could affect the supply of chicken and eggs – both very popular sources of animal protein in Australia.

Given the virus is present worldwide, including in Antarctica, you might wonder why it hasn’t made it to Australia yet.

Avian influenza travels most easily in waterfowl such as ducks. Australia’s waterfowl are not migratory and only travel short distances between Australia and countries to the north.

But Australia is on the path of several flyways from Asia, along which millions of shorebirds migrate every year in spring. Some seabirds also migrate from the Atlantic.

How are we preparing?

The devastation the virus has caused overseas has given Australia time to prepare.

We can’t stop wild birds from migrating here. But we can slow the spread and protect at-risk wildlife from other threats such as invasive predators, giving them the best chance to survive the virus if it arrives.

Around Australia and on our sub-Antarctic islands, a network of veterinarians, researchers, government officials, rangers and wildlife rehabilitators is on alert looking for sick birds with signs, such as respiratory illness.

If a bird showing these signs is spotted, they will call the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline (1800 675 888). Members of the public are also encouraged to report sightings.

Other plans for the virus include:

• restricting human movements in and out of virus-affected areas, where appropriate
• surveillance to see how the virus is moving with wildlife
• triage and clinical responses to the virus, including euthanasia for dying birds.

We have created information toolboxes to help wildlife managers and carers to manage risk and reduce transmission if the virus is confirmed here. These include improving baseline biosecurity, clearing away carcasses, restricting human movement to reduce spread, and euthanasing dying birds.

For threatened species, we can explore the merits of vaccination trials for captive birds. New Zealand authorities are trialling this method.

But such vaccination must ultimately serve the welfare interests of wildlife. There are many complexities to consider.

Globally, vaccination of free-ranging wild birds has occurred for just one species – the endangered Californian condor, considered particularly at risk because of its low numbers.

Black swan event?

Overseas, waterfowl, shorebirds and seabirds have proven especially susceptible to the virus. Avian predators are also at risk if they eat sick birds or their carcasses.

Specific data on Australian species are limited, but at least one local species, the black swan, has been found to be highly vulnerable to the virus because they lack some protective genes.

The sheer variation of our ecosystems might offer some protection. We have many transient bodies of water, such as Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre. If the virus arrived during a period of drought, it could have a different impact than if it arrived during flooding rains, which fill lakes and encourage movement of wild waterfowl.

Because this strain is very new, we don’t know yet what the long term outcome will be.

It’s possible birds which survive an infection will become immune and survive to breed. But some species and populations may not be able to survive this first assault.

This threat is new territory for Australia. Many of the other animal diseases we worry about and prepare for only attack one species, such as African swine fever, or only affect non-native wildlife (such as foot and mouth disease). But this strain of bird flu has attacked over 500 bird species and is infecting a growing number of mammal species.

What can you do? Keep an eye out for any sick or dead birds – and call the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline if you do.

Read more:
Chickens, ducks, seals and cows: a dangerous bird flu strain is knocking on Australia’s door

Tiggy Grillo receives funding from the Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as well as all Australian state and territory governments.

Simone Vitali receives funding from the Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as well as all Australian state and territory governments.

– ref. Lethal bird flu could decimate Oceania’s birds. From vigilance to vaccines, here’s what we’re doing to prepare – https://theconversation.com/lethal-bird-flu-could-decimate-oceanias-birds-from-vigilance-to-vaccines-heres-what-were-doing-to-prepare-235016